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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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 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.
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."
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.
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.
> 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 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.
HAHAHAHAhahaha
I can NOT believe I did that. heh.
Just as I was wrapping up the post, one of my children came in and I hit Submit while I was distracted.
heh.
In the immortal words, of the great philosopher Homer:
"D'OH"
well, time to change my email address.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
Hello ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM,
Thank you for your interest in this discussion.
Sure, you, Mr ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM,
might know participating without being AC is wrong, but you
ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM
will bear the brunt of your foolishness well, I am sure.
Thank you Mr ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM for your helpful comments.
I am sure in future, that you
ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM
will think before you,
ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM
act.
"Teachers leave us kids alone
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!
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
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.
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 $6.99.
Think of the DMCA as a gun. Not necessarily what you want to use to uphold your rights. Normally only bad people or those with high authority (police, soldiers - in theory) use guns to get what you feel is fair.
A store owner who pulls a gun to stop a robbery is different than the robber who pulls the gun.
In many ways you are the store owner being robbed.....pulling the gun (the DMCA) may not be nice and it may not be what you want to do, but it can't be considered out of line to use more "force" than that which some may feel is necessary....add to that the law is on your side. Right or wrong I assume that in day to day life you abide by those laws which affect you, whether or not you agree with them. This is a two way street.
The majority of the DMCA is uncontroversial. Thanks to this law you can, for example, install copyrighted software on someone's machine to fix it, so long as you delete it afterwards, and there's nothing the copyright holder can do about it. Thanks to the DMCA, your ISP can set up a web proxy and not be violating copyright (before the DMCA, this was technically "republishing").
The only controversial part of the DMCA is the anticircumvention provisions (aka Chapter 12). If your software does not use an anticircumvention device, you are not exercising the "bad part" of the DMCA. You may sleep soundly.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});