Diskeeper has to comply with both laws, but it's up to the plaintiffs under which statute they wish to bring their suit. They could've even claimed that Diskeeper violated both FEHA and EEOC claims (or merely EEOC claims); but claiming violations under the EEOC would've permitted Diskeeper an opportunity to remove the case to Federal Court. There is no argument for removal to Federal Court where the only bring state claims.
The EEOC is not relevant here, as the Complaint cites California state causes of action only (which keeps the case in state court as opposed to federal court). California's FEHA statute is similar to the EEOC, with the exception that FEHA permits unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, whereas EEOC damages are capped.
The Catholic Church does not have a policy of "Always attack, never defend.", it does not have an "Office of Special Affairs" that hires P.I.'s. It does not break into government buildings.
Actually.. you'd be surprised at what lengths the Catholic church is willing to go to. This Article will scare the crap out of anyone not paying close attention to the priest-molestation saga. The first lines of this story sound like they're describing Scientology..
Blaming rape victims for their own recklessness.
Hiring private investigators to track down incriminating evidence.
Suing victims for slander.
Suing minor victims' parents for failing to watch over them.
Intimidating witnesses.
Concealing evidence.
Stonewalling court proceedings.
Denying knowledge of abuse -- unless the victims can prove otherwise.
In the high-stakes arena of personal-injury lawsuits, bare-knuckle tactics like these are commonplace. But it's the last thing you might expect from the world's largest and most powerful spiritual institution. For nearly two decades, however, the Roman Catholic Church has used these very methods in its defense in lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by members of the clergy.
This is an excerpt of a larger article which can be seen at www.digl-watch.com/copyright.htm.
Did Ava Paquette commit fraud when she smuggled trademark complaints inside her now infamous DMCA complaint to Google?
In her complaint to Google, Paquette, on behalf of her client, the Religious Technology Centre, combined her DMCA complaint about Google's links to alleged copyright violations within the Xenu.net website with an entirely separate complaint related to alleged trademark infringements through metatags -- obfuscating the fact that such a claim lies outside of the DMCA process entirely.
Within her list of page locations of allegedly "infringing" materials, Ava Paquette also puts forward the argument that Xenu.net, and its subpages, also violate her client's trademarks by including the words "Scientology", "Hubbard", "Dianetics" and "NOTS" as metatags. Although this specific complaint has absolutely no place within a DMCA complaint, it allowed her to artfully combine the main page with the subpages in an unrelated context.
At no point within the complaint does Paquette specifically claim that the main page contains copyright violations. Since the DMCA does not cover trademark infringements, which is what Ava is claiming the home page is, one has to ask -- Why is the main page included within her list or urls at all?
While it appears clear that Google caved in to PR pressure (site author Andreas has stated he didn't counternotify the DMCA notification), the victory seems to only pertain to the home page and not to the dozens of other urls cult lawyer Ava Paquette cited in her original complaint - which of course leaves the material on those pages unsearchable.
Google probably made an 'executive decision' to allow the home page, since there isn't a single thing that could deemed a copyright violation on that page.
However, Google is still allowing Paquette to exploit a contradictory flaw in the DMCA by honoring the rest of the complaint. (I tried searching about 15 other links directly on Google, and all came up dead - so I can't say unilaterally that Google is blocking all of the urls, but they're at least blocking all 15 of a random sampling.)
The key contradiction within the Act itself appears to be the vastly different indemnity offered to ISPs versus that provided for search engines, or as the Act refers to them, "information retrieval tools." Under the DMCA, once notified of links to infringing content, a search engine is required to disable access to the material in question pending a counternotification from the accused infringer - which was what was demanded of the xenu.net site author despite the fact that such a counternotification would have required a citizen of Norway to submit to the jurisdiction of a US federal court.
However, in a recent ruling dealing with the liability of AOL, a court found just the opposite: as an ISP, it was protected from liability for providing "transitory digital network connections" to allegedly infringing material, and not obliged to remove such links even if explicitly informed of their existence. Ironically, ISPs, who are arguably more directly in control, as it were, of third party material hosted on their servers, are granted more protection for "transitory" access to infringing material than search engines, whose very raison d'etre is to provide such links which are inherently ephemeral, and hence transitory, by nature, as they are the result of specific queries, and do not exist on a permanenty accessible single page.
This basic contradiction within the DMCA puts the onus on search engines to maintain by hand the results of their automated search process, and respond to any and all DMCA complaints, regardless of the location or even continued existence of the page to which the link directs the user.
It's clear that this loophole presents rapacious copyright owners with a new tool with which to combat any and all use of their material, but as seen in the case of xenu.net, it can also be used as an alternative to launching a suit by copyright owners whose goal is not the protection of their property, but the silencing of critics.
Google's DMCA disclaimer page says " Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is infringing your copyrights." Is Google prepared to sue the Church of Scientology? After all, misrepresention is most certainly what has occured, and only after Google suffered a major league PR asswhomping did they, upon further reflection, decide that the home page was not a copyright violation.
So while Scientology lost the major battle (their intention was and has been for some time the removal of all critical content from Google, and especially xenu.net from the top ten), they still managed to win lots of minor skirmishes - forcing the xenu.net site author to respond to dozens of specific complaints, nearly all of them barratrous (which I believe I can opine, being familar with the specific content on those pages, each of which adheres to the bounds of fair use).
And because Scientology's newfound weapon found limited success, we can be sure we're going to see it again and again. This is far fom over and unless Google takes a stand, they will be abused badly.
Slashdot Mirror
Diskeeper has to comply with both laws, but it's up to the plaintiffs under which statute they wish to bring their suit. They could've even claimed that Diskeeper violated both FEHA and EEOC claims (or merely EEOC claims); but claiming violations under the EEOC would've permitted Diskeeper an opportunity to remove the case to Federal Court. There is no argument for removal to Federal Court where the only bring state claims.
The EEOC is not relevant here, as the Complaint cites California state causes of action only (which keeps the case in state court as opposed to federal court). California's FEHA statute is similar to the EEOC, with the exception that FEHA permits unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, whereas EEOC damages are capped.
He has even been protested on-campus by these idiots because of his site.
:)
He sure has. His students even counter-protested
Actually.. you'd be surprised at what lengths the Catholic church is willing to go to. This Article will scare the crap out of anyone not paying close attention to the priest-molestation saga. The first lines of this story sound like they're describing Scientology..
This is an excerpt of a larger article which can be seen at www.digl-watch.com/copyright.htm.
Did Ava Paquette commit fraud when she smuggled trademark complaints inside her now infamous DMCA complaint to Google?
In her complaint to Google, Paquette, on behalf of her client, the Religious Technology Centre, combined her DMCA complaint about Google's links to alleged copyright violations within the Xenu.net website with an entirely separate complaint related to alleged trademark infringements through metatags -- obfuscating the fact that such a claim lies outside of the DMCA process entirely.
Within her list of page locations of allegedly "infringing" materials, Ava Paquette also puts forward the argument that Xenu.net, and its subpages, also violate her client's trademarks by including the words "Scientology", "Hubbard", "Dianetics" and "NOTS" as metatags. Although this specific complaint has absolutely no place within a DMCA complaint, it allowed her to artfully combine the main page with the subpages in an unrelated context.
At no point within the complaint does Paquette specifically claim that the main page contains copyright violations. Since the DMCA does not cover trademark infringements, which is what Ava is claiming the home page is, one has to ask -- Why is the main page included within her list or urls at all?
While it appears clear that Google caved in to PR pressure (site author Andreas has stated he didn't counternotify the DMCA notification), the victory seems to only pertain to the home page and not to the dozens of other urls cult lawyer Ava Paquette cited in her original complaint - which of course leaves the material on those pages unsearchable. Google probably made an 'executive decision' to allow the home page, since there isn't a single thing that could deemed a copyright violation on that page.
However, Google is still allowing Paquette to exploit a contradictory flaw in the DMCA by honoring the rest of the complaint. (I tried searching about 15 other links directly on Google, and all came up dead - so I can't say unilaterally that Google is blocking all of the urls, but they're at least blocking all 15 of a random sampling.)
The key contradiction within the Act itself appears to be the vastly different indemnity offered to ISPs versus that provided for search engines, or as the Act refers to them, "information retrieval tools." Under the DMCA, once notified of links to infringing content, a search engine is required to disable access to the material in question pending a counternotification from the accused infringer - which was what was demanded of the xenu.net site author despite the fact that such a counternotification would have required a citizen of Norway to submit to the jurisdiction of a US federal court.
However, in a recent ruling dealing with the liability of AOL, a court found just the opposite: as an ISP, it was protected from liability for providing "transitory digital network connections" to allegedly infringing material, and not obliged to remove such links even if explicitly informed of their existence. Ironically, ISPs, who are arguably more directly in control, as it were, of third party material hosted on their servers, are granted more protection for "transitory" access to infringing material than search engines, whose very raison d'etre is to provide such links which are inherently ephemeral, and hence transitory, by nature, as they are the result of specific queries, and do not exist on a permanenty accessible single page.
This basic contradiction within the DMCA puts the onus on search engines to maintain by hand the results of their automated search process, and respond to any and all DMCA complaints, regardless of the location or even continued existence of the page to which the link directs the user.
It's clear that this loophole presents rapacious copyright owners with a new tool with which to combat any and all use of their material, but as seen in the case of xenu.net, it can also be used as an alternative to launching a suit by copyright owners whose goal is not the protection of their property, but the silencing of critics.
Google's DMCA disclaimer page says " Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is infringing your copyrights." Is Google prepared to sue the Church of Scientology? After all, misrepresention is most certainly what has occured, and only after Google suffered a major league PR asswhomping did they, upon further reflection, decide that the home page was not a copyright violation.
So while Scientology lost the major battle (their intention was and has been for some time the removal of all critical content from Google, and especially xenu.net from the top ten), they still managed to win lots of minor skirmishes - forcing the xenu.net site author to respond to dozens of specific complaints, nearly all of them barratrous (which I believe I can opine, being familar with the specific content on those pages, each of which adheres to the bounds of fair use). And because Scientology's newfound weapon found limited success, we can be sure we're going to see it again and again. This is far fom over and unless Google takes a stand, they will be abused badly.