Slashdot Mirror
eBay Beats DMCA
pgrote writes "eBay won a court battle that brought to light a key provision of the DCMA. The judge says, "Although it may facilitate the sale of pirated material, "eBay does not have the right and ability to control such activity," a standard required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the judge wrote." So does that mean that the P2P file trading programs are legal since the pirating occurs off the sites? This is could be a very important precedent. " In talking to some lawyer friends, their perspective on part of the Napster case was that by being very difficult in the beginning, Napster almost doomed itself. But, as always, IANAL ? .
I do remember that story and since then I've done a little foot work to see what the deal is.
Looking to the DMCA itself, what happens when infringement is suspected? Well copyright holders (or more typically their lawyers), can send a letter to your ISP (or other network provider) and they then cut off your service or risk being sued. Actually if you look at the wording in the DMCA, it appears that the intent was that action be taken only if you are actively infringing on copyrights, such as hosting files on a website, at the time of the receipt of the copyright holder's letter (amended section 512 of the Copyright Act). One problem is that the limitations on damages appear to allow an ISP to cut off all service whenever a notice is received without any repercussions and regardless of any actual infringement (Section 512(g)(1)). A second problem is that even if you aren't infringing at the moment, the fact that someone said you were might be enough to negate the ISP's protection should you infringe in the future (see Section 512(c)).
The DMCA does explicitly allow you recourse however. Pursuant to Section 512(g)(3) you can file a counter notice with the ISP and they have to restore your access within 14 days unless the copyright holder files for a court order against you. I don't know how this will intersect with the notion of arbitrary service termination in many license agreements, however. Furthermore, if you prove in court that you did not commit the act of which you are accused then the accuser may be subject to paying monetary losses, punitive damages and legal costs.
IANAL, but I am a concerned citizen (IAACC, anyone?)
You must be reading a different article, because the one linked to talks about a "ruling". The "dismissal" mentioned is a sloppy non-legal refernece to the request for damages, not of the case itself.
Hint to moderators: read the referenecs before moderating comments "insightful" or "informative".
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Utter twaddle. Read the article. The reason for the loss was that it was an ill advised suit. The complainant refused to comply with eBay's take-down procedure, launched straight into an arrogant lawsuit, and got (rightly) reamed for it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Read the article. The only thing tested here was eBay's takedown procedure, which the complainant arrogantly refused to follow. This ruling sets no precedents, not changes the situation one bit.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Unfortunately, they're only going to drop judgments where the ruling is not in favor of big companies making money
/. very often), we're talking about the entertainment industry here. If any party has sold its soul to them for campaign contributions lately, it's been the Democrats. The Clintons basically rented out the Lincoln Bedroom for every big star and producer in Hollywood in exchange for a few bucks.
:)
To be fair (something you don't see on
Perhaps the Bush administration will deal the entertainment industry a blow for being such loyal Democrats and cripple their revenues by taking the teeth out of the DMCA.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Untrue, Patel knew precisely what Napster was about, it had no real purpose other than copyright infringement and its creators had no intention of discouraging piracy. No amount of /. sophistry changes that.
eBay on the other hand has a real purpose that does not depend on infringing others copyrights and had established a takedown proceedure that was clearly in good faith.
The ratio of infringing content to non-infringing on Napster was at least 20:1. The ratio of infringing to non-infringing on eBay is no more than 1:2000.
In this case the chump refused to submit a sworn statement to state that the material was infringing so the court threw out the case. The courts are entitled to consider whether the parties are acting in good faith and protect a good faith party from an unjustified lawsuit.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The point of an auction in the UK is for a property holder to launder any possibly stolen items.
One must publicly state an auction is taking place and if you think any of your stolen property is there you go down and claim it. Any goods not claimed are now 'cleaned' of their 'stolen goods' status.
Which is why every so often the cops auction off unidentified swag they have collected from burglars etc.
I'm sure that more complicated copyright issues are not cleaned is this way but doctrine of first sale would apply.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Lawyers are the closest thing we have to a conscience in this country; without them, big government and big corporations would run roughshod over us.
And how would they do such a thing? With Lawyers! You think it's not "big government's" lawyers with their no holds barred attitudes pursuing Skylarov? It's certainly not a compromising attitude filled with compassion and a desire to settle the issue without litigation.
Lawyers are our conscience? Wow, are those just words, or what? At best, lawyers are a necessary evil in our society. Typically, though, they're a morass of sharks, eager to create more work for themselves by filing suits and pushing for legislation that gives them more opportunities to file suits.
Unlike journalists, lawyers are held to a code of ethics and when they violate it, they can lose their butts.
More bullshit. They're held accountable by the American Bar Association, their own brethren. That's like saying that the Direct Marketing Association holds its members accountable for spamming.
let's remember that they're human beings
So was Timothy McVeigh. What's your point?
As I said before, at best, lawyers are a necessary evil in our society, like hydrogen bombs. As with hydrogen bombs, ways should be sought to minimize their use in our country. Instead, the foxes are running the chicken coop in Washington, turning out as much legalistic soup as they can to keep us all dependent upon them.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?