Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1. 

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2007 @ 6:39pm

   
   

   I guess hypocisy is ok if comes from religious organaiztions.

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

2. 

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2007 @ 6:58pm

   
   

   Re:

   I think that's the very foundation of religion.

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

3. 

   ChurchHatesTucker, Sep 17th, 2007 @ 7:08pm

   
   

   Was it?

   I've been following this, and although they say "they are not copyrighted," I'm not sure that's enough to put them into the public domain. (I'm talking legal technicalities here.) What does it take to "opt out" of instant copyright protection these days?

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

4. 

   zcat, Sep 17th, 2007 @ 7:39pm

   
   

   my nsho

   There are two ways a work can become 'out of copyright'. It can expire (at least, this used to be possible..) or it can be granted to the public domain. Once it's in the public domain there is _no_ copyright holder. No-one exists who can legitimately file a DMCA takedown notice. End of story.

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

5. 

   Stephen, Sep 17th, 2007 @ 8:14pm

   
   

   Re: my nsho

   Taking that further: filing a bogus takedown notice like that when you know it's a bogus notice can get you in some REALLY hot water. Not looking good for the Church...

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

6. 

   zcat, Sep 17th, 2007 @ 8:48pm

   
   

   'not copyright' vs. 'public domain'

   As a non-lawyer, I would consider 'publicly announcing that you do not consider your work copyrighted' to be basically the same thing as 'granting the work to the public domain'
   
   Unfortunately non-lawyer's opinions usually don't count for much in court.

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

7. 

   ChurchHatesTucker, Sep 17th, 2007 @ 10:44pm

   
   

   Re: Re: my nsho

   From what I understand, it's not a church.
   
   But as far as the DMCA goes, the legal hurdles are very low for the whistle blower ("good faith") and higher for the counter claim ("penalty of perjury.") THEN there's the ten to 14 days to see if your counter claim is responded to legally (rife for time-sensetive abouse.)
   
   And if all that fails, you're liable for costs. Sounds like a recipie for a SLAP-happy (and legally rewarding) world.

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

8. 

   ReallyEvilCanine, Sep 18th, 2007 @ 2:08am

   
   

   Good Faith

   There is no "good faith" when demanding a take-down of an item which includes material you hold no copyright to, especially when said material was released by you or your organisation to the public domain. Assignment to PD is irrevocable; once you've done it you can't change your mind. EVER.

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

9. 

   Danny, Sep 18th, 2007 @ 8:29am

   
   

   Re: Good Faith

   
   There is no "good faith" when demanding a take-down of an item which includes material you hold no copyright to
   
   
   There should not be any good faith when it comes to take downs but unfortunately there is plenty of good faith. Remember a few months ago when Viacom basically shotgunned Youtube with several takedown notices which included material that was not infringing on their copyrights?

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

10. 

    Chris, Sep 18th, 2007 @ 11:44am

    
    

    Fair Use

    Even if the content isn't considered in the public domain, wouldn't this be a perfect example of fair use for critique? I don't see how they can force this down regardless of the status of their copyrights.

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

Add Your Comment