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

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.

Comments

Excellent......

[Dega704]

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

Who'd have thunk it?

[GrahamCox]

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

Re:Fair use case

[PRMan]

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

Re: Are all U.S. Laws enforced in the U.K.?

[Tuidjy]

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...

Kudos to the Intercept

[rogoshen1]

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

Re: would have worked

[TaoPhoenix]

"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.