Copyright Troll attacks DU

[hendo]

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/09/27
Not sure how many of you know this, but I surely didn't. Our own forum is under attack by copryright trolls, and our wonderful mod-force is being supported by none other than the EFF.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Righthaven sounds like what might be called a bunch of "ambulance chasers" whose

main purpose is to make a fast buck....and infringe on the freedom of the internet while they are at it.

I would be willing to bet $20 that there are RWingnuts somewhere in that mix...

[hendo]

3. a copyright troll is not limited by political affiliation.

the MPAA and RIAA have plenty of copyright trolls that are willing to attack the masses.

[gateley]

5. You're right. They're in it for the money. nt

[wtmusic]

7. Fair use is not copyright infringement.

"The masses" seem to enjoy entertainment that the entertainment industry spends $billions to bring to them.

They'd like to see a return on that investment.

[hendo]

10. So, you support the tactic of mass lawsuits

in attempt to force settlements out of fear? You do realize they do not even have to prove guilt at this point, right?

They are using mafia fear tactics against decent, hard working Americans.

[wtmusic]

12. I don't support going after individuals

Piracy websites? Shut 'em all down.

[hendo]

13. do you support the Internet Censorship bill (COICA)?

Which would allow the government to not only shut down piracy websites, but any websites they disagree with as well?

Or what about the deeply flawed DMCA which gives rights to the MPAA and the RIAA while at the same time taking rights away from users.

If I want to make a copy of something that I purchased, that is my deal. The RIAA was wrong when they claimed that home taping was killing music, and they are wrong now.

[wtmusic]

17. I wasn't aware that COICA allowed the government

to shut down "any websites they disagree with as well".

Maybe you can show me where.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804

[hendo]

19. I am more than willing to

Sorry, I trust the EFF.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/censorship-internet-takes-center-stage-online

The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines — without judicial review — are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)

This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet. Free speech is vitally important to democracy, which is why the government is restricted from suppressing speech except in very specific, narrowly-tailored situations. But this bill is the polar opposite of narrow — not only in the broad way that it tries to define a site "dedicated to infringing activities," but also in the solution that it tries to impose — a block on a whole domain, and not just the infringing part of the site

edit updated quoting

[wtmusic]

20. The EFF is wrong, and your trust is misplaced.

Every action authorized by COICA requires a court order (judicial review).

Their use of the ominous word "blacklist" is ridiculous. There's nothing in the bill that provides for the creation of any "lists".

There is absolutely no freedom of speech issue here. The bill addresses, and only addresses websites which are:

"primarily designed, ha(ve) no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than... providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise..."

If you'd like to debate the actual language of the bill I'm happy to do that, but I won't waste my time discussing a third party's hysterical interpretation. :eyes:

[Liberty Belle]

2. This is a ridiculous suit. DU is very good about enforcing copyright rules.

I once posted more than the allowed 4 paragraphs on an article and neglected to mention that I was the author, pubilsher, and copyright owner; I was asked to shorten the post.

It is clearly fair use to quote brief excerpts of no more than 4 paragraphs (less on short articles, and never more than half).

If DU were prevented from doing this, so would aggregators such as Drudge Report as well as Free Republic and other conservative-leaning sites.

It would have a chilling effect on the people's right to know what's going on.

[hendo]

4. It most certainly is

Yet this is often behavior that our own majority supports.

[PJPhreak]

18. Free Republic is also being sued by Righthaven,

Tho I think FR has its own lawyers,I don't think Electronic Frontier Foundation and Winston & Strawn Agreed to accept them as clients.

Edit for Spelling

[Lisa0825]

6. Skinner posted about it, and there have been some other posts too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4556835

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

8. my compliments on your choice of Avatar

[Lisa0825]

11. Why thank you.

I cherish the 10 minutes I actually spoke with her, many years ago. She was quite an amazing lady.

[hendo]

14. who is your avatar? NT

[Lisa0825]

15. The late, great, Ann Richards.

The last Democratic Governor of Texas.... until Bill White wins.

"Poor George. He couldn't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

[hendo]

9. Interesting, it didn't make it into my EFF newsletter until today. NT

[kestrel91316]

16. Old news.