Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using the DMCA Against License Violations?

Posted by Cliff on from the stuff-to-think-about dept.

bcrowell asks: "Here's a moral conundrum for you. The much-hated DMCA can be a tool to enforce copyleft licenses, and in my case, it may be the only effective tool. I'm the author of some free physics textbooks (all free as in beer, some free as in speech) that are available under the GFDL and OPL copyleft licenses. I've learned that there's a guy on eBay who is selling my books on CD and violating the license. (Selling is allowed, since they're free-as-in-speech, but he's violating the license in various ways, such as not informing his buyers about the license, and selling them under a different title and using the tables of contents in his ads without showing the license or listing me as the author.) It's not just me. He's doing the same thing with other copylefted books, such as this one." The submitter is worried about the ethics behind using the recent misuses we've seen so far. Those interested in this question might also be interested in Prof. Felten's answers from his recent Slashdot interview.

"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."

11 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Don't give in... by c0dedude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Don't give in... by connsmythe96 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that he doesn't, at this point, know who exactly the guy is. How can you sue an ebay account? The DMCA forces ebay to give him the guy's real name, so he could sue the guy. Should he use the DMCA to get the guy's name, or just try to keep blocking all the auctions as they appear?

      --
      if(!cool) exit(-1);
    2. Re:Don't give in... by ZenShadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Using this logic, then suing someone is bad in general, and I definitely disagree with that concept. It is certainly used FAR more often than need be to obtain results, but that's a different issue.

      The difference here, assuming he does things ethically, would be this:

      The RIAA sues a couple of college students for $98 BILLION DOLLARS for putting up a song sharing server on a college campus.

      This guy sues the jerk who's publishing his work to require him to either (a) stop doing it, or (b) do it properly, and maybe if he's in a really bad mood requires that the guy turn over some of the profit, but probably not.

      See the difference?

      Now, I can't speak for the motives of the article's author, but I suspect it's rather like the second version. Definitely much more so than the first.

      The first is bullying. The second is protecting your rights.

      Big difference.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
  2. Other examples by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Other examples by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Re:Oh well by ZenShadow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  4. Good Applications Do Not Make Good Ideas by Snowspinner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. You don't need the DMCA by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative

    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'
  6. The Law is a tool.... by TedTschopp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Oh, for crying out loud. by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Buy one of the CDs... by SwansonMarpalum · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Buying one gives you two advantages:

    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