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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
But, if the bidders pay for it, why would they pay for it if they knew i was available for free? They either pay for it because they did not know it existed. so the seller is bringing it to a new market, or they dodn't have the time to download it.
I think this guy selling on eBay should give credit to the original author. For sure.
But because it is sold does not make it bad.
Like linux distros... I buy them but Linus does not get the cash. The distros give credit to him/them as they should (morally and legally). The eBay seller should be the same.
I say sue them, if you could, there are so many fly-by-night traders on eBay.
r.e. DCMA though, I don't even know if I myself am in favour or against. It has good points and bad. I suppose my moral view is that culture should be free for all, but that if culture is free, why will someone spend time producing art (i know there can be a love, but this is only part of it, one has to put bread on the table), when they don't get paid? Can governments really subsidise funding well? Not really.
Looking back at rennaisance artists (musicians, writers, etc), most were chummy doing requested compositions for the ruling classes - we don't have that anymore. If art cannot be paid for we risk no art. If art is paid for we serve the highest bidder or the lowest common denominator. This is a true dilemma.
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
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.
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/
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'd have to second that whole-heartedly. I don't have to be paid to be a musician. Sometimes I even feel weird being paid for it. I love the art and the science of music, no matter what I get in return. In fact, I doubt I'd be able to deal with life (and stay reasonably sane) without it.
If art cannot be paid for we risk no art.
In a way, making it all free will reduce the amount of music around, but the first to go will be the mass-produced/only-for-profit music. Without profit, music would go back to its roots, back to the sole purpose of self-expression. Hell, people have been making music almost as long as we've been able to communicate.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
> 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.
The first is bullying. The second is protecting your rights.
At what dollar amount does protecting your rights become bullying?
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).