#81
mt.real
Post rating: +

Crow posted:

dont they have to indicate what specifically they want taken down and for what reason


it doesn't look like anyone mentioned this, so just in case yall don't know, no you don't have to indicate anything, you just have to state the URL and that you have copyright on some content on that page.

in fact most dmca notices are automatically sent by web spiders that just look for protected content automatically. there are no humans involved.

the onus is on the person who wants to keep the content up to prove that the takedown notice is invalid and respond to it, but of course they're just sent to hosting providers so no one even gets that chance. so it's just instant blanket shutdown of any content you like, anytime it's hosted at a kneejerk-compliant company (i.e. all of them.) fun!

Edited by drwhat ()

#82
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: ~
DCMABDSM
#83
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +

drwhat posted:

Crow posted:

dont they have to indicate what specifically they want taken down and for what reason

it doesn't look like anyone mentioned this, so just in case yall don't know, no you don't have to indicate anything, you just have to state the URL and that you have copyright on some content on that page.

in fact most dmca notices are automatically sent by web spiders that just look for protected content automatically. there are no humans involved.

the onus is on the person who wants to keep the content up to prove that the takedown notice is invalid and respond to it, but of course they're just sent to hosting providers so no one even gets that chance. so it's just instant blanket shutdown of any content you like, anytime it's hosted at a kneejerk-compliant company (i.e. all of them.) fun!

So can't someone just write a program that files a DCMA against like, every page of theerant or the bill and melinda gates foundation or whatever

#84
[account deactivated]
#85
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +

tpaine posted:

swampman posted:

drwhat posted:

Crow posted:

dont they have to indicate what specifically they want taken down and for what reason

it doesn't look like anyone mentioned this, so just in case yall don't know, no you don't have to indicate anything, you just have to state the URL and that you have copyright on some content on that page.

in fact most dmca notices are automatically sent by web spiders that just look for protected content automatically. there are no humans involved.

the onus is on the person who wants to keep the content up to prove that the takedown notice is invalid and respond to it, but of course they're just sent to hosting providers so no one even gets that chance. so it's just instant blanket shutdown of any content you like, anytime it's hosted at a kneejerk-compliant company (i.e. all of them.) fun!

So can't someone just write a program that files a DCMA against like, every page of theerant or the bill and melinda gates foundation or whatever

yeah! why can't some do this! yeah!!

Exactly

#86
[account deactivated]
#87
Post rating: +++++
Well, there is a power relationship that determines how much scrutiny a DMCA request gets. If you're a random webforum inhabited by no one of particularly acknowledged importance, they're not going to think twice before complying with a DMCA because there's no risk. Similarly no one will hesitate if you're a known piracy site or somewhere with a known major cooperative media presence that has its own structures complying for such things like Google or Facebook. If the subject of a DMCA is a major IP holder themselves, a major business, or a media-significant public figure, then obviously a DMCA will receive some actual scrutiny and there will probably be some polite communication instead of immediately censoring a page. Thus the DMCA is a valid tool of harassment only against those with no power to defend themselves. Law exists to reinforce dominant power structures and its application will vary depending on the class of the subjects: it's just common sense!
#88
Online
Post rating: ~

ilmdge posted:

i did some googling and aerdil owns the rights to the term "marxsplaining"

i said aerdil but i meant gyrofry sorry
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/871/

beat urbandictionary by 3 yeaers

#89
Post rating: +
-

Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()

#90
Online
Post rating: ~
They can't prove that. WDDP was all deleted. Royalties go to gyrofry.
#91
Post rating: ~
catchphrases want to be free
#92
Post rating: ~

ilmdge posted:

They can't prove that. WDDP was all deleted. Royalties go to gyrofry.



i remember... farmer aerdil remembers... Pepperidge Farm remembers