Slashdot Mirror
Dealing With a Copyright Takedown Request?
George Maschke writes "I recently received a takedown notice from a corporate lawyer demanding that I remove a post on my Web site's message board. It purportedly lists the first 75 of 567 questions on the MMPI-2 paper-and-pencil psychological test. It seems to me that such posting of a limited amount copyrighted material for discussion purposes on a public-interest, non-profit Web site falls within the scope of the fair use exemption of US copyright law. I have thus declined to remove the post. I believe that the corporation in question is seeking to chill public discussion of its test, which applicants for employment with many governmental agencies are required to complete. I would be interested in this community's thoughts on the matter."
I'm sure most people will agree that what you've done falls well within the realm of fair use. But you know very well that you're going to need to talk to legal counsel with expertise in copyright matters, and that means money. Maybe someone with contacts in the Electronic Frontier Foundation could give you a hand. Sometimes having a lawyer responding to the guy making the threat is enough to make them back down.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is a particular case, given that it is dealing with a psychological test. In many or most cases these rely on the test-taker not knowing the exact questions ahead of time. As you're dealing with over 10% of the test here, it's not all that far-fetched to say that foreknowledge of these questions could skew the results in a statistically significant way. This would count as causing harm or devaluing the original work (by causing prospective clients [the government] to doubt its results), which are direct reasons for fair use not to apply. Of course, IANAL and you should seek one, etc, but it seems to me that this is not that unreasonable a claim. A single question? Sure. 75 of them? Probably not so much.
Stuff.
Why do all of the Ask Slashdot questions boil down to: "I want free legal advice. Give me an opinion on x."
My thought is that you should really ask a lawyer what to do. Sheesh, do you really want free legal advice from random people with lots of free time on their hands?
Sorry, but 13% of the content is not "limited". If I reprint 85 pages of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", would you consider that a "limited amount"? I don't think the publisher would... Not to mention you say "the first 75"... If it had been a 'random' 75, with commentary and discussion for each one; that would be one thing. Even then, it would be dubious. Even if I split it into one-paragraph sections, with commentary and discussion between each paragraph, 85 pages worth of Harry Potter would be difficult to claim under fair use.
For example, the usage of 400 words out of a 500 page book was considered infringement: Harper Row vs. Nation Enterprises.
Now, according to the wonderful DMCA, if you take the material down now, *YOU* are safe from prosecution. If you present the user of your board the opportunity to protest, then if they want to put it back up, *THEY* become the responsible party.
Limited liability or not, why not just submit the content to Wikileaks? Good luck to any lawyer trying to send them a take-down notice...
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
And this is precisely the problem with the DMCA. A large company who retain a team of lawyers on salary will have no problem firing off a few dozen such takedown notices. The cost of hiring a lawyer to screen them all for actual, valid complaints becomes rapidly prohibitive for the private citizen on the other end.
This is why the DMCA needs strongly punitive measures for repeat posting of unwarranted takedown notices for economic purposes.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
The sad thing is that people who lie on the test (and are consistent about it) are the ones that are going to get hired.
Take for example, "It would be better if almost all laws were thrown away".
Now considering that this test is for the police force, it's obvious that the Human Resource types aren't interested in hiring a civil Libertarian, however purely philosophical he is in his beliefs.
I do not always tell the truth
If you answer "False" to this (like I would), then you would also be weeded out as a liar. Because well, most people lie most of the time, and according to the HR types, if you don't admit to lying then you are just a dishonest liar.
I have often had to take orders from someone who did not know as much as I did
This question is pretty much biased against geeks, or anybody who loves knowledge and education. The police (and companys in general) want people who can take orders without question.
TAKE NOTE: I have no inside knowledge, but I'm just making some educated guessing, and adding a bit of deduction to what I already know. Just my two cents as they say. In general with these types of tests it seems like they are looking for somebody average and socially adjusted (witch often isn't usually a good thing when average isn't a good thing. But I shall not bring authoritarian societies into the equation).
I noticed several posts pointing out some of the seemingly silly questions (ie "My hands and feet get cold"). They may in fact be silly but there is reasoning behind them. I went and actually did some reading up on how the test is supposed to work. There are 8 different major scales measured and several other more minor ones too. For example Scale 1 is essentially looking at Hypochondria, a person's tendency to be really focused on (and maybe whiny) about every little ache and pain. The test understands that everyone has some stuff wrong with them and certain physical peeves too, so you're supposed to mark some of the stuff "T". But if you look at the questions, there are a bunch about this physical stuff and they are all over the place. If you put a "T" by a whole lot of them, then the test scores you higher on this scale. If you put an "F" by all of them, the test basically scores your "truthfulness on test questions" lower because these are things that everyone should complain about a few of.
The issue of test validity is a big deal and dealt with in different ways including checking for truthfulness by asking the same thing in a different way in different parts of the test. There are a bunch of these question pairs and there are some set up for consistent answers being "T/T", "T/F", and "F/F". There are also question sequences in the back half of the test designed to detect if the user is just starting to mostly randomly check or barely skim questions. Too high on this and the test is reflected as invalid.
Gaming the test is not as easy as it might seem at first glance. Some questions can be taken at face value, like "I sometimes think about killing myself". If you check that one "T" along with some other similar questions then you may well be suicidal. However, there are other questions that state mildly negative personality traits that most people have. If you refuse to admit to any of them then the test scores you as either trying to present an unrealistically positive image or as having an unrealistic self-image/ego. Answering some of those type questions with a "T" will get the test to paint you as a self-confident personality with a healthy self-image that feels no need to hide common human foibles.
Personally, I'm a skeptic of these kinds of tests. I think they may work to some degree in some scenarios with some people but there will be other scenarios or people for which the test will largely fail. This particular test is also susceptible to interpretation error. Some evaluators tend to focus in on individual scales but what I read says that that over-simple approach almost always yields skewed results. To get an accurate scoring the evaluator must consider the scales together. In large scale testing of different populations, the experts in this claim to have identified different groupings, for example two particular scales elevated while a third specific scale is lowered may represent a certain personality trait (ie rebelliousness or conformity). It's also said that the evaluator *must* have accurate background info on the subject (ie record of physical violence, manic behavior, etc). These factors can apparently change the assessment significantly.
" (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work."
Using 75 out of 567 is a substantial fraction of the whole. This might be more than you might casually get away with as an "excerpt".
Further, the MMPI is a "Personality Inventory" test... it may well be that the (alleged) effectiveness of the test relies on the test-taker to not know the questions beforehand. The test maker may therefore have a legitimate beef in regard to item (4).
Do not misunderstand me: according to my college psychology professor, tests such as MMPI and MMPI2 were thoroughly discredited many years ago. I question its worth from the beginning. But that does not mean that the copyright holder does not have a case.
Personally, I find these tests very informative. The test tells you a lot about your future employer. If I was given a test like that, the pay I would require would substantially increase :)
Not sure what the employer gets out of them. A feeling of security, perhaps?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Hmmm, if 1% of the Christians are annoying fucks who try to covert me, isn't it safe to say rather then being all atheists like you claim, it's probably just the same 1% minority that are annoying fucks?
I've never once tried to convince someone there was no god unless they brought up religion.
Whenever you feel the need to say "The problem with Atheists..." you should stop there. Atheists, like any other group, are not a homogenous mass that all act and think exactly the same. Prejudice makes you look like an ass far more than militant atheists make atheists in general look bad.
Virg