In trying to encourage people to make use of the anti-piracy tools that scarpe basket jordan are available to them, be those people prospective DMCA Force clients or simply rights-holders with whom I’m friends, I’m often confronted with a very defeatist attitude. A question I’m frequently asked, in various forms, is: “What’s the point?”
I certainly understand where they’re coming from. Issuing DMCA take down notices to the same websites, for the same content, over and over, does get very frustrating. It’s a tired cliche at this point, but the process really does strongly resemble a game of Whac-a-Mole.
Even so, I’m still disheartened to read articles like this one from the Wall Street Journal, which highlights (among other things) the fact that many movie studios are still not making use of Google’s “Content ID” digital fingerprint filtering function.
As the WSJ article observes:
The recent problematic uploads may have undercut the rental effort. Movies produced by Disney’s Touchstone Pictures, such as “I Am Number Four” and “Shanghai Noon” are available free on YouTube, even though the studio struck a rental deal through the site.
So, even after striking a deal with YouTube, Touchstone Pictures didn’t take the step of having their films digitally fingerprinted by YouTube? To me, that’s a failure on the part of both Touchstone and Google, but the error is greater on Touchstone’s part; it is their intellectual property we’re talking about, after all.
Take down notices, digital fingerprint filtering and every other tool available to you as a rights holder is just like any other tool, folks: It can only do its job if you actually use it.
I have my issues with Google (many of them, in fact), but I have a hard time finding too much fault with Google where the lack of use of Content ID is concerned. That failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the studios who have a tool available, but for whatever reason choose to leave it in the tool chest, unused.http://www.sneaker2018.it/