Years of Howard Stern’s interviews with Trump now gone after DMCA takedown

A Washington, DC startup that recently posted an audio archive of years’ worth of Howard Stern’s interviews with Donald Trump, all before he was elected president, has been hit with a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice and a cease-and-desist letter.

On Wednesday afternoon, roughly 48 hours after it was put up, the audio trove has been removed from YouTube and SoundCloud. For now, the transcripts remain on, a website created by the startup FactSquared. published a total of around 15 hours’ worth of audio—exclusively of the minutes when Trump was on The Howard Stern Show—gathered from nearly 25 years of shows, starting in 1993 and ending in 2015.

Read 19 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Atlus wants to cut off a PS3 emulator because it runs Persona 5

Video game publishers often use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to try to stop things like fan-games, ROM hacks, YouTube videos, and even “obsolete titles” from being distributed on the Internet. Japanese publisher Atlus, though, is using a more expansive view of DMCA protections to try to take down a PC-based PlayStation 3 emulator merely because it enables players to run copies of Persona 5.

The battle centers on the Patreon page for RPCS3, an “early, work-in-progress” effort to create a functional PS3 emulator that currently attracts more than $3,000 a month from 677 patrons. As Reddit user ssshadow notes in a thread, Atlus issued a DMCA request to Patreon to have the page taken down. While Patreon did not agree to that request, the RPCS3 team says it removed all references to Persona 5 from the Patreon page to help “resolve the situation.”

Though Atlus reportedly acknowledged that “the PS3 emulator itself is not infringing on our copyrights and trademarks,” the publisher argued that “no version of the P5 game should be playable on this platform; and [the RPCS3] developers are infringing on our IP by making such games playable.” In a followup message to Patreon, Atlus reportedly argued that “to make Persona 5 work on the emulator, the user has to circumvent our DRM protections” and points out that the non-Patreon RPCS3 page provides generalized instructions for how to “dump” a legitimate copy of the game from your PS3.

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Mod that adds online play to Super Mario 64 draws Nintendo’s ire

Nintendo has issued a number of DMCA copyright takedown notices aimed at hindering a popular mod that adds online play to a PC-emulated version of Super Mario 64, letting up to 24 players run around the game’s world together as a number of different characters.

ROM hacker Kaze Emanuar says Nintendo issued takedown requests for several videos of Super Mario 64 Online gameplay on his YouTube channel. Those videos featured download links and instructions for installing the ROM hack, which have also been removed along with the videos.

The main video announcing the mod’s launch had received more than a million views since going up early last week (an archived copy of that video is still up on IGN). Emanuar told Kotaku that “tens of thousands” of people were playing the game as of yesterday.

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Selling alterable versions of Star Wars is still infringement, court says

A video-on-demand streaming service that enables the filtering of objectionable content to make it family friendly is breaking US copyright law, a federal appeals court ruled.

The service, VidAngel, buys movie discs and decrypts and rips them. It then streams versions that allow customers to filter out nudity, profanity, and violence. In doing so, it breached the performance rights of Disney, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Brothers, the court ruled. VidAngel purchased a disc for every stream it sold, some 2,500 titles in all.

Star Wars is still Star Wars, even without Princess Leia’s bikini scene,” the opinion said. Just because objectionable content is removed, that doesn’t necessarily transform the content enough to allow this type of behavior under a fair use analysis, the court wrote Thursday.

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

DMCA takedown removes River City Random Underground from Steam

River City Ransom Underground was removed from Steam late last week, part of an unfolding legal drama surrounding a composer who has been directing DMCA copyright-infringement takedowns at games she says don’t have the rights to her music.

Conatus’ Andrew Russell, one of the developers of River City Ransom Underground, said in a short statement that “we are aware that RCRU is down on Steam. We have contacted Valve’s copyright department, and will let you know when access is restored.” But composer Alex Mauer confirmed to Destructoid that the removal was the result of a Digital Millenium Copyright Act request she made against the title.

“Conatus never got my written permission to use my music in the game,” Mauer told the site. “As far as I know, they have Disasterpeace’s [one of the game’s composers] signature and are trying to act like that alone is enough to have secured rights.”

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Animal rights? Monkey selfie case may undo evolution of the Internet

Going on two years now, an Indonesian macaque monkey named Naruto, represented by his self-appointed lawyers from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has been trying to claim ownership of the selfies he took of himself with a camera he swiped from a British nature photographer in the jungle of the Tangkoko reserve.

This issue is no laughing matter, regardless of how bizarre it seems.

Let’s assume PETA is correct—that copyrights can be granted to animals. After all, US copyright law grants ownership of images to those who snapped them. So why can’t that owner be a monkey? That’s PETA’s position—one that has been generally down-voted so far in court and across a broad swath of the Internet as being bananas.

Read 13 remaining paragraphs | Comments

It was 20 years ago today when the Supreme Court unshackled the Internet

Comedian George Carlin’s monologue, “Seven words you can never say on television,” opened the door for the American Civil Liberties Union to convince the US Supreme Court to nullify legislation outlawing “indecent” online speech.

Twenty years ago today the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision and unanimously overturned congressional legislation that made it unlawful to transmit “indecent” material on the Internet if that content could be viewed by minors. The justices ruled that the same censorship standards being applied to broadcast radio and television could not be applied to the Internet.

“The record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet has been and continues to be phenomenal,” the high court concluded. “As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that government regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it.”

The Supreme Court had decided a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the section of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) at issue could criminalize too broad a swath of speech. The ACLU maintained that the CDA did not define what “indecent” meant and that the law would dumb-down the Internet in the same manner as the censorship requirements imposed on broadcasters that transmit over public spectrum. The ACLU won its case on June 26, 1997. The decision, in conjunction with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other surviving parts of the CDA, has provided one of the strongest legal tools for crafting today’s Internet as we know it.

Read 14 remaining paragraphs | Comments

DMCA “safe harbor” up in the air for online sites that use moderators

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s so-called “safe harbor” defense to infringement is under fire from a paparazzi photo agency. A new court ruling says the defense may not always be available to websites that host content submitted by third parties.

The safe harbor provision is what has given rise to sites like YouTube and various social media platforms. In essence, safe harbor was baked into the DMCA to allow websites to be free from legal liability for infringing content posted by their users—so long as the website timely removes that content at the request of the rights holder.

But a San Francisco-based federal appeals court is ruling that, if a website uses moderators to review content posted by third parties, the safe harbor privilege may not apply. That’s according to a Friday decision in a dispute brought by Mavrix Photographs against LiveJournal, which hosts the popular celebrity fan forum “Oh No they Didn’t.” The site hosted Mavrix-owned photos of Beyonce Knowles, Katy Perry, and other stars without authorization.

Read 7 remaining paragraphs | Comments