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

Copywrite Infringement

[Tyndmyr]

Im fairly happy to see this, and not just because of my dislike of diebolds massive security issues with the voting machines.

This is a relatively clear instance of attempted legal intimidation, a common tactic used by companies with the financial and legal clout.

I really love the part where they describe "encouraging and assisting in the circumvention of copywrite protection systems". Seems like quite a stretch to me.

Re:So, when's the perjury trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year one of my customers was threathened by a representant of SABAM, the local RIAA equivalent.

Basically they stated, under penalty of perjury, that my customer was using, without proper license, works of a copyright holder that SABAM represented. Well, that customer was using _my_ original work, under my permission. And I never appointed SABAM as my representant.

I made a telephone call to the representant, spelling out that she was committing an act of perjury by stating that she represented the rightful copyright holder. She quickly backed up, but I warned that if this would happen a second time, I would not hesitate to file a criminal complaint.

I rather have people illegally enjoying my copyrighted works then some criminal association illegally claiming that they represent me.

Yes, I consider SABAM criminal. Perjury _is_ a criminal offense.