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.
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.
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.
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
So it's awesome?
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.
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? :(
*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.
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.
"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
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.
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; }