Slashdot Mirror


FatWallet To Sue Best Buy Over DMCA Threat

jkeyes writes "Online deal site FatWallet announced today that they will be suing Best Buy and other companies that sent them DMCA takedown notices. They are seeking a declaration from the court stating that Best Buy and other companies' demands were an abuse of the DMCA, and also violate the 1st Amendment." We covered Best Buy's original DMCA invocation a few days back.

3 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. one small step for man. one giant leap for mankind by mgoodman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    let's hope this is the first of many, so that our children don't have to deal with this nonsense.

    --
    01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
  2. Positive effect of DMCA by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fatwallet is another cool website that I would never have heard of if it weren't for this. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

    It's like the Fox News Channel giving Al Franken's book sales a huge boost by suing the guy.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  3. Impacts RIAA too... by utlemming · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you read the legal brief (and for a pre-law student like me, it is interesting reading) the implications are far-reaching

    One of the arguments made that will impact RIAA and the MPAA is that the DCMA shifts the burden of proof of the copyright from the person claiming copyright to the person accused of violation. FatWallet claims that this violates the Due process clause gaurenteed in the Fifth Amendment -- in other words, you have to go to court to prove that you did not violate a copyright; whereas with Due Process, they would prove that you did violate the copyright Same concept as guilty until proven innocent. FatWallet is arguing for innocent until proven guilty. FatWallet also is arguing that they should be given adiquate time to notify the poster.

    The implications would be chilling for the RIAA. Why? Because instead of firing off a couple hundred law suits, they would be forced to prove to the ISP that the subject of the supeonia had in fact violated copyrights. Then your ISP would have to notify the alleged offender of copyright infringment so that they can defend themselves.

    The whole message of the legal brief is to take out the DCMA one leg at a time. First they attack the copyright that Best Buy, et al., has and then they go for Fifth Amendment issues. It is a great thing. It is just interesting that the people who used the DCMA in the wrong way to provoke a law suit is retailers trying to prevent Black-Friday prices from being let out.

    --
    The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.