Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Is this what is stopping iBooks being available for sale in New Zealand?
(ie: a digital remnant of the publishers’ division of global territories)Pretty much, yes.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
You, sir, are a very strange man. Keep on keeping on! :-D
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
The content industry (of which I am a part) really needs to get ahead of this stuff. Unfortunately a massive number of complex rights management systems they've built up over years stand in the way and push people toward less-than-legal options...
Yup. On this we totally agree ;-)
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Peter Graham,
Universal sued Sony in 1983 for making Betamax recorders because they're mostly used for copyright infringement.
And lost. How ironic. #can'tstopthesignal
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
just for the sheer shadeunfreude-y goodness of watching two divisions of Sony go on a litigation jihad against another. :)
We've been seeing that for a while with Sony building MP3 and video players that you have to break copyright to load up. I think it gets resolved around the board table rather than in court, especially if both divisions make money.
-
The Bail hearing is still proceeding, according to Stuff
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Peter Graham,
YouTube does automatically compare audio and video against a database of works whose owners have complained to YouTube
Yes, that might do it. But many of MU's files would be zipped or rar files. Extracting the audio out would be difficult. MU could have done something similar, but didn't
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Martin Roberts,
The indictment clearly claims (para 22) that MU did de-dupe (using MD5 hashes). It goes on to say that they demonstrated the ability to remove underlying content w.r.t. terrorist and child-porn material. Yet they never did this for DMCA complaints. It is also claimed that they misled copyright holders over this in “negotiations” over their ‘Abuse Tool’.
Good god, you’re quite right. Mea culpa, I missed that.
Edit: However, the MD5 hash will be different if even a bit is different, so this will only work for absolutely identical files
So, apologies to Dylan, they did dedupe, but that won't stop multiple copies of essentially the same file being available on the server.
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
The relevant wording in the DMCA is:
upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
Disabling the public URL that provides access to a file certainly meets this test.
Fair point, I had believed it was takedown or nothing (note to self - reread the DMCA) but negated by Graeme's comment. If access to the file was not completely removed, then the file was still available and still infringing. Even more so in your scenario of deduping.
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Even if there are two URLs and you only disable one?
Which is precisely what the indictment says they did.