51–60 of 87 posts
We should start a collection of these kinds of stories as case studies in why laws allowing any entity to legally compel removal of content are ripe for abuse. DMCA as a law isn't even that ridiculous or reprehensible; it mostly offers protection for websites that have user-submitted content. And yet here we are. The damages clause needs to be strengthened if we wish to continue having free speech on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that 512(f) of DMCA is practically unenforceable [1], since the standard is to prove that they "knowingly materially" misrepresented: [1] http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/04/another_512f_cl...
So, it's not practically unenforceable. The case Eric is citing appears to be a case where Someone has an actual good faith but unreasonable belief that they have a cause of action. That eliminates the "knowingly" part. A lot of DMCA claims, including the one in the OP, are being filed by lawyers or companies who will have a much harder time showing they have a good faith but unreasonable belief. They are basically g…
What's interesting is that there is a whole ecosystem of companies like CipherCloud that do the minimum required to provide solutions for those interested in "compliance," not "security." My sense has been that their customers are predominately those bound by things like HIPPA or PCI, who want to use cloud services, but can't do it with a straight face unless they can say they're "encrypting" their data. What their c…
I've mirrored Emil Vokstrom's mirror[1] here[2] and I encourage HNers outside of the US to do the same and post here. [1] - http://lajm.eu/emil/dump/ciphercloud-security.html [2] - http://securitybookreviews.eu/ciphercloud/
What's interesting is that there is a whole ecosystem of companies like CipherCloud that do the minimum required to provide solutions for those interested in "compliance," not "security." My sense has been that their customers are predominately those bound by things like HIPPA or PCI, who want to use cloud services, but can't do it with a straight face unless they can say they're "encrypting" their data. What their c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, it's not practically unenforceable. The case Eric is citing appears to be a case where Someone has an actual good faith but unreasonable belief that they have a cause of action. That eliminates the "knowingly" part. A lot of DMCA claims, including the one in the OP, are being filed by lawyers or companies who will have a much harder time showing they have a good faith but unreasonable belief. They are basically g…
But what are the 'actual damages' in this case, it would be hard to argue a monetary damage to Stack Exchange. So the most you could 'win' from CipherCloud for their abuse would be your legal costs. Hard to justify taking that action.
Look, as much as I don't like it, this is a tradeoff. On one side, you have the fact that websites like this would normally be liable for everything they publish. DMCA says "we'll fix that for you", the cost being "if you want safe harbor, and someone with a good faith belief sends a takedown notice, you honor it".
If StackExchange really believed the material was non-infringing, they could always ignore the DMCA takedown, and force CipherCloud to sue them. They didn't choose to take that risk. Newspapers have the same issue, FWIW: They get threatened all the time by bad actors (and not just for defamation of public figures, which the are mostly protected from). They just often choose to take the risk and force bad actors to sue them.
It's not at all clear what you think the solution is. If you institute harsh penalties for filing "bad" DMCA requests, all that would happen would be large numbers of lawsuits over DMCA requests, bad or good, because it would likely be profitable. You really think torrentfreak/isohunt/et al wouldn't just start filing suits over every single DMCA request they receive? What do they have to lose? They wouldn't have to win many suits to make money off it.
If you have a good solution, i'd love to hear it :)
I realize how odd this sounds, and i really do hate the way content companies/et al abuse the DMCA process, but one doesn't need to look very hard at history to see what lawyers in general will do if you make it profitable (see the history of rule 11 sanctions, particularly, the period from 1983 to 1993, or you know, recent prop 65 litigation, resulting in everything in the world having "the state of California believes this may cause cancer" labels on it ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what are the 'actual damages' in this case, it would be hard to argue a monetary damage to Stack Exchange. So the most you could 'win' from CipherCloud for their abuse would be your legal costs. Hard to justify taking that action.
Yes, you would get some nominal damages, plus any actual loss you could prove (IE the money of the people who spent time processing your DMCA request, plus how much you would have earned from ads on the post) or, and if they did it repeatedly, you may get something more (Punitive damages are rare in contract law, but possible). Look, as much as I don't like it, this is a tradeoff. On one side, you have the fact that…
Has a version from Apr 12, 2013 15:33:47 GMT.
Encryption and security does usually not get any better by pretending its secure and not letting anyone dig around the solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not years. It's back up ~10 business days after you file a counternotice or the service provider loses their safe harbor. The DMCA is designed so that disputed content is not taken down permanently without an actual injunction signed by a judge. YouTube is not responding to DMCA notices, it's given media companies direct access to take down content through their own system, and it can do this because it has no obliga…
But surely neither is Stackexchange obliged to host any discussions online. So this content may never reappear - counterfiling or not.
Freedom of speech must include that random company x cannot take down your internet discussion using some strange acronym as an excuse. Encryption and security does usually not get any better by pretending its secure and not letting anyone dig around the solution.