The forever war will, apparently, last until the end of time after all.
Unchastened by the humiliating failure of SOPA and PIPA last January, the MPAA has doubled down, reentering the fight to ruin the Internet from a decidedly different angle; taking a break from their usual task of being inscrutably censorious to anything aimed at an audience over age 10, by siding with the porn industry.
At issue is a ruling from the District Court for Northern Illinois in the case of Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter. Flava Works - and you might want to cover the kids eyes for this - produces 'adult' movies featuring gay, 'ethnic' scenarios. Marques Rondale Gunter owns myVidster, a social video bookmarking site on which approximately 50 percent of content is of the extremely NSFW variety. Flava alleges that myVidster infringed on its copyrights by embedding videos, and unsatisfied with myVidster's response to their DMCA takedown notice, sued them. Last July, the court ruled in favor of Flava, holding that myVidster was not only responsible for users who embedded disputed content even if they took action to discourage and/or stop it, but that even something as innocuous as posting links and embeds constitutes infringement.
Gunter argued that the law protects activity like linking and embedding (since each activity makes use of tools readily available as a part of basic Internet use); instead, the policy for myVidster was to ban people who hosted unauthorized content while only warning those who link to or embed proscribed content, eventually removing them if they failed to comply. The presiding judge didn't even seem to consider that position, deeming Guntar's approach 'willful blindness'. That's an extremely draconian interpretation of DMCA regulations, and if it sounds familiar, it's because essentially in line with the more odious parts of the almost wholly evil SOPA and PIPA bills. Naturally, Gunder appealed this ruling, which is currently set to be reviewed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Last November, two separate briefs opposing this ruling were filed with the 7th court, one by Facebook and Google, the other by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge. A big deal to be sure, but these briefs were filed just as it looked as though both SOPA and PIPA would pass without challenge. The furor that eventually led to the defeat of those bills overshadowed this case. Which brings us to the MPAA. The lobby group was likely distracted from this case due to its heavy involvement in advocating for PIPA and SOPA. No longer, however, and they have now filed an amicus curiae brief with the US Seventh Circuit court of appeals, demanding the appeals court uphold the Northern Illinois District Court's ruling.
If the MPAA is successful and the decision is upheld, this could have far reaching, and dire, consequences for Internet users of all stripes; the ruling would seem to include even the idea of linking back to the host-site instead of embedding, essentially rendering a critical part of online culture illegal. It would, much like ACTA, accomplish a large part of what SOPA and PIPA sought to do without actually requiring the pesky consent of the governed that otherwise is at the heart of American law.
Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter is currently pending, but should be reviewed by the 7th Circuit Court sometime later in 2012. Definitely keep an eye on this one, folks.
I got the feeling the author of this article was leaning too hard against the MPAA. flava has a good argument in this case.
"Depends on the Sellsword."
"Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favour with the gods."
"He has a sword, the power of life and death."
"But if it's Swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend it's kings who hold all the power?"
"Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick, it's a shadow on the wall and a very small man can cast a very large shadow."
A vote for Obama is a vote for totalitarian authoritarianism, and the end of the internet as we know it.
Although I'd like to see him out of office, in his defense, Obama was not agreeing with SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/OPEN etc. A vote for anyone at this point seems to be a vote for hurting our rights and personal freedoms.
i feel like some of these rulings occur due to the judge not knowing what half of the case is about
Why, I may be infringing an MPAA copyright by recommending that someone should go see a movie that I saw, so I guess I'd better stop recommending movies to friends. And what about musicians, songs, albums? Probably infringement too, so I'd better stop that as well.
It seems to me that the MPAA and their alphabet soup kin won't be happy until we have to pay for every time we hear or see something they lay claim to. I bet it makes them sick to think that I can buy a Blu-ray and watch it more than once, that I can listen to a song over and over again and they don;t get paid for that.
Side note - If I were in law enforcement, I'd start digging into this judges bank account or keep an eye on the job he gets if he quits being a judge.
soon they'll say its copyright infringement to even think about talking to someone about it
MyVidster apparently banned people that posted illegal content on their website. When someone posted a link or embed infringing content they first got a warning and if the user insisted in linking or embedding illegal material they would get banned. Apparently that isn't enough.
Imagine if for example Facebook, Google and all search engines and social networks had to check every single post, image, video, link,... for infringing material. That task is impossible. What the MPAA wants is for the web to be what it was 20 years ago.
Lobbyists hand out money left and right....and quite often it ends up in the pockets of a few judges...