Slashdot Mirror

What amazes me is - this is precisely the same crap the Cult of Scientology keeps doing.

Has anyone ever noticed how many MafiAA bigwigs are also Scientologists? Anyone think there might be a connection?

Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. ...

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)].

If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)].

The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"?

Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury.

As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.

Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury.

Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party's actions.

In copyright law, vicarious liability may be established if the third party had the "right and ability to control" the infringer's activities, and if the third party received some financial benefit from the acts of infringement.

Frequently Asked Questions (And Answers) about DMCA Safe Harbor

If you know you are hosting infringing content and do nothing about it you are dead.

You can't let things slide until someone rats you out.

If you are aiding the infringer in any way - or rewarding him for posting infringing content - you are dead. If you penalize the legitimate content provider you are dead.

If you are making money on the infringement you are dead.

And if you die of old age, you are dead.

I almost died of old age scrolling down. You didn't have to quote the entire post.

Neither did you.

Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. ...

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)].

If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)].

The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"?

Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury.

As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.

Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury.

Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party's actions.

In copyright law, vicarious liability may be established if the third party had the "right and ability to control" the infringer's activities, and if the third party received some financial benefit from the acts of infringement.

Frequently Asked Questions (And Answers) about DMCA Safe Harbor

If you know you are hosting infringing content and do nothing about it you are dead.

You can't let things slide until someone rats you out.

If you are aiding the infringer in any way - or rewarding him for posting infringing content - you are dead. If you penalize the legitimate content provider you are dead.

If you are making money on the infringement you are dead.

And if you die of old age, you are dead.

I almost died of old age scrolling down. You didn't have to quote the entire post.

Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. ...

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)].

If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)].

The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"?

Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury.

As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.

Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury.

Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party's actions.

In copyright law, vicarious liability may be established if the third party had the "right and ability to control" the infringer's activities, and if the third party received some financial benefit from the acts of infringement.

Frequently Asked Questions (And Answers) about DMCA Safe Harbor

If you know you are hosting infringing content and do nothing about it you are dead.

You can't let things slide until someone rats you out.

If you are aiding the infringer in any way - or rewarding him for posting infringing content - you are dead. If you penalize the legitimate content provider you are dead.

If you are making money on the infringement you are dead.

And if you die of old age, you are dead.

Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. ...

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)].

If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)].

The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"?

Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury.

As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.

Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury.

Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party's actions.

In copyright law, vicarious liability may be established if the third party had the "right and ability to control" the infringer's activities, and if the third party received some financial benefit from the acts of infringement.

Frequently Asked Questions (And Answers) about DMCA Safe Harbor

If you know you are hosting infringing content and do nothing about it you are dead.

You can't let things slide until someone rats you out.

If you are aiding the infringer in any way - or rewarding him for posting infringing content - you are dead. If you penalize the legitimate content provider you are dead.

If you are making money on the infringement you are dead.

Actually GitHub can have every chance. What they needed to do in this case was simple enough. Contact the owner of the repository and hand over the responsibility to them. If the owner decides that Sony has acted badly and made an incorrect claim then GitHub is cleared of any legal responsibility and can put the work back online.

The procedure is explained at Chilling Effects. Although the DMCA is widely detested, one of the (only?) things that it does get right is that the legal battle is not between Sony and Github. If Github comply then they get to step to one side with any liability.

Basically what's going on is that Sony had their attorneys file a fraudulent take down request. Github will look at it and probably put the materials back online in the near future. Right now they're pretty clearly commiting perjury
Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?

Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?

Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

        The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
        The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
        Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
        A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
        A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html

http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132

http://www.crucialp.com/resources/tutorials/web-hosting/how-to-file-dmca-counter-claim.php

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/06/03/7-common-questions-about-dmca-counter-notices/

Freedom of speech...really, when you get right down to it, when you download music, that's a form of censorship. You're taking money away from the MPAA, and that's money they use to bribe congressmen and senators and presidents. How can they redress the Government when they don't have any money?

The internet is used for a lot more than downloading music, and is often used as a way of distributing information. For the common citizen (who doesn't own a TV station), short of speaking in a street/park with a megaphone, this is often the only way they have of communicating. The internet a medium of communication, facilitating speech even if in electronic form.

For freedom of the press, how important is it to be able for the media to access the Internet? You have newspapers and television and radio. Admittedly, half of those are official government propaganda machines and the other half is owned by media conglomerates, but the idea is still there.

Well, if I want unbiased information about politics, the internet is probably where I would start. The internet is the only form of media where anyone regardless of how wealthy they are can put something, and if you take that away, making the only form of free speech privately owned and controlled, then it's not quite free anymore. Sure it's free for the people who own the media, but anyone else only gets to say something if it's in line with the message the owner wants expressed. Truly free speech means even the people you (or the elite class) does not like, and currently the internet is the only place where that (usually) happens.

Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.

People actually do use Twitter for this sort of thing, though I more often see Facebook used for that. Also, use of one's own online service, like hosting your own website for coordination of protests, collaborating over an IRC channel or other chat room, web streaming (or use of YouTube), or just plain e-mail communication, are all perfectly legitimate uses of the internet for assembly, and very prone to use for political motives by the masses. If the powers that be can argue there is copyright infringement (or linkage, like with thepiratebay.org) going on from protest-gathering-website.com, then they can justify blocking it just like any other website and thereby prevent assembly on it. The way the DMCA works now (and I don't think this law will be any better), any time an issue is time-sensitive or the defendants lack resources to defend themselves in court, you (the powers that be) don't even have to prove you own the copyrighted work. The DMCA wasn't even intended for censorship, while this particular bill is. Same goes for pretty much any other website.

Aside from religion (unless they decide Islamic websites are illegal or something), the ability of the government to censor parts of the internet does apply to the 1st amendment. Futhermore, copyright has already been (ab)used many times to censor free speech, so this is not just a hypothetical scenario. To claim copyright cannot, was not, or will not be used for online political censorship or that a law aimed at online censorship will not be abused is either naive or lying.

You (like most who “know” what they’re doing, I’d guess) are pretty well aware of the implications of a takedown notice, and pretty (blissfully perhaps) unaware of the implications of a counter-takedown notice. (This is, I think, often the case because the takedown notice usually has high-priced lawyers behind it, and the counter-takedown notice usually has “cuz I said so” written pretty plainly between the lines of actual print.)

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf (disregard .pdf extension, it isn’t)

Basically, the matter can be broken down into arrangements/liabilities between parties:

- User-hoster arrangement; user uploads content and hoster hosts it.
- Claimant issues a DMCA takedown: Liability now lies EITHER between claimant and hoster, or between claimant and user, DEPENDING on hoster’s action.
- Assume in this case that they remove the content, in which case liability will lie between claimant and user. Generally the process stops here, because claimant usually has high-powered lawyers and user typically does not.
- However, user, in this case, hires lawyers of their own and issues counter-takedown notice: Liability now lies either between user and claimant or between user and hoster, depending on whether or not hoster restores the content.

From what I know about the DMCA, it's illegal to reverse engineer a copyrighted software (and this software unlock will be copyrighted). So you won't be able to reverse engineer the program to "do-it-yourself", and the CPU could also have a hardware checks (to make sure the software is the correct Intel-only program) so you won't be able to reverse engineer the CPUs firmware under the same DMCA issues. That leaves pirating the software unlock which is still illegal under the DMCA.

on a side not, formerly holding clearance and being a staunch anti-weed guy, the ganja has changed my world for the better, more guys should try it...

Almost all the combat vets I've known smoke weed. If you smoke cigarettes, reefer will cut your chance of getting cancer in half. I was looking for the citation, and found this "Chilling effects" page listing sites Google has been ordered by the US courts to remove search results for. Many of them are scientific studies, making me suspect that the facts about pot are being censored by the drug warriers.

The study I was looking for was a statistical study of four groups of baby boomers: cigarette smokers, cannibis smokers, those who smoked both, and nonsmokers. It found that those who smoked both cigarettes and pot had roughly half the incidence of cancer than those who smoked only cigarettes, and those who smoked only pot actually had fewer cancers than nonsmokers, although the difference was stastically insignifigant.

I did find news of a different study that found that The compound found in cannabis, called cannabidiol (CBD), inhibits a gene, Id-1, that researchers believe is responsible for the metastatic process that spreads cells from the original tumor throughout the body. Oddly, that link was from a slashdot story Google listed.

Keeping pot illegal is incredibly stupid. People like the FFADFS are just plain evil.

But seriously...... the whole point of the DMCA was to protect third-party companies.

Nope. Copyright was intended "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by granting a government-sponsored monopoly to content creators with built-in checks and balances such as limited time and fair use. It's just getting systematically reshaped to allow for unlimited time, market control, and unaccountable censorship. It just looks like it's intended to protect tyrannical trade associations and unaccountable corporations, and effectively accomplishes, because that's who is amending it for congress.

. . . anything in there about how Viacom uploaded their own material so they could bust youtube for it?

No, no need to. In fact, in order to find in favor of Youtube's summary judgement motion (which decides the case without a trial) the judge had to assume all of the disputed facts in Viacomm's favor.
Summary judgement cannot judge matters of fact, only matters of law. The judge decided that the safe harbor provisions of law do not allow Viacomm to sue even if what they alleged is true.
(note, however, that the judgement implied that there might still be other issues left open for trial)

Actually, what you just said would be true - if it weren't for the fact that Google actively removes links to infringing content.

Google does not remove links to links to links to infringing content.

They do. See here, and you'll see a list of URLs that aren't themselves copies of "Avatar", but that are pages that link to a torrent or something similar. You'll also see search pages that link to pages that in turn link to the content. (The "http://torrentreactor.net/search.php" ones.)

Now whether this post will be removed... well, we'll have to just wait and see.

There's nothing wrong with the protocol. Newzbin are an indexing site; one of many. In their case, they provided a commercial service for hand-categorized nzbs, which are pretty analogous to .torrent files, from a legal point of view at least. That they had categories labelled up for 'screener', 'R5', 'Warez' etc etc along with the documentation explicitly advising editors how to post infringing material.

What's interesting is that they've not been threatened with shut down or massive fines yet, unlike the pirate bay; as far as I'm aware, contributory infringement is illegal in the UK.

So while Newsbin's nzb files will live on as the standard method of collating binary files on usenet, the site itself is destined to be filtered into 'uselessness' (see mininova) even if it isn't shut down with a followup judgement. I expect a number of other indexing sites to spring up, and a number of the existing ones to grow larger - probably hosted in countries that aren't quite so pro-copyright holders as the UK, especially if they don't have contributory copyright infringement laws common in the US and western Europe.

Two thoughts spring to mind;
1) will they get a copy of users search history (complete with creditcard logs linking them to the account)? (and no, I've never been a member)
2) when do they start going after the usenet providers themselves?

The link in the Slashdot article links to a blog which links to a Facebook page which links to an ad-heavy web site and a Twitter log. Nowhere is the actual "legal threat" defined.

If the legal threat is real, post it to Chilling Effects.

I don't think Google goes to the extent of saying "your query is against U.S. law so we won't give you results", as they once did in China.

You might like to look at Chilling Effects.

Also Wikipedia.

I would much rather they did say "this result cannot be given due to local laws" (or whatever). People ought to know, so they can challenge the laws.

I wrote a journal about my problems with Pair. I've been happily using Pair for many years, and still use them, but they told me to start looking for another provider.

Pair told me they'll remove my entire site if they get another DMCA request about my posting 17 out of 600 questions from the MMPI. It's the same issue that slashdot has posted before. My problem is, the same attorney from the previous slashdot article, Carl W. Covert, Jr. from NCS Pearson, Inc., sent Pair two DMCAs about the same page, two months apart, and Pair hasn't had a customer who sent in a non-compliance response.

With my first DMCA, I went to Chilling Effects and used a boilerplate response. I had a copyright attorney check it before sending it. The DMCA says they have 14 days to sue. I asked Pair if it was settled after 14 days went by and only received the "we received your response and will respond". I figured if they ignored that, then the issue was settled. After two months, I got the same DMCA from the same attorney about the same page.

Pair removed my page for 14 days and sent an email saying that if they get another DMCA they will remove my entire site. My site covers a Star Trek band, Sacramento punk rock history, and an outdated blog about riding a crappy old motorcycle round the world. Now I'm in Korea, trying not to fight with an ISP that I was happy with, over 17 questions.

After having to badger Pair for a response, I finally got this:

Dear Dave,

I apologize for your confusion and I also appreciate your conviction.
However, pair Networks is a web hosting provider, not a law firm. Our job
is not to interpret the DMCA or the law in general, but to follow it.
Lawyers are very expensive, and the bottom line is that our Service Contract
states that we can terminate all or any part of an account for any reason
without notice. In this case, we are giving you fair warning that to keep
your site online, the best thing for you to do is remove the contested
material. While we appreciate your business, We also have to look out for
our best interest. While I understand that it
causes a moral dilemma for you, the bottom line is that, if we receive a
restraining order, we are not going to fight it; we are going to follow our
lawyer's advice and disable the site as a whole. If you want to proactively
avoid this situation, then you may want to look into moving your site to
another provider. We are not trying to push you away with this statement;
you always have the option of simply removing the content in question.

Sincerely,

Gary H.
pair Networks, Inc.

I won't agree "common carrier status" is a valid argument. ISPs don't have common carrier status. But there's another protection that applies to them, that should make the DMCA notice sender think twice, before going any further than sending a notice.

The DMCA does not apply to ISPs who merely route traffic (and don't host the content on their network, or their equipment)..

Contrary to popular misconception, the DMCA does not have just ONE safe harbor, it has two separate safe harbor provisions, and each one has different requirements, and applies under different circumstances.

One of the safe harbor provisions [US Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec 512, (c)] pertains to content providers, web hosters, etc, companies that store content on behalf of their customers, and has the infamous provisions for notice and takedown requirements.
These people must arrange for an agent to receive DMCA notices, and expeditiously remove content, in order to enjoy that particular safe harbor protection.

That one is the 512(c) safe harbor.

This is not the safe harbor that ISPs should rely on.

ISPs should rely on the 512(a) safe harbor, which does not require having an agent to receive notices of infringing content, and does not require doing anything with such notices, in order to enjoy the protections of this provision.

Because any copies of the material are "intermediate and transient," there are no notice and takedown procedures

US Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec 512, (c)
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 " (c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks
at Direction of Users." versus
"(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. ... A service provider
shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in
subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for
infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting,
routing, or providing connections for, ...."

The DMCA doesn't say anything about severing connectivity to computers on a network. That's just what the wronged party wants (if they try to send a notice to an ISP that a user happens to subscribe to, or that their traffic happens to pass through), the collateral damage doesn't effect them, if the ISP cuts off innocent users in the process.

The current DMCA provides some decent protections for ISPs that don't have unjust requirements like takedown procedures.

Big **AA organizations ignore this fact, and send notices anyway.

Because (A) they wished the takedown procedure applied in all cases, or they may even be trying to get the law changed to do that...

(B) They rely on the misconception; they would like ISPs to think they must disconnect the user immediately on notice.

(C) They want to minimize the number of "outs" or legal protections any future counterparty might have -- by sending the notice, regardless

(D) Scare tactic.

Google doesn't ask Indian Police for justification. All it takes is an email request, and these IP addresses could be in USA!

A common reason India Cyber Crime cops ask for IP addresses is "cyber defamation"... and India has Criminal Defamation laws still in the books.
(Despite the original land of their laws changing with the times: United Kingdom: Defamation Decriminalised)

In 2005, a Singapore company eSys won the 2005 Ernst and Young award, rubbed shoulders with the elite, launched a Foundation and so on.

Things became more noteworthy when eSys used Indian Police Cyber Crime cell to fight their cyber-defamation ... and by 2009, it was clear that there was some serious fraud at eSys.

Mumbai Police even ordered an American to delete a Cartoon... did they need an excuse to do that ?

So if Indian Police can get IP address records from USA simply by asking, why not FBI ?

Google appears to be a proud protector of the gmail accounts of China's Human Rights activists, when it says that "Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.".

Is this the same Google which Hands over IP addresses of activists to Indian Police ?

What about Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India ?

Mumbai Cyber Sleuths are a law unto themselves, ordering Americans around: Mumbai Police Order American to delete Cartoon

Why does Google co-operate so tamely with Mumbai Cyber police ? Why did Google hand over IPs in 2007 entangling an innocent man in the Police web ?

And yet talk of Human Rights in China ? Don't the Indians have Human Rights too ?

The real problem is the Indian Police. They will act for private vested interests. Greasing of palms happens all the time. There are middlemen who can link you up to corrupt Police officers if you are willing to play the game.

Indian Police "Cyber Crime" will do anything. They sent a Cease and Desist to have a cartoon taken down. The letter is here:
      http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=26127

Indian Police has a deal with Google by which Google supplies IP addresses of bloggers (if they use blogspot.com or Orkut) when Indian Police asks. No real justification is needed. The Police are ordinarily expected to investigate but they will just hand the IP address over to their "client". The blogger does not need to be in India, so be aware how big this hole can be. I know of private parties using Indian Police in this manner to obtain the IP addresses of a blogger in some other country and then launch an Anton Piller civil search order as part of a SLAPP suit. This is clearly a SLAPP situation, then we have a blogger resisting Anton Piller search.

The problem is that the Police have excessive powers in India and they abuse it without accountability. They have even killed unarmed men in custody so what to speak of shutting down a website ?

The Ruchika case is a recent one: Indian Police: Protectors or Perpetrators? by J.Srinivasan in which a powerful Police officer abused his powers to force a young girl to suicide; and this has taken 18 years to come to the court.

Not only that, the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering of software in order to allow for interoperability with other applications:
see paragraph (f) here:
http://static.chillingeffects.org/1201.shtml
Microsoft has no ground to stand on from the copyright angle, so it's attempting to imlpement the same limitations from a software patent angle. Which currently has no value in most of the civilized world.

I know several people who live in an area not served by cable or DSL. Almost nobody will stay connected to dial-up for one hour just to download a 30-minute music podcast.

Hello tepples, my name is Jesse. I am the systems administrator for a wireless high speed internet service provider in Oregon who at present count guarantees broadband service to just under 1,100 households and businesses that either cannot or choose not to subscribe to the local DSL (Qwest) or Cable (BendBroadband) duopoly.

While there are people without internet service for any of a laundry list of reasons (expense in their area, computer illiteracy/luddite, etc) that number is decimated on a regular basis. I would wager that at present the number of people in the US lacking internet is smaller than the number of people who never listen to broadcast radio; not least of which because the only channels you get are Clearchoice, religious, and foreign language.

Again, my argument is not that "FM is (entirely) dead (yet)", nor that an insufficient number of people listen to FM, only that we drown in perfectly market worthy alternatives many of which are only complicated to take advantage of thanks to the chilling effects of copyright.

Is the ability to download music standard equipment on recent cars, or is it an expensive aftermarket option? I've seen a lot of car radios with a CD player and a radio and no line in, or a CD player, a radio, and a tape player that ejects all line-in adapters.

If you were an auto-maker, would you chance flirting with business models that run afoul copyright and the current power of big media? I say "eliminate copyright and embrace open innovation" and you come back with "whanh, the corporate overlords and automakers keep PURPOSELY SPITTING OUT my line-in adapters because they want me to cling to the teat of whatever they feed me via FM".

Presently, being a pirate (including listening to music in your car when you've probably only been "licensed" to listen to it on your desktop computer) takes a modicum of effort. Maybe an aftermarket stereo (who cares about music and doesn't get one of those, again?) or maybe a $20 FM tuner when you can't get a line-in to work. I can't believe this country used to thrive fixing their own stage coach wheels, and now you feel uncomfortable controlling what sound comes out of your oem tape deck.

In any event, never fear. Where there is market demand and safety from legal repercussion, there will be droves of businesses seeking to make a dime helping you listen to podcasts in your car. Again, help us clear the path or go back to the teat.

Do you know of any firm that specializes in administering such assurance contracts?

Shout out to the Contingency Market! Keep in mind they are not Your Lawyer, but then again nobody is but Your Lawyer. Contingency Market is a web service that allows individuals to easily maintain, automate, and keep track of contracts and commitments including assurance contracts. The legalese of the contract itself is outside the scope of this service, but this is an important step in the right direction.

It is more challenging to build a critical mass of demand in order to underwrite a financing infrastructure independent of copyright while the antiquated law still looms, stacking the deck in favor of whoever can afford the least scrupulous legal teams. But that is one of my goals: to illustrate life beyond copyright so that those who may benefit from exploring it will let go their death hold over a tradition that presently does them (not to mention everyone else) inestimable harm.

I value my ability to communicate whatever I please with whomever I please. I value my communication and transaction channels being private and tamper-resistant. One of the few excuses that government and big busin

I thought this is what Chilling Effects was for?

Or was the EFF unable to push the spotlight idea through the other partners they have for Chilling Effects (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.)

> > > > > > > Scilon Troll: "Hey, it's no sillier than $mainstreamReligion"
> > > > > > Fundamentalist Religious Dupe #1: "No it's not, our $mainstreamReligion is holy, space aliens are weird."
> > > > > Fundamentalist Atheist Dupe #1: "You silly $mainstreamReligionist! Both your belief systems are bogus!"
> > > > Moderate Atheist Dupe #2: "Yeah, all religions are the same."
> > Trolly Atheist Dupe #3: "Yeah, we should tax 'em all!"
> Paranoid Religious Dupe #3: "No way, I'd rather just let the Scilons keep on doing what they're doing... Relijus Freedumb!!!"

And then the Scilon troll reports back to the mothership: "False equivalence has been established. Everyone's bickering about whose religion is weirder, and all the moderates have agreed that our beliefs are as legitimate a religion as everyone else. Now we can claim religious persecution when speaking to religious audiences, and that we're being attacked by fanatics when we speak to non-religious audiences. Mission Accomplished!"

This isn't about whether Jesus or Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is weirder. Or about the relative atrocities of Crusades, the RPF, or not serving meatballs with spaghetti.

It's about one specific organization, and its track record of using litigation as a tool to silence dissent. Sonny Bono, Scientologist and Senator, not only supported the Mickey Mouse Protection Act which extended copyright terms to 75 years plus the life of the creator, he got the damn bill named after itself. When the DMCA was passed in 1998, guess was among the first first lawsuit under its provisions just a few months later? Hint: It's the same organization that attacked Slashdot itself in 2001 and Google in 2002.

It's not about space aliens, UFOs shaped like DC-8s, or volcanoes. It's about one organization's multi-decade track record of attacks on the Internet. That - and nothing else - is why it's News For Nerds, and Stuff That Matters.

Of course, by the time I've typed this, we'll have already gone through 100 posts of "No, your religion is weirder!" "No, all religions are silly", and Scilon trolls sitting back and smiling gleefully as they watch yet another message board thread fall for the distraction tactic, and this post all pointless.

(Yep, the Cult has already compared it to the Spanish Inquisition. For something nobody's supposed to expect, I'm not at all surprised the cult spokesperson has already started to draw comparisons to the Spanish Inquisition, especially in a historically-Catholic country, and right on time, two attempts to distract us by advocating taxation of the Catholic Church shows up here...)

But it felt good to rant for a bit.

so there's no excuse for MySpace not knowing who owns it.

Sure there is. The excuse is that under the safe-harbor provisions of DMCA, there's no obligation for a service provider to investigate or adjudicate the validity of a takedown claim; in fact, there's incentive not to, since resisting a takedown in any fashion (i.e., anything other than "expeditiously" "removing or denying access to" the alleged infringing material) may disqualify the hosting provider to safe harbor, making them liable along with the original uploader.

Very good FAQ about DMCA takedown/putback issues.

Like others have already stated, their business model choice has nothing to do with what you choose to do with the hardware once you get it. What law or legal rights are different because you sell for a loss or sell for a profit?

Remember the Cuecat?
http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/notice.cgi?NoticeID=9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat

Based on the general trend based on similar attempts by Sony, Apple, MS and many others, if you have enough money and political backing, you can stop people from hacking your hardware. Cuecat did not have enough.

Ebay is legally required to take it down if they are served with a DMCA notice. However, if you file a counter-notice, they are correspondingly legally required to put it back up unless the Copyright owner files suit against you.

Service providers operating under the DMCA safe harbor are required to hold a subscriber's counter-notice for at least two weeks before putting the disputed information back up, so that the complaining party has an opportunity to get a court order against the subscriber. Auction listings expire before then.

Ebay is legally required to take it down if they are served with a DMCA notice. However, if you file a counter-notice, they are correspondingly legally required to put it back up unless the Copyright owner files suit against you.

Service providers operating under the DMCA safe harbor are required to hold a subscriber's counter-notice for at least two weeks before putting the disputed information back up, so that the complaining party has an opportunity to get a court order against the subscriber. Auction listings expire before then.

Ebay is legally required to take it down if they are served with a DMCA notice. However, if you file a counter-notice, they are correspondingly legally required to put it back up unless the Copyright owner files suit against you.

Ebay is legally required to take it down if they are served with a DMCA notice. However, if you file a counter-notice, they are correspondingly legally required to put it back up unless the Copyright owner files suit against you.

So you're saying that if I take very small samples of The Beatles' White Album (as I consider the album an entire work) and make new songs out of those small samples, it is completely legal

Hello. This is Slashdot. On the Web. You need to make things a bit clearer as to whether you are a) joking b) being sarcastic c) doing something else.

Right now, you are looking like a fair idiot.

"You have the right to use small parts of something covered by copyright (like quoting a book for an essay) to comment on it, write a review about it or parody it and you're allowed to make copies for yourself to use."

So you're saying that if I take very small samples of The Beatles' White Album (as I consider the album an entire work) and make new songs out of those small samples, it is completely legal and I can distribute or sell said reconstructions because they are small parts or parodies? Do I need to merely include a comment on my "mashup" to make that legal?

Or if I take a single episode of the Family Guy (the whole series is what seven seasons now?) I can distribute that with my website with commentary on how it's great for society?

What it looks like so far is that Flicker claimed they'd gotten a DMCA when in fact they hadn't and wanted to censor the image themselves.

That's why whoever put the pic up never got the notice.

I once recieved a take-down notice as the guy who put up content, from the claimed copyright holder (in that case Diebold again) *through* my ISP. That's how it works. I wrote a response back to my ISP, taking the responsibility for my site's contents off my ISP and firmly onto ME.

Here's Diebold's letter to my ISP:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1423

And here's my response back to my ISP, who then forwards it to Diebold:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=4045

In the Flicker case, no such letter by any "claimed content holder" appears to exist. That means it's Flicker that created the DMCA fraud.

What it looks like so far is that Flicker claimed they'd gotten a DMCA when in fact they hadn't and wanted to censor the image themselves.

That's why whoever put the pic up never got the notice.

I once recieved a take-down notice as the guy who put up content, from the claimed copyright holder (in that case Diebold again) *through* my ISP. That's how it works. I wrote a response back to my ISP, taking the responsibility for my site's contents off my ISP and firmly onto ME.

Here's Diebold's letter to my ISP:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1423

And here's my response back to my ISP, who then forwards it to Diebold:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=4045

In the Flicker case, no such letter by any "claimed content holder" appears to exist. That means it's Flicker that created the DMCA fraud.

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material

So even if the notification isn't valid, they're still required to take it down if they believe the content to be infringing. See the actual text at (c)(1)(a)(i-iii). If they don't comply, they lose safe harbor status and it's open season on them. The law, not Flikr, is the one to blame here. Websites either have to comply with the DMCA or open themselves up to be held liable for the actions of each and every asshole user.

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material

So even if the notification isn't valid, they're still required to take it down if they believe the content to be infringing. See the actual text at (c)(1)(a)(i-iii). If they don't comply, they lose safe harbor status and it's open season on them. The law, not Flikr, is the one to blame here. Websites either have to comply with the DMCA or open themselves up to be held liable for the actions of each and every asshole user.

(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section - * (1) that material or activity is infringing, or * (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a safe harbor provision for providers of an interactive computer service. The DMCA does not even contain a Section 230.

The DMCA safe harbour provision is Section 512

Agreed. Any patent that can be duplicated just from hearing about the idea, is to my mind 'obvious' and should not be patentable. There are also rulings that allow for reverse engineering and in some cases, the courts even went so far to state that reverse engineering is desirable to innovation, and market competition.

Is Reverse Engineering Legal

Patents are out of control when you can patent "A system for categorizing information in a 'database like' structure for easy retrieval at a later date'". Note I totally made that up, but as far as I know such patents exist or are applied for on a regular basis. At some point, someone needs to step in and put on the Sanity Brakes.

Why isn't it perfectly legal for these folks to create their own reverse engineered methods of doing this? If their methods are so trivial to reproduce, or so logical that everyone is doing it after simply hearing the idea, then the patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I know there are some specific areas where rulings have been made that makes reverse engineering perfectly legal and desirable to market competition and innovation:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID195

They need to stop rubber stamping these 'ideas' or actions that are common sense and start requiring actual innovation before handing out a patent.

Well, I know nothing about US copyright laws, since I'm not a lawyer and not US citizen.

I only say what I have seen in search results. I searched for a recent movie with "filetype:torrent" modifier. No results showed up and there was a message at the bottom of the page saying "Some search results were removed as a response to some complaint, US DMCA blah-blah blah" and a link to the complaint I'd post the link to search results here, but the whole page is in Russian, so there is really no use. The same message does not show up when searching with another locale.

I don't doubt it is, but please check this site where they explain reverse engineering further: http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi

It's less about the price and quality of the codec and more about the implications for open source.

If you include an MP3 codec in your application, you may well get one of these nastygrams from Fraunhofer Institute seeking payment of patent royalties. The MPEG4 Licensing Authority will be similarly nasty with implementations of AAC.

This is the reason many Linux distributions (including Ubuntu and Fedora) have deliberately disabled MP3 and AAC support. It is not possible to pay royalties on a product that is distributed for free. The same, however, is not true for hardware players, where the royalty is usually a reasonably small compared to the cost of manufacturing each unit.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/notice.cgi?NoticeID=25159

It's a takedown. Technically, based on the letter itself, I think they abused this one.

Here's the DMCA takedown notice issued to the rtmpdump project:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/notice.cgi?NoticeID=25159

Note that they are just claiming the ability to download copyrighted content as the reason for takedown (will we see a DMCA notice for IE and Firefox soon?). They might as easily use the same "reason" to issue notices to projects implementing this clean room specification.

I want to see the request so I can find out whether sourceforge was justified in "complying". Did they just knee-jerk?

I wouldn't classify it as "knee-jerk", but it's essentially what the law calls for. Read up on the "Safe Harbor" provisions of the DMCA. Basically, it is "shoot first and ask questions later".

Not quite. From TFA, "Android Data, for which he was granted a trademark in October of 2002 by the US Patent and Trademark Office". It looks like Android Data have been trademarked for a number of years. It is strange that Google didn't buy the trademark in October 2007 after their application ran out, or that they didn't change it to Android OS to differentiate their product from Android Data.

OTOH, "Google countered in August, claiming that the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years, and that there couldn't be any confusion between the two names." which does seem pretty reasonable. According to the Chilling Effects website though, the time limit for a trademark is 10 years. Although in the first ten year period you need to lodge an "Affidavit of Use" between the fifth and sixth years. Looks like Eric Spech may be receiving some money. Unless a bean counter at Google works out it will cost less to change the name.