Ask HN: If the DMCA didn't "kill the Internet," would SOPA? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: If the DMCA didn't "kill the Internet," would SOPA?

7 pointscodex2 comments

Legitimate question here: before the DMCA was passed, there were many claims that it would kill the Internet. Is there any research into the positive or negative effects that it did have? I'm trying to get past the groupthink to objectively evaluate SOPA, and perhaps measure the effects it would have should it pass.

View on HN

The DMCA obviously hasn't killed the internet, but it is having some subtle and (IMO) pernicious effects on our culture. I wrote about some of them in this post on the Atlantic Tech Blog: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/the-st...

Here's the relevant excerpt:

An interesting example, as Ben Fino-Radin reports, is YouTube's removal of a video that incorporates spammy metadata into its conception as artwork.

> The video, likely known to most readers, features Cortright mundanely clicking through the stock effects of a $20 webcam, gazing bored into the screen of her computer, trance playing in the background. Far from offensive content. The violation lies in Cortright's use of keywords. The video description contained 733 keywords, ranging from "tits, vagina, sex, nude, boobs" to "san francisco, diego, jose, puto, taco bell, border patrol, mcdonalds, KFC, kentucky fried chicken, trans fat".

Andy Baio investigates another vector on which emerging art and culture are colliding headlong with proprietary services and broad legislation. YouTube's necessarily automated and algorithmic enforcement of copyright simply cannot make distinctions about fair use, and as a consequence is in some sense destroying the notion altogether. Mashups, remixes, and cover songs are routinely taken down with very little recourse for users.

Here's another interesting Andy Baio piece about someone who put up the movie Pulp Fiction in its entirety in chronological order:

A couple things struck me about this video.

First, I'm surprised that a full-length, 2.5-hour very slight remix of a popular film can survive on YouTube for over six weeks without getting removed. Now that it's on Kottke and Buzzfeed, I'm guessing it won't be around for much longer.

But I was just as amused by the video description:

> "The legendary movie itself placed into chronological order. If you'd like me to put the full movie itself up, let me know and I'll be glad to oblige. Please no copyright infringement. I only put this up as a project."

These "no copyright infringement intended" messages are everywhere on YouTube, and about as effective as a drug dealer asking if you're a cop. It's like a little voodoo charm that people post on their videos to ward off evil spirits.

http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/

Or there's the recent incident in which Universal issued DMCA takedowns of a youtube video that they had absolutely no rights to: http://searchengine.tvo.org/blog/search-engine-blog/audio-po...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/14234917026/univer...

And let's not forget the damage ICE does not only by taking down legit websites, but by refusing to act within their own procedures by not giving the seized domains in a timely manner.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/ice-admits-m...

No, it won't break the Internet, but it could break a legitimate business because of the media industry's eagerness to give away material to create buzz, then attempt to sure and financially ruin people claiming they were robbed of income. (And this isn't just some hiphop thing. Even Google/YouTube say copyright owners upload their own material under unassuming names, demand Google take it down, then get angry when it's removed.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com