Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:33:23 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Freebsd-Chat@Freebsd. Org" <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Serious breach of copyright -- First post Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEHDMKAB.davids@webmaster.com> In-Reply-To: <200606190852.09200.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 2) Using terms like "malicious" without proof (and it appears the claim > was completely false based on follow-ups since the user group > in question > added an attribute once they were notified) reduces your credibility > immensely. If anything, if the HouFUG were anywhere as > litiguous as you > they could probably bring a civil suit of libel against you. :) In > general it works better if one calmly works to resolve disputes instead > of yelling and screaming and whipping out DMCA notices as the first > action. Specifically since violations of 512(f) can result in huge fines. Specifically, 512(f) states: Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section: (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner ’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. So do not send DMCA takedown notices unless you've ensured there is no innocent explanation. I hope the DMCA takedown notice didn't include words like "malicious". >>What do you call removing all reference to the author of a copyrighted >>work, and then republishing it claiming it as your own? Hard to say without knowing how this happened. It could have been a result of an innocent cut&paste, for example, to get rid of headers and trailers that were appropriate in text and inappropriate in HTML. I'm usually really careful about copyright notices, but some people don't even really realize they're important. They're not lawyers, after all. >>If not malicious, >>that's certainly an act of bad faith. Assuming it was intentional rather than any of a million possible other scenarios. >>Moreover, the fact that they added >>the notice only AFTER being caught red handed does not suggest they weren't >>being malicious when they stole the article in question. It equally well suggests that they were caught red handed, that they had no idea that the copyright was cut, or that they didn't recognize the important of respecting copyright. You can equally well look at this as them taking action to fix the situation as soon as they were notified of it. You can call their less than perfect fixes a deliberate attempt to evade a proper fix and to try to get away with the minimum that would satisfy you or a lack of sophistication in understanding what was necessary and appropriate. I know several people who can put a web page together and have no idea how to properly maintain copyright notices or that it's important. I assure you that few of them are malicious. DS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEHDMKAB.davids>