[nylug-talk] silly DMCA tricks

[Michael Sims]

A question for Joe: so, you shut down websites that you alleged were 
publishing copyrighted materials of yours.  What benefit did you gain 
from that?  Zero.

The notice-and-takedown procedures are in many ways as egregious as the 
rest of the DMCA - instead of pursuing the established judicial 
procedures for stopping ongoing torts (you file a suit, go to a judge, 
ask for an injunction, and if the judge believes you are likely to 
prevail, he issues one), we've made copyright holders into their own 
police force with the power of law behind them and no checks or balances.

At Slashdot, we receive approximately one example per day of the 
notice-and-takedown provisions being severely abused.  The Church of 
Scientology, to take one example of many, issues DMCA notices for any 
website it doesn't like (regardless of whether they are distributing 
copyrighted materials or not).

The claim by copyright holders that they should be allowed to act as a 
law unto themselves is attractive on the surface.  It's similar in 
concept to, say, permitting vigilante justice against thieves or 
murderers - just string 'em up on the old oak tree!  It's similar in 
both concept and execution to the proposals by the RIAA and MPAA that 
they should legally be allowed to hack into your computers if they think 
you might have copyrighted materials there.  But the problems far 
outweigh the benefits in each of these scenarios.  Vigilante justice is 
bad justice.

-- 
Michael Sims