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."
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.
from the ebay link:
" LuxuriousityOffice is fully licensed so you have full usage rights. In addition,
you also have access to the complete source code and the right to modify the program and re-compile a new version
your own specifications! Try asking Microsoft for that with their office program!"
so I think that they are not violating the liscense.
Or do you have to disclose the original name? I mean If I can make any code changes I want, why can't I chang the name as well?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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
It has provided researchers (such as myself) with a valuable tool for protecting our intellectual property from theft.
No. All it did was add legal weight to your extant security mechanisms. Standard IP law and your encryption already protect your IP from theft, doc.
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.
Just like, for example, saying that someone who spends millions of dollars and a hundred-or-so man-years to make a movie shouldn't be allowed to profit off of it--be that by distributing it at market cost, or hoarding it and savoring a private pleasure denied to the rest of us.
In any case, please take a minute or so to go read Title 17--which the "DMCA" is now a part of, and has been for a goodly number of years.
The most evil parts of the DMCA are the anti-circumvention clauses and the mandatory Macrovision part (which, like SCMS, is a step towards making SSSCA/CBDTPA-style "frog soup" where policeware is mandatory on everything).
Those provisions threaten free speech (Felten, etc.), free markets (ink cartridges), and the copyright system.
Sounds like he's talking about the provisions for notifying an ISP about infringements. That's an entirely different part of the DMCA.
The GIMP The GIMP The GIMP The GIMP The GIMP The GIMP The GIMP ...this is getting tiring going through the list of his transactions... most of which are marked provate...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
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 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?
:P
;) Just a thought...
Probably because they're eBay junkies
In all seriousness, this is a perfectly valid point. If I put myself in the author's shoes, I think it's more the idea of having a seemingly shady thing happen with my name attached to it somewhere that would really tweak me. If my name's on it, then I want it to represent *my* ethics.
But you're absolutely right. Selling it does not make it bad.
I've tried to work through the thought process, and it really does twist the brain... You and I would probably have a helluva good time discussing it
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.
I think a love of art does, in fact, go a long way. I'm a musician that will probably never make a red cent on my music -- but that's okay. Instead of playing for the wealthy and powerful, I get to play for my friends, and we all have a great time
--ZS
-- sigs cause cancer.
Perhaps some people just see the gun as a tool. It's neither good or bad. The only thing that can be evaluated is the use of the tool. You can kill a person with a hammer, a knife, a rock or anything else that can be used for some sort of other useful purpose.
The DMCA is a tool. Wield it with finesse and righteousness, and it will do good. Wield it with a carlessness and an evil soul, and there's know telling the destruction it can cause.
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.
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.
It seems that way, but... (there is always this 'but')
I read through the LuxuriosityPhoto web-pages and could not find any reference to the original web-page (at http://www.gimp.org) or the original licence (GPL et.al.).
Even if he/she/it is not violating the letter and/or spirit of the licence, isn't it considered part of normal human behaviour to give a little, to the original maintainers
Yes he does mention its original author from the time of his college days, but the package he is using has been refined and improved greatly by the GIMP team. It would have been okey if he is selling the original version --I don't think so, The 1.1+ version are a 'quantum' leap over 1.0 releases, so just imagine using the original release.
I know that slashdotters are generally anti-RMS and anti-GPL, but GPL did contribute to the open-source movement --this is probably an under-statement.
Thank you.
GrimReality
2003-04-26 01:42:10 UTC (2003-04-25 21:42:10 EDT)
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.
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.
These books are not covered under the GPL.
The GPL, broadly speaking, covers software. As the writeup states, these books were covered under the GFDL and the OPL. The GFDL is a little bit confusing as to its requirements, but there are a number of rules you must follow to either print a verbatim copy or to release a derivative work. It does state, in part that you must: In other words, if you release a modified version, you are still required to state the original author(s) on your own modified title page.
The OPL is more simple and explicit and says:
It also says that if you publish a derivative work you must cite the original work.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
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 don't think this works. You can't give feedback unless you bought an item, can you? Of course, if a Slashdotter was to buy an item from the guy, then give negative feedback like "item not as advertised, turned out to be illegal"...
Find free books.
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
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!
These might be 2 obvious points, but I couldn't see them posted anywhere:
1) Have you tried contacting the guy using something as simple as e-mail, etc.? It is conceivable the the guy selling the books doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong, or that a little persistence and just the threat of legal action may stop him.
2) Getting the guys real name and address from ebay may be more difficult than you think. I know that I wouldn't sign up for an ebay account with my own name, and the e-mail address that I used would be some obscure one. If he signed up using a fake name and an e-mail address using a domain that he setup with another fake name, then you may be out of luck.
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
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.
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.