>Explain that if they do not remove their copyright claim within the time allotted that I will revoke their rights to use my footage in their video due to a terms of use violation.
The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury. It's very slippery though.
If Sony says "This is A, and I own A. Take down Small Time's video." Then all is good so long as Sony actually owns A. If the content is B, it's a great inconvenience to Small Time, but there's really no recourse.
However, what Sony did was say "This is B, I own B. Take down Small Time's video." The content IS B. Sony has misrepresented their ownership of B. Now they've perjured themselves.
My understanding is that perjury is punishable by up to five years in prison. It seems like someone at Sony should now be under investigation for this little 'oops.' Even if Small Time is satisfied with the outcome, it sounds like someone at Sony still violated the law.
> The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury.
Hrrrm, I think that may be overstating it a bit.
The DMCA requires a statement from the complaining party of a good faith belief that the use of the material is not authorized, and a statement that the information is accurate; and that under penalty of perjury that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
When Joe's House of Copyright Notices is hired by Sony, and misidentifies content that they (in good faith) believe belongs to Sony, their notification isn't swearing to the accuracy of that information. It's stating that under penalty of perjury they act on behalf of the "owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed".
If I were to claim the same, I'd be perjuring myself, because I sure as hell am not authorized to act on behalf of Sony.
At least that's my reading, as someone who's worked an abuse desk and has spent a bit of time with the DMCA
If Sony doesn't actually own the exclusive right, then Joe's House of Copyright Notices being an agent of Sony is not relevant to whether Joe's House of Copyright is authorized to act on behalf of the owner (because Sony is not the owner).
But that's not the point. The only claim made under penalty of perjury is that the party filing the report is authorized to act on behalf of the rightsholder they identified in the report.
The rest (what the material is, who the rightsholder is, that the use is not authorized) is all merely a good faith belief, which is so low a standard as to basically mean "you know, whatever".
No one ever gets charged under that, because it requires knowingly filing a false claim. Almost all of these takedowns are automated, and it's hard to say an algorithm knowingly lied.
Even with a human in the loop (for example, the "copyright holder has confirmed the claim" from the article) it's hard to prove someone lied. "Idiot intern" makes a generally acceptable defense.
These corporations want to be treated as "entities" for many legal purposes. Yet, when they fuck up, they want to be able to say that "employee a" didn't know about "x".
Well, if your are an "entity", then -- particularly in cases like this -- I don't care about your "employee" components. You, Sony, made a patently false statement having legal implications. And if you had done... "due diligence" upon your own corpus of knowledge about yourself, you would have known this.
So... prosecute them under perjury. Punish them harshly. It's the only way to get them to pay attention to their obligations, obligations for which they are a primary source of the records needed for proper representation, as required by the law.
Personally, I favor revoking the licenses of lawyers involved in this. Make such patently false representations, and it is career death for you. (I guess I am "caring about the employee", in this case, contrary to what I said. But such employees also have a separate, professional obligation to the bar. Hold them to it, and corporations will have to seek higher standards in order to make use of their services.)
P.S. Yes, I am pissed about this. An individual stands a good chance of being thoroughly run over by such mis-representation. Corporate entities use it as a business strategy.
When it comes to criminal law, the standard is "knew or should have known". At the very least, Sony and possibly YouTube are liable for the results of a flawed algorithm causing them to break the law. It's been in (mis)use for many years now, and it's obvious it's a horribly inaccurate method of determining copyright violations. Without human intervention to investigate and ensure each and every claim is legitimate, YouTube and the copyright claimants are committing fraud and perjury on a massive scale.
YouTube acts upon DMCA requests from companies claiming copyright infringement, using an algorithm that YouTube employs. When said request is known or should be known to be perjurious, the parties involved should be held liable.
While you are correct that YouTube reserves the right to remove whatever they want to from their site, they do not have the right to monetize on behalf of a third party (Sony, et. al.) content you create and own the copyright to, nor claim copyright on behalf of that third party, just by waving around the DMCA. However, that is exactly what they are doing, and are doing it under color of law, and while committing perjury to boot.
> YouTube can put ads on any video, why couldn't they distribute that income with whoever they want to?
It's a matter of trust. YouTube implemented a monetization policy to encourage regular folks to create viral content, and reward that effort with monetization for original works. However, YouTube is gaming their own system and stacking it in favor of Big Content. They are breaking the trust they asked their users to place in them, and breaking their own policies to support their biggest customers.
> Here's a great example of what I'm talking about:
While the email mentions a DMCA notice, I doubt there was one. Content-ID probably detected it, and UMG blocked it without needing to send any DMCA notice, just using YouTube's backend tools. If you search on the DMCA database that Google/Youtube uses, ChillingEffects, there's no match for a notice sent by UMG: https://chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&te...
Essentially, my point is that the DMCA is a legal mechanism to force hosting services to comply, but it isn't needed in this case, since YouTube complies voluntarily.
> It's a matter of trust.
Oh, absolutely, I never meant to say that YouTube aren't being assholes by behaving like this, but we were talking about legal rights, and I don't see them violating those.
And playing Devil's advocate, I'm not sure YouTube is all that interested in implementing these mechanisms - their customers are the advertisers, not Big Content. I'd say it's more like paying protection money after getting the proverbial horse head in the bed - or in this case, the barrage of lawsuits they got between 2008-2012.
Interesting article, but I don't think this is entirely restricted to engineers.
I've seen plenty of management decisions where, instead of making a choice which will apply to all users, management decides to make it yet another check box buried in the preferences section of an application.
It takes a week or two before Mgt settles on whether it should be on or off. If 90% of users want off, then off it is.
Then two months down the road, the 10% that like it on now want to extend the feature a bit more. And with that, the process repeats, another check box is nested.
Before long, you're left with a management designed, byzantine architecture of wheels and knobs and checkboxes everywhere.
>Passengers and drivers rate each other and bad ones are removed from the system.
Never used Uber/Lyft, so maybe the answer would be obvious if I had, but...
What stops drivers from giving bad ratings based on race or destination? Likewise, what stops passengers from giving drivers bad ratings based on race or some other prejudice?
Nothing, but giving a bad rating for race would be weird and rare.
Additionally you always see the driver's photo, and optionally see the riders photo before the ride starts, so the deeply racist probably cancel before the ride anyway.
Sure, there's a local provider that uses LXC containers on your local machine (Ubuntu only), and we're working on a way to use LXD (which is a much cleaner local environment).
If you are running OSX, Windows, or a non-Ubuntu linux, you'd need an Ubuntu VM to run the local provider (we support Centos, Windows, and OSX for the juju client in general to control remote providers like Azure, Amazon, etc, just not for running the local provider).
I'm leaning toward Kubernetes because that's what fabric8.io has chosen. The others may be great, but I'm not really interested in writing a lot of glue code to make them work well with Jenkins/Gerrit/Nexus/Slack/Docker/Chaos Monkey/OpenShift the way Fabric8 has.
Didn't Microsoft do this with SCO vs Linux though? In that case, it was big incumbent interested in squashing a scrappy start-up disrupting the industry.
In a case like that, it seems like a tool to perpetuate economic inequality.
Yes, but how do you stop that? Isn't any investment in a company involved in litigation implicitly an investment in the litigation? (Or at least a bet that the litigation isn't material to their business.)
The whole SCO vs IBM case was pretty unscrupulous, sleazy, and opportunistic, I agree. I'm not arguing that I have the solution to stop abuses like this. I'm saying that limiting financing is not it.
Microsoft only needed to go through SCO to hide their involvement in the case. If they hadn't cared about a possible DoJ investigation MS could have simply bought SCO and brought the suit themselves. Also, SCO's main lawsuit was against IBM, the complete opposite of a "scrappy start-up".
I've arrived at the opinion that users simply cannot be trusted to keep their own credentials safe. It's literally impossible to secure a system based on trusting the user.
There are very successful businesses (mint.com) built around the concept of sharing extremely sensitive credentials for some reward.
In the tutum intro video I watched yesterday, the pitchman is asking developers within the first minute of video to enter AWS credentials into his website I've never heard of.
If anyone would balk at that suggestion, I would expect it to be developers, yet they are so successful, Docker is buying them for meeellions of dollars.
I'm really surprised no one in the thread has yet mentioned yubico as a solution. I like yubikeys because they are something users can't upload. Keys are a concept everyone understands, and despite what I'm told by friends, I've yet to lose mine. I've never lost my car/house/mailbox keys either though.
Maybe I'm odd in both respects. I keep my credentials and keys close to me.
I found keeping my Yubikey Neo on my actual keychain to be a bit inconvenient, but wearing it around my neck like a dog tag has worked great.
Sadly, I've been unable to convince my wife that it's worth it. She won't wear it as a necklace or bracelet, almost never has pockets, and rarely has her keys near her when at home. I might just have to stick an Edge-N in her laptop and slip an Edge onto her keychain, so that when she inevitably calls complaining she can't log into GMail from a friend's computer, I'll be prepared...
From a development perspective, I've read through the U2F spec, and it seemed quite reasonable. I haven't had a chance to try implementing it in anything, though.
> There are very successful businesses (mint.com) built around the concept of sharing extremely sensitive credentials for some reward.
That's because banks are too backwards to support something like OAuth so I don't have to share my whole damn password when I just want mint to have my balance. Hell, in Canada banks are so backwards you can barely send $1,000 online even with the password.
I'd like to know what Tatum offers in comparison to fabric8.io. It seems the "video intro" and "take it for a spin" links are the same, and not a video introduction. That's disappointing. Maybe someone in charge of the page can fix it please?
Searching for "Tatum video introduction" on a search engine only returns results about a certain movie star, which is not terribly helpful.
The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury. It's very slippery though.
If Sony says "This is A, and I own A. Take down Small Time's video." Then all is good so long as Sony actually owns A. If the content is B, it's a great inconvenience to Small Time, but there's really no recourse.
However, what Sony did was say "This is B, I own B. Take down Small Time's video." The content IS B. Sony has misrepresented their ownership of B. Now they've perjured themselves.
My understanding is that perjury is punishable by up to five years in prison. It seems like someone at Sony should now be under investigation for this little 'oops.' Even if Small Time is satisfied with the outcome, it sounds like someone at Sony still violated the law.