Slashdot Mirror

DMCA take down notice https://www.chillingeffects.or...

Link I tried https://vimeo.com/135046490

https://chillingeffects.org/

The claim of the above OP (AC signed "Wendy", I assume the AC is claiming to be Chilling Effects founder Wendy Seltzer) that "it was not our intent to remove the site from search engines " doesn't square with these from the article.

After much internal discussion the Chilling Effects project recently made the decision to remove the siteâ(TM)s notice pages from search engines,
Berkman Center project coordinator Adam Holland informs TF.

Our recent relaunch of the site has brought it a lot more attention, and as a result, weâ(TM)re currently thinking through ways to better balance making this information available for valuable study, research, and journalism, while still addressing the concerns of people whose information appears in the database.

Yeah. Balance. I know what that means -- in the words of Michael Jackson, it means "They'll kick you, then they beat you / Then they'll tell you it's fair"

github.com/knockout/knockout was one of the repos listed, and here is the letter they sent (which seems to be a reasonable template):

To: marketing@takedownpiracy.com
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:33 AM EST

Dear Sirs,

It has recently come to my attention that your firm has filed a DMCA notice to Google identifying copyright infringement for works to which I am personally associated. I apologize if this email is not directed to the correct address, but it was the only address apparent to contact your company and I would be grateful if you could forward this message appropriately or direct me accordingly.

The notice that has come to my attention includes the details from the web-site as follows:

https://www.chillingeffects.or...

This site identifies Takedown Piracy LLC as an agent of Wicked Pictures sending a DMCA notice to Google. The notice apparently references the following works, which works appear to have since been removed from the results of searches via the Google search engine:

https://github.com/SteveSander...
https://github.com/rniemeyer/k...
https://github.com/rniemeyer/k...
https://github.com/Knockout-Co...
https://github.com/knockout/kn...
https://github.com/knockout

These works are entirely software and are in no way associated with Wicked Pictures, nor do they contain any adult material whatsoever (which I understand to be the preponderance of copyright held by Wicked Pictures).

Through the above-referenced DMCA notice your firm has stated that I have committed or endorsed copyright infringement, as well as associated me with republishing unlicensed works of the adult industry.

[As a software developer], I am sure you can appreciate that the above implication and association could cause serious harm to my reputation.

I trust you will not mind issuing an appropriate revocation of appropriate portions of the DMCA notices to Google and any other recipient that may have received a notice referencing the above content, as well as similarly revoking and white-listing from any future notices any work referred to with a URL containing the following:

github.com/knockout
github.com/SteveSanderson
github.com/mbest
github.com/rniemeyer
github.com/brianmhunt

âAgain, these repositories contain entirely software and are clearly not the intended target of your operationâ, which you can readily confirm by navigating to them in a web browser.

âMany thanks for your co-operation on this matter, and I would be grateful for your âconfirmation that the DMCA notices have been appropriately revoked. If by February 7th, 2015 it is apparent that the DMCA notices have not been revoked, I will be obliged to pursue appropriate legal action, and will hold your firm responsible for all associated legal costs.

âKind regards,

Brianâ

The full tack-down list. It includes goodies like "https://help.github.com/articles/dealing-with-non-fast-forward-errors/". I got to that page via Google once and it was useful. I wish we wouldn't let these fools try and wreck everything.

Streisand Effect

Get to it Sony, I look forward to a new pirate tool!

Hey Jennifer,

You must deal with the clash between freedom of information (and expression), like in the Schwartz-case, and the right to privacy (and to be forgotten, even by agencies such as the NSA), every day.
What is your opinion on the Court of Justice of the European Union's Grand Chamber judgement in C-131/12 (Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez)? The court ruled that the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection should, ‘as a rule’ override ‘not only the economic interest of the operator but also the interest of the general public in finding that information’. However, in certain circumstances, there may be a preponderant interest of the general public (for instance, if the individual concerned was a public figure) [97].[...], this is an assessment which must be made by the national court [98].
One commentator (Guy Vassall-Adams) noted that: "It appears that the court never asked itself if these large corporations can be relied on to protect the public interest in freedom of expression, taking a principled stance in response to unmeritorious complaints, as opposed to simply following the easy (and cheap) course of erasing information on request. Across the Atlantic and around the world other countries will look on us with bemusement as they read information which we are denied. This judgment is profoundly harmful to the operation of the internet and a betrayal of Europe’s great legacy in protecting freedom of expression."
Do you think the Court struck a good balance between the rights to privacy and freedom of expression? Can we expect a similar ruling by the US Supreme Court?
What is your opinion on circumventory measures such as ChillingEffects, which Google uses in the US, and lists all DMCA-takedowns, and in which Stanford is also involved, in the context of personal data (as opposed to MP3s of copyrighted music)?
What is your opinion on the Streisand effect of such cases (everybody knows that Mario Costeja Gonzalez was at one time involved in bankruptcy proceedings, because this is in ECJ case).
Thank you for doing this interview.

It is also trivial to disassemble and decompile closed-source software. Starting with the names of routines from the public entry points, trace arguments through the code, and thus find potentially exploitable defects. It's almost as easily as the rather obscure "style" of the openssl code that had the heartbleed bug. The problem is, there is a chilling effect because of laws and uncertainty surrounding reverse engineering: http://www.chillingeffects.org... . Therefore, perhaps only criminals will do it looking for exploits, Rather then well-funded (fat enforcement target) Google development teams. Therefore closed source is more vulnerable.

The problem here has nothing to do with whether or not we should condemn the concept of "revenge" porn, but rather, whether a website should bear liability for content posted by a third party.

Excellent point, but one that has been generally tested in the past under the DMCA "Safe Harbor" provisions. Generally speaking, this issue has only come to light in situations where a website was hosting copyright-infringing content posted by a user. The Safe Harbor provisions basically said "you aren't responsible for manually screening all content on your website, but if a user posts infringing material and the copyright owner sends you a 'DMCA takedown notice' then you must act swiftly to remove it." Obviously this process has been abused badly many times by content owners, but it has been the general model for websites: "you, website owner, aren't liable for user-posted content - but if someone tells you it's illegal, you have to quickly get rid of it."

Revenge porn, however, falls into a different category that necessitates a different legal approach. If you take a nude picture of someone with their knowledge - albeit with their understanding that you would not share it - and you post it online, you as the photographer own the copyright to it. So copyright infringement is no longer the issue, and whether a website has a responsibility to take it down is more of a gray area under current law which is copyright-driven.

I think all this is not aimed at legitimate user content-driven websites that inadvertently host "revenge porn" but rather to the sites that specifically traffic in it. According to some of the stories I have read, the business model of several of these sites basically amounted to blackmail wherein they posted the pics from users for free and hosted banner ads for viewers but most of their cash came from charging the women pictured therein $200+ a pop to remove them.

So while on a philosophical level it poses an interesting "slippery slope" argument, on a practical level I don't think it's aimed at "unknowing infringers" as the DMCA would put it, but rather at the sites which knowingly post it as part of their model and/or sites which are told about it but refuse to take it down. It's a fair argument to say that the implication is bad for its chilling effects, but in real world terms I don't think this is likely to be abused and will actually help real people.

"The last order instructed us to take down an account accusing a former minister of corruption. This order causes us concern. Political speech is among the most important speech, especially when it concerns possible government corruption. That’s why today we have also petitioned the Turkish court on behalf of our users to reverse this order.

While we contest the order, we are using our Country Withheld Content tool on the account in question, the first time we’ve used it in Turkey, as well as on several Tweets based on the public prosecutor’s request regarding the safety of an individual. The tool allows content to be withheld in a specific jurisdiction while remaining visible to the rest of the world."

Although I did not find the specific tweet on http://chillingeffects.org/int...

Sure and if he wants to supply the list of urls that should be taken out of search results that would be relevant. But that isn't what is being asked and hence isn't relevant. That is what they have been doing, but apparently Mosley is tired of playing whack-a-mole, for example: http://www.chillingeffects.org/courtorder/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1259783

I guess it's 365,000 euros a year for France - just put up the picture on a a different url each day and have it show up in a google search and send google the bill for the fine.

Google could add a filter for that name and refuse to give search results for it, but that would be a new feature, and would they still get fined if the pictures showed up on a search for some other terms? The TFA says so, but I doubt pcmag.com has a lot of expertise in reading French court decisions.

Still someone at Google must be itching to add such a filter and when that name is searched for return a static result page with something like:

"Due to a French legal decision we aren't allowed to show you images for those particular search terms. Max Mosley doesn't want pictures of him engaging in a a nazi themed orgy with five prostitutes to be shown. Here are some other photos of Nazi themed orgy pictures not involving Mr Mosley:"

For Google it does not stop with just the notice. e.g. I did a search on harry potter filetype:torrent and at the bootom I get:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

If you read the DMCA complaint, you can find the URL (and many more) that you wer looking for. Hilarious, I think.

Sent via: online form
Re: Websearch Infringement Notification via Online Form Complaint

Google DMCA Form: Infringement Notification for Web Search

Contact Information
Name: [redacted]
Company Name: DtecNet
Copyright holder: Lionsgate
Country/Region: US

Just use Google with filetype:torrent as an extra parameter.
metallica black album filetype:torrent is just a random example.
the interesting part is not so much that it shows a lot of links. Interesting is also at the ende the part that talks about what is blocked:
One of them reads:In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
When you go to that site, you will see all the URLs neatly presented.

The fact that there is a "dmca counter notification generator" - http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf, 34000 Google search results for "fake dmca notice", and a large history of this being a problem, might lead one to think that the problem isn't quite "handled". Oh, and this story mentions something about a fake take down notice too...

Also, it's pretty ridiculous and naive to think India would extradite someone to US over a fake DMCA take down notice. You may not realize, but both countries involved have some more pressing concerns. Given that this will never see a court room, or any real investigation, the thieves from India are also unlikely to worry much about travelling to the US.

I used Google search in China, and found it very unreliable. .COM wouldn't work at all, and .com.hm was erratic, so I used .co.uk. Some pages would load fine, but others wouldn't -- the first network packet (mostly the HTML header, title, etc) would be received, then the TCP connection would be reset. I suspect Google had something in the page like "Due to the government ... some results have been removed", and the Great Firewall blocked these packets and shut the connection.

Google displays a notice when I search certain terms, almost always for copyright infringement. Example I came across yesterday: https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=knife+party+internet+friends

"In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org."

The link goes to http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=505954

Actually, this has nothing to do with the content of the Twitter feed, and therefore is not really a free speech issue. If you read the actual takedown request, you will find that the Twitter account belongs to an organization that was recently disbanded and its assets (to which the account belongs) being seized by the authorities because its goals and actions were directed at overthrowing the constitutional order.

TFDMCAN: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

> Google Apps is free
> does a better job of protecting my data

Are you astroturfing, or really that naive? Just because you don't pay in a currency you recognize, does not mean that any of the web-mail services (or other "cloud services") are for free.

As for protecting your data, in the end it comes down to trust, which is your personal choice. Here are only some of the known cases where gmail is somehow mentioned in a C&D or subpoena process. There's plenty of other vectors by which somebody can get to your data. In addition, all the major provides have had their share of failures, including loss of data. Of course, spread across the number of users, it is a small chance of it happening to you. However, if it does, nobody cares.

Personally, I trust myself more in the ability to operate my own e-mail server, and provide the security and features I need. Although professional providers might be better in some aspects, like reliability, the trade-off is just not worth it to me.

Anyone caught intentionally cracking anything should get, at a minimum, 20 years of hard labor. Intentionally trying to harm or kill someone attached to a medical device should be a hanging sentence. Full stop.

Glad to see you've fallen in love with the DMCA friend! Anything that could lead to crime should be a crime aye? Never mind how close that comes to dangerously impeding our legitimate rights to freedom of speech including research that includes circumvention of various controls.

The issue with Napster was that they were mostly infringing, so even if they did honor every DMCA takedown request, they'd have lost.

On the appeal of the Napster case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that "Regardless of the number of Napster's infringing versus noninfringing uses", the question could be resolved on the basis of whether "Napster knew or had reason to know of its users' infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights" (taken from Wikipedia, I'm too lazy to rummage through the ruling itself right now).

If you read the "safe harbor" provisions from the text law itself, you'll see clearly that willfully ignoring notices of infringement surely means losing protection:

Sec. 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online [DMCA Safe Harbor provisions]

[...]

• (c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users. -
• • (1) In general. - A service provider shall not be liable [...] if the service provider -
  • • [...]; and
    • (C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

From http://images.chillingeffects.org/512.html

I don't know what else to say. I quoted the law, previous applications of the DMCA in court, and even some FAQs from Chilling Effects, created by EFF specifically to combat copyright abuse (so, if anything else, they would support your position if it was even remotely viable).

The fact is that DMCA is a law -- arguably a bad one. The best way to change it is to understand how harmful it is, and show that to other people. Ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist will do nothing to change the situation.

Doesn't the DMCA takedown request state somewhere something about asserting the statement is true "under the penalties of perjury"?

The penalty of perjury doesn't apply to a DMCA takedown notice, unless the complaining party is not authorized to act by the copyright owner of a work alleged to be infringed; the " has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner" in (v) does not apply a penalty of perjury.
Interestengly: the penalty of perjury does apply to a good faith belief that it is true, for DMCA counternotice --- "(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. "

Only a portion of the statement is under a penalty of perjury: a statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the copyright owner of a work alleged to be infringed

The requirements for a DMCA takedown are:

• Name, address, electronic signature of the party making complaint
• The infringing materials and their exact internet location; for a letter sent regarding an "information location tool", the reference or link to the infringing materials.
• All information necessary to identify the specific copyrighted work(s)
• A statement by the copyright owner that he/she has a good faith belief there is no legal basis for the use of the materials found at the internet location
• "(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. "
• "(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

I don't think that's right. If I understand things correctly, if the service provider (Flickr, in this case) wants to stay protected by the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA, it must "expeditiously" take down the (allegedly) infringing material:

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. [my emphasis]

From http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=130.

Of course, if the user then says that he can legally use the material, the provider must (if the matter doesn't go to court) put the content back up:

[...] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)] [again, my emphasis]

From http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=713.

I don't think that's right. If I understand things correctly, if the service provider (Flickr, in this case) wants to stay protected by the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA, it must "expeditiously" take down the (allegedly) infringing material:

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. [my emphasis]

From http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=130.

Of course, if the user then says that he can legally use the material, the provider must (if the matter doesn't go to court) put the content back up:

[...] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)] [again, my emphasis]

From http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=713.

It doesn't matter what they reply, the choice is yours. If you refute their claim (counternotice), then the dispute must go to court or you get your stuff put back, according to the DMCA.

Let's see. USA has had:

- Government attacks on journalists.
- Government attacks on citizens who take video recordings of police in public, often because those citizens posted to sites like Youtube the evidence of police committing abuse and brutality.
- Government shutdowns of entire websites based not on convictions under the law, but of "indictments" based on one-sided presentation of carefully chosen and misrepresented lists of evidence, complete with fabricated and delusional accusations of "mass conspiracy" spun out of whole cloth with inserted accusations of "terrorism" and other things designed not to have any factual basis but merely to constitute an emotional appeal (read: "oh but think of the children", which always comes behind some censorship law or other).

Hell, you don't even have to be that recent. The "USA PATRIOT ACT" (what an Orwellian name!) has plenty to be worried about already. And then we have the DMCA and all the other chilling effects laws the USA has enacted...

You expect him to go through all of these: https://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi ?

I know that if I'm ever suing someone for piracy, I'll be sure to list their ISP as a co-defendant.

In the US, the ISP would rely on the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, implemented by the DMCA as s512 of Title 17 USC - in particular, s512(a):

(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, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -

(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;

(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;

(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;

(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and

(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

"Service provider" is defined (s512(k)(1)(A) as:

As used in subsection (a), the term ''service provider'' means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

Whether this meets the US definition of "common carrier," I'm afraid I do not know - but a DSL access provider and the like would be aiming to rely on this to exempt them from liability for whatever the user might do.

In Europe, there is similar legislation - directive 2000/31/EC, Article 12:

1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:

(a) does not initiate the transmission;

(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and

(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

2. The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.

3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

That's not to say that no remedy is possible, though - injunctions are flavour of the month at t

A Night in Casablanca

It would force U.S. internet companies like Google to censor search results as a response to a copyright allegation.

If you think that's what this law is about, you are wrong, Google already censors search results as a response to a copyright allegation. That's what the DMCA was about.

This is very true. If he's willing he should file a DMCA counter notice ( go to http://www.chillingeffects.org/ for help) . The big caveat is that he needs to be ready to go to court if he does that (they may or may not want to but he has to be ready). Google is obligated by the law to put it back up unless they receive notice from the record company that they 'have ALREADY' filed suit (in which case they guys duke it out). If they don't hear back in 10 days then they have to put it back up and actually Google is pretty good at sticking to that and not pulling it down for some other reason right away. They are fully protected from being sued about it once they wait the 10 days.

While searching for some foreign music, I ran into a 'catchall' on Google...

They'd gotten a take-down notice for including search results about licensed anime, on blog and database sites -- that included no downloads or links to downloads...

Now we are talking not just going after linkers, but linkers to people who even talk about the content.

The takedown notice to google (to block search results -- freedom of speech),
      shows the list of sites I first ran into...then I ran into a real hilarious one --

one against TWITTER -- and multiple 'twitters' that were deemed
infringing content!! Like I be they were distributing movies 140 bytes
at a time!

Yeah...must be some serious 'intent' going on here...

Oh yeah...lest I forget...the takedowns against Music Blogs almost 12,000/month -- musta been writing about the lyrics...

Yeah, right...

For every 'pirate' out there, there, there are 10-100 corporate pirates stealing the rights of the rest of us...

While searching for some foreign music, I ran into a 'catchall' on Google...

They'd gotten a take-down notice for including search results about licensed anime, on blog and database sites -- that included no downloads or links to downloads...

Now we are talking not just going after linkers, but linkers to people who even talk about the content.

The takedown notice to google (to block search results -- freedom of speech),
      shows the list of sites I first ran into...then I ran into a real hilarious one --

one against TWITTER -- and multiple 'twitters' that were deemed
infringing content!! Like I be they were distributing movies 140 bytes
at a time!

Yeah...must be some serious 'intent' going on here...

Oh yeah...lest I forget...the takedowns against Music Blogs almost 12,000/month -- musta been writing about the lyrics...

Yeah, right...

For every 'pirate' out there, there, there are 10-100 corporate pirates stealing the rights of the rest of us...

While searching for some foreign music, I ran into a 'catchall' on Google...

They'd gotten a take-down notice for including search results about licensed anime, on blog and database sites -- that included no downloads or links to downloads...

Now we are talking not just going after linkers, but linkers to people who even talk about the content.

The takedown notice to google (to block search results -- freedom of speech),
      shows the list of sites I first ran into...then I ran into a real hilarious one --

one against TWITTER -- and multiple 'twitters' that were deemed
infringing content!! Like I be they were distributing movies 140 bytes
at a time!

Yeah...must be some serious 'intent' going on here...

Oh yeah...lest I forget...the takedowns against Music Blogs almost 12,000/month -- musta been writing about the lyrics...

Yeah, right...

For every 'pirate' out there, there, there are 10-100 corporate pirates stealing the rights of the rest of us...

Um, that is the law - have a look at what Linden labs did:
https://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/notice.cgi?NoticeID=6400&print=yes

Not to mention trade secrets have no protection under law, in fact that's why copyright law exists in the first place.

Never say never.

Approximately 40 states have adopted the model Uniform Trade Secrets Act (USTA). The USTA defines a trade secret as "information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

The USTA specifies remedies for violation of trade secrets including injunctions, damages, and attorney's fees. It also gives courts the authority to grant protective orders to ensure the secrecy of a trade secret during the discovery phase of litigation, and prevents disclosure of confidential information by witnesses.

Federal Protection for Trade Secrets

The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 federally criminalizes the theft or misappropriation of trade secrets under two key provisions. The first makes it illegal to steal trade secrets for the benefit foreign powers; the second, makes it illegal to steal trade secrets for commercial or economic purposes regardless of who benefits.

Trade Secrets

The reverse engineering of software faces considerable legal challenges due to the enforcement of anti reverse engineering licensing provisions and the prohibition on the circumvention of technologies embedded within protection measures. By enforcing these legal mechanisms, courts are not required to examine the reverse engineering restrictions under federal intellectual property law. In circumstances involving anti reverse engineering licensing provisions, courts must first determine whether the enforcement of these provisions within contracts are preempted by federal intellectual property law considerations. Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law.

Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Reverse Engineering

...about using Casablanca in the title of their film. Sadly, Snopes says Groucho ws being a bit disingenuous, but still an awesome read.

"the claim brought before this court... aims"

"- to order the defendant to withdraw all the articles, photographs and graphic reproductions from the Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or under any other name ) starting from the day of the notification of the order under penalty of a daily fine of 2,000,000 E per day of delay;"

Emphasis mine. And to just to repeat it: "from all their sites" and "under any other name".

The plaintiff, in this case, the publishers, actually asked for this and the judge let them hang themselves.

the court order says to remove the data from "all their sites... any form of cache". Google would have been in violation of the court order if they DID NOT REMOVE the sites from the index. See bottom of page 2 of the court order: http://images.chillingeffects.org/notices/5133.pdf

since the index fits both those conditions, all Google could do was to dump the sites entirely. Remember that even presenting a link to the site is a form of cache in itself since it caches the title and the name of the paper.

short description of the court order that copiepresse requested (and obtained): The judge let them have all the rope they wanted to hang themselves.

No the court ordered it
 

withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order

No the court ordered it
 

withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order

The actual court order is over on Chilling Effects http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=2160 It expressly says that Google is to remove the links "from all their sites". So...yeah, the publishers got what they wished for, they just didn't realise what that would really imply.

- Order the defendant to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order, under penalty of a daily fine of 1,000,000.- ? per day of delay;

Emphasis mine. If Google isn't allowed to have any content from the newspapers on any of Google's sites and search engine indexing is based on content, then how is it supposed to index the pages?

Furthermore, once notice is given, the material has to STAY DOWN to give the complaining party a chance to sue, or the safe harbor is lost.

Not exactly. The complaining party has 10 business days (14 days) to get an injunction to prevent the material from being reinstated; if they do not get the injunction in that time period, it must be promptly reinstated or the ISP actually becomes liable for damages if it is later found that the material did not in fact infringe on the complaining party's copyright.

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

A host then passes along the counter-notice to the person who filed the original notice. The works remain offline for 10 business days, after which, if no additional action has been taken by the filer, the works can be restored.

The copyright holder can petition the court for an injunction to prevent the restoration of the original works, but if it is not obtained within the time allotted, the works are restored to the site.

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

If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

DCMA sect. 512 protects the linker (under safe harbor), until they're aware the link is infringing. At that point the linker has to remove or disable access to the linked material.

1, 2 and 3.

HTH.

The only way you would be restricted is by your own ignorance.

Or if you don't want to commit a crime by decrypting the document that you purchased.
Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Anticircumvention (DMCA)

Really? Has the DMCA been amended?

No.

Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime.

"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.

There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.

Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.

—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 referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;...(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity...

DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).

You make a number of assumptions and have a number of misunderstandings.

First, Google has fought this battle. That aside, as you admit, there is no case law that sides on such actions being illegal in a fashion that applies to this.

Second, any company or individual who provides online services can be (and often is) considered a "service provider" - you are confusing an INTERNET service provider with an ONLINE service provider. Google is an OSP but not (or not really) an ISP.

Third, you are assuming guilt of the parties involved in deciding they knew the links went to content that infringed. I am not saying they didnt (or shouldnt have) know(n). I am saying you are deciding you are the judge and jury. But, that's what the courts are for.

Finally, thus, when you put this all together, it is (a) up to a court (not some random judge) to determine which factors make it willful infringement or not, (b) the takedown notice needs to be sent and either responded to (ie: material removed, counter notice, etc) or ignored.

See the point? The DHS has been skipping numerous steps. The sanctions imposed are those that should apply after guilt is determined - which at the least would require a court case to determine that the OSP is KNOWINGLY providing links to illegal content - or at the other end of the spectrum, filing due to lack of a response (or incorrect response) to a takedown notice.

But, apparently none of the above happened.

Please indicate which part of the DMCA or Constitution allows for DHS to ignore procedure. There is no "compelling reason" "in the best interests" (etc) that allows such. The only reason there is, is to cater to big businesses.

Yet, in their infinite idiocy, they fail to go after comp

Really? Has the DMCA been amended?

No.

Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime.

"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.

There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.

Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.

—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 referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;...(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity...

DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).

From the Chilling Effect FAQ. "So far, courts have found that deep links to web pages were neither a copyright infringement nor a trespass. "

Chilling Effects is a creation of various legal organisations and the explicitly cite this complaint so I think we can trust their legal opinion.