Copyright Claims Shut Down Websites With No Proof or Due Process

Eric Blair

Activist Post



Who needs SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) or the international ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) when companies can have websites or YouTube channels removed simply by claiming their content has been infringed?



That is exactly what happened to the hip hop blog Dajaz1.com when the US government seized and censored it
for over a year at the behest of the Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA). RIAA claimed, while providing no evidence, that Dajaz1
was infringing on their copyrights and demanded they be shut down.



The government obliged the request before receiving any proof of the
infringement. As it turns out, the RIAA couldn't provide any evidence
and the government was forced to return the website
with not so much as even an apology. Fortunately, Dajaz1 had their
property returned to them, but not before they lost a year of revenue
plus the aggravation involved in battling false claims.



This case illustrated that the burden of proof was
not needed, nor was due process, to censor and seize properties that are
accused of copyright crimes.



In the past, the Department of Homeland Security has committed mass
seizures of websites and domains suspected of copyright piracy, and
even shut down sites for merely linking to to copyrighted material confirming that the government and judges will do the bidding for large corporations with or without the authority to do so.



Incidentally, using this draconian tactic appears to be the only way
that "authorities" can seize websites accused of copyright violations.
Every single case where copyright trolls like Righthaven have attempted
to use proper court channels (i.e. due process), the lawsuits were
either dismissed or ruled in favor "fair use rights."






Because not one of these cases has proven to be genuine copyright
infringement, one would think that they should be treated as "innocent
until proven guilty" going forward. However, these preemptive seizures
seem to be on the increase even without sweeping authority given in
bills like SOPA, or more recently CISPA.



What's worse, content hosting sites like YouTube have recently begun
implementing automated copyright sensors which act to shut down channels
of those who were flagged in the system. And these actions have not
even been prompted by legislation or corporate requests.



This week, YouTube restricted the channels of one of the most-viewed
publishers on their platform because of an automated copyright claim by a
third-party marketing company. Radio news host Alex Jones, whose
primary YouTube channel has over 200 million views, and affiliate
channels combine for nearly a half-a-billion views, was put on notice by
Google-owned YouTube.



What was Jones' copyright crime? He aired his radio interviews with Joe
Rogan who is under contract with a web marketing company called Bent
Pixels. Bent Pixels claims sole copyright ownership of Rogan’s voice and
image.



Paul Joseph Watson, who works for Alex Jones, writes:

Although Bent Pixels had previously used its own software to place ads
on You Tube videos that contain exclusive Rogan content, You Tube began
using its own automated software to determine which videos contained the
image or voice of Joe Rogan, and then threatened legitimate content
owners with community violations if the clips were not removed.

Not only our videos of Joe Rogan’s appearances on the Alex Jones Show
but other Joe Rogan videos across You Tube were deleted on this pretext
and channels were suspended.

This software has been applied across the You Tube platform, which is
why hundreds of thousands of videos are now being deleted even though
they clearly represent fair use or are even exclusive content which
doesn’t even pertain to fair use.