Using the DMCA Against License Violations? 338
"eBay has several different mechanisms for complaining about this, and I used one of them. Other people have complained too, but so far the result just seems to be that eBay deletes the listings of the items (which have already been sold). Meanwhile the guy is still violating copyleft licenses (as well as selling other copyright-violating stuff, such as screensavers containing commercial porn images).
Apparently the most effective way to deal with this on eBay is to participate in their vero
program, which basically means sending the DMCA Police after the guy. For instance, if I wanted to sue the guy (which I don't), I'd need to know his name and address. The DMCA says that eBay has to provide that info to someone who complains about a copyright violation.
It seems like it would be a similar deal in the software world. The conventional wisdom about how to prevent infringement is to GPL your code, and transfer the copyright to the FSF, which will contact license violators and (theoretically) sue them if it comes to that. So how long will it be until the FSF is asked by an open-source developer to invoke the DMCA in order to deal with a license violation? In my own case, should I go ahead and join eBay's vero program? It would make me feel like I was in bed with the enemy, but it does seem like it would give me some very effective options for dealing with the situation. For instance, members of the program can have eBay run automated boolean searches for copyright-violating items, and get the results e-mailed to them periodically.
One possible reply to my question is 'Why do you care?" The problem here is that this guy is doing exactly what RMS originally designed copyleft to prevent: he's taking free information and making it not-free. His customers don't know that the books are copylefted, and have effectively had their own freedom taken away: they don't know they can modify the books, copy them, or sell them."
Don't give in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't give in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Truer words were never spoken! (Score:3, Insightful)
This statement is so utterly and profoundly true, I'm speechless.
Re:Don't give in... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't give in... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Have you tried contacting the guy using something as simple as e-mail, etc.? It is conceivable the the guy selling the books doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong, or that a little persistence and just the threat of legal action may stop him.
2) Getting the guys real name and address from ebay may be more difficult than you think. I know that I wouldn't sign up for an ebay account with my own name, and the e-mail address that
Re:Don't give in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Talking to a lawyer is good idea, but it's not instead of asking Slashdot. A lawyer would give you no advice about the moral issues of the open source community and let you hear different opinions.
Asking Slashdot is a good idea, too.
Re:Don't give in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plaigerism is a problem, and the answer is copyrig (Score:2)
Re:Don't give in... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and you can sue an ebay account... You don't have to know who's doing it, if you can prove someone is infringing your copyrights, it should be fairly easy to convince a judge to issue a subpoena for the information. RIAA is suing an IP address right now, right? And it looks as though they'll win.
Re:Don't give in... (Score:2, Informative)
You DO need the DMCA. The type of complaint you need to file against eBay is called a "DMCA Takedown Notice", and is required by law before you sue eBay.
Note that this part of the DMCA is different than the reverse engineering/copyprotection parts. It's a big law.
Re:Don't give in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't give in... (Score:2)
Re:Don't give in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Using this logic, then suing someone is bad in general, and I definitely disagree with that concept. It is certainly used FAR more often than need be to obtain results, but that's a different issue.
The difference here, assuming he does things ethically, would be this:
The RIAA sues a couple of college students for $98 BILLION DOLLARS for putting up a song sharing server on a college campus.
This guy sues the jerk who's publishing his work to require him to either (a) stop doing it, or (b) do it properly, and maybe if he's in a really bad mood requires that the guy turn over some of the profit, but probably not.
See the difference?
Now, I can't speak for the motives of the article's author, but I suspect it's rather like the second version. Definitely much more so than the first.
The first is bullying. The second is protecting your rights.
Big difference.
Re:Don't give in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo. Invoking the law on this guy when you've been offended shouldn't be a moral question.
As long as you use the law appropriately, I wouldn't hold it against you (it's bullshit like that Walmart price-publishing suit that's unacceptable).
Re:Don't give in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't give in... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, even if I did want to sue him, I don't think I could without invoking the DMCA to find out his name and address. All I know right now is his eBay username, and that he claims to be in Canada.
I think you're entitled to the profits. :-) Copyright law does allow you to sue for punitive damages in addition to actual damages (provided you've registered your copyright with the copyright office). But I'd have to find a lawyer who'd take it on a contingent fee basis, or else pay a lawyer out of pocket. That doesn't seem very practical to me, since I don't know the guy's name, don't know whether he even has any money, etc.
Looking at his history of transactions, the guy probably only has a few thousand dollars worth of profits, and very little of that is my books. (The porn screensavers seem to be his most successful product
Re:Don't give in... (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be a really stupid question, but have you tried contacting him directly and asking him to correct the behavior? Who knows? He might be willing to comply without a fuss, especially if you told him what corrections to make so that he could continue selling. I know you can always send an e-mail via ebay's "Ask seller a question" link. I never like to bring in lawyers unless absolutely necessary. Whenever they are involved, they seem to emerge as the only winners.
If you wanted his address, you could probably get with a bit of social engineering. Trying sending him an e-mail from one of his closed auctions asking "where do I mail payment?". He'll probably respond with at least a PO Box.
John Doe lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
This is essentially what the DMCA does minus the Judge and the vetting of the evidence. (This is the problem that Verizon is currently fighting. Though specifically they claim that since the content isn't hosted on their machines then the normal turbo-subpoena process doesn't apply.)
So, you can if you really want go through the proper legal channels and get the abusers information.
The first thing I'd recommend is for everyone here who has an eBay account to give the user a negative review containing the body of the copyleft license and how (s)he's violating it.
Re:John Doe lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
The first thing I'd recommend is for everyone here who has an eBay account to give the user a negative review containing the body of the copyleft license and how (s)he's violating it.
I don't think this works. You can't give feedback unless you bought an item, can you? Of course, if a Slashdotter was to buy an item from the guy, then give negative feedback like "item not as advertised, turned out to be illegal"...
Re:Thank him (Score:3, Interesting)
It can't change the value of it, but it can change the presumed value of it.
How many links for free things have you skipped over because you don't have time right now.
Fewer then the pricy things that I've skipped over because I don't have time right now.
Why pay $500 for that bicycle when you could pay $400 to the company the seller bought it from. Maybe you don't know where to buy it for $400.
More likely the company isn't interested in one-on-one
Re:Don't give in... (Score:3, Informative)
In CA, after several successful ballot initiatives were thrown out because parts of them were unconstitutional, they started adding a severability clause.... Words to the effect that "if any part of this is found unconstitutional, the rest stands".
Re:Don't give in... (Score:3, Informative)
I find it troubling that they could do anything else, i.e., declare part of a law unconstitutional and leave the rest of it in force. When the law was voted for by a sufficient majority of the legislators and signed by the executive, it was the entire law. Some of the legislators may have voted for it by way of compromise because they were willing to accept the parts they didn't like in order to g
Other examples (Score:5, Informative)
I've submitted this as a story twice, the first time it was accepted, but not posted (Slashdot went down, I think it got lost), second time rejected. Anyway, it seems like this is a good story to post it under, since it's basically the same story as this one.
Re:Other examples (Score:5, Interesting)
" LuxuriousityOffice is fully licensed so you have full usage rights. In addition,
you also have access to the complete source code and the right to modify the program and re-compile a new version
your own specifications! Try asking Microsoft for that with their office program!"
so I think that they are not violating the liscense.
Or do you have to disclose the original name? I mean If I can make any code changes I want, why can't I chang the name as well?
From the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. [emphasis mine]
As long as he is including a copy of the GPL on the CD, then he's probably fine (legally that is). The only other issue is to make sure that he did not reassign the copyright (left) for the program itself.
Can anyone else find anything about GPL and renaming?
Re:From the GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
These books are not covered under the GPL.
The GPL, broadly speaking, covers software. As the writeup states, these books were covered under the GFDL [gnu.org] and the OPL [lightandmatter.com]. The GFDL is a little bit confusing as to its requirements, but there are a number of rules you must follow to either print a verbatim copy or to release a derivative work. It does state, in part that you must:
Re:Other examples (Score:2, Interesting)
Hit him in the karma (Score:5, Funny)
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
isn't upholding the GPL, et al? One way you can make it not worth his while is to post his email,
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
all over the web. Maybe he'd like some spam sent to
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
leting him know about stuff. If everybody sends email to
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
than his email box will become so littered that his auctions will suffer. The end result:
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
will find it less profitible to violate copyright laws, etc. Don't you think that would help
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
stop doing bad things?
No, you're just an idiot (Score:2)
Re:speaking of karma (Score:4, Funny)
I can NOT believe I did that. heh.
Just as I was wrapping up the post, one of my children came in and I hit Submit while I was distracted.
heh.
In the immortal words, of the great philosopher Homer:
"D'OH"
well, time to change my email address.
Re:speaking of karma (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for your interest in this discussion.
Sure, you, Mr ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM,
might know participating without being AC is wrong, but you
ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM
will bear the brunt of your foolishness well, I am sure.
Thank you Mr ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM for your helpful comments.
I am sure in future, that you
ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM
will think before you,
ANONCOWARD@YAHOO.COM
act.
Re:Other examples (Score:3, Funny)
Undercut them. (Score:2)
Why not place a cheap item explaining the problem and giving useful information for potential buyers? Tell them where to download the software and where to order it on disk.
The author might do this and collect an occasional payment of a few dollars to cover the cost of placing items. Organizations like the FSF could try it.
It's a simple matter of spreading information where it's needed. Is it really necessary to turn to the law?
This might not be all bad (Score:2)
So, here's a solution - buy Open Office (er, "Luxurious Office") from this (unprintable description removed) and then sue him every time it doesn't work.
Or the Gimp (sorry, "Luxuriousity Photo")(for 25 bucks).
I can't look much further, the sleazoid-site is (grin) slashdotted.
think positively (Score:2)
As long as those people don't come back and claim that they own the free software, it really doesn't do much harm and it exposes more people to it. That doesn't make it right, of course, but perhaps one shouldn't be so uptight about it.
Audacity's experience with Gregg Collins (Score:3, Interesting)
My impression was that he means well, but I found his advertisements slightly deceptive by omission. He was upset that people were emailing his bidders, telling them they could get Audacity for free. My opinion was that if he wasn't value-adding, he didn't deserve their money.
Good Applications Do Not Make Good Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Applications Do Not Make Good Ideas (Score:2)
E.g., you may not believe guns are not good, or even believe that they're actively bad -- but unless you're a strong pacifist, you'd use a gun in self-defense, or to keep someone from harming someone else, if it were available to you. So it goes with the
Re:Good Applications Do Not Make Good Ideas (Score:2)
The opinion a person holds of an object/action/company determines wether that object/action/company is good or bad.
But that opinion cannot be used to classify that object/action/company for every one it can only classify it for the individual holding that opinion.
Laws are bad, guns are good, Microsoft is a joke.
Re:Good Applications Do Not Make Good Ideas (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, let's get rid of laws so that someone can shoot Microsoft.
Re:Good Applications Do Not Make Good Ideas (Score:2)
(double-take)
WHAT?!?!?
This is the nature of Ebay... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the sad part is that they are usually right. Are some of the things they sell wrong? Probably, but they are creating a market where none would have existed before.
You don't need the DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You don't need the DMCA (Score:2)
Go get it.
Nail *who* for copyright infringement? (Score:2)
law and order? (Score:2)
Re:Nail *who* for copyright infringement? (Score:2)
get a lawyer, (Score:3, Informative)
that is how copyright matters should be dealt with.
The Law is a tool.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with our society is that we think that the law defines the boundries of right and wrong behaviour. It isn't. And it never will.
Ted Tschopp
The Law (Score:2)
The law is only a set of governmentally supported rules about power.
At its best the law is intended to grant power to those who would otherwise lack it. For example, it may be used to help protect the individual against murder, theft, rape and so on. (Note "is intended to"!)
But the law is also used to deny power. Think of Auschwitz.
Justice has little or nothing to do with it.
Re:The Law is a tool.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The law is a tool to create order. Those who make it often or even usually try to model that order more or less after justice, but in the end, order beats true justice nearly every time.
I think the the law should include the most justice that order can bear, however. Under that metric, the DMCA is bad. It isn't very necessary, and it can easily be employed to abuse justice terribly (at least if my concept of justice means anything at all).
Re:The Law is a tool.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I will always argue that the law as it is written in the book is our collective socieities attempt to codify what we currently believe the univeral law to be. Sadly as we now know, that understanding can be wrong. Or if not wrong at least we kn
Hold up... (Score:2, Interesting)
So if someone wants my address, they can side-step all of the protections that E-Bay puts on that info and just claim that I'm violating copyright without any marit or proof? Did this catch anyone else off guard?
Oh, for crying out loud. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you're for "information wants to be free" and you don't have a thing to complain about, or your concede that there should be limits on individual freedoms, and thus recognize laws like the so-called DMCA as applicable limits on freedom for the benefit of everyone.
FWIW, it's probably easier to call the local US District Court and bug them about it. If the bloke's as bad as the article says, then he'll go down quickly enough.
DMCA not needed. (Score:2)
Normal copyright law is absolutely and fully efficient to get him by the balls.
Ask a lawyer about the details. I could imagine that a non-profit NGO like maybe the FSF could provide a fair amount of 'free' legal advice on how to deal with this.
Lawsuits Lawsuits Lawsuits (Score:2, Redundant)
If your copyright (in which you make the book/software copylefted) is violated, you should have civil action available to you outside of the DMCA. If you need to sue this person specifically, I'm sure there are a number of ways you can get his information without resorting to the DMCA "must give" statute. My first guess (and this is just a wild guess) is that if you ask eBay for it and they refuse pointing you to their vero service, then you should probably find a lawyer who can bully them into it with ei
Contact him (Score:5, Insightful)
If he refuses change the auctions, contact Ebay. Forward them copies of the emails you and he have exchanged and explain the situation. Let them handle it.
Licenses are there to protect our works. It's not bad juju to go after violators, it's just bad juju to abuse the law and licenses, and (in my opinion) to not even try to settle the issue without lawyers.
Buy one of the CDs... (Score:5, Interesting)
1: You'll have concrete evidence that he is violating your copyright, which can be brought to court and presented.
2: He has to send you the CD, which requires a valid return address. If he's smart he isn't using his own home address, but it is a start, and enough that you should be able to track him down via subpoena.
He is violating your copyright outright. This is illegal, and not dependant on a law such as the DMCA. The DMCA would make the CDs that he is selling your text on illegal as they are being used to circumvent your copyright. This is just outright blatant theft of your intellectual property.
Parent should be modded up (Score:2)
Re:Buy one of the CDs... (Score:2)
Nothing to do with circumvention! (Score:3, Insightful)
No. What ?? The CDs are just a vanilla copyright infringement. The anti-circumvention clauses in the DMCA are totally irrelevant here. (Guys, please read the DMCA anti-circumvention text. You can search for "17 USC 1201" on google to find it. A lot of people on slashdot totally misunderstand what that law says!)
The relevance of the DMCA is the takedown ("safe-harbor") provisions, by
Well, you should... (Score:2)
Now, mind you, I come from the "use the laws whenever its neccesary" group; see my Journal, and you'll see a few examples. Now, in my opinion, if you can use the DMCA, use it. Yes, it may be an evil piece of legislature, but its also a good piece; it often depends on how it's applied. In this case, you've got every right to nail this guy, and I vote you do it.
Of course I don't GPL my software (I prefer the LGPL and BSD-style liscenses, or ones of my own crafting). And, I believe patents a
I have same arguement w/ people selling Apple .... (Score:5, Informative)
As an authorized technician and reseller, the people that sell Apple Manuals and OS updates without any original material are promoting fraud. Most, who sells tech manuals, even say in their auctions, "Why pay a technician to fix it when you can do it at home?"
This is fine for out of warranty items, but promoting this for items that are still covered by Apple care, is promoting fraud. here's how: if someone ( a novice) takes this manual and then tries to fix a hardware problem themselves while a unit is still under warranty, then can't fix it or breaks something else, then brings the item in for repair under warranty, Apple and I have to pay for it! Hmmmm ...
As for the OS updates, apple has to pay licensing fees for codecs included in some of these updates and they have to pay them based on download totals and CD sales. For instance, last year, Apple paid out $7400 in liscensing for the OS8.6 update. It includes several sorenson codecs and a few TCP/IP network protocols that have to paid for.
Here is some info about this I had posted in a forum on MacCentral in January:
Operating system components such as liscensing and royalties (mpeg and TCIP codecs) are based on yearly distribution totals. It is illegal to redistribute Apple Operating System Updates without permission. Service providers depend on "customers with low bandwidth internet connections" for service revenue. Service providers are ALLOWED to download & charge for the service time to install or burn a CD for their customers. They are NOT allowed to SELL CDRs with updates on them! This is the same thing as taking Adobe Photoshop downloaded from LimeWire and selling CDR copies. Yahoo's reply has been: "Please contact the manufacturer / copyright holder" - I have spent hours on the phone with Quark, Connectix, Macromedia, Apple, and Adobe. These companies, including Apple, don't have the time to worry about a few thousand dollars.
" I can't tape a program off of free TV and sell it. Someone doesn't have access to the free channels I do = someone who doesn't have the bandwidth to download from Apple."
It is also against Apple Non Discloure to distribute part numbers & repair diagrams. How fair is it to the artists/authors of these manuals to redistribute without credit to them? Note: Apple DOES credit ANY author/artist or contractor, these manuals do not. Also, if a customer uses the wrong part number or custom installs, it could void their warranty or ruin their computer!
http://user.auctions.shopping.yahoo.com/user/jily7 0
The question to this seller is? Is it legal to download someone's else's work (or Apple's Property) and then redistribute it for a profit? Much different than file sharing where no profit is transacted.
This seller also claims exclusive rights and distribution with VillageMUG - Village MUG President has confirmed to me no affiliatiion
Interesting subject indeed. I will be interested in a followup from the author of the parent article to see what happens.
Big Surprise! (Score:4, Funny)
I saw one guy selling information about how to buy a new Ipod for $50. But if you weren't observant, you'd think he was selling an Ipod for that price.
Sadly, there were 6 bids, and it was already up to $65. I don't know who to blame more: the scumbag pulling this shit, or the dimbulbs bidding on it.
Re:Big Surprise! (Score:2)
eBay Feedback? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:eBay Feedback? ... what and risk negatives too? (Score:2)
I bet a few buyers would risk it anyway.
Barking up the wrong tree (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need the DMCA for that- If you wanted to sue the guy (which you apparently don't), your lawyer could simply get the information subpoena'd from eBay.
There's no reason to get the DMCA involved, here. You've got a very clear case of Copyright infringement, and that's enough to force him to stop distributing it without your licenses.
Ok, where SHOULD we get it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ok, where SHOULD we get it? (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't want it to come off as a plug for my own stuff, or a ploy for publicity, but anyway, here it is [lightandmatter.com]. Thanks for asking! See my sig for more sources of free books.
classic (Score:2)
Morals & suing w/o the DMCA (Score:2)
eBay (Score:5, Informative)
Re:eBay (Score:2)
"Yes, that's the guy. However, I intentionally didn't say who he was when I submitted the story, because I figured it would just be free publicity for him."
I'm not saying this as a flame or a "piss off" or whatever, honest, but I think if anyone was interested in this sort of thing, given that the title of the work in question was specified (and the subject of the work obvious), they would have simply looked at it anyway.
I can't imagine posting a link drove people to buy from him that othe
How to get his address... (Score:5, Informative)
2) He replies through normal email (the only way he can... he'll probably use a "real" reply-to address)
3) Contact his ISP or mail provider asking for them to identify him due to copyright infringement. A legal-looking request in a certified letter will many times get an actual response. If not, then you might have to go the DMCA route with them or Ebay.
4) Send him a legal letter from your lawyer outlining the complaint and the ways he can resolve the issue, as well as how he must PROVE that he's in compliance in the future.
IANAL like everyone else, but that's worked for me in the past with some GPL'd shareware.
MadCow.
What do you want??? (Score:2)
Beyond that, it's a copyright violation, and you have the same rights as anybody else with copyright (I don't see any relationship to the DMCA). That is to say, in practice, not a whole lot of rights unless you are really big.
I don't see a moral dilemma with using every law available to enforce your license. It is perfectly consisten
Complain to Ebay (Score:2)
do give in.... (Score:2)
Why? Everyone and their brother will use the law against *you*; why not turn their own tools against them? Perhaps if the DMCA is used to enforce individual rights, such as your own, others will find a way to use that same law to burn the corporate and government interests who sponsored it in the first plac
Sue the bastard (Score:3, Insightful)
You are a philanthropist (derives from the greek meaning lover of people) who was benevolent enough to bestow your creative and intellectual talents upon the world asking only in return that people continue to share your ideas and give you credit for them. All in all, pretty fair terms. This person is abusing your philanthropy and he should be made to stop. Using the DMCA to make him stop isn't evil, because you're trying to ensure the continued incentive to authors to use copyleft licenses.
Just because some people and companies use the DMCA for evil ends doesn't mean it's wrong to invoke it for just ends.
-jag
Use Ebay against him (Score:5, Insightful)
Cut n paste man! (Score:2)
I wouldn't actually cut n paste, but you could examine several letters and take the best parts of each. Many have already been acted upon by eBay so they shouldn't have a problem with it. Actually, I'd put very clearly how you expect compliance--more so than in a normal DMCA letter. Explain how exactly the guy is breaking GPL and how it hurts his sources not to follow it. See if you can get him to do it right rather
You don't need the DMCA to enforce copyrights... (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, the DMCA only applies to eBay as far as actual copyrighted material in the listing, which they are now required to remove within 48 hours. EBay is also required to turn over the guy's personal info. Before the DMCA, you might have needed to get a court order if EBay felt like being uncooperative (which they probably wouldn't have).
(Other then that, Ebay might need to make sure no one was selling copyright circumvention devices, in the same way they police drugs and gun stuff).
So basically the only difference between now and then is that you might have needed to get a court order back then.
DMCA is irrelevant (Score:3, Interesting)
DMCA is relevant to your situation if the license constitutes "copyright management information."
DMCA provides several provisions, not all of which are wholly evil. Section 1201 (a)(1)(A) [loc.gov] (the "anti-circumvention clause") provides that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." it goes on to list a variety of exceptions. The failure to include enough meaningful exceptions is a serious flaw in the law.
Section 1201(a)(2) (the "anti-trafficking" clause) goes on to provide that "no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" among other things. This is not an entirely bad thing, though it has been terribly abused by RIAA and MPAA to prvent the distribution of things that do have reasonable commercial value.
Section 1202 (b)(1) [loc.gov]provides that "No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information."
Rather than railing against the "DMCA" it would seem that supporters ofopen source ought to be strongly supporting 1202(b)(1). People concerned with legitimate security research ought to be interested in expanding the expemptions to 1201(a)(1), while people concerned with playing their digital content on devices of their choosing ought to be concerned with 1201(b) in general.
The copyright office is holding hearings [copyright.gov] on 1201(a)(1), though it is too late to participate if you haven't already.
Instead of uninformed bitching about DMCA as a whole, read the thing and express rational criticism instead of hysterical nonsense. You'll get farther that way.
There is no need to use the DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
If that doesn't work, just sue ebay for contributory copyright infringement since they "have the right and the ability to supervise the infringing abilities" of another..
luckily, ianal
Let's get something straight. (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop thinking about "copyleft". That has no legal meaning.
copyleft licenses are not USE licenses, like EULAs on software: they are licenses you can choose to accept that permit you to do things other than those things allowed by normal copyright law. I don't have to accept your license to read a copy of your book, or to posess it. All your license does is give me a way I can do something normally reserved for YOU by copyright law: Redistribute, for instance.
So, if someone is redistributing your work, they have to have your permission: There are two ways they can get this, in this case:
They can get it from you directly
They can follow the terms of the license you granted them to do so.
In other words, if they aren't following the terms of your "copyleft" license, then they are distributing a copyrighted work without permission. It's the same thing as if there WAS no license.
All the so-called "GPL violations" are the same thing as well. Not GPL violations.. COPYRIGHT violations.
IMHO (Score:3, Interesting)
Law and ethics should not mix to the extent of sitting still. Especially if you are the sort of person who has something that needs to be protected (which is what the DMCA is supposed to do). I look at the law as a tool, and as all tools go you use the best one for the job. If there is only a single tool you know about and you have an ethical dilemma I would suggest consulting the tool-smiths (in this case an IP lawyer). You may actually learn something about the document you hate so much, and use the experience to educate the legal system on your method of thinking.
Soap box moment:
Corporate America makes extensive use of the law, they hire fleets of lawyers and make them loyal to the thinking patterns that are used there. This is why America's law is so tightly bound to corporations these days. You know, the whole "We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all Men are created equal" idea? Essentially we have (in general) failed quite a bit in making technology into what the "people" want and into what "we" want. Open Source, Freedom of Speech, and all that jazz while being a great idea has done very little for common people DIRECTLY (at least as they perceive). If we want the legal recognition that we honestly think we deserve we must go to them, not the other way around. Instead of simply "attacking" the DMCA and saying "it's stupid" as a reason and being brash and nasty about it to common people we must talk them through it with real life examples. Technology is still a "product" to many people, and not a way of life. Honestly technology will never be a way of life for everyone, for most people it will be a tool to help them live a life.
Thank you
-Brian
"Just Do It" Arguments Flawed: Using DMCA=Support (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this argument is that, of course, should the DMCA every come up for legislative inquiry (as I hope it will), every vaguely reasonable use such as yours of the DMCA will be brought up to justify the DMCA.
On the other hand, if people like yourself explore standard means of response (of which people have posted many and there are more), you will display that there is no need for the DMCA.
(As an aside: how many complaints have you filed with eBay, over what time? From my experience they will suspend accounts with ongoing copyright violations -- even the use of other's copyrighted images. And you don't need to invoke DMCA to participate in VERO, which they will take more seriously).
Finally, few people have responded to more general questions about the DMCA as a tool for GPL etc software developers. My feeling is that DMCA is hardly a tool for the GPL community -- it was designed to let the big guys take immediate actions to harass others-- and I've get to hear even a concrete scenario aired here that would necessitate its use. Most violators are going to derive an income stream, and if someone is making money violating the GPL etc. terms, you can trace the money to find them, and you can track them down without the DMCA -- I bet the Canadian eBayer above would enjoy a visit from the Mounties, after all.
If you're not GPL or close -- well that's another can of worms. But do you really need to go so far as to invoke something like the DMCA to locate individual pirates? I'm more of the opinion that Kai Lee (of Kai's Power Tools, etc fame) expressed many years ago -- if someone finds a copy of your software and uses it to learn, or because they can't afford it, that's free advertizement; if they use your product regularly or to make a living, they should certainly buy a paid copy. Under such a view, what matters is a community ethic that says you should return what you get -- for instance, I've seen more than a few startups that survived on hacked copies of software and then dropped $20K on licenses when they took in income -- and such "creative licensing" is probably more valuable to most software endeavors than hunting down college kids with the DMCA. (And, of course, there are cases like time-limited shareware and authorization keys that don't necessarily fit this, but I'd want us to examine them on a case-by-case basis).
Don't sue, COMPETE (Score:3, Interesting)
You say: "Don't pay $20 for Joe's Physics CD-- it for free from the man who wrote it!!!"
You can drive the price into the ground, and put him out of business.
Hmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Think of the DMCA as a gun (Score:3, Interesting)
A store owner who pulls a gun to stop a robbery is different than the robber who pulls the gun.
In many ways you are the store owner being robbed.....pulling the gun (the DMCA) may not be nice and it may not be what you want to do, but it can't be considered out of line to use more "force" than that which some may feel is necessary....add to that the law is on your side. Right or wrong I assume that in day to day life you abide by those laws which affect you, whether or not you agree with them. This is a two way street.
Have you actually read the DMCA? (Score:4, Informative)
The majority of the DMCA is uncontroversial. Thanks to this law you can, for example, install copyrighted software on someone's machine to fix it, so long as you delete it afterwards, and there's nothing the copyright holder can do about it. Thanks to the DMCA, your ISP can set up a web proxy and not be violating copyright (before the DMCA, this was technically "republishing").
The only controversial part of the DMCA is the anticircumvention provisions (aka Chapter 12). If your software does not use an anticircumvention device, you are not exercising the "bad part" of the DMCA. You may sleep soundly.
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Interesting)
Writing textbooks is HARD. Not everyone can do it. This guy is making a contribution to the educational world in a way in which non-rich people can afford it. That's a damn nice gift, if you ask me. The more education in our world, the better.
And you would tell him he should just screw off? I don't think so.
Personally, I'd use whatever legal means were at my disposal if I was incensed by what happened, up to and including the DMCA. Law is law. Turn something bad into something good.
--ZS
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Informative)
And what's to stop someone distributing all or part of a commercially published book without giving credit?...
Copyright isn't about money, it's about protecting the rights of the author. Whether they choose to make money from it is irrelevant.
To promote the Progress... (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright isn't about money, it's about protecting the rights of the author.
Copyright, as defined in the United States Constitution, is about giving the author a monopoly to the extent that it "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Close, but not exactly . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, copyright is about providing authors with an incentive to create new works, on the theory that the advancement of knowledge (and art, literature, etc) leads to the betterment of society as a whole. The form that incentive takes is a temporary monopoly on the dissemination of the work. This monopoly is not an inherent right to be protected, but an extra right granted by the government and encoded in law.
Traditionally, authors use that monopoly to make money by selling copies of the work to people. You are absolutely correct, though, to point out that making money is not the only way in which the copyright monopoly can be used. In this case, the author has decided to make the work available to as many people as possible for as little cost as possible. The price he exacts is not monetary but legal -- in exchange for receiving the work, the customer must agree to abide by the terms laid out in the respective licenses. This ebay seller has violated those terms. He has not paid the price named by the author, and therefore is not entitled to possession of the work.
On a side note, I applaud the author for releasing his books under these terms. It is consonant with the original goal of copyright: to better society through the advancement of knowledge. Bravo.
Re:It was not given away (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this guy selling on eBay should give credit to the original author. For sure.
But because it is sold does not make it bad.
Like linux distros... I buy them but Linus does not get the cash. The distros give credit to him/them as they should (morally and
Re:It was not given away (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably because they're eBay junkies
In all seriousness, this is a perfectly valid point. If I put myself in the author's shoes, I think it's more the idea of having a seemingly shady thing happen with my name attached to it somewhere that would really twe
Re:As a professional in applied sciences, (Score:2, Interesting)
No. All it did was add legal weight to your extant security mechanisms. Standard IP law and your encryption already protect your IP from theft, doc.
To say that people like me *aren't* allowed to profit from our life-long research is a slap in the face to all of my colleagues.
Just like, for example, saying that someone who spends millions of dollars and a hundred-or-so man-years to ma
Re:Issue (Score:2)
Well, yeah. That's the best possible use for a bad law.
It doesn't happen very often, of course. The people who make the laws are rich, well-connected, a
Already been done. (Score:2)
How many others out there have had cease-and-desists sent to them/their ISP by the MPAA? I left a couple episodes of Stargate on gnutella (literally 2)... and they sent me a C&D. (My quick, flippant answer to the MPAA "cracking down" on TV shows... SELL THEM TO ME!! how else am i