Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sunday Times Issues DMCA Takedown Notice To the Intercept Over Snowden Article

Posted by Soulskill on from the best-defense-is-a-hilariously-weak-offense dept.

An anonymous reader writes: On Sunday, British newspaper The Sunday Times published an article citing anonymous UK government sources claiming that the cache of documents taken by Edward Snowden was successfully decrypted by the Russians and Chinese. Shortly thereafter, Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept published scathing criticism of the article. In Greenwald's article, he included a photograph of the newspaper's front page, where the story was featured. Yesterday, The Intercept received a DMCA takedown notice from News Corp alleging that the photograph infringed upon their copyright. The Intercept is refusing to comply with the takedown demand.

125 comments

  1. Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by mcguirez · · Score: 0

    I was unaware that US law would have any standing in the UK. Of course any DMCA takedown "command" can be ignored. Why not?

    --
    When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
    1. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The UK has their own version of the law. Probably something like The Law for the proper treatment of pigs and copyright infringement Act by his Grace, the Lord Faulteroy.

    2. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have their own version, dully legislated, as every other lapdog has of the US copyright mafia

    3. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Protip: News Corp is a US Corporation.

    4. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Where's The Intercept, who is the one served with the notice?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    5. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Informative

      there is the EUCD, but that doesn't apply in England either - it's a European directive.

      What we have is loosely based on the EU E-Commerce Directive, Article XIV: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...

      "(14) The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data is solely governed by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(19) and Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector(20) which are fully applicable to information society services; these Directives already establish a Community legal framework in the field of personal data and therefore it is not necessary to cover this issue in this Directive in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, in particular the free movement of personal data between Member States; the implementation and application of this Directive should be made in full compliance with the principles relating to the protection of personal data, in particular as regards unsolicited commercial communication and the liability of intermediaries; this Directive cannot prevent the anonymous use of open networks such as the Internet."

      There is no set process to order the removal of copyrighted material in English Law, beyond the copyright HOLDER (NOT an agent, agents have NO STANDING in English Civil Law) making a civil complaint and obtaining a court order. Aside from that, I could publish every single front page of the Times ever published on a blog and there won't be fuck all NC could say about it if I commented on every one of them. If they can't prove commercial profit motive on my part (like say blatantly offering reprints on placemats), they don't even have a case.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    6. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization

      DMCA Title I is actually called "Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implemention Act" which conforms to both the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (20 December 1996). Both treaties are ratified by over 90 states as of today. WIPO has 188 member states.

    7. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 4, Informative

      First Look Media is a US 501(c)(3) corporation.

    8. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 2

      English law doesn't apply. Both News Corp and The Interceptor's parent company, First Look Media, are based in the US. Also, any valid copyright in one WIPO signatory country is valid in another WIPO signatory company.

      Now, this doesn't make what News Corp is doing valid, but trying to act like they don't have any standing in the US to bring this case is silly.

    9. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Tuidjy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a document called something like "The European Electronic Commerce Directive", and the British have something that is supposed to satisfy it.

      You have to admire the way the Sunday Times is brazenly trying to get its way: they delete the most blatant lies from the story on the their web site, they use copyright law to prevent people from quoting or displaying the original article, and now they only have to do something about the physical copies.

      Hell, before the advent of the Internet it might have worked. It would have probably worked before printing. I bet some of the people involved regret the good old times when the peasants had no way of learning things on their own.

      I wonder how much of a chance there is those times come back...

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    10. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      The Intercept is the one accused of breaking US law, and is very much under US jurisdiction. Yes, foreigners, even those damned limeys, have the right to sue US entities in US court for breaching US laws where they deem themselves to be the harmed party.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 1

      FYI, News Corp is a US corporation too.

    12. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England. Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    13. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      In case you're confused, what is now known as News UK was incorporated in 1981 in London as News International plc. The current name was adopted end of last year.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    14. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England.

      And owned by a US corporation.

      Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985 [legislation.gov.uk]. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

      Yes, it does. As I said, any copyrights in one WIPO signatory, the UK, is valid in another WIPO signatory, the US. So, yes, it is valid for them to sue over a copyright in the US. That's the entire point of the WIPO treaties.

    15. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England. Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

      Not sure why you keep mentioning this. A) it is wrong. B) it doesn't matter anyone, American, English, or Martian can seek remedy in the US courts for a US crime committed by a US entity.

    16. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 2

      And to add you don't even have to take my word for it. Read the damn DMCA. It has an entire section about eligibility of protection under US laws for works in foreign countries:

      The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) each require member countries to provide protection to certain works from other member countries or created by nationals of other member countries. That protection must be no less favorable than that accorded to domestic works.

      Section 104 of the Copyright Act establishes the conditions of eligibility for protection under U.S. law for works from other countries. Section 102(b) of the DMCA amends section 104 of the Copyright Act and adds new definitions to section 101 of the Copyright Act in order to extend the protection of U.S. law to those works required to be protected under the WCT and the WPPT.

      The only people misinformed are the ones who have never read the DMCA like yourself.

    17. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 1

      And the DMCA has a whole section about eligibility for US copyright protection for works from other countries. In fact, it's the first, fucking section!

    18. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm not confused by anything. You've clearly never read either the DMCA or any of the relevant WIPO treaties that it implements.

    19. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Now, before someone accuses me of siding with the Sunday Times, as I've said in another post this DMCA takedown is bullshit. But to say they can't use the DMCA is flat out wrong.

    20. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      This is a British company who holds an internationally recognized copyright applying a US law to a US company.

      US law recognizes foreign copyrights. First Look Media is a US company and therefore is required to follow US law. Therefore DMCA does apply.

      That being said I would consider this fair use as commentary and therefore not infringement.

    21. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by PPH · · Score: 1

      So, is the Sunday Times article a Performance or a Phonogram? A song or a dance?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    22. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of a chance there is those times come back...

      The ultimate step to controlling reality is to erase all evidence of a reality that contradicts the one you desire, to the point where even those harmed by the changes you promulgate will prefer your version to a conflicting one.

    23. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The US recognizes foreign copyrights as if they were US copyright by way of bilateral copyright agreements. It does not matter what law the Times is required to follow it matters what law First Look Media must follow.

    24. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymice · · Score: 1

      He didn't say anything about the copyright not being valid, he said the framework & procedure as outlined by the DMCA are not valid. If an American company wants to make a copyright complaint against a UK body, they have to do so according to UK law & procedures. That means filing in a UK court, not simply firing off an email quoting legislation enacted in a country on the other side of the fecking globe.

    25. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this is about a British company taking action about against a US company. Hence the US courts are the correct jurisdiction.

    26. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      El ASSO WIPO!

    27. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of a chance there is those times come back...

      The ultimate step to controlling reality is to erase all evidence of a reality that contradicts the one you desire, to the point where even those harmed by the changes you promulgate will prefer your version to a conflicting one

      Anyone who does that are desperados, and in the current era we live in, many entities - from humongous entity such as the government of the United States of America to that pitiful UK news rag joint are trying everything they can to erase the reality

      They think they can hide the truth?

      They think they can keep on repeating their bold face lies until they become truth?

      What are they thinking?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    28. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Copyright And, not Copyright Of

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    29. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      It's an EU directive. The UK is in the EU so unless the UK has an opt-out it applies to the UK as well.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    30. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU Directives do not have the force of law in member states. They impose obligations on member states to pass a law that achieves the aims of the directive, but have no direct legal power.

    31. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by polar+red · · Score: 1

      The ultimate step to controlling reality is to erase all evidence of a reality that contradicts the one you desire

      what do you think murdoch is doing, by buying every media he can ?

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    32. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of a chance there is those times come back...

      The ultimate step to controlling reality is to erase all evidence of a reality that contradicts the one you desire, to the point where even those harmed by the changes you promulgate will prefer your version to a conflicting one

      Anyone who does that are desperados, and in the current era we live in, many entities - from humongous entity such as the government of the United States of America to that pitiful UK news rag joint are trying everything they can to erase the reality

      They think they can hide the truth?

      They think they can keep on repeating their bold face lies until they become truth?

      What are they thinking?

      That MiniLuv and MiniTrue will actually start doing their jobs, and the populace at large will simply be grateful for their chocolate rations to be increased to 25 grams per week (some of us realizing that last week our ration was 40 gra -- &^#$#)@!*$ NO CARRIER

    33. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      if this goes to court, I'm pretty sure there will be a discovery phase in which the Sunday Time's servers and computers used to edit the story will be seized and gone over with a fine toothed comb... plus any backups made.

      This will blow back very badly on the Sunday Times if they are found in a court of law to have been changing their story.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    34. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by slimshady76 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of a chance there is those times come back...

      The ultimate step to controlling reality is to erase all evidence of a reality that contradicts the one you desire, to the point where even those harmed by the changes you promulgate will prefer your version to a conflicting one.

      I don't know what you mean... we've always been at war with Eastasia...

    35. Re:Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All modern countries have their own version of the DMCA. The DMCA is just the US implementation of an international agreement. Since DMCA is the most widely known of these implementations, they are all referred to as DMCA.

    36. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviousy the Internet needs a proper memory hole installed. Maybe the Sundy Times can share their implementation?

    37. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      What would changing the story have to do with a copyright claim? The Intercept is clearly infringing copyright, there could be an exception there for criticism, but that has to be determined by a court, not you or I.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    38. Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're competent enough to determine that The Intercept is "clearly" infringing copyright, but not competent enough to determine whether or not fair use applies? What kind of IP attorney are you?

  2. DMCA Takedown notice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

  3. Streisand effect ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    in 3... 2... 1...

    Now everybody knows what a sycophantic suck-up Rupert Murdoch's little "journalism" outfit is. That is, if they didn't already.

    1. Re:Streisand effect ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, the media is in bed with the creation of the DMCA. They made the bed, let them shit in it.

    2. Re:Streisand effect ... by execthis · · Score: 1

      Now every action News Corp take against The Intercept only draws more attention to The Intercept's article and makes The Times look worse and worse. All Greenwald has to do is sit back and keep saying "No" and allow it to happen and everyone gets to see a wonderful spectacle.

      Its also really sad that major news outlets like BBC ran the story on the Time Article but are not covering The Intercept's response.

    3. Re:Streisand effect ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So replace the picture of the actual Times front page with a parody featuring a picture of a warthog shitting on a bed. That might better capture the quality of their journalism anyway.

    4. Re:Streisand effect ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So replace the picture of the actual Times front page with a parody featuring a picture of a warthog shitting on a bed. That might better capture the quality of their journalism anyway.

      Funny, but: no!

      The Sunday Times is already changing the claims in the internet version of the article, so the exact text of the original printed article is most relevant.

  4. it's fun to stay at the by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    D M C A

  5. 2 points to make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1- This is the 2nd time in a the last 2 days I've seen a British paper try to silence someone using the DMCA

    2- Britain has an established cultural norm of Newspaper front pages being considered "fair game" as far as copyright goes, tomorrows front pages will already have been broadcast by the BBC, will be on it's website, and papers are not above "borrowing" images from early editions of other publications.

    1. Re:2 points to make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the 2nd time in a the last 2 days I've seen a British paper try to silence someone using the DMCA

      Stop worrying about the UK. It's too late for that. The UK is exactly what 1984 predicted. A police surveillance state with more CCTV cameras than citizens.

  6. Reporter is a govt shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    See this amazing interview of the "journalist" who admits he has no idea about the veracity of the article. The reporter personifies deer in the headlights. Wonder why the Times hung him out to dry?

  7. Fair use case by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure that reproducing a low resolution image of a front page headline for the purposes of commentary illustration counts as fair use? Am I wrong?

    Also, the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory. Ergo, a British newspaper owned by an AUSTRALIAN has no claim under the DMCA. Or am I wrong about that as well?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:Fair use case by PRMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ask Kim Dotcom. He can tell you whether the DMCA applies in other countries that have no relationship to the USA.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Fair use case by Desler · · Score: 2

      He can tell you whether the DMCA applies in other countries that have no relationship to the USA.

      No one is applying the DMCA outside of the USA. Both of the companies involved in this, News Corp and First Look Media, are based in the US.

    3. Re:Fair use case by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that reproducing a low resolution image of a front page headline for the purposes of commentary illustration counts as fair use? Am I wrong?

      Also, the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory. Ergo, a British newspaper owned by an AUSTRALIAN has no claim under the DMCA. Or am I wrong about that as well?

      Well, you'd be spot-on *IF* the US & UK still operated under Rule of Law instead of Rule of/by Men. In Rule of/by Men "Law" is whatever Men currently in power say it is and are themselves not bound by any such.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Fair use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that reproducing a low resolution image of a front page headline for the purposes of commentary illustration counts as fair use? Am I wrong?

      Also, the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory. Ergo, a British newspaper owned by an AUSTRALIAN has no claim under the DMCA. Or am I wrong about that as well?

      Yep, completely wrong. (Not that it matters to this discussion, but Rupert gave up his Australian citizenship years ago.) This is about two US entities.

    5. Re:Fair use case by Desler · · Score: 2

      Well, you'd be spot-on *IF* the US & UK still operated under Rule of Law instead of Rule of/by Men. In Rule of/by Men "Law" is whatever Men currently in power say it is and are themselves not bound by any such.

      No one is operating outside of the rule of law. News Corp, a US corporation, is using a US statute, the DMCA, against another US corporation, First Look Media. Now, their claim is silly, but their use of the DMCA is not outside of what the law allows.

    6. Re:Fair use case by Desler · · Score: 2

      Also, the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory. Ergo, a British newspaper owned by an AUSTRALIAN has no claim under the DMCA. Or am I wrong about that as well?

      You're extremely wrong.

      1) No one is applying the DMCA outside of the US. Both companies are US-based.
      2) Murdoch's citizenship doesn't matter at all.
      3) Copyrights that are valid in one WIPO signatory country are valid in another. And both the US and UK are WIPO signatories.

    7. Re:Fair use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Murdoch has been a USA citizen for getting on 20 years. You can keep him... we don't want him back

    8. Re:Fair use case by Desler · · Score: 1

      Even if Rupert Murdoch was a Australian citizen that has no bearing anyway. Both of the corporations involved are incorporated in the US.

    9. Re:Fair use case by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      a US statute, the DMCA

      Which would not exist if not for the US government exceeding/abusing/end-running/mission-creeping the powers it is allowed under the only document that gives it legitimacy, and even adding more powers that have no basis whatever in a plain reading (as those who wrote it said they intended it to be read) of that same sole document that gives it legitimacy.

      I mean, infinity minus a day is considered "limited" when discussing US copyright law? Really? You don't change the rules by redefining the terms if not enough people agree with you wanting the rules changed.

      History shows us that path usually ends with terror and mass graves filled with the innocent.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Fair use case by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Other than forfeited assets, perhaps.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    11. Re:Fair use case by CanadianRealist · · Score: 1

      I would think it counts as fair use. Some might say that if the whole page was readable versus just the headline that might not be fair use. (But it's likely not readable in a low resolution image, and could even be blurred while leaving the headline readable.)

      At the worst, if some court rules that it's not fair use then create a new version of the story, which replaces the image with a description of what the image was and a comment that the image had to be removed due to a DMCA request by the Sunday Times. Then send them a link to that new version to the Sunday Times to thumb your nose at them.

    12. Re:Fair use case by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. the UK became the USA's bitch when they signed the WIPO treaty.

      You guys are now our property because of your leaders signing whatever our leaders put in front of them.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Fair use case by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Yes, you are wrong. Under bilateral copyright agreements copyrights from certain countries have the same legal standing as US copyrights. Using the DMCA against a US company in the US is valid for any entity from any of the countries that have agreements with the US.

    14. Re:Fair use case by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      No disagreement from me that the DMCA is being served between two American entities (i.e. I agree with your three points). Where I will disagree, however, is with the implication that the DMCA would be valid in being applied to a UK-based entity. Just because American copyrights are recognized in the UK and vice versa, it doesn't mean that national copyright laws, such as the DMCA, are recognized across those borders too. As a quick example of that fact that we're likely all familiar with, fair use (i.e. exceptions in copyright law for Americans) and fair dealing (i.e. exceptions in copyright law for Commonwealth citizens) are already slightly different from one another. Just because something may fall under fair use in the US does not mean that it would fall under fair dealing in the UK, so the use of a copyrighted work may be infringing in one location but perfectly legitimate in the other.

      In this case, where The Intercept is based really doesn't matter much (though, once again, you and I are in agreement on your points, but stick with me for the sake of argument). If they're based in the UK, the DMCA doesn't apply to them. If they're based in the US, their use of the image easily falls under fair use. Either way, they are well within their rights to refuse the DMCA takedown notice.

    15. Re:Fair use case by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      If the whole page was published along with it's ads then Sunday Time received free publication and access to customers it would otherwise have not reached, so not loss in fact they got free benefit.

      The real problem is the reality that News Corporation is the first media empire in history that is actively not trusted and in fact loathed by a substantial portion of humanity. It it's core markets it is hated. Seriously https://www.google.com/search?... that search "Fox reporter attacked" 27,100 results, just that exact phrase.

      We are talking a media empire in serious trouble of imploding as it loses the majority of it's audience to old age and they will not be replacing them because they are a very peculiar audience in deed. The majority also suffering from the mental disablement of lead poisoning, hence the gullibility and poor social and moral balance. Which means the next generation to age will not be going to News Corporation as they are not suffering from lead poisoning to the same degree.

      In all likelihood News Corporation will never recover from this taint and in order to recover some investor value it will need to be broken up and the pieces sold off to other media empires.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Fair use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murdoch is now American ! He gave up his Austrailian citizenship years ago so he could get control of more USA media

    17. Re:Fair use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm pretty sure that reproducing a low resolution image of a front page [...]

      Perhaps he should have put a black "decency strip" over where some strateegic parts would have supposed to be?

      (for those of you with a damaged fud-o-meter: the above was ironic ;-)

    18. Re:Fair use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I trust answers from a habitual liar and a convicted criminal?

    19. Re:Fair use case by Holi · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure that First Look Media is an American Company, so the alleged infringement happened in America, hence the application of the DMCA. Pretty easy to follow logic, not sure why it escaped you.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    20. Re:Fair use case by Holi · · Score: 1

      Fair use is never a cut and dry issue and the copyright owner has every right to contest the usage.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    21. Re:Fair use case by Holi · · Score: 1

      1 A Briitish newspaper owned by an American Company, that is owned by and American (sorry Murdoch is not an Aussie any more, hasn't been for 20 years), suing another American company.

      Your just confused by... actually I have no idea why you got this so fucking wrong.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    22. Re:Fair use case by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Fair use generally is a cut and dry issue, though there certainly are cases that push the boundaries. This is not one of them. I agree that the content owner is indeed well within their rights to contest the usage, just as they always are, but their doing so won't amount to anything, since this usage, as I said before, easily falls under fair use.

    23. Re:Fair use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair use is never a cut and dry issue and the copyright owner has every right to contest the usage.

      Yes, they have every right to be an asshole and abuse a law. This is clearly unethical, but yes, they have every right to be lying scum. Why do you feel that point is important?

    24. Re:Fair use case by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that the Constitution somehow left out copyright?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    25. Re:Fair use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rupert Murdoch hasn't been Australian since the 80's someone elses problem now

    26. Re:Fair use case by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, copyright falls under the right of Congress to grant monopolies for a limited time. So far, I'm not seeing limits.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. Excellent...... by Dega704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, Sunday Times. Be even more aggressive! Work that Streisand Effect!

    1. Re:Excellent...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, Sunday Times. Be even more aggressive! Work that Streisand Effect!

      Any paper that prints the rubbish that you're seeing in the images printed in that takedown notice, is clearly not worried about embarrassing attention being cast their way. It looks like the Sunday Times is a pure tabloid in the most sensationalist sense of the word.

  9. Who'd have thunk it? by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A Murdoch mouthpiece, trying to pull strings, push an agenda and suppress free speech? Who'd have thunk it?

    1. Re:Who'd have thunk it? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      well, they did get owned over the whole Hackgate thing. Leveson can chew my fat one.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  10. Re:Popover ads ... by sabri · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... on Slashdot. What more is there to say.

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  11. Re:Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't be necessary for a website that pretends to be serious about technology and news.

  12. This should be good by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    *gets popcorn*

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:This should be good by Anomalyst · · Score: 4, Funny

      *puts on his robe and wizard hat*

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  13. Re:Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't be necessary for a website that pretends to be serious about technology and news.

    Browsing the web without adblock is like fucking a Thai ladyboy up the ass without a condom.

  14. Browse More SuicideGirls? by celest · · Score: 1

    Apparently News Corp. needs to direct its litigation employees to pay more attention to SuicideGirls... There's no way that could go wrong...

    1. Re:Browse More SuicideGirls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What have the SGs done now, except taken their clothes off and possibly doing nice things to each other?

  15. good! by goldcd · · Score: 1

    and the story?

  16. Re: Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So it's awesome?

  17. Appropriation Art by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The Intercept should just claim the photo is appropriation art and then claim a copyright on the Sunday Times front page for himself ... like Richard Prince with Instagram photos.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  18. It's News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's News, that's the exception.

    During the hurricane reporters from major news outlets were allowed to report from, and properly pronounce Phucket.

    1. Re:It's News by Desler · · Score: 2

      It's simply fair use regardless of being news.

  19. Re:Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't be necessary for a website that pretends to be serious about technology and news.

    Since when has Dice pretended to be serious about technology and news??

  20. Kudos to the Intercept by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good on them for not kowtowing to this kind of crap. How has no one said this yet? :(

    1. Re:Kudos to the Intercept by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they have. Did anyone happen to get a screen capture?

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    2. Re:Kudos to the Intercept by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get sued :(

  21. Creamy...so very creamy by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Screw the Russian and Chinese hacking national security secrets. I wanna see Lindsay Lohan: Sex, Drugs, and Babies!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  22. Re:Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wrong.

    You want https://addons.palemoon.org/extensions/privacy-and-security/adblock-latitude/

  23. Wish Irish news media had principles like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Businessman/oligarch Denis O'Brien successfully silenced all of Ireland's news media from reporting a speech protected by parliamentary privilege, because part of the speech was covered by an injunction - and almost none of Ireland's news media had the balls to report it, before they were given 'permission' by the court that placed the injunction (at which time, everybody already knew through forums/Facebook etc.).

    Sad state of journalism in Ireland. Meanwhile, real journalists like Greenwald, are more than happy enough to tell hyper-litigious oligarchal types, to bugger off.

  24. Re:Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong again.

    You want https://addons.mozilla.org/fir... (works with Palemoon)

  25. Help Me With This... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 0

    So if you're in the newspaper business, it is somehow bad if millions of extra people see the front page of your paper? Because none of those people would conceivably think of actually going to the NYT site? Ah well, it used to be a good paper before NewsCorpse got ahold of it.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  26. It might not be copyrightable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Based on the quality of the article and the CNN interview with the journalist, this whole thing may have been generated by trained monkeys... in which case it can't be copyrighted.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-cannot-be-copyrighted-us-regulators-say/

    1. Re:It might not be copyrightable by Anomalyst · · Score: 2

      what kind of bogies are used for a monkey train?

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  27. DMCA Abuse is Not a Right/Left Issue by Kunedog · · Score: 0

    Just last week, the Guardian issued a false DMCA takedown to suppress the free speech of a popular Youtuber who criticised one of the Guardian's videos. http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

    If you're wondering why you haven't seen it reported here (or anywhere else I bet), the Youtuber is pro-Gamergate, and we all know how that goes (i.e. against the narrative).

    P.S. Apologies if you intended your post to be solely anti-Murdoch instead of partisan/anti-right.

    1. Re:DMCA Abuse is Not a Right/Left Issue by Kunedog · · Score: 1

      Oops, my mistake, the Guardian's censorious copyright takedown was not through the DMCA, but Youtube's system.

  28. Re: would have worked by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "You have to admire the way the Sunday Times is brazenly trying to get its way: they delete the most blatant lies from the story on the their web site, they use copyright law to prevent people from quoting or displaying the original article, and now they only have to do something about the physical copies.

    Hell, before the advent of the Internet it might have worked. It would have probably worked before printing. I bet some of the people involved regret the good old times when the peasants had no way of learning things on their own."

    I think the real power of the internet is seeping through the half desperate aggression that the powers that be are unloading on it. So Glen G nuked the original article, and I think there's wiggle room for a human rights lawyer here somewhere, and that the S-T might be knee-jerking its way into trouble.

    Remember, (and yes, Wiki is famously "only 78% correct"),
    "Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2]"

    So is a printed libel lie, which is then removed with no warning, thus creating a *second* version of the story, now "slander" for that phrase because it's no longer in media? What is the legality of them removing fragments of stories like that, "just because it's online and it's easy"?

    So then watch this, "fair use includes *criticism* ", which includes ... wait for it ... proof that a story version *existed*!

    There's still too much precedent to steamroll the law, but I think the S-T goofed.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  29. Re:Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet again wrong, you want a HOSTS file!!!!!

  30. If there was any doubt.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....the article was a lie, this proves it was

  31. Re: Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as awesome as it is stupid. Costs you a lot... Later.

  32. Website not in UK? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    I don't think it matters what the laws in the UK are if the website that they are accusing of infringing their copyright is in the US where US laws apply. I think this is a case of a UK company using US law to stifle US free speech in the same way that US companies use it although to be fair it seems a far milder case than the ones you typically hear about. The easy fix would be to just remove the photograph of the front page of the paper. The article criticizing the Sunday Times would still be there for everyone to read - the photo is not really required.

  33. So the story is that . . . there is no story? by PatientZero · · Score: 1

    Let me see if I've got this straight. The Sunday Times found some evidence which they presented to the UK government, and the government anonymously verified said evidence, but the Times decided to print only the government statements without the evidence?

    Would I be entirely off the mark in guessing that the "evidence" also came from an anonymous government source? Oh right, this reporter "is sorry to disappoint you again," but he "does not know."

    It seems to me that the Department of Disinformation is having a difficult time hiring quality employees.

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  34. BBC News does this all the time. by TangoCharlie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The BBC news website, and App has a regular piece reporting what the papers are reporting, and shows photographs of the front pages of all the big UK papers. The review of 'tomorrow's papers is also a regular feature on one of the late news programmes broadcast on the BBC.

    The Times, yet again, demonstrates just how poor its journalism is, by trying to use the DMCA to remove any criticism of the paper.

    --
    return 0; }
    1. Re:BBC News does this all the time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As does Fox News. Indeed every morning TV show that has a bit that discusses the newspapers that morning do it. But Fox News definitely does.

  35. Another reason not to get Sky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T
    --
    AC

  36. This is not just a Streissand Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is downright Streissand Gale! :-)

  37. Re:Popover ads ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off, apk.

  38. William "One day, son, all those will be yours" by 12WTF$ · · Score: 1

    George: "What, the curtains?"
    William: "No, not the curtains, lad. All that you can see! Stretched out over the hills and valleys of this land! This'll be your kingdom, lad!"

    If you download the Times' front page image from The Intercept and explore for this bit of Python (Monty),
    thank you for preserving evidence of Rupert's typical Orwellian thinkfuckery.
    For your complete safety, please ensure you wash your eyes thoroughly (to match your new brain sparkle).

    --
    Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
  39. WIPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory

    well...

  40. Hilarious CNN interview with ST "journalist" by wildstoo · · Score: 1

    Check out this boingboing article about a CNN video interview with the author of the ST story. Watch the linked video; it's stunning. The guy essentially admits the whole thing is a fabrication with zero evidence, and all they do is "report the position of the British Government".

    http://boingboing.net/2015/06/16/cnn-interview-with-author-of-d.html

  41. Re: would have worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Glen G nuked the original article, and I think there's wiggle room for a human rights lawyer here somewhere, and that the S-T might be knee-jerking its way into trouble.

    Just to make sure you haven't misinterpreted anything, Glenn G didn't nuke anything. He doesn't work for the Sunday Times, and is not the author of the nonsense article. Glenn wrote his own article for The Intercept, exposing the fact that the Sunday Times' article was complete bullshit.

  42. Re: would have worked by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

    > > So Glen G nuked the original article,

    > to make sure you haven't misinterpreted anything, Glenn G didn't nuke anything

    The original posted used "nuked" in the sense "demolished as if with a nuclear blast". He and you mean the same thing, but he is using an idiom that you may not have encountered before.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished...