Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (Score 1) 597

(4) At that point the alleged copyright owner can file a lawsuit against the alleged violator. The ISP has immunity since it followed steps 1-3

Could the actual copyright owner (NASA in this case) not initiate a prosecution for perjury against the person/organisation who submitted the original takedown notice.? Not only that but claim damages from them as well.

To what end?

Do you know what damages means?

NASA is owned by the government. Who is gonna do the suing?

-AI

Comment Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (Score 1) 597

I understand that's how it's supposed to work, but quite a few people have found it worked for them as I described. Within days (or sometimes hours) of getting their videos reinstated, they'd get another takedown on the same video from the same source. And when you get your 3rd, youtube will suspend your account. You'd expect they'd ignore repeat takedowns, and you'd expect they'd un-tick the three-strikes counter when a counterclaim was filed, but they don't and they don't. At least sometimes. Maybe it's improved recently.

I just reviewed some more recent information and it looks like that in at least some cases they temp suspend you now and send you a "copyright quiz" to fill out. If you pass, you get your account back. If not, you have to wait a few days to retake the quiz. They weren't specific about three strikes, but some accounts can be suspended immediately without even a second incident if they consider the violation bad enough. They also appear to ban other accounts with the same email address on them, so don't use a shared email account (such as family) or you may become collateral damage from the banhammer.

There doesn't appear to be any clear spelled out hard rules anywhere. They're probably trying to keep their options open. If they put it in writing, then their enforcement/interpretation will be disputed.

And just because,... what is insult without injury...? YT will seize all profits
from ALL videos you own, if you continue to violate TOS. Even if you are
NOT violating the TOS. And not just the video in question.

-AI

Comment Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (Score 1) 597

I appealed the match, but all this meant was that YouTube simply ask the purported "owner" for a manual match. They claimed that they had watched both videos and agreed that they matched, and that was all YouTube wanted. As far as YT were concerned, the appeal had been lost, and the decision was final.

So, I made a DMCA claim on YouTube against the TV channel. Nothing happened. Zip. Nada. In the end, I removed the video, as I'd rather no one got the advertising revenue from my work, than someone who had copied it from me in the first place.

But why didn't you sue them? /s

-AI

Comment Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (Score 1) 597

Not only that... the "court" won't know about it, unless you sue.

Chances of winning THAT suit, without a lawyer, next to zero.
So, next problem, coming up with money for that lawyer.

Then, damages... are the damages more than the lawyer?

Yeah. Exactly.

You gotta love a country built on capitalism. That is... if you
are a rich capitalist.

Everyone else can just go fuck themselves.

-AI

Comment Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (Score 1) 597

How does this work? A DMCA notice requires somebody to certify under penalty of perjury that he represents the copyright holder. Perjury is a felony that carries up to five years in prison. In a system where scentences are served consecutively, such a script could easily get you sent to prison for the rest of your life.

That word [sic] doesn't mean what you think it means.

-AI

Comment Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II (Score 1) 597

Solution: Automate the "Nope, this isn't copyright" process too. If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person. The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it. Problem solved.

and who the hell ever gets punished for fake notices?

Seriously man... what planet are you from?

The only ones that can get auto-anything done are the ones that rule the world:
The Golden Rule - He who has the gold, rules.

And fining them, well... that means that they make less money, how the fuck would that work? /s

-AI

Comment Re:Pointless (Score 1) 331

To be honest, despite the dire doom and gloom warnings of people that the "end times will come" to first generation adopters of SSD's, I've got a first generation OCZ drive that's still chugging along and working like the day it was new.

Thanks for that.

I did jump both feet into the SSD thing, knowing I could hit that switch
one day and be met with the same silence, just less screen =)

It's good to hear from a person that their SSD hasn't died on them.

FWIW, I hope you didn't jinx yourself.

-AI

Comment Pointless (Score 4, Informative) 331

SSD's were recently @ $1/Gig. That's when I upgraded everything.

I've seen them as low as 55-65c a gig now. Yeah... gotta love how
tech drops in price RIGHT AFTER you decide to adopt.

Buy a WHOLE SSD drive. Put all the programs you use daily on it.

120G ~ $70

That is all.

FWIW, except for bulk storage, I will NEVER buy a spinning HD again.
I experienced a RIDICULOUS speed up, going from a 7200rpm drive.

-AI

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...