And those that think its a good idea to charge them false take downs the figure is simple $150,000 per infringement.

Thank You for the courtesy of your response.

On three separate occasions, Google has caught representatives of three major motion picture studios uploading their own content to YouTube. In each of those three, the films in question failed to cover their production costs during theatrical release. It can only be surmised that these films were “pirated” to YouTube for the purpose of generating views which, as we now know, is synonymous – at the Internal Revenue Service – with “product loss.” If this is, in fact, what happened, the write-off doubtless provided a degree of financial largesse that ultimately rendered the three profitable.

I have nothing but sympathy for Google, John. In a moment of significant weakness, they allowed the inclusion in the Digital Copyright Millennium Act of the clause which requires that Google shoulder sole financial responsibility for the removal of offending links, and files. The Industry, working in concert with Senator Chris Dodd (MPAA) and – it must be said – the government itself, collectively threatened Google with the loss of their Safe Harbour status. Caught off guard and in a weakened position, Google simply, unwisely, capitulated.

Now. Here’s the problem. The studios have the right to claim piracy as a taxable write-off. The production companies, the financiers, the television networks: they, too, have this same legal right. For not only does the IRS allow it, the Internal Revenue Service actually requires it. Product loss to a manufacturer, due to either theft or destruction, is a statistic critical to the correct calculation of the Gross Domestic Product.

However, the actors and actresses who made these films, the actors and/or actresses whom we have interest in – an interest that triggered our decision to watch the film in the first place – THEY DO NOT have the right to claim piracy as a write-off. They are denied that financial benefit, even though they are the reason for the film’s profitability. (Neither of us, John, has ever known anyone to see a film simply because it was released by Twentieth-Century Fox. We see the Fox film because it stars Meryl Streep. Thus: why does the studio get an advantage denied to Streep?) Quite the festering sore, yes?

My website is shortly to undergo a major overhaul. I can keep you posted if you’re interested.

Thank You again, John, for your kind interest in my Comment.

A Not-Quite-Ranting Freetard,

John Shutter
@johnshutter

Dear God, the further we reach into the Entertainment Industry’s barrel the more rotten the apples become. This ‘industry’ really is a festering sore on the arsehole of humanity. I checked your website and could hardly believe the about face you have made. No-one could accuse you of being a ranting ‘freetard’. Well done, sir.

Much has been written of the catastrophic effect that piracy is having on the entertainment industry. However, outside of TorrentFreak, nothing has been written of the equally catastrophic financial, and physical, effect that piracy has had on Google itself. As a direct result of a flawed legislative ruling, Google is now required to provide, free of all financial charge, a service designed to clean up messes that not only did Google not make, the Corporation took actual steps to prevent. This is the primary error incorporated into the DMCA.

Most of us here read Google’s transparency report for Calendar Year 2011. The statistics were not only compelling, they were – depending on your view – devastating. In 2011, Google received an average of 11,000,000 takedown notices per month, for an averaged annual total of 132,000,000. Each takedown required a minimum of ten physical actions, from cutting-and-pasting, to mouse clicks, to keystrokes. Thus, for Calendar Year 2011, Google employees performed over 1 billion separate acts to remain compliant with Federal ruling. Free of charge.

Further, a measurable portion of these takedown notices involve files that – in fact – had already been taken down. There are multiple individuals monitoring piracy for The Walt Disney Company. Source 1 discovers that Down and Out in Beverly Hills has been uploaded to YouTube at the same approximate time that Source 2 discovers the same file. The problem here is that Source 2 generated, and delivered, the DMCA takedown five hours before Source 1. As a result, by the time Google received, and took physical action, on the second notice, the file in question was already removed.

We have now identified the second significant flaw with this process. In addition to carrying a per-notice fee, DMCA notices should NOT be sent to Google directly; they need to be sent to the presumed copyright holders. It should be the responsibility of the holder of the copyright to ensure that duplicates are not delivered to Google. Each of you here know how deliciously simple this removal of duplicates can be accomplished. There are any number of programs, up to and including Microsoft Access, that can identify and isolate repeats, preserving only the unique value.

The entertainment industry has created quite the comfortable bed for themselves, a position of comfort which they are collectively loathe to abandon. They have prevailed upon the government to require that Google provide policing services free of charge. Further, they have successfully transferred their own administrative costs with respect to piracy to Google. This is damningly unfair, and it has become damningly costly to a Corporation who played no active role in the upload. (The fact that Google created the platform is not legislatively defined as an “active role.” The Olive Garden supplies an all-you-can-eat salad bar; they cannot reasonably control what you put on your plate from that salad bar.)

When I walked into the anti-piracy fray I was fully prepared to do battle for the studios. In relatively short order, I learned what each of you has known for years: piracy is not one-tenth of the problem the industry states it to be. The problem here, in addition to what we’ve discussed above, is that the Internal Revenue Service allows studios to claim pirated material as a tax write-off. This is here relevant when we consider the fact that Google, “on more than one occasion,” has caught a major motion picture studio uploading its own content to YouTube, just to generate the views, which are then claimed to the IRS as a “product loss” due to “theft or destruction.”

In relatively short order, I executed a sharp 180 degree turn. It is not that the industry needs to be protected from Google: Ladies and gentlemen, Google largely needs to be protected from the entertainment industry. In response to an query posed by a Friend of mine, I robustly stated that “I have NOTHING but sympathy for Google, Inc.” Nothing but sympathy. The studios have enjoyed an extraordinary free ride at Google’s financial expense. Further, and here Team it now affects each and every one of you, this ride has come at the expense of the American taxpayer. The ride needs to be terminated.

So. To (finally) answer the question “Should repeat offenders be punished?” I can only authoritatively answer “Yes.” To that I add that the DMCA needs to be substantially altered, simply because the DMCA is substantially flawed. It has assigned the weight of responsibility to the wrong party, and it engenders a degree of complacency that not only contributes to piracy, but denies the Nation from taxable income. it needs to be immediately corrected.

John Shutter
http://www.veritas281.com
jshutter@veritas281.com
@johnshutter

In fact they are supposedly inadvertently destroying there competition by removing other peoples copyrighted or not copyrighted creations, by removing there product from view. In all honesty I doubt this is a mistake it is too convenient.

That said if everyone who uses the DMCA knows they will receive large fines for taking down non infringing materiel they will most definitely make sure they are taking down only there copyrighted works.

I think a gradual response is called for , the first time they take down any ones content with a dmca illegally they pay for any loss to income and a fine of say $1000.00 the second time they pay a fine of $10 000 and the third time a fine of $100 000 and also lose the ability to take down any content for 6 months. If they have such a lack of respect for others works then they should not expect any for there’s.

The DMCA already has a protection against being used like it is , for some reason people are not using that aspect of the dmca to go after the big copyright holders. They should, and not only to receive a payment for losses but to stop them taking content down that is not there’s.