Yeah. Although apparently the company doing it (Remove Your Media LLC) is known for sending out takedown notices on little to no evidence - I'm not the only one that's gotten confusing takedown notices. I just wish that the counter-claim form didn't ask so many personally identifying questions (address, phone, etc.).
It's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Goggle's the one that set my posts to draft and removed them from Google searches, and, since they own Blogspot, they can take down my whole blog if I just republish them without either editing out the offending content (all mentions of the streaming service?) or file a counter-claim. I'm probably going to file a counter-claim for at least one of these posts.
Yes - it's a mix of bots and content matching services.
Owning it on DVD doesn't actually effect the mentioning of content. However, under US Copyright Law, Fair Use Exemption, excerpts may be used for the purpose of critique, which reviews fall under.
Content matching is a huge issue when it comes to legitimate fair use, because it usually uses a flamethrower approach.
"Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use."
With factors weighing in (purpose & character of use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount used, and effect on potential market)
Also, Fair Use is an automatic right, it's something they're supposed to have to prove you have violated, not something you're supposed to prove you meet, but that's something being largely lost in automated take-downs
Yes - it's a mix of bots and content matching services.
Owning it on DVD doesn't actually effect the mentioning of content. However, under US Copyright Law, Fair Use Exemption, excerpts may be used for the purpose of critique, which reviews fall under.
Content matching is a huge issue when it comes to legitimate fair use, because it usually uses a flamethrower approach.
"Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use."
With factors weighing in (purpose & character of use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount used, and effect on potential market)
Also, Fair Use is an automatic right, it's something they're supposed to have to prove you have violated, not something you're supposed to prove you meet, but that's something being largely lost in automated take-downs