from the really-guys? dept
Among the leading critics of DarkCryo is the site FuriousNads by Christopher Frankonis. In particular, Frankonis quite rightly called out DarkCryo for running an IndieGoGo crowdfunding campaign that pretty clearly violated IndieGoGo terms and (much more importantly) securities law by offering a form of an "investment" with "returns" at certain levels. That's a big no-no, even though it would be legalized in the US if not for heel-dragging bureaucrats.
While I think that these kinds of games should be allowed, Frankonis' criticism is completely on target. In response, it appears that DarkCryo -- a company that is really skirting a pretty fine line concerning copyright -- decided to abuse the DMCA and file a takedown notice on FuriousNads posting of a DarkCryo logo image. For the record, this appears to be the image that FuriousNads had on its site:
The site has since replaced all images of the graphic with the following instead:
“We’ve received a DMCA complaint regarding content hosted in your account,” came the late-night email from Acorn Host. “As you are probably aware, web hosts do not have much leeway in responding to complaints like this. We do not get to judge fair use or anything of that sort; we are required to remove anything someone submits a claim about, until which time as you submit a counter-complaint.”That's not quite true. Acorn absolutely can analyze the situation and could determine that it believes with very high probability that the use would be called "fair use" by a court and then leave it up. The issue is that leaving it up just removes the easy safe harbors that would get Acorn out of any lawsuit. So there are certainly good reasons for it to do what it did, but they are not "required" to do so. They just have to do so if they want to keep the safe harbor protections. That said, we've heard of so many stories of hosting firms completely shutting down entire accounts based on a single DMCA notice that Acorn's position is hardly that egregious. The response is better than many others.
It's unclear if Frankonis intends to file a counternotice, as he suggests he's content with his replacement graphic instead. Given the subject matter, he's probably right. Still, this is yet another case of people abusing copyright law with the clear intent of silencing criticism. That it's coming from an operation that is trying to rely (heavily) on exceptions to copyright law for its own project just makes it doubly ridiculous.