Chilling Effects Cease & Desist Clearinghouse
Wendy Seltzer writes: "The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, EFF, and other major law school clinics have launched ChillingEffects.org to combat the chilling effect of Cease & Desist letters with ungrounded legal threats. (Slashdot readers got a site preview in the story on the Bnetd Cease & Desist, already in our database.)
If you have received a Cease & Desist, we invite you to add it to the database, where law students will analyze the legalese and annotate the C&Ds with Frequently Asked Questions and answers. The site already offers several sets of general legal FAQs."
Hey slashdot crowd, you all should be excited about this. We finally have a place to go check out what the laws really mean (and how they're really applied), as opposed to talking out our asses all the time. This is indeed a Good Thing (tm) and I only hope the best for the affiliated schools.
Witty quotes suck.
If the "Clearinghouse" manages to stay up, it will certainly become very useful. One of the worst things about cease-and-desist letters is that the lawyers throw all kinds of threats at you, which you then have to spend time checking into. If you're a small operation, this means a big company can basically bludgeon you to death with cease and desist letters. In fact, we've seen this happening a lot more in the past year.
I'm glad to see this site go up, IMHO it's a victory for the little guy. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the cease and desist climate after word of the site gets around; maybe people will stop throwing cease & desist at everything they don't like. (Heh, that's probably a pipe dream.) Anyway, just my $0.02.
---Crash Windows XP just by viewing a simple text file!
Their tag line: "monitoring and protecting your brand equity."
Check the connotations of the individual words:
Again, I may be [and probably am] wrong.
Along that line of thinking: How long do you think it will be before C&D letters contain language specifying that you cannot publish them? (And even if you say that is not possible/legal/whatever, how many will try anyway?)
Unforunately I think it would only be helpful for those living under US law. Therefore not applicable to many people. Getting law students involved from many other countries would be a good thing.
It's kind of funny how the relationship between technology and the law have changed. Four years ago, who would have expected to see an archive of legalisms as a /. front-page story? I mean, this is a tech news site, right?
Ah well, at least there are still white hat lawyers on our side, for the moment at least.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Assuming you got one, and I'm pretty sure I know someone who did, if they aren't signed by a member of a state bar or plaing fantasy, any recourse, other than telling them where to shove it?
Examples may include, "Dear Sir/Madam, our attorney has advised us that what you are doing violates etc etc etc...", which, IMHO is hardly a C&D rather wishful thinking.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
O.K., cool!
I use DeCSS-derived software to copy DVDs to my Hard Drive and later to DVD, only this time encoding free!
Also cool, sounds like traditional fair use to me. I too use CSS-defeating software so I can view DVDs I purchased under [GNU/]Linux.
I hand out free copies of DVD movies everywhere I can to as many people as I can, along with a 2600 flier about how bad the DMCA is.
Unless these are movies you made, this is uber-uncool. You should be fighting for fair-use, and reductions of copyight protection terms, not blatently fueling the flames of oppression. Such piracy just proves "them" right. Handing out the 2600 flyer is cool. I wear my anti-DVD/CCA t-shirt proudly, too, and explain what it means when people ask.
I realize that you posted in jest, but civil disobedience isn't about completely ignoring bad law, just orderly refusal to obey those parts of the law that are ill-concieved.
You could've hired me.
Now as soon as the Slashdot effect fades, I can use the site.
It it legal to put C&D letters on a public website, or could the sender claim copyright infringement?
In Germany, there is something similar to C&D letters ("Abmahnung", slightly worse because you must pay a few hunderd dollers, or they'll go to court).
There is a database about it, but you must never quote the Abmahnung on a website - you'd get another one for copyright infringment.
It's a great idea, but you really can't call it annotated. There are links in each C&D letter to a FAQ, but it's all boilerplate stuff - for example, the EnronOwnsTheGOP C&D and vivendiuniversalsucks.com C&D basically have the same annotation, such as "what constitutes trademark dilution."
It's a great introduction to those who aren't familiar with the difference between copyright and trademark, for example. It'd be nice to have some actual annotations by lawyers. A good site with this kind of content is Consumer Affairs. They have Real Live Lawyers who read consumer complaints and give their opinion on who's at fault, what the relevant laws are, etc. I'd love to see one of these C&D letters ripped apart by a lawyer, e.g. 'this is clearly a parody that falls under fair use.'
So what she's basically saying is, she wants us to make the players of our game stop using any kind of military insignia/unit name in their online names. She's also been emailing various DoD "clans" asking the same thing. As you might expect of flame ready teens, some have started bombarding her with some pretty interesting (as I'm guessing) responses.
Now she's writing to us (the DoD Team) and Sierra (who we have ZERO connection with) asking us to make them stop emailing her.
Sheesh!
So - thank GOD for that website. I feel like we're not alone anymore after having it to read!
That being said, I wholeheartedly wish this site the best: a little knowledge about the law can go a long way in shielding oneself from abusive practices. I'm pleasantly surprised, also, to see that /.ers are not flaming the hell out of the idea, given the prevailing "why should I need a professional to explain my legal rights to me - life is supposed be simple, obvious and unfailingly fair" world view often expressed here.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
You should be fighting for fair-use, and reductions of copyight protection terms, not blatently fueling the flames of oppression.
I'm curious.
The issue of term limits and fair-use seems like a crucial one, but I'm not sure that it is. Wouldn't the DMCA be just as bad if copyright terms were only 75 years? 50? 14? Isn't the issue really the draconian laws that are being put into place to enforce copyright protection, and not the term of the protection itself?
Would any of us be satisfied with a world in which Skylarov and Johansen could be persecuted as they have been, in which the DMCA, WIPO regulations, and the SSSCA are enforced laws, but copyright terms were shortened to something reasonable?
I wouldn't be. I don't think fair use and copyright protection terms are the issue. I suspect the issue is that copyright laws simply can't effectively be applied to current and future technologies without draconian enforcement procedures being applied.
Well, for starters, I wouldn't presume that there should be no such notion as copyright, as suggested by our trolly friend above. But, neither would I suggest that ideas and writings with essentiually zero cost of reproduction be an indefinite gravy train for the author.
The original copyright terms would be a good start, but even those are too long when it comes to the usefulness of things like software. Five years protection after first deployment sounds better. And, if you produce derivative works, each gets a brand new five year copyright term. So, at worst, the public domain is five years behind the bleeding edge.
You could've hired me.
Does this only look at how american law would interpret the evidence, or international law. I know that many countries share that same policies, but if I live in Australia, and get a cease and desist, can I post it to this forum and get a response showing what rights I have avaliable to me based on Australian or international law.
Has any attorney ever actually gotten in trouble because he posted legal opinion to the Internet and some butthead thought that it created an attorney-client relationship or constituted legal advice? I am a lawyer, and I post stuff from time to time, and I don't choose to .sig my posts with long disclaimers -- because commmon sense should tell you that my post, however opinionated or lawyerlike, doesn't create any duty or liability to readers. If someone knows of a court opinion that says otherwise, please cough it up.