I don't want to go digging around into it today, but I'm fairly sure that if a US-based company receives a valid DMCA request, they are required to take down the claimed infringing content without...
Reddit complies with DMCA notices immediately without investigation
I don't want to go digging around into it today, but I'm fairly sure that if a US-based company receives a valid DMCA request, they are required to take down the claimed infringing content without doing their own investigation. The user whose content was removed is generally able to file a counter-notice if they want to dispute the removal, but most users won't want to do that because it involves revealing their personal information.
Oh, you didn't need to remove it. I think it's still a key point, I'm just saying that I don't think they really have a choice about it. People act like reddit should push back against the DMCA...
Oh, you didn't need to remove it. I think it's still a key point, I'm just saying that I don't think they really have a choice about it. People act like reddit should push back against the DMCA claims, but I'm pretty sure that they're not even allowed to.
Comment from r/bestof Excerpt: (Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, ATINLA) So, here's OP's analysis of the situation, and here's why they're wrong -- OP claims: "Reddit does not bother to sort through...
So, here's OP's analysis of the situation, and here's why they're wrong --
OP claims:
"Reddit does not bother to sort through their DMCA notices and complies immediately whether the content is infringing or not."
That's technically true. It's in fact what they're legally required to do -- Reddit, Inc. is not a finder of fact nor a finder of law, and the DMCA is designed to exempt online user-content hosting ISPs such as Reddit from legal liability for copyright violations, by exempting them from acting as a finder of fact or of law.
"Release titles are considering copyright infringement."[SIC]
That statement, in isolation, is objectively legally correct. A title alone can't be copyrighted; A title being discussed can't be copyrighted. But, importantly: We don't know the exact content of the comments / posts that are being characterised by "Release Titles".
"Sharing a streaming site URL is considered copyright infringement."
Yes, yes it is -- if that streaming site is both streaming a copyrighted work, and is positively known to Reddit, Inc. to not have any right to be distributing that copyrighted work. In that case, sharing the streaming site URL is considered red flag knowledge of copyright infringement, and is what the DMCA was written to indemnify ISPs against legal liability for hosting and having, if they comply with the DMCA takedown request.
"Asking if a streaming site is down is considered copyright infringement."
That statement, in isolation, is objectively legally correct [Edit: incorrect]. Discussion of a streaming site can't be copyrighted; Discussion about potentially infringing uses is not something covered by the DMCA. Only material that constitutes red flag knowledge of imminent or ongoing actual copyright infringement would be something that is legally (to the standard of a court) defensible for filing a DMCA claim. But, importantly: We don't know the exact content of the comments / posts that are being characterised by "Asking if...", and importantly, Reddit, Inc. does not find fact or law. They're not a court. They're legally required to not be the judge or jury in DMCA takedown claims.
"Sharing guides on installing programs and not providing links is considered copyright infringement."
That's technically true. Discussion of programs that could be used to infringe (but which have other non-infringing uses, or which the people involved might have non-infringing uses for) is technically, protected speech if that's the only thing that's happening. But, importantly: *We don't know the exact content of the comments / posts that are being characterised by "Sharing guides on installing programs ...", *and importantly, Reddit, Inc. does not find fact or law. They're not a court. They're legally required to not be the judge or jury in DMCA takedown claims.
The takeaway here: as with every other ISP, Reddit, Inc. is legally required to do a takedown and hand over the complaint to the people who posted the material. It's up to the people who published the material that was taken down to then either abandon their efforts, or to step up and prove to a court that their speech was legally protected.
It seems like it's not that certain content is "considered copyright infringing by Reddit." It seems much more like Reddit's hands are tied and they're doing what they're legally compelled to do.
As noted in the reddit comment, we don't know the actual content, and the fact that it was posted in r/piracy is likely a factor in determining whether it would be considered protected by a court...
As noted in the reddit comment, we don't know the actual content, and the fact that it was posted in r/piracy is likely a factor in determining whether it would be considered protected by a court of law.
The mods of the subreddit say that no admin has actually removed anything as by their modlog. This means that either those infrigements are bullshit, the admins can remove things without it...
The mods of the subreddit say that no admin has actually removed anything as by their modlog. This means that either those infrigements are bullshit, the admins can remove things without it appearing in the modlog, the admins are lying or the mods are lying. The last one would be a little strange.
But then again, it would make sense with reddit's recent strategy to try and clean itself up for advertisers. A piracy subreddit, even if nothing actually illegal is ever posted there (at least not without the mods removing it very quickly) doesn't look good on your resume when you're pitching yourself to ad networks. Reddit has notoriously never really made any profit and sustained itself on investments. The redesign, removal of undesirable subreddits is probably all part of the course. The question is if reddit will become another Digg and fall into irrelevancy (a viable option, as reddit is mostly browsed by tech people, at least in my country) due to those changes, or if it will be able to make the jump and become a "legitimate" social network.
They are definitely trying to suck up more of your data, the redesign has encouraged users to enter more of their information.
no. certainly not because of this or the other actions they've taken this week. when reddit dies, it will be because they inflicted a thousand paper cuts on themselves, not because of any singular...
The question is if reddit will become another Digg and fall into irrelevancy
no. certainly not because of this or the other actions they've taken this week. when reddit dies, it will be because they inflicted a thousand paper cuts on themselves, not because of any singular event. keep in mind, reddit is one of the largest and most active sites on the entire internet. they are well beyond the threshold at which even cataclysmic things like a mass shutdown of subreddits would do them significant and extended harm, much less something as small as this.
i wouldn't say that, because they can and will fail sooner or later either as new competition displaces them or as their policies push people to other platforms--social media is after all very...
i wouldn't say that, because they can and will fail sooner or later either as new competition displaces them or as their policies push people to other platforms--social media is after all very hard to monopolize in comparison to real world products and the web is much more fickle than real life. certainly they are not likely to fail anytime soon though, yes.
I know people claim that internet browsers flock around a lot. Has any of that actually happened within the last decade, though? For better or for worse, the internet looks more or less the same...
I know people claim that internet browsers flock around a lot. Has any of that actually happened within the last decade, though? For better or for worse, the internet looks more or less the same to me now as it did five years ago.
Reddit has a very different user base than twitter or facebook: majority is totally anonymous accounts. And I don't think many people use reddit for events or contact with friends and relatives....
Reddit has a very different user base than twitter or facebook: majority is totally anonymous accounts. And I don't think many people use reddit for events or contact with friends and relatives. This makes it so easy to say "fuck reddit" and stop using it.
I feel like Reddit has turned too heavily in the direction of wanting to be a social network. Isn't that why we're here, and not there?
The question is if reddit will become another Digg and fall into irrelevancy (a viable option, as reddit is mostly browsed by tech people, at least in my country) due to those changes, or if it will be able to make the jump and become a "legitimate" social network.
I feel like Reddit has turned too heavily in the direction of wanting to be a social network. Isn't that why we're here, and not there?
It is, but we're also broadly not the people who the investors want on Reddit. As early adopters of a platform made in direct response to what most of us see as Reddit's failings, we've pretty...
It is, but we're also broadly not the people who the investors want on Reddit. As early adopters of a platform made in direct response to what most of us see as Reddit's failings, we've pretty much self-selected as the hardest possible group to monetise.
Yes, I'm totally of the mindset that it is following the Facebook path. Becomes so popular, then so lame, then falls into irrelevancy. But that takes so much time because of the popularity.
Yes, I'm totally of the mindset that it is following the Facebook path. Becomes so popular, then so lame, then falls into irrelevancy. But that takes so much time because of the popularity.
Is this true? Is it a US thing? I feel like Reddit is mostly just unknown outside of the US. Obviously it has a lot of traffic, but outside of the nerdier demographics who spend a lot of time on...
Reddit's own user surveys in the past have shown that Reddit's own users don't want to tell their friends about the site because of the hugely negative stigma that it has.
Is this true? Is it a US thing?
I feel like Reddit is mostly just unknown outside of the US. Obviously it has a lot of traffic, but outside of the nerdier demographics who spend a lot of time on the internet, it's basically unheard of. Never heard a bad thing about it because I never hear a thing about it period.
i don't think it's that reddit is unknown--far from it, rather, as reddit is one of the largest sites on the internet--so much as it's just not mainstream. in spite of its popularity, you almost...
i don't think it's that reddit is unknown--far from it, rather, as reddit is one of the largest sites on the internet--so much as it's just not mainstream. in spite of its popularity, you almost never hear anything about reddit in the media unless it's a tech website or reddit is in controversy, so it hasn't penetrated the social conscious in the same way as twitter or facebook.
Huh. Interesting. Very nice of you to post the source as well - it's a shockingly high proportion of the user base who feel that way, in my opinion. But I'm also probably not Reddit's 'average'...
Huh. Interesting.
Very nice of you to post the source as well - it's a shockingly high proportion of the user base who feel that way, in my opinion. But I'm also probably not Reddit's 'average' user, I mostly frequent smaller niche subs.
I'm not surprised by the negative association, I'm surprised that it stops people recommending it to others. People who use Reddit know that it's a big gathering of different communities of...
If the majority of articles about Reddit are talking about teh hate campaigns like gamergate or fake news conspiracies like Qanon and pizzagate, it shouldn't be surprising that the site is associated with hateful ideas. It also only takes looking at one front page post that includes a black person or woman to see a slew of sexist or racist messages upvoted to the top.
I'm not surprised by the negative association, I'm surprised that it stops people recommending it to others. People who use Reddit know that it's a big gathering of different communities of varying sizes and qualities, which is the whole reason it's worth using in the first place.
I have definitely in the past recommended it with something like "It's great if you're willing to block the defaults and search for things you actually want to see.", but that's still a recommendation.
I've had the exact opposite experience on both counts. While some of it does appear, a good amount of content that's been removed by the admins doesn't appear in the mod log. Some of it is...
In my history with the admins, they have not lied about anything like this and all of their actions have popped up in the log before.
I've had the exact opposite experience on both counts. While some of it does appear, a good amount of content that's been removed by the admins doesn't appear in the mod log. Some of it is "edited" to say that the content was removed, and some is just removed in the background and unable to be reapproved.
That sounds like reddit’s hard spam filter. That is spam filtered similar to automod and not an actual admin removing something, hence no action in the mod log. If a community manager admin (think...
some is just removed in the background and unable to be reapproved.
That sounds like reddit’s hard spam filter. That is spam filtered similar to automod and not an actual admin removing something, hence no action in the mod log. If a community manager admin (think redtaboo or sodypop) manually removes something, it’ll show up just as a normal mod removing something. I would assume the DMCA stuff is a different department with different tools, which is why it doesn’t show up in the mod log.
I'm very new to this site, but will members ever have the power to create their own communities? Sites like YouTube and Reddit have been frustrating me more and more over the years. They've...
I'm very new to this site, but will members ever have the power to create their own communities?
Sites like YouTube and Reddit have been frustrating me more and more over the years. They've morphed from fun websites where you can be chill and get entertained to bending over backwards in an attempt to please advertisers. No one even seems to be allowed to swear on the internet anymore. I really don't want my favorite sites to become as censored as Disney films. If I wanted those, I'd watch them.
At the same time, most alternative sites just seem to be filled with hate speech.
Sorry, this turned into a rant of sorts not entirely related to your comment!
Beyond the mechanisms that @hungariantoast described, solicitation for ideas on new groups to create has been done before and will likely be done again at some point too (once there is enough...
There was also discussion of potentially allowing trusted users (once the trust system is implemented) to vote on which groups to create or if their trust is high enough simply give them the power to create them in their particular area of the hierarchy when they need to.
This is the thread which brought me to Tildes. Not sure what'll happen to that subred (don't remember sub'ing to it and actually not really a regular either) or Reddit in general, but happy to try...
This is the thread which brought me to Tildes. Not sure what'll happen to that subred (don't remember sub'ing to it and actually not really a regular either) or Reddit in general, but happy to try out promising new sites. =)
I understand why Reddit have started this, it's bad for their image to host discussion on piracy, and removing the subreddit that actually hosts piracy I agree with ,but this annoys me. The...
I understand why Reddit have started this, it's bad for their image to host discussion on piracy, and removing the subreddit that actually hosts piracy I agree with ,but this annoys me. The subreddit is used only for discussion and has a great community.
I don't want to go digging around into it today, but I'm fairly sure that if a US-based company receives a valid DMCA request, they are required to take down the claimed infringing content without doing their own investigation. The user whose content was removed is generally able to file a counter-notice if they want to dispute the removal, but most users won't want to do that because it involves revealing their personal information.
Oh, you didn't need to remove it. I think it's still a key point, I'm just saying that I don't think they really have a choice about it. People act like reddit should push back against the DMCA claims, but I'm pretty sure that they're not even allowed to.
Comment from r/bestof
Excerpt:
(Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, ATINLA)
So, here's OP's analysis of the situation, and here's why they're wrong --
OP claims:
"Reddit does not bother to sort through their DMCA notices and complies immediately whether the content is infringing or not."
That's technically true. It's in fact what they're legally required to do -- Reddit, Inc. is not a finder of fact nor a finder of law, and the DMCA is designed to exempt online user-content hosting ISPs such as Reddit from legal liability for copyright violations, by exempting them from acting as a finder of fact or of law.
"Release titles are considering copyright infringement."[SIC]
That statement, in isolation, is objectively legally correct. A title alone can't be copyrighted; A title being discussed can't be copyrighted. But, importantly: We don't know the exact content of the comments / posts that are being characterised by "Release Titles".
"Sharing a streaming site URL is considered copyright infringement."
Yes, yes it is -- if that streaming site is both streaming a copyrighted work, and is positively known to Reddit, Inc. to not have any right to be distributing that copyrighted work. In that case, sharing the streaming site URL is considered red flag knowledge of copyright infringement, and is what the DMCA was written to indemnify ISPs against legal liability for hosting and having, if they comply with the DMCA takedown request.
"Asking if a streaming site is down is considered copyright infringement."
That statement, in isolation, is objectively legally
correct[Edit: incorrect]. Discussion of a streaming site can't be copyrighted; Discussion about potentially infringing uses is not something covered by the DMCA. Only material that constitutes red flag knowledge of imminent or ongoing actual copyright infringement would be something that is legally (to the standard of a court) defensible for filing a DMCA claim. But, importantly: We don't know the exact content of the comments / posts that are being characterised by "Asking if...", and importantly, Reddit, Inc. does not find fact or law. They're not a court. They're legally required to not be the judge or jury in DMCA takedown claims."Sharing guides on installing programs and not providing links is considered copyright infringement."
That's technically true. Discussion of programs that could be used to infringe (but which have other non-infringing uses, or which the people involved might have non-infringing uses for) is technically, protected speech if that's the only thing that's happening. But, importantly: *We don't know the exact content of the comments / posts that are being characterised by "Sharing guides on installing programs ...", *and importantly, Reddit, Inc. does not find fact or law. They're not a court. They're legally required to not be the judge or jury in DMCA takedown claims.
The takeaway here: as with every other ISP, Reddit, Inc. is legally required to do a takedown and hand over the complaint to the people who posted the material. It's up to the people who published the material that was taken down to then either abandon their efforts, or to step up and prove to a court that their speech was legally protected.
It seems like it's not that certain content is "considered copyright infringing by Reddit." It seems much more like Reddit's hands are tied and they're doing what they're legally compelled to do.
As noted in the reddit comment, we don't know the actual content, and the fact that it was posted in r/piracy is likely a factor in determining whether it would be considered protected by a court of law.
The mods of the subreddit say that no admin has actually removed anything as by their modlog. This means that either those infrigements are bullshit, the admins can remove things without it appearing in the modlog, the admins are lying or the mods are lying. The last one would be a little strange.
But then again, it would make sense with reddit's recent strategy to try and clean itself up for advertisers. A piracy subreddit, even if nothing actually illegal is ever posted there (at least not without the mods removing it very quickly) doesn't look good on your resume when you're pitching yourself to ad networks. Reddit has notoriously never really made any profit and sustained itself on investments. The redesign, removal of undesirable subreddits is probably all part of the course. The question is if reddit will become another Digg and fall into irrelevancy (a viable option, as reddit is mostly browsed by tech people, at least in my country) due to those changes, or if it will be able to make the jump and become a "legitimate" social network.
They are definitely trying to suck up more of your data, the redesign has encouraged users to enter more of their information.
no. certainly not because of this or the other actions they've taken this week. when reddit dies, it will be because they inflicted a thousand paper cuts on themselves, not because of any singular event. keep in mind, reddit is one of the largest and most active sites on the entire internet. they are well beyond the threshold at which even cataclysmic things like a mass shutdown of subreddits would do them significant and extended harm, much less something as small as this.
In other words, they're the Internet's "too big to fail".
i wouldn't say that, because they can and will fail sooner or later either as new competition displaces them or as their policies push people to other platforms--social media is after all very hard to monopolize in comparison to real world products and the web is much more fickle than real life. certainly they are not likely to fail anytime soon though, yes.
I know people claim that internet browsers flock around a lot. Has any of that actually happened within the last decade, though? For better or for worse, the internet looks more or less the same to me now as it did five years ago.
What has happened in the meantime?
Reddit has a very different user base than twitter or facebook: majority is totally anonymous accounts. And I don't think many people use reddit for events or contact with friends and relatives. This makes it so easy to say "fuck reddit" and stop using it.
I feel like Reddit has turned too heavily in the direction of wanting to be a social network. Isn't that why we're here, and not there?
It is, but we're also broadly not the people who the investors want on Reddit. As early adopters of a platform made in direct response to what most of us see as Reddit's failings, we've pretty much self-selected as the hardest possible group to monetise.
I think they have too heavily turned into the direction of pleasing shareholders and being advertising friendly :/
Yes, I'm totally of the mindset that it is following the Facebook path. Becomes so popular, then so lame, then falls into irrelevancy. But that takes so much time because of the popularity.
Is this true? Is it a US thing?
I feel like Reddit is mostly just unknown outside of the US. Obviously it has a lot of traffic, but outside of the nerdier demographics who spend a lot of time on the internet, it's basically unheard of. Never heard a bad thing about it because I never hear a thing about it period.
i don't think it's that reddit is unknown--far from it, rather, as reddit is one of the largest sites on the internet--so much as it's just not mainstream. in spite of its popularity, you almost never hear anything about reddit in the media unless it's a tech website or reddit is in controversy, so it hasn't penetrated the social conscious in the same way as twitter or facebook.
Huh. Interesting.
Very nice of you to post the source as well - it's a shockingly high proportion of the user base who feel that way, in my opinion. But I'm also probably not Reddit's 'average' user, I mostly frequent smaller niche subs.
I'm not surprised by the negative association, I'm surprised that it stops people recommending it to others. People who use Reddit know that it's a big gathering of different communities of varying sizes and qualities, which is the whole reason it's worth using in the first place.
I have definitely in the past recommended it with something like "It's great if you're willing to block the defaults and search for things you actually want to see.", but that's still a recommendation.
I've had the exact opposite experience on both counts. While some of it does appear, a good amount of content that's been removed by the admins doesn't appear in the mod log. Some of it is "edited" to say that the content was removed, and some is just removed in the background and unable to be reapproved.
That sounds like reddit’s hard spam filter. That is spam filtered similar to automod and not an actual admin removing something, hence no action in the mod log. If a community manager admin (think redtaboo or sodypop) manually removes something, it’ll show up just as a normal mod removing something. I would assume the DMCA stuff is a different department with different tools, which is why it doesn’t show up in the mod log.
I wonder if you can regress against internet archive to determine if anything has been removed by the admins.
I'm very new to this site, but will members ever have the power to create their own communities?
Sites like YouTube and Reddit have been frustrating me more and more over the years. They've morphed from fun websites where you can be chill and get entertained to bending over backwards in an attempt to please advertisers. No one even seems to be allowed to swear on the internet anymore. I really don't want my favorite sites to become as censored as Disney films. If I wanted those, I'd watch them.
At the same time, most alternative sites just seem to be filled with hate speech.
Sorry, this turned into a rant of sorts not entirely related to your comment!
Thank you for all of the info!
Beyond the mechanisms that @hungariantoast described, solicitation for ideas on new groups to create has been done before and will likely be done again at some point too (once there is enough traffic here to justify their creation):
https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/342/daily_tildes_discussion_proposals_for_trial_groups_round_1
https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/13h/daily_tildes_discussion_more_growth_more_groups
There was also discussion of potentially allowing trusted users (once the trust system is implemented) to vote on which groups to create or if their trust is high enough simply give them the power to create them in their particular area of the hierarchy when they need to.
Creating groups is also covered in the Tildes wiki.
FYI: @DGx
This is the thread which brought me to Tildes. Not sure what'll happen to that subred (don't remember sub'ing to it and actually not really a regular either) or Reddit in general, but happy to try out promising new sites. =)
Here's a relevant comment from r/bestof.
What does tilde think about things like a similar "topic" being hosted on here?
But if it's just directing users, is that actually breaking the law? I don't get that aspect of it.
This makes sense to me. Direction to streaming sites even? I don't see why this is wrong but it's not up to me, of course.
I understand why Reddit have started this, it's bad for their image to host discussion on piracy, and removing the subreddit that actually hosts piracy I agree with ,but this annoys me. The subreddit is used only for discussion and has a great community.
Does anyone know what this would mean for streaming subreddits? Would streaming fall under the same law as downloaded content?
r/soccerstreams got hit about a month ago. The others are still up so far.