Re: What is the goal of all these DMCA takedowns?
Posted by Danielle on .
If you mean the latest ones to affect Vimm, it seems pretty obvious that it was a test run of an AI bot. Even if it is like playing whack-a-mole, a robot can play that game a lot better than a human can, at least in theory. In practice, it seems their bot needs a little more work.
If you mean what's the point of DMCA takedowns in general, then it's to protect their intellectual property rights. Whether or not a work is in print is irrelevant to whether or not it's protected by copyright. I don't personally agree with that, but the law is the law.
Forfeiture of copyright through inaction was eliminated when the US became a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989. In addition, the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 greatly extended the duration of copyright and made renewal automatic. In the light of these legal developments, it is generally accepted that, unlike with trademarks, even if a rights holder allows a work to go out of print and refuses to enforce their copyright in the wake of rampant piracy, they still hold the copyright for the full 95 years after publication.
However, while copyright forfeiture no longer exists in the US, copyright abandonment is still applicable. It is generally believed that abandonment must be an intentional, overt act, as opposed to forfeiture, which could be unintentional. However, the exact process through which copyright can be abandoned has never been codified in law nor affirmed by federal courts. Indeed, there is not only precedent that abandonment need not be explicitly stated (either verbally or written), but there is conflicting precedent as to whether or not failure to enforce copyright constitutes abandonment. In particular, the concept of "abandonware" has never been tested in the courts. It is likely it would prove to be an untenable defense and dismissed, but that has yet to be seen.
I am not arguing that any copyright has been abandoned through inaction. Any lawyer will tell you that copyright cannot be abandoned this way. What I am arguing is that, to get ahead of the slim chance that an "abandonware" defense may succeed in the future and open the floodgates to a wide variety of software becoming public domain through inaction on the parts of rights holders, it is in the best interests of software publishers to routinely enforce their rights via DMCA takedown requests. So long as publishers are actively issuing such requests, distributors cannot claim the software to have been abandoned.
If you mean what's the point of DMCA takedowns in general, then it's to protect their intellectual property rights. Whether or not a work is in print is irrelevant to whether or not it's protected by copyright. I don't personally agree with that, but the law is the law.
Forfeiture of copyright through inaction was eliminated when the US became a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989. In addition, the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 greatly extended the duration of copyright and made renewal automatic. In the light of these legal developments, it is generally accepted that, unlike with trademarks, even if a rights holder allows a work to go out of print and refuses to enforce their copyright in the wake of rampant piracy, they still hold the copyright for the full 95 years after publication.
However, while copyright forfeiture no longer exists in the US, copyright abandonment is still applicable. It is generally believed that abandonment must be an intentional, overt act, as opposed to forfeiture, which could be unintentional. However, the exact process through which copyright can be abandoned has never been codified in law nor affirmed by federal courts. Indeed, there is not only precedent that abandonment need not be explicitly stated (either verbally or written), but there is conflicting precedent as to whether or not failure to enforce copyright constitutes abandonment. In particular, the concept of "abandonware" has never been tested in the courts. It is likely it would prove to be an untenable defense and dismissed, but that has yet to be seen.
I am not arguing that any copyright has been abandoned through inaction. Any lawyer will tell you that copyright cannot be abandoned this way. What I am arguing is that, to get ahead of the slim chance that an "abandonware" defense may succeed in the future and open the floodgates to a wide variety of software becoming public domain through inaction on the parts of rights holders, it is in the best interests of software publishers to routinely enforce their rights via DMCA takedown requests. So long as publishers are actively issuing such requests, distributors cannot claim the software to have been abandoned.
I think we know at this point that piracy is a hydra. You cut off one head 2, more come, yadayada. Why do they do this? Are they actually as deluded to think that they will be able to end piracy (using piracy as a catch all btw, I don't think emulating the hardware of a game console that's not even being sold anymore to be such) as a whole? Or is there another reason entirely?
I know that entertainment lobbying groups have been pressuring congress into forcing ISPs to block their sites, but I feel like there are more than a few ways around that. Are they ignorant, or are there alternative motives at hand?
I know that entertainment lobbying groups have been pressuring congress into forcing ISPs to block their sites, but I feel like there are more than a few ways around that. Are they ignorant, or are there alternative motives at hand?