Amazon Announces Cloud Player and Cloud Drive

[kennyc]

See above....

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If that was indeed the case, then I would be guilty, and in response to the warning letter that I would be sent, I would remove the infringing files from the Cloud service. That is the purpose of the warning, after all.

What if they held back on reporting some of the infringing files so that they could file another report at a later date? You would need to remove them all to be safe, but a lot of people would only remove the ones that were stated in the first complaint.

VERO abusers do this sort of thing all the time on Ebay, and given the past antics of the entertainment industry it wouldn't surprise me if it became common practice under the DEA too.

[HarryT]

What's the benefit to the copyright holder of filing multiple reports, rather than one?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What's the benefit to the copyright holder of filing multiple reports, rather than one?

Multiple reports = multiple offenses = termination of service.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Multiple reports = multiple offenses = termination of service.

Yep. And since the whole point of the DEA is to make it so that the entertainment industry can have people removed from the internet without the need for any evidence of wrongdoing, it is obvious they will use any means possible to speed up the process.

VERO companies have been doing this on Ebay for years, with the same reason in mind. If there is 2 listings containing a keyword they object to they will report one, wait a few days, and then report the other. The result is you get 2 strikes against your account instead of just 1. If you had 3 listings with the same keyword it would be game over within a week.

[HarryT]

What is a "VERO company"?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What is a "VERO company"?

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/vero/index.html

If you have a word that is a trademark you can have listings removed if they use that word even if it has become a generic term like "hoover" or "biro". I had some 1970s Hells Angels books removed a few years ago, and more recently some bean-bag toys because I described them as "beanies" (which is a trademark).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Yep. And since the whole point of the DEA is to make it so that the entertainment industry can have people removed from the internet without the need for any evidence of wrongdoing, ...

You know, that's really not true. The DEA covers a whole host of things, from the regulation of Channel 4 TV, to the allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum, to the management of ".uk" domain registries. The copyright portions of the act are one, relatively small, part of it, and it's a gross exageration to say that their "whole point" is to have people removed from the internet . Indeed, that provision, which requires additional legislation, will ONLY come into force if the initial measures permitted by the act fail to result in a stipulated reduction in the amount of piracy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/vero/index.html

If you have a word that is a trademark you can have listings removed if they use that word even if it has become a generic term like "hoover" or "biro". I had some 1970s Hells Angels books removed a few years ago, and more recently some bean-bag toys because I described them as "beanies" (which is a trademark).

Thanks. Hadn't come across that.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say, though, that the people who are "abusing" VERO are those who post auctions for fake goods, pirated software, etc, on eBay, not the rights-holder who are simply protecting their IP? Goodness knows, if you look on eBay, it's easy enough to find such listings which are clearly blatantly illegal.

[kennyc]

And the backlash starts:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...ammed-critics/

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

that provision, which requires additional legislation, will ONLY come into force if the initial measures permitted by the act fail to result in a stipulated reduction in the amount of piracy.

We both know that's a foregone conclusion. Given the fact that piracy actually increased in France when a similar law was passed, do you really think it is likely to result in the expected reduction here? Even the people who use unauthorised downloads as a sort of trialware to decide what to buy won't be put off until there are some casualties. File collectors and freeloaders won't be put off even then, they will just move back underground.

What sort of measurement are they going to use to tell if it reduces anyway? Wait for entertainment industry profits and see if they increase by £12billion in the first year?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks. Hadn't come across that.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say, though, that the people who are "abusing" VERO are those who post auctions for fake goods, pirated software, etc, on eBay, not the rights-holder who are simply protecting their IP? Goodness knows, if you look on eBay, it's easy enough to find such listings which are clearly blatantly illegal.

They weren't fake books or fake bean toys though. I actually had an email argument with the Hells Angels Corporation of America about the books, they said they portrayed them in an unfavourable light.

Like most of these sort of rules, it probably started out with good intentions but it wasn't long before people with the power to do so started abusing it.

Look at what is being done with the anti-terrorism laws for a good example of that. I doubt they were really intended to stop tourists from taking photos in public or to stop people letting their dogs mess in public parks.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And the backlash starts:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...ammed-critics/

"It sounds like legalized murder to me," said one senior music veteran.

You couldn't make it up could you?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by sufue

I already bought an Amazon mp3 this morning, and it offered me the option to save either to my computer (as normal) or to save to an Amazon Cloud Drive.

What scares me is that someday the option may go away, and I HAVE to save to the Cloud Drive...

Cloud Drive is just a storage repository on Amazon's servers. You can d/l from it at will. So, buy your MP3.. put it in your Cloud Drive... then d/l it to your PC if you are really worried that Amazon's servers and services aren't as secure and permanent as your desktop PC.

BOb

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And the backlash starts:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...ammed-critics/

Hey record companies, wanna know what I did when I was a kid? I'd buy the latest Beatles' 45 and then take it over to a friend's house and play it on his record player, not mine.