re: "Multimillion Dollar Shakedown"

I recently read this pretty scathing article about how Google (and other companies) hide behind the Safe Harbor Provision of the DMCA and the resulting effects on artists (here).

There are more than 60 trillion addresses on the web. Google is a huge company and it is likely very difficult to monitor every single advertising account that it has. In addition, Google recently released a document stating how it plans to fight against piracy.



 

In fact, I've already noticed that many searches to pirate sites have been taken down in compliance with the DMCA.

While the author of the Multimillion Dollar Shakedown points out that Google profits from the piracy sites even when the site is removed, Google does not charge copyright owners for removing the infringing material, and Google has, on average, improved the removal process and typically processes the notices in less than six hours.

What we should keep in mind is that Google is mostly a directory, that points people to what they want to find and they are good at it. With more than 60 trillion websites (and counting!) it is a daunting task to enforce these copyrights.

Perhaps artists and copyright owners should consider developing software to combat these copyright pirates, rather than blaming Google for being good at what they do.

Just my opinion and some food for your thoughts.

Copyright Pirates

In United States v. Chow Lieh Liu,

The court held that in order to criminally charge an individual for criminal copyright infringement and trafficking in counterfeit labels, the defendant's guilt must be determined based on whether he acted "willfully" and "knowingly," meaning the defendant had to know the labels were counterfeit.

In the above named case, Liu was the CEO of Super DVD, a DVD-manufacturing company with replication machines. However Super DVD began struggling and lost the replication machines.

Customs Enforcement agents raided the warehouse of Vertex International trading, a software reseller and discovered purchase order documentation from vendors including Super DVD.

Liu admitted that Super DVD manufactured Crouching Tiger but Liu realized that R&E did not have the actual rights so Super DVD pursued legal action.

Liu denied any involvement of replicating other works and that some Latin music was believed to be his uncles'.

Based on the above facts, the court held that Liu did not knowingly replicate counterfeit DVDs and was not criminally liable for copyright infringement.

This case gives me hope for courts because under Liu, innocent Defendants are protected. While this makes a harder case for the prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proof.