Slashdot Mirror

If they got a DMCA take-down notice or another C&D letter, they should submit it to Chilling Effects.

A derivative work is work that has been "recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represents an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.'"

Seems to me that one could argue both sides. The word transformed seems broad enough to cause some problems, but calling the hashes derivative would seem to violate the spirit of the law.

1. Go to http://www.google.com/search?q=kazaa right now and scroll down to the bottom of that page.

2. Click on the link that says read the DMCA complaint

3. Go visit each and every one of the 15 sites listed there that the RIAA didn't want you to see. Download Kazaa Lite from at least one of them.

4. Revel in a small sense of victory over the Enemy of the People, the Assholes of the RIAA.

We won this round. Lots more rounds to go though.

Google, Inc: PoopReport Complains of DMCA Infringement

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi? NoticeID=796

In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 post(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results.

" Google links to the links as well. The notice at the bottom of the results page points to a page listing the blocked sites."

Hosted by the "Chilling Effects" clearinghouse. When I asked Wendy Selter if they could turn the text into links her answer was that even though they thought the DMCA was unconstitional this was the best they felt they could do. I guess they aren't ready to be the object of a court case over this.

So... You'll have to cut/paste the links.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi? NoticeID=789

However, as soon as an OSP takes control of their content and/or sells the content, they lose safe harbor status for that content. So it is possible Google could be held liable for their sponsored links even if they comply with takedown notices.

More information at Chilling Effects.

Any and all of the sites on the list can get themselves relisted simply by asking Google to do so. It's not as though Kazaa is actually going to bring suit against them, is it?

How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.

The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.

Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.

Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.

After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.

I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about a five week period, I w

The Free/Libre/Open-Source Software (FLOSS) movement seems to understand this, but many mass-market proprietary software developers are still able to flout this rule. Unfortunately, most computer users have become accustomed to being subservient to their software.

My own experience with most FLOSS has been much like my experience with high-speed Internet service: I can never go back. I think once people get a good taste of what using well-behaved software is like, things will quickly change. The only things that can get in the way of this change are:

• Restrictions on cryptography,
• Software Patents, and
• Other bought legislation

1. http://www.kazaagold.com
2. http://mp3download.com
3. http://www.kazaalite.tk
4. http://www.kaaza.com
5. http://doa2.host.sk
6. ...

Odd, when they make it public information on their website (whose URL isn't blocked out in the PDF file) and they don't have any other branches:

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, L.L.P.
15821 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 525
Encino, CA 91436
(818) 444-4500
(818) 444-4520 fax
info@biztechlaw.com e-mail

On a side note -- honestly curious, not meant to be trolling -- how is 378,000 results "a bit lacking"? And they only removed 14?

As for the blocked links, "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- L. Peter Deutsch (or John Gilmore)

Odd, when they make it public information on their website (whose URL isn't blocked out in the PDF file) and they don't have any other branches:

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, L.L.P.
15821 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 525
Encino, CA 91436
(818) 444-4500
(818) 444-4520 fax
info@biztechlaw.com e-mail

On a side note -- honestly curious, not meant to be trolling -- how is 378,000 results "a bit lacking"? And they only removed 14?

As for the blocked links, "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- L. Peter Deutsch (or John Gilmore)

Google provides a link to the "NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT" that Google was served. Here you'll find a list of the DMCA offending links. I suppose it's only a matter of time before the Notice itself is copyrighted, making such a posting illegal under DMCA. That would require yet another "NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT"!!

This whole issue is just sad but what I wonder is if the same notice was sent to other search engines? I believe Yahoo uses a lot of Google technology so that comparison isn't good but take AltaVista for example. Search for Kazaa Lite there and you see the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and probably more (got tired of counting) links are links listed in the DMCA suit.

Why is this interesting? Google is a company whose business is to deliver the best results for any given search. If through the process of lawsuits, they no longer deliver the best results, users go elsewhere. So if all these companies target Google and only Google, in theory, eventually they could bring it down to a second rate service. I know you cannot selectively enforce patents (for this same reason), but not a clue about this lovely DMCA law.

Why does chilling effects make private information concerning contact details of the offending (Sharman) party?

The original image of the copyright infringement notice has the contact information blacked out.

Why does chilling effects do this? I honestly think that making this contact information publically available would be a VERY good thing. (Wink)

Why does chilling effects make private information concerning contact details of the offending (Sharman) party?

The original image of the copyright infringement notice has the contact information blacked out.

Why does chilling effects do this? I honestly think that making this contact information publically available would be a VERY good thing. (Wink)

This has happened over 130 times before. Interestingly, in some of these the URLS have been redacted, for instance a porn story with the linked notice that "Portions of this notice have been redacted out of respect for the privacy of a minor."

Look at that, you can even get a model letter to use. Everyone make some minor modifications to this letter and send out some copies. Once we get Microsoft and SCO banned from the search engines (after all, SCO infringes on my copyright of Steve's Colored Onions) then we'll see what happens to the DMCA.

As per the complaint: a. http://www.kazaagold.com b. http://mp3download.com c. http://www.kazaalite.tk d. http://www.kaaza.com e. http://doa2.host.sk f. http://www.k-lite.tk g. http://www.kazaa-file-sharing-downloads.com h. http://www.kazaalite.nl i. http://home/hccnet.nl/h.edskes/mirror.htm j. http://www.kazaa-download.de k. http://www.zeropaid.com l. http//www.kazaalite.nl/downloads.htm m. http://kazaa.infos-du-net.com n. http://www.kazaa-lite.tk o. http://www.kazaa-lite.info We're all removed from Google listings.

I'm sure there are many people who think that it was nice of the law firm to identify the best sites to download Kazaa Lite.

It's a good source for information on exactly this subject. No, I don't run it. ;-)

How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.

The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.

Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.

Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.

After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.

I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about a five week period, I wrote Sims several more emails asking him to del

How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.

The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.

Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.

Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.

After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.

I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about a five week period, I wrote Sims several more emails asking him to del

Yes, but then you would be $cientology.

The owner has the right to see the complaint. In fact, it is required by law.

"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 the material from its network. 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."

I think you've got the wrong concept of what you want to do... While you can download textbooks off the net, usually they're meant either for printing out, or displaying on an e-book. But reading a textbook online, at least for me, usually results in a major eye-ache (something your particular readers will especially dislike).

I would recommend you use this little invention called hypertext to build an in-depth document. One way to arrange this would be to have a summary of a few pages, or even a few paragraphs, and then allow people to click on terms and be able to explore them in depth.

One website that's used this methodology with good results is Chilling Effects. I suggest you do a little exploring there.

What E-mail address did you mail? While we can't help everybody who needs our help, particularly overseas -- wish we could -- if you mailed into a black hole something wrong happened, and I would like to find the cause and fix it.

We try to respond to all mail (though we get a fair bit of nutcase mail, you would be amazed, that we don't respond to) and we definitely should have given some answer to a plea for help.

If nothing else we would point somebody to the web sites we have built to deal with threats like these, including
Chilling Effects and Subpoena Defense.

You dpn't have to do that. Your ISP business can keep NO logs.

Then if it gets a court request, just reply that you do not have the information they are requesting.

An ISP that didn't keep logs would probably get sued for contributory infringement.

It would also make it harder for the ISP to stop its customers from spamming or otherwise abusing their service.

How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.

The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.

Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.

Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.

After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.

I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about a five week period, I wrote Sims several more emails asking him to del

The nice people at chillingeffects.org have been fighting for quite some time against abuse based on copyright and other intellectual property laws. If you are affected by SCOX's FUD, for example your company received a nastygram from SCOX or your boss comes to you with a copy of the Gartner report you may want to drop them a line describing the situation and they may be able to draft some Q&A and/or template answers.

I believe IBM could ask this same thing (and donating some funds wouldn't hurt)

Actually, I would enjoy seeing an ad based on this that answers Sun's cheap shot. Something like:

Sun seems to think we may have a little license problem

Don't let them chill you, says Chillingeffects.org (*) [appropriate links]

Because the world won't stop for you, we help you move forward. [or some other slogan concocted by the ad-heads]

(*)Chillingeffects.org is a joint project of the Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, and University of Maine law school clinics and the Electronic Frontier Foundation

How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.

The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.

Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.

Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.

After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.

I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about a five week period, I wrote Sims several more emails asking him to del

From Frauenhofer patent enforcement available here:

To make, sell and/or distribute products using the standard and thus our patents, you need to obtain a license under these patents from us.

In the past, we have licensed several companies under different models for different products, e.g.:
- Software encoder licenses against a per unit royalty starting at $ 25,00 and decreasing for high volumes; and
- Pay-audio licenses against a royalty of $ 0,01 per song or 1 % of the selling price.

And now after interviewing MP3 standard's inventor, there's this revelation that he doesn't like P2P?

Come on slash eds - this aint news!

I'll begin with the obligatory IANAL ... but I am studying Copyright law, amongst others. In the US, UK, Australia and South Africa, you are, quite simply, wrong.

This site covers the question of fan fiction and what constitutes a derived work, and in other places on the web you will find lovely articles on Fan Fiction and the Copyright Dilemma.

But don't take my word for it. Try this homework assignment: write a story about a boy who was bitten by a mutant spider and gained superpowers (call him "SpiderBoy", since "SpiderMan" would violate an existing TRADEMARK) and describe his exploits in his red and blue web-printed bodysuit. Advance warning: you may receive a letter something like this (pay special attention to the Q/A "What are the major elements of FanFic")

Once you're finished, you may want to visit your doctor and get your colon disconnected from the back of your throat.

How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.

The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.

Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.

Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.

After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.

I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about a five week period, I wrote Sims several more emails asking him to del

How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net/. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.

The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.

Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.

Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.

After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.

I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had

Art which uses found objects, cultural references, preexisting stories may be protected under the fair use doctrine.

To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)

more here

--Stephen

A spokeslawyer for SonyLucasarts announced a "firing first" lawsuit against the bnetd project. When asked what bnetd had to do with Star Wars, the spokeslawyer replied "You know when all you little pissants were buying your Han Solo and Luke Skywalker figures? I bought forty Greedos. That guy was my hero.". When pressed further he replied "You want some too, Mr 'I had friends at school'? Do you want some?"

The spokeslawyer went on to detail the grounds under which defamation suits would be brought. Prohibited phrases include but are not limited to "Progress Quest with Wookies", "Rogue for GeForce 4" and "So dull it even sends bot clients to sleep".

Grand Moff Lucas could not be reached for comment. Skywalker Ranch has been lost and sustaining damage in an asteroid field since 1997. Observers report that much of the renowned polish on its outer hull has been tarnished, and that only outgoing communications seem to be possible. Garbled transmissions from junior officers indicate that Moff Lucas has become increasingly detatched and disinterested in administrating the Empire directly. They beg for news from the outside world, and are particularly keen to hear how The Jar Jar Project was received.

>Blizzard will treat its customers far better than Sony does.

Given that Blizzard sues its most devoted customers, what do you think Sony are going to do?

If you want to check out your theory, you can look at Chilling Effects, an archive of threat letters like this.

Opps fuck, I mean, DMCA to get the name of an internet user. Damn, I get my chilling effects all mixed up.

The copyright holder's obligations are spelled out at the Chilling Effect Clearinghouse.

The lawyer representing the copyright holder has to claim under penalty of perjury, that they are authorized to act on behalf of the person they claim to represent. That is the only statement they have to make under penalty of perjury.

The takedown notice needs to describe the allegedly infringing activity, and the lawyers must state that they have a good-faith belief that the "use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v)]. They do not need a good-faith belief that the described activity is actually occurring.

This RIAA takedown notice is an example of the law being abused.

The ISP is then required to take the content down for a minimum of ten days and no longer than 14 days in such period the plaintiff must file for a court order.

The ISP can only put the material back up if the subscriber files a counter-notice. In that case, the ISP must notify the complainant. Even if the ISP receives a counter notice, they can not restore the material until the complainant has had ten business days to respond to the counter-notice. If, after 14 business days, the complainant does not file suit, the ISP is required to restore the material.

The requirements for a counter-notice are more stringent than the requirements for a take-down notice. To file a counter-notice, the subscriber must state under penalty of perjury that they have a good faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. The subscriber must also consent to local federal court jurisdiction.

For those of you thinking you could file a notice to shut down the RIAA's website for ten days, think again. The penalty for an ISP that fails to comply with a takedown notice, is that they cannot claim immunity from the infringing activity. I suspect the RIAA's ISP will take that risk rather than upsetting one of their well-endowed customers.

IANAL

This part of the DMCA is very good and very clear. It is unfortunate that it must give such power to plaintiffs; however, due to the penalty of purjury assumed by the plaintiff illegitimate accusations can easily cause a counter-suit and thus the system is balanced.

I agree that the way you described it, the law would be fairly good (really the ISP shouldn't need to take the material down if they recieve a counter-notice). Unfortnately, the balance you refer to does not exist.

The copyright holder's obligations are spelled out at the Chilling Effect Clearinghouse.

The lawyer representing the copyright holder has to claim under penalty of perjury, that they are authorized to act on behalf of the person they claim to represent. That is the only statement they have to make under penalty of perjury.

The takedown notice needs to describe the allegedly infringing activity, and the lawyers must state that they have a good-faith belief that the "use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v)]. They do not need a good-faith belief that the described activity is actually occurring.

This RIAA takedown notice is an example of the law being abused.

The ISP is then required to take the content down for a minimum of ten days and no longer than 14 days in such period the plaintiff must file for a court order.

The ISP can only put the material back up if the subscriber files a counter-notice. In that case, the ISP must notify the complainant. Even if the ISP receives a counter notice, they can not restore the material until the complainant has had ten business days to respond to the counter-notice. If, after 14 business days, the complainant does not file suit, the ISP is required to restore the material.

The requirements for a counter-notice are more stringent than the requirements for a take-down notice. To file a counter-notice, the subscriber must state under penalty of perjury that they have a good faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. The subscriber must also consent to local federal court jurisdiction.

For those of you thinking you could file a notice to shut down the RIAA's website for ten days, think again. The penalty for an ISP that fails to comply with a takedown notice, is that they cannot claim immunity from the infringing activity. I suspect the RIAA's ISP will take that risk rather than upsetting one of their well-endowed customers.

IANAL

This part of the DMCA is very good and very clear. It is unfortunate that it must give such power to plaintiffs; however, due to the penalty of purjury assumed by the plaintiff illegitimate accusations can easily cause a counter-suit and thus the system is balanced.

I agree that the way you described it, the law would be fairly good (really the ISP shouldn't need to take the material down if they recieve a counter-notice). Unfortnately, the balance you refer to does not exist.

The copyright holder's obligations are spelled out at the Chilling Effect Clearinghouse.

The lawyer representing the copyright holder has to claim under penalty of perjury, that they are authorized to act on behalf of the person they claim to represent. That is the only statement they have to make under penalty of perjury.

The takedown notice needs to describe the allegedly infringing activity, and the lawyers must state that they have a good-faith belief that the "use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v)]. They do not need a good-faith belief that the described activity is actually occurring.

This RIAA takedown notice is an example of the law being abused.

The ISP is then required to take the content down for a minimum of ten days and no longer than 14 days in such period the plaintiff must file for a court order.

The ISP can only put the material back up if the subscriber files a counter-notice. In that case, the ISP must notify the complainant. Even if the ISP receives a counter notice, they can not restore the material until the complainant has had ten business days to respond to the counter-notice. If, after 14 business days, the complainant does not file suit, the ISP is required to restore the material.

The requirements for a counter-notice are more stringent than the requirements for a take-down notice. To file a counter-notice, the subscriber must state under penalty of perjury that they have a good faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. The subscriber must also consent to local federal court jurisdiction.

For those of you thinking you could file a notice to shut down the RIAA's website for ten days, think again. The penalty for an ISP that fails to comply with a takedown notice, is that they cannot claim immunity from the infringing activity. I suspect the RIAA's ISP will take that risk rather than upsetting one of their well-endowed customers.

IANAL

This part of the DMCA is very good and very clear. It is unfortunate that it must give such power to plaintiffs; however, due to the penalty of purjury assumed by the plaintiff illegitimate accusations can easily cause a counter-suit and thus the system is balanced.

I agree that the way you described it, the law would be fairly good (really the ISP shouldn't need to take the material down if they recieve a counter-notice). Unfortnately, the balance you refer to does not exist.

Also, this isn't a legal/economic ramification for the accuser, but the defendant can always file a put-back notice to the ISP, which sounds entirely suitable here.

Maybe if there is some way to collect an informal archive about unjustified attempts to claim enforcement of copyrights

Would that be the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse?

Nobody ever discloses any evidence before discovery. Ever.

are you sure about that?

from link:

In a blatant misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, over the past two weeks a group of national retailers forced FatWallet.com (www.fatwallet.com) to remove Day After Thanksgiving sales information from its site. In letters sent to FatWallet, each retailer claimed that the Copyright Act gives it a monopoly over this price data. Today, the Samuelson Clinic and Gray Matters, on behalf of FatWallet.com, challenges those letters as abuses of federal law, insists on damages, and refuses to disclose identifying information on the individuals who posted the sales information. For more about this issue, please read the press release [PDF], FatWallet's online story or the Chilling Effects story.

• 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)]
• 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)]

And there are no patents preventing anyone from using MP3,

Tell that to the guys that received this letter