CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
meta.crypto.stackexchange.com
CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#2Note that the answer below the question contains this link to the Google cache of the original article that was taken down:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU...
There doesn't seem to be anything in there that looks like an infringement of anyone's copyright.
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#3Note that the answer below the question contains this link to the Google cache of the original article that was taken down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU... There doesn't seem to be anything in there that looks like an infringement of anyone's copyright.
Aren't DMCA takedowns required, under penalty of perjury, to assert a non-frivolous copyright claim? Is there any recourse for what appears to be clear abuses of the DMCA?
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#4Note that the answer below the question contains this link to the Google cache of the original article that was taken down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU... There doesn't seem to be anything in there that looks like an infringement of anyone's copyright.
Their likely justification is the use of those image snippets which appear to come from their manual. Realistically, those small captures represent fair use (though I am not a lawyer so can't speak legally).
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#5Here is an archived version of the Google Cached version:
http://archive.is/5WWjb
and here is a screenshot of it: http://i.imgur.com/bn2152S.jpg
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#6Note that the answer below the question contains this link to the Google cache of the original article that was taken down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU... There doesn't seem to be anything in there that looks like an infringement of anyone's copyright.
Aren't DMCA takedowns required, under penalty of perjury, to assert a non-frivolous copyright claim? Is there any recourse for what appears to be clear abuses of the DMCA?
There is recourse against truly false claims made in bad faith, but it's not the penalty of perjury part. All you swear under penalty of perjury is that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of some copyright allegedly infringed (i.e. you're not filing a claim about someone else's work).
Here's the actual recourse created by the bill:
> (f) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section-- (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:6:./temp/~c105aLN...:
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#7Note that the answer below the question contains this link to the Google cache of the original article that was taken down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU... There doesn't seem to be anything in there that looks like an infringement of anyone's copyright.
I don't think it's on copyright grounds, I think it's on circumvention grounds.
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#8I think "used" needs be replaced with the word "abused". It's appropriate here.
With no penalty for false DMCA claims, it's a "stop us if you can" mentality.
The real reason may have been the conclusion that "Ciphercloud is NOT doing homomorphic encryption" ?
(but google cache still works)
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#9Note that the answer below the question contains this link to the Google cache of the original article that was taken down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU... There doesn't seem to be anything in there that looks like an infringement of anyone's copyright.
I don't think it's on copyright grounds, I think it's on circumvention grounds.
The DMCA notice/counternotice system is only about copyright infringement. They wouldn't get one for the circumvention prohibitions; or if they did, it would be an illegal use of those notices.
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#10I think "used" needs be replaced with the word "abused". It's appropriate here. With no penalty for false DMCA claims, it's a "stop us if you can" mentality. The real reason may have been the conclusion that "Ciphercloud is NOT doing homomorphic encryption" ? (but google cache still works)
The penalty for materially misrepresenting a DMCA claim is actual damages plus costs and attorney fees. That's automatic, written into the bill, unlike many other torts/crimes where you need exceptional circumstances to get attorneys fees in addition to the damages.