81–90 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we've gone through this with linode. they give you exactly 96 hours to remove the content and then you can go through the dispute process. it took about 2 weeks to work things out. we had used some images from an mfg's pdf installation manual on a page that was reselling that mfg's own products which we were buying from their offical distributor - the only way to get the product. talk about absurd. some of the media…
It seems like you have a beef with copyright law, not with the DMCA. Using their images just is a clear violation of copyright, even though I agree that it is ridiculous for them to go after their own resellers.
in addition, how do you show a potential buyer installation diagrams of a technical product without risking your own version being wrong (and not UL-compliant) vs the one in the approved manual?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can ignore a defective DMCA notices and see if the claimant files a lawsuit. if you are your own ISP, then maybe you can. AFAIK, no ISP or hosting provider in the US is going to risk it. most (all?) ISPs require the customer to remove the content first and ask questions later.
Though it may take some time, a counter-notice reinstating the content is supposed to be just as automatic as a takedown removing it. Presumably, failure to do so has similar risks to the ISP of their customer suing them for a DMCA violation.
First of all, the Wayback machine may have captured the thieving site as well as the victim one. Of course, if you are going to make false copyright claims, you'd better set your robots.txt to exclude archive.org first.
Second, if you do manage to dispute and get a day in court, how would the thief prov they owned the material, if the actual content creator had proof of the date of authorship? Eg tweet a hash, photograph with newspaper headline, etc? Can court costs be recovered after proof of a false takedown?
It 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 bu…
Even if Linode really didn't have a single recourse, they still chose to go beyond their legal obligations and shut the site down early, with timing that at least looks deliberately calculated to cause the most damage. They don't deserve your advocacy.
This 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…
In practical terms that means you can send emails but there's a 70% chance they'll land in the other party's spam bin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t there a contradiction—if as you say DMCA perjury cases aren’t prosecuted, what’s there to lose for that hypothetical “DMCA troll” LLC?
DMCA perjury requires "knowingly" sending false reports. So far there's enough deniability for bigcos to get away with it. This hypothetical troll wouldn't have that deniability. It would be very clear that they are knowingly making false complaints.
There’s enough deniability for prosecutors to not care, but there’s also enough evidence that prosecutors could politely inform them that there is a pattern of misconduct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s extremely relevant because they can deny the dmca notice. Linode is protecting themself over their customer. This is a strong signal to customers to find a better ISP. One who plans on legal funds to defend customers against these bullshit dmca notices.
> One who plans on legal funds to defend customers against these bullshit dmca notices. I would love to agree with you, but are you gonna pay someone $20/mo for Linode’s $5/mo service? Of course not; and therein lies financial ruin for the ISP. The system is fucked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube's content ID system is in place to facilitate DMCA takedowns. Folks such as Nintendo can go either the route of filing a claim to take the ad revenue of a video, or filing a copyright strike claim to have the video removed. Whichever variation that is used is up to the copyright holder (legitimate or otherwise), and both are definitely used by legitimate actors for sometimes the most ridiculous of copyright c…
AFAIK Content ID is an entirely extralegal system applied instead of DMCA, executed as a part of YouTube's TOS. It's used because copyright bullies would prefer not to involve courts if they can avoid it, and I suspect it exists to prevent MAFIAA from utterly destroying YouTube, as most of its value (until recently) came from copyright violation.
I'm kind of amazed at how effective this digital reputation management technique is: * publish an exact copy of the offending content on a web site and include something that looks like a datetime which is earlier than the publication date of the offending content * tell the web site's ISP and other service providers that they're violating copyright, pointing to your fake content and using the providers' copyright-vi…