Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas

 Some good news in the world of copyright, the United States Ninth Circuit has decided to enforce limits on spurious DMCA actions. 

 The Ninth Circuit upheld an important limitation on Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) subpoenas that other federal courts have recognized for more than two decades. The DMCA, a misguided anti-piracy law passed in the late nineties, created a bevy of powerful tools, ostensibly to help copyright holders fight online infringement. Unfortunately, the DMCA’s powerful protections are ripe for abuse by “copyright trolls,” unscrupulous litigants who abuse the system at everyone else’s expense.

Full story at the Electronic Freedom Foundation. 

Yes that's right, in addition to restricting use and reuse of material, copyright legislation gives copyright holders and those who represent them or claim to do so sweeping powers to collect private information. To demonstrate how ludicrous this situation is, I'll disclose that when appealing or submitting counter notices for use of public domain material and material I created I have had to give up personal information in order to register the challenge, and this is one-sided I cannot request the same information from the other side.

Even more, worryingly, once an acquaintance of mine had to get a lawyer to stop YouTube from giving up his personal information to a copyright claimant. After some back and forth, it was revealed that the copyright claimant had no connection to the IP in question, and was an open Neo-Nazi who was attempting to use the system to track down my acquaintance via the copyright takedown system. That is an extreme example, but really anyone could use these tools to harvest information and target people, and this was perfectly legal with no recourse for the victims.

There really is no need for a legitimate copyright claimant to know the personal information of anyone, if copyright is being infringed and actual harm is being done then shutting down the unauthorised distribution solves that issue. Everything else that comes with it be it fines, prison time, or losing your right to privacy is just a punitive tool for the powerful at the expense of the average citizen. 

So, I'm pleased to see that the EFF has been successful here in lobbying to weaken this tool of intimidation and harassment.  Let's hope there's more to come in the future.

Godzilla is coming for us all!

 

Soon, soon.

Recently there's been an interesting development, a Japanese man from Osaka was arrested for selling bootleg DVDs. Okay, given how strict Japan's IP laws are, that isn't particularly interesting. Except, that one of the DVDs was a colourised version of the original Godzilla movie, released in 1954.

Again, since that movie is owned by Toho, Japan's Disney analogue an arrest isn't surprising either. But because it went to court and a sentence was given, it gave some much-needed clarity to a grey area in Japanese copyright law.  

 

Ippei Miyamoto, a part-time worker in the Osaka city of Toyonaka, has admitted to the allegation, according to investigative sources.

Miyamoto is suspected of selling a DVD copy of the 1954 film, copyrighted by Toho, for ¥2,980 in mid-November last year.

According to police sources, he allegedly used image conversion software to colorize old black-and-white films and created pirated DVDs, which he sold on flea market websites and his own website.

Japan Times 

If you remember when I wrote about Kurosawa, I mentioned that Japan currently has two overlapping copyright terms for its 20th century cinematic output. An older statute that set terms of protection for movies at 38 years after the passing of its director, and a newer one that lasts for 70 years after publication. But since both were upheld by Japan's court system, it was difficult to work out the terms of protection for many of Japan's older movies. 

Until today, while I am against the arrest and probable prosecution of Ippei Miyamoto, I am glad at least that in forming a case against him the police have answered that question. In order to mount a case for copyright infringement, they had to prove that the work in question was still under copyright. The case against Miyamoto states that since the Director of Godzilla Ishiro Honda died in 1993 the copyright on the film and all of Honda's other directed works expires in 2031. So, on the 1st of January 2031, Godzilla will enter the public domain in Japan, and all other territories that have the law of shorter term. Which includes the nation I live in, but does not include many nations, including the United States of America.

 I won't gloat, 6 years is a long time and there's still time for some copyright "reform" that will favour Toho keeping control for even longer. That's happened a lot in recent years.