When we read stories like Tanya Andersen’s and consider the countless others who have been wrongfully targeted by trade groups like the RIAA, it becomes evident that the system by which DMCA takedown notices are issued is very far from perfect. For the uninitiated, DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown notices are official statements which assert that an artist’s or company’s intellectual rights have been violated (i.e. copyright infringement) and often threaten legal action against an individual. In a study conducted by the University of Washington, researchers proved that this system is seriously flawed, according to the New York Times. In one experiment, the team received takedown notices from the MPAA which accused 3 laserjet printers of downloading the latest Indiana Jones movie and Iron Man. More, inside…
The main problem with the system, researchers contend, is that enforcement agencies are only looking at IP addresses of those participating on peer-to-peer networks and don’t focus on the actual files being transferred. The article says,
In two separate studies in August 2007 and May of this year, the researchers set out to examine who was participating in BitTorrent file-sharing networks and what they were sharing. The researchers introduced software agents into these networks to monitor their traffic. Even though those software agents did not download any files, the researchers say they received more than 400 take-down requests accusing them of participating in the downloads.
The research team, including Michael Piatek a graduate student, says these takedown notices should be viewed with some skepticism. He says, “Because current enforcement techniques are weak, it is possible that anyone, regardless of sharing content or using BitTorrent, could get a D.M.C.A. takedown notice claiming they were committing copyright infringement.”
Mr. Kohno, an assistant professor at the university said, “Our study scientifically shows that flaws exists.” He adds, “It’s impossible to prove that other flaws don’t exist, especially since current industry practices are so shrouded in mystery. Ultimately, we think that our results should provide a wake-up call for more openness on the parts of content enforcers.”
We hope that these kinds of studies help to bring about changes in the way that DMCA takedown notices are issued. Copyright infringement lawsuits have turned into big business for trade groups but they continually fail to consider the innocent victims which are being snagged in their massive net. To accuse someone of a crime is serious business, it is only fair that the method by which they are accused be just as serious.
The Inexact Science Behind D.M.C.A. Takedown Notices [New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
Microsoft Asks Google To Censor Bing, U.S. Government In Automated DMCA Takedown Notices
-
FCC To Look Into Legality Of Unlocking Cellphones, May Not Be Able To Do Anything
-
Westinghouse Digital Offers Two Little TVs Instead Of Replacing My Big One
-
Guy Figures If He Boots His Own Car, Thieves Won’t Be So Tempted To Steal It
-
Congresswoman To Introduce Bill To Make Cellphone Unlocking Legal Again
people who say songs should cost pennies are fucking retards. would any of these people want to get paid pennies for when they go to work everyday? while yes, trent reznor and coldplay can get away with these new digital distribution/pay what you want methods, any smaller band would suffer horrendously, id hate to think of making pennies off the album i’ve put so many hours into to finish. with smaller bands we’re lucky if we break even, most of us are happy to break even, i know i am.
im so sick of everyone wanting something for nothing. pennies.. pffft
edit:, that was mainly towards first commenter, skankingmike
crap, hit post again by accident.. but i meant to add that if songs were “pennies” artists would get less than a penny, for reference a friend of mine on an independent label gets i think 20 cents per song sold through itunes where each song costs 99c on average, thats shit.
great, comments are gone, but to summarize, skankingmike and people like him dont realize that songs SHOULDNT cost pennies, none of us want to go to our fulltime job for pennies, why would a musician? only reason trent reznor/coldplay/etc can get away with this stuff is because of their already high popularity level, on an independent scale, it would fail horribly.
@krztov
I’m a composer. I write music and lyrics. I do, however have a composing partner and he contributes changes in music and style. Having said that, I’d be happy getting a penny everytime someone listened to it on youtube or myspace never underestimate the power of millions of hits at a penny a piece. Sure I worked oh say…10 hours to produce a song start to finish. BTW, I have a studio.. The point being made here is the RIAA is obsolete! When artist like Prince and Stephen King can release to the web and directly make money the future is written in stone. However, krztov have a nice life living in the past.
@krztov: dude, if you’re in it for the money, you’re in it for all the wrong reasons. i get your point about pennies, but have you ever heard the term “starving artist“?
artists aren’t supposed to get stupid rich & live knee-deep in blow & hookers b/c then they lose an integral part of their talent – perspective. & (generally speaking, of course) this is exactly when bands start to suck it up big time.
& consider that your friend gets 20¢ on a 99¢ song – 20% of retail – does he see anything close to that on physical CD sales? i doubt it (unless he’s burning them himself). also, consider that he’s widened his market from his local venues to billions of listeners worldwide with ZERO manufacturing cost. not too shabby considering most record contracts front a lump sum & artists are lucky to see any money whatsoever from sales until they meet some unrealistic, constantly changing sales quota. this is how labels & the riaa thrive – racketeering & loan sharking. they’re nothing but
i think this sums up my thoughts on that nicely:
@InThrees: that is some rationalization there. guess delusions are the only way to make ourselves feel better.
I guess the industry screwed up thinking people would want a higher quality listening experience instead of mp3s on their computer or other mobile devices. Personally, I would rather listen to Monica Goodling speak than mp3s on a computer or whatever device.
Sit in parking lots of businesses that offer free wireless when they are closed at night — download your brains out, big win.
@mac-phisto: @mac-phisto: mustve not noticed the whole part where i said itd be nice to break even, gear costs money, as does time.
@mikelotus: “Rationalization” implies I’m trying to justify a habit or practice of mine, and that’s not the case here. There is a lot of literature available detailing how the major labels essentially hold artists in thrall, how a song or album that sells millions of copies might not even make a car payment for the artist(s) in question.
The business model is broken and outdated and I have no sympathy for their stopgap attempts to go back in time.
This is lamp oil vs incandescent bulbs, pure and simple. Off the top of my head I can think of a few ways the labels could turn this around and actually profit off broadband, but they’re too mired in the past to do it.
And no, I don’t mean “the days of wine and honey” profit, those days are probably gone… but adapt or be bowled over.