Diebold Rejected in Copyright Takedown Attempt

JimMarch(equalccw) writes "Our favorite crooked voting company Diebold has lost a MAJOR copyright case (click for ruling here or description here). Short form: Diebold's internal documents (key excerpts here and here and here) and code were floated all over the 'net last year, showing all kinds of horror. Diebold filed cease'n'desist notices under the DMCA (such as mine linked here); a court has now ruled that Diebold wrongfully abused the DMCA by issuing these takedown notices about materials that they knew were not covered by their copyright."

Comments

Get Involved

[d3ik]

We need to make an example out of Diebold to show other companies like them that we won't just lie down and accept their incompetence and deception. I've written both my senators on this and directed them to www.blackboxvoting.org. I would encourage all the other Americans on /. (and foreigners... what the hell, can't hurt) to do the same. If left unchecked, Diebold represents a serious threat to the democratic process.

Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about the legality of the DMCA. The case is about how Diebold improperly used the DMCA. The memos were never something the DMCA was intended to cover.

WTH?

[GoMMiX]

I violate the DMCA; jail, Jail, JAIL!
Then, FINE FINE FINE!

Diebold violates a persons civil rights, uses the DMCA to do it, gets caught... Bad Diebold, no no!

Something about that just doesn't quite sound right.... Okay, let's see...

I do something, like, ohhh -- say decrypt a satellite signal (which, mind you, is pouncing down on MY ROOF 24/7..) - I go to jail....then when I get out I have fines to pay that will take the majority of my paycheck for years to come.

Okay, now... Diebold threatens a person, causes great anguish in this persons life, forces said person to hire legal council.... basically, makes a significant impact on said persons life...

Diebold, bad, no no - don't do that again! Please? Please don't do that again?

Riiiiiiight... Okay, methinks this sucks!

Re:WTH?

[DarkSarin]

He didn't say that decrypting a satellite signal was OK, just that the penalty for an individual doing this was different from the penalty for a corporation doing this, and that this difference is wrong.

I agree with his sentiment. Corporations should NOT be treated as personages, but as extensions of the owners (shareholders) and controllers (CEO, board of directors, shareholders, etc). Thus if a companies executives (controllers) make a decision that is illegal, they should be held responsible for that decision in the same fashion that any individual would be (such as you, sirwired). This would have a large effect on the behavior of companies, and who was willing to invest in a company.

If, for example, I knew that, as a shareholder, I could be held partly responsible for the behavior of any company in which I invested, then I would be VERY careful about what companies I gave my money to as an investment. I would also, along with most other people, monitor their activity very closely, and tell that company to cut it out if they started misbehaving.

In the current system, there is little, if any, check to the behavior of a company. M$'s anti-trust suit is an example of how big money can affect the ability of a company to do whatever they like.

I am not a fan of big government, or big business. Both should be small enough to feel the forces of economic shifts. M$ arguably is immune to this, because they have such a broad array of patents and cash.

There are two major things that can be done to encourage competition and good behavior. First, limit the holding of all copyrights and patents to 5 years, non-extensible--for all cases in which a company is the controlling entity in the use of either. In cases where an individual is the controlling entity (such as a book author), copyright should be granted for the life of the individual, for that individual (that is, if the individual decides to sell the copyright to a company, rather than lease that copyright, then it would expire in 5 years). This scenario would also work for patents. This would give individuals sufficient incentive to innovate outside of the corporate stronghold, but keep companies from sitting on patents and copyrights indefinitely (aka Disney).

The second I have already covered--the treatment of the executors of a company as wholly responsible for the actions of that company.

The laws around this would have to be carefully written to close loopholes to the intent of the law, and to prevent certain possible abuses, but I feel that this would have several effects:

First, companies, guided by the executors, would behave more responsibly, driven by the fear of real consequences.

Secondly, the current bevy of lawsuits over patents would be limited to recent innovations. Companies would no longer be able to worry about the infringement of patents years old.

Third, companies would be forced to innovate quickly. In order to stay ahead of the competition and be certain that money would still roll in 5 years down the road, there would need to be constant innovation. This need for near instant invention of new processes and products would generate a large number of highly technical and skilled jobs--the kind that pay. This would give jobs to those who are exiting school with the good technical (probably engineering, but other areas too) skills. Older workers are protected by the ADEA to a certain degree, and would be able to leverage experience and supervision skills to remain a viable part of the work-force.

Fourth, as companies realize the need for a better educated work force, many would begin to fund private schools in a fashion that they would be available even for those who could not otherwise afford it. Public schools would also get some benefit from this as well.

There is a personal benefit in this two--as the need for a more technical and capable work force emerges, there will be a need for those who are skilled in devising a method to select, hire and motivate these individuals. That is my area of expertise (besides incredibly insightful social commentary--') ).

I've rambled, but really, what I am trying to say is that I am glad Diebold lost, now here's hoping they get hit with a real penalty...

Re:Striking Blow for Imperial America!

[erick99]

Judge Fogel's ruling demonstrates that the legal system, in this case, works just fine.

This really has nothing to do with Homeland Security though some folks sure do go to great lengths to try to make these connections no matter how specious the arguments they have to put forth.

Mainstream media still doesn't know

[Anonymous Writer]

I keep simply mention in the mainstream media that the US elections are going to be using touch screens, but nobody mentions any of these problems with Diebold. Has the mainstream caught on about these controversies with something being done about them, or are they going to remain unaware with Diebold's system being inevitably used?

Ebbs anf Flows

[Stokey]

I find it strange how there seem to be tides with regard to law, particulalry in the States. It seemed that a few months ago, Slashdot was full of stories (so many, I can't be bothered to find and link them all) about this or that abude (PATRIOT, Patent Law, Copyright abuse, Trademark disputes, INDUCE, CAN-SPAM oh gods does it stop?), but now we seem to be seeing the downswing (or up if you prefer), where certain parts of laws or acts are finally being shown to be useless or unlawful or just plain dumb.

I wonder if there is an equilibrium point where things settle down (i.e. laws repealed, corrected etc.) before the next round of political changes bring in a whole hoopla of new ones for people to have a crack at. All historians will probably turn round (correctly) and say "yes, but it takes a serious revolution to rebalance the pendulum, but maybe there's another point of transcendence e.g. saturation of the legal profession.

Just wibbling away, please feel free to add wibble.

Stokey

Re:Just the fact that....

[AndroidCat]

It's nothing we haven't seen on Slashdot before. (Does Scientology have a patent on their Avagrams?)

"The purpose of the lawsuit is to harass and discourage, rather than to win." "If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." - L Ron Hubbard

Important Precedent

[dunstan]

This is an incredibly important precedent which has been set here, and the defendants have got off lightly because no damages were sought.

Essentially the defendants were trying to use law to suppress an internal email trail which was embarassing to them and, not knowing how the stuff got out, tried to bully ISPs to take the stuff down (yes, I know the section of the DMCA is supposed to be a "get out" clause for ISPs, but does anyone really think that was ever how it was intended to be used?).

Now that this has been judged an unlawful act, I would like to think that the bar has been raised for any potential future litigants.

Re:So, when's the perjury trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not only the large groups that people need to worry about, but now there's so much litigation around copyrights, some ISPs fear anyone.

A fellow I know (not too well) publishes his own music on his ISPs web access. He doesn't go over quote, it's there for download, he states quite plainly that it's his own work, but it doesn't stop the occasional moron writing him email about piracy, illegally putting music online etc. When those letters go to the ISP, they HAVE pulled his site. It's been reinstated, and he's moves ISP, but the problem still remains.

Thanks to media soundbites that state little more than "copying music online is illegal" the world is getting the impression that unless you're a big media company, it's just plain illegal to distribute ANY music online.

That attitude problem is worse than any law, a law which can be repealed if it's wrong. The attitudes tend to entrench themselves in peoples consciousness for a generation.

Exactly!

[Mordaximus]

If corporations have the same rights as citizens, why don't they have the same responsibilities?

Re:Copywrite Infringement

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Do they really use that wording, "copywrite protection system"? Because if they do, it really shows that they are either clueless or actively supporting the newspeak "copy protection is copyright protection" which seems to have become prevalant lately.

To clairify,

Copyright protection is the system of laws which protect copyrighted works.
Copy protection is features added to a work to make it more difficult to duplicate.

The difference is that duplication of a work may not violate copyright law (fair use, public domain), but copy protection would try to prevent it regardless. Getting people to equate copy protection with the copyright itself is a deceit.

"Good Faith belief"

[Anonymous Coward]

The takedown notices were sent under penalty of perjury, right?

Problem is that the DMCA only requires that the person sending the notice swear under penalty of perjury that they have a "good faith belief" of copyright violation. IAAL (as of this morning), and let me tell you, "good faith" is a pretty loose standanrd.

Get the memos from the Swarthmore students

[skyfaller]

As one of the Swarthmore students who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, I'd like to invite you to browse/download the memos from our website. This in fact is the website that Diebold scared Swarthmore into shutting down, which was the basis for our lawsuit. We were able to re-post the memos after we filed our counternotification

Also, if you are a student, or you know students who are interested in copyfighting/freedom of speech, please head on over to FreeCulture.org, an international student movement for free culture :-)