How about a "three-strikes" system for those who wrongfully take down a non-infringing video?
Do that three times and face a massive fine and suspension of your right to send take down notices for 90 days or so.
I read about this kind of shit all the time. I wish people would start prosecuting for false DMCA takedowns.
Btw, the 3 strikes system is even more flawed as it only goes after the account holder and not any actual users. It leaves no room for dispute and operates on accusations without evidence.
Apparently suing people is Sony's only way to make some of their money back on that turd of a movie.
Entura International is clearly incompetent - a competent company doesn't do a broad term-search for a commonly used word and then use that as a basis for demanding takedowns. This doesn't speak well of Vimeo either, though, that they simply caved to what were clearly bogus takedown requests.
Damn it World! We have to work together on this!
Hee. That the self-appointed Cultural Elite pooh-poohs something luckily doesn't mean it can't be profitable anyway.
More of a "a lot of suckers in other countries."
One of the properties taken down is described as follows:
‘Pixels’ is a 2010 award-winning short film created by Patrick Jean."
According to Wikipedia's entry on the Adam Sandler movie, "The movie is a feature length adaptation of Patrick Jean's video-game themed short film, Pixels."
So they've just claimed that the short that inspired their own feature film violated their copyright. Five years ago.
Now that's impressive.
It's not really fair to speak of Vimeo "caving".
The way the DMCA is set up, service providers like Vimeo are protected from liability if they promptly remove/disable access to material when they receive a DMCA request. It's not their place to assess the merits of each claim. In fact, doing so would be dangerous. If they said "This claim is obviously bullshit," and left something up, and a lawyer was able to prove later that it wasn't, they would face heavy penalties. No business can function like that.
When I worked for a similar video hosting business, our policy on receipt of a DMCA was to (a) take down the material as required by the law, (b) immediately notify the poster and point them to useful resources such as Chilling Effects, and (c) explain to them how they could send us a counter-notice, which we would then pass on to the entity claiming copyright. If the claimed copyright holder didn't then notify us that they were bringing a lawsuit against the user within the period allowed by the law, we would promptly re-enable the content. We made a point of expediting every part of the process as much as we could, in order to get legitimate content back online quickly as possible.
This is what the DMCA requires, and this is apparently what Vimeo is doing. It's not actually that bad a system in some respects. Where it falls down is that there's no penalty for abuse of the system by entities like Entura or other bad actors. There's essentially no cost to sloppy or malicious filing of DMCA reports, so 'anti-piracy groups' feel free to fire off takedowns in scattergun fashion.
Even if there were just a "Three strikes and you're out" rule for bogus DMCA notices, outfits like Entura would have to be a lot more careful. I would love to have been the one to send back a message saying "Owing to a large number of bogus DMCA claims originating from your business, processing of DMCA reports filed by you is suspended until further notice. Have a nice day."
The complaints of the content-owners of having to supply personal information like home addresses is an aspect of extreme bullshit of this bullshit bullshit.
We know how secure that information is always kept.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.