[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature" - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1657695687526.jpg (9.77 KB, 512x512, ia.jpg)


The Internet Archive being in danger is another good reminder that YA writers fucking suck. Neil Gaiman especially is a hack.
Gaiman and some fucking Star Wars writer lol (and several other companies) are suing the Internet Archive to stop lending books due to copyright and it could potentially fuck over the site and by an extent, the Wayback Machine.


What happened?


>some fucking Star Wars writer
Oh this is that gigasoy guy


Gaiman is the Metallica of comic books.


Or Nintendo.


The Internet Archive is a trash pile; nothing of value would be lost(objectively incorrect)


What is wrong with these people ?
Why are they attacking an archive organization ?
It's like book burning in the 21 century.

>Intellectual property was a mistake

>stop lending books due to copyright
Intellectual poverty was a mistake indeed but lending books doesn't actually violate copywrong

your post is a trashpile


Internet Archive is the only comprehensive archive of computer history where you can find stuff like manuals for old IBM mainframes from the 1970s.


OP is a liar.

>Here are the facts of the case & the 4 publishers suing us. The lawsuit is supported by @AmericanPublish and @AuthorsGuild. No individual authors have sued us and @ChuckWendig & @neilhimself have publicly stated they do not support this lawsuit
These two account names belong to the two guys OP is smearing.


>Penguin Books
>publisher that literally makes money off of ancient now-public-domain books suing a library for lending books
It's like poetry.


Doesn't Penguin pretty much have an ever-growing monopoly too


Gaiman tweeted "Guys, not helpful" to an NPR article about the IA, going out of his way to use his clout to draw negative attention to the IA, then once the damage was done he has "clarified" that he does not have anything to do with it lol Also linking to an AG article opposing the IA with no context at all.

He only backed off after getting trash-talked enough and is now pretending he always supported them.


Why should I give more weight to your claim than what the IA guys themselves are saying on that matter.


On copyright: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html "Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors"

> Penguin Books

A Dr Zhivago plagiarism lawsuit Penguin Random House is currently defending: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/03/dr-zhivagos-heroine-takes-centre-stage-in-plagiarism-row


File: 1657747725630.jpg (28.82 KB, 400x400, MLlambikism.jpg)

this has happened quite a few times now.

I'd argue that IP is functioning exactly as designed and should be burned down to the fucking ground. Literally pirate all content, do it for the sake of the world.


Yeah I hate when people feel the need to justify piracy under liberal terms. It doesn't need justification.


>What is wrong with these people ?
>Why are they attacking an archive organization ?
Due to a person's obsession with preserving profits they start seeing a loss of profits somewhere where it doesn't exist. Typical spooked behavior. Think Jewish conspiracy.


Gotta keep up the act that piracy actually affects sales when it's been proven repeatedly that it doesn't.


"We must protect copyright. As intellectual property owners it is our duty to enforce our property rights."


Cuck Wendig is the retard who got the ball rolling on this, they're only pussying out now because everyone bullies them for it


Porkies also went after A/V tech, for example the RIAA fought against DAT decks to be sold to consumers due to them being too good at recording audio for their price yet all their studios all bought DAT decks as soon they came out to lower their production costs.


> Gotta keep up the act that piracy […]

The more pernicious practice is keeping up the act that sharing is "piracy" and constantly promoting the corporations' doublespeak term for it. This includes well-meaning idiots who form "Pirate" Parties. Of course, if you have actual state-sponsored piracy, robbing ships at gunpoint with the usual coastal raping and pillaging on the side, that must be referred to with euphemisms like "privateering" or "buccaneering". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque


But pirates are cool


The only reason why there is a concept of stealing software is the ignoring the part of computer history where the Cambrian explosion of software started in 1960s long before anyone decided to copyright software. Where the mindset use to be that only hardware held any exchange value and code was just the programmer ordering the hardware to do something. When you get into the first desktop PCs in 1975 the vast majority of computer users still held this idea yet you had people like Bill Gates that bitched that he didn't get as many sales as people using his port of the Basic interpreter that Gates didn't have to pay royalties for due to Basic being released before software was a commodity.


>But pirates are cool
Step 1 Sharing is cool.
Step 2 IP-cartels declare sharing = piracy.
Step 3 Piracy is cool.


The concept of off the shelf software was in its infancy at the time. Most software in the mid 1970s was custom code written to perform exactly what the customer wanted. For example airline booking systems of the 1970s were not interchangeable even among other airlines as they were hard coded to only work with a given's airline's database. At best another system can interface with other database through a terminal where the other system translates the data it requested into plain text for it just as the system does for the dumb terminals used to interface with it.


if pirating software and media is stealing then im all for it


you suck
stop simping for intellectual property


then you start to notice how insidious IP is. Musicians trying to copyright things as abstract as scales and series of notes. Chemists trying to copyright certain formations of atoms. Agricorps trying to copyright certain types of seed


if i want books, i go to libgen or b-ok
if i cared about decades-old cable tv news tapes and neo-nazi pamphlets from the 70s or whatever, i might be more sympathetic to archive.org


> But pirates are cool
The "lovable rascals" propaganda from Hollywood has as much to do with real-world pirates, in other words with professional ship-robbers and serial rapists, as Indiana Jones has to do with real-world archeology.

For a chuckle, here's the level of competence of the UK government, with the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills thinking that IP address stands for “Intellectual Property address”. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/04/uk-govt-ip-address-is-intellectual-property-address/


The lovable rascal narrative predates Hollywood. It goes back to Robin Hood and earlier with Robin Hood being a lovable brigand leader that put the nobility in their place which came from the British commoners in the middle ages having far more respect outlaws then the landed gentry.


>then you start to notice how insidious IP is
Everything that gets branded as IP, represents a block that is intended to prevent people from doing something.
Scales and notes Blocked
Chemistry Blocked
Seeds Blocked
It's a disincentive mechanism.
I used to think that it was just about seeking rent, but it's more than that.

When little kids play in the playground sand-pit you'd see some kids making sand sculptures, while other kids would seek to bully them by razing the sculpted sand. Something like that can demoralize people and extinguish their creative drive. I think that IP enforcement is also about beating the creative drive out of people. Making something now carries a legal risk that the bully comes to stomp on your creation.


On the parroters of corporate doublespeak, such as those who refer to sharing as "piracy".
> 75 US law professors call for a halt to ACTA. The response is on target in its specifics, but unwittingly supports the idea of treaties like ACTA by using the term "intellectual property". That term encourages the basic mistake of treating disparate laws, such as copyright law and trademark law, as a single issue. The term presupposes that these laws are similar and that treating them together is natural — a basic mistake. Embedding bad policy in terminology that the "experts" use is a method for pushing that policy out of the domain of debate. To accept the terminology is to let that method succeed.


Comic book industry hacks who a year ago were calling The Internet Archive and public libraries "piracy" and "theft" and demanding they be shut down are now claiming they aren't responsible for their employers suing the Internet Archive and trying to shut it down.


Public libraries too? Lmao. Book writers keep coping.


YA is a brain disease.


That most sales don't come from readers but from public libraries makes the comic industry a zombie business.


> Seeds Blocked >>15852

> Resistance to plant variety monopolies and other restrictions of crops is spreading in Latin America. This generally admirable article falls for enemy propaganda when it treats the term "intellectual property" as if it were a principle. It is nothing but a way of lumping together various unrelated laws, one of which is the law of plant variety monopolies. These laws don't have anything meaningful in common, but the propaganda term leads people to think that they do, or should. Therefore, I never use it, and when I see it used, I explain how it is misleading.



yeah the argument for reducing 'online piracy' can basically be reduced to this:
>not enough crumbs of the rent-seeking system are falling to writers/artists
>therefore we must increase the rent-seeking
people who care so much about the crumbs can't (or otherwise don't) want to imagine what problems exist with rent-seeking itself


Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850:

> Citigroup Is Suing AT&T For Using the Word 'Thanks' Because Citi Trademarked It
> 6/10/16 11:23AM

""" Back in 2010, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted Citigroup a trademark for “thankyou,” which the company uses for credit card services. Today the company is suing AT&T over its own use of the terms “thanks” and “thanks AT&T.” Check the date, because this isn’t April Fool’s.

Earlier this month AT&T announced a new rewards program called Thanks AT&T which provides customers things like 2-for-1 movie tickets. This didn’t go over well with Citi’s lawyers since Citi has its own rewards program called ThankYou Citi. Citigroup even owns thankyou.com if you’d like to feel a little more sick to your stomach.

As further evidence that our intellectual property laws are one giant joke, not only did the Trademark Office give Citi an exclusive commercial right to use one of the most common phrases in the English language for credit cards, now Citi thinks that it can go after another company for using the phrase in a similar way.

I’m sure Citigroup and others will point out that the company had the ingenious idea of removing the space in between the words “thank” and “you” but that doesn’t seem to be at issue here. Also, if you’re making that argument, you should be fed to geriatric sharks with really dull teeth. When a society grants an exclusive protection on its most common expression of gratitude to a bank for use in commerce, something has gone very, very wrong.

As Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-at-t-citigroup-lawsuit-idUSKCN0YW1K3 points out, Citigroup filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The suit seeks to stop AT&T from using the term “thanks AT&T” and “thanks” in their marketing.

If you still can’t believe that Citigroup was granted a trademark for Thankyou (I couldn’t either), I’ve included a screenshot from the US Patent and Trademark Office below. What a joke. """

> Anon: This is a prank, right?

Verification: http://tess2.uspto.gov/ → Basic Word Mark Search (New User) → Search Term: Citigroup THANKYOU
(Do not abuse or they'll put your IP on the naughty list.)


File: 1658105763801.png (1.23 MB, 1609x1060, SuperStarTrek.png)

Long gone are the days where you could make a computer game based on Star Trek, call it Star Trek, publish it on ARPANET and have the source code published in a book of BASIC games all without the copyright lawyers doing anything.
Personal computers would have had a massive uphill battle if those in the 1970s had to deal with the current intellectual property BS. I mean imagine if Mos Technologies could not produce the 6502 because it was made by fed up engineers from Motorola that went out to make a watered down 6800. Or if Shugart couldn't make the minifloppy due to IBM's 8 inch drives.


""""IP"""" is nothing more than "virtual" rent seeking. Weaponizing property law enforcement to charge rent on abundant and readily available products. It seems like everything is turning into rent-seeking these days. It's crazy to think that even hardware you buy and is 100% yours by law, you can't modify it to work better or even fix it if it's broken. Like the BMW seat warmer subscription, where the cars came with all the hardware necessary for it to function and you can pay a subscription to be able to use it. Mad shit. (bonus point that I read this BMW stuff on Hacker News and of course, some people were thinking it's a great idea).
>people who care so much about the crumbs can't (or otherwise don't) want to imagine what problems exist with rent-seeking itself


Honestly this is one of the few things I'm never going to agree with Stallman about. I've even had him attempt to "correct" me in his usual Stallman way when asking him a question about idea monopolies and the enclosure movement of the late middle ages. But he is mistaken: they absolutely have much in common with one another. They are all an attempt to take an abstract infinite resource–ideas and knowledge–and quantify it, surround it with imaginary fences in people's minds, and then use that to conjure up a justification for rent.


And it really can't be stressed enough how infinite a resource an idea is. Even before computers, before the printing press, before scribes, this was still true. All it takes is for one person to convey something to another person to make an idea replicable. In fact the entirety of human development before even the emergence of Homo sapiens predicated on our ability to copy ideas. You might even say that the social intelligence that characterizes humanity comes down to our ability to spread ideas to one another. From that perspective, intellectual property is one of the most misanthropic concepts ever created.


I've said this before in another thread but I really wish there was like a formal critique of intellectual property as private property. It just amazes me how little the rhetoric has changed in 40 years.
Makes sense that NFTs exploded onto the scene the way they did. They've just created new avenues for enclosure.


Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850 >>15907 :

> Jul 6, 2017 7:41 pm UTC
> State Department concocting “fake” intellectual property “Twitter feud”
> “Our public diplomacy office is still settling on a hashtag,” State Department says.

""" The US State Department wants to team up with other government agencies and Hollywood in a bid to create a "fake Twitter feud" about the importance of intellectual property rights. As part of this charade, the State Department's Bureau of Economic Affairs says it has been seeking the participation of the US Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the US Patent and Trademark Office, and "others."

To make the propaganda plot seem more legitimate, the State Department is trying to enlist Stanford Law School and "similar academic institutions" to play along on the @StateDept feed on Twitter.

"We're not going to participate," Mark Lemley, the director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology at Stanford Law School, told Ars in an e-mail. He recently received an e-mail (PDF) and a telephone call from the State Department seeking his assistance.

"Apparently there is not enough fake news for the US government," Lemley told his Facebook followers. On the Facebook post, he redacted the name of the official who sent him the letter out of privacy interests. The RIAA declined comment, as did the trademark office. The MPAA said it is not participating.

Plotting propaganda

The propaganda plot became public on July 4, when Lemley posted the State Department's plan on his Facebook account. In the State Department e-mail to Lemley, the agency mentions a phone message left with the professor, and it discusses "fake" news, saying:

> So a little bit of a recap from the message that I left you this morning. The Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs wants to start a fake Twitter feud. For this feud, we would like to invite you and other similar academic institutions to participate and throw in your own ideas!

Wary over whether this was actually "fake news" about a "fake Twitter feud," we asked the State Department for comment. The agency confirmed the authenticity of the June 26 e-mail sent to Lemley—in a roundabout way, of course.

(All of this comes during the backdrop of President Donald Trump routinely criticizing the media for publishing what he says is "fake news.")

The State Department official who confirmed the e-mail declined to have their name published and also tap-danced around the issue in an e-mail to Ars:

> Your question: Is it true that the State Department is working to create a fake Twitter feud promoting intellectual property rights?

> No. The State Department engages on various social media platforms and regularly works with partners to develop campaigns to highlight important policy priorities such as intellectual property rights and enforcement. The intention of the email was simply that—to seek partners for a dialog that would raise awareness of an important economic issue and to do it in a good-natured, competitive way that was clearly understood as such.

> The Department's Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement (IPE) advances US economic interests by promoting intellectual property rights around the world. More than 45 million US jobs, 50 percent of US exports, and almost 40 percent of US GDP are in intellectual property-intensive industries. The Office advocates for the effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world by engaging with the private sector, civil society, and other governments on these issues in a variety of formats including social media.

The e-mail to Lemley also says the big IP lobby groups are on board, as are "others":

> Some characters from the IP community here in DC have agreed to participate with their own tweets: US Patent and Trademark Office, the Copyright Alliance, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Copyright Office, and the Recording Industry Association of America. We hope to diversify this crowd with academic institutions, sports affiliations, trade associations, and others!

The chief lobbying group for the major Hollywood studios told Ars that the MPAA was not on board.

"While we did participate in a preliminary discussion of how to highlight the economic benefits of copyright, we had not reviewed nor would we have participated in the plans as outlined in the State Department email," MPAA spokesman Chris Ortman told Ars in an e-mail.

Counterfeit IP

So how is this fake Twitter campaign supposed to be carried out?

According to the e-mail, the fake campaign is expected to start next week. It entails officials using the @StateDept feed to initiate pro-IP discussions and then the participants seeding the feed with positive responses.

According to the State Department e-mail sent to Lemley:

> The week after the 4th of July, when everyone gets back from vacation but will still feel patriotic and summery, we want to tweet an audacious statement like, "Bet you couldn't see the Independence Day fireworks without bifocals; first American diplomat Ben Franklin invented them #bestIPmoment @StateDept" Our public diplomacy office is still settling on a hashtag and a specific moment that will be unique to the State Department, but then we invite you to respond with your own #MostAmericanIP, or #BestIPMoment. Perhaps it will [be] an alumni defending intellectual property in the courts or an article that your institution has produced regarding this topic.

Ars will keep on eye on the @StateDept feed to see if and when the "fake Twitter feud" begins. The agency hasn't responded to us about whether the feud will be carried out.

For now, the State Department's feed is filled with posts about International affairs like North Korea's recent missile launch, Middle East peace, Trump's engagement with Poland, the recent launching of an ICBM by North Korea, and the recent attack on the Venezuelan National Assembly.

We can't wait for the tweets about Ben Franklin's bifocals. What a spectacle that would be. """


Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850 >>15907 >>15916. On rare occasions even courts are allowed to call out corporate propaganda terms.

MPAA Banned From Using Piracy and Theft Terms in Hotfile Trial
November 29, 2013 by Ernesto Van der Sar

""" Leading up to the trial, Hotfile has scored several significant wins against the MPAA. The Florida federal court ruled on several motions this week, and many went in favor of the file-hosting service. Most prominently, Judge Kathleen Williams decided that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use “pejorative” terms including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the upcoming proceedings.

In August the movie studios won summary judgment on the issues of DMCA defense and vicarious liability, while the file-hosting site was cleared of direct copyright infringement. The remaining issues, including the damages amount, will be decided during a trial early next month.

In preparation for the trial both parties have submitted motions to the court in recent weeks. Hotfile, for example, asked the court to prevent the MPAA from using “pejorative” terms including piracy, theft and stealing as these could misguide the jury.

District Court Judge Kathleen Williams has now ruled on these motions, with the file-hosting service scoring several important victories.

The Judge granted Hotfile’s “pejorative” terms motion, which means that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use words including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the trial.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms is GRANTED IN PART. The parties may not use pejorative terms but may use terms of art,” the order reads.

The file-hosting service previously argued that since piracy and theft-related terms are derogatory, their use could mislead the jury and possibly influence their judgment. According to Hotfile there is no ground to substantiate the use of such terms.

“In the present case, there is no evidence that the Defendants (or Hotfile’s founders) are ‘pirates’ or ‘thieves,’ nor is there evidence that they were ‘stealing’ or engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft.’ Even if the Defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs’ copyrights, such derogatory terms would add nothing to the Plaintiffs’ case, but would serve to improperly inflame the jury.”

The MPAA countered that there is absolutely no reason to exclude words that are commonly used in cases related to copyright infringement. Banning the terms would make it hard for MPAA’s lawyers and the witnesses to describe the events that took place, according to the movie studios.

“Terms like ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ are commonplace terms often used in court decisions, statutes, and everyday speech to describe the conduct in which Hotfile and its users engaged, and for which the Court has already found Defendants liable,” MPAA’s legal team wrote.

With her ruling Judge Williams clearly sides with Hotfile’s argument that the jury could be misled by piracy and theft-related descriptions. This is a clear win for the file-hosting service, but it also leads to the awkward situation that several witnesses can’t name their job titles, such as Warner’s head of Global Corporate Anti-Piracy.

Additionally, the MPAA can no longer quote Vice President Joe Biden’s famous comment: “Piracy is theft, clean and simple.”

The full list of motions Judge Williams ruled on includes more good news for Hotfile. For example, with regard to Hotfile’s countersuit over alleged DMCA abuse by the movie studio, Warner’s motions to exclude the term “perjury” and the studio’s audit of its anti-piracy system from trial were both denied.

On the downside, Hotfile’s request to prevent the MPAA from bringing up the criminal indictment against “Megaupload” was denied. This means that in describing the Megaupload case the movie studios can’t quote passages that reference piracy or theft.

It will be interesting to see how the MPAA tackles Hotfile now that they are restricted in the language they can use. It probably means that the term “copyright infringement” will be used more often than they had hoped. """


Some more "intellectual property" humor.

> DMCA As Censorship: Citibank Doesn't Want You To Remember What It Said About Obama's Bank Reform Policy
> Mon, Sep 27th 2010 07:32am - Mike Masnick

""" We’ve been discussing quite a bit lately how copyright law is often used not as a tool to provide incentive to create, but as a tool for censorship. Here’s the latest example. John Bennett points us to the news that Citigroup filed a DMCA takedown request with WordPress.com over the site LBO-news’ 18-month old post that presented a copy of Citigroup’s analysis of Obama’s (then new) bank reform plan, which noted that it was actually quite bank-friendly. The key quote in the report: “the US government is following a relatively bank-friendly, investor-friendly approach.”

Of course, these days, Wall Street is looking for more favors, and has been complaining about the regulations that the administration put on them as being too onerous. So, firms like Citigroup aren’t too happy about anyone remembering the fact that it knew the regulations weren’t at all onerous, but were extremely friendly to banks and Wall Street. So it issued the DMCA takedown on the report. Of course, as economist Brad DeLong has noted, this is clearly not about copyright issues. It’s not a case where the infringement is harming the “market” for that report. The only reason to file a DMCA is to try to hide the report:

> Today–nineteen months after this document was written–it is of historical interest only: none of Citigroup’s paying clients would pay a cent for the information contained in it, for nobody could in any way profitably trade today on Citigroup’s February 2009 analysis of the policies of the Geithner Treasury….

> Whatever you think about the DMCA, it should not be used to prune the historical record of primary sources about how various economic policies were perceived at the time.

DeLong is now hosting http://web.archive.org/web/20101008082412if_/http://delong.typepad.com:80/citionstress.pdf the document himself (pdf), so if anyone wants to see what Citigroup would prefer you don’t see, check it out (oh, whoops… or is that contributory infringement?). """


>Neil Gaiman especially is a hack.
Neil Gaiman defended loli cp, so i'm not surprise


Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850 >>15907 >>15916 >>15965 >>15996.

> 7:44 am Wed Jul 13, 2016
> Minneapolis police are abusing copyright law to censor their controversial 'shoot-first' recruiting video

""" Less than a week after an officer from a nearby force shot and killed Philando Castile during a traffic stop, leaving him to die in front of his child and girlfriend (and the world on livestream) the Minneapolis Police Department has perjured itself in issuing a copyright takedown notice to Youtube in order to suppress a controversial recruiting video that depicted the jobs of MPD officers as being a firearms-heavy shoot-em-up.

The video had attracted alarm and criticism by officials and the public, who saw it as indicative of a deep culture of violent, shoot-first policing in the Minneapolis police.

The MPD sent a copyright takedown notice to Youtube claiming, on penalty of perjury, that it believed the video was infringing. The video is clearly a fair use, directly commenting on public affairs, not undermining any revenue stream, and is itself a largely factual work — it was also a work produced at public expense, which, in the USA generally carries the presumption of free public re-use. The fact that the work was reproduced in full does not disqualify it from being a fair use, as a string of recent rulings in multiple circuits has shown.

Furthermore, a recent federal appeals court decision held that rightsholders have a duty to consider fair use before sending takedown notices.

The video has been reposted to Vimeo. The Wedge Live news site that uploaded the video now has one of Youtube's notorious Copyright Strikes against it, which could eventually cost it the right to publish on the platform. """


Some more "intellectual property" humor.

> December 1, 2017
> Volkswagen Claims Ownership of an Entire Group of Insects

""" Using word searches to find infringement is a bad way to go about things. It is likely why Volkswagen filed three takedown requests for art of beetles. Not Beetles with four wheels and headlights. Beetles with six legs and hard, shiny carapaces. For the record, Volkswagen holds no rights to literal bugs.

Peggy Muddles is a scientist and an artist who marries her two lives by making science-themed art. Among her many digital prints are a number of works featuring beetles—the type of insect. And, well, Volkswagen was not having any of that.

Muddles sells some of her prints through the website RedBubble. On December 1, 2017, she received a takedown notice for her rove beetle art from Volkswagen. Now, the rove beetle is a common insect found throughout Europe. A Volkswagen Beetle is a car.

Volkswagen, it turns out, does not own beetles the insect, the largest group of animals on this planet. Nor does it own rove beetles, the largest group of beetles alive. And it does not own the depiction of the species Paederus fuscipes, the species Muddles depicted in her art.

In response, Muddles did the right thing: she consulted a lawyer, crafted a counter-notice explaining that her bug was not the same as a car named for a bug, and sent it to RedBubble and Volkswagen. “After VW’s option to pursue expired, I repeatedly attempted to contact RedBubble to have my listing reinstated, but received only automated replies indicating that my email had been received,” Muddles told EFF. “After about two months, I chalked it up to a simple error and re-uploaded the design.”

Oh, if only that were the end of it. Mistakes made, corrected, and everyone moves on having learned something. However, months later, in mid-2018, Muddles received two more takedowns for drawings of beetles from Volkswagen. Once again, the art was of insects and not cars.

Faced with the takedown of prints titled “Buprestic rufipes - red-legged Buprestis beetle” and “Rhipicera femoralis - feather horned beetle” (you can see how Volkswagen got confused and thought these were prints of cars), Muddles once again went to her lawyer.

This time, the lawyer sent a letter saying “the beetles that are the subject matter of our client’s works of art evolved over 300 million years ago, pre-dating the fine motor vehicles manufactured by your company by approximately 300 million years.”

“The next morning we had an apology and my listings were reinstated,” said Muddles in an email to EFF. “While my illustrations on RedBubble do not net me a huge amount of money, my sales there do contribute to my financial stability, and so I was immensely frustrated.”

Muddles is lucky. She knew the law and had access to a lawyer. Not everyone is in her position. Deciding to file a counter-notice can be a very fraught thing, even if you know you’re in the right.

This is why it’s important that actual human eyes, backed by actual human judgment, look at things before takedown notices are sent. Simple logic says that a sweep for the word “beetle” is going to turn up a lot of false positives for Volkswagen. And not every artist is going to be as knowledgeable as Muddles.

It’s also concerning that RedBubble didn’t get back to Muddles after the December incident. It should not take a sternly-worded letter from a lawyer after the third ridiculous takedown notice to get a response. After Muddles explained it and, again, human eyes confirmed that there was no infringement going on, her art should have been restored to the site.

At the very least, she shouldn’t have had to guess whether or not she was in the clear. Especially since receiving repeated, unresolved takedown notices can result in someone losing their account on a site. She should have known if she had a strike against her or not.

This kind of story really bugs. And, in case Volkswagen is reading, that’s in the colloquial sense, not the car. """


Lol, geweldig fotoke


how do I pirate good?



Yes Neil Gayman please take down the only actually useful site on the internet so i can stop paying internet bills.

Fr tho, people should take action and try teaching their bluepilled friends that unironically support copyright laws to start torrenting.


Get a VPN that hopefully lol doesn't keep logs, download qbittorrent and let the pirating commence.


My country is a shithole but at least that means I don't have to fear getting a "piracy warning" from my ISP in the mail.

Unique IPs: 23

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]