31–40 of 89 posts
> The most interesting actions come from GoDaddy. If you file a complaint with GoDaddy and they find your complaint has merit, they will completely disable the site until the matter is resolved. What happens if I forget about the issue and never tell GoDaddy the matter is resolved? Is the site permanently down?
To be clear, I took no joy in shutting her site down. GoDaddy is a bit heavy handed in their response and I have learned a lesson here. The main point is that she used the image without permission and her site went down because of it. To turn around and accuse me of being a part of a diabolical conspiracy was out of left field. She should have contacted GoDaddy and worked it out. I did my part by rescinding my DMCA w…
She's still using the image on the business' Facebook page. Are you going to tackle that one too or is the burn not worth it at this point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's still using the image on the business' Facebook page. Are you going to tackle that one too or is the burn not worth it at this point?
I wonder whether DMCA stuff is applicable for Facebook also and if anyone had real experience in that?
"Facebook, for example, would remove the image in a matter of hours."
> The most interesting actions come from GoDaddy. If you file a complaint with GoDaddy and they find your complaint has merit, they will completely disable the site until the matter is resolved. What happens if I forget about the issue and never tell GoDaddy the matter is resolved? Is the site permanently down?
I'm no expert but I think the owner of the site in question can file a counter-notice and then GoDaddy has to put the site back up.
It does seem rather heavy for Godaddy to disable the entire site, instead of just the infringing content.
Is she a lawyer? She claims to be a lawyer. In the UK it is not legal to claim to be a solicitor if you are not one. Isn't it the same in the US?
http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawye...
> The most interesting actions come from GoDaddy. If you file a complaint with GoDaddy and they find your complaint has merit, they will completely disable the site until the matter is resolved. What happens if I forget about the issue and never tell GoDaddy the matter is resolved? Is the site permanently down?
What I learned from this story: Godaddy will take down your site, without contacting you first, because they get a copyright infringement claim from some random dude on the internet.
What I learned from this story: Godaddy will take down your site, without contacting you first, because they get a copyright infringement claim from some random dude on the internet.
Yes, that's the DMCA, isn't it?
As other people have said, the real story here is how badly GoDaddy handles DMCA requests. Taking down a site for a single image is like using a bazooka on an ant. Yes it will stop the infringement, however it will probably damage some surrounding property. While that does not necessarily excuse the personal attacks the woman in the story may have made I think it offers perspective for all website operators. "Horror"…
What should GoDaddy be doing instead? If they want the safe harbor protection from the DMCA so that they're not liable for the infringement, they are required to remove the content. There need be no direct mapping between the website URL reported in the complaint and any specific file they can identify on a server's file system; it might be dynamically generated, served by a CMS doing URL rewriting, coming from a dat…
The GoDaddy "Deluxe 4GH" plan costs $6/month and could easily hold 14 web sites, and one feature they offer at this stage is "Multiple Web Sites: Unlimited".
At first it sounded like GoDaddy had simply rerouted all of her domain names to null addresses, when they could have just rerouted one of them. But no, they were providing the hosting service. If she put fourteen businesses on one account to amortise the cost among them, then she is responsible for linking them together, not GoDaddy. Presumably GoDaddy would have just shut down one hosting account -- the one that held the infringing content -- but the problem is that she only had the one hosting account.
This is why I try to keep abstraction layers. The people I research with don't hang out with my Ultimate (as in frisbee) friends or my web development colleagues; the Ultimate folks are the only ones I'm letting friend me on Facebook, and I make it a point not to preach my religion to any of the above.
Spolsky is correct that all abstraction layers are leaky, and these are too -- my professor has met my father for example, and the folks at work know that I say something quietly before lunch every day -- but there is a great value in compartmentalising. Robert Frost's neighbour confidently asserts, "good fences make good neighbours" -- I guess it's more that good neighbours respect the fences and use them to lower your own mental stress and drama.
Candice could have used a good fence between her charity and her infringing account.
Is she a lawyer? She claims to be a lawyer. In the UK it is not legal to claim to be a solicitor if you are not one. Isn't it the same in the US?
I've found the bit claiming she's the President of an organization called 'Attorneys for Special Needs Children' and in her G+ page she says 'I studied in South Texas College of Law' but she isn't claiming she's finished the studies or that she has got any title, certification, or the bar card.