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.
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?
First Look Media is a US 501(c)(3) corporation.
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...
So it's awesome?
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.
"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
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; }