61–70 of 87 posts
This DMCA takedown is unfortunately just another of their "just try and stop us" tactics.
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.
Indeed. Schneier has some excellent discussion on this topic, singling out closed source encryption as always eventually being cracked, and the security world's consideration of open source as a pre-requisite for security:
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9909.html
I've never understood how anyone with at least an ounce of intelligence can claim that something is more secure just because it's closed source.
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…
Money? Time? It wouldn't make any sense for them to litigate the cases they would obviously lose when they could choose the subset of cases where the take down issuer clearly has no copyright in the material in question -- which is the whole idea.
You're also giving the money to the wrong party. It doesn't make any sense to give YouTube or Tumblr the right to sue for bad take downs, if they thought they were bad they could just not execute them. The right for redress should be for the user who posted the material, not the intermediary. Which solves your problem with torrent sites filing frivolous claims. Do you honestly think release groups are going to get into the business of filing frivolous lawsuits against content owners? As soon as they identified themselves and consented to jurisdiction they would be counter-sued for infringement or arrested.
If something can be destroyed by the truth, then it should be. If a crypto company abuses DMCA to fight this, then they deserve the Streisand effect. You should send the materials to someone in a free country where DMCA doesn't apply and speech is still free, and they can host the documents and discussion.
I haven't seen the DMCA notice. I think the screenshots are the things being DMCAd. If so, they clearly fall under fair use. Someone should issue a counter notice. And get them put back up. What's interesting to me is what happens if StackExchange put these back up, and then the cryptocompany sends a DMCA to SE's hosts.
Of course, that doesn't stop all of Stack Exchage from being down for "10 business days" in the meantime. Should be interesting to see the public response to that if it actually happens.
When a company does something like this, whether or not the claims/criticisms are actually true, their actions tacitly imply that they believe that the claims are true. In other words, terrible PR/technical brand management.
CipherCloud claim copyright infringement on the three images used to evidence the posts.
They also claim that certain statements in the posts are false, misleading defaming. While some statements look indeed wrong, others (in particular the determinism claim) are clearly evidenced in screenshots. They hint that their actual product might use different encryption from the demo video.
Or Microsoft's permission to use the MS Office 365 logo?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This will only ever be enforced in the case of someone sending a request under a false name. Anything else is impossible to prove
A lawyer sending a 'copyright' claim over a trademark dispute (for example) would have to argue that they are an idiot about the law (I would think).