Court ruling regarding google & copyright infringment -- important!

[roach]

The courts will probably determine if this is a valid precedent or not. Jaws may be right, and it's not. But that's not going to stop the bad guys from testing it -- from setting up an "opt out" situation with an automated 'bot that swipes your copy and reposts it. Given the number of web publishers who believe this IS a precedent, there have to be quite a few bad guys out there who are also jumping up and down and cheering and thinking they've found a legal loophole for swiping content.

Uhm...if someone is going to copy content they're going to do it. I highly doubt that webmasters the world over have been lamenting, "What we do is wrong. If only there was a (questionable) legal loophole we could exploit we'd sleep soundly at night."

Anyway, this is a whole lot of ado over nothing.

 

[Leva]

I apologize. I genuinely thought it belonged here. Apparently, I was wrong. Chalk it up to new-to-the-board learning curve.

Leva

I'm trying to figure out why this thread is one Bewares & Background Check.

 

[kdnxdr]

All this "stuff" you all are discussing is so interesting but sooooo over my head. I'm just ignorant about it all. But, reading through, I'm learning.

Someone invited me to join their group in "the Gathering". I read through the contract and I had a problem with article #6. The way it seemed to me, they explicitedly said they could take and do whatever they wanted with your stuff, and not notify you. Maybe I just misunderstood.

 

[Deleted member 42]

And unfortunately, while you certainly have legal recourse -- it's a major pain in the butt and a potential financial drain.
Leva

That is absolutely not true. The burden is entirely on the agent/host/server/ISP--it's expensive for them. All the rights holder has to do is send a form email, with all the pertinent data, (sometimes called the notice of take down). It's five minutes work tops--and I simply generate the letters from a database. (I've been the DMCA officer for a very large instructional site, with a very proactive attitude about protecting copyright).

This is a total, complete, and absolute, non-issue.

 

[Richard]

I'd drop it. Leva's clearly determined to see this as an assault on writers everywhere, and not listening to anyone.

 

[DaveKuzminski]

Lisa, how many writers have someone to file their DMCA letters for them? I don't like the ruling as it is because it puts the burden on the individual least capable of defending his work. Furthermore, if one such site has a cache, then how many other search engines also have caches? There's more than just Google to contend with. If a writer is unfamiliar with all the search engines, and there seems to be a new one each year, then how is that writer to even know whether copies are out there in those other caches and that they need to be notified?

I do believe this does create content for sites like Google, despite the claims to the contrary because if nothing else, it reduces the opportunity for reprints since who wants to purchase reprint rights if something is so widely available that anyone who wants to read it can find it online in a cache? Not only is this an onerous burden, it presupposes that such sites will destroy the copies on their backups and that they won't have a drive go bad and then restore that drive from a backup that wasn't purged.

It may be a non-issue for some, but these are issues that appear to have been overlooked by those who only view matters from a corporate view and not that of the unknown individual writer who's trying to get a break, become known, and possibly earn a living as a writer.

 

[Deleted member 42]

Lisa, how many writers have someone to file their DMCA letters for them?

It's not rocket science--essentially it's the information you'd expect: the site, with URL, a clear description of what content is used without permission, a clear statement about who owns the copyright, with contact information, and a URL.

Everything you need to know is right here:

http://www.authorslawyer.com/c-pir0.shtml#selfhelp

This is a website from Jaws, an attorney who, somewhat famously (or infamously, if you're the defendent) has an obscene amount of experience and knowledge about copyright on and off the Web. What's more, he can write like a normal human being (I can't begin to tell you how rare that is . . .)

By the way, I have never, ever, either as an institutional employee or as an owner of a web site and a writer for hire ever had anyone refuse to comply. On the few indications where the actual infringer refused, the ISP acted with alacrity.

Be polite; write a simple but clear e-mail first, and if you have to, take it to U. S. post. Keep records.

I'd also suggest that content providers/writers have a clear copyright statement or policy on their site. It does make a difference.

 

[Leva]

Meanie.

On a more serious note, I'm perfectly willing to listen to reason. And I'm not obsessive about it. But it's an issue that I thought was appropriate here, because many authors are not aware of this sort of matter. Obviously, I was wrong, and I apologize for the transgression.

*shrug* time will tell how big of an issue this sort of thing becomes. In the interim, I guess I'm going to focus on writing and not bring this up again.

Leva

I'd drop it. Leva's clearly determined to see this as an assault on writers everywhere, and not listening to anyone.

 

[DaveKuzminski]

Lisa, part of the point I was making is not only about having someone do that DMCA notification. I was also trying to point out that most writers do not have a staff to seek out sites using their work. In the past, I have been notified when something of mine was taken, but only because the individuals who took it also left off my name and they recognized it because it was unique. Unfortunately, many people don't watch for such instances and many automatically assume that it must have been copied with permission. Consequently, in most instances, I feel sure, no one bothers to notify the author for either that reason or a lack of an address by which to notify the author. Even though many authors have web sites, many do not post an email address because they don't have the time to devote to everyone who wants a private word with them.

So, you tell me. Just how are those authors going to learn about such transgressions?

That's why I believe this is bad law. It puts the burden on the wrong party.

 

[Richard]

That has nothing to do with the ruling though, which would only come into play when someone was looking up sites where you'd put your own work and already know it's there, and only in one very specific instance. It makes general theft no easier, nor harder.

Plus, you can reverse the target just as easily - a site steals your work, you raise a scene, they say "Copyright infringement? What copyright infringement" and you say "Right there, cached."

 

[DaveKuzminski]

Let's put this into a different scenario for the purpose of illustration.

You have some possession that's stolen. If that theft was treated in the same manner as your intellectual property, you'd have to conduct your own search and locate that item before the police could be utilized to recover it. Now if you lived in a community of only a handful of people, it might actually be possible. However, in the circumstances we're facing, our community consists of millions of sites and some of those sites can't be searched easily with currently available tools since most search engines aren't designed to delve into caches owned by other search engines where your work may be hidden.

It's an unfair burden on the individual that presumes everyone understands their rights and knows how to conduct such searches and use the forms to enforce their rights. It ignores the fact that many of those individuals might be minors or neophytes when it comes to intellectual property rights.

If those services want to cache material, they should seek permission. The way I see it, whatever ISPs their search engines visit can be notified and those can use an automated email to all their users, which many already have and use to make offers to their clients, letting them know that the search engine company is seeking permission while including contact information to grant such permission.

 

[Deleted member 42]

It's an unfair burden on the individual that presumes everyone understands their rights and knows how to conduct such searches and use the forms to enforce their rights. It ignores the fact that many of those individuals might be minors or neophytes when it comes to intellectual property rights.

First, I'll willingly admit that copyright law is needlessly complicated, and that the DMCA in particularly is exceedingly poorly conceived and written. That said, if they're minors, they don't have any rights--their parents do.

If those services want to cache material, they should seek permission. The way I see it, whatever ISPs their search engines visit can be notified and those can use an automated email to all their users, which many already have and use to make offers to their clients, letting them know that the search engine company is seeking permission while including contact information to grant such permission.

Dave, ignorance of the law is, unfortunately, never an excuse. No major search engine, and no site making enough to money to afford to have cache servers is going to ignore a robots.txt file, and no cache meta data. Finally, if you're putting your material on a publicly accessed web site, what do you think is going to happen to it? If you don't like the risks of 'net publishing, Don't Publish on the Web.

 

[DaveKuzminski]

Minors don't have any rights? Boy, are you wrong. Better go back and do some research on that. The law doesn't give ownership of intellectual property to others solely because the creator of that property is a minor. It might give control when it comes to contracts, but not ownership.

We're not just talking about ignorance of the law. We're also talking about accessibility here. Poor people don't have the resources that corporations possess, yet we're requiring them to do activities that are properly placed on the corporations seeking to make a profit from their work. You better believe they are. Every time I use a search engine to look up something on the Internet, I'm exposed to advertising that was paid for by companies seeking to be seen on that search engine when it's used. They know that users are seeking the content that search engine can display. The search engine people have been smart enough to know that they could deliver more traffic if they could keep pages that might not be available any longer even though those pages might contain copyrighted material. That's going beyond fair use.

Consequently, search engines are using that copyrighted material without permission because the law permitts them to do so based on the idea that entities with intellectual property should know enough on how to opt out regardless of the fact that there might be a hundred such search engines that they're unaware of in existence. Well, that's not how the general public is. We've already seen plenty of examples where ordinary people didn't understand copyright and thought that anything placed on the web could be copied freely. This is a case where the law is ignoring other laws that have worked on the premise of what an ordinary person would know and understand. So, we're to just let that establish a new precedent?

What next, do we have to demand that the deceased contact mortuaries to let them know they're opposed to tissue harvesting because they didn't know when they were alive that they might be delivered to a mortuary that permits such practices? Yes, this is an extreme example, but it points the direction the entire opt out scenario is going.

Sorry, but I'm against opt out. The burden shouldn't be placed on those whom businesses are trying to make a profit from. If the business wants to use their property, regardless of what it is, then the burden should be upon the business to get the person to opt in. No business should have the right to make a profit on someone else's property and then be allowed to say, "Oh, you don't want us to use it? Well, okay." and then not pay for the use, however slight it was before ceasing their use.

 

[Deleted member 42]

I didn't say ownership, (minors may own their IP -- it depends on where they are and where the IP is) but they can't sign a contract. I first published as a minor -- my parents had to sign contracts for me. I "owned" the copyright, it was mine and in my name--but I didn't "own" the right to assign any rights to a publisher, for instance. Technically, my parents didn't even need my consent to profit from my work (though of course they wouldn't do anything with my work against my wishes, they could have).

Caching is the way the net works, by the way; every server your request for a web page goes through caches the data. Every server your email passes through caches the data--sometimes for a long time, sometimes for minutes. It's the nature of the 'net.

Does copyright law need to be changed? Absolutely; I think it needs a comlete overhaul. But your argument about the disadvantaged is spurious at best--if they have access to the Net to publish, they have access to information. They are no more disadvanted on the Net in terms of publishing than they are anywhere else.

And frankly, it's not like the concern over the value of content is really practical if it's on the Net. People seem to think their content is priceless--well, it's probably not. It may have some value, but it has no value at all if it can't be read. No one forces anyone to put their content on the Web; it's an opt in. Don't do it if you don't want to.

 

[DaveKuzminski]

You have stated that an overhaul is needed. If so, then that means we may be passing bad laws or enforcing bad laws. Either way, discussion is needed in order to examine what is needed and what is most fair.

However, you haven't given any reasons why it should be an opt out rather than an opt in.