![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-780166-100x100.png\")
So does this mean in casual commenting we're not allowed to mention in passing such companies as Target, Best Buy, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Apple, Microsoft, Google, ESPN, and other random companies?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-129735-100x100.png\")
@aka_mich: Sure you can, but they all need to be disemvoweled:
Trgt, Bst By, Wlmrt, Hm Dpt, Lws, ppl, Mcrsft, Ggl, SPN, and Mnstr. My favorite would be any mention of the American Automobile Association would simply be \" \".
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Good thing they're drafting the much stronger ACTA... with all the same potential for abuse as the DMCA.
Oh wait, that isn't good at all!
Their website is designed like all the \"Make money on Google\" and \"Make $5000 per Week\" scams!! I bet perfectpitch.com is a scam!!
@Aaronjk: You may be right. Most musicians, music teachers, etc. believe that perfect pitch cannot be taught. You have to be born with it. Relative pitch (where you can guess the second note once you know the first note) may be a different matter.
Obviously, the URL is a typo because I input perfectbitch.com and got a dog training site.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103878-100x100.png\")
@Aaronjk: Nice going, now Consumerist is going to get a take-down notice.
PS- I agree regarding the site. It might has well have the bright flashing menus from the late 90's.
@ARP: I always thought you could refer or use any copyrighted material in the following ways: commentary, personal opinion, reviews, and satire. maybe we should all refer to perfectpitch in satirical ways, thus using their copyrights freely AND making fun of them....
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1340486-100x100.png\")
@ARP: Consumerist will thrust 3 fingers at any takedown notice and proclaim: Read between the lines, bitches!
How weird, when I do a google search for perfectpitch all I get are links to stories about them abusing the DMCA.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37731-100x100.png\")
@sir_eccles: I do like how when you search for them on Google, there is a disclaimer on the bottom of the search:
\"In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.\"
They were top on my google search
hmm...so, in theory, if everyone made a comment about a player throwing a PERFECT PITCH in a baseball game, it would make this guy angry?
I'm all for that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-318831-100x100.png\")
@DefineStatutory: Yeah, perfect pitches rock.
There's also the talent commonly known as Perfect Pitch. To have Perfect Pitch, you have to be able to accurately and precisely (Perfectly, even) hear the Pitch of any note, then be able to reproduce it vocally.
Some varieties of tree produce high quality, one might even say Perfect Pitch.
Are they gonna sue all the pitchers that throw a PERFECT PITCH?
Doesn't it always seem though that these scammers all sue?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-414437-100x100.png\")
God, the DMCA is so flawed on so many levels. Please pressure your congresscritters to change some of the ridiculous parts of this law.
We could start with the whole \"burden being on the alleged infringer to prove that the content does infringe rather than on the rights holder to prove that their rights are being infringed\" thing.
@WiglyWorm must cease and decist: I just ignore the law as the law is an ass. Civil disobedience, anyone?
@WiglyWorm must cease and decist: So if I am professional videographer and I find 1000 instances of my professional work on YouTube, I should be forced to prove each and every one of these violates my copyright? That's crap.
@johnfrombrooklyn: Yes, you should. Of course, if you're the copyright holder and you have a legitimate claim, that should be easy enough. Likewise, if you're not issuing a takedown notice to someone who slagged off your professional work because it \"violates your copyright\", which is what most of the abusive cases are related to. Not, you know, actual copyright violations.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-317705-100x100.png\")
@johnfrombrooklyn: No, that's your responsibility to protect your copyright. The burden of proof should rest with the accuser. Like it does in criminal law.
@johnfrombrooklyn: Out of curiosity, why do you feel that's more unfair than the flip side of a private individual creating a work and then having to provide legal proof of fair use when challenged by a professional?
I agree with WiglyWorm that the copyright holders have too much room to just point fingers at random and hope the little guy isn't smart enough/rich enough to fight it. There's been rampant instances of parties telling Youtube a particular video is copyright infringement, when it's in fact fair use (Prince and the Dancing Baby anyone) and the poor housewife now has to provide proof to the big corporation that it's fair use to keep it up.
What would be nice is if host companies (Google) took the time to establish an independent commission that would determine whether something is actually a copyright violation before blindly throwing out a takedown notice, but I think that's pretty improbable.
God, the DMCA is so flawed on so many levels. Please pressure your congresscritters to change some of the ridiculous parts of this law.
We could start with the whole \"burden being on the alleged infringer to prove that the content does infringe rather than on the rights holder to prove that their rights are being infringed\" thing.
Isn't there another side to the DMCA where if you file false claims you're in serious trouble?
@JeffMc: Yes, there is. However, where the DMCA makes it VERY easy for a company to file a fraudulent take-down notice, and the DMCA does state that false notices are a crime...
It's not so easy to even get the abuse process started, let alone pursue it to the conclusion. Very few ordinary people can afford to do so on the civil side. And I am not aware of any prosecutor ever pressing criminal charges against a DMCA-abuser (even when it would be an open and shut case).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-531646-100x100.png\")
So does that mean if he finds out that consumerist has made a comment about his website, he's going to throw a hissy fit and ask you to take down the story?
Wasn't there a provision for legal action against companies who file fraudulent takedown notices?
I thought I had read somewhere that sending a takedown notice for something that does not infringe on your copyright could leave you liable for any damages stemming from the takedown. In this case, the blog owner's lost ad revenue from being de-listed from Google.
(f) Misrepresentations.- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section-
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Once again, the basically worthless DMCA rears its ugly head.
Could the issue be that someone actually suggested that the PerfectPitch software was available as a BitTorrent?
PerfectPitch.com's operators are a bunch of lawsuit crazed morons. Go ahead, send me a takedown notice.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-143351-100x100.png\")
I hope that Consumerist posts the DCMA takedown notice that they are probably going to be getting from perfectpitch. Or maybe PerfectPitch is smart enough to know that Consumerist won't be bullied around.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-233963-100x100.png\")
so, immediately file a DMCA counter notice and get the material back up:
[www.citmedialaw.org]
@microcars:
another \"do it yourself\" counter notice:
[www.cs.cmu.edu]
don't know how well these work...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-327923-100x100.png\")
Walmart = Hell
Good now Hell & Walmart are equal when searching google.
Heh. I'm curious to see what \"method\" they're using. Then again, I don't need to pay $129 to develop perfect pitch. I have it already :)
Does the DMCA really make a difference in this case? Google could have taken the same action by explaining \"somebody filed a complaint against you\" or even without offering an explanation at all.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
@crimebll: But likely wouldn't have without that impetus. \"Someone mentioned your site in a comment\" would not otherwise cause a stir from Google
Let 4chan get hold of this and have a field day with it...
It's been resolved, apparently the guy was just sending out takedowns shotgun-style to everybody who showed up in a google search for torrents and burge(?) and pitch. A pretty obnoxious mistake, but still a mistake:
\"To our shock and horror, an employee of ours mistakenly included Mr. Keith's site in our list, merely because it made a reference to illegal copies of our course. Naturally, this is not grounds for removal of this page at Google. Our intention was only to remove actual pages where the course is being illegally distributed, and not any pages of free speech, such as Mr. Keith's blog. This was a misjudgment and error on our employee's side, and on behalf of our company, we sincerely apologize.\"
Linky here:
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-149068-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545239-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17616-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1411577-100x100.png\")
You have a typo on his name... Gary Doucherle seems correct.
@edison234:
Nice.
@edison234:
touché!
@edison234: LIKE!
@edison234: Awwwwwwwwww, you beat me to it.