Is It Copyright Infringement To Pass A DMCA Notice On To ChillingEffects?

from the copyright-on-a-copyright-infringement-notice? dept

Tom Rubin, who happens to be Microsoft's chief counsel for intellectual property strategy, has a blog post up at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford, where he highlights the worrying trend of filers of DMCA takedown notices forbidding the recipient to publish or pass the notice on to third parties like ChillingEffects. From the notice:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: None of the information contained in this legal notice is to be transmitted and/or released to any third party, including but not limited to Chilling Effects (chillingeffects.org), without the express written permission of the the copyright owner and or his agent. As stated in Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and in the normal course of processing and notifying the infringing counter party, recipient must only include information specific to that counter party's infringement and must not include this entire notice. Any re-transmission in whole or in part of this legal notice by the intended recipient will be a direct violation of U.S. and International Copyright Law and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the copyright owner.
Yes, that's right. The company is claiming that the DMCA takedown notice itself is copyrighted and that passing it along will constitute infringement. Of course, this raises some questions. Assuming that such a notice is copyrightable (and I'd argue that, depending on the text, it might not be), who owns the copyright. The paragraph above appears to imply that it's the copyright holder of the original content that the takedown notice is about, but that wouldn't be true. It seems that the copyright, if there is one, would be held by whoever wrote the letter, which is the third party firm hired by the original copyright holder. Also, did whoever write this letter actually register it with the Copyright Office?

Either way, I can't wait to see the DMCA takedown notice filed on a DMCA takedown notice.

Of course, it's not too hard to track down more details about this. That's because at least some of the recipients of such a warning appear to have totally ignored it. Within seconds, I found a recent letter on ChillingEffects (sent to Google) that includes this language. It's a letter from Zuffa LLC, better known as the parent company for UFC, who has been quite aggressive in copyright lawsuits. The actual letter appears to have been filed by an outfit called MiMTiD, which promises automated DMCA takedown notice submission, which only raises even more questions. If the letter itself is automated, again that raises questions about whether it's copyrightable.

Even odder is the following paragraph in the letter. After denying the recipient the ability to forward the letter to anyone, including specifically calling out ChillingEffects, it appears to indicate that it will instead forward the letter to a different aggregator of such notices, called "The Chilling Report" but apparently that database is kept secret and you need to "obtain secure access" to see it:
Please also note that with the express permission of the copyright owner, in addition to being forwarded to certain members of the United States Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice, MiMTiD will send this legal notice to a third-party that aggregates repeat infringer data gathered by different agencies and infringement mitigation service companies around the globe and provides centralized access to that data to be used by global policy makers and law enforcement agencies to create and enforce copyright law. As such, this legal notice will included in The Chilling Report (http: //www.chillingreport.com). To obtain secure access to the Chilling Report please email The Chilling Report at xxxxx @chillingreport.com or call (713) xxx-xxxx.
I checked out http://www.chillingreport.com and nothing loads. So is this an attempt to try to hide DMCA takedown notice info from the public? If so, I doubt it will work. It's nice to see that Google apparently didn't think twice before passing this letter on to Chilling Effects, despite the prohibition. Now we'll see if MiMTiD, Zuffa or anyone else actually tries to claim a copyright on the DMCA notice. I would imagine they'd have to send a DMCA notice to Chilling Effects first, and if that includes the same paragraph, we may get into an infinite loop of DMCA notices...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 7:25am

    So it's a DMCA breach to post a DMCA takedown now? I didn't know copyright applied to opinion.

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:06am

    Re:

    Premise A: Facts cannot be copyrighted.

    Premise B: Fiction CAN be copyrighted.

    QED: Legal notices can be copyrighted, therefore legal notices are fictitious.

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re:

    You forgot Premise C: Unique expression CAN be copyrighted.

    This is where I step in. I will gladly sell my services to law firms, such that their future DMCA notices can be written uniquely in poem or prose format, complete with references to the sun and the sky, or nefarious characters with overly dramatic descriptions of their "shifty eyes".

    This will be big business in the future: uniquely authored DMCA notices by seasoned writers....

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:13am

    Because without copy protection laws no one would ever write DMCA takedowns or legal notices and lawyers will starve!!!

    Wait, that could be a good thing.

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:14am

    Even if the notice is copyrighted, I think it's fair use to send it to a site like Chilling Effects for them to publish since it's a transformative use of the material for scholarly research.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:19am

    I know,

    that they know, that I know, about the DMCA takedowns.

    And they know, that I know, that they know, that we all know, about how to counter the DMCA notice through public discourse.

    Now we all know, what they know, about how I know, what the law is.

    Let's hope they know, that I know, that we all know, the DMCA is not copyrighted in the slightest.

    And I hope they know, that we all know, that they need to know, how we know, that all this does is cause more of a Streisand effect.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:19am

    I would think this would fall into one of two categories. A valid DMCA notice with little or no creative expression and thus not copyrightable. Or it is a copyrightable expressive work that probably doesn't meet the requirements of a valid DMCA notice.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:21am

    Legal Notice

    I thought that legal notices were specifically exempt from copyright. It seems like DCMA takedown order would qualify as a legal notice.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:26am

    Re: I know,

    I'm disappointed in this comment, only because as soon as I read the first few words my brain started singing them to me in the tune of the Psych theme song (is that infringement?), but then the rest of the comment didn't follow along....

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm a programmer. When I comment my code sometimes I like to do it in the form of an epic poem.

    I would like to join your firm and we can send many of these out!

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Merc, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:30am

    URL

    It looks like the URL is supposed to be https://www.chillingreport.com

    That page actually does load... after you acknowledge that the certificate is invalid...

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:32am

    So chillingreport.com is registered by David Cox, who is also the creator of MiMTiD and something called "Blues Destiny Records LLC"

    And chillingreport.com is not the only website that doesn't work - MiMTiD.com/net/org are all broken, and the Blues Destiny Records homepage is a redhat server default.

    So is there a real operation buried somewhere in all this? What are they obfuscating?

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re:

    Facts cannot be copyrighted, but the content of a written document can be.

    Chilling Effects / Google could still have a DB that lists the complaint, the site in question, and the date, example, which are all "facts".

    It is not clear that they can actually scan and publish the original document.

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    anonymous gerbil (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:42am

    Re:

    MiMTiD.com/ does load for me, redirects to www.MiMTiD.net

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: I know,

    ...

    I didn't know it until just now. But I know, you know, that you're not tellin the truth.

    I know, you know, they just don't have any proof...

    What the...?

    Wow, that fits even better!

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:43am

    Re: URL

    If you just make it http://www.chillingreport.com, it works fine.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Here's a sample I whipped up that we could send out to prospective customers:

    I, (Company/Individual Name), certify here,
    Under penalties of perjury severe,
    That I am an authorized agent to act,
    On behalf of owners, its fact,
    Of certain intellectual property rights,
    For which the work to produce took many days and many nights,

    I have it on good faith, that items in your space,
    Are simply not authorized by law,
    For use or for waste, by the owners of said space,
    And it's making our client quite raw,

    It infringes, you see, on our client's copyright,
    So I must demand that you recognize his plight,
    Act expeditiously to remove or disable,
    Access to the material as soon as you are able,

    My contact information is listed below,
    Along with the alleged materials,
    But I must impress upon you in this notice,
    That I am totally, totally cereals,

    Once you have done so please get in touch,
    Or we'll beat you to death with a crutch,
    For now I'm off to get some soup,
    Love: Dark Helmet's Legal Notice Writing Group.

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:46am

    Re: Re:

    Hmm, didn't work for me, weird.

    Did you actually get anything at the .net? Because I got a "too many redirects" error.

    Also, note what path mimtid.net tries to send you to: the login script for their phpmyadmin backend

    http://www.mimtid.net/phpmyadmin/scripts/user_login.php

    Just plain weird all around...

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:49am

    Re:

    They are really just redhat trying to take on Microsoft.

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:51am

    None of the information contained in this legal notice is to be transmitted and/or released to any third party.

    If it goes to court, doesn't this then become public record? Would the state then be that third party?

    Google should just redirect all zuffa & MMA searches to chillingeffects.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:54am

    Re:

    If they did that, they really should just direct them to Bing, because that is where people would go to search after that.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:57am

    Also trying to turn it into some sort of NDA...

    By referring to "information" in the letter, the sender is also apparently trying to make the fact that the letter has been sent confidential. This is clearly silly. If you send me a letter, I'm under no obligation to refrain from telling others that you have sent me the letter, or to paraphrase the letter in order to tell others about it.

    As for the copyright value of the letter, yes, it very well could be protected by copyright. There are many ways to express the idea that you are invoking the DMCA. However, it's also the case that legal documents borrow heavily from eaerlier versions and boilerplate, so it's not at all clear how much of THIS letter is subject to a copyright held by THIS sender.

    And, even if it IS completely covered by a copyright owned by this particular sender, I think there's a very good fair use argument in making a copy of the whole thing for use in public discussion/comment.

    That all being said, in the end, the recipient of such a letter should consider carefully their position before taking action to piss off the other side. You may be totally safe in disclosing such a letter, but, if the other guy actually does have you cold for copyright infringement, he's not likely going to be very flexible in negotiating a settlement after you've tried to publicly embarass him.

    HM

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 8:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Like:
    'Round the pointer our hero doth go!
    While waiting he wends, for weal or for woe?
    Success is achieved, in binary state!
    'round again goes our hero, never to abate.

    ...?

    Personally, I comment my code in 'gangsta rap' style.
    ;-P

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:00am

    Re: Re: I know,

    Hmm, how about DMCA takedown-a-grams? A messenger dressed in a "legal document" or "manila envelop" costume could show up at a person's door and sing to them the DMCA takedown notice in it's entirety...

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:01am

    Re:

    It's an interesting question. The purpose would seem to be criticism. However, if chilling effects is just publishing the letter without any additional commentary, that doesn't fit the standard "criticism" paradigm for fair use.

    Ultimately, it's probably fair use, but an interesting question I think.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:02am

    Re: Legal Notice

    Not sure where you got that notion from, but I'm pretty sure there's not blanket exemption for "legal notices."

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:03am

    Re:

    You don't lose your copyright protection in something simply because it's filed in a lawsuit.

    Otherwise, you'd lose protection in anything you sued over.

     

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

  28.  
    icon
    Gracey (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:04am

    Google's DMCA form informs the filer that their notice will be aired publicly, but it's doubtful anyone who doesn't use the online form would get any notification of that, except perhaps in the automated response you get from filing a complaint.

    [quote]It is also our policy to document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act, including by sending a copy of the notice to one or more third parties or making it available to the public.[/quote]

    If someone filed a DMCA on a DMCA notice, would THAT be made public, thereby creating an ongoing circle, or would Chilling Effects or Google simply remove the original complaint?

    @Marcus - I can't access any of those pages on mimtid.net either (Firefox & Chrome) - the message I get is the same - it has a redirect loop. I can access it if I search it and use a cached page view though.

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    anon, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:12am

    ssl site only

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: URL

    Funnily, if you explore the site and look at their top ten lists, they list Chilling Effects as a repeat offender with 4138 related cease and desist notices for infringing content sent to search engines in the last 30 days.

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:25am

    first thing I would do is post it on any and all sites I can think of as to the law its an ass also American and I ain't there.

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:29am

    Re: Re:

    It's an interesting question. The purpose would seem to be criticism. However, if chilling effects is just publishing the letter without any additional commentary, that doesn't fit the standard "criticism" paradigm for fair use.

    Ultimately, it's probably fair use, but an interesting question I think.


    It really is interesting, for sure.

    I'd argue that the whole Chilling Effects exists for the purpose of criticism. Chilling Effects is critical of the notices in general, and their website is full of information to that end. Also, being a clearinghouse for these notices serves an academic purpose by making the notices available for research and criticism by others. This techdirt article and our comments to it is just such an example of this third-party criticism.

    This is one of those things where if it came down to it, I think a judge would be inclined to find fair use.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think the most important point is that allowing copy protection on these legal documents does nothing to promote the progress of the sciences or arts and so it should be considered unconstitutional. Lawyers don't write legal documents because of the copy protection laws they can get from those documents.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    errr. because of the copy protections they think they can get on those documents *

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 9:47am

    Try this

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I think the most important point is that allowing copy protection on these legal documents does nothing to promote the progress of the sciences or arts and so it should be considered unconstitutional."

    A law does not have to *perfectly* achieve a constitutional purpose in order to be considered constitutionally appropriate.

    Congress is entitled to do its best to create a copyright law to promote the progress, etc., and that law is constitutional even if it is imperfect in such promotion.

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 10:09am

    Re:

    So chillingreport.com is registered by David Cox, who is also the creator of MiMTiD and something called "Blues Destiny Records LLC"

    Aha! Blues Destiny is the tiny record label that sued Google and Microsoft not so long ago:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091209/1824537279.shtml

    Part of the problem with that lawsuit was that Blues Destiny couldn't seem to figure out how to file a valid DMCA notice, so it's a bit amusing that they seem to have gone into the DMCA filing business... but are still doing it poorly.

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    AW, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 10:53am

    chillingreport.com namesake

    Actually chillingreport.com is named after Fred Chilling (the ch is pronounced with a sh sound). Fred was a pioneer in lobbying for whichever group would pay for him to do so, famously being hired by opposing sides in the court case Shumpter v. Bailey, in which successfully argued that a claim to the largest ball of twine was in possession of both parties at the same, thereby nullify the laws of physics who did not have a representative present to argue on their behalf. Ever since then blatantly taking sides against all reason has been known as "shilling". Just thought peopel may find that fact interesting.

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The law doesn't promote the progress and so it's unconstitutional. It's not only imperfect at promoting the progress, it doesn't promote the progress at all.

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The law doesn't promote the progress and so it's unconstitutional. It's not only imperfect at promoting the progress, it doesn't promote the progress at all.

    My understanding of current Supreme Court copyright doctrine under Eldred is that copyright laws are only reviewed on a rational basis standard, and the preambular "to promote the progress" from Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 8, is not a substantive limit on Congress's ability to create copyright laws. In other words, it is not necessary that a copyright law "promote the progress" for it to be constitutional.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 11:40am

    My question is, why does the letter need to be forwarded to certain members of Congress?

    I mean, I get the political grandstanding aspect of sending a copy of each and every accusation to a Rep. But at the end of the day, even the braindead congressmen should know they are only accusations since that's all that is being sent their way.

     

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

  42.  
    icon
    RikuoAmero (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Bravo, bruvver, I'm nominating you for the Nobel Prize for Literature (and SHEER AWESOMNESS!!!)

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 11:51am

    isnt a legal filing in a court system automatically something available to the general public? i know for example michigan and california both have specific laws on the books that basically state that unless they fall under specific categories (such as court immunity from FOIA, gag orders or cases involving minors and there are a few more things) that the public interest is the higher standard to be met in obtaining and releasing documents.
    as such, it sounds like the claim of copyright on this type of stuff is trumped by the public good claimed by such laws...

    one of you lawyerly types should jump in and point out if such laws are applicable to a DMCA notice however...

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    Jason, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re:

    I would argue that simply posting it under the banner of a site called "ChillingEffects" would effect actual criticism.

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re:

    True, but then the document is public
    (absent court action to keep it sealed).
    Thus, even if one could not copy it, at least one could see it.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    David Wallace Cox, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 12:15pm

    Chilling Report Contact Information

    To obtain secure access to the Chilling Report, please email us at admin@chillingreport.com or call (713) 657-0165.

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A law does not have to *perfectly* achieve a constitutional purpose in order to be considered constitutionally appropriate.


    It does if it impinges upon freedom of speech.

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Jason, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 12:39pm

    Re:

    It would certainly be the case if the document were filed in an existing court case. I suppose a simple, albeit expensive, end around would be to file suit every time you receive a notice and attach the notice to your filing. (Of course the cost could be reduced if it was only one infinite loop of notices connected with the same set of facts, in which case you open one case and file all the notices therein.)

    Then any copies of the filed documents are public record.

    BUT , is the presumptive legal purpose of such a notice, together with the potential for later litigation sufficient to trump any copyright claim the notice author would assert?

    Unless it actually comes to bear, I've just decided I don't care.

     

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

  49.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

    Re: chillingreport.com namesake

    um... just... no.

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Jesse, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 1:22pm

    I see two solutions.

    First, one could write a notice on the relevant website: "By filing a DMCA notice to this website you authorize us to distribute said DMCA notice to chillingeffects. If you do not agree to these terms, rescind said DMCA notice." It seems about as reasonable/one-sided as any EULA I've ever read.

    Another option: write a "review" of the original DMCA notice (use fair use to get around any copyright).

    Of course, if copyright doesn't apply to DMCA notices then there is no problem.

     

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

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, first of all, I dispute that conclusion.

    But aside from that, the constitutionality is not determined by the results/efficacy of the law. The "promotion" is merely a justification for giving Congress the power to create the law, it is not a test for judging whether Congress has exceeded that power.

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 1:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Says who? No court or law that I'm aware of.

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 1:32pm

    Re:

    publicly available? Yes. But still protected by copyright, so you can't, e.g., go copying it and posting it on your own website (unless it's fair use, of course).

     

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

  54.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    William McGonagall would have found his true vocation writing this stuff - it brought the Tay Bridge Disaster straight back into my head!

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > the preambular "to promote the progress"
    > is not a substantive limit on Congress's
    > ability to create copyright laws.

    Funny how some folks think certain prambulars can be dismissed as having no legal effect (to promote progress) but others (a well-regulated militia) are absolutely critical in defining the legal validity of the entire section.

    Smells like more ends-based "interpretation" to me.

     

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

  56.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Feb 9th, 2011 @ 4:57pm

    If you don't want me sharing it, don't give it to me.



    Can criminals sue for infringement if you show police the ransom note? The ransom note is automatically copyrighted and most likely says "Do Not Involve The Police!"

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 6:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The constitution doesn't permit congress to hinder progress by securing these monopolies. It only permits congress to promote the progress by securing these monopolies. If congress doesn't promote the progress, its actions are not constitutional.

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 6:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Congress may only

    "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors"

    Congress may not "hinder the Progress ..."

    It's only allowed to "promote the Progress"

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 10:01pm

    Re: Re:

    if I send a book to chillingeffect is that copyright infringement?

     

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

  60.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 10th, 2011 @ 1:16am

    Re: Re: Legal Notice

    More likely Chillingeffects.com are using copyright law, itself, to be exempt from infringement.

    Example:
    Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives.

     

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

  61.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 10th, 2011 @ 1:27am

    Re: Re:

    How do you figure, sports fan? Inferring that Google will go offline? Even were that true, and I don't believe it's as possible as you think, Bing would be my last choice.

     

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

  62.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 10th, 2011 @ 1:29am

    Re: ssl site only

    ... still doesn't load on my end. No matter how many times someone pouts up the link.

     

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

  63.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 10th, 2011 @ 1:36am

    Re: Chilling Report Contact Information

    No, thanks. ChillingEffects.com works just fine. As it is an archival site, it should prove exempt from infringement, anyways.

     

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

  64.  
    identicon
    Gene Cavanaugh, Feb 10th, 2011 @ 7:31am

    Copyrighting legal notices?

    You're kidding, right?

     

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

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2011 @ 11:27am

    Re: Chilling Report Contact Information

    No.

     

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

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2011 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The Congress shall have Power...

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...

    [and] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

    So, the question is not whether Congress has in fact "promoted the progress," but whether the law it passed is "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the power to promote the progress by securing exclusive rights.

    Having a judge determine whether Congress did a good job in passing a copyright law by some sort of empirical analysis on how well it does or does not promote the progress takes the power out of the necessary and proper clause and Congress in general.

    This is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution, and I think it's the right interpretation. Otherwise, you've got Congress as an advisory body to the all-powerful federal judiciary.

     

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

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2011 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Legal Notice

    Reading the heading alone can be misleading.

    The exemption only applies if, among other things, "any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives."

     

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

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2011 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Chilling Report Contact Information

    being an "archival site" is not enough to avoid infringement

     

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

  69.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Feb 10th, 2011 @ 7:15pm

    A few things about these stupid statements in letters.

    Under US copyright a document does not become copyrighted until it is publicly published by the creator of that document. So if they have not published it themselves it is therefore not copyrightable at all.

    Not only that unless (again under US law only) unless the copyright has been specifically registered then a court case could not award damages at all so therefore the "full extent of the law" would be a slap on the wrist for being naughty.

    Also sending a letter to someone and then stating within the letter itself that it is copyrighted does not give the person receiving the letter the option of not accepting the letter which also gives nonsense to the other claim that the letter is in some way confidentially binding. No ability to accept does a binding contract NOT make.

    Though the most interesting part of the paragraph to me is the total non sequiter of "[...] to any third party, including but not limited to Chilling Effects" since 'third party' means 'no one else' which is also quite concerning since a third party also could be construed to mean by implication legal counsel. Oops.

     

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

  70.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Feb 10th, 2011 @ 7:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If as Robert Louis Stevenson said "wine is naught but bottled poetry" you Sir have made me drunk.

    My hat is off to you

     

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

  71.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 11th, 2011 @ 4:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Chilling Report Contact Information

    No, but it's a good start. As per USC 17, Chapter 1, Section 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives.

     

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

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 4:44am

    So it's copyright infringement to show the DMCA notice to my lawyer? Well played.

     

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

  73.  
    identicon
    james contrini, Jul 31st, 2011 @ 3:01am

    Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit.com, talks about the value of college education and the "dire need" for skilled labor in the U.S. Higher education fails to provide students "good value" for the money they and their families spend, more than half of U.S. adults said in a Pew Research Center survey. Ohanian speaks on Bloomberg Television's "InBusiness With Margaret Brennan.

     

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This