Copyright claims anti-competitive and often just wrong: Google

, posted: 19-Mar-2009 15:58

The Teditor, or PC World Editor Ted Gibbons, has been reading through Google's submission on the Telecommunications Carriers' Forum (TCF) Code of Practice, which would be the agreement between telcos and ISPs on one hand and the rights holders, on how to terminate the Internet access for people deemed to repeatedly infringe on copyright.

Ted writes:

In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by businesses targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.

Now contrast this with what Campbell Smith of RIANZ states in the recent Q&A here at Geekzone:

A: Yes, we are confident that this is reliable enough to be accepted by a court. The evidence gathered consists of publicly available information about the IP addresses used at a certain time on a certain date to upload copyright infringing material. The evidence supplied by us is synched to a trusted atomic time source and based on ICANN (APNIC) information regarding the allocation of Internet protocol address spaces.

Anyone can log onto file-sharing networks and note the IP addresses used for uploading content, since the uploader makes this information publicly available.

This type of evidence has been accepted in countries around the world as the basis of criminal and civil legal actions. We are confident that the standard of our evidence gathering process is robust enough to be accepted by any court in New Zealand, as it has been internationally.

To date the evidence provided by IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, has always been sufficient for a court. RIANZ, as an IFPI member, would use the same standard of evidence techniques and technologies. We have been through the evidence gathering process with ISPs here in NZ and we have had no concerns raised about the robustness of our evidence.

Judge Harvey noted in his submission that around 30 per cent of copyright claims going to court were invalid.

Google has evidence that most copyright take-down notices are issued for anti-competitive purposes and over a third are not valid copyright claims.

In the face of that, how can RIANZ, APRA and other supporters still claim that there will be no false accusations or claims?


Other related posts:
Video: Kim Dotcom and Mathias Ortman at the IITP Mega breakfast
Two-factor authentication broken
The problem with naming and shaming

comments powered by Disqus


Google News search
IT News
PC World New Zealand
Computerworld NZ
PC World and Computerworld Australia
PC World US
Computerworld US
NZ Herald
Virus Bulletin

Content copyright © Juha Saarinen. If you wish to use the content of my blog on your site, please contact me for details. I'm usually happy to share my material as long as it's not for spamblogs and content farms. Please attribute with a link back to this blog. If you wish to advertise on my blog, please drop me an email to discuss the details.
Comments policy All comments posted on this blog are the copyright and responsibility of the submitters in question. Comments commercial and promotional in nature are not allowed. Please ensure that your comments are on topic and refrain from making personal remarks.