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.
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'
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 can't believe someone posted an Ask /. question without a link to their work! As a home-schooling parent, I'd be delighted to have access to free textbooks. Where are they?
I didn't want it to come off as a plug for my own stuff, or a ploy for publicity, but anyway, here it is. Thanks for asking! See my sig for more sources of free books.
Find free books.
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.
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.