dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
36082
share rss forum feed

St0ry

join:2004-02-16
USA
reply to MATA7

Re: Astraweb automates DMCA removals

Cancelled my 96/year subscription. Doesn't end until Dec so I'll wait and see if another deal pops up.

PinkyThePig
Premium
join:2011-05-02
Tempe, AZ
reply to sandman_1
Last I checked Giganews is the only provider that charges an arm and a leg for access. If I charged twice as much as my competitor I'm sure I could afford to hire more people too.

sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
Yes Giganews do charge more than the others, thanks for pointing that out. Your assumption is too simplistic, charge more= more money, especially when it doesn't take into consideration the costs of running that business. Giganews may have to charge that much just to keep things running as their costs may be higher than that of Astraweb's. The two may have very similar profit margins when it is all said and done. Also Ferrari, charge a lot for their cars. Let's say compared to Ford, their cars are far more expensive. I think we can all agree on that. Do you think that since Ferrari charges more for their cars, that they make more money than Ford?

Anyway like I said, being in the Usenet business, you should already have DMCA Take Down requests factored in as the cost of doing business. You are in fact in a business that is littered with all kinds of uploaded copyrighted material, let's be honest here and call it what it is.

Automatic DMCA take down request do no one any good. I find it hard to believe that you would support such a system especially when it could be detrimental to the whole Usenet milieu. I gave one good example in my last post of such abuse that could be rendered if a person was engendered to do so.

newster

join:2011-09-26
reply to Stem Bolt
I think it's likely that Astraweb was being threatened, and were afraid to refuse the demand that they automate takedowns.

Since they know or should know that the infringement claims are all computer generated, it would not be unreasonable if they employed a person to check the deletion requests (even if just a cursory glance) before approving them. If money if that tight, they can have an existing support person do it.

A big question is what Paypal and other payment processors will demand, as they're often acting out of fear of being shut down by the US government, like so many others have been in the past that operated on a "no questions asked" policy. Also possible is that Astraweb is weighing the cost of a threatened (probably bluffed) lawsuit, which could easily cost millions of dollars to properly defend in the US court system.

I have no idea what kind of profit margin Astraweb or any other company operates under, and therefore how much money they could spare in their fight for survival. If I could speak Dutch, I'd look up the News-Service lawsuit files to use as a guide. Financial records are always one of the first things on the list of discovery demands in a lawsuit.

Since Astraweb is not even an American company, they might even want to consider splitting the company into multiple separate companies that operate the US and NL servers independently under each of these country's respective laws. (i.e., if feasible, do instant deletions in US, next day deletions in NL)

sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
reply to Stem Bolt
It is this Automatic DMCA process that isn't following the guidelines of the DMCA period.

The supposed copyright owner of the material in question, is suppose to swear under penalty of Perjury that the take down request is accurate, true, and relevant. The take down request is then submitted to the servers designated DMCA agent to handle such a request (In this case, no one). No one is checking the validity of the claim.

Companies can file a counter notice if they believe the request is in error, notifying the originator of the take down request. If the request is indeed false, then the server operator has to put the material that was taken down back up.

newster

join:2011-09-26
It's a widespread misconception that the "under penalty of perjury" standard applies to the accuracy of the claim. It does not. It only applies to whether the person is authorized to make the copyright claim.

Here's the text, from 17 U.S.C. 512 from »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ ··· t/17/512


(3) Elements of notification.

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

( .......... )

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.


sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
No there are penalties for mistaken claims. Also in your quote, "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury", tells it all right there. If the information is NOT accurate to begin with, then the copyright holder or authorized proxy to issue one in their behalf can be held liable.

(v) refers to not filing the claim in good faith but to the fact that the claim, filed by the holder, is believed to be an unauthorized use of the his or her's copyright.

(vi) refers to that the claim is to be accurate and that the party is indeed authorized to act on the copyright owners behalf.

But don't believe me, per the DMCA itself:

quote:
In order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent
notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512

quote:
Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a
notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that
material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneys fees) incurred
by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.


Safe guards were put in place to prevent abuse especially the part where it says,

quote:
Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright
owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified
elements, to the service providers designated agent.


In other words, an Agent checks the validity of the claim and could, if the submission was error, file a counter notice.

Like I said, with these automatic DMCA take downs, they are not following the guidelines set forth in section 512 C.

ramakowski

join:2007-02-17
reply to darcilicious
said by darcilicious:

said by sandman_1:

said by darcilicious See Profile

Unfortunately, even if every user stopped using nzb indexers, the problem wouldn't just disappear -- the genie is out of the bottle and there's no going back.

I think it would. I don't think the copyright trolls would browse through raw searches. It would be too cumbersome to that. If that were the case, they would of been doing it a long time before now. It is the easy manual index sites that make it easy for take downs because someone has already done the work for them.

Or, they could just set up their own indexers; obviously, it's not that hard.

Outlook Express is all one needs. Any decent Email client can download watch and filter headers, and there are several Newsgroup readers that do the same. Monitoring Prees and using bots to identify posts also takes labor out of the process. It's not hard to filter "HDTV", and they're all copyrighted.
Someone mentioned numerical post and file titles, they're already vanishing, and that's not only from popular groups.
The old ways will survive, but if they're going to remain, nzb users will have to learn to read and write.

JazzJRabbit

join:2003-09-27
Wheaton, IL
reply to Stem Bolt
Yeah... I'm with Astraweb on their $11 monthly plan. I've been noticing more and more content DMCA'ed, and not just some obscure stuff, but really mainstream one. Usually it's pulled within an hour of getting posted, so that's a good indication that they do it automatically without human review. Good thing that I didn't buy into $96/year plan like I wanted to, so at least I have an option to switch at the end of the month.

sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
People need to send a message to these providers that do these auto take downs. Stevef (Astraweb rep from Newsbin forums) said Astraweb can't afford to hire someone to review the DMCA take down requests. If money is indeed that tight, then maybe Astraweb have more problems than they are willing to tell us. They are one of the biggest NSPs out there and do just about as much as Giganews and XSNews in total traffic through their servers, third place I think. So it is obvious that they do a lot of business and have lots of subscribers. Also they are a tier 1 providers and no one resells through them like the others. They are no small beans is what I am getting at.

Anyway if these NSPs like Astraweb continue on this course, and it will get worse if they do, they will see subscribers leaving en masse. Unless something is done to placate the subscribers, I can see some NSPs going out of business. The bigger you are the harder you fall as they say.

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
said by sandman_1:

People need to send a message to these providers that do these auto take downs. Stevef (Astraweb rep from Newsbin forums) said Astraweb can't afford to hire someone to review the DMCA take down requests. If money is indeed that tight, then maybe Astraweb have more problems than they are willing to tell us. They are one of the biggest NSPs out there and do just about as much as Giganews and XSNews in total traffic through their servers, third place I think. So it is obvious that they do a lot of business and have lots of subscribers. Also they are a tier 1 providers and no one resells through them like the others. They are no small beans is what I am getting at.

Anyway if these NSPs like Astraweb continue on this course, and it will get worse if they do, they will see subscribers leaving en masse. Unless something is done to placate the subscribers, I can see some NSPs going out of business. The bigger you are the harder you fall as they say.

I would agree. Usenet is mostly pointless if everything is DMCA'd.

Anyone operating in the US is going to be subject to the DMCA.

1) If you're going to operate in the US I think you need to find a way to work within the law but make it work. IE delay the takedowns as long as the law allows. Manually process requests, bet everyone.. stall.

2) Move your business to countries that don't have laws like the DMCA. Asia, Eastern Europe etc..?

I saw those Astraweb comments on the newsbin forum and the poster didn't seem to have a clue. They know what their customers are downloading, they must know if they can't download that stuff, they've got no customers?


TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit
reply to sandman_1
said by sandman_1:

People need to send a message to these providers that do these auto take downs. Stevef (Astraweb rep from Newsbin forums) said Astraweb can't afford to hire someone to review the DMCA take down requests. If money is indeed that tight, then maybe Astraweb have more problems than they are willing to tell us. They are one of the biggest NSPs out there and do just about as much as Giganews and XSNews in total traffic through their servers, third place I think. So it is obvious that they do a lot of business and have lots of subscribers. Also they are a tier 1 providers and no one resells through them like the others. They are no small beans is what I am getting at.

Anyway if these NSPs like Astraweb continue on this course, and it will get worse if they do, they will see subscribers leaving en masse. Unless something is done to placate the subscribers, I can see some NSPs going out of business. The bigger you are the harder you fall as they say.

well the big issue is it's risk going out of business and please the copyright trolls or risk going to jail and having your life destroyed. Remember the government works for the company's now just ask mega upload if being in other countries works one where they just raid your entire life and then not even do anything after the fact.

So I'd know what I'd do. Sucks as a down loader but I can understand why they do it.

sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
No one said they shouldn't comply with take down requests. I think people would be fine if a human reviewed the requests and the content was removed within a reasonable amount of time.

You also have to consider the fact that these NSPs are in the business because they know damn well that people subscribe to Usenet for its infringing content. Usenet is as big as it is because of the binary groups and the content uploaded to those groups. DMCA take downs and having people around to handle those requests should be the cost of doing business, period.


TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by sandman_1:

No one said they shouldn't comply with take down requests. I think people would be fine if a human reviewed the requests and the content was removed within a reasonable amount of time.

You also have to consider the fact that these NSPs are in the business because they know damn well that people subscribe to Usenet for its infringing content. Usenet is as big as it is because of the binary groups and the content uploaded to those groups. DMCA take downs and having people around to handle those requests should be the cost of doing business, period.

The other issue is and we talked about this on a different forum is nobody knows how to shut their damn mouths. much as I like Nzbmatrix them people are bloody dumb. Every time a damn file is not working they got to say where it's still up like morons or ask who does not remove files.

I mean darn do all the work for the copyright trolls ya dip-shits.


Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:19
You guys didn't really think this gravy train was going to last forever, did you?

sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
For the noobs no.

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to Stem Bolt
I did but I've been using binaries since the 90s. It used to be this backwater part of the internet that was too complicated for the average joe to figure out.

I thought NZB's were great when they first came out. It took so long to download headers and read through it all (especially on a group like altl.binaries.multimedia) that being able to grab nzb's really saved alot of time.

I really never expected Usenet to mainstream enough for the MPAA/RIAA to bother with it. I was totally wrong


jarablue
Always be true to yourself

join:2001-06-11
Boxborough, MA
reply to Stem Bolt
When torrents and usenet get completely filtered, I guess it's back to IRC then? I don't think they can do anything about IRC...or can they?


Anon11192012

@optonline.net
reply to TOPDAWG
said by TOPDAWG:

The other issue is and we talked about this on a different forum is nobody knows how to shut their damn mouths. much as I like Nzbmatrix them people are bloody dumb. Every time a damn file is not working they got to say where it's still up like morons or ask who does not remove files.

I mean darn do all the work for the copyright trolls ya dip-shits.

This idea that keeping it secret is somehow going to stop files from being removed is stupid. If some people know, it's a good chance that the groups who DMCA it know it too. At least sharing this info will help some people get the files before they are removed.

newster

join:2011-09-26
said by Anon11192012 :

said by TOPDAWG:

The other issue is and we talked about this on a different forum is nobody knows how to shut their damn mouths. much as I like Nzbmatrix them people are bloody dumb. Every time a damn file is not working they got to say where it's still up like morons or ask who does not remove files.

I mean darn do all the work for the copyright trolls ya dip-shits.

This idea that keeping it secret is somehow going to stop files from being removed is stupid. If some people know, it's a good chance that the groups who DMCA it know it too. At least sharing this info will help some people get the files before they are removed.

I can understand why the copyright cops are upset their gravy train has been derailed. Now they resort to making idiotic arguments and desperate pleas that don't fool anyone.

It looks like NZB Matrix has now taken decisive action on things like UFC, with a new policy of disabling comments and preventing user posts. Asking or giving advice on how to get anything has always been officially against the rules on that usenet indexing site, but this recently enforced censorship has had a profound effect. Copyrighted usenet uploads are no longer being thoroughly DMCAed as soon as they appear.

sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
reply to Anon11192012
said by Anon11192012 :

This idea that keeping it secret is somehow going to stop files from being removed is stupid. If some people know, it's a good chance that the groups who DMCA it know it too. At least sharing this info will help some people get the files before they are removed.

No one said it would keep files from being removed. You have a chance of that with any provider. However the logic follows that if a mass exodus of subscribers are going to provider A because they have vocalized the fact that provider A doesn't do take downs or not as quickly, who do you think they would focus on now? Also NZBs posted to Usenet and not announced to these manual indexing sites usually go unnoticed. It doesn't hurt to keep your mouth shut is what I am saying.

@jarablue

When torrents and usenet get completely filtered, I guess it's back to IRC then? I don't think they can do anything about IRC...or can they?

From what I have seen, Mr. Joe M., has said he is eventually going after IRC on his Twitter account.

newster

join:2011-09-26
said by sandman_1:

From what I have seen, Mr. Joe M., has said he is eventually going after IRC on his Twitter account.

He seems to target his business on the things that few downloaders use and even fewer people in Hollywood have even heard of, in order that his false claims can't easily be exposed.

He can't claim to be stopping bittorrent without getting laughed at, because everyone already knows about the Pirate Bay. His customers can simply go there and see for themselves that he can't do squat about removing their media from TPB, no matter how much they pay him.