Live data from Hacker News

Flat UI DMCA Takedown

github.com

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#131
post #124
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could understand a DMCA if the icons were direct copies and if FlatUI had not responded to any email requests. Even then it's a good idea to put up a quick and easy comparison sheet. But for things like "3 cogs" (cogs are different sizes, different colours, different numbers of teeth, different orientation) it's ridiculous to DMCA it. 3 Cogs is so generic that it's an annoyance to engineers. (Because the cogs are u…

Comparison image for anyone who is interested. http://imgur.com/ejGIlx0 Left one is Flat UI and right one is Layer Vault.

That is not the Flat UI icon.

I remember it distinctly from launch, the cogs were more inside the circle and in a different orientation: http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screen-shot-2...

The three icons removed were the cog, the map, and the twitter face.

Edit: Here is a comparison image from further down the page: http://imgur.com/IH1osAD

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#133
post #124
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could understand a DMCA if the icons were direct copies and if FlatUI had not responded to any email requests. Even then it's a good idea to put up a quick and easy comparison sheet. But for things like "3 cogs" (cogs are different sizes, different colours, different numbers of teeth, different orientation) it's ridiculous to DMCA it. 3 Cogs is so generic that it's an annoyance to engineers. (Because the cogs are u…

Comparison image for anyone who is interested. http://imgur.com/ejGIlx0 Left one is Flat UI and right one is Layer Vault.

[deleted]

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#134
post #14

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…

Thanks for the full explanation. So are there no repercussions on the filing party unless the defending party seeks legal action? If the system is blind and you have a somewhat decent legal team you could surely hamstring your competition particularly on more subjective cases like this. 15 days can be a big hit (eg taking a site off google around Christmas)

Can you revoke a DMCA request you issue? This would be the reasonable way to handle mistakes. If the defending party, clears up all misunderstanding and proves to the other party that they made a mistake before 15 days is up, they should have to pull the DMCA request or suffer a larger burden of proof that they were acting in good faith.

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#135
post #69

If you want to speak up, don't hesitate to contact LayerVault's support ( support@layervault.com ) and let them know, respectfully, how you feel. You can also tweet your opinions @layervault. I stress respectfully. Try to be well spoken and sincere.

I actually did. I was told by @Allan -- the founder of LV -- that I was "trolling", "writing inflammatory blog posts", that my "entire base of argument was based on the wrong facts". All in all, a very obtuse strawman argument, so being well spoken, sincere in many ways, will only lead to that sort of reaction from LV.

I'm not calling you a liar, but it's helpful in these situations if you can link to something that supports your claims.

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#136
post #14

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…

Thanks for the explanation, two questions: 1) what happens with perjury? how severe is "penalty of perjury"? If at point 5, LayerVault chooses not to take legal action (say, because they realized their mistake), did they just take some random piece of work offline for 10-14 days without any consequence? What if they do take legal action and lose? 2) You say the provider has to act like a "dumb pipe" and just obey the…

  | 1) what happens with perjury? how severe is "penalty
  | of perjury"?
Penalty of perjury probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not entirely sure. I would presume that this would be at the Federal level since the DMCA is a Federal law, as is copyright law. According to Wikipedia[1]:

  > In the United States, for example, the general perjury
  > statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony
  > and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.
So the person signing the DMCA takedown notice faces up to 5 years in prison and a felony conviction. That said, perjury convictions don't happen very often to my knowledge because they are so hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the claim looks like any normal person should have realized that it was bogus, it's possible for the claimant to attempt to say that he/she is dumber than the normal person.

  | If at point 5, LayerVault chooses not to take legal
  | action (say, because they realized their mistake),
  | did they just take some random piece of work offline
  | for 10-14 days without any consequence?
They opened themselves up to the possibility of perjury charges. The level of risk for them is debatable though. Other than that, there are no penalties to filing bogus DMCA notices. This is one of the many (valid) criticisms of the DMCA.

  | What if they do take legal action and lose?
Then whatever the courts decide at that point. Taking legal action doesn't really have much to do with the DMCA when it gets to that point. This provision of the DMCA was all about taking things down quickly so that the claimant has time to get the court system moving (rather than needing to wait a few days to take something down, time during which they could be financially taking losses[2]).

Someone taking actual legal action is pretty costly. If someone uses a DMCA takedown notice, and follows up with a lawsuit, then this process is working as intended, even if the claimant/plaintiff is in the wrong. Who is wrong, and who is right will be handled by the courts at this point.

The real danger is using the DMCA without filing a lawsuit. There are few penalties[3] for false claims, little cost and yet a big benefit to sending the takedown notice. The service provider has to comply, unlike with a C&D letter.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

[2] Think someone posting a product prior to release. E.g. posting Windows 9 a week before the release date.

[3] Perjury is a serious penalty, but you're not punished until you're dragged to court over it (and convicted). Thus far, I don't believe anyone has been convicted of perjury over a false DMCA notice, despite some really egregious examples (e.g. one of the takedown notices sent to MegaUpload was for a "url" that was actually a paragraph of text containing something like 90+ words -- pretty obviously generated by an automated process, but signed off by a human).

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#137
post #124
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could understand a DMCA if the icons were direct copies and if FlatUI had not responded to any email requests. Even then it's a good idea to put up a quick and easy comparison sheet. But for things like "3 cogs" (cogs are different sizes, different colours, different numbers of teeth, different orientation) it's ridiculous to DMCA it. 3 Cogs is so generic that it's an annoyance to engineers. (Because the cogs are u…

Comparison image for anyone who is interested. http://imgur.com/ejGIlx0 Left one is Flat UI and right one is Layer Vault.

KDE has been using similar gear iconography for at least a dozen years. http://www.google.com/search?q=kde+gears+icon

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#138
post #34
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I could find. http://i.imgur.com/yFHlGVH.png http://i.imgur.com/VX1h4Xj.png http://i.imgur.com/oyAYDM8.png http://i.imgur.com/ZUlf0hF.png http://i.imgur.com/QMSTZ8k.png Given that they don't show it off on their demo page, it's either incomplete or clunky.

Those are pretty old pictures, and for sure it's not clunky. You can try out the 30-day trial for free. Nowadays it looks like this: http://cl.ly/image/1k230I2l421S

Free as in give us your credit card details and cancel before we change you. Not happening.

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#139
post #66

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…

So what now? How can this work?

It doesn't. Our most recent copyright overhaul (which this is a feature of) currently works close-enough to OK to be tolerable to those who would otherwise fix it.

Re: Flat UI DMCA Takedown

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the full explanation. So are there no repercussions on the filing party unless the defending party seeks legal action? If the system is blind and you have a somewhat decent legal team you could surely hamstring your competition particularly on more subjective cases like this. 15 days can be a big hit (eg taking a site off google around Christmas)

Can you revoke a DMCA request you issue? This would be the reasonable way to handle mistakes. If the defending party, clears up all misunderstanding and proves to the other party that they made a mistake before 15 days is up, they should have to pull the DMCA request or suffer a larger burden of proof that they were acting in good faith.

Information obtained after the DMCA takedown request was issued shouldn't affect whether or not the request was made in good faith ex post facto. Currently there are no penalties (specified in the DMCA) for not withdrawing the request once it's become clear that it's bogus. There may be other ways under the law to get punished for a lack of action though. E.g. there may be case-law that states you can be penalized for a good faith action if you don't make motions to correct the mistake once you realize it.
Post reply on HN