Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   And every year...

   

   ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 27th, 2009 @ 6:09pm

   
   

   ...they could have an award show and present the Streisand.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   The EFF Needs

   

   bob, Oct 27th, 2009 @ 6:59pm

   
   

   To ad condescension and mockery, like the pirate bay.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2009 @ 7:38pm

   
   

   Any bets on how long until they are issued a takedown?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2009 @ 7:56pm

   
   

   Then the takedown would make it on the list.
   
   I presume that those who would be asserting the takedown know that it likely won't work. But still, there are many stupid entities out there that might try one. These days you never know.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2009 @ 8:55pm

   
   

   17 USC 512(f) imposes sanctions for persons submitting takedown notices. Specifically, the section reads:
   
   (f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
   
   (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
   
   (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
   
   shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
   
   There is a price to be paid for truly "bogus" notices, as has been noted and imposed in at least OPG v. Diebold, a copy of which can be found at:
   
   http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/OPG_v_Diebold/OPG%20v.%20Diebold%20ruling.pdf
   
   BTW, DMCA takedowns are properly limited to copyright law. Any such notice that is filed based upon trademark law is clearly outside the reach of the DMCA.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2009 @ 9:08pm

   
   

   "BTW, DMCA takedowns are properly limited to copyright law. Any such notice that is filed based upon trademark law is clearly outside the reach of the DMCA."
   
   I suppose this is how they get around the sanctions and are still able to either make others pay money in settlements or threaten to make them endure a long and expensive lawsuit, even if the entities being sued would eventually win.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Perhaps EFF is hoping for a DMCA takedown notice?

   

   jilocasin, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 6:55am

   
   

   Perhaps that's just what the EFF is hoping for, some silly entity to serve them with a bogus DMCA take down notice.
   
   Since they received it, they would immediately be a party to it. They could show the world how they feel a take down notice _should_ be handled. As a bonus, since they obviously think the items they host were recipients of bogus take down requests in order for them to post it themselves, they can sue for damages and help establish the case law to allow others to easily successfully sue overzealous entities.
   
   From the EFF's point of view it's a win/win.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Vic, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 8:45am

   
   

   Good for them! Long due...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Who knows if this will cause lawyers to think twice before issuing bogus takedowns

   

   Gene Cavanaugh, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 9:04am

   
   

   So, using this reasoning, a waiter in your favorite restaurant should refuse to serve you if you order something that isn't healthy (or he/she simply doesn't approve of)? A taxi driver should refuse to pick up a fare because the roads are crowded? A plumber should refuse to fix your sink because he/she doesn't approve of your sewer system?
   GET REAL! An attorney works for hire - the HIRING ENTITY is the culprit!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: Who knows if this will cause lawyers to think twice before issuing bogus takedowns

    

    Derek Reed, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 9:11am

    
    

    Following your analogy, I think it'd be more like the waiter refusing to serve you sludge from the sewer system, or the plumber refusing to mop up the shit you took in the kitchen. You can abstain the lawyers from all responsibility, there's some shit on their hands too.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    take this down

    

    jason motley, Oct 28th, 2009 @ 10:31am

    
    

    I own the trademark for hall of shame and I demand that you you pay me $100,000,000,000 USD or remove this site. you have 48 hours to let me know your answer.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment