Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
D M C A
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.
Protip: News Corp is a US Corporation.
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?
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
Come on, Sunday Times. Be even more aggressive! Work that Streisand Effect!
A Murdoch mouthpiece, trying to pull strings, push an agenda and suppress free speech? Who'd have thunk it?
Where's The Intercept, who is the one served with the notice?
Learn to love Alaska
... on Slashdot. What more is there to say.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
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
First Look Media is a US 501(c)(3) corporation.
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.
*gets popcorn*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
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...
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.
Apparently News Corp. needs to direct its litigation employees to pay more attention to SuicideGirls... There's no way that could go wrong...
FYI, News Corp is a US corporation too.
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
and the story?
So it's awesome?
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
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.
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.
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. . . .
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!
I'm not confused by anything. You've clearly never read either the DMCA or any of the relevant WIPO treaties that it implements.
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.
It's simply fair use regardless of being news.
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.
Good on them for not kowtowing to this kind of crap. How has no one said this yet? :(
So, is the Sunday Times article a Performance or a Phonogram? A song or a dance?
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
Wrong.
You want https://addons.palemoon.org/extensions/privacy-and-security/adblock-latitude/
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
"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
Oops, my mistake, the Guardian's censorious copyright takedown was not through the DMCA, but Youtube's system.
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 !
Copyright And, not Copyright Of
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
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.
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
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!
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; }
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?
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
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.
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.
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...
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?
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
> > 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...