Here's why the fair use argument will hold up in court:
- They show intent to break the law (among other things, patching an election system without having the patch certified, not to mention faking demonstrations for elections officials). You can't claim copyright on the plans to rob a bank and then complain when people start investigating.
- The work is factual. This isn't about pirating The Matrix or Britney Spears.
- The memos (themselves) are not marketable. Yes, of course, this will affect Diebold's business immensely. But the DMCA's fair use clause only applies to works that themselves have a market.
- They're fundamental to democracy -- and aren't checked in any other way. The Supreme Court can operate "in secret" (though it's not really all that secret) because they are checked by the Congress. We have no mechanism for impeaching Diebold, especially if they cloud all of their vote-counting procedures under trade secrets or spurious claims of copyright(-infringement).
I would say, in fact, that this is one of the most solid copyright-contesting cases to come along in a while.
We already have a website. We specifically did not register the.com that is the subject of this dispute because it is commonly associated with the pornography industry (but wasn't when we founded the company...sigh...). The issue (for us) is confusion of our customers...before, when they typed in companyname.com, they just got a domain-not-found. Now they will find a company operating in the same arena as us -- this isn't a firestone tires and firestone pizza kind of thing. Because the registrant is a US citizen, and because the ICANN generally rules with trademark holders, I think the trademark issue is relavant.
And incidentally, I understand the barrier-to-entry argument for the UDRP. But the argument that the first person to register a domain should be afforded all rights with regards to it simply gives unlimited priveledges to those with lots of money. The whole point of trademarks -- and of the UDRP -- is to preserve the intellectual property rights (in this case, a name) of individuals, even if one side has more money/power/sway/whatever.
I should also say, before I start ducking all the subsequent postings, that we did talk to the registrant, first on the phone, then via registered mail. On the phone, he was pleasant and did not seem tied to the domain name. It was only after a month and two unanswered letters passed that we began thinking about the UDRP. If he had legitimate arguments for the domain, he did not articulate them to us.
Thanks for the suggestions, those of you who offered some.
Slashdot Mirror
The question isn't whether they have a copyright on these documents; they do.
The question is whether they can be republished anyway under fair use.
--
Here's why the fair use argument will hold up in court:
- They show intent to break the law (among other things, patching an election system without having the patch certified, not to mention faking demonstrations for elections officials). You can't claim copyright on the plans to rob a bank and then complain when people start investigating.
- The work is factual. This isn't about pirating The Matrix or Britney Spears.
- The memos (themselves) are not marketable. Yes, of course, this will affect Diebold's business immensely. But the DMCA's fair use clause only applies to works that themselves have a market.
- They're fundamental to democracy -- and aren't checked in any other way. The Supreme Court can operate "in secret" (though it's not really all that secret) because they are checked by the Congress. We have no mechanism for impeaching Diebold, especially if they cloud all of their vote-counting procedures under trade secrets or spurious claims of copyright(-infringement).
I would say, in fact, that this is one of the most solid copyright-contesting cases to come along in a while.
--
We already have a website. We specifically did not register the .com that is the subject of this dispute because it is commonly associated with the pornography industry (but wasn't when we founded the company...sigh...). The issue (for us) is confusion of our customers...before, when they typed in companyname.com, they just got a domain-not-found. Now they will find a company operating in the same arena as us -- this isn't a firestone tires and firestone pizza kind of thing. Because the registrant is a US citizen, and because the ICANN generally rules with trademark holders, I think the trademark issue is relavant.
And incidentally, I understand the barrier-to-entry argument for the UDRP. But the argument that the first person to register a domain should be afforded all rights with regards to it simply gives unlimited priveledges to those with lots of money. The whole point of trademarks -- and of the UDRP -- is to preserve the intellectual property rights (in this case, a name) of individuals, even if one side has more money/power/sway/whatever.
I should also say, before I start ducking all the subsequent postings, that we did talk to the registrant, first on the phone, then via registered mail. On the phone, he was pleasant and did not seem tied to the domain name. It was only after a month and two unanswered letters passed that we began thinking about the UDRP. If he had legitimate arguments for the domain, he did not articulate them to us.
Thanks for the suggestions, those of you who offered some.
Take a look at this. Engines can and do fall off, with tragic consequences.
t m
http://vtvt.essortment.com/americanairline_reuj.h
Ironically, another American Airlines flight.
---