New Zealand ISPs Fight Back Against Proposed DMCA-Like Takedown Policy
from the why-not-let-people-defend-themselves? dept
One of the more well known parts of the DMCA law in the US is the so-called "notice and takedown" process. Basically, if a copyright holder discovers any infringing content, it can alert the service provider hosting the content (the "notice" part), and that service provider must immediately takedown the content. This immediate takedown process has problems -- especially when people with no rights to content abuse the notice and takedown system to force content they don't like offline. Of course, the entertainment industry doesn't mind it when they accidentally takedown legitimate content. To them, it's no problem if innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire. So it's no surprise to find out that in the effort to put DMCA-like laws around the world that the "notice and takedown" system would be proposed as well. Apparently, that's exactly what's happening in New Zealand. However, the good news is that ISPs there are fighting back against the proposal, questioning why they should need to waste their time on this. Instead, they suggest a much more reasonable "notice and notice" process, whereby the ISP would pass on notification to the user responsible and give them a chance to respond, contest the charge, remove or change the content in question. That seems like a much more reasonable process that avoids the problem of legitimate content being taken offline without any verification to the legitimacy of the claim. Of course, the entertainment industry will argue that such a system would never work, probably using its standard line about "irreparable harm" in letting people actually defend their innocence.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Makes you wonder by Tony on Aug 6th, 2007 @ 5:24am
If the recording industry files a legal document claiming copyright to something they don't hold I wonder how long it will be before one of those copyright holders sue the recording industry for falsely claiming copyright.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward on Aug 6th, 2007 @ 5:30am
I've wondered that for a long time. I know that if someone claimed copyright to something of mine in order to have it taken down I'd like to at least try to do something about it. The problem is a single individual would more than likely not have the sources for such a legal battle and the RIAA/MPAA are counting on that. Perhaps a class action suit in which multiple people bring a suit against one company that is claiming copyright on material that is not theirs. Or if the RIAA/MPAA would piss off some famous copyright holder that is not tied to their own apron strings...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Aug 6th, 2007 @ 6:17am
Irreparable harm? What irreparable harm? The fact that they stop making money hand over fist for a few seconds now and then? Oh yeah, that's the definition of irreparable harm. XD
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Boy, git outta that car, I have been notified by Ajax 4Hire on Aug 6th, 2007 @ 6:30am
that you don't own that car.
I'm gonna have to impound that car.
If you feel that this is incorrect, take it up with the judge.
Boy, I took that internet content down.
I don't care if it is yours; I cannot do anything about that or your loss of revenue.
If you feel that this is incorrect, take it up with the judge.
Scary how easy it is to take your property away and force you to prove that it is still yours; scary.
Maybe someone should start issuing take-down notices of Movie trailers, News pictures, Advertising and force the real owners to petition to have them put back.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'd like to see... by Tin Ear on Aug 6th, 2007 @ 7:44am
I would like to see what would happen if someone taped themselves watching a TV program or listening to music, then posted that video online with NO reference to the background. Something like "Ten Minutes of me in front of the telly with my cat" and used the keywords 'cat, wasting time, entertaining' or some such.
If the 'content copyright holder' would then complain that the background sound or pictures violated their copyright, you could defend it by saying, "But that was just incidental. It had nothing to do with the video in question. I own copyright to that particular video and everything it shows."
Would that put a twist in their panties?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Browars Co FL by Anonymous Coward on Aug 6th, 2007 @ 8:54am
Other Places too.
County jail inmates sprinkle white power on car.
Drug sniffing dog sents drugs.
County Sheriff impounds car.
*0 year old ask why he was forced out of his car and it was impoinded.
Judge says tough luck you should not have had drugs in your car.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment