Reckless DMCA Deindexing Pushes NASA's Artemis Towards Black Hole
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
Not as if it’s a unique name either. Artëm is common for men in Russia and Ukraine.
The cultural appropriation, to the extent that it does occur, is simply profitable within this framework. It's more like cultural maceration, the guts are thrown away, and the brightly colored chitin is all that remains.
Most of the results for "artemis onlyfans/instagram" are Caucasian. Meaning it is overwhelmingly likely that the model in question is a descendant, at least in part, of literal Artemis worshiping pagans, and is thus not committing any appropriation.
If there is anything to learn here, it's that...
- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because there are zero protections for false claims (tell me what I don't already know), and,
- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because the cost to actually find, takedown, and potentially prosecute infringements of your work is astronomical.
It is a law that makes everyone miserable, except Google, who gets to push papers around and wash their hands of everything.
Consider wikipedia which regularly rejects most [1] of the dmca notices it gets because it cares enough to actually read them and ignore the ones that are bullshit.
[1] according to https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/transparency/2023-1/dm... in a 6 month period they got 29 dmca requests and ignored 27 of them.
What NASA and anybody else harmed by this stuff (such as say Google) needs to do is to lobby for parity.
The statutory damages for pirating a single pop song in the US are $250,000, and any copyright holder can file a suit to get that amount, under a civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard, without having to involve the criminal justice system at all.
Therefore, the damages for knowingly or negligently filing a false DMCA notice should also be $250,000. Either the wrongly accused person or any service provider inconvenienced by the notice should be able to sue for that amount, under the same standard of evidence. If the preponderance of the evidence shows you didn't take proper care to verify a notice, that'll be $250k. For each notice.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/Etsy/s/cQfDsf4nE2
https://www.reddit.com/r/Etsy/s/HEhayRGlG9
https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/28023794/someone...
I think with this sort of carelessness, it's only a matter of time before they mess with the wrong people and incur some real-life consequences. As much as I'm against doxxing in general, there are certainly those who will take that route of revenge.
In other words, it ends up making it easy for issuers to selectively bully small weak targets while carefully avoiding anyone who could fight back legally. The fact that one thing was removed/kept doesn't create precedent for another fundamentally identical thing posted by someone else.
The public isn't as powerless to enact change as you make them out to be.
People here, if organized, could absolutely change things especially considering the resources at the financial disposal of those here.
No, I don't mean issues like what you see endlessly litigated on the news. There's countless other issues that barely get any attention in the news such as - Copyright! Not to abolish it - that will never happen, but changes are absolutely possible.
I think the main issue here is, if you're a victim of DMCA fraud it's hard to get a case in front of a judge because of the way the law is written. But that doesn't mean it will never happen, and if it does I absolutely feel like a judge might set a precedent which curtails the practice, because judges by nature tend to take a dim view of abuse of process.
Falsely accusing someone of bad behavior in an attempt to affect a business relationship seems like it would have some possible civil remedies?
DMCA has serious problems in practice, and needs correcting. But the piracy community should not be the ones criticizing every time a merchant ship has a gunpowder accident from the cannons they're required to carry because of the pirates.
Copyright reform advocates are and always were saying that the protection laws were doing more harm than good.
If the former get too strong, it would stifle innovation and disincentive people from investing into improvements, technology, slowing the humanity’s progress towards a better world.
If the latter become too strong, (as it is right now) all those benefits risk to fall in too few hands, making this world even more unbalanced and unjust.
Let’s not give for granted the freedom that we have had until right now, it’s more at peril than we think.
I disagree.
We need sensible copyright terms of certainly no more than the patent terms (20 years) and probably a default of half-that.
We need to remove closed distribution if we want market forces to act -- by which I mean all distribution services can offer a work (maybe after 1 or 2 years of exclusive use) provided they pay the copyright holder the fee set.
No copyright unless a work can enter the public domain. So, creators need to deposit DRM free copies, or have no DRM. Sellers need to ensure games have server code available, or no copyright.
We don't need to support copyright infringement, we need to be serious about the public domain and ensure the system works for the demos.
These are of course my own views, independent of my employment.
Copyright said "let's force everyone to pretend this non-scarce item is scarce, so we have a way charge a non-zero price and recoup costs." It allowed us to continue to use market-economics tools, because we couldn't think of anything better. However, it also creates an ugly and immoral distortion of how we handle the precious commodity of knowledge, and ends up creating only a few winners at the expense of everyone else in society.
But it's by far not the only way to answer that question. Why not bail on using the market at all? Massively expand the public funding for creative works. Hire armies of software developers and artists to earn a decent wage creating, and we'd probably still spend less overall because we could eliminate the opportunity for a few short-tail bazillionaires and the parasitic industries parceling out "rights".
Culture, like everything else, is subject to the pareto principle. A handful of works are so much better than the rest that they capture almost all of the money that the public is willing to part with. This is true regardless of economic system.
What makes it to market is already a constrained selection. It has to make it through a bunch of commercial filters (investors and publishers who'd rather do a predictably bankable franchise product over a new whole-cloth one), and then you have the issue of only hearing from those who are financially and physically stable enough to create cultural works in the first place. How many potential writers can't start their novel because they're working three jobs, or hiding for their lives in Gaza?
Copyright itself also produces a huge filter by discouraging iterative creativity. It silences people whose talent is building on or expanding existing work. See the guy who is being ordered by the courts to destroy his LOTR derivative product. Perhaps there's a chance to make better Tolkein than Tolkein himself, but we won't know for another 50 years or so.
I'd rather we tell artists "go crazy, you're guaranteed 70k per year, whether you make the next Iron Man, or something so avant-garde only six people actually get it, and four of them are just claiming they do to fit in." We'll at least get more diverse products, and let history decide what's meritorious.
Thanks for giving us your position; I think I'm generally in agreement with you.
Here though it's good to note that [at least] one type of historic importance develops over time.
Die Hard, to take an arbitrary example, might not have been an important film as far as its art or technical quality [I don't know, it's not important to my point] but its enduring nature and position as an icon -- as a sort of mainstream but somehow counter-cultural part of Christmas for those of us of a certain age and certain bent -- makes it important when otherwise it would not be. It's not intrinsic to the artwork but emerges out of the societal response to the work.
In the UK we've been paying for the BBC to make culturally responsive TV for decades, yet somehow it all got tied back up in copyright when really it should be publicly owned and free-libre to anyone who will pay the download costs [and, perhaps, has a "TV License"].
Since everything is ass backwards, its no wonder people pirate content.
By and large, people could ignore copyright for its first few centuries-- it simply wasn't in the face of most people.
In 1799, or 1899 you couldn't reasonably print a commercial-quality newspaper, novel, or sound recording at home. If there was anything resembling commercial-scale copyright infringement, it was a business-versus-business play, and usually the 'knock-off' product was an obvious inferior substitute, or a clear attempt to defraud buyers. You weren't just paying for the "legitimacy" of official works, you were paying for a product higher quality than you can generate yourself.
By 1999, a normal upper-middle-class consumer could buy some sub-$1000 printers and produce his own copies of documents and photographs that looked as good as anything you got from a publisher. He could get a spindle of CD-Rs in a neighbourhood shop and make audio CDs that played as well as commercial ones.
At that point, the obvious question is "this costs me 75 cents to make at home, what am I paying $15 for?" The answers-- "it's legitimate" or "the artist gets paid, blah, blah", did not prove satisfactory enough. The "artist gets paid" one especially rang hollow when we saw plenty of artists sell millions of $15 records and earn enough in royalties to get a Big Mac but not fries.
Only the fear of prosecution was remotely viable to force people to ignore the question and go back to buying "official" media.