Universal Pictures Wants To Remove Localhost and IMDB Pages From Google Results 188
Artem Tashkinov writes: We've all known for a very long time that DCMA takedown requests are often dubious and even more often outright wrong but in a new turn of events a Universal Pictures contractor which does web censorship has requested a takedown of an IMDB page and the 127.0.0.1 address. I myself has seen numerous times that pages which barely include the title of an infringing work of art get removed from search engines.
Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:5, Funny)
That 127.0.0.1 site is nothing but trouble. That's why I redirect it in my HOSTS file to localhost.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:5, Funny)
127.0.0.1 is clearly unresponsible to DMCA takedown efforts; legal approaches simply won't suffice. I recommend that Universal Pictures launch a coordinated effort hack into it using as many computers as possible, gain root access, and write over its hard drive.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:5, Funny)
It's clearly run by some scumbag hacker. I just went there, and he had all my files!
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:5, Funny)
I just went there too. You have some really sick stuff, pervert!
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:3)
Mine too! It's amazing how they seemed to know that I was looking for my stuff. Even more amazing, it's more up-to-date than my backups!
Fuck it. I'm done with backups. Whoever runs this site is doing a much better job than I could ever do.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:3)
Chances are that guy is using the same admin password you are too. It makes it much easier.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:5, Funny)
i launched a DOS attack on 127.0.0.1, i'm not sure how effective it will be though for some reason my computer has suddenly gotten really really slow.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:3)
You can be a lot more subtle - tell them that your host is xbcd.com
I always keep an "atashi" or "eg" subdomain on my sites configured thusly ;)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:4, Funny)
i launched a DOS attack on 127.0.0.1, i'm not sure how effective it will be though for some reason my computer has suddenly gotten really really slow.
A DOS attack? Dude, it's 2015 - you gotta upgrade that shit to a Windows attack.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
i launched a DOS attack on 127.0.0.1, i'm not sure how effective it will be though for some reason my computer has suddenly gotten really really slow.
You should have launched a Windows 3.11 attack instead.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
When I noticed that the address was the address of my machine, I did a quick find(1), but couldn't find the IMDB files or the takedown letter. Do you think I should contact Universal Pictures and ask them to send me another copy of the letter, so I can figure out which file to take down?
Actually, I noticed that all of our home machines (we have several, including tablets and smart phones) seem to have the same address. I guess that's to be expected, since ISPs only give us a single address, so we all have to use that silly NAT protocol and try to make sense of the confusion that it always creates. Anyway, I did look around on all of them, and still couldn't find anything with "Universal Pictures" inside. I did find a few files that contain "IMDB", but they're in the browsers' cache directories, and I got rid of those by simply telling the browsers to clear their cache(s).
But somehow I don't think this has taken care of the problem. So who should I contact at Universal Pictures to make sure we get a copy of the letter and purge our machines of their files?
(And for the benefit of many /. readers and mods, maybe I should end this with: ;-) Nah....
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:3)
I think the whole 192.168.X.X net should be taken down. I've noticed a lot of suspicious activity there . . .
On a more serious note .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:5, Funny)
I checked 127.0.0.1 and didn't see any IMDB pages. I can see why they'd want it taken down though. It had a bunch of sick German ScheissePorn and some goat porn as well. I already had all of it though.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
That 127.0.0.1 site is nothing but trouble. That's why I redirect it in my HOSTS file to localhost.
Hehe, depends on what you want. I have checked for myself and 127.0.0.1 is full of first class porn.
Oh wait...
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
You wouldn't believe the amount of porn I find on 127.0.0.1. Don't they know kids use the internet? What if some kid went there and saw, and I quote directly "Belt-sanders and Geese, Teen, Facial, Fetish"? Google really needs to lock this down.
take down 208.73.211.70 (Score:2)
those guys are shamelessly using Universal content
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:5, Funny)
Quite the opposite, I hope?
I try not to let technical details get in the way of a lame joke.
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:3)
I have it on good authority that half of all people are stupider than average.
Re: Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
Re:Redirecting 127.0.0.1 (Score:2)
Not Stupid Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this incident will get more press, but I'm not holding my breath.
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:3)
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:5, Funny)
You just gave me a great idea for a way to index torrents...
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when you let industry write your damned laws.
The DMCA was written in such a way as to basically leave a wide trail for companies to totally abuse and misuse it. Because this was the law they bought and paid for to ensure they could do anything they wanted without penalty.
All of these issues were pointed out at the time, and the law got passed anyway, because these days the lawmakers are all beholden to industry and don't give a damn how badly the law has been written.
But nobody at all should be surprised at this crap. Because it is pretty much by design -- they can do almost anything they want with no real accountability. All they have to do is claim incompetence and they're magically forgiven.
It's a broken, lop-sided law which gave the copyright lobby the ability to threaten and intimidate as they see fit.
But don't think for a minute this was by accident. The DMCA is one of the most industry friendly laws in existence, and completely failed to hold them to any standard of accountability.
This is what happens when your legal system becomes co-opted to favor corporate interests above all else.
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Apply penalty of perjury to the entirety of the takedown notice, just as it is currently applied to counternotices.
2) Take away safe harbor status not only for failing to abide by the notice process, but also for failing to abide by the counternotice process.
Neither is earthshatteringly new, but it would take all of two lines of ink and a bit of political will. User-generated content companies like Google and Facebook could even provide that will. #1 is unambiguously good for them because it will lead to fewer DMCA notices they have to deal with. And even though #2 looks bad for them, it actually makes their lives much easier in that it legally mandates they do what they want to anyway (but which studios try to prevent): keep content up with minimal hassle.
Note the bullshit Universal that was pulling back in 2007--issuing blanket (i.e. not in good faith) takedown notices for Prince's music to everyone on the internet (including the mom who posted video of her kids dancing)--is still being litigated [wikipedia.org].
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:2)
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:2)
floppy's proposal would make real changes to how things work, so I don't see how just waving your hands about the part you think is worse stops it from being real change.
I would say your idea doesn't affect his at all, and isn't even important. Certainly it doesn't address the issue in the current context.
I will say, you at least have the NSA on your side in opposing encryption. I'm a lot more concerned about abuse of process, myself. Must be the white hat.
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:2)
Legally near-impossible, as it's required by international agreement.
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:2)
Legally near-impossible, as it's required by international agreement.
This aspect doesn't get enough attention. I researched copyright reform ideas for a paper in law school, and found (to my surprise, even though I follow IP stuff pretty closely) that we are hamstrung many times over in what reforms we could actually enact, on account of treaties we largely bullied the rest of the world into signing.
Term reduction, mandatory registration, escalating fee structures... none of that is really on the table in light of our treaty obligations. Not only do ratified treaties sit in a sweet spot just south of the Constitution itself, but these particular ones we've been pushing hard for decades. I was unaware of the mandatory encryption-breaking prohibition, but it does not surprise me.
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:2)
There is indeed a mandatory prohibition on circumventing any technological means of copyright enforcement, under the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty. The US implements this by the DMCA, the EU via their Copyright Directive which instructs member states to modify their own laws accordingly. The same treaty also mandates that the duration of copyright must be at least fifty years for any kind of work, though countries are able to set the term as long as they wish beyond this, and usually do.
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:2)
I believe the claim of infringement needs to be a good-faith complaint, so what we need is some teeth in the idea of a good-faith complaint. Unfortunately, I have no idea on how to objectively tell if something is good faith or not, or suggestions on making it feasible to challenge in court.
As I understand it, if a host takes down user content within the time frame allotted, it is not liable to the copyright owner, and if it goes through the counter-claim process it is not liable to the user. The copyright owner has achieved its goals when the user content goes down, and isn't going to sue the host if the host doesn't allow the counter-claim process. If the host doesn't use the counter-claim process, the host is liable to the user for whatever obligations the host has, which in most cases is none. Most hosts get no money from their users, and do not accept any responsibility.
If hosts were required to accept and process counter-claims, that would raise their expenses, and they'd tend to simply ban what they thought might cause a DMCA takedown.
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:2)
Just who's really being hurt here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just who's really being hurt here? (Score:2)
Sounds like a fun game except when you realize that to do that means taking down tons of non-infringing stuff.
so to make a point and an example of Universal, you are basically going to affect who knows how many non-related entities which
would not be found to be infringing.
its like saying "we agree with you that your stuff is not infringing but we want to make an example of universal so we are going to do damage to you by removing all your non-infringing work from our search results"
Re:Not Stupid Enough (Score:3)
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that no matter how blatantly bad and stupid these companies get with takedown abuse, it won't be until some senator or congressperson's page gets sent a spurious takedown notice. Anyone with any awareness or interest in the issue already knows how bad the situation is.
Maybe this incident will get more press, but I'm not holding my breath.
Dear, dear child. Welcome to slashdot. I don't want to trigger you or make you feel like this isn't a safe space, but Senators and Congresscritters have staff who read their email and answer their phones. They won't do something when a false notice is issued to them, because it will be quickly and easily Dealt With by their staff calling the company, informing them who they sent the notice to, and then saying "thank you" after they agree to withdraw it.
Re: Not Stupid Enough (Score:2)
Hanlon's Razor Corollary: Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.
Google's Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Google's opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and do no evil:
Forget Universal Pictures and the contractor.
Comcast (Score:2)
Without Xfinity, which shares a corporate parent with Universal Pictures, how will Google reach much of the United States market?
Re:Comcast (Score:2)
Can you imagine how quickly Comcrap would go under if they tried to block Google?
Re:Comcast (Score:2)
Um, not at all?
What exactly are the ComCrap customers going to do, switch to another ISP? Oh wait, there is no other ISP!
This is the whole problem.
Re:Comcast (Score:2)
The point was the block from Comcast would be unenforceable, because too many users would be affected and complain
Why would it be unenforceable? Who cares if they complain? Why should Comcast listen to them? Why would Comcast care about their customers complaining?
When you're a monopoly, you don't have to worry about things like customer satisfaction. People complain about Comcast all the time, but it doesn't matter because there aren't many other choices so people continue to get service with them, even though they hate it.
torrentfreak anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
So we're just reposting torrentfreak articles now? Ok, sounds about right.
This is a prime example of how the DMCA is a farce. The entire burden is loaded onto the user, not the ones demanding things to be taken down. How the hell local host even showed up in their crawl is something I want explained to me, that simply does not compute, 127 would NEVER be involved in a torrent pool, so how did they crap that address?
and shouldn't imdb be flagged as save at the base url? Don't these companies actually PAY to be on imdb? I might be confused there, but in any event, IMDB is fully operating within the law and in no way infringes any copyrights.
So they run a script and scrapes, I guess the entire internet and their local network, and this automatically sends DMCA takedown requests, which for the most part are honoured without question. Then the user, who had every legal right to do whatever they did, has to spend their time and money to try to get this undone. The system is broken and ripe for abuse.
DMCA takedowns for bird chirps? Sorry, you can not own a copyright to generic bird songs, that's insanity.
Here's a funny thought... 3 bad takedown requests in a month means you can no longer make takedown requests. Hows that sound? Seems fair to me.
Re:torrentfreak anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Google should interpret Universal's request to delist "127.0.0.1" as "We want you to delist us" and promptly oblige ;)
Re:torrentfreak anyone? (Score:2)
Yet, their automated tools say I'm infringing, I guess on myself?
Did the automated tools specify an artist and title, or did they just say "contains music"?
Punctuation & Spelling Counts, Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the "DCMA"; it's the "DMCA", also known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
There should be a comma before the word "but" in the first (run-on) sentence.
And it's not "I myself has seen"; it should be "I myself have seen".
Even blogs need editors.
Par for the course (Score:3)
The infringement is coming (Score:5, Funny)
from INSIDE THE HOUSE!
Re:The infringement is coming (Score:2)
Infringement is People! -- Charlton Heston
johnny depp (Score:5, Funny)
I checked out that site, and it's clearly infringing on Universal Pictures' recent film "You Have Successfully Installed Apache".
Re:johnny depp (Score:2)
Re:johnny depp (Score:2)
Unable to connect (Score:2)
De finibus (Score:2)
All I got was something called Lorem Ipsum.
I imagine type geeks might be interested in a film adaptation of M. T. Cicero's On the Ends of Good and Evil [wikipedia.org].
But how would it play out? Would it become a drama with characters who act in ways that represent Epicureanism and Stoicism and then show where those philosophies fail?
Re:johnny depp (Score:2)
Holy Crap! You just unearthed the dialog from the next "Under The Dome" episode!
Charge for false requests (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Google should start charging them for false requests. $1 each and I bet sooner or later they are going to start having a human check them before sending the take down requests.
Re:Charge for false requests (Score:2, Insightful)
$1,000 for false requests. Payable in advance, returned if found legit.
Re:Charge for false requests (Score:2)
I think Google should start charging them for false requests. $1 each and I bet sooner or later they are going to start having a human check them before sending the take down requests.
How about just calling it a convenience fee, and let's make it $25.37 for no apparent reason.
We have met the enemy and he is 127.0.0.1 (Score:3)
Apologies to Walt Kelly
We have met the enemy [otegony.com] (Pogo)
Here kitty kitty.... (Score:5, Funny)
Does you yourself has cheezburger?
I volunteer (Score:2)
My poor sex life (Score:2)
"Localhost"? (Score:2)
Re:"Localhost"? (Score:2)
The whole point is that the request was absurd, and absurd in such an obvious way that for Universal (Or their contractor) to make it demonstrates a level of incompetence. If their software is so poorly-written and their checks so insufficient as to detect IMDB and even localhost as infringing, how many perfectly legal websites have they had taken down from Google due to similar but less-noticeable errors?
High-volume requesters should do "due diligence" (Score:2)
Out of every million requests you are going to have some obvious mistakes. That's human nature. But it's a huge problem when companies just "throw a bunch of requests at the wall and see what sticks" without much cost to them for invalid requests.
Google and others who receive large volumes of requests should have some procedure to weed out those who send too many requests where the sender obviously didn't do his "due diligence" or worse, is trying to game the system.
Hopefully they can work out a voluntary system with the high-volume DMCA-takedown-notice requesters where the requester agrees in advance to pay "liquidated damages" (aka a "Google fine") for every rejected request and where they accept that they will be put into a "slow processing lane" if their rate of such requests gets too high.
If Google etc. can't come to a voluntary agreement with a particular high-volume sender and that sender's rate of invalid requests gets too high, Google, etc. should take the requester to court to get an order prohibiting the requester from sending any future request without an affidavit declaring that they have done "due diligence." If they don't sign the oath, it won't be a valid request. If they do sign it and didn't do the due diligence, they will be found in contempt of court and face criminal perjury charges.
Re:High-volume requesters should do "due diligence (Score:5, Informative)
Ha ha ha .. boy are you naive.
See the DMCA was written in such a way as to shield the people filing the requests. When they wrote the law (and, yes, it was corporate lobbyists who wrote it) they gave themselves a get out of jail free card ... so while they are effectively making a sworn statement, all they have to do is say they genuinely believed it was infringing and all is forgiven.
The DMCA is badly written because it was designed to let corporations do anything they want without consequences.
Talking about adding a voluntary system whereby they are held to some level of accountability? Not gonna happen.
Because the people who were on the corporate payroll to pass the laws in the first place only care about what the corporations have told them to do.
Welcome to a world in which governments are basically working to advance corporate interests above all else.
Crap like this is kind of the inevitable outcome of that, and the copyright lobby have bought themselves the keys to the kingdom.
Lenz v. Universal Music (Score:3)
Google, etc. should take the requester to court to get an order prohibiting the requester from sending any future request without an affidavit declaring that they have done "due diligence."
Each notice of claimed infringement under OCILLA is supposed to already include such an affidavit. Universal's former parent company has already been in trouble for this [wikipedia.org].
Re:High-volume requesters should do "due diligence (Score:2)
It's what collection agencies do with lawsuits and what many mortgage holders have done when going after homeowners.
The collection companies have gotten bad press from filing bogus lawsuits with inadequate documentation. Like sending summonses for their suits to the wrong address, resulting in bench warrants being issued to people who never got the notices and ignored the default judgements that resulted. I don't think most county level civil courts did much about it, though.
The mortgage industry I think earned more heat from bankruptcy courts when they showed up with bad documentation that basically couldn't prove they owned the mortgages. I think some judges got annoyed with the mass litigation many engaged in and started discharging the mortgages unless they could provide accurate documentation, but I think it only happened after a few savvy defense attorneys began to understand the maze of paperwork and lack of legal documents (ie, pen and paper notarized paperwork) that actually proved the plaintiffs owned the mortgages.
IMHO, there ought to be a set of steep progressive penalties imposed on both counsel and plaintiff who file serial/mass litigation with flimsy or substantively inaccurate documentation. Like the first one is a slap on the wrist, the second within some window of the first is a $10,000 fine and the third in the same window is a $100k fine, risk of disbarment to counsel and perjury charges to the plaintiff. You need these kinds of penalties to restrain counsel and clients.
DMCA abused for SEO purposes (Score:5, Insightful)
We all agree that it's a bot being used to detect references to Universal Picture's works... but the purpose? Not to stop piracy, but to eliminate search results from competing with United's own marketing. While the IMDB link is obviously unintentional, it is also most likely the top result.
Basically, they're knocking out anything that competes in searches, regardless of actual pirated content.
DMCA? Typos are the devil!~! (Score:2)
I think you meant DMCA...
Turnabout is fair play (Score:2)
As long as we have to live with DMCA, it seems only fair that there be a compensatory mechanism requiring payment for false claims.
You can't keep calling the police or fire dept on spurious emergencies, why can you do it in this context?
Dear Universal.... (Score:2)
That 127.0.0.1 address is coming from INSIDE YOUR COMPANY!
DMCA takedown system is a farce (Score:5, Interesting)
About 10 months ago, I found my high school graduation video cassette from 1987, so I picked up a used VCR and ripped it and put it up on youtube for family to view. Last month, I uploading another video and noticed that a DMCA claim had been placed on my graduation video, but the "copyright holder" would allow the video to remain, they were just going to monetize it. My graduation video was shot by my brother and had our high school band playing Pomp and Circumstance, which is in the public domain. There is no way this is under copyright, so I looked them up and the "song" that I was allegedly violating the copyright of. It turns out that the "copyright holder" was a crappy English DJ duo who had appropriated Pomp and Circumstance in one of their soccer fight songs. The funny part is that my video is 28 years old, their song is about a year old.
I countered their claim with all the info above and the claim was removed.
I realize this was probably a simple signature match, but it only goes to show how broken this system is. I didn't actually received an email about the DMCA claim. There are only 2 emails in my inbox containing the video title, one was when I published it and the other was when the copyright claim was removed, so they don't appear to even be notifying people when a claim is made, at least in the case where the "copyright holder" decides to monetize rather than take the video down, and that is even more nefarious in my opinion. I wasn't monetizing my video, and it has less than 50 views, but if I had been monetizing it and had a larger audience, they would have been stealing from me without my even knowing it. I only noticed the original claim when I uploaded another video to youtube.
Re:DMCA takedown system is a farce (Score:2)
I had a similar experience - a video I uploaded as a demonstration of some restoration filters was flagged by content-ID. The audio in question was the original song - dating from the silent movie era, and so ancient it was public domain even in the US. There was no option to appeal, however: While you can issue a counternotice for a DMCA takedown, there is no such option for content-ID, nor any means of raising questions concerning the legitimacy of the copyright claim. Which in this case was a collections agency. I would guess they purchased the rights to a library of old silent-movie music, then submitted it in bulk without bothering to actually check the validity of the copyright.
I've also been the recipient of an actual DMCA claim - for a few clips I took from an episode of Pokemon in order to make a thirty-second comedic edit. It wasn't very funny anyway.
Re:DMCA takedown system is a farce (Score:2)
I would guess they purchased the rights to a library of old silent-movie music, then submitted it in bulk without bothering to actually check the validity of the copyright
This is a HUGE part of the problem, and there should be a serious penalty for making spurious, un-validated claims like this or it will never stop.
It sounds like your other video qualified as fair use, which doesn't seem to be respected any more either, and that is also problematic, as fair use for the purpose of criticism, commentary and parody is a pretty important method of exercising free speech.
Re:DMCA takedown system is a farce (Score:2)
It was a clear enough case of fair use. I could have submitted a counternotice, but I decided against doing so - I suspect I actually annoyed a real human, not just a bot, because my joke was a little offensive and they had done nothing about other people uploading the entire episode from which I took clips. They may well have escalated to an actual legal action, and I know how that turns out: I'd win, but have to spend my entire life savings on legal fees.
Remove news article from Techdirt (Score:2)
"And while we’re on the topic of self censorship, it’s worth noting that Universal Pictures also asked Google, in a separate notice, to remove127.0.0.1 from the search results. ref [torrentfreak.com]
Computers are stupid (Score:2)
Anyone that deals with complex computer programs knows they make really really really dumb mistakes all the time. Here someone will say "but they only do what the programmer told them to do"... yes... exactly what the programmer told them to do. And that means they have no sense of judgement. Every little thing has to be explained in complete detail or the fucking thing fucks it up eventually.
And that's fine. You just have to understand that's how it works. Too often people look at computers as these mad little demon geniuses in a bottle that can do calculation magic. Forgetting that computers are actually extremely fucking stupid and will fuck the pooch in the ass at the drop of a hat if the program directs that behavior in some unusual circumstance.
and because its funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
point is, you can't just trust these lists the computers kick out. You need to have someone eyeball these things. Failing to filter out localhost? Fuck you. That's just incompetence.
interesting stuff (Score:2)
Re: Web censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
It absolutely does and every free country on earth recognises this. That is exactly why all the disparate laws with so many differences you deceptively lump together as "intellectual property " do have one thing in common : they all have limitations that make them temporary. The mechanism of expiration vary widely but they all expire. No physical property rights expire. You can inherited land for unlimited generations. But copyright and patents have time limits, trademarks have to be renewed and are lost if they become generic. These expiration are exactly because they are, all, censorship and the trade off is only worth while if that censorship is temporary.
Unlike copyrights, patents expire. (Score:2)
all the disparate laws with so many differences you deceptively lump together as "intellectual property " do have one thing in common : they all have limitations that make them temporary.
Patents expire after twenty years, exclusive rights in "mask works" (integrated circuit layouts) after ten. As for the rest, where did you get that information? Trademark registrations are indefinitely renewable as long as the mark remains in use, and the U.S. copyright term is routinely extended for 20 years at a time (Copyright Act of 1976; Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998; ruled constitutional by SCOTUS in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 2003).
Re:Unlike copyrights, patents expire. (Score:3)
Re:Unlike copyrights, patents expire. (Score:2)
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) that a copyright term is "limited" so long as it is limited at any given point in time. An extension of 20 years every 20 years is still "limited".
Re: Web censorship (Score:2)
They almost* all expire, but the term can be increased easily - and is increased. Often. To the point that it may never run out, as the increases are past to roughly the same length as the calender advances.
*There is one non-expiring copyright: Peter Pan, within the UK. It's a special case, granted to a childrens' hospital in perpetuity as a recognition of their charitable work.
Re: Web censorship (Score:2)
Re:Web censorship (Score:2)
Protecting people's intellectual property doesn't really count as censorship.
There is a border between the two, and copyright owners often disagree with reusers where that border is. For example, under what circumstances does using excerpts of a work in reviews of that work become infringement? If this is not considered carefully, copyright ends up giving a work's copyright owner power to censor negative reviews.
Re:Web censorship (Score:2)
Re: Funny thing about Hollywood (Score:3)
If those damn actors, directors, and writers would just stop making movies then we wouldn't have this problem.
Re: Funny thing about Hollywood (Score:2)
I am doing my very best to burn as much of that pesky oil as I can in order to take it out of the environment. Seeing as how dangerous it is when spilled, any sane environmentalist would come to the same conclusion. Oil is just too dangerous to be left in the wild!
Does whatever a spider can (Score:2)
Maybe they learn how to write a spider/crawler next time.
Sony and Marvel might have a problem with that.
The artist formerly known as O(+> (Score:2)
I am surprised that Weird Al hasn't been so suppressed.
He has. How many parodies of songs by Prince are included on "Weird Al" Yankovic's albums? None. The closest he comes are a single line at the end of the first verse of "Amish Paradise" and a line in the second chorus of "Word Crimes".
Re:The artist formerly known as O(+ (Score:3)
Errors and omissions insurance (Score:2)
And the fact that he does ask for permission is why he doesn't appear suppressed to the general public. There are plenty of parodies that casual fans may not be aware of, such as "Chicken Pot Pie" [vulture.com]. In practice, it's often not a judge as much as an E&O insurer [wikipedia.org] that decides what's safe to release.