How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
1–10 of 98 posts
Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#2Did they file a counter suit for plagiarism?
What happens when DMCA notice meets another one?
Welcome to Bad Law.
Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#3The title really doesn't represent what happened. It's an interesting story, though.
Edit: Thanks for updating the title
Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#4Did they file a counter suit for plagiarism? What happens when DMCA notice meets another one? Welcome to Bad Law.
If you’re not in the US, avoid US technology providers subject to US law. This publication would likely be better suited using a provider out of Europe.
Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#5They're vague in there with if they actually filed a counter-claim - that's how DMCA works, if someone sends a complaint the content has to get removed quickly, unless you file a counter-claim, then you work it out in the courts.
Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#6It isn’t really fair to pick on Linode, all US hosting providers work the same way.
When someone files a DMCA claim, if you want to keep the content up you need your lawyer to file a counterclaim. Hosting providers are then allowed to leave it up, and you can fight about it in court.
It sounds from this article like the newspaper didn’t have a lawyer, or at least not a lawyer familiar with American law. That sucks but all you can really do about it is to get a lawyer, or use a non-US hosting solution.
Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#7They're vague in there with if they actually filed a counter-claim - that's how DMCA works, if someone sends a complaint the content has to get removed quickly, unless you file a counter-claim, then you work it out in the courts.
As far as I can tell, a counter-claim can only be submitted after the allegedly infinging content has been removed. So it cannot be used to defend against a takedown notice. The content must be removed regardless of whether or not you have a valid counter-claim.
Moreover, there's a 10-14 day waiting period before the ISP can allow the content to be put back online. It's a ridiculous process that allows anyone to take down any content for up to two weeks for any reason. Two weeks is an eternity in today's news cycles.
Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#8Did they file a counter suit for plagiarism? What happens when DMCA notice meets another one? Welcome to Bad Law.
If you’re not in the US, avoid US technology providers subject to US law. This publication would likely be better suited using a provider out of Europe.
What's the non-US equivalent of Linode?
Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#9Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down
#10This is a common takedown tactic to clean up your image online. It's easily contested with a counter-claim but it works because most orgs/sites don't have a lawyer or don't want to spend the resources to fight it. I've seen cases where 80% of "negative" content can be scrubbed with the few remaining (read larger news organizations with lawyers) then crowded out by astroturf articles claiming the opposite.
The bar to DMCA style takedowns is much higher in Europe. Hence the decision to host on Linode for a South African newspaper is ... odd. They should migrate to OVH/Hetz