Slashdot Mirror
Using the DMCA Against License Violations?
"eBay has several different mechanisms for complaining about this, and I used one of them. Other people have complained too, but so far the result just seems to be that eBay deletes the listings of the items (which have already been sold). Meanwhile the guy is still violating copyleft licenses (as well as selling other copyright-violating stuff, such as screensavers containing commercial porn images).
Apparently the most effective way to deal with this on eBay is to participate in their vero
program, which basically means sending the DMCA Police after the guy. For instance, if I wanted to sue the guy (which I don't), I'd need to know his name and address. The DMCA says that eBay has to provide that info to someone who complains about a copyright violation.
It seems like it would be a similar deal in the software world. The conventional wisdom about how to prevent infringement is to GPL your code, and transfer the copyright to the FSF, which will contact license violators and (theoretically) sue them if it comes to that. So how long will it be until the FSF is asked by an open-source developer to invoke the DMCA in order to deal with a license violation? In my own case, should I go ahead and join eBay's vero program? It would make me feel like I was in bed with the enemy, but it does seem like it would give me some very effective options for dealing with the situation. For instance, members of the program can have eBay run automated boolean searches for copyright-violating items, and get the results e-mailed to them periodically.
One possible reply to my question is 'Why do you care?" The problem here is that this guy is doing exactly what RMS originally designed copyleft to prevent: he's taking free information and making it not-free. His customers don't know that the books are copylefted, and have effectively had their own freedom taken away: they don't know they can modify the books, copy them, or sell them."
Don't give in man. The DMCA will eventually be overruled, using it to bully people into compliance makes you as bad as all the other companies who use it. Normal copyright laws make it illegal to break the lock or scale the fence, the DMCA makes it illegal to look at the gate. Sue the guy for breaking your copyleft license. That's breach of contract, I think, and I think you're entitled to the profits. IANAL, and this is not legal advice. So don't sue me.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
A company named Luxuriousity run by Gregg Collins is apparently rebranding well known open source projects and selling them on Ebay. He gives no indications as to the original title of the software, and he even goes as far as to claim, 'Be careful who you buy from, only Luxuriosity offers a complete package including full support and refund services.' and 'We are a licensed Community distributor.'
I've submitted this as a story twice, the first time it was accepted, but not posted (Slashdot went down, I think it got lost), second time rejected. Anyway, it seems like this is a good story to post it under, since it's basically the same story as this one.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Just because you choose to do the world a service and give your work away, doesn't mean you shouldn't get credit.
Writing textbooks is HARD. Not everyone can do it. This guy is making a contribution to the educational world in a way in which non-rich people can afford it. That's a damn nice gift, if you ask me. The more education in our world, the better.
And you would tell him he should just screw off? I don't think so.
Personally, I'd use whatever legal means were at my disposal if I was incensed by what happened, up to and including the DMCA. Law is law. Turn something bad into something good.
--ZS
-- sigs cause cancer.
Just because there are some good applications of the DMCA does not mean that the DMCA is a good law. There are things that you can do with a gun that are not bad. But that doesn't make guns good. Microsoft makes some good products. That does not make Microsoft good.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
And what's to stop someone distributing all or part of a commercially published book without giving credit?...
Copyright isn't about money, it's about protecting the rights of the author. Whether they choose to make money from it is irrelevant.
Thinking they have a broad enough voice to reach the market they need, people will try to sell anything. Including cd's of free physics text-books.
Of course, the sad part is that they are usually right. Are some of the things they sell wrong? Probably, but they are creating a market where none would have existed before.
Nail him for copyright infringement, plain and simple. He is duplicating your work without authorization (since authorization requires, in your case, distribution of your copying and distribution policies, as well as anything else you may have mentioned in the copyright paragraphs accompanying your work).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
and sue him in a civil court.
that is how copyright matters should be dealt with.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, I suspect you're just trolling, but the issue is whether it's ethical to use an evil law to protect your work. I'd say, no.
The Law, in general, is a tool to create justice. Use it as such, to do otherwise is injust. Do not use the law to create wealth. Do not use the law to create righteousness. Neither should the law be used to allow lawlessness or injustice. The law doesn't define what is right it is a tool to set the wrongs right.
The problem with our society is that we think that the law defines the boundries of right and wrong behaviour. It isn't. And it never will.
Ted Tschopp
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
BTW - I think the link for "Prof. Felten's answers" points to the wrong story... the link should point to this story instead.
I must say that the DMCA has some downsides, but it also has some positive aspects. It has provided researchers (such as myself) with a valuable tool for protecting our intellectual property from theft. Researchers in the fields of physics and other applied sciences sometime spend their entire lives working on certain algorithms and other scientific solutions. To say that people like me *aren't* allowed to profit from our life-long research is a slap in the face to all of my colleagues. Don't get me wrong; I believe that the DMCA can be revised in certain areas. But don't try to dismantle an overall good piece of legislations that protects people like me just because it has a small number is defects.
Just like pretty much everything, the DMCA isn't completely bad. I'm sure there are parts in it that make sense, and aren't eliminating our freedoms.
However, just because it may have some good parts that may help in enforcing free licenses doesn't mean that it is a good law. The DMCA should be either repealed, or rewritten, to remove the parts that we all know about. If that keeps you from being able to enforce an open license, then that means there needs to be a law that will help you enforce a license, it just doesn't need to be as infringing as the DMCA is.
This statement is so utterly and profoundly true, I'm speechless.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's a copyright violation. The fact that a clause you want to use (ISPs having to reveal copyright infringer's identities) was passed in a bill with clauses that you don't like shouldn't matter. It's highly unlikely that the law will be overturned as unconstitutional (IMO, it's more likely to be limited to works nominally protected by copyright), so it's not going away anytime soon.
Either you're for "information wants to be free" and you don't have a thing to complain about, or your concede that there should be limits on individual freedoms, and thus recognize laws like the so-called DMCA as applicable limits on freedom for the benefit of everyone.
FWIW, it's probably easier to call the local US District Court and bug them about it. If the bloke's as bad as the article says, then he'll go down quickly enough.
Since this guy seems to be violating every aspect of copyright we have a law for, I see no need what so ever in using the DMCA to go after him.
Normal copyright law is absolutely and fully efficient to get him by the balls.
Ask a lawyer about the details. I could imagine that a non-profit NGO like maybe the FSF could provide a fair amount of 'free' legal advice on how to deal with this.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
isn't there anything DMCA cannot be used for? I use it to wipe shit every day, and have heard of such different usages for it as SARS-killer, the Constituion of the United States of ArseFart, moving the lawn and very commonly as a gay pick-up line slash crowdpleaser.
This was released under conditions. Just because you do not pay does not mean there are no conditions.
These efforts are due to a person, and as long as they licenced their product they have a right for that licence to be upheld.
A parasite is someone who leeches off others for their own benefit. In this case the guy is selling stuff he does not have a right to do.
When you download music, you do absorb the property of others. But the use, imho, is all important.
Downloading music, for example, spreads culture (no matter how bad the taste of a 15 year old NSYNC fan), where as packaging something up restricts it.
The counterfactuals - should culture be paid for if the author intended (as in copyright, as creators of culture have a 'right' to their rewards, as thats why they did it). Or the bidders on ebay clearly did not know your product was freely available, so what does it hurt if it is sold? Are you only after personal satisfaction... i.e. EGO?
Should creation of culture be accountable? If you allow it under 'open' licences why is that more valid than 'closed' copyright? hmmmm, I think culture should be freely shared between all, if it is distributed for a price or for free is equal in my eyes, but if that disencentivises culture creation, but demanding payment becomes questionable. Of course, my opinion is not that of the law.
If your copyright (in which you make the book/software copylefted) is violated, you should have civil action available to you outside of the DMCA. If you need to sue this person specifically, I'm sure there are a number of ways you can get his information without resorting to the DMCA "must give" statute. My first guess (and this is just a wild guess) is that if you ask eBay for it and they refuse pointing you to their vero service, then you should probably find a lawyer who can bully them into it with either a lawsuit or some sort of pre-filing motion which would make them give it up or some how get them in some sort of "conspiracy" with the violator...
IAN only NAL, I'm not even a law student...but my guess is that the legal paths for you were already set well before the DMCA and it may just take some research or a good lawyer who can talk with the EFF and FSF guys.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
The Lawsuit!
"One possible reply to my question is 'Why do you care?' The problem here is that this guy is doing exactly what RMS originally designed copyleft to prevent..."
As with all GPL/CopyLeft violations, the lawsuit under US Copyright lay is a powerful and effective method that can be used to go after this guy. I know you don't want to sue (you said so in the article), but that seems to me the most effective method. If you care enough, file a small-claims lawsuit on behalf of the poeple he's ripped off.
I know that the DMCA is a rather questionable piece of legislation, but so long as it is here (for now), it is an effective tool that can be used.
It is just odd that people who rant about why it is ok to violate various non-GPL licences get their collective panties in a bunch over a GPL violation. It just seems odd.
The first step you should take is contacting the seller and explaining the situation. He may not even realize that he's violating the terms of the license. Don't make the mistake that so many corporations do of thinking/hitting with your lawyers first.
If he refuses change the auctions, contact Ebay. Forward them copies of the emails you and he have exchanged and explain the situation. Let them handle it.
Licenses are there to protect our works. It's not bad juju to go after violators, it's just bad juju to abuse the law and licenses, and (in my opinion) to not even try to settle the issue without lawyers.
1: You'll have concrete evidence that he is violating your copyright, which can be brought to court and presented.
2: He has to send you the CD, which requires a valid return address. If he's smart he isn't using his own home address, but it is a start, and enough that you should be able to track him down via subpoena.
He is violating your copyright outright. This is illegal, and not dependant on a law such as the DMCA. The DMCA would make the CDs that he is selling your text on illegal as they are being used to circumvent your copyright. This is just outright blatant theft of your intellectual property.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
Now, mind you, I come from the "use the laws whenever its neccesary" group; see my Journal, and you'll see a few examples. Now, in my opinion, if you can use the DMCA, use it. Yes, it may be an evil piece of legislature, but its also a good piece; it often depends on how it's applied. In this case, you've got every right to nail this guy, and I vote you do it.
Of course I don't GPL my software (I prefer the LGPL and BSD-style liscenses, or ones of my own crafting). And, I believe patents and copyrights are well and good, so you may not be looking for my opinion. But, that is what I have to say, so best of luck, and I hope you nail the sucker. =)
As an authorized technician and reseller, the people that sell Apple Manuals and OS updates without any original material are promoting fraud. Most, who sells tech manuals, even say in their auctions, "Why pay a technician to fix it when you can do it at home?"
This is fine for out of warranty items, but promoting this for items that are still covered by Apple care, is promoting fraud. here's how: if someone ( a novice) takes this manual and then tries to fix a hardware problem themselves while a unit is still under warranty, then can't fix it or breaks something else, then brings the item in for repair under warranty, Apple and I have to pay for it! Hmmmm ...
As for the OS updates, apple has to pay licensing fees for codecs included in some of these updates and they have to pay them based on download totals and CD sales. For instance, last year, Apple paid out $7400 in liscensing for the OS8.6 update. It includes several sorenson codecs and a few TCP/IP network protocols that have to paid for.
Here is some info about this I had posted in a forum on MacCentral in January:
Operating system components such as liscensing and royalties (mpeg and TCIP codecs) are based on yearly distribution totals. It is illegal to redistribute Apple Operating System Updates without permission. Service providers depend on "customers with low bandwidth internet connections" for service revenue. Service providers are ALLOWED to download & charge for the service time to install or burn a CD for their customers. They are NOT allowed to SELL CDRs with updates on them! This is the same thing as taking Adobe Photoshop downloaded from LimeWire and selling CDR copies. Yahoo's reply has been: "Please contact the manufacturer / copyright holder" - I have spent hours on the phone with Quark, Connectix, Macromedia, Apple, and Adobe. These companies, including Apple, don't have the time to worry about a few thousand dollars.
" I can't tape a program off of free TV and sell it. Someone doesn't have access to the free channels I do = someone who doesn't have the bandwidth to download from Apple."
It is also against Apple Non Discloure to distribute part numbers & repair diagrams. How fair is it to the artists/authors of these manuals to redistribute without credit to them? Note: Apple DOES credit ANY author/artist or contractor, these manuals do not. Also, if a customer uses the wrong part number or custom installs, it could void their warranty or ruin their computer!
http://user.auctions.shopping.yahoo.com/user/jily7 0
The question to this seller is? Is it legal to download someone's else's work (or Apple's Property) and then redistribute it for a profit? Much different than file sharing where no profit is transacted.
This seller also claims exclusive rights and distribution with VillageMUG - Village MUG President has confirmed to me no affiliatiion
Interesting subject indeed. I will be interested in a followup from the author of the parent article to see what happens.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I saw one guy selling information about how to buy a new Ipod for $50. But if you weren't observant, you'd think he was selling an Ipod for that price.
Sadly, there were 6 bids, and it was already up to $65. I don't know who to blame more: the scumbag pulling this shit, or the dimbulbs bidding on it.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Copyright isn't about money, it's about protecting the rights of the author.
Copyright, as defined in the United States Constitution, is about giving the author a monopoly to the extent that it "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Will I retire or break 10K?
Even without the DMCA you're still protected under all the other copyright laws.
How about contacting the auction winners through eBay. Explain who you are and that the item they just purchased was freely available. Ask them to leave negative feedback for the seller. A few bad ratings could go a long way. Maybe set up a web page and have them link that URL in their feedback.
...that would Poetic Justice!
The only reason I could see you needing the DMCA is for an "immediate takedown".
.. it is EASY to follow the rules of a Free license), then maybe you could sue him or at least use the power of the community to create bad publicity.
.. I think you should ignore what the DMCA allows you to do and stick to pre-DMCA copyright.
Do you REALLY need to do that? Is this guy really hurting you that bad? No, I don't think so.
He is violating the license which would allow him to distribute these materials. And he's violating it in a way that's easy to remedy.
First of all, just email the guy and have a civil discussion. What's so hard about that? Maybe he saw the words "free" and "open" and didn't read any further. There's a lot of subtlety in copyright law, and therefore software distribution licenses, and therefore Free software/documentation licenses.
If he doesn't stop, then have a lawyer write him a letter. If that doesn't work (and I can't imagine it wouldn't
Really, the beauty of the GPL (and related licenses) is that it is SO easy to fix a violation.
I see no problem with using copyright to enforce the GPL (etc) and also wishing for copyright law to allow filesharing, etc. In one case, the use of copyright law is aligned with the needs of users, in the other, it's not.
But DMCA is not useful to anybody. There's no sane reason why you would need to do a takedown. There's no need to act "immediately" except if you want to show how powerful you are. This applies I think to both Free software and the MPAA/RIAA
So, some guy with email
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
isn't upholding the GPL, et al? One way you can make it not worth his while is to post his email,
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
all over the web. Maybe he'd like some spam sent to
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
leting him know about stuff. If everybody sends email to
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
than his email box will become so littered that his auctions will suffer. The end result:
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
will find it less profitible to violate copyright laws, etc. Don't you think that would help
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
stop doing bad things?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
For instance, if I wanted to sue the guy (which I don't), I'd need to know his name and address. The DMCA says that eBay has to provide that info to someone who complains about a copyright violation.
You don't need the DMCA for that- If you wanted to sue the guy (which you apparently don't), your lawyer could simply get the information subpoena'd from eBay.
There's no reason to get the DMCA involved, here. You've got a very clear case of Copyright infringement, and that's enough to force him to stop distributing it without your licenses.
get 0wned. irc.w30wnzj00.com
Actually, copyright is about providing authors with an incentive to create new works, on the theory that the advancement of knowledge (and art, literature, etc) leads to the betterment of society as a whole. The form that incentive takes is a temporary monopoly on the dissemination of the work. This monopoly is not an inherent right to be protected, but an extra right granted by the government and encoded in law.
Traditionally, authors use that monopoly to make money by selling copies of the work to people. You are absolutely correct, though, to point out that making money is not the only way in which the copyright monopoly can be used. In this case, the author has decided to make the work available to as many people as possible for as little cost as possible. The price he exacts is not monetary but legal -- in exchange for receiving the work, the customer must agree to abide by the terms laid out in the respective licenses. This ebay seller has violated those terms. He has not paid the price named by the author, and therefore is not entitled to possession of the work.
On a side note, I applaud the author for releasing his books under these terms. It is consonant with the original goal of copyright: to better society through the advancement of knowledge. Bravo.
I find it ridiculous that you people think you have the right to *anything* for free! The time you people spend doing anything at all is time that should be spent buying RIAA approved CDs! Therefore the RIAA deserves all profits from every human enterprise! You are all thieves!
While you continue bitching about license issues, Microsoft continues kicking your asses in software innovation and development. The numbers don't lie, folks. Get with the program while you still have a chance.
rock, meet hard place
-
A lawsuit can be filed without knowing details about the copyright infringer; cases are filed all the time against "John Doe, the person who did X". Once a case is properly filed, the suing party can subpoena anybody who has information about the problem, including anybody who knows who "John Doe" is.
The DMCA would let you avoid a lot of this rigamarole; that's part of what sold it in Congress and when you just want the problem to stop it's an almost reasonably crafted solution. "Owner" notifies; service provider takes down; poster gets the opportunity to challenge and get things back up, all without getting the lawyers involved (in theory). If only the reality had matched the plan.
Here is the guy doing it on eBay and here is an example of the activity. His feedback is pretty good, though I realize it is anathema to the issue. I only mention it for those who don't have an eBay account and are curious.
My
Limekiller
What about a baseball bat?
When Sun started selling Solaris 7 free edition
for $20, people would buy copies from Sun and sell them
on ebay, getting over $100 each. Stupid stupid stupid.
why would buyers risk negative feedback?
Actually, as far as I can tell (and IANAL) the GPL says nothing about renaming or rebranding. Perhaps the most relevant article of the GPL in this respect is:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. [emphasis mine]
As long as he is including a copy of the GPL on the CD, then he's probably fine (legally that is). The only other issue is to make sure that he did not reassign the copyright (left) for the program itself.
Can anyone else find anything about GPL and renaming?
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Why not place a cheap item explaining the problem and giving useful information for potential buyers? Tell them where to download the software and where to order it on disk.
The author might do this and collect an occasional payment of a few dollars to cover the cost of placing items. Organizations like the FSF could try it.
It's a simple matter of spreading information where it's needed. Is it really necessary to turn to the law?
So, here's a solution - buy Open Office (er, "Luxurious Office") from this (unprintable description removed) and then sue him every time it doesn't work.
Or the Gimp (sorry, "Luxuriousity Photo")(for 25 bucks).
I can't look much further, the sleazoid-site is (grin) slashdotted.
Disclaimer: IANAL
But you don't have to use the DMCA if you don't want to.
Title 17, Chapter 5 of Federal law provided for civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringment before the DMCA
For the most part, if you read the DMCA (PDF), mostly all it does is add section 512 to the existing laws.
Take a peek at this federal website website. This one is even better: website.
Great idea.
1) Send him an enquiry through the "Contact Seller" link on the page (online web form that hides his email address), asking a question about the item that he should answer (something simple, but legitimate question)
2) He replies through normal email (the only way he can... he'll probably use a "real" reply-to address)
3) Contact his ISP or mail provider asking for them to identify him due to copyright infringement. A legal-looking request in a certified letter will many times get an actual response. If not, then you might have to go the DMCA route with them or Ebay.
4) Send him a legal letter from your lawyer outlining the complaint and the ways he can resolve the issue, as well as how he must PROVE that he's in compliance in the future.
IANAL like everyone else, but that's worked for me in the past with some GPL'd shareware.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Beyond that, it's a copyright violation, and you have the same rights as anybody else with copyright (I don't see any relationship to the DMCA). That is to say, in practice, not a whole lot of rights unless you are really big.
I don't see a moral dilemma with using every law available to enforce your license. It is perfectly consistent and rational to take advantage of a particular law while at the same time arguing that the existence of the law is detrimental to society.
How many others out there have had cease-and-desists sent to them/their ISP by the MPAA? I left a couple episodes of Stargate on gnutella (literally 2)... and they sent me a C&D. (My quick, flippant answer to the MPAA "cracking down" on TV shows... SELL THEM TO ME!! how else am i supposed to get them?) Luckily they got a lot of critical information wrong (like the port# on my machine).
If this was done on FastTrack, I could sue the MPAA for violating the DMCA :) I think Freenet may be even better for this, using more thorough encryption, but I haven't looked at it yet.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
Here is the correct Slashdot link for the Felten interview.
As long as those people don't come back and claim that they own the free software, it really doesn't do much harm and it exposes more people to it. That doesn't make it right, of course, but perhaps one shouldn't be so uptight about it.
If he is violating the DMCA in some of the rules (like you say he is), can't he get nailed for those rules?
Paint.NET, a Free Image Editor, with Source Code Available!
OK, have them leave neutral feedback. Or they can always reply to negative feedback from the seller saying why they left it.
I bet a few buyers would risk it anyway.
That he is using burned CDS and pirate (free, but still abusing copyleft, so pirate I guess) software. If this is is primary M.O. you should have forced him to another auction site.
That appears to be the problem. You can't sue without some way of contacting the person.
Contrary to what some of the other posters are saying, I think you should use the DMCA to rat the guy out and then sue him. Use whatever tools are available to you and forget the ethical implications.
Why? Everyone and their brother will use the law against *you*; why not turn their own tools against them? Perhaps if the DMCA is used to enforce individual rights, such as your own, others will find a way to use that same law to burn the corporate and government interests who sponsored it in the first place.
In any event, I see laws like the DMCA as just another volley in the war against individual rights. When in war you use whatever weapons are available to you, and to hell with what people think of it. Winners write the history books; losers are forgotten.
So go forth and bitch-slap this son of a bitch as he truly and richly deserves.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Evil is evil, bottom line. The DMCA is not evil, because it is merely a law. It permits a lot of evil things to be legal, but not everything it permits is evil. Your case is in fact one of the intended non-evil uses of the law.
You are a philanthropist (derives from the greek meaning lover of people) who was benevolent enough to bestow your creative and intellectual talents upon the world asking only in return that people continue to share your ideas and give you credit for them. All in all, pretty fair terms. This person is abusing your philanthropy and he should be made to stop. Using the DMCA to make him stop isn't evil, because you're trying to ensure the continued incentive to authors to use copyleft licenses.
Just because some people and companies use the DMCA for evil ends doesn't mean it's wrong to invoke it for just ends.
-jag
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
IANAL but...
His auctions list his location as Ontario, Canada. Perhaps that would make any use of the DMCA or other copyright laws impossible. It would at least severely complicate legal proceedings.
-IAmTheSuit
Take your books, put them on your own cds, charge about the same amount he does - but in your ebay ads, point to a URI where they can download them for free. Pretty quickly his market will dry up for your stuff.
I recently heard about the Iraq playing cards that were distributed, and checked Ebay to see if people had 'em out of morbid curiousity. What I found is that many people were selling "electronic copies" of the cards .. a PDF showing all of the cards together. I just looked, and there are still a few people selling 'em, but mostly they sell the "real" cards now. Here's the interesting thing.. I found a link (not there anymore, but here's a similar one)that claimed in the tag line 'Free, no scam!' and I looked. Turns out the PDF everyone is selling is downloaded from a link to the military website that displayed it. It is freely available for download and being sold. Nasty capitalists, we are =)
The important thing to note is this: In a situation like the one the author is in on ebay, you can pull a reverse warner*. Just flood ebay with similar items, listing them as free, and linking them to download the original document, explaining that anyone selling this (like that person) is frauding you, and here is the same thing for free. That might help deter the snake.
-sgilti-
Pulling a Warner
To flood file sharing services with fake copies of your song, lowering the chances of successful infringements.
the Reverse Warner
Combatting the selling of free materials by flooding the same forum with your free materials.
That would be cool if I coined a phase. =)
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/ Try here for more info on the free version
I wouldn't actually cut n paste, but you could examine several letters and take the best parts of each. Many have already been acted upon by eBay so they shouldn't have a problem with it. Actually, I'd put very clearly how you expect compliance--more so than in a normal DMCA letter. Explain how exactly the guy is breaking GPL and how it hurts his sources not to follow it. See if you can get him to do it right rather than stop completely! Done right, he's doing the writers a favor and making a dime too.
I do understand the poster's point though. As much as we hate the DMCA it provides the simplest approach to stoping the problem. The guy doesn't really care who's selling the stuff--he just wants it stopped or better yet, done properly. Being as places like eBay seem to blindly implement even the most vague DMCA notice, it seems like the thing to do. The *iaa's have inspired such fear in these buracracies that they act first, ask questions later--exactly the results he wants as there really isn't any money to recover, just the license to be followed properly. The work would fall on the guy violating to get the huge buracracy to let him sell again. Minimal out-of-pocket expense for him--seems like the best route even if it makes our skin crawl.
They'd just threaten to bust eBay for arranging sales of stolen goods, and get the name "under the table."
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Copyright can be an effective tool to deal with plaigerism. The DMCA is a copyright act, lets not forget. Slapping someone with a lawsuit is for plaigerism is not the same thing as suing because someone unlawfully accessed your work (say using LinDVD). I say go for it. Use it.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
neat story chill will check it later
Why would the MPAA/RIAA need to "circumvent" any encryption to hunt you down on the FastTrack network? what's wrong with just opening up netstat and logging the ip's that are connected to?
There are already violations known and stacked up by this person, who is already in clear violation of copyright laws. So why not use those copyright laws to enact some sort of justice you wish to see? If you don't want to sue him then why even make any sort of a stink over this, much less try to bolster support for a wretched piece of legislation bought and paid for by greedy groups such as our friends the MPA and RIAA and anybody who lined Congress's pockets. The DMCA as any /. reader knows is an already well abused law for things such as even generic printer cartridges. What I cannot understand is why someone would want to become reliant on this flawed piece of damning legislation.
Don't take the easy way out. Maybe the laws he is already in violation of need to be bolstered to provide that angle that you would need if you gave half a shit and wanted to sue this person. Perhaps you just need to get a lawyer involved anyway that could serve ebay with the papers to yank this account and all others doing similar things. Regardless, invoking the DMCA just to get your way and get it easier makes you no better then the juggernauts who do it. Think also, is this sort of possible trend you want to start for the world and have the whole globe declaring DMCA on anything they even remotely think can qualify?
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
The law is only a set of governmentally supported rules about power.
At its best the law is intended to grant power to those who would otherwise lack it. For example, it may be used to help protect the individual against murder, theft, rape and so on. (Note "is intended to"!)
But the law is also used to deny power. Think of Auschwitz.
Justice has little or nothing to do with it.
I don't really understand what the problem is, you seem to believe for some reason that the only way to enforce copyrights is by using the DMCA. This isn't the case at all.
In fact, the DMCA only applies to eBay as far as actual copyrighted material in the listing, which they are now required to remove within 48 hours. EBay is also required to turn over the guy's personal info. Before the DMCA, you might have needed to get a court order if EBay felt like being uncooperative (which they probably wouldn't have).
(Other then that, Ebay might need to make sure no one was selling copyright circumvention devices, in the same way they police drugs and gun stuff).
So basically the only difference between now and then is that you might have needed to get a court order back then.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
When we were informed that Gregg Collins was selling Audacity on eBay, we contacted him with our concerns (we didn't have a problem with the concept, just specifics). There was later an exchange on our mailing list
My impression was that he means well, but I found his advertisements slightly deceptive by omission. He was upset that people were emailing his bidders, telling them they could get Audacity for free. My opinion was that if he wasn't value-adding, he didn't deserve their money.
It's not a violation of the GPL to rename something.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
While it may be tempting to use the DMCA..you already have the right to use current or previous copyright laws to ask eBay to disocntinue the sales on grounds of copyright infringement..
Which basically means eBay must suspend the sales and suspend the eBay user until matters are resolved..Bascially becuase it sinvolves eBays strucutre within the copyright infringment they would have to do this even without the DMCA being in effect as law of the land..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
DMCA is relevant to your situation if the license constitutes "copyright management information."
DMCA provides several provisions, not all of which are wholly evil. Section 1201 (a)(1)(A) (the "anti-circumvention clause") provides that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." it goes on to list a variety of exceptions. The failure to include enough meaningful exceptions is a serious flaw in the law.
Section 1201(a)(2) (the "anti-trafficking" clause) goes on to provide that "no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" among other things. This is not an entirely bad thing, though it has been terribly abused by RIAA and MPAA to prvent the distribution of things that do have reasonable commercial value.
Section 1202 (b)(1) provides that "No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information."
Rather than railing against the "DMCA" it would seem that supporters ofopen source ought to be strongly supporting 1202(b)(1). People concerned with legitimate security research ought to be interested in expanding the expemptions to 1201(a)(1), while people concerned with playing their digital content on devices of their choosing ought to be concerned with 1201(b) in general.
The copyright office is holding hearings on 1201(a)(1), though it is too late to participate if you haven't already.
Instead of uninformed bitching about DMCA as a whole, read the thing and express rational criticism instead of hysterical nonsense. You'll get farther that way.
straightforward copyright violation.
The guy does not have your permission to redistribute the work in the manner he is doing so.
Forget that it is "copylefted". That's not a legal term, and has no legal meaning.
You own the copyright on your work, and he is selling it without permission.
If he abided by the terms of the license, he could say THAT was his permission, but he isn't.
So get a lawyer to send him a letter, and send ebay a note saying the guy is selling copyrighted material without permission.
Go onto eBay and sell them cheaper. And of course you can rightly claim how it's from the official source and how others are posting them unofficially. Make enough money to cover your costs and eventually he'll get the point and give up. A lot of hard effort, but I would imagine a lot less effort then you get yourself wound up in by unleashing the Dogs of Law.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
I don't understand your concern. You donated your intelectual property to society. Why are you apparenlty concerned about either the stupidity of the buyer or the profit someone else is deriving from your labors? The actions of the individual profiting from your works may well be fraudulent but the outrage should belong to the buyers and be directed inward when they realize that they could have gained the same end, for free, with a little effort and research.
The International Brotherhood of Computer Repairmen wants to outlaw the selling of service manuals and make it illegal to repair your own computer -- and he found someone on slashdot to moderate him up? Bizarre.
Lucky our comrade isn't an IBM repairman -- those felonious traitors have the PDFs right on their website.
You do not sue him for breaking the license. This is just like the common mistake people make with the GPL: THese licensea are NOT use licenses and you are not BOUND by them.
You ARE bound by copyright law; the only thing that lets you do MORE than what copyright law allows are these licenses... should you choose to abide by their terms. If you chose to ignore these licenses, you are simply bound by copyright law.
So he can nail this guy for plain old copyright infringement. The guy would have to show that he has permission to redistribute the copyrighted work. The only way he can have this is if he is following the term of the license.
Agree 100% on profits; he has no permission to redistribute in the manner he is doing it, therefore, it's the same as if there WAS no license.
...you should ask a LAWYER, instead of the geeks on Slashdot! What's the point of asking this question?
Best Buy can have you arrested
Ben,
Btw, thank you so much for making these wonderful book freely available! I've been searching for a resource like this for quite some time...
1) Why do you believe he has to say what the original title of the software is? The GPL, for one, allows me to change code *however I want* as long as I make my code availalbe, including licensing it under the GPL, to those that I distribute to.
2) What is wrong with offering full refund & support services? He's offering full support and the ability to return the package if you are not happy with it. That's BUSINESS.
What this guy's doing is like Mr. Smithson donating his legacy to the US govt to start the Smithsonian museum. Should Smithsonian let everybody rip off their work too?
However, if you use the DMCA in this case, who are you benefiting? You, a citizen, and the FSF and Free Software movement. Who are you hurting? A guy who's taking advantage of people and making a crooked buck off of your work. Further this kind of behavior damages the legitimacy and marketability of these licenses. So nail him with the DMCA.
I don't think using the DMCA here will strengthen the law, or make it more difficult to combat. Am I wrong about this? I'd like to know if so.
I don't see a moral dilemna here. The law exists. I don't see any contradiction in simultaneously using the law, and fighting against it. In fact, in a public hearing or something of that nature, I would consider a comment to the effect of "I myself have used the DMCA to enforce the LGPL on some of my works. Nonetheless I feel it is a faulty law which causes more harm than good..." quite reasonable. I would also consider the person making the statement to be speaking from a position of experience and first hand knowledge.
And if you ever get the opportunity to nail a corporation that was behind the DMCA with an application of the DMCA, then hoo-rah. Hit them as hard as you can.
So I say do it!
On the other hand, this may be a case of copyright infingement. If the people selling manuals are selling unauthorized copies of Apple's original manuals, then it's a copyright violation. If all they're doing is selling documents that describe how to repair Apple machines, then it's not a copyright violation (it may be an NDA violation, depending on how they obtained the information).
By the way, neither you nor Apple have to pay for damage that is caused by the user, and if you do so it's only to keep your customers happy. What are Apple's license terms on redistribution? If Apple's license does not explicitly allow redistribution then selling the updates would be illegal. If it does allow redistribution then Apple has no right to complain about license fees. Either way, it doesn't constitute fraud.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
This is fine for out of warranty items, but promoting this for items that are still covered by Apple care, is promoting fraud. here's how: if someone ( a novice) takes this manual and then tries to fix a hardware problem themselves while a unit is still under warranty, then can't fix it or breaks something else, then brings the item in for repair under warranty, Apple and I have to pay for it! Hmmmm ...
One problem here....
If the person who is trying to fix the computer actually needs to purchase a manual to repair it, and the computer is still under warranty to begin with, why would he even bother trying. I would not spend any money for a manual to fix something, pay for parts, and spend my time repairing something that I could have done for free as part of the warranty. If you buy a new car and a week later one of the power windows breaks, you dont buy a book, buy the parts and try to fix it, you return it for repair to the manuf. I fail to see how this is fraud.
If you believe the DMCA is wrong, don't use it. Instead, use normal copyright law and pay for a lawyer and court costs and hope a judge will authoriz you to make eBay reveal this guy's identity, and then take him to court for damages. If you claim this is the way the RIAA must fight copyright violations, you should do the same thing yourself.
Vote for Pedro
Do you need the DMCA, or not? I seem to see a lot of people saying the DMCA isn't needed, but I'm not so sure.
What provisions are there for redistribution of material via the internet, in federal law? Are there any, save the DMCA?
It is the 'Digital Millenium Copyright Act,' right? I mean, it specializes in copyright infringement violations on the internet. Isn't that essentially what the poster is asking about? If so, why do people keep saying "You don't need the DMCA," and if not, why does the DMCA exist at all?
Or rather, why was it voted into place?
Distributing music online is a violation of copyright license. Isn't that the main focus of the DMCA? I'm not a particular proponent of the DMCA, but it would seem that the theory behind it (not the make-RIAA-money theory, the protect-property-rights theory) is solid.
I suppose an appropriate analogy is a gun: In dishonorable hands, it is a tool for evil. In honorable hands, it can be a tool for good. The same is true of any tool; the DMCA is only a tool, even if it does have a bad history.
> The DMCA would make the CDs that he is selling your text on illegal as they are being used to circumvent your copyright.
No. What ?? The CDs are just a vanilla copyright infringement. The anti-circumvention clauses in the DMCA are totally irrelevant here. (Guys, please read the DMCA anti-circumvention text. You can search for "17 USC 1201" on google to find it. A lot of people on slashdot totally misunderstand what that law says!)
The relevance of the DMCA is the takedown ("safe-harbor") provisions, by which a copyright holder can notify an ISP of an infringement and that ISP can get safe harbor from being party to the infringement if it does some stuff, like take down the site. This is a pretty odious law, and can be abused badly, but it is nowhere near as bad as the anti-circumvention stuff. I don't think there's any particular shame in using that part of the law here (after all, the GPL uses copyright law in order to enforce its "copyleft"), though I think that practically the author should just direct his concerns to something more productive.
dear ,
,
TJVITOLO@YAHOO.COM
I think taking action by posting an email without knowing if what he did is wrong.
Sure, you MR.
TJVITOLO@YAHOO.COM
might know its wrong. For all I know
TJVITOLO@YAHOO.COM
is a legal expert on the GPL and Open Source.
If
TJVITOLO@YAHOO.COM
is an expert, then you should post something like:
TJVITOLO@YAHOO.COM IAAL
I think this advice would help you,
TJVITOLO@YAHOO.COM
to learn to think before,
TJVITOLO@YAHOO.COM
acts.
Note the AC posting.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just send him a message that you want to verify that he is legit... ask him for his name and telephone. Even place an order so that you can track it through the funds... this way you don't need the DMCA.
The DMCA is there to attack anonymous hackers, not stupid people trying to make a buck illegaly.
The pre-DMCA approach was to file a John Doe lawsuit and present it to a Judge. They'd view the facts and then if the case warrants it issue a subpoena to the ISP/eBay/whatever to make them release the information.
This is essentially what the DMCA does minus the Judge and the vetting of the evidence. (This is the problem that Verizon is currently fighting. Though specifically they claim that since the content isn't hosted on their machines then the normal turbo-subpoena process doesn't apply.)
So, you can if you really want go through the proper legal channels and get the abusers information.
The first thing I'd recommend is for everyone here who has an eBay account to give the user a negative review containing the body of the copyleft license and how (s)he's violating it.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The first is bullying. The second is protecting your rights.
At what dollar amount does protecting your rights become bullying?
How is it that so many are enraged by people that violate copyright when they ignore the GPL, yet many of the very same people will violate copyright and download a gazillion MP3s?
evil adrian
There is no need to use the DMCA, just file suit against a john doe, aka his ebay account and then get a subpeona for his real info.
If that doesn't work, just sue ebay for contributory copyright infringement since they "have the right and the ability to supervise the infringing abilities" of another..
luckily, ianal
So the point is, even though you feel that Legal Weapon X is bad and must be abolished, if its the only way you can protect yourself then don't hesitate.
While I wholehartedly agree with the other people that the poster should bust this guy's ass I have to wonder the problems this could cause when the DMCA is up for renewal/ challenged.The people who are using this for injust purposes could show the congress the story of this guy (and the use of the bill to take down the jackass) as a way to keep the bill going.
"Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
You're giving it away anyway.
You're just being a PITA by worrying about whether the guy is following the GPL. Its some guy making 20 bucks off your stuff. If you didn't like that you shouldn't have released it under GPL.
The DMCA is a law. It is not evil, it is merely a tool by which evil (and good) can be accomplished. There is nothing wrong with using the law to maintain your rights--he wouldn't be infringing on that man's rights since that man is acing outside the realm of his rights.
In this case, the physics prof is acting more in defense of the people who pay for the CDs than himself--he wants them to be aware of a license that gives them rights they wouldn't otherwise have, effectively increasing the value of their purchase.
He should be able to do whatever is neccesary to seek recourse--just because a law has been used for evil doesn't mean that it shouldn't be invoked when it can be used for good.
Brian
It's not a "license violation".
Stop thinking about "copyleft". That has no legal meaning.
copyleft licenses are not USE licenses, like EULAs on software: they are licenses you can choose to accept that permit you to do things other than those things allowed by normal copyright law. I don't have to accept your license to read a copy of your book, or to posess it. All your license does is give me a way I can do something normally reserved for YOU by copyright law: Redistribute, for instance.
So, if someone is redistributing your work, they have to have your permission: There are two ways they can get this, in this case:
They can get it from you directly
They can follow the terms of the license you granted them to do so.
In other words, if they aren't following the terms of your "copyleft" license, then they are distributing a copyrighted work without permission. It's the same thing as if there WAS no license.
All the so-called "GPL violations" are the same thing as well. Not GPL violations.. COPYRIGHT violations.
Putting a price on something creates value for it. How many links for free things have you skipped over because you don't have time right now. This person has used his editorial skill to pick _your_ book out of the mass of information overload that is the net. He has put his reputation on the line to say it has value and is worth reading. Much of commerce is just packaging and researching. Very little of our economy is actual manufacturing. Why pay $500 for that bicycle when you could pay $400 to the company the seller bought it from. Maybe you don't know where to buy it for $400. Is it immoral for the seller not to tell you? His knowledge is his value added. I believe more people will see and read your book because of this ebay seller than would without him. Price is the information that tells you there is a market there. When you see a large profit being made, that is the signal the market sends that others should be selling too. Don't discourage him, encourage others, or join the fray yourself.
It astonishes me how many people on slashdot complain when they see small scale entrepreneurs try to make money off open source when at the same time they worship the likes of Red Hat. I think maybe your ego is bruised since he has not named you personally. As long as the source is included on the cdr's along with the license that tells the buyer his freedom, I'd be happy.
I may be dense, but I went to your website, and it wasn't immediately obvious to me how to download your book. It looks to me like he is offering a valuable service.
-Peter
This post is copyrighted. You may not store it in your memory. You may not tell its contents to others. You may not adopt these ideas as your own. You may not learn from them. Isn't intelectual property fun!
Who modded this up? Do you realize what he is saying? The implications of his argument are way extremely frightening I'll translate:
Riiight. Any Debian is promoting fraud by providing a free operating system that competes with windows. Once people see they can have an OS for free, they'll never pay for one again. Piracy will soar! The economy will crumble.
Heaven forbid! We can't have users trying to learn! That's not the Apple way! Before you know it they'll be demanding books on math, science, and who knows what else. This is the path to wisdom, it is the path to the dark side. Who knows what they'll try to do with their newfound knowledge. Maybe they'll manipulate the stock market. Quick, stop them before it's too late!
Oh boo freakin hoo. You can't find work because joe user is trying to fix his computer. How horrifying. Before you know it he might even be running Linux! Cry me a freakin river.
eBay => large, high revenue company that is afraid of being sued. If you send them an email telling them that this guy is stealing your work, I'm sure that they will cancel the auction. They have far more to lose than he does.
I would also agree that it is likely that the Free Software Foundation could direct you to someone who could help you go after him directly. You could send them an email at the same time as you send the one to eBay.
Good luck.
IANAL but it seems in rebranding these items he's doing more than just illegally redistributing them he's claiming copyright. AFAIK claiming copyright on another's work is a criminal not a civil violation. What about just contacting the FBI / justice deperatment... ?
"Not that I think we should go back to the bad old days of intolerance, arrogance, failure to give the respect we owe to everyone regardless of their level of similarity to us, and general cultural imperialism. "
That's what your PC history books tell you. That "evil intolerant" place you speak of never existed in the US.
Too bad a bunch of idiots brainwashed you.
It's a small enough thing and might well set a precedent
Yes you will be in good company then.
Quick answer:
Law and ethics should not mix to the extent of sitting still. Especially if you are the sort of person who has something that needs to be protected (which is what the DMCA is supposed to do). I look at the law as a tool, and as all tools go you use the best one for the job. If there is only a single tool you know about and you have an ethical dilemma I would suggest consulting the tool-smiths (in this case an IP lawyer). You may actually learn something about the document you hate so much, and use the experience to educate the legal system on your method of thinking.
Soap box moment:
Corporate America makes extensive use of the law, they hire fleets of lawyers and make them loyal to the thinking patterns that are used there. This is why America's law is so tightly bound to corporations these days. You know, the whole "We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all Men are created equal" idea? Essentially we have (in general) failed quite a bit in making technology into what the "people" want and into what "we" want. Open Source, Freedom of Speech, and all that jazz while being a great idea has done very little for common people DIRECTLY (at least as they perceive). If we want the legal recognition that we honestly think we deserve we must go to them, not the other way around. Instead of simply "attacking" the DMCA and saying "it's stupid" as a reason and being brash and nasty about it to common people we must talk them through it with real life examples. Technology is still a "product" to many people, and not a way of life. Honestly technology will never be a way of life for everyone, for most people it will be a tool to help them live a life.
Thank you
-Brian
You can let the buyers know that the seller was selling something for free and that it was illegal for them not to tell the buyers.
they should be upset to find out that they paid money for something they could've gotten for free.
then ask all the upset buyers to post neg feedback. this would stop people from buying from him in the future.
he can change his account, but i think ebay requires a credit card for registration now, if I'm not mistaken (or some email other than hotmail/yahoo). you can use this to zone in on him.
definitely be best if ebay picked this up, but not sure if you can depend on them to do this quickly.
Using it while it's available is not contradictory to also trying to overturn it.
Who knows? Maybe yours will be the case that does overturn it, so you can win either way.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Quite a number of people here are saying that you should use the DMCA provisions because they are available to you.
The problem with this argument is that, of course, should the DMCA every come up for legislative inquiry (as I hope it will), every vaguely reasonable use such as yours of the DMCA will be brought up to justify the DMCA.
On the other hand, if people like yourself explore standard means of response (of which people have posted many and there are more), you will display that there is no need for the DMCA.
(As an aside: how many complaints have you filed with eBay, over what time? From my experience they will suspend accounts with ongoing copyright violations -- even the use of other's copyrighted images. And you don't need to invoke DMCA to participate in VERO, which they will take more seriously).
Finally, few people have responded to more general questions about the DMCA as a tool for GPL etc software developers. My feeling is that DMCA is hardly a tool for the GPL community -- it was designed to let the big guys take immediate actions to harass others-- and I've get to hear even a concrete scenario aired here that would necessitate its use. Most violators are going to derive an income stream, and if someone is making money violating the GPL etc. terms, you can trace the money to find them, and you can track them down without the DMCA -- I bet the Canadian eBayer above would enjoy a visit from the Mounties, after all.
If you're not GPL or close -- well that's another can of worms. But do you really need to go so far as to invoke something like the DMCA to locate individual pirates? I'm more of the opinion that Kai Lee (of Kai's Power Tools, etc fame) expressed many years ago -- if someone finds a copy of your software and uses it to learn, or because they can't afford it, that's free advertizement; if they use your product regularly or to make a living, they should certainly buy a paid copy. Under such a view, what matters is a community ethic that says you should return what you get -- for instance, I've seen more than a few startups that survived on hacked copies of software and then dropped $20K on licenses when they took in income -- and such "creative licensing" is probably more valuable to most software endeavors than hunting down college kids with the DMCA. (And, of course, there are cases like time-limited shareware and authorization keys that don't necessarily fit this, but I'd want us to examine them on a case-by-case basis).
I didnt read all of the comments because I am too drunk (as usual) so I may be redundant.
I assume that your works are copywritten... regardless of license.
Unless you wish to test DMCA law then your best bet might be to take the tact that he violated copyright law which has been in place for soooo long and has been proven to stand in obvious cases. Then he will need to settle with you or face other state penalties. If you did not claim copyright on your works then he may or may not have legal ground ( it gets grey to me here as I Am Not A Lawyer).
Point is, unless your trying to prove something about the DMCA laws then you are being silly. We have preexisting laws to handle this case.
The licenses you mention extend rights, so in this case it seems to me that they extend them from the starting point of generic copyright. Since he did not obey the extended license agreement then you have copyright to fall back on.
But you should want to consult a lawyer you trust as you should definatly not trust me.
To sum up: your association of this event to the DMCA is probably grasping at water, get a lawyers advise (one you trust, if you can find one) and dont confuse the issue if you can help it. He reproduced your works in ways that you think you did not allow for.
On a personal note, if you do try for the DMCA win, I hope you are successfull. It would be quite the boon for those of us against such legislature.
i.e. Teachers should be brought up on the same charges, for photocopying textbooks for which they have no money but still must teach the content, as the person who figures out how to crack encryption in software product 'B'.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
And where exactly do you buy TCP/IP protocols? Ebay?
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Just get an account on Ebay and "sell" your work. Post the information about the product, including the free download link. Make sure you reference your "competitor's" publication liberally---
You say: "Don't pay $20 for Joe's Physics CD-- it for free from the man who wrote it!!!"
You can drive the price into the ground, and put him out of business.
Although any law could ultimately be used for good or ill, I think it is best not to support the DMCA in any way so as not to give its proponents more ammo.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Think of the DMCA as a gun. Not necessarily what you want to use to uphold your rights. Normally only bad people or those with high authority (police, soldiers - in theory) use guns to get what you feel is fair.
A store owner who pulls a gun to stop a robbery is different than the robber who pulls the gun.
In many ways you are the store owner being robbed.....pulling the gun (the DMCA) may not be nice and it may not be what you want to do, but it can't be considered out of line to use more "force" than that which some may feel is necessary....add to that the law is on your side. Right or wrong I assume that in day to day life you abide by those laws which affect you, whether or not you agree with them. This is a two way street.
His name is Robert Paulsen
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
First of all forget about all the posturing about the DMCA being bad, so what, copyright is not bad, without it we would not have the GPL.
Now as yourself, if someone was robbing your house would not call the cops?
This guy is breaking the law and stealing from you, do something about it.
Contact a lawyer and get them to write you a letter to ebay requesting the guys address and name as stipulated under the DMCA.
Once that is done contact said laywer again and have them draft a letter to this guy stating that he is in violation of your license and copyright law and that he must remit to you any and all proceeds as damages earned by his illegal use of you intellectual property. This is important, damages help and if he is making money in violation of your copyright he is damaging you. You are entitled to everything he made off you and probably treble or other punitive damages.
If he ignores you file suit in your local court. He may not even be in your state, good, if he does not show you win by default. If he does show the law is on your side.
Do not let him get away with it. There is a good chance a couple letters from a lawyer will be all you need and unless he will settle. Unless he is really stupid this will not get much past the letters.
Remember you are in the right and he is at significant risk, not only monetary, but possible jail time. Use that, and the law.
Copyright violators are breaking the law. Fight for your rights or next time just public domain your work and stop wasting our time.
IANAL.
P.S. I support a repeal of any sections of law that stand in the way of security research, reverse engineering and innovation. However requiring a company like ebay give up a name in cases like this is not bad, it is good. How else will the small author or publisher protect themselves.
what damages has this guy caused to you?
yes, he may be "distributing a copyrighted work without your permission" but can you show that you have also suffered material harm as a result?
you have not suffered financially since you give your stuff away for free.
without some evidence that you have been materially harmed as a result i don't think you have enough to file a civil complaint.
and since there is no financial harm, it cannot be a criminal violation.
The quantum part means that the subject moves from one value to another with no intervening stages, it says nothing about the size of the move.
:
..." to "Save as ..." would be a quantum leap.
It's the difference between digital and analogue.
Imagine a digitised sinewave. In the digital representation the sample rate defines the size of the quantum leaps whereas there are no such leaps in the analogue signal.
So, to use Gimp as another example
Changing "Save As
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
notities@yahoo.com
You probably can contact this guy one way or another. Send him a message, explain your position. Explain that you have nothing against him selling your books, but would like to ask him to honour the licence (mention it and list you as an author).
There is no problem that can't be solved by people just calmly discussing it.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Have you ever tried to get Apple to repair something under warranty service? If so you'd know why someone would chance it...
I've no idea if the original figure is correct (I suspect it might be missing a couple of zeroes... :-), however Open Transport (the pre-Mac OS X TCP/IP stack) is a Streams implementation licenced from Mentat.
Nae bother
I've read the original complaint and checked the web pages listed, and I can't see any evidence that the guy selling CDs on eBay is violating copyright. He may be doing so, but based on what we know there's no evidence that he is.
Under the terms of the licenses the complainant mentions, the seller is entitled both to modify and to sell the original material. He is not, as far as I can see, required to post the text of the license in his advertisements for the products, or even to mention the license.
It seems to me that the only way the complainant has the basis for a case is if he orders a copy of one of the CDs and finds that what the eBay seller is selling violates the terms of the license(s) under which the material was released.
Also note that a false claim of copyright violation under DMCA is subject to severe penalties, which complainant may be opening himself to if he pursues a DMCA complaint without due diligence.
Sell your own works on ebay and pass on the rights.
Sell for less.(Doesn't ebay have a buy now price?) Give the proper rights. (I am assuming that means more rights.
Offer a free copy with rights to anyone who has bought one from him. Give the rights with the free copy.
This may go a long way towards ending the abuse.
A Nony Mouse.
This is also a Lanham Act violation, otherwise known as "False designation of origin", and you can persue him on that through the US Copyright Office as well as through most attorneys.
Also, to the previous people who insist that this is not a GPL violation, but a copyright violation, you're wrong... it's both.
Once the GPL is violated (by the letter of the license, refusing to include the license or full works), he is now forbidden from redistributing the work at all. All further attempts to do so, are NOW copyright violations (as well as the Lanham Act).
For each copy redistributed, you are eligible for a financial penalty from the suit. You own the works from the point of creation on, but it makes it much easier to legally enforce through a court system if you have filed Copyright papers through the United States Copyright office. I know, because we've had to do this with one of our Free Software products (Company A took our software, created an entire business around it, stripped our names and license from the code, sold it to other companies who resell it, and then claimed THEY wrote it).
You can do all of this without having to use the double-edged sword of the DMCA to enforce it.
As a lot of people say, probably the DMCA has nothing to do with your pproblem, it's just a copyright violation.
Anyway, you should contact the FSF (Stallmen, or the lawyer, Eben Moglen). Defending a case of GPL/GFDL violation would set a good precedent (and be publicity for the FSF) so they are probably eager to help.
Try it, there's nothing to lose at least.
If this guy is stripping the copyright and license information from the eBooks he's shipping to his buyers, it would appear he's in violation of both copyright and license. But if he's merely omitting this information from his sales pitch, it's not quite so obvious, to me at least. Please clarify the actual situation.
If he is in fact violating your copyright and/or license, I understand eBay will bar him from selling these items on their site once they are notified of the violation. So perhaps your first complaint should be to eBay.
Everyone here that POSTED against what "adzoox" said is a hypocrit. Apparently it's all in the way you word something here on slashdot. Everyone is so for rights of authors and intellectual property. Apparently the original article was worded just in a such a way that a lot people agreed that the 19 yr old boy should be prosecuted.
In this case and in my own cases (I'm Apple Authorized too) we lose a lot of money on cases like this. I do consider it part of business and I'm sure Apple does too, but I don't think the poster was arguing that point. I am MORE than happy for people to repair the systems they own. Apple only pays though based on their time limits. For instance; they think an inverter board from a CRT iMac should only take 45 minutes to install. That doesn't include the diagnosis time and the adjustment time. Usually this procedure takes well over 2 hours. I get paid under warranty for 45 minutes. This is one of the most common under warranty repairs for the iMac and usually comes from too much juice being sucked out of the power supply and not supplying enough to the CRT, thus; making the board fail. More times than not I have found CDRW drives, faster HDs, processor upgrades, etc, etc. I have also found that they used some manual they bought on eBay or Yahoo.
As for it "saving Apple money" - yeah and the people at Sorenson and Thursby are shorted.
"By the way, neither you nor Apple have to pay for damage that is caused by the user, and if you do so it's only to keep your customers happy."
You can't always tell if they have been inside the machine and yes, I have to keep my dishonest customers happy too! Thanks for reminding me!
As for the OS updates the example he provided about free TV was a good one too. Are all the naysayers here stating that it's ok to make a profit off of something that is NOT your work and not your service just because it's free? Mac OS Updates are not Kernel patches guys! It took 100's of hours in programming and lots of degrees in Computer Science to come up with them, not to mention marketting. I won't argue that I appreciate a customer who has an up to date machine, I just think too that they should obtain it properly. Actually if they can't afford the bandwidth (56k line) I would doubt their process anyway, a lot of land line downloads over 20MB in a lot cases corrupt files. I would gaurantee any ASP would download and burn to CD for $5 any update any customer wanted. Wouldn't you rather do that than give joe blow money?
A lot of people repair their cars and computers under warranty A) Not thinking it's covered B) Not having enough time or C) Just wanting to do it themselves or even D)Their own reason
I think the point was not necessarily buying the manuals for warranty repair, but people doing mods, then breaking the computer, then claiming it (the damage) was covered under warranty.
The majority of the DMCA is uncontroversial. Thanks to this law you can, for example, install copyrighted software on someone's machine to fix it, so long as you delete it afterwards, and there's nothing the copyright holder can do about it. Thanks to the DMCA, your ISP can set up a web proxy and not be violating copyright (before the DMCA, this was technically "republishing").
The only controversial part of the DMCA is the anticircumvention provisions (aka Chapter 12). If your software does not use an anticircumvention device, you are not exercising the "bad part" of the DMCA. You may sleep soundly.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"What are Apple's license terms on redistribution? If Apple's license does not explicitly allow redistribution then selling the updates would be illegal. If it does allow redistribution then Apple has no right to complain about license fees. Either way, it doesn't constitute fraud."
You are taking the ignorance and stupidity of others for granted, most don't know what they are doing is wrong. Some even think that Apple is selling through these guys "to bring YOU manuals you need" Didn't you read the guys post? I am from a MUG and we would NEVER authorize someone to redistribute Apple property no matter what it was, without express written permission.
The repair manuals for Apple products "out if warranty" are on the Apple website with some digging. The repair manuals are availible for free for "in warranty" products on several websites. The issue is they ARE free and are not for third party distribution + PROFIT!
Choosing a really bad name. "Luxuriousity"? How about "Superbious", "Incredulousity", or "RoyalBigHappyTimeity"? Don't be mad at him, rather we should pity him.
Bill
Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.
This, at least, is probably covered under fair use. IANAL, so anyone have any idea what happens with Fair Use specifies you can do something that a distribution license specifies you can't? I'm guessing in this case Fair Use wins out, since it trumps all copyright restrictions. Armchair lawyers?
into it.
Yes, when they receive the software, they must be informed of their rights and whatnot.. the GPL does not require you to inform someone about the licensing BEFORE you send them the software.
It in no way violates the spirit of the GPL. The GPL is not about acquiring software for free; it's about the right to modify and redistribute software if YOU want to, not the right to get it from someone else.
IN fact, there is easily a scenario with GPL software where you MUST get it from a single author. What is that scenario? Simple. The original author distributes copies, as per normal, including GPL, and source, etc, to his customers, says. Then he says to his customers "Look, you are allowed to redistribute this, nothing can change that.. but how about if I give you 50 bucks, and you don't redistribute it? You are still allowed to, I'm just calling on your honour here so I can make a buck"
As long as nobody redistributes it to anyone, the only way to obtain it is purchasing.
Back to the topic: This is not about a GPL violation.. just about a guy selling something under a new name; a practice that is totally legal.
...who sold a playstation 2 box for $600.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
... a "tity"?
No titties makes sense, but no tities?
Ah, whatever. I guess you're changing it anyhow.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
A lot of nice free software go unnoticed by the general public because no one is marketing it. (I'm probably missing some of it myself) That's a pity. This guy is solving that problem! Obviously he's only able to sell to those who didn't know about your books, so basically he's reaping part of the value generated when people discover Free books that fill their needs. That's ok with me.
:-)
Now, on the other hand, if he's not distributing the license with the books it's bad. It's also bad that he doesn't credit you when quoting the table of contents. If you think these problems outweigh the good he does, go get him, you can do that without the DMCA. Just think it over first, willya
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
The original Ask Slashdot question was basically about the morality of invoking the DMCA against license violations. I've decided I'm more persuaded by the arguments that the law is just a tool, and can be used either for good or for evil. I've gone ahead and applied to join eBay's VeRO program. However, I don't intend to use the DMCA to the hilt. In particular, I don't plan to ask for the guy's real name and address, since I don't plan to sue him anyway. The thing is that unless I join the VeRO program, eBay really will not do anything about the auctions in time to stop them. (I've tried. It doesn't work.)
However, this guy has made a whole career of selling copyright-infringing materials on eBay -- most of them not copylefted. I've contacted several of the people who he's infringed:
Here are some thoughts on some of the suggestions people have offered:
Thanks again for the moral and practical advice!
Find free books.
You have a book. It is copied (not as a copy on a computer system) other than in a method you approve. It is not a software program that was copied, nor is it an access control system that was defeated. What you have is a "moral rights" violation under the Berne Union Copyright Treaty and U.S. Law. I do not think the DMCA applies here.
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>, or <paul@elusive-butterfly.net>
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
If this guy isn't hurting you, why do you care what he's doing? Are you concerned about the suckers buying the product? They're just going to waste their money on some other product. Are you concerned about lost sales? If you're concerned about lost sales, sue him. Is it a fame thing? Sue him and use the money to advertise yourself.
Otherwise, if he's not hurting you, and you don't care about the money, why not just ignore it?