101–110 of 151 posts
I think these are the icons in question from LayerVault, DesignMode, and similar icons from Noun Project. http://imgur.com/IH1osAD
I'd love to see a "Family Tree" style layout from a GUI Historian, showing the development of different icons. "Here's the eMail icon. This version was designed by Susan Kare".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that's the thing, I actually thought my backup strategy was decent enough. Multiple versioned copies in multiple places. My desktop was being backed up nightly to a remote source. Though it was the laptop (which wasnt being backed up) which I was doing the work on / changes to. But I saw that layer vault was syncing the changes to the desktop so figured it was fine. So it went Laptop -> Layer Vault -> Desktop ->…
One kind of anything is a single point of failure. Well hindsight is always 20/20, but your backup strategy still relied on a single service (that wasn't your own). Backup is one thing no one should completely rely on a third-party. Whether it's a USB drive, good ol' DVDs or what have you, anything else "of your own" is crucial at least weekly if not end-of-day. The effort going into your backups must match the value…
not a "one kind of anything" single pt of failure problem. he expected LayerVault to not corrupt the PSDs sent through them (and the syncing actions made it worse), which is not unreasonable. it's the same as trusting Photoshop to write PSD files to disk that are identical when opened later.
the difference is that Photoshop is more time-tested and well-known, which changes the odds, but in your argument still would make Photoshop's saving mechanism a single point of failure as well.
and then what, use more different graphic design tools? :)
in your example, if you burn your backups to a good ol' DVD, don't you check that the files are actually on there? and have the burning tool check the integrity? and finally, if you don't check a few of those PSDs to actually load in Photoshop, who knows that the data your DVD burning tool received was correct?
So it seems that you have to provide exactly zero proof and your word (in a good faith) is enough to take a repository down. There is no way to verify anything and in order to stay safe they (github in this case) have to take the content down. Now imagine I file a takedown notice for every aspiring project posted here on HN that is hosted on github. They take a pretty good hit from it I'd assume, to be silenced on th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 contain exact characters and other creative designs from Episode 4/5/6. Not "like" them, not derivative of them, but actually them (e.g. Yoda). So yeah, that would be a direct copy.
It would actually be a derivative of ep VI, since the characters and creative designs differ and precede it. A direct copy, would be the _exact_same_ characters as depicted in ep VI, but alas they are not, they are however similar to, which makes it a derivative of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basic idea is that for a provider (Github, Google, etc), to keep their Safe Harbour protections, they have to act like a 'dumb pipe' and just obey these notices. Just like how the phone companies trying to keep their Common Carrier status[1]. Even without the DMCA, if the service provider interjects itself into the dispute they risk legal action against themselves. For example, they could evaluate the claims wron…
guilty until proven innocent. thanks for the explanation, I never realised it was like this.
The DMCA has good and bad parts about it. It's like a "Good Idea, Bad Idea"[1] short:
----
Good Idea: Make it relatively easy and cheap to send takedown notices so that the 'little guy' without fancy lawyers on retainer can participate.
Bad Idea: Make it relatively easy and cheap to send takedown notices so that the 'big guy' can send out millions of them relatively easy.
----
Good Idea: Make it so that you only need a 'good faith' belief to file a notice, so that the 'little guy' doesn't accidentally get caught up in legal terms and procedures.
Bad Idea: Make it so that you only need a 'good faith' belief to file a notice, so that the 'big guys' can get away with filing obviously stupid takedown notices because their fancy lawyers on retainer can easily quash any perjury charges over bogus takedown notices.
----
Obviously none of the 'little guy' stuff was considered during the drafting of the legislation though. It's just a by-product. Legislators also never considered the implications of bad actors, because they were only thinking of large content companies (which would obviously never do anything bad). It's also worth it to consider that this was passed on 1998 (and drafted earlier). The Internet was not as pervasive as it is now (even though the dotcom bubble was in its early stages).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is bad but it also looks like you didnt have a proper backup strategy. Their service looks like a versioning/syncing service but not a backup service.
Well that's the thing, I actually thought my backup strategy was decent enough. Multiple versioned copies in multiple places. My desktop was being backed up nightly to a remote source. Though it was the laptop (which wasnt being backed up) which I was doing the work on / changes to. But I saw that layer vault was syncing the changes to the desktop so figured it was fine. So it went Laptop -> Layer Vault -> Desktop ->…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One kind of anything is a single point of failure. Well hindsight is always 20/20, but your backup strategy still relied on a single service (that wasn't your own). Backup is one thing no one should completely rely on a third-party. Whether it's a USB drive, good ol' DVDs or what have you, anything else "of your own" is crucial at least weekly if not end-of-day. The effort going into your backups must match the value…
no the problem here was not checking the integrity of your backups. not a "one kind of anything" single pt of failure problem. he expected LayerVault to not corrupt the PSDs sent through them (and the syncing actions made it worse), which is not unreasonable. it's the same as trusting Photoshop to write PSD files to disk that are identical when opened later. the difference is that Photoshop is more time-tested and we…
You're right, backups are meaningless if they're unchecked. No different than dumping to a tape drive that's never verified and you get weeks of... nothing.
So it seems that you have to provide exactly zero proof and your word (in a good faith) is enough to take a repository down. There is no way to verify anything and in order to stay safe they (github in this case) have to take the content down. Now imagine I file a takedown notice for every aspiring project posted here on HN that is hosted on github. They take a pretty good hit from it I'd assume, to be silenced on th…
I'm not entirely sure whether you can submit a DMCA takedown request if you're not a citizen of the USA. For once, you need to provide US-based contact info.
However, I am not sure if the service provider needs to check whether this contact info is correct before takedown.
So it seems that any public-facing data on any US-based server can be made to disappear for at least 10-14 days. But just because a country has crappy laws doesn't mean you should use those laws against them! ;)
So I think the Noun Project should just send a takedown notice to LayerVault. Since the perjury clause only pertains to contact info and whether they can represent the project itself, that would have the same consequences for "accidentally" getting the actual allegation wrong (=none), right?
So I think the Noun Project should just send a takedown notice to LayerVault. Since the perjury clause only pertains to contact info and whether they can represent the project itself, that would have the same consequences for "accidentally" getting the actual allegation wrong (=none), right?
No, in a DMCA notice you state under penalty of perjury that you are the rights holder for the content you want removed, not your own content.