I am not in favor of the words you are putting in my mouth. There is no "one sided nuke 'em" to a DMCA notice. The scenario being complained of here is not a DMCA take down.
I am not in favor of anyone sending an email claiming copyright infringement and demanding take down for that. I am not in favor of anyone taking down anything in response to an email claiming copyright infringement. The DMCA does not support either the complaint or the response.
I am in favor of the take down provisions of the DMCA. Have you ever actually read them?
Read the law. Here are the rules that any responsible hosting service understands and will follow. http://buildinghosting.com/legal/
Actually the word is "thieves." A thief is one who takes or uses someone else's property without permission. The right to say who may make a copy of what I create is my property by the law. The issue here is not the original; it is the RIGHT to control copies. It says so right there in the USA Constitution and in every legal ruling based on that law in the past couple hundred years. Your replacing the words of the law with what you want it to say does not change the law. You rewriting the language of the law to exclude the right to control copies is nonsense. You attempt to twist my words about the right to control the making of copies and limit it to originals is sophistry.
Aside from that juvenile foolishness, you are OT. The topic is the claim that bogus takedown are a consequence of the DCMA. That too is sophistry.
The Turkey-Lurkey anecdotes here are about people who are sending out takedown notices that have zero standing under the DCMA. Respect for the DCMA is the solution, not the problem.
" . . . if you don't have anything illegal on the laptop.......who cares. Civil rights, civil shmights, we give up civil rights every day. It all comes down to what's important to us at the time. Drug runners don't want cops to be able to search their cars, but I don't care if they search mine. Is it inconvenient? Yes. Is it the end of the world? No."
You are making a very dangerous and naive assumption that what's legal today will always be legal. I have lived long enough (75+) to see law enforcement in this and other countries nibble away at civil rights, while at the same time legislators make things that used to legal, into illegal, in one city, county or state or another.
Unrestrained searches will not "inconvenience" you until the day that you have a copy of a book or pamphlet written by some writer who is declared subversive or you have to show a photo ID and give your Social Security number in order to buy a ticket to see some movie or play that later is claimed is an insult to the one true God - and now they have had you fired from a public job. That's the day you will rue having given up MY rights because you thought would never need yours.
One of the most shameful things that has been happening in the past 50 years life is the loss of understanding the meaning of Liberty. What our government is doing in Guan6tanamo to the rights of those prisoners will be the legal basis for putting a third or forth generation down the line in prison without the right to a speedy trial or habeus corpous or the right an attorney or the right to see the evidence or the right to crossexamine witnesses.
Those rights are now up for grabs.
If none has quoted it so far in this thread, I suggest you consider the wisdom of Ben Franklyn, "Those who would give up liberty to win security soon will have neither."
DanC said: "ebook DRM schemes that are being used to eliminate the rights of users to resell their legally purchased products."
Exactly which rights of users (in the legal sense of who owns what) are being denied? Buying one copy of a book, in any format, does not automatically include the right to make and sell more copies. Only the copyright holder, usually the author, has that right. That's why it is called copy (wait for it) right.
The comments so far are looking at DMCA in a very narrow, self-interested way. I admit I bring that same lack of broader vision, but like those other comments, my position is just as valid.
Speaking as a freelance writer and web site developer, I can cite more than a few specific examples where I, and others in similar circumstances, have used the Safe Harbor provision to cause a hosting service to shut down access to pages, and even entire web sites, selling unlicensed copies of my work. Without DMCA, I would have had to mount expensive, long term legal actions against a variety of large business.
Thanks to the DMCA, in one case I can cite, a group of about 40 developers each were earning modest but helpful revenue from selling $15 and $25 mods to online eCommerce shopping carts and similar apps. One day, some wise guy, bundled them all onto one site, using the same shopping cart, and started selling the copyrighted codes.
It took a single letter from one of those developers, and less than 12 hours, to shut down the thief at his first host and the same, a few days later, when he tried again at another host. That was two months ago and he has not tried again.
So don't think of DMCA simply in terms of big corporations. Unintended consequences are not always negative. In this case, DMCA empowers a little guy to stop theft in its tracks with one carefully configured notice of copyright violation.
I do not pay to watch commercials. I go out of my way NOT to buy anything that I see in a movie theater commercial. That same reason is why I have never had cable or a dish.
Do those comapnies care? No.
But I do.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Joe Harkins.
Re: Re:
I am not in favor of the words you are putting in my mouth. There is no "one sided nuke 'em" to a DMCA notice. The scenario being complained of here is not a DMCA take down.
I am not in favor of anyone sending an email claiming copyright infringement and demanding take down for that. I am not in favor of anyone taking down anything in response to an email claiming copyright infringement. The DMCA does not support either the complaint or the response.
I am in favor of the take down provisions of the DMCA. Have you ever actually read them?
Read the law. Here are the rules that any responsible hosting service understands and will follow. http://buildinghosting.com/legal/
Re: Re:
Actually the word is "thieves." A thief is one who takes or uses someone else's property without permission. The right to say who may make a copy of what I create is my property by the law. The issue here is not the original; it is the RIGHT to control copies. It says so right there in the USA Constitution and in every legal ruling based on that law in the past couple hundred years. Your replacing the words of the law with what you want it to say does not change the law. You rewriting the language of the law to exclude the right to control copies is nonsense. You attempt to twist my words about the right to control the making of copies and limit it to originals is sophistry.
Aside from that juvenile foolishness, you are OT. The topic is the claim that bogus takedown are a consequence of the DCMA. That too is sophistry.
The Turkey-Lurkey anecdotes here are about people who are sending out takedown notices that have zero standing under the DCMA. Respect for the DCMA is the solution, not the problem.
Hank misses the point
" . . . if you don't have anything illegal on the laptop.......who cares. Civil rights, civil shmights, we give up civil rights every day. It all comes down to what's important to us at the time. Drug runners don't want cops to be able to search their cars, but I don't care if they search mine. Is it inconvenient? Yes. Is it the end of the world? No."
You are making a very dangerous and naive assumption that what's legal today will always be legal. I have lived long enough (75+) to see law enforcement in this and other countries nibble away at civil rights, while at the same time legislators make things that used to legal, into illegal, in one city, county or state or another.
Unrestrained searches will not "inconvenience" you until the day that you have a copy of a book or pamphlet written by some writer who is declared subversive or you have to show a photo ID and give your Social Security number in order to buy a ticket to see some movie or play that later is claimed is an insult to the one true God - and now they have had you fired from a public job. That's the day you will rue having given up MY rights because you thought would never need yours.
One of the most shameful things that has been happening in the past 50 years life is the loss of understanding the meaning of Liberty. What our government is doing in Guan6tanamo to the rights of those prisoners will be the legal basis for putting a third or forth generation down the line in prison without the right to a speedy trial or habeus corpous or the right an attorney or the right to see the evidence or the right to crossexamine witnesses.
Those rights are now up for grabs.
If none has quoted it so far in this thread, I suggest you consider the wisdom of Ben Franklyn, "Those who would give up liberty to win security soon will have neither."
DanC said: "ebook DRM schemes that are being used to eliminate the rights of users to resell their legally purchased products."
Exactly which rights of users (in the legal sense of who owns what) are being denied? Buying one copy of a book, in any format, does not automatically include the right to make and sell more copies. Only the copyright holder, usually the author, has that right. That's why it is called copy (wait for it) right.
Or do I mis-understand you?
The comments so far are looking at DMCA in a very narrow, self-interested way. I admit I bring that same lack of broader vision, but like those other comments, my position is just as valid.
Speaking as a freelance writer and web site developer, I can cite more than a few specific examples where I, and others in similar circumstances, have used the Safe Harbor provision to cause a hosting service to shut down access to pages, and even entire web sites, selling unlicensed copies of my work. Without DMCA, I would have had to mount expensive, long term legal actions against a variety of large business.
Thanks to the DMCA, in one case I can cite, a group of about 40 developers each were earning modest but helpful revenue from selling $15 and $25 mods to online eCommerce shopping carts and similar apps. One day, some wise guy, bundled them all onto one site, using the same shopping cart, and started selling the copyrighted codes.
It took a single letter from one of those developers, and less than 12 hours, to shut down the thief at his first host and the same, a few days later, when he tried again at another host. That was two months ago and he has not tried again.
So don't think of DMCA simply in terms of big corporations. Unintended consequences are not always negative. In this case, DMCA empowers a little guy to stop theft in its tracks with one carefully configured notice of copyright violation.
I do not pay to watch commercials. I go out of my way NOT to buy anything that I see in a movie theater commercial. That same reason is why I have never had cable or a dish.
Do those comapnies care? No.
But I do.