Is It Copyright Infringement To Pass A DMCA Notice On To ChillingEffects?

from the copyright-on-a-copyright-infringement-notice? dept

Wed, Feb 9th 2011 8:03am — Mike Masnick

Tom Rubin, who happens to be Microsoft's chief counsel for intellectual property strategy, has a blog post up at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford, where he highlights the worrying trend of filers of DMCA takedown notices forbidding the recipient to publish or pass the notice on to third parties like ChillingEffects. From the notice:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: None of the information contained in this legal notice is to be transmitted and/or released to any third party, including but not limited to Chilling Effects (chillingeffects.org), without the express written permission of the the copyright owner and or his agent. As stated in Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and in the normal course of processing and notifying the infringing counter party, recipient must only include information specific to that counter party's infringement and must not include this entire notice. Any re-transmission in whole or in part of this legal notice by the intended recipient will be a direct violation of U.S. and International Copyright Law and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the copyright owner.

Yes, that's right. The company is claiming that the DMCA takedown notice itself is copyrighted and that passing it along will constitute infringement. Of course, this raises some questions. Assuming that such a notice is copyrightable (and I'd argue that, depending on the text, it might not be), who owns the copyright. The paragraph above appears to imply that it's the copyright holder of the original content that the takedown notice is about, but that wouldn't be true. It seems that the copyright, if there is one, would be held by whoever wrote the letter, which is the third party firm hired by the original copyright holder. Also, did whoever write this letter actually register it with the Copyright Office?

Either way, I can't wait to see the DMCA takedown notice filed on a DMCA takedown notice.

Of course, it's not too hard to track down more details about this. That's because at least some of the recipients of such a warning appear to have totally ignored it. Within seconds, I found a recent letter on ChillingEffects (sent to Google) that includes this language. It's a letter from Zuffa LLC, better known as the parent company for UFC, who has been quite aggressive in copyright lawsuits. The actual letter appears to have been filed by an outfit called MiMTiD, which promises automated DMCA takedown notice submission, which only raises even more questions. If the letter itself is automated, again that raises questions about whether it's copyrightable.

Even odder is the following paragraph in the letter. After denying the recipient the ability to forward the letter to anyone, including specifically calling out ChillingEffects, it appears to indicate that it will instead forward the letter to a different aggregator of such notices, called "The Chilling Report" but apparently that database is kept secret and you need to "obtain secure access" to see it:

Please also note that with the express permission of the copyright owner, in addition to being forwarded to certain members of the United States Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice, MiMTiD will send this legal notice to a third-party that aggregates repeat infringer data gathered by different agencies and infringement mitigation service companies around the globe and provides centralized access to that data to be used by global policy makers and law enforcement agencies to create and enforce copyright law. As such, this legal notice will included in The Chilling Report (http: //www.chillingreport.com). To obtain secure access to the Chilling Report please email The Chilling Report at xxxxx @chillingreport.com or call (713) xxx-xxxx.

I checked out http://www.chillingreport.com and nothing loads. So is this an attempt to try to hide DMCA takedown notice info from the public? If so, I doubt it will work. It's nice to see that Google apparently didn't think twice before passing this letter on to Chilling Effects, despite the prohibition. Now we'll see if MiMTiD, Zuffa or anyone else actually tries to claim a copyright on the DMCA notice. I would imagine they'd have to send a DMCA notice to Chilling Effects first, and if that includes the same paragraph, we may get into an infinite loop of DMCA notices...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: chilling effects, copyright, dmca
Companies: mimtid, zuffa

73 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 7:25am

So it's a DMCA breach to post a DMCA takedown now? I didn't know copyright applied to opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:06am

Re:
Premise A: Facts cannot be copyrighted.

Premise B: Fiction CAN be copyrighted.

QED: Legal notices can be copyrighted, therefore legal notices are fictitious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:13am

Re: Re:
You forgot Premise C: Unique expression CAN be copyrighted.

This is where I step in. I will gladly sell my services to law firms, such that their future DMCA notices can be written uniquely in poem or prose format, complete with references to the sun and the sky, or nefarious characters with overly dramatic descriptions of their "shifty eyes".

This will be big business in the future: uniquely authored DMCA notices by seasoned writers....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:13am

Because without copy protection laws no one would ever write DMCA takedowns or legal notices and lawyers will starve!!!

Wait, that could be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:14am

Even if the notice is copyrighted, I think it's fair use to send it to a site like Chilling Effects for them to publish since it's a transformative use of the material for scholarly research.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:19am

I know,
that they know, that I know, about the DMCA takedowns.

And they know, that I know, that they know, that we all know, about how to counter the DMCA notice through public discourse.

Now we all know, what they know, about how I know, what the law is.

Let's hope they know, that I know, that we all know, the DMCA is not copyrighted in the slightest.

And I hope they know, that we all know, that they need to know, how we know, that all this does is cause more of a Streisand effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:19am

I would think this would fall into one of two categories. A valid DMCA notice with little or no creative expression and thus not copyrightable. Or it is a copyrightable expressive work that probably doesn't meet the requirements of a valid DMCA notice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:21am

Legal Notice
I thought that legal notices were specifically exempt from copyright. It seems like DCMA takedown order would qualify as a legal notice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:26am

Re: I know,
I'm disappointed in this comment, only because as soon as I read the first few words my brain started singing them to me in the tune of the Psych theme song (is that infringement?), but then the rest of the comment didn't follow along....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:28am

Re: Re: Re:
I'm a programmer. When I comment my code sometimes I like to do it in the form of an epic poem.

I would like to join your firm and we can send many of these out!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Merc, 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:30am

URL
It looks like the URL is supposed to be https://www.chillingreport.com

That page actually does load... after you acknowledge that the certificate is invalid...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:32am

So chillingreport.com is registered by David Cox, who is also the creator of MiMTiD and something called "Blues Destiny Records LLC"

And chillingreport.com is not the only website that doesn't work - MiMTiD.com/net/org are all broken, and the Blues Destiny Records homepage is a redhat server default.

So is there a real operation buried somewhere in all this? What are they obfuscating?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:42am

Re: Re:
Facts cannot be copyrighted, but the content of a written document can be.

Chilling Effects / Google could still have a DB that lists the complaint, the site in question, and the date, example, which are all "facts".

It is not clear that they can actually scan and publish the original document.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous gerbil (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:42am

Re:
MiMTiD.com/ does load for me, redirects to www.MiMTiD.net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:43am

Re: Re: I know,
...

I didn't know it until just now. But I know, you know, that you're not tellin the truth.

I know, you know, they just don't have any proof...

What the...?

Wow, that fits even better!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:43am

Re: URL
If you just make it http://www.chillingreport.com, it works fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a sample I whipped up that we could send out to prospective customers:

I, (Company/Individual Name), certify here,
Under penalties of perjury severe,
That I am an authorized agent to act,
On behalf of owners, its fact,
Of certain intellectual property rights,
For which the work to produce took many days and many nights,

I have it on good faith, that items in your space,
Are simply not authorized by law,
For use or for waste, by the owners of said space,
And it's making our client quite raw,

It infringes, you see, on our client's copyright,
So I must demand that you recognize his plight,
Act expeditiously to remove or disable,
Access to the material as soon as you are able,

My contact information is listed below,
Along with the alleged materials,
But I must impress upon you in this notice,
That I am totally, totally cereals,

Once you have done so please get in touch,
Or we'll beat you to death with a crutch,
For now I'm off to get some soup,
Love: Dark Helmet's Legal Notice Writing Group.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:46am

Re: Re:
Hmm, didn't work for me, weird.

Did you actually get anything at the .net? Because I got a "too many redirects" error.

Also, note what path mimtid.net tries to send you to: the login script for their phpmyadmin backend

http://www.mimtid.net/phpmyadmin/scripts/user_login.php

Just plain weird all around...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:49am

Re:
They are really just redhat trying to take on Microsoft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:51am

None of the information contained in this legal notice is to be transmitted and/or released to any third party.

If it goes to court, doesn't this then become public record? Would the state then be that third party?

Google should just redirect all zuffa & MMA searches to chillingeffects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:54am

Re:
If they did that, they really should just direct them to Bing, because that is where people would go to search after that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:57am

Also trying to turn it into some sort of NDA...
By referring to "information" in the letter, the sender is also apparently trying to make the fact that the letter has been sent confidential. This is clearly silly. If you send me a letter, I'm under no obligation to refrain from telling others that you have sent me the letter, or to paraphrase the letter in order to tell others about it.

As for the copyright value of the letter, yes, it very well could be protected by copyright. There are many ways to express the idea that you are invoking the DMCA. However, it's also the case that legal documents borrow heavily from eaerlier versions and boilerplate, so it's not at all clear how much of THIS letter is subject to a copyright held by THIS sender.

And, even if it IS completely covered by a copyright owned by this particular sender, I think there's a very good fair use argument in making a copy of the whole thing for use in public discussion/comment.

That all being said, in the end, the recipient of such a letter should consider carefully their position before taking action to piss off the other side. You may be totally safe in disclosing such a letter, but, if the other guy actually does have you cold for copyright infringement, he's not likely going to be very flexible in negotiating a settlement after you've tried to publicly embarass him.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like:
'Round the pointer our hero doth go!
While waiting he wends, for weal or for woe?
Success is achieved, in binary state!
'round again goes our hero, never to abate.

...?

Personally, I comment my code in 'gangsta rap' style.
;-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:00am

Re: Re: I know,
Hmm, how about DMCA takedown-a-grams? A messenger dressed in a "legal document" or "manila envelop" costume could show up at a person's door and sing to them the DMCA takedown notice in it's entirety...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:01am

Re:
It's an interesting question. The purpose would seem to be criticism. However, if chilling effects is just publishing the letter without any additional commentary, that doesn't fit the standard "criticism" paradigm for fair use.

Ultimately, it's probably fair use, but an interesting question I think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:02am

Re: Legal Notice
Not sure where you got that notion from, but I'm pretty sure there's not blanket exemption for "legal notices."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:03am

Re:
You don't lose your copyright protection in something simply because it's filed in a lawsuit.

Otherwise, you'd lose protection in anything you sued over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gracey (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:04am

Google's DMCA form informs the filer that their notice will be aired publicly, but it's doubtful anyone who doesn't use the online form would get any notification of that, except perhaps in the automated response you get from filing a complaint.

[quote]It is also our policy to document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act, including by sending a copy of the notice to one or more third parties or making it available to the public.[/quote]

If someone filed a DMCA on a DMCA notice, would THAT be made public, thereby creating an ongoing circle, or would Chilling Effects or Google simply remove the original complaint?

@Marcus - I can't access any of those pages on mimtid.net either (Firefox & Chrome) - the message I get is the same - it has a redirect loop. I can access it if I search it and use a cached page view though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:12am

ssl site only
https://www.chillingreport.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: URL
Funnily, if you explore the site and look at their top ten lists, they list Chilling Effects as a repeat offender with 4138 related cease and desist notices for infringing content sent to search engines in the last 30 days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:25am

first thing I would do is post it on any and all sites I can think of as to the law its an ass also American and I ain't there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:29am

Re: Re:
It's an interesting question. The purpose would seem to be criticism. However, if chilling effects is just publishing the letter without any additional commentary, that doesn't fit the standard "criticism" paradigm for fair use.

Ultimately, it's probably fair use, but an interesting question I think.

It really is interesting, for sure.

I'd argue that the whole Chilling Effects exists for the purpose of criticism. Chilling Effects is critical of the notices in general, and their website is full of information to that end. Also, being a clearinghouse for these notices serves an academic purpose by making the notices available for research and criticism by others. This techdirt article and our comments to it is just such an example of this third-party criticism.

This is one of those things where if it came down to it, I think a judge would be inclined to find fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:32am

Re: Re: Re:
I think the most important point is that allowing copy protection on these legal documents does nothing to promote the progress of the sciences or arts and so it should be considered unconstitutional. Lawyers don't write legal documents because of the copy protection laws they can get from those documents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
errr. because of the copy protections they think they can get on those documents *
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:47am

Try this
www.chillingeffects.org
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 10:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I think the most important point is that allowing copy protection on these legal documents does nothing to promote the progress of the sciences or arts and so it should be considered unconstitutional."

A law does not have to *perfectly* achieve a constitutional purpose in order to be considered constitutionally appropriate.

Congress is entitled to do its best to create a copyright law to promote the progress, etc., and that law is constitutional even if it is imperfect in such promotion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 10:09am

Re:
So chillingreport.com is registered by David Cox, who is also the creator of MiMTiD and something called "Blues Destiny Records LLC"

Aha! Blues Destiny is the tiny record label that sued Google and Microsoft not so long ago:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091209/1824537279.shtml

Part of the problem with that lawsuit was that Blues Destiny couldn't seem to figure out how to file a valid DMCA notice, so it's a bit amusing that they seem to have gone into the DMCA filing business... but are still doing it poorly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AW, 9 Feb 2011 @ 10:53am

chillingreport.com namesake
Actually chillingreport.com is named after Fred Chilling (the ch is pronounced with a sh sound). Fred was a pioneer in lobbying for whichever group would pay for him to do so, famously being hired by opposing sides in the court case Shumpter v. Bailey, in which successfully argued that a claim to the largest ball of twine was in possession of both parties at the same, thereby nullify the laws of physics who did not have a representative present to argue on their behalf. Ever since then blatantly taking sides against all reason has been known as "shilling". Just thought peopel may find that fact interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The law doesn't promote the progress and so it's unconstitutional. It's not only imperfect at promoting the progress, it doesn't promote the progress at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The law doesn't promote the progress and so it's unconstitutional. It's not only imperfect at promoting the progress, it doesn't promote the progress at all.

My understanding of current Supreme Court copyright doctrine under Eldred is that copyright laws are only reviewed on a rational basis standard, and the preambular "to promote the progress" from Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 8, is not a substantive limit on Congress's ability to create copyright laws. In other words, it is not necessary that a copyright law "promote the progress" for it to be constitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 11:40am

My question is, why does the letter need to be forwarded to certain members of Congress?

I mean, I get the political grandstanding aspect of sending a copy of each and every accusation to a Rep. But at the end of the day, even the braindead congressmen should know they are only accusations since that's all that is being sent their way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RikuoAmero (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 11:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bravo, bruvver, I'm nominating you for the Nobel Prize for Literature (and SHEER AWESOMNESS!!!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 11:51am

isnt a legal filing in a court system automatically something available to the general public? i know for example michigan and california both have specific laws on the books that basically state that unless they fall under specific categories (such as court immunity from FOIA, gag orders or cases involving minors and there are a few more things) that the public interest is the higher standard to be met in obtaining and releasing documents.
as such, it sounds like the claim of copyright on this type of stuff is trumped by the public good claimed by such laws...

one of you lawyerly types should jump in and point out if such laws are applicable to a DMCA notice however...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 9 Feb 2011 @ 12:06pm

Re: Re:
I would argue that simply posting it under the banner of a site called "ChillingEffects" would effect actual criticism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re:
True, but then the document is public
(absent court action to keep it sealed).
Thus, even if one could not copy it, at least one could see it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Wallace Cox, 9 Feb 2011 @ 12:15pm

Chilling Report Contact Information
To obtain secure access to the Chilling Report, please email us at admin@chillingreport.com or call (713) 657-0165.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A law does not have to *perfectly* achieve a constitutional purpose in order to be considered constitutionally appropriate.

It does if it impinges upon freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 9 Feb 2011 @ 12:39pm

Re:
It would certainly be the case if the document were filed in an existing court case. I suppose a simple, albeit expensive, end around would be to file suit every time you receive a notice and attach the notice to your filing. (Of course the cost could be reduced if it was only one infinite loop of notices connected with the same set of facts, in which case you open one case and file all the notices therein.)

Then any copies of the filed documents are public record.

BUT , is the presumptive legal purpose of such a notice, together with the potential for later litigation sufficient to trump any copyright claim the notice author would assert?

Unless it actually comes to bear, I've just decided I don't care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 1:12pm

Re: chillingreport.com namesake
um... just... no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 9 Feb 2011 @ 1:22pm

I see two solutions.

First, one could write a notice on the relevant website: "By filing a DMCA notice to this website you authorize us to distribute said DMCA notice to chillingeffects. If you do not agree to these terms, rescind said DMCA notice." It seems about as reasonable/one-sided as any EULA I've ever read.

Another option: write a "review" of the original DMCA notice (use fair use to get around any copyright).

Of course, if copyright doesn't apply to DMCA notices then there is no problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 1:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, first of all, I dispute that conclusion.

But aside from that, the constitutionality is not determined by the results/efficacy of the law. The "promotion" is merely a justification for giving Congress the power to create the law, it is not a test for judging whether Congress has exceeded that power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says who? No court or law that I'm aware of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 1:32pm

Re:
publicly available? Yes. But still protected by copyright, so you can't, e.g., go copying it and posting it on your own website (unless it's fair use, of course).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 2:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
William McGonagall would have found his true vocation writing this stuff - it brought the Tay Bridge Disaster straight back into my head!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 4:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> the preambular "to promote the progress"
> is not a substantive limit on Congress's
> ability to create copyright laws.

Funny how some folks think certain prambulars can be dismissed as having no legal effect (to promote progress) but others (a well-regulated militia) are absolutely critical in defining the legal validity of the entire section.

Smells like more ends-based "interpretation" to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 4:57pm

If you don't want me sharing it, don't give it to me.

Can criminals sue for infringement if you show police the ransom note? The ransom note is automatically copyrighted and most likely says "Do Not Involve The Police!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 6:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The constitution doesn't permit congress to hinder progress by securing these monopolies. It only permits congress to promote the progress by securing these monopolies. If congress doesn't promote the progress, its actions are not constitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 6:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congress may only

"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors"

Congress may not "hinder the Progress ..."

It's only allowed to "promote the Progress"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 10:01pm

Re: Re:
if I send a book to chillingeffect is that copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:16am

Re: Re: Legal Notice
More likely Chillingeffects.com are using copyright law, itself, to be exempt from infringement.

Example:
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:27am

Re: Re:
How do you figure, sports fan? Inferring that Google will go offline? Even were that true, and I don't believe it's as possible as you think, Bing would be my last choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:29am

Re: ssl site only
... still doesn't load on my end. No matter how many times someone pouts up the link.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:36am

Re: Chilling Report Contact Information
No, thanks. ChillingEffects.com works just fine. As it is an archival site, it should prove exempt from infringement, anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:31am

Copyrighting legal notices?
You're kidding, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:27am

Re: Chilling Report Contact Information
No.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The Congress shall have Power...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...

[and] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

So, the question is not whether Congress has in fact "promoted the progress," but whether the law it passed is "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the power to promote the progress by securing exclusive rights.

Having a judge determine whether Congress did a good job in passing a copyright law by some sort of empirical analysis on how well it does or does not promote the progress takes the power out of the necessary and proper clause and Congress in general.

This is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution, and I think it's the right interpretation. Otherwise, you've got Congress as an advisory body to the all-powerful federal judiciary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:47am

Re: Re: Re: Legal Notice
Reading the heading alone can be misleading.

The exemption only applies if, among other things, "any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Chilling Report Contact Information
being an "archival site" is not enough to avoid infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:15pm

A few things about these stupid statements in letters.

Under US copyright a document does not become copyrighted until it is publicly published by the creator of that document. So if they have not published it themselves it is therefore not copyrightable at all.

Not only that unless (again under US law only) unless the copyright has been specifically registered then a court case could not award damages at all so therefore the "full extent of the law" would be a slap on the wrist for being naughty.

Also sending a letter to someone and then stating within the letter itself that it is copyrighted does not give the person receiving the letter the option of not accepting the letter which also gives nonsense to the other claim that the letter is in some way confidentially binding. No ability to accept does a binding contract NOT make.

Though the most interesting part of the paragraph to me is the total non sequiter of "[...] to any third party, including but not limited to Chilling Effects" since 'third party' means 'no one else' which is also quite concerning since a third party also could be construed to mean by implication legal counsel. Oops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If as Robert Louis Stevenson said "wine is naught but bottled poetry" you Sir have made me drunk.

My hat is off to you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:19am

Re: Re: Re: Chilling Report Contact Information
No, but it's a good start. As per USC 17, Chapter 1, Section 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 22 Jun 2011 @ 4:44am

So it's copyright infringement to show the DMCA notice to my lawyer? Well played.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
james contrini, 31 Jul 2011 @ 3:01am

Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit.com, talks about the value of college education and the "dire need" for skilled labor in the U.S. Higher education fails to provide students "good value" for the money they and their families spend, more than half of U.S. adults said in a Pew Research Center survey. Ohanian speaks on Bloomberg Television's "InBusiness With Margaret Brennan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]