[nylug-talk] effective DMCA tricks

[joe]

At 09:23 AM 5/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>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.

I stopped the thieves and shut them own. Stopped them from profiting from 
my work. Exposed them in public, by name, as thieves. What better result 
would you want?

But please don't leap to assuming that just because I haven't mentioned it 
that I am not pursuing a legal actions for damages, too. That is not in 
discussion because the topic is the DMCA.

>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.

Have you read the DMCA? Do you see the checks and balances in it? As for 
"established judicial procedures," I hope you considered my explanation of 
how they work - or should I say, do not work?

>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).

Someone's abuse of a law that protects the rights of thousands of creators 
does not not necessarily mean that the law is bad. The abuser is bad. 
Amending the law to punish abuses is an alternative that I'm not hearing in 
this discussion. From what I have heard, the abusee's have been further 
assaulted by the COS using the weight of that "established judicial 
system." The COS used that judicial system against writers who are friends 
and fellow union members of mine. And at least one that I know won a 
significant cash settlement from the COS for their persecution.

Surely you are not suggesting that abuse of the system by the COS is reason 
to cashier the entire "established judicial system."  So why then is it 
grounds for throwing out the entire DMCA? Baby? Bathwater?

>The claim by copyright holders that they should be allowed to act as a
>law unto themselves is attractive on the surface.

No it's not. I want a just society. I'm too much a left-wing activist to 
even consider allowing anyone to be a law unto himself.  That's not how I 
acted.

I acted within the letter of the law and got a just result. The DMCA 
process leveled the playing field between me and very wealthy, very 
arrogant thieves. Had the thieves  thought themselves abused by what I did, 
the DMCA contains a simple process for putting their stuff back on the 
Internet. They then would have the option of coming after me criminally or 
civilly or both, had I violated their rights. They did not even try.

You will notice that I have named them in public and called them thieves. 
If any of them felt aggrieved by those comments I'd have an army of libel 
lawyers pounding on my door. But truth is an absolute defense against libel 
and they don't dare come after me for telling it. One of them threatened to 
do that and I sent him my home address for so I could make it easy him to 
sue me. Never heard from him again.

>It's similar in concept to, say, permitting vigilante justice against 
>thieves or
>murderers - just string 'em up on the old oak tree!

That's an exaggeration that is not supported by the cases I described. I am 
not stringing up anyone. I have not done anything but take control over 
what is mine. I did not act without due process. If you read the law you 
will see it offers plenty of punishment for making unfounded claims. That's 
why an earlier post of mine cautions against doing this unless you either 
have good legal advice or are willing to take the serious  consequences for 
making a mistake.

>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.

I can't comment on those because they are outside the scope of copyright 
enforcement for creators, using the DMCA, which is the topic of this 
thread. I don't wander off into other topics.

>Vigilante justice is bad justice.

I agree. If I see any, you're be on my list of people to call.

Joe
(and since slogans seem to be required, here's mine again)
Copyright is not theft. Copyright theft is theft.