DMCA: Did you Designate an Agent Today? 8
Scott Brady writes "The New York Law Journal is running an article on how to comply with the DMCA if you happen to be a web provider. The article turns up a particularly troubling part of the act I wasn't aware of: "To qualify for the DMCA's safe harbors, a service provider must first take the following actions: 1) Designate an agent to receive notification of claimed infringement from copyright owners. ... 2) Register the designated agent with the U.S. Copyright Office. ... The cost of registration is only $20. 3) ... [The] contact information for your designated agent also must be posted on your Web site."" Well, I was aware of it, but perhaps others aren't. In order to qualify for the DMCA's exemptions, you have to effectively act as judge, jury and executioner against your users.
Serious violation of speecah and commerce rights (Score:1)
The question everyone should be asking is why did they not just rely on the current system, because then they would have to file a case, and PROVE RESONABLE CAUSE THAT THEY WOULD WIN. Then a judge could file an injunction without question. They still have to file the case if they intend to pursue the case. Under the DMCA they can shoot first and shut people down never never having to prove resonable cause.
This is just the beginning. The sad thig is that people would never have stood for such a law if it took place in the real world. Just imagine a law that gave this same power to brick and morter. Just sign a certified complaint that smallbiz is volating bigbiz trademark and the police come in and shut you down. No courts, no judges, they don't need them any more because you have no recouse, and the police don't want to becode responsible is they do not follow the law. Mabye they will file, mabye not, but it's all over anyways becuse you have gone bankrupt in the meantime.
My Designated Agent (Score:1)
Re:Yep, this again... (Score:1)
"Guilty until proven innocent" is too benign for their tastes. The roadmap goes like this:
1) Guilty until proven innocent.
2) Guilty, period.
3) Attempts to prove innocence are illegal.
4) Saying attempts to prove innocence should be legal is illegal.
5) Propagating in any way the anti-business lie that there once was such a thing as "rule of law" that supposedly could be used to shield (heresy!) individuals from action by corporations is a felony, subjected to a 1,000,000,000,000-year prison term and a fine of aleph-20 US dollars (as if there's any other currency or country now).
(Whew, I should be taking my medication now)
Re:Double Standard (Score:1)
Judge, jury and executioner (Score:2)
Well, that's true, but users have a right to appeal that decision, and if legal action is not taken against them by the copyright holder, you can reinstate the users. This is what Napster did when Metallica handed them 250,000 names. Tens of thousands of people disputed Metallica's claim that they were criminals, and Metallica didn't sue anybody.
This puts the dispute back between the alleged "pirates" and the copyright holders, where it belongs. I agree that the ISP and certainly not some individual website should be put in the position in the first place, but this is a good work around until the old IP business models die their slow, lingering death.
You're the Executioner, then they call a Judge. (Score:2)
2) If the user sends a proper "counter notification" to the service provider stating that
the removal or blocking was a result of a mistake or a misidentification of the material;
No mention of a possible Fair Use defence.
then
(3) The service provider, to remain exempt from liability for the "take-down", must provide a copy of the counter notification to the alleged copyright owner that sent the original notice;
and(4) Unless the party claiming to own the infringing material then notifies the service
provider that it has filed a court action seeking to restrain the alleged infringement, the service provider must replace or unblock the material within not less than 10 nor more than 14 business days of receiving the counter notification.
By Lewine's interpretation, the complaining party gets to jail the allegedly offending speech for 10 days, before the speaker gets to present a defence.
A trip to the New York legal Journal's home site, Law.com [law.com] reveals that they follow virtually none of the advice they print. I registered without being presented their Terms of Service. [law.com]
While these "Terms" are quite protective of Law.com's copyrights, and give them exclusive rights to anything posted in their Forums (sic), the closest they come to warning off 3d party encroachment is
You shall not upload to, distribute through, or
otherwise publish through a Forum on this Web site or any other law.com Web
site any content which is libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic,
threatening, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, illegal, or
otherwise objectionable that would constitute or encourage a criminal offense,
violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise give rise to liability or
violates any law.
and
Modification of the materials or use of the materials for any other purpose is a
violation of law.com's copyright and other proprietary rights. For purposes of
these terms, the use of any such material on any other Web site or networked
computer environment is prohibited. All trademarks, service marks, and trade
names are proprietary to law.com.
Again, no provision for Fair Use. I wonder if they'll terminate me, or demand the removal of this Post from /. for inclusion of the exerpts above?
Double Standard (Score:2)
I wonder what would happen if a few senators' election web sites were forced to go down becuase someone told their ISP that they were infringing on copyright? How quick do you think DMCA would be changed?
Yep, this again... (Score:3)
Don't you love it when governments become little more than fronts for corporations?
----------