| Time |
Nickname |
Message |
|
05:27
π
|
ersi |
amerrykan: What can I say, find ease in the stupidity |
|
05:44
π
|
godane |
SketchCow: you going to get bbs programs in the 2401 to 2500 set of aol files |
|
06:57
π
|
godane |
i have found digital.hagley.org site |
|
06:57
π
|
godane |
i'm grabbing Nation's Business there |
|
09:44
π
|
midas |
well poop. my upload went borked |
|
14:19
π
|
schbirid |
anyone using syncthing? seems awesome and the "master repository" feature might be a great way to distribute "things" |
|
19:40
π
|
sep332 |
ooh, bash has a remotely-exploitable vulnerability! ouch https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1207723 Patches are out |
|
19:41
π
|
sep332 |
does that affect the version of bash in the warrior image? |
|
19:46
π
|
balrog |
https://www.facebook.com/notes/william-szuch/uketube-has-been-deleted/10152950936644505 Γ’ΒΒΓΒ ouch |
|
19:48
π
|
arkiver |
https://twitter.com/uketube/status/514447599014019072 |
|
19:48
π
|
arkiver |
well fuck |
|
19:51
π
|
balrog |
multiple copyright allegations in 24 hours and the channel taken down permanently? I didn't think youtube did that |
|
19:53
π
|
balrog |
(like, I thought they always warned first)\ |
|
19:56
π
|
sep332 |
It takes 3 "strikes" to get a channel deleted. to get a strike, the copyright owner has to send an actual legal request |
|
19:57
π
|
sep332 |
so it's not a ContentID match or anything |
|
19:57
π
|
sep332 |
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 |
|
19:57
π
|
sep332 |
says you can submit a counter-notification but i guess that doesn't help if your channel is already deleted? |
|
19:58
π
|
balrog |
well, three strikes in too short of a time period should not terminate the account |
|
19:58
π
|
balrog |
maybe three strikes a minimum of a week or at least a few days apart should |
|
19:58
π
|
balrog |
if you read the facebook post it seems like this was over two videos |
|
20:13
π
|
antomatic |
Two facebook pages which they say they downloaded from other sites... which could be the problem. |
|
20:13
π
|
antomatic |
Two VIDEOS which on their facebook page they say... I should have said |
|
20:14
π
|
antomatic |
But two videos = two strikes, not three |
|
20:14
π
|
antomatic |
and that's at a maximum |
|
20:16
π
|
aaaaaaaaa |
Could have had strikes in the past we don't know about. |
|
20:17
π
|
antomatic |
true. strikes expire after 6 months if no more are received, but in that time, more strikes are bad news |
|
20:18
π
|
antomatic |
The 'copyright school' video they used to make you watch was a special episode of Happy Tree Friends. They've updated it recently, now it's Glove & Boots. :) |
|
20:19
π
|
antomatic |
although that's likely little comfort. |
|
20:23
π
|
schbirid |
you never know what activists do to stir up media hype |
|
20:23
π
|
schbirid |
maybe they just deleted it themselves |
|
20:43
π
|
yipdw |
BASH |
|
20:43
π
|
yipdw |
argh fucking |
|
20:43
π
|
SmileyG |
kill? |
|
20:43
π
|
yipdw |
I have to update 40 EC2 instances |
|
20:43
π
|
vantec |
Could be worse. Could have to update 41 instances. |
|
20:44
π
|
yipdw |
can we use this and heartbleed etc to put up a marketing website about why you should NOT trust any internet-of-shit-enabled device |
|
20:44
π
|
yipdw |
wesuck.org |
|
20:46
π
|
Kazzy |
zzz, i have 4 devices to update and I can't be bothered to ctrl+c a password |
|
20:46
π
|
Kazzy |
have fun, guys |
|
20:46
π
|
yipdw |
I don't have a password, it's an SSH key |
|
20:47
π
|
yipdw |
doesn't make 40 updates less of a pain in the ass |
|
20:51
π
|
xmc |
anyone want to be a video librarian in nyc? http://careers.lac-group.com/ts2__JobDetails?jobId=a0EA000000NuANFMA3&tSource= |
|
20:52
π
|
xmc |
for a tv network it looks like |
|
20:52
π
|
xmc |
maybe godane? :P |
|
21:27
π
|
joepie91 |
balrog: arkiver: |
|
21:28
π
|
joepie91 |
.tw https://twitter.com/joepie91/status/514888632826867714 |
|
21:28
π
|
botpie91 |
What @YouTube has done, is akin to a government burning down an entire library for carrying a copy of Mein Kampf. https://www.facebook.com/notes/william-szuch/uketube-has-been-deleted/10152950936644505 (@joepie91) |
|
21:28
π
|
joepie91 |
the entire notion of taking down a channel for a number of 'strikes' is insane |
|
21:29
π
|
BlueMaxim |
it really is |
|
21:29
π
|
antomatic |
but to be fair... there are *lots* of people who royally abuse youtube and shove up stuff that is not theirs. |
|
21:29
π
|
BlueMaxim |
the problem antomatic is that the current system is "guilty before proven innocent" |
|
21:30
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: that does not justify deleting entire channels for strikes in any way, shape or form |
|
21:30
π
|
joepie91 |
unless every single video has been determined to be infringing, and even then they should really not be doing more than they are absolutely legally required to |
|
21:30
π
|
antomatic |
The channel won't be deleted, it'll still exist in the backend and YouTube can re-enable it once they've looked into it, though. |
|
21:30
π
|
joepie91 |
and even for /that/ I hold them accountable |
|
21:30
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: have you ever tried to contact youtube customer support |
|
21:30
π
|
BlueMaxim |
I'm dealing with a strike right now from a guy who simply disagrees with the fact that I have bad opinions on his game |
|
21:30
π
|
joepie91 |
the answer is: "what customer support?" |
|
21:31
π
|
antomatic |
admittedly no, in my case I didn't have to |
|
21:31
π
|
joepie91 |
I have |
|
21:31
π
|
joepie91 |
there are /no/ contact details outside the standard forms. |
|
21:31
π
|
joepie91 |
NONE. |
|
21:31
π
|
antomatic |
In the case of a journalism-led channel which now has the eyes of the world on it - I'm sure they'll get sorted out just fine. |
|
21:31
π
|
joepie91 |
they don't give you a form, you're fucked |
|
21:31
π
|
joepie91 |
they give you the wrong form, you're fucked |
|
21:31
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: so? |
|
21:31
π
|
joepie91 |
because if it isn't a journalism-led channel with the eyes of the world on it, it's somehow suddenly okay? |
|
21:32
π
|
joepie91 |
no, it's fucking not |
|
21:32
π
|
joepie91 |
this kind of /policy/ shouldn't exist |
|
21:32
π
|
joepie91 |
this isn't an /incident/, this is /policy/ |
|
21:32
π
|
antomatic |
not defending either side - but you can't run a website and just sit back and let people systematically abuse it |
|
21:32
π
|
antomatic |
you have to do *something*. three-strikes is it. |
|
21:32
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: "abuse" by whose standards? |
|
21:32
π
|
joepie91 |
three strikes is in no way required by copyright law |
|
21:32
π
|
antomatic |
It is _difficult_ to get the attention of three copyright holders (or one copyright holder three times) without doing something odd |
|
21:32
π
|
joepie91 |
feel free to show me a law displaying otherwise |
|
21:33
π
|
antomatic |
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. |
|
21:33
π
|
antomatic |
US websites must take down material that they are notified (under threat of perjury) to be infringing. |
|
21:33
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: one video of mine has been flagged seven times by seven different media organizations(!) over the past years |
|
21:33
π
|
joepie91 |
no, it's not difficult |
|
21:33
π
|
antomatic |
takedown = copyright strike |
|
21:33
π
|
BlueMaxim |
if they actually want to defend their own copyright |
|
21:33
π
|
BlueMaxim |
they should be actively doing it |
|
21:33
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: show me the /exact provision/ that requires a three strikes system |
|
21:33
π
|
antomatic |
joepie91: flagged or TAKEN DOWN? big difference. |
|
21:33
π
|
joepie91 |
a three strikes system is NOT the same as a takedown on report |
|
21:33
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: both |
|
21:34
π
|
joepie91 |
I eventually got tired of disputing the same fucking claim over and over again |
|
21:34
π
|
antomatic |
There's language in the act which requires service providers to terminate the accounts of "repeat infringers" |
|
21:34
π
|
antomatic |
^ |
|
21:34
π
|
joepie91 |
okay, show me the exact provision |
|
21:34
π
|
antomatic |
^^ |
|
21:34
π
|
schbirid |
my hot neighbor brought me cookies! |
|
21:34
π
|
antomatic |
I know it's not ideal, but if you can suggest something better, I'm sure everyone (YT and the copyright holders) would love to hear it. |
|
21:35
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: show me the provision. |
|
21:35
π
|
antomatic |
As I said, repeat infringers. |
|
21:35
π
|
joepie91 |
... |
|
21:35
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: show me the /exact piece of the DMCA/ that mentions what you are talking about |
|
21:35
π
|
joepie91 |
a direct link |
|
21:35
π
|
joepie91 |
to the section that defines this |
|
21:35
π
|
joepie91 |
an actual, proper reference |
|
21:35
π
|
antomatic |
I'll go one better. |
|
21:35
π
|
antomatic |
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/dmca-copyright-policies-staying-safe-harbors-while |
|
21:37
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: I do not see any reference in there to the specific section of the DMCA defining how repeat infringers should be handled |
|
21:37
π
|
antomatic |
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/73.4/73_4_Sawicki.pdf |
|
21:37
π
|
antomatic |
512(i)(1)(A) |
|
21:38
π
|
* |
aaaaaaaaa high-fives schbirid |
|
21:38
π
|
joepie91 |
"(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service providerΓ’ΒΒs system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service providerΓ’ΒΒs system or network who are repeat infringers; and" |
|
21:39
π
|
joepie91 |
emphasis: "appropriate circumstances" |
|
21:39
π
|
joepie91 |
this does not claim that a service provider must unconditionally terminate accounts of repeat infringers |
|
21:39
π
|
joepie91 |
which is the claim you are making |
|
21:40
π
|
joepie91 |
(also, you should probably read the PDFs you're Googling before linking them - the introduction starts with a blurb about how the term 'repeat infringer' isn't even clearly defined or established) |
|
21:40
π
|
antomatic |
Deliberately so - for balance. |
|
21:40
π
|
antomatic |
Like I say, there's wrong on both sides. But the thrust of the law obliges YT to do *something* so this is what they do. |
|
21:40
π
|
joepie91 |
end result: 0 evidence that repeat infringer termination must unconditionally occur |
|
21:40
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: and it is not a reasonable measure |
|
21:41
π
|
schbirid |
aaaaaaaaa: AAAAAAAAAAAAA :D |
|
21:41
π
|
joepie91 |
nor does the DMCA require it |
|
21:41
π
|
joepie91 |
per above |
|
21:41
π
|
antomatic |
that's a matter of opinion. |
|
21:41
π
|
antomatic |
Google Inc clearly feel that it's sufficient to shield them under the DMCA |
|
21:41
π
|
joepie91 |
... no, that's a matter of reading the actual legal definition that I'd been asking you for |
|
21:41
π
|
antomatic |
and that _has_ been tested. |
|
21:41
π
|
antomatic |
YouTube vs Viacom, etc |
|
21:41
π
|
joepie91 |
yes, the cautious option always works |
|
21:41
π
|
joepie91 |
doesn't make it a reasonable option |
|
21:41
π
|
joepie91 |
or a correct option |
|
21:41
π
|
joepie91 |
or an ethically justifiable option |
|
21:41
π
|
joepie91 |
and I will /keep/ holding them accountable for that |
|
21:42
π
|
antomatic |
How would you do it differently, joepie? |
|
21:42
π
|
joepie91 |
"but they are a business, they can't afford to blah blah blah" |
|
21:42
π
|
joepie91 |
I don't care, if being a business makes them do ethically unjustifiable things, then they shouldn't have become a business |
|
21:42
π
|
antomatic |
so you admit you have no solution? |
|
21:42
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: did I say that anywhere? |
|
21:43
π
|
joepie91 |
no, I fucking didn't |
|
21:43
π
|
joepie91 |
have some damn patience |
|
21:43
π
|
antomatic |
ok. Remember, I don't entirely disagree, we're just talking here. :) |
|
21:44
π
|
joepie91 |
if a repeat infringer mechanism were to be required (which, by the way is ridiculous, but that's what the DMCA requires), then a good start would be the most minimal implementation that technically complies with the DMCA or can be construed to accomplish the spirit of the section in the DMCA |
|
21:44
π
|
joepie91 |
for example, mark a repeat infringer as pre |
|
21:44
π
|
joepie91 |
pre-screened * |
|
21:44
π
|
joepie91 |
and or make them subject to auto-flagging of future uploads |
|
21:45
π
|
antomatic |
Congratulations, you now require more staff than you can afford to run your business. |
|
21:45
π
|
xmc |
christ you guys |
|
21:45
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: 1) no, not necessarily, and I'm not sure where you're getting that idea 2) refer to my point about 'business' above |
|
21:46
π
|
joepie91 |
"business" is not some kind of ethical carte blanche |
|
21:46
π
|
joepie91 |
if your business model requires unethical things |
|
21:46
π
|
joepie91 |
then guess what |
|
21:46
π
|
joepie91 |
you are STILL doing unethical things |
|
21:46
π
|
joepie91 |
because that business model was entirely your choice |
|
21:46
π
|
antomatic |
Fine, so we'll run our video hosting websites on fresh air and unicorns instead, because we live in a magical land where money and time aren't factors any more. |
|
21:46
π
|
joepie91 |
and I frankly get sick of people trying to use "but it's a business" or some variation thereof as a get-out-of-jail-free card |
|
21:47
π
|
xmc |
businesses are like super-people |
|
21:47
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: relevant: http://www.textfiles.com/thoughts/advertising.html |
|
21:47
π
|
antomatic |
I'd be more impressed still if you could run anything like YouTube _without_ having some element of business backing it up |
|
21:47
π
|
xmc |
they get all the rights of people but none of the punishments that people get |
|
21:47
π
|
joepie91 |
specifically |
|
21:47
π
|
joepie91 |
this section |
|
21:47
π
|
joepie91 |
In some cases, I have recieved insulting, critical paragraphs from people who I've turned down, telling me to "get with it" and join the "real world". |
|
21:47
π
|
joepie91 |
Indignation, to me, betrays a complete lack of understanding of the reason that websites were created in the first place: to provide content. |
|
21:48
π
|
joepie91 |
which applies wholesale to the frankly ridiculous statement that you just made |
|
21:48
π
|
joepie91 |
[23:47] <antomatic> I'd be more impressed still if you could run anything like YouTube _without_ having some element of business backing it up |
|
21:48
π
|
joepie91 |
I certainly intend to try. |
|
21:48
π
|
joepie91 |
I've been told a number of times that I can not run my shit without a business behind it |
|
21:48
π
|
joepie91 |
every single time, said people have been wrong |
|
21:48
π
|
joepie91 |
I think I may have some experience in the field |
|
21:49
π
|
antomatic |
I will reiterate, I do not completely disagree with you, joepie - but I don't see how you can do this any better. If you can, you absolutely should and must, and I'll be there cheering you along every step of the way, without doubt. |
|
21:49
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: the scenario that I just gave is perfectly possible |
|
21:49
π
|
joepie91 |
will it align with business interests? possibly not |
|
21:49
π
|
joepie91 |
does that free them from moral responsibility for the choices they made? fuck no |
|
21:49
π
|
joepie91 |
and I will continue to hold them accountable for it |
|
21:50
π
|
joepie91 |
loudly |
|
21:50
π
|
yipdw |
I like it when people defend multinational corporations |
|
21:50
π
|
yipdw |
it's really funny |
|
21:50
π
|
antomatic |
Right now, DMCA says "YOU are liable for what you users do, EVEN IF you tell them not to, EVEN IF you don't know, UNLESS you have some policy about repeat offenders." |
|
21:50
π
|
antomatic |
^ |
|
21:50
π
|
yipdw |
it's like being an apologist for yakuza |
|
21:50
π
|
joepie91 |
yes, and "some policy" is the key here |
|
21:50
π
|
antomatic |
yes |
|
21:50
π
|
joepie91 |
it's a MUCH wider concept than "you must terminate any repeat offender and baleet all their shit" |
|
21:50
π
|
antomatic |
YT chooses three strikes. |
|
21:50
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: yes, and I hold them accountable for that choice |
|
21:50
π
|
joepie91 |
see above |
|
21:51
π
|
joepie91 |
does that mean I am going to sit in a corner and complain, and not do anything? no |
|
21:51
π
|
aaaaaaaaa |
xmc: as my grandpa says, "I'll trust a business the day it can go to jail or be beaten with a stick" |
|
21:51
π
|
joepie91 |
but I am /still/ going to hold them accountable for it |
|
21:51
π
|
antomatic |
Most times, three-strikers have been on borrowed time and deletion is appropriate. When it's not, they can undo it. Nothing gets deleted. |
|
21:51
π
|
xmc |
aaaaaaaaa: pretty much |
|
21:51
π
|
joepie91 |
whether I intend to try an alternative or not |
|
21:51
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: that's wishful thinking at best |
|
21:51
π
|
antomatic |
If not three strikes then how many? Six, ten, twelve, twenty-five? |
|
21:51
π
|
antomatic |
that choice _will_ be tested in court |
|
21:51
π
|
xmc |
joepie91: if you're going to run a video site, I'm interested. |
|
21:52
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: it wasn't clear by now that I disagree with the delete-on-strikes concept in itself, and not with the AMOUNT of strikes? |
|
21:52
π
|
joepie91 |
I'm honestly not sure how much more clearly I can word my position |
|
21:52
π
|
joepie91 |
xmc: eventually |
|
21:52
π
|
antomatic |
you still haven't said how you would do it better, just that you want and intend to |
|
21:52
π
|
xmc |
cool |
|
21:52
π
|
antomatic |
unless I missed it |
|
21:52
π
|
antomatic |
hold on, let me scroll back |
|
21:52
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: look for "1)" and "2)" |
|
21:53
π
|
joepie91 |
and that's assuming DMCA is applicable to me to begin with |
|
21:53
π
|
joepie91 |
contrary to popular belief, US laws do NOT apply worldwide |
|
21:53
π
|
antomatic |
you say "the most minimal implementation that technically complies with the DMCA" but other than 'pre-screen their videos, auto-flag them' I see nothing else |
|
21:54
π
|
antomatic |
Obviously if that pre-screrening means their videos go into a queue for which there is not enough staff to turn them around in a decent time... |
|
21:54
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: enable auto-flagging |
|
21:54
π
|
antomatic |
then that's not as equitable as it sounds |
|
21:54
π
|
joepie91 |
that is; contentid-like systems are only applicable to known repeat offenders |
|
21:54
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: what makes you think there is not enough staff? |
|
21:54
π
|
antomatic |
hooray, you have flagged videos. And this does what, exactly. |
|
21:54
π
|
joepie91 |
.... |
|
21:55
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: are you just intentionally playing dumb or do you legitimately not understand how this relates to existing implementations of media fingerprinting technology and the subsequent takedown process |
|
21:55
π
|
antomatic |
Bear in mind that contentid only for repeat offenders means that _everyone_ now becomes a repeat offender |
|
21:55
π
|
xmc |
joepie91: hahaha, I can't tell you how many times I've had europeans email me and say I'm violating european law with my american website in america |
|
21:56
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: .. no it doesn't? |
|
21:56
π
|
antomatic |
And bear in mind too that contentID is actually good most of the time - it's the difference between "you can use our music in your video as long as we get paid" and "your video has our music and is now gone" |
|
21:56
π
|
joepie91 |
.. |
|
21:56
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: contentid is the identification technique |
|
21:56
π
|
joepie91 |
whether media gets deleted or otherwise depends on the publisher settings |
|
21:56
π
|
antomatic |
I know. I have lots of videos that have been (correctly) flagged by it |
|
21:56
π
|
joepie91 |
also |
|
21:56
π
|
joepie91 |
[23:56] <joepie91> antomatic: .. no it doesn't? |
|
21:56
π
|
antomatic |
it's how my videos stay up and online, legitimately |
|
21:57
π
|
joepie91 |
what does this have to do with what I'm talking about? |
|
21:57
π
|
antomatic |
well you've decided that this useful technology is only for 'repeat infringers' on JoeTube. |
|
21:58
π
|
antomatic |
So now no 'legit' use of copyrighted music is possible and the owners have to DMCA everyone who makes a use that would otherwise have been permissible |
|
21:58
π
|
joepie91 |
wut? |
|
21:58
π
|
joepie91 |
how does this follow from what I said? |
|
21:59
π
|
joepie91 |
you seem to be making a /lot/ of assumptions there |
|
21:59
π
|
yipdw |
shit it's like reading slashdot |
|
21:59
π
|
joepie91 |
which is the fastest way to make me abort a discussion, by the way |
|
21:59
π
|
joepie91 |
so don't do that |
|
21:59
π
|
joepie91 |
if something is unclear, /ask/ |
|
21:59
π
|
antomatic |
It follows from where you said that your repeat infringers policy would put those people's video into a queue |
|
22:00
π
|
joepie91 |
.... |
|
22:00
π
|
joepie91 |
I suggested two possible methods |
|
22:00
π
|
joepie91 |
one is pre-screening new uploads by repeat offenders |
|
22:00
π
|
joepie91 |
the other one is making uploads by repeat offenders eligible for automatic flagging by a contentid-like system |
|
22:01
π
|
joepie91 |
that says absolutely /nothing/ about what is to be done to said videos afterwards |
|
22:01
π
|
antomatic |
that's nice but what is your policy - your DMCA-required policy, assuming you are are subject to US law of course - that provides for the *termination* of repeat infringers? |
|
22:01
π
|
yipdw |
drone strike |
|
22:02
π
|
antomatic |
DMCA says nothing about how you deal with people who get flagged now and again. DMCA wants you to _identify_ repeat infringers and _terminate_ them. How do you do that? Everything else is just masturbation. |
|
22:02
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: termination applies to /infringers/ |
|
22:02
π
|
antomatic |
And you identify those people how? |
|
22:02
π
|
joepie91 |
if an account chooses to show ads from a publisher or whatever, they are not infringing |
|
22:02
π
|
schbirid |
you guys are wasting your time |
|
22:03
π
|
joepie91 |
not to mention that the point isn't to follow the law by the word |
|
22:03
π
|
joepie91 |
but in spirit |
|
22:03
π
|
schbirid |
now watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1_h_LNCJ94 |
|
22:03
π
|
joepie91 |
tl;dr implement the above |
|
22:03
π
|
joepie91 |
a repeat infringer policy |
|
22:03
π
|
antomatic |
Yes, but we're not talking about that. The example here is a YT publisher who lost their channel due to three DMCA takedowns, not legitimate 'contentID' ads |
|
22:03
π
|
joepie91 |
............. |
|
22:03
π
|
joepie91 |
no, we're talking about a repeat infringer |
|
22:03
π
|
joepie91 |
I just gave you suggestions for repeat infringers |
|
22:03
π
|
antomatic |
A user of JoeTube has had three valid DMCA takedowns against them. |
|
22:04
π
|
antomatic |
1. Do you consider them to be a repeat infringer. |
|
22:04
π
|
antomatic |
2. If not, why not. |
|
22:04
π
|
joepie91 |
and indicated that they are not termination, but still follow the spirit of the law |
|
22:04
π
|
SmileyG |
schbirid: hah awesome |
|
22:04
π
|
antomatic |
3. What do you do? |
|
22:04
π
|
joepie91 |
what is unclear about this |
|
22:04
π
|
antomatic |
You suggested that repeat infringers have their videos flagged. |
|
22:04
π
|
joepie91 |
1. replace three by 'a certain amount of', and the answer is yes |
|
22:04
π
|
joepie91 |
2. n/a |
|
22:04
π
|
antomatic |
Which is lovely but it doesn't address the DMCA requirement that you have a termination policy. |
|
22:04
π
|
joepie91 |
3. see above |
|
22:04
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: are you even reading what I say |
|
22:04
π
|
antomatic |
So 'some number' of strikes, just not three? |
|
22:04
π
|
antomatic |
I'm trying to, joepie. |
|
22:05
π
|
antomatic |
And can I repeat that I'm not entirely against you here. I don't want to fall out about this, but it is an interesting discussion. |
|
22:05
π
|
joepie91 |
perhaps caps are more useful; I AM NOT IMPLEMENTING A TERMINATION POLICY. I AM IMPLEMENTING A REPEAT INFRINGER POLICY THAT ACTS IN THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. THAT'S THE POINT. FINDING THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD STILL BE VALIDATED IN COURT. |
|
22:05
π
|
SmileyG |
configure: error: set ac_cv_file__dev_ptmx to yes/no in your CONFIG_SITE file when cross compiling |
|
22:05
π
|
schbirid |
schtop schaying spirit! |
|
22:05
π
|
joepie91 |
consider the caps the summary |
|
22:05
π
|
SmileyG |
whoops |
|
22:05
π
|
joepie91 |
with emphasis |
|
22:05
π
|
schbirid |
it highlightstch |
|
22:05
π
|
joepie91 |
bold, red font |
|
22:05
π
|
joepie91 |
72pt |
|
22:05
π
|
joepie91 |
(comic sans ms) |
|
22:05
π
|
antomatic |
Your repeat infringer policy must provide for the termination of repeat infringers, joepie. DMCA. |
|
22:05
π
|
yipdw |
joepie91: http://www.tradecardsonline.com/img/cards/swtcg/279/big/054.jpg |
|
22:06
π
|
antomatic |
512(i)(1)(A). -> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 |
|
22:06
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: ... how do you still not understand what I am saying |
|
22:06
π
|
joepie91 |
lowercase didn't work |
|
22:06
π
|
joepie91 |
caps didn't work |
|
22:06
π
|
joepie91 |
I literally responded to your point in multiple phrasings |
|
22:06
π
|
joepie91 |
multiple cases |
|
22:06
π
|
joepie91 |
how do I need to format it to get you to read and process it |
|
22:06
π
|
antomatic |
Maybe I'm thick, Joepie, and if so I'm sorry. |
|
22:06
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: the point ISN'T to comply with the fucking law word for word |
|
22:07
π
|
joepie91 |
that is not the goal |
|
22:07
π
|
joepie91 |
that is not the intention |
|
22:07
π
|
antomatic |
I just don't see where your policy involves terminating someone, other than after 'a certain amount' of strikes |
|
22:07
π
|
joepie91 |
I am aware that it does not comply with the letter of the law; that is the POINT |
|
22:07
π
|
joepie91 |
THE. FUCKING. POINT. |
|
22:07
π
|
joepie91 |
it DOESN'T TERMINATE PEOPLE. |
|
22:07
π
|
joepie91 |
yipdw: 403 |
|
22:07
π
|
yipdw |
what |
|
22:07
π
|
yipdw |
boo |
|
22:07
π
|
yipdw |
maybe it requires some referer voodoo |
|
22:07
π
|
joepie91 |
yadda yadda referers yadda yadda |
|
22:08
π
|
antomatic |
So, that's great. But you can see how deciding not to comply with the letter of the law is perhaps a risk that Google and YouTube might prefer not to take. |
|
22:08
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: yes, which is a point that I addressed almost at the beginning of this entire discussion |
|
22:08
π
|
antomatic |
Look at the stick they get already, for what they *do* do. |
|
22:08
π
|
joepie91 |
[23:42] <joepie91> "but they are a business, they can't afford to blah blah blah" |
|
22:08
π
|
joepie91 |
[23:42] <joepie91> I don't care, if being a business makes them do ethically unjustifiable things, then they shouldn't have become a business |
|
22:09
π
|
antomatic |
So the ethical approach is just not to comply with the letter of the law? Or just to be awkward and slippery? As I say, it's a fine risk to take, but it IS a risk, business or no. |
|
22:09
π
|
antomatic |
Even as an individual such an approach risks losing your liberty. |
|
22:09
π
|
joepie91 |
yes, it is a risk. yes, it is the ethical thing to do. |
|
22:09
π
|
antomatic |
noted. |
|
22:10
π
|
antomatic |
Now I see where you're coming from. |
|
22:10
π
|
antomatic |
Thanks. |
|
22:10
π
|
joepie91 |
right. |
|
22:16
π
|
yipdw |
heheh something to really make antomatic's head explode |
|
22:16
π
|
yipdw |
guess who else doesn't have a clearly accessible dmca termination policy |
|
22:19
π
|
antomatic |
my head remains noiseless and intact. :) |
|
22:19
π
|
yipdw |
tell me if you find that magical document on IA |
|
22:20
π
|
antomatic |
DMCA doesn't say anything about the policy having to be accessible, just that there is one. :) |
|
22:21
π
|
yipdw |
k |
|
22:22
π
|
Jonimus |
plus IA has fair use abound. |
|
22:22
π
|
joepie91 |
I'm trying to recall |
|
22:22
π
|
aaaaaaaaa |
"Can I see your DMCA policy?" "Sure here it is." "Uh this page is blank." "No it's not; it's in invisible ink." |
|
22:22
π
|
joepie91 |
I don't think the repeat offender clause was actually /used/ in cases against YT |
|
22:29
π
|
antomatic |
"Viacom claimed YouTube did not reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy because of the way it counted strikes (e.g., it counted as only one strike a single take-down notice covering multiple videos, and it did not count as a strike content removed through use of the Audible Magic filtering tool). The court, however, disagreed ..." |
|
22:30
π
|
joepie91 |
yeah, but I'm unclear on whether that's refering to the 'repeat infringer policy' requirement in the DMCA, or to *their* 'repeat infringer policy' specifically |
|
22:30
π
|
antomatic |
"Congress intended to leave the requirements of the repeat infringer policy and the subsequent obligation of the service provider loosely defined. The court also noted that even DMCA-compliant notices did not in themselves provide evidence of blatant infringement. This decision suggests that companies have considerable latitude in adopting and implementing their repeat infringer policies." |
|
22:30
π
|
joepie91 |
(which could have existed outside of the DMCA) |
|
22:30
π
|
joepie91 |
aha |
|
22:30
π
|
antomatic |
Mm, I think they mean their (i.e. YouTube's) policy |
|
22:30
π
|
joepie91 |
the second paragraph seems to refer rather clearly to the DMCA-required policy |
|
22:30
π
|
joepie91 |
but the first one is ambiguous |
|
22:31
π
|
antomatic |
From http://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/youtube-obtains-summary-judgment-in-viacom-case.html |
|
22:31
π
|
joepie91 |
but yeah, the second paragraph seeems to indicate that my suggestion of a "following the spirit, not the letter" implementation wouldn't even be as risky as I'd though |
|
22:31
π
|
joepie91 |
thought * |
|
22:31
π
|
joepie91 |
words are hard |
|
22:32
π
|
antomatic |
Generally, the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA present a major hurdle for content owners like Viacom. Under the statute, a defendant "online service provider" is not liable for copyright infringement if, as a threshold matter, it implements a "repeat infringer" policy and "standard technical measures" to "identify or protect copyrighted works." YouTube easily meets both of these requirements. |
|
22:32
π
|
antomatic |
Nevertheless, a service provider like YouTube may still be liable under the DMCA if it has "actual knowledge" that infringing material exists on the site or, under the "red flag knowledge" provision, is "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." |
|
22:32
π
|
antomatic |
from http://jurist.org/forum/2012/05/olivier-sylvain-viacom-dmca.php |
|
22:33
π
|
antomatic |
The argument there being that you can't say "we respond to all notices" and be completely shielded if you *know* that your site is a hotbed of piracy |
|
22:37
π
|
antomatic |
right, bedtime. |
|
22:38
π
|
antomatic |
(thanks joepie, genuinely interesting chat.) |
|
22:54
π
|
joepie91 |
antomatic: night |