"We'd like to inform you that we've received another complaint regarding your blog," begins the cheerful letter "Upon review of your account, we've noted that your blog has repeatedly violated Blogger's Terms of Service ... [and] we've been forced to remove your blog. Thank you for your understanding."In other words, "we've warned you repeatedly, but you kept on violating the TOS." I fail to see how repeated warning then deletion is evil. It actually sounds downright logical to me.
To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication (by fax or regular mail -- not by email, except by prior agreement) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is infringing your copyrights. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over $100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.That means BLK JKS have to clear with their label and/or whoever filed the DMCA request through legal means, at the cost to all respective parties.
Alvy Ampersand: ...if you don't want to be beholden to the draconian rules BigCorp (Boo! Hiss!) don't use their resource.If we believe the net-based media revolution is real and important, then the obvious question is: how can one run a tiny media operation with a global reach (like a blog) without being utterly under the thumb of several layers of corporate entities, none of which would bat an eye at cutting you off from the net the second you become the slightest bit bothersome? I don't know everything, but I can't see any way.
Last summer, we updated our enforcement of the DMCA. Our current policy is that when we receive a DMCA complaint, we:And that article goes on to note that if you are indeed allowed to share the material, it's up to you to file a counter claim. And that is indeed the same Chilling Effects Clearinghouse that is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.
* Notify the blogger about the complaint by e-mail and on the Blogger dashboard.
* Reset the offending post to 'draft' status, allowing the blogger to remove the offending content.
* Send a copy of the complaint to ChillingEffects.org.
When we receive multiple DMCA complaints about the same blog, and have no indication that the offending content is being used in an authorized manner, we will remove the blog.
Mister_A: How about MusicBlogocalypse? MusicBlogamageddon?How about Blogtorious B.I.G*?
When the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. It is estimated that currently, of all the books found in the world's libraries, only about 15% are in the public domain, even though only 10% of all books are still in print; the remaining 75% are books which remain unavailable because they are still under copyright protection. [from Wikipedia]We are losing vast chunks of our cultural history because a corporation (perhaps rightfully) doesn't see the percentage is putting songs from the 1930s on CD (much less iTunes) or issuing old movies on DVD. (Or even preserving them.) That's why we are supposed to have a public domain. As it is, nothing will be added to the public domain for another 9 years (if then).
naju: Should we let the bloggers make this judgment [of the potential market of the copyrighted material], or the copyright owners?In the case of out-of-print works, I'd say the copyright owners did make that judgement.
naju: Are you really arguing that anything that's not currently in print should be in the public domain?No, I'm making a specific response to a specific question, and I intend nothing more. It honestly didn't occur to me that perhaps it was a rhetorical question.
squeakyfromme: So, again, take what you can grab and be happy to have it, but isn't pretending the rightful owners of that material have no legitimate recourse to try and stop you a little facetious?Have you confused me with another poster, perhaps?
« Older An igloo has been built near Capitol Hill. Someon... | Todd Alcott has written in-dep... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
1as per definition in sub-paragraph c of BigCorp Owns You contract
posted by DU at 9:56 AM on February 11, 2010 [10 favorites]