Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Corbis Sues Amazon for Copyright Infringement 246

Posted by timothy from the once-is-understandable dept.
Gedvondur writes "The story ran in the WSJ today, that the Gates-owned image company, Corbis, is suing Amazon.com for copyright violations (PDF link). Apparently the suit was without warning to Amazon. Amazon will use the DMCA to defend itself. Link goes to copy of the WSJ article on Corbis's site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Corbis Sues Amazon for Copyright Infringement More

Corbis Sues Amazon for Copyright Infringement

Comments Filter:

  • PDF?? (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:35AM (#6347093) Homepage
    Here's a link [com.com] to news.com. Give Google news a shot [google.com], the piece is being carried by just about everyone.

    • Re:PDF?? (Score:5, Funny)

      by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:59AM (#6347183) Homepage Journal
      the piece is being carried by just about everyone.
      Looks to me like we have some serious copyright violations going on with this article. I hope the Wall Street Journal wipes the floor with that crappy in scanned article put up by Corbis and distributed to tens of thousands of slashdotters without giving the venerable WSJ a chance to earn ad revenues for their hard work.

      Take it to court!!!! [rgreetings.com] I say.

      • Re:PDF?? (Score:3, Funny)

        by kaltkalt ( 620110 )
        and I didn't even have to give away my personal information for marketing purposes in order to read the article. Isn't that a breach of some 'social contract' or something? hehe

  • Do you think.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:36AM (#6347099)
    that Corbis got permission from the Wall Street Journal to scan and redistribute it's copy as a pdf?

    • Re:Do you think.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:40AM (#6347117)
      It's only okay if the type on the copy is totally illegible.

      • Re:Do you think.. (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        So, mp3s are okay if they sound crappy?

        • By the "amount and substantiality" doctrine and the "effect on the market" doctrine (see 17 USC 107 [cornell.edu] for details), distributing a minimal-bitrate MP3 file may count as fair use in some cases. For many of the purposes that minimal-bitrate MP3 files are put to, the "purpose and character" doctrine may apply as well.

          Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.

          • Re:Fair use possibilities (Score:5, Informative)

            by odin53 ( 207172 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:48AM (#6347492)
            If Corbis didn't get the WSJ's permission, they would almost definitely be infringing. Section 107 is the general statutory fair use provision, your choice of statute is correct. But they copied the entire article -- big no-no for fair use -- and they're doing it for purposes arguably much more commercial than noncommercial (the fact that this article is in a very recent issue of the WSJ doesn't help in this regard, and of course neither does its appearance on Corbis's corporate website). Those two things together are probably deadly, at least with non-digital stuff. The seminal case I'm thinking of -- American Geophysical Union v. Texaco -- involved photocopying complete journal articles for distribution among the scientists at Texaco, and Texaco lost. Corbis's PDF wouldn't be much different.

            This minimal bitrate fair use idea is interesting, though. I've never heard of this argument winning. Do you have any cites? At any rate, the quality of the PDF isn't very important. In the past, direct reproduction of copyrighted material wasn't very good by nature, but unauthorized copies were still infringing. It shouldn't really be different now, at least for texts. I can definitely think of fairuse arguments for minimal bitrate MP3s, but I'm not so sure they'd win (which is why I'd love to read an opinion that thought otherwise).
            • I don't think you could pull that one off, honestly... The original poster was trying to say that since the bitrate is low it will have a low economic impact on the industry, I think. Although this is an important factor in determining fair use, it is NOT the only factor. I wrote a paper on copyright law re:mp3 [vt.edu], as well as a paper re:how I morally justify downloading mp3s [vt.edu] but both were for school so don't expect anything too spectacular :)
            • I think "minimal bitrate" applies to things like thumbnail images. For example images.google.com [google.com] serves thumbnail images, but directs you to the original site to get the full size image. I don't know of specific cases on it, but I'm pretty sure someone somewhere ruled thumbnails like that are fair use.

              In this case the image in the PDF would probably have no negative impact on the market for the photo (if anything it would probably spur demand for it). On the other hand the text in the PDF is clearly legibl
              • Yeah, I see the analogy, but I think cases with thumbnails turn on whether the thumbnails are incidentally or purposefully used (see, for example, the Arribasoft case). If the thumbnails are part of a big database of what essentially amounts to links to the original sources, then that's OK. Arriba wasn't selling the images themselves, I don't think; having thumbnails was incidental to the main purpose of having an index of links which lead back to the sources.

                But yeah, the fact that thumbnails are, well,
        • Because the artist is crappy? No.
          Because the sounds is crappy? Sadly, no.
      • Naw, it's a creative interpretation of the work. And since they own photographs of things, this is fine. Now they ought to sue the WSJ for copyright infringement- obviously they're publishing their work, without royalties.

        And yes. ;-)

        • Naw, it's a creative interpretation of the work. And since they own photographs of things, this is fine. Now they ought to sue the WSJ for copyright infringement- obviously they're publishing their work, without royalties.

          Come to think of it, that is a good point. I wonder what monkey at the WSJ thought it was a good idea to publish a picture which the story associated with the picture says was never supposed to be printed with anything. Come to think of it, this is the most puzzling aspect of the cas

    • This is not copyright infringement. (Score:4, Funny)

      by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:02AM (#6347386)
      They're just sharing the article with people so they can sample it, see if this article makes them curious enough to buy the whole paper.

  • Amazons defending themselves (Score:5, Funny)

    by darnok ( 650458 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:38AM (#6347104)
    > Amazon will use the DMCA to defend itself.

    Why does this give me a mental picture of a giant, half-naked female warrior beating off hordes of bad guys, armed only with a rolled up piece of paper?

    Gotta get out more...

    • an interesting test of the DMCA vs. the DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:45AM (#6347133) Homepage
      But the news.com article [com.com] says that "Corbis also accused the retailers of removing copy protection from the images in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

      This could be an interesting test of the DMCA. It has stood up a lot but how well can it stand up against itself? Could the DMCA win again or could it finally fall down? One of them must lose, so will it be the DMCA, or instead could it be the DMCA? It really makes you think...
      • Actually, a more likely, though somewhat unfortunate at least from a personal freedom standpoint, is that the DMCA wins on both counts. From what it sounds like, Corbis' suit against Amazon is on shaky ground in that they didn't give them a chance to rectify the situation before the suit was filed. Amazon's going to claim the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA apply to this case, as they simply provide a marketplace for the information; much like an ISP, they only provide the linkspace, and don't pay much mind to the sites unless a problem is brought to their attention. Chances are, the court's going to agree with this defense, and either dismiss the case against Amazon, or a jury is going to find Amazon not liable due to the safe-harbor clause.

        This leaves the actual sellers. They are commiting copyright violations, and as they are removing encryption used to protect copyrighted images without authorization, they will be slammed by the DMCA. Thus there is no battle royale with the DMCA against the DMCA, as the two different clauses of the DMCA are going to be used with what will be two different parties.

        • Encryption? (Score:3, Informative)

          by poptones ( 653660 )
          the "copy protection" is not "encryption." It's a big CORBIS watermark that can be removed in photoshop. Essentially "removing copy porotection" means, at worse, retouching the photos using any easily obtained, commercial or GPL'd, image editing application.

          In this case I'm not even so sure of that since you can buy access to the corbis site for a relatively modest fee (it's a few hundred clams, intended for professionals). From there you can download the "unprotected" images in very large (~2000 x5000 pix

      • This could be an interesting test of the DMCA. It has stood up a lot but how well can it stand up against itself?

        You simply do not understand legal theory.

        The DMCA is used whenever a corporation doesn't like something that they want to sue for. (e.g. refill ink cartridges, selling a discarded sewing pattern envelope found in the trash)

        The underlying legal principal at work is that corporations can do no wrong. Only individuals can. Especially when the business model or corporate profits are at
        • In the recent issue of Corbos v.s. Amazon the two retailers have reached an agreement and both sides have dropped their suits. In the new agreement, Amazon will continue to provide materials and information from third parties, while Corbis will notify Amazon promptly if further infringements are found. Amazon and Corbis are now joining forces and suing the parties responsible for posting the images in question. An executive from Amazon was quoted as saying 'We agree with Corbis that this was a clear violati

    • Re:Amazons defending themselves (Score:5, Funny)

      by divide overflow ( 599608 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:54AM (#6347366)
      > Why does this give me a mental picture of a giant, half-naked female warrior beating off hordes of bad guys, armed only with a rolled up piece of paper?

      I bet you go to every Star Trek convention.
    • um, I dunno dude, but keep the details to yourself,ok? :)
    • Why does this give me a mental picture of a giant, half-naked female warrior beating off hordes of bad guys

      I think I saw that mpg.

  • FYI (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) * <mrpuffypants@gCOMMAmail.com minus punct> on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:38AM (#6347107)
    Note that this is in regard to Amazon Marketplace sellers. It's not Amazon that's actually selling the worthless pictures of celebrities.
    I'd say that this sounds like a Kazaa-type situation. Don't shoot the messenger I guess.

  • Amazon uses DMCA to defends itself (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cpc ( 656151 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:39AM (#6347109)
    "Amazon's Mr. Curry said the Corbis lawsuit was "without merit with respect to Amazon" because the company isn't liable for copyright infringements by its merchant partners under the DMCA."

    Looks like the DMCA is a swiss army knife...

  • what's the eBay distinction (Score:4, Interesting)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:42AM (#6347124) Homepage
    This article is very murky on details...

    Does anyone have any idea how the Amazon marketplace system is set up and what causes them to say that "the way Amazon is organized may change the analysis from the eBay analysis...the more directly they're involved, the more they may seem like a traditional infringer" ?

    • Some hints.... (Score:3, Informative)

      by David Hume ( 200499 )
      I'm not sure, but here are some hints.

      The CNet [cnet.com] article [com.com] explains:

      The complaint accuses Amazon of vicarious infringement for allegedly allowing its "trusted retailers" to offer Corbis images through its site.

      "Amazon has failed to effectively supervise and control the infringing conduct of the supplier defendants," the suit says.

      What are the requirements of the Amazon "trusted retailer" program? Are there any requirements that would either: (a) impose a duty on Amazon to supervise its third party seller

    • Here's the drill . . . (Score:5, Informative)

      by werdna ( 39029 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @08:59AM (#6349027) Journal
      You are guilty of infringement when you, yourself, reproduce, distribute or make derivative works without consent, unless certain defenses apply (fair use, first sale, more money than the plaintiff to defend yourself, etc.).

      You may also be guilty of infringement if you contribute to another person's infringement (think "aiding and abetting"), or if you have a master-agent relationship with the infringer. However, you are not responsible under these rules all the time. As a threshold matter, you are never responsible unless the primary individual is actually guilty of an infringement (that is, you can assert all of his defenses). Also, both for contribution and vicarious infringement, you generally have to have a guilty state of mind, often requiring, at least, imputed knowledge of the direct infringement. For contribution, there is also a number of other rules, such as the modern version of the Supreme Court's Sony "substantial noninfringing use" test, whereby you are off the hook if the technology is capable of a substantial noninfringing use, except in cases where the defendant's corporate name ends in "ster."

      When the Church of Scientology sued Netcom for contributing to the infringements of its customers, Netcom prevailed, as I recall on summary judgment, by pointing out that it had no reason to know of the infringement, and thus could not be liable for contribution. This District Court opinion was later codified in the DMCA "internet provider" safe harbor rules. Note that whether or not the DMCA gives Amazon a defense, Amazon can always fall back on general rules of contribution, including Netcom.

  • Playing mummy to irresponsible traders (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aligma ( 682744 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @01:44AM (#6347130)
    This is a recurring issue of people abusing services provided to them. When people share copyrighted files on P2P networks, are the P2P networks responsible?

    It seems now that there is an increasing trend toward making people responsible for their own actions (read: copyright violations), and in the current climate, Amazon may well win, although it doesn't look too pretty for the merchants.

  • obviously innocent (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:06AM (#6347207)
    Amazon is obviously innocent. While Corbis claims that they are a "professional stock photo agency", that's clearly not possible: no company that puts out a crappy scan of a copyrighted story in the WSJ as a "press release" could possibly either know anything about copyrights or digital imaging. They must be some sort of impostors. Whereever those Meg Ryan photos came from, they can't have come from Corbis.

  • These people need to go back to nursery school... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mpthompson ( 457482 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:13AM (#6347235)
    What ever happened to exercising some civility and making the assumption that people and corporations do make honest mistakes and will typically try to fix the situation when such a mistake is pointed out.

    I fully believe that Corbis should be able to defend it's copyrights in courts if necessary. However, from the article it seems that Amazon and it's affiliated partners would have fully cooperated with removing the infringing material if they were simply informed of the issue. Furthermore, I would like to think that some reasonable settlement could have been reached short of filing a lawsuit had the infringing companies actually made any money off the images in question.

    However, this seems like the case of another company thinking it won the judicial lottery because they found a clear cut instance copyright infringement. From the way lawsuits are flying out of Corbis you would think the Earth came to a crashing halt because some dumb picture of Renee Holhoegger found it's way onto Amazon.

    Am I being naive that such a mistake can be made and remedied with people acting like adults, or do the people running Corbis need to go back to nursery school to learn to play nice with other kids? Sheesh.
    • What ever happened to exercising some civility and making the assumption that people and corporations do make honest mistakes and will typically try to fix the situation when such a mistake is pointed out.

      What planet are you from? Let me give you some background. Corporations make mistakes. Individuals commit crimes. An example of the former type of mistake: Oh, we booked $4 Billion of loss as if it were $4 Billion of profit. Ooops. Sorry. Example of the latter type of crime: you picked up an en

  • Corbis is Crap (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:17AM (#6347245) Homepage Journal
    I'm a Fred Astaire fan. A couple years ago, I decided I wanted a picture of him on my office wall. None of the pics or poster I could find suited. Then I discovered that various press companies were selling copies of their photos online. Found the one (can't remember which one) that owned the rights to Fred's image. Paid a small fee, agreed not to use the image commercially. Downloaded it, printed it out, stuck it up. Cool.

    Now that same image belongs to Corbis. It's on their web site, but before they quote a price on an image, they make you specify what you're going to do with it. All their uses seem to be commericial. The closest I could come to my needs was to specify that I intended to put it up in the lobby of my business.

    And after I go through all this, I'm told that online pricing for this image isn't available! Lame.

    I try it again with an image of a person that doesn't have a greedy estate. I end up with a photo of this statue [nps.gov]. A download will cost me $1700!

    This is IP hoarding of the worst kind.

    • Re:Corbis is Crap (Score:5, Informative)

      by mph ( 7675 ) <mph@freebsd.org> on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:58AM (#6347523)
      All their uses seem to be commericial. The closest I could come to my needs was to specify that I intended to put it up in the lobby of my business.
      At present, if you go to www.corbis.com and select "Photography -> Personal Use", it appears that you can get two photos for 8 bucks.

    • Re:Corbis is Crap (Score:2, Troll)

      by jafac ( 1449 )
      This is no suprise to me, of course.
      Corbis, as a company, was founded and funded for this VERY PURPOSE.

      It's business model IS - - - IP Hoarding.

      The whole point Bill Gates started this company for is to buy up all the IP he could afford with his Microsoft Monopoly War Chest, and create an ancilliary IP War Chest. The only downside is that he has to keep a back-pocket full of high-quality IP lawyers and lobbyists on staff.

      Someday, he'll figure out how to replace lawyers with machines to lower his base-lab

  • Gates vs. Bezos (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:18AM (#6347249)
    I just can't decide who I want to see lose more.

    It's like putting Hilary Rosen and Ann Coultier into a spiked cage and fretting over who won't emerge.

    I guess we all win this time.

    • Re:Gates vs. Bezos (Score:5, Funny)

      by divide overflow ( 599608 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:00AM (#6347381)
      It's like putting Hilary Rosen and Ann Coultier into a spiked cage and fretting over who won't emerge.

      No, it's like putting Hilary Rosen and Ann Coulter into a spiked cage and fretting that one might emerge.

    • Re:Gates vs. Bezos (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Myuu ( 529245 ) <myuu@pojo.com> on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:22AM (#6347433) Homepage
      I would be cheering for Hilary to come out.
      I can stand/understand being bitched out for not actually paying for half the music on my computer, but to be told that I am destroying the country for supporting gay rights or socialistic health care is insane.
      • At least then I won't be subjected to imprisonment for making a decision she did not approve of. You do recall that provision in her Healthcare reform attempt don't you? Go to a doctor of YOUR choice and you and your doctor can be put in jail.

        Oh yeah, she's about freedom as much as Hitler is.

        A.C.you can pass off some of her views as extreme without having to worry they will bite you in the ass because she isn't running for office. She makes her mark by people buying her stuff, good old fashioned capita

  • Here is the suit: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:25AM (#6347275)
    Corbis attacks with IP violation suit.
    Amazon strikes with DCMA +0.
    Corbis resists !
    Amazon conjures rapid laywers.
    Corbis conjures Bill Gates.
    Amazon conjures David Boies.
    Bill Gates attacks with incompatible IE +6.
    David Boies strikes with countersuit.
    Countersuit misfires !
    Judge drops dead laughing !
    Bill Gates integrates IE into Windows.
    Corbis conjures more laywers.
    Amazon casts press release at Bill Gates.
    Bill Gates resists !
    David Boies casts Chebacca defense.
    Chebacca defense misfires !
    Amazon loses !Judge orders Amazon to pay 10000000 $ !

  • A good thing in the DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyberformer ( 257332 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:33AM (#6347299)
    Amazon's defense seems to be based on one of the few not-so-evil provisions in the DMCA: that ISPs cannot be blamed for the actions of their users ("common carrier" status). This will all hinge on whether or not Amazon's third-party listings are more like a service provider or a publisher.

    IANAL, but this will be interesting.

    • Depending on how the material was actually framed, you might or might not get away with claiming that Amazon was acting solely as a service provider.

      But even promoting material, and displaying it in an integrated fashion is far from "publishing". If it were every bookstore owner would be a "publisher".

      Would anyone expect a book store owner to validate that the purported author of each book had not engaged in plagarism? Why should we expect Amazon to do something that we would not expect a bricks and

    • not-so-evil provisions in the DMCA: that ISPs cannot be blamed for the actions of their users ("common carrier" status)

      While I agree it's "not as evil" as other provisions, it is still somewhat evil. It does not grant common carrier status and it DOES leave ISP's responsible.

      If something is hosted on dial up the phone company is not responsible for disabling that phone service and you can NEVER sue the phone company in court for infringment.

      ISP's are held responsible to disabling access to the material.

  • Equitable settlement (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:39AM (#6347323)
    Perhaps this will be settled by an agreement that Microsoft can use buttons in their applications without paying license fees to Amazon.

  • Why not negotiation? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @02:39AM (#6347326)
    The average professional photographer doesn't make a huge amount of money. It seems reasonable that if someone's work has been ripped off, they should be paid an amount equal to the usual fee rate for the actual usage, plus the costs of enforcement. In a more rational commercial environment, Corbis could simply have sent Amazon a bill. If Amazon refused to pay, then legal action would start. And Amazon would have the option of paying, then passing the bill back to the people posting copyright material on its site.

    Back in the days before lawyers decided that the Constitution guaranteed them a percentage of everything, a part share in a couple of hotels and a condo, and a different colored SUV for every day of the week, good lawyers could write a letter that would start the process of negotiation without egos getting inflamed and everything ending up in court. It's better for business that way. But now CEOs are terrified of not being seen to do everything possible to extract every last cent and inflate the share price, and I suspect law firms milk this. Eventually the tide of opinion will turn, perhaps when those same CEOs decide to blame the tide of lawsuits for current underperformance and start to lobby government to fix the problem. Cynical? Yes. Realistic? Maybe

    • The vast majority of law suits are settled. Most likely, this lawsuit is just a step in the negotiation process, to show that Corbis is serious.
    • >>It seems reasonable that if someone's work has been ripped off, they should be paid an amount equal to the usual fee rate for the actual usage, plus the costs of enforcement.

      Actually, that's not reasonable. If the only penalty for infringement was that, then there would be NO incentive to not rip off images. A publisher could use dozens of images, and if he's only nailed for 2 or 3, he's still happy since he has still spent far less than if he paid the normal fee for all of them.
      Now, with the $150,

  • Evil vs. Evil (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Holger Spielmann ( 243913 )
    It's always nice to see two evil forces fighting each other. Only sad thing is that this will again put money into the pockets of some greedy lawyers. But anyway, let's fetch some beer and popcorn.

    ObJoke:
    Q: What are 20,000 lawyers on the bottom of the Northern Sea?
    A: A good start.

  • Willfull commision (Score:4, Insightful)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:12AM (#6347413)
    Isn't part of the requirements of breaking copyright law (which is a civil tort in most cases) willfull violation?? How could Amazon be breaking copyright law if they did not know that the images were copyrighted? Is a bookstore liabel if they obtain pirated copies of a book through a legitimate reseller with no knowledge or reasonable expectation that the copies are not genuine articles? Otherwise there is a hell of a hole in the law where you are liabel for up to $150K per work for doing nothing wrong other than failing to do an exhaustive search for any copyright holders.

    • Re:Willfull commision (Score:4, Interesting)

      by afidel ( 530433 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:24AM (#6347438)
      Hate to respond to myself but I decided to do some reading, and Amazon may potentially have a problem with 17USC512(C)(1)(B)
      "does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and"

      but Corbis is really going to be slapped around by the judge for not following ANY of the procedures set forth for copyright holders under 17USC512. Basically they didn't try to use any of the methods at their disposal to stop the infringing activity but instead ran directly to court, judges generally frown upon this as it ties up the courts with what is usually needless actions (or else the remedies wouldn't be in the code).
    • Now, what makes it nuts... really nuts.... is would a civil trial... assuming damages are rewarded, would that make these images authorized? Afterall, a judgement in the favor of the plantif would be money exchanged for the distrubtion of images. Would that mean if I bought the image in question it's worth $150,000? Or would I be sued for $150,000 if I sold a copy of this image without permision?
    • They are copying this image willfully, there is no accident.
      The question that is more important is if they made a reasonable attempt to ensure they had permission to do so. If they just "found it on the net" they're in trouble. If someone who could have reasonably owned the copyright had frauduelently sold it to them, they are probaly not in so much trouble.
      • Amazon didn't "find" the images and they didn't buy the images. Amazon isn't making copies, and Amazon isn't selling the images. Amazon didn't have to make any attempt to ensure permission becuase there weren't doing anything that required permission.

        Amazon is doing the same thing e-bay is doing. They are providing a service where other people can sell things. They charge the seller a fee for this service.

        Amazon has deep pockets. Corbis is just "going where the money is". *If* there is any infringement go

  • No acrobat? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) * on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:36AM (#6347459)
    Adobe PDF to HTML Conversion page [adobe.com]

  • The DMCA is a good law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sakusha ( 441986 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @03:49AM (#6347498)
    I just used the DMCA to get back control of my personal website from the ISP that was holding it hostage. Without the DMCA, I would have had to fight in district courts over copyrights, it would have taken me months and many bucks spent on shyster lawyers. But a single DMCA affadavit and bam, my personal work is back under my control.
    • Care to explain how DMCA was used in your case?

      • Re:The DMCA is a VERY good law (Score:5, Interesting)

        by sakusha ( 441986 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @09:29AM (#6349356)
        My former web services provider locked me out of my website due to a business dispute over their refusal to repair (or even acknowledge) bugs in their proprietary front-end. After the lockout, they maliciously kept the site up, hoping to spread confusion amongst web searchers about where my current site is located. Web searches were diverted from my lowly independent site to the same content on their highly-rated site, diverting my audience to the old dead site. I had a backup of the site, so I only sought to have the old site deleted. The provider had repeatedly agreed to remove the site but they never did, they were lying to me. I could easily have hacked into the site and deleted it myself, but that would have been illegal.
        Fortunately I posted copyright notices on each page I wrote before I lost control of the site. I filed a DMCA complaint with the upstream provider, demanding removal of my copyrighted content or else they must disconnect the server from the net. I just followed the instructions on the www.chillingeffects.org site (which ironically is an anti-DMCA site with the best information on how to use the law). I just whipped together a nice PDF copied from a successful DMCA complaint by Dow Chemical. The upstream ISP was in the process of pulling the plug on the web provider's primary server when the assholes at the provider finally realized they better relinquish control of my site, and they caved in and deleted the site. Victory for the little guy!
        To respond to a separate reply to my message, you're bringing up a strawman to mention Elcomsoft. All you've proven is that there are bad lawmen, not that the DMCA is a bad law. Elcomsoft is a spamware seller and they all belong in a Gulag at hard labor, not Club Fed.

    • Whooptie friggin doo (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gosand ( 234100 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @08:00AM (#6348502)
      I just used the DMCA to get back control of my personal website from the ISP that was holding it hostage. Without the DMCA, I would have had to fight in district courts over copyrights, it would have taken me months and many bucks spent on shyster lawyers. But a single DMCA affadavit and bam, my personal work is back under my control.

      Pardon my insensitivity, but whooptie friggin doo. A man was put into JAIL for months under the name of the DMCA, and was later released without being charged. That is like saying the Patriot Act is a good law because they may have caught someone who could possibly have been a suspected terrorist, while there are hundreds of people being held in outdoor cells in Guantanamo with no trial or legal representation. Gee, slavery wasn't that bad, because some people made some money on it, and black people might not even be in this great land without it.

      Hey, I am all for the little guy using the DMCA if it helps him out, but there is absolutely no reason for you to say it is a good law because of that. Say that it helped you, so it can aid the little guy too, but DON'T say it is a good law.

      • you mean the enemy combatants, who if released would make bombs and attack the US?
        • you mean the enemy combatants, who if released would make bombs and attack the US?

          Show me one single shred of proof that they are enemy combatants. One. "Because Bush said so" is not proof. Here's a hint, there isn't any. If there was any evidence, they would be tried in court. They have done this with other, legitimate threats to the US. I am all for that.

          Typical ignorant American, swallow the garbage that Fox News feeds you, put your red-white-and-blue blinders on, and be more concerned about who

          • So why have some of those in Camp X-ray been released? Because they are not threats. I'm not sure what cable system you get but all my local Fox station shows is The Simpsons and the X-files.

            Soldiers( enemy combatants) aren't tried in court, at least not what you are thinking. Read up on the Geneva Convention and iinternational and and show me where it's being broken.

            Don't wanna get thrown in a prison camp? Well then don't join the Army and fight. Pretty simple if ya ask me.
    • " I just used the DMCA to get back control of my personal website from the ISP that was holding it hostage. Without the DMCA, I would have had to fight in district courts over copyrights, it would have taken me months and many bucks spent on shyster lawyers. But a single DMCA affadavit and bam, my personal work is back under my control."

      . . . yes, but what about your eternal SOUL?

  • Photographers Compensated??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by clarencek ( 146670 ) on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @04:34AM (#6347608)
    "We are of course willing to discuss options to resolve this with Amazon," Mitchell said. "Our goal is to put a stop to this activity. There's a component of this that requires our photographers to be compensated and to put steps in place to prevent this from happening again."

    If they get $150,000 for each infrginement - how much of that do you think will go back to the original photographer? Right $0.00.
    Companies like this have a right to protect their IP, but it's insulting to make it seem like they're doing it for some altruistic reason.
    • Please don't be so disingenuous. It's not the photographer in this instance that is being compensated but photographers in perpetuity.

      If copyright violations were ignored, that would make photographs worthless. Guess how much the companies are going to pay the photographers for the rights to those photographs then?

      Yes, it is a simplistic argument, but there is definitely a small grain of truth in the original statement.
  • Using the Homeland Security tool "Deep Scan" we have uncovered proprietary bits of SCO code in the WSJ scan.

    Make that 10 Billion in small bills...
  • This is just another example of big companies trying to throw their weight around. I mean seriously, anybody with business sense would just ask them to remove the items in question instead of burning bridges behind them. What happens now when MS/Corbis *wants* to use Amazon to sell something of theirs? This all seems like a good way to make enemies
  • HBO: 7 PM: "Gorilla Warfare" Starring Billy Gates and Jeff Bezos. Two 900 pound gorillas duke it out over their massive collections of copyrights and trademarks. Watch as Bezos invokes the DMCA after Gates attacks him with a chair! Rated "R" for extreme violence.

    Really, though... Am I the only one who just read the story on Slashdot and cracked up laughing? It's just too funny for words.
  • i don't know who i should be cheering for.

    obvious patent-happy amazon and the dmca? or gates and, indirectly, m$ world domination.

    this ground my finite state machine to a halt.
  • Amazon isn't just an ISP here, selling network bandwidth and hosting. Amazon is a merchant. Amazon's own page says "Amazon.com markets your item to our millions of customers." You pay Amazon directly when you buy through Amazon Marketplace. Amazon is directly involved in the transaction and takes a cut. They're effectively selling on commission. Amazon may like to pretend that they aren't, but a court may well rule otherwise.

    What Amazon says in their "Terms and Conditions" is completely irrelevant

  • What about the people in the photos? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <`moc.nozakeeg' `ta' `guodpoons'> on Wednesday July 02, 2003 @07:28PM (#6354741) Homepage
    Let me see if I get this right. You don't own your own face, because somebody can make a copy of it with a camera and sell copies of the copy without your permission. However, that person owns that copy of your face and can sue anybody else for selling copies of their copy, and you don't get a nickel out of it.

    Yeah okay, makes sense to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

<<<<< EVACUATION ROUTE <<<<<

Close