Google Calls Shenanigans on MPAA's DMCA Interpretation

The MPAA has a well-earned reputation for, shall we say, "molding" their facts. But with its latest lawsuit against Hotfile, the group has apparently gone too far for Google's tastes. The search giant has just filed an Amicus brief objecting to the MPAA's "distortion" of the DMCA.

An Amicus brief is a court document filed by a third party in a case—neither the plaintiff or defendant—that volunteers information that may be relevant to the proceedings and would not have been discovered otherwise. In this case, Google's brief provided a legal opinion that the MPAA is full of shit in regards to the Safe Harbor provisions.

"Google is particularly concerned by some of the arguments offered by the plaintiffs, which distort the meaning of the statute and, if accepted, would unduly narrow the important protections those provisions give online service providers," the company wrote.

Google pointed to its own case against Viacom a few years back in which the search company successfully used the provisions as a defense. While the case has already been in progress for a over a year, the MPAA's sudden request for a summary judgement has apparently spurred Google to action. Looks like the MPAA's ploy to quietly cajole its lawsuit to fruition backfired. [Scribd, Amicus Curiae Wiki via Electronista - Image: Pakhnyushcha / Shutterstock]

via gizmodo.com

Wait. Hotfile still exists!? I guess i'm still a geek who loves the latest dirt on the copyright dust-up. MPAA bad... google... err... while I guess they're on the right side on this one.

Why TV Lost

Rarely do you see things put so susinctly. Sometimes I could just kiss Paul Graham, but that would be kind of weird and creepy. :)

He captures the inevitability of the TV vs. Internet war, the sheer obviousness and the magic and slaps it all down in a few hundred words like it was meant to be.

From: Why TV Lost

About twenty years ago people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they'd produce when they converged. We now know the answer: computers. It's clear now that even by using the word "convergence" we were giving TV too much credit. This won't be convergence so much as replacement. People may still watch things they call "TV shows," but they'll watch them mostly on computers.

What decided the contest for computers? Four forces, three of which one could have predicted, and one that would have been harder to.

One predictable cause of victory is that the Internet is an open platform. Anyone can build whatever they want on it, and the market picks the winners. So innovation happens at hacker speeds instead of big company speeds.

The second is Moore's Law, which has worked its usual magic on Internet bandwidth. [1]

The third reason computers won is piracy. Users prefer it not just because it's free, but because it's more convenient. Bittorrent and YouTube have already trained a new generation of viewers that the place to watch shows is on a computer screen. [2]

The somewhat more surprising force was one specific type of innovation: social applications. The average teenage kid has a pretty much infinite capacity for talking to their friends. But they can't physically be with them all the time. When I was in high school the solution was the telephone. Now it's social networks, multiplayer games, and various messaging applications. The way you reach them all is through a computer. [3] Which means every teenage kid (a) wants a computer with an Internet connection, (b) has an incentive to figure out how to use it, and (c) spends countless hours in front of it.

This was the most powerful force of all. This was what made everyone want computers. Nerds got computers because they liked them. Then gamers got them to play games on. But it was connecting to other people that got everyone else: that's what made even grandmas and 14 year old girls want computers.

After decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they'd be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another.

Facebook killed TV. That is wildly oversimplified, of course, but probably as close to the truth as you can get in three words.

youtube, free speach and the tyrany of private public spaces, v2

"Youtube. This account is suspended."

This is a story we're starting to see time and time again. Youtube deleting user accounts completely without any due cause being given to the owner of the account. Traditional media companies abusing the DMCA to silence critics.

It's an issue I've written about before.

As covered on newteevee Pubdef.net "an online destination for video reports from St. Louis and the state of Missouri published by Anotonio D. French, a newspaper reporter who was frustrated with local news coverage" had his entire youtube account deleted on accusations that one of his videos violated Channel 5 St. Louis' copyright.

The video (embeded below) was critical of Channel 5's unsubstantiated claims that an local alderman took bribes in a realestate swindle. Was it fair use or copyright infringement? View it below and be your own judge.



Pubdef has re-hosted the video on his own site. Of course the majority of the other 200+ videos are gone. You can read his original post over on pubdef.net.

What disturbs me most about this is it's hard to feel sorry for the guy and his readers when he apparently has gone right back to hosting his videos on youtube under the the new userneame PubDefTV. Dude! Move to a reputeable host like blip.tv!