You're absolutely correct on all of this, with one minor detail:
Melaleuca (plaintiffs) hasn't filed a copyright suit. This is one negative side-effect of the DMCA's unique pre-litigation subpoena power: an unscrupulous party could contrive a copyright issue, then these subpoenas without ever intending to file suit.
Oops, you're doing it, too. Dozier had nothing to do with this case. Reading his article late last night, I got that impression, too.
Brad Frazer with Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP acted on Melaleuca's behalf. Melaleuca's involved people are Josh Chandler, Ken Sheppard and Frank VanderSloot. Thanks for the copyright.gov suggestion. Found the registration at copyright.gov via searching searching for title 'Ken Sheppard'.
Exactly! Bravo! Thanks for answering this while I was away yesterday.
One key thing... Dozier had nothing to do with any of this. I keep seeing people misread his article and get this wrong impression (including the/. story itself).
I agree, and have been referring to this concept (for lack of an established legal term being found) as diminished merchantability . The letter was worthless before I scanned and put it online. If anything, it's getting a bit of value because of it becoming notorious due to them threatening to sue us for posting the scanned image of it.
Given the narrowness of the takedown letter's language (there are only so many ways you can say 'you were bad. Stop it.', a reading of the Copyright exception for recipe's is interesting and possibly applicable. Given the fact that just about every word in a takedown has significance, Fair Use matters a lot, too.
Since recipes aren't copyrightable, I doubt a shopping list is, either. Creativity is necessary. And my attorney argued (interestingly) that a Takedown demand is akin to a recipe: it is specific instructions to accomplish a task, much like a recipe.
There are only so many ways to say 'you said this. Remove it or we'll sue.'
And then there's Fair Use. Whole 'nutha can of worms there. When I read up on Fair Use criteria, I thought our case wins 3 out of 4 of the commonly-stated criteria for fair use.
Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
Hate to say, but you're mistaken. International copyright conventions like Berne 1988 are referenced on this thread. Most of the world uses these conventions for their national copyright laws. Sucks, but that's the law.
On the other hand, there is interest in arguing whether documents that affect news or public discussion of events should be silenced via copyright. After all, in the few paragraphs of the letter I received, just about every word *matters* for anyone trying to dissect the case or understand if the plaintiffs or defendants are behaving themselves. Proponents of free speech like me would say that full disclosure is needed for society to decide for themselves the merits of each side's claims. Dozier seems to argue business expediency over intelligent debate by an informed public.
They did file registration. My impression is it was filed after they saw we were contesting their subpoena on the merits of the copyright, but I've never seen the copyright registration itself. But I'd like to. (Note to self...)
Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
I'm a key party in this case (I am d2 at 43rdstateblues), and the Slashdot story got 2 significant details wrong:
The judge merely ruled that a prima facie (what nonlawyers might call the minimum bar for entry) case for copyright exists when someone *registers* for copyright. After we started to challenge them, they registered (roughly June 2007). So, judge said further consideration of copyrightability waits until after the bad guys (Melaleuca) file their lawsuit.
And Dozier had nothing to do with it. Yeah, his article alludes to this, but that's false. I'd never heard of him before a few days ago. Whether one chooses to think this grandstanding and hint at involvement is due to malice or poor language skills, seems like a strong argument to not hire Dozier.
I was skiing while this was getting all the attention, and am going to systematically go thru the thread, answering what I can and pointing to a FAQ that this'll help me *finally* write w/r/t this case.
I'm gonna forgo the 'Slashdot? Wrong!? ' snark -- I'm happy for the attention, even if it is utterly backwards. The case asks important legal questions or I wouldn't be getting sucked into this case.
Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery (Viscount Alamein): "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war is: 'Do not march on Moscow.'... Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.'" (Speech in the House of Lords on 30 May 1962)
Vizzini's advice: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia. (The Princess Bride)
D2's corollary for the 21st century: Don't get involved in lawsuits with billionaires.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, I'm d2. And it would be nice if the EFF or Chilling Effects could help.
The judge didn't reject the ideas outright; he just said 'now's not the time'. Thus the door to prelitigation subpoena abuses remains open, I guess.
You're absolutely correct on all of this, with one minor detail:
Melaleuca (plaintiffs) hasn't filed a copyright suit. This is one negative side-effect of the DMCA's unique pre-litigation subpoena power: an unscrupulous party could contrive a copyright issue, then these subpoenas without ever intending to file suit.
Thanks for your attention to this.
Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
Oops, you're doing it, too. Dozier had nothing to do with this case. Reading his article late last night, I got that impression, too.
Brad Frazer with Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP acted on Melaleuca's behalf. Melaleuca's involved people are Josh Chandler, Ken Sheppard and Frank VanderSloot. Thanks for the copyright.gov suggestion. Found the registration at copyright.gov via searching searching for title 'Ken Sheppard'.
Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
Exactly! Bravo! Thanks for answering this while I was away yesterday.
/. story itself).
One key thing... Dozier had nothing to do with any of this. I keep seeing people misread his article and get this wrong impression (including the
For everyone, the court briefs and full decision are linked/reprinted at this Harvard's Citizen Media Law Center summary.
And I've got that link plus other summary/FAQ stuff here:
Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
I agree, and have been referring to this concept (for lack of an established legal term being found) as diminished merchantability . The letter was worthless before I scanned and put it online. If anything, it's getting a bit of value because of it becoming notorious due to them threatening to sue us for posting the scanned image of it.
Given the narrowness of the takedown letter's language (there are only so many ways you can say 'you were bad. Stop it.', a reading of the Copyright exception for recipe's is interesting and possibly applicable. Given the fact that just about every word in a takedown has significance, Fair Use matters a lot, too.
Thanks for your attention and remarks,
--d2 at 43rdstateblues
Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
Your link is A: to Dozier (who had nothing to do with my case, but writes like he did) and B: just to his homepage, which will gradually become less useful in finding the judgment itself or any other detailed info on this case. I suggest starting at the FAQ I'm (finally) writing as I work thru this thread: http://www.43rdstateblues.com/?q=melaleuca-43sb-faq Or go straight to Harvard's Citizen Media Law Center or Eric Goldman's blog entry: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/melaleuca-v-43sbcom-llc http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/12/takedown_letter.htm
Since recipes aren't copyrightable, I doubt a shopping list is, either. Creativity is necessary. And my attorney argued (interestingly) that a Takedown demand is akin to a recipe: it is specific instructions to accomplish a task, much like a recipe. There are only so many ways to say 'you said this. Remove it or we'll sue.' And then there's Fair Use. Whole 'nutha can of worms there. When I read up on Fair Use criteria, I thought our case wins 3 out of 4 of the commonly-stated criteria for fair use. Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
Hate to say, but you're mistaken. International copyright conventions like Berne 1988 are referenced on this thread. Most of the world uses these conventions for their national copyright laws. Sucks, but that's the law.
On the other hand, there is interest in arguing whether documents that affect news or public discussion of events should be silenced via copyright. After all, in the few paragraphs of the letter I received, just about every word *matters* for anyone trying to dissect the case or understand if the plaintiffs or defendants are behaving themselves. Proponents of free speech like me would say that full disclosure is needed for society to decide for themselves the merits of each side's claims. Dozier seems to argue business expediency over intelligent debate by an informed public.
Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
They did file registration. My impression is it was filed after they saw we were contesting their subpoena on the merits of the copyright, but I've never seen the copyright registration itself. But I'd like to. (Note to self...) Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ
I was skiing while this was getting all the attention, and am going to systematically go thru the thread, answering what I can and pointing to a FAQ that this'll help me *finally* write w/r/t this case.
I'm gonna forgo the 'Slashdot? Wrong!? ' snark -- I'm happy for the attention, even if it is utterly backwards. The case asks important legal questions or I wouldn't be getting sucked into this case.