Activity tagged "copyright"

Posted:

After I refused a bribe to remove a @web3isgreat post about alleged crypto pyramid scheme co-founder Roman Ziemian, I’ve now received a fraudulent copyright claim aimed at forcing me to take it down

DMCA Takedown Notice Inbox Michael Woods <legal.michaelwoods@gmail.com> 4:06 AM (4 hours ago) to molly Michael Woods Address: 1693 Reynolds Alley Los Angeles, California,90017 Phone Number: (408) 915-8288 Email: legal.michaelwoods@gmail.com Subject: DMCA Takedown Notice I, Michael Woods, would like to draw your attention towards I have one copyrighted content on your website https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com. This page content has been copied from our website !! Unfortunately, I didn't authorize or approve you to post them on your website. Original Copyrighted Work Content: https://worldnewsmediaexpress.blogspot.com/2024/08/futurenet-founder-arrested-for-alleged.html Published on 18 Aug 2024. Unauthorized Infringing Content: https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/single/futurenet-founder-arrested Published on 19 Aug 2024. Kindly act expeditiously to remove this infringing or unauthorized content post from your website ASAP. Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act I want the article to be removed and the location of the infringing material. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web page is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into consideration. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Electronic Signature as Provided: Michael Woods legal.michaelwoods@gmail.com</legal.michaelwoods@gmail.com>

The BlogSpot website that is rehosting my post and claiming to be the original is full of other such posts from other websites, suggesting this is part of a wider campaign to scrub information about Ziemian.

This is another plus to hosting your own work, by the way. They can still take it up the chain to my service providers, but I don’t have to worry about filing a counterclaim with the webhost because I AM the webhost.

Read:
"Taylor Swift: Singer, Songwriter, Copyright Innovator".
Glyn Moody in Techdirt. Published .
In other words, as soon as a creator finds a way to take back control from intermediaries that have routinely derived excessive profits from the labor of others, the copyright world fights back with new legal straitjackets to stop other artists daring to do the same. That’s yet another reason for creators to retain full control of their works, and to shun traditional intermediaries that try to impose one-sided and unfair contracts.
Read:
"CDL: Publishers Against Books".
Gio in GioCities. Published .
Combining lending with digital technology is tricky to do within the constraints of copyright. But it’s important to still be able to lend, especially for libraries. With a system called Controlled Digital Lending, libraries like the Internet Archive (IA) made digital booklending work within the constraints of copyright, but publishers still want to shut it down. It’s a particularly ghoulish example of companies rejecting copyright and instead pursuing their endless appetite for profit at the expense of everything worthwhile about the industry.
Posted:

Seen a couple takes about the Hachette case along the lines of “the Internet Archive should’ve stuck to just archiving the Internet and not testing new theories of copyright” and uhhh... I’m not sure what it is you think the Internet Archive does, outside of testing new theories of copyright.

People have gotten so used to the existence of the Internet Archive’s web archive that they forget how revolutionary and subversive it is. The idea that that is somehow safe while the book lending was not is completely flawed. They were just up against a more powerful group.

What was the alternative? That they only archive and distribute works that are copyrighted by people with sufficiently little power/wealth?

Posted:
Here's the problem: establishing that AI training requires a copyright license will not stop AI from being used to erode the wages and working conditions of creative workers. The companies suing over AI training are also notorious exploiters of creative workers, union-busters and wage-stealers.
Telling creative workers that they can solve their declining wages with more copyright is a denial that creative workers are workers at all. It treats us as entrepreneurial small businesses, LLCs with MFAs negotiating B2B with other companies. That's how we lose.
On the other hand, if we address the problems of AI and labor as workers, and insist on labor rights – like the Writers Guild did when it struck last summer – then we ally ourselves with every other worker whose wages and working conditions are being attacked with AI.
Our path to better working conditions lies through organizing and striking, not through helping our bosses sue other giant multinational corporations for the right to bleed us out.
"Neither the devil you know nor the devil you don't".
Cory Doctorow in Pluralistic.
Here's the problem: establishing that AI training requires a copyright license will not stop AI from being used to erode the wages and working conditions of creative workers. The companies suing over AI training are also notorious exploiters of creative workers, union-busters and wage-stealers.