DMCA Nonsense: Your Default Login Page Is A Ripoff Of Our Default Login Page!
from the username-then-password,-what-a-work-of-art dept
No matter how brazenly people abuse the DMCA takedown process, and no matter how ridiculous the notices get, it seems like there's always someone waiting to do something even stupider. This latest incident, submitted by Anonymous American, is a serious contender for the crown dunce cap: a DMCA takedown over a login page.
And not just any login page, but the barely-modified default login page of an open source website platform, which the operators of iPhotographyCourse.com claim infringes on... their own barely-modified default login page of a different open source website platform. Yeah. Jenny McCann, who runs the Institute of Photography website built on the Moodle content management system, received a takedown notice claiming that her login page was infringing. When she asked for clarification, she was simply told "entire page copied". Here's the supposedly infringing page:
And here's the "original":
Even at first glance, the claim is obviously idiotic. There is nothing similar about the pages beyond the purely functional login page elements. But things get really amusing when you realize that the iPhotographyCourse page is virtually unaltered from the default Wordpress login page:
The only expressive choices—a requirement of copyright protection—are the inclusion of the logo (the rather poor inclusion, as there are visible artifacts at the top of the image that show the logo was sloppily clipped from the site's front page banner, meaning the designer didn't even have a copy of it on hand) and the rounding of the button corners (which may actually just be a Wordpress version discrepancy). As if that wasn't enough, the supposedly infringing login page is itself just a minor modification of the default Moodle page:
A new frame, color scheme and accent image—nothing major, but actually significantly more design changes than the iPhotographyCourse page, and far more likely to qualify for some level of copyright protection. And, quite clearly, in no way an infringing copy.
According to later comments from McCann on the Moodle forum thread, the login page was specifically included among other items in the takedown which related to actual content on the site. It could be that there is more merit to the other complaints, but McCann does not believe there is, and judging from the utter stupidity of this example, I'm inclined to suspect she's right. Either way, the people behind iPhotographyCourse, like so many before them, have exposed their true intentions by targeting such an obviously non-infringing page: this isn't about protecting intellectual property, but interfering with competition by abusing the DMCA process. Either that, or they are tragic victims of our ownership culture who also haven't logged into a website in the past ten years.
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: abuse, censorship, dmca, iphotographycourse, login
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Notice OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Notice OOTB
Notice OOTB
Techdirt is not against copyright.It's against copyright being misused to point of silencing free speech.Which could without it you could loose your right say what you damn well please,do you really want that?
---------------
Notice "Shadow Dragon" -- your right to free speech doesn't include getting someone else's movies for free. (I have this handy, and it's obvious from your pre-ad-hom that you don't grasp it:
Yet again round on Mike's $100M dollar movie example, from his feature piece: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923/saying-you-cant-compete-with-free-is-saying-you-can t-compete-period.shtml
His feature piece boils down to Mike giving a movie example with LOADED premises (I paraphrase): "So, with the $100M of sunk (or fixed) costs long since recovered, bandwidth is the only remaining cost".
For the record let me again agree: YES, Mike, IF "sunk (or fixed) costs" are ignored, then incremental costs such as bandwidth are all that matter. [BTW: I repeat "sunk (or fixed) costs" often because Mike in the link below didn't know it was his own phrase!]
But that's simply not a real-world example. Mike is deliberately deceptive by setting conditions to ignore that the first priority of any business is recovering "sunk (or fixed) costs". Until that's done, there's literally no profit. -- And if previousl method worked, why change? (To deflect a quibble: Mike there also fabricates a "perfectly competitive" environment.)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brains-s top-zero.shtml
As I wrote at Mike in the above, kids running a lemonade stand know better economics than his contrived example. It's not mistake or oversight: he claims to be a college-educated economics expert. But if you simply don't overlook Mike's premise of ignoring up-front COSTS, then he's LYING about it applying to the real world.
Mike is from the ivory-towers of academia. He's not a successful "Hollywood" producer of $100M movies with a proven track record now generously spreading his methods; he's a rapidly aging frat boy with only a web-site and the chutzpah to tell actual movie moguls that "ur doin' it all wrong". (Actually his main chutzpah is pretending that he's ever talked to moguls.)
But Mike does have an agenda, and that's to favor certain grifters over those who actually create and produce content. MANY of the pieces on Techdirt are hair-splitting legalisms supporting the symbiotic system that skates on the very edge of overt commercial infringement. Mike maintains the following sequence is perfectly legal, even protected "free speech":
1) anonymous up-loaders have a "right" to transfer ("share") whatever data they wish to wherever they wish because it's not commercial infringement;
2) so that commercial scale file hosts can claim they're NOT infringing copyright because have no knowledge as to whether full-length movie data is copyrighted and NOT "fair use" -- with the extra twist of can't have such knowledge because are too many files to check! -- meanwhile, with the draw of providing for free someone else's valuable copyrighted content, the file hosts directly sell premium access speed plus get advertising revenue;
3) so that links sites announcing the infringing but "free" content can also draw eyeballs to advertising for income;
4) so that anonymous down-loaders can get the valuable content for free.
So here's Mike's actual calculation: $100M movie + 1 up-loader + many file hosts + many links sites + unlimited down-loaders = infinite goods!
[A similiar symbiotic sequence is in peer-to-peer networks: omit specific file hosts, and only links sites get advertising revenue.]
Note that except perhaps (one time) for the up-loader, NONE of those entities pay one cent to whoever produced the content. But ALL depend upon getting FREE content: it's a "business model" that can ignore the "sunk (or fixed) costs" for a $100M movie to focus only on bandwidth costs EXACTLY as in Mike's "can't compete" piece! -- I say that's NOT coincidence.
Some wacky assertions are tossed in to try and obscure the now blatantly commercialized pirating sequence, such as: "pirates buy more than average consumers" and "piracy helps promote the content; it's free advertising". To further obscure, Mike and followers frequently example garage bands giving away MP3s and selling Chinese-made T-shirts for income. But garage band costs are around a hundred dollars not a HUNDRED MILLION! Mike's schemes don't at all scale up: NO ONE is going to front $100M for a movie unless reasonably assured of getting back its "sunk (or fixed) costs". -- NOR do Mike's notions apply to physical goods: he has very limited application for his "economics", and that makes the EXACT match between his "can't compete" piece and file hosts actual practices even more notable.
Society recognizes ownership of non-physical "intellectual property" through copyright: it is indeed a "legal monopoly" on attempting to get money from non-physical content, and a bar to anyone else even attempting it.
Mike always slants legalisms to facilitate piracy in practice while claiming he's not trying to destroy copyright. He doesn't appear to be promoting any new scheme to industry where he might hear: "Wait a sec. I'm out a hundred million up front, and you're telling me I get it back ten cents at a time?"
But pirating is the ONLY case where $100M movies are available in the real world without "sunk (or fixed) costs". Mike's pretzel logic holds that "sharing" makes all available for free now that copying data is technically possible; the theoretical separation plus assertions of "know nothing" isn't (yet) specifically "illegal", so parasites that all steal income from those who actually produce the valuable content MUST be allowed to continue. -- With never a hint from Mike that it's immoral or grifting. Heck, he even praises pirates for "promoting", and the grifters as "innovative" -- but disparages the actual producers as "dinosaurs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Notice OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Notice OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Notice OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Notice OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Notice OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Notice OOTB
Actually he did. He's stated so before that he has a large number of "responses" pre-written. He's even posted a few. Mostly when he says one word in the article that matches a word in his rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Notice OOTB
You want to make a movie that costs YOU 100 million, go ahead. No one is stopping you. BUT because you spent a 100 million DOES NOT MEAN that you get your 100 million back.
You can make a movie for 10$ too, still doesn't mean YOU GET YOUR 10$ back.
if you want money for your efforts go dig a ditch or something that is REAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Notice OOTB
Actually, there are always some fixed costs, but that doesn't mean they necessarily need to be anywhere near $100 million. Renting/buying equipment, hiring actors and technicians, etc., all still cost money despite film stock/development not being as large a proportion of the budget as it once was. Unless you're making a film with volunteers and equipment you already own or borrowed for free, there's fixed costs.
"You can make a movie for 10$ too, still doesn't mean YOU GET YOUR 10$ back."
Exactly. Can't work out how to get $100 million back from making your movie? Rewrite the script, rearrange production schedules, use cheaper locations and do any of the other thousands of things people have done for a century to lower your budget.
If you still can't work out how to get that back, you have a bad business proposition, as you would in any area of business. You're not entitled to get back every penny just because you decided to spend it. Most businesses fail, maybe your crappy film is one of them. You shouldn't get charity just because your resume says "filmmaker" instead of "grocer".
That's one of ootb's many logical failings. He's so obsessed with the "how can I make back $100 million" question, he's not asking the more pertinent "why the hell am I spending $100 million in the first place" question, when so many profitable films cost far less than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Notice OOTB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Notice OOTB
Clerks is a red herring nowadays. It was made very cheap but that was back in the days of film, where much of the costs were on the film stock and processing. Of course it's not shot on LOTR equipment! But, of course that doesn't matter. The film worked as it was, and had reasonable fixed costs. If Kevin Smith was now bitching that Clerks made no money purely because he used the vastly more expensive equipment, then my reaction would be "well no shit, you should have downgraded. Did it actually matter to the story being told?". ootb would prefer that Smith sunk a standard fixed cost then whine about that, whereas I suggest he reduce his costs upfront.
To give a more recent example - the $180 million first Hobbit movie looks to have been shot at least partially with the Red Epic camera and Zeiss lenses, also used on the $31 million Flight. A fairer example than a massive blockbuster and a literal DIY project, I think.
The difference in the budget cannot be explained by the equipment used, so all the other factors I named come into play. Before blowing the $180 million on The Hobbit, if you have questions about recouping the cost, you need to have asked if that budget was necessary for the film. If so, you take on the extra risk. If not, ask why the difference is there. Many productions - especially indie productions without deep pockets - have cut cast, subplots, settings and everything else involved just to get the movie on screen. Entire productions to different countries because it's cheaper. It's part of the process.
So, to refer back to ootb and yourself - you choose the fixed costs depending on what you decide to produce and how you produce it. The question ootb should be asking is not "how can the next Transformers make its money back after Michael Bay's blown $250 million on explosions", but rather "why does it have to be 2 1/2 hours long with 50 minutes of subplot nobody cares about, and why are we spending and extra $80 million on that?". Answer that question, and you won't have so much to recoup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Notice OOTB
This is an economics definition of fixed and variable. Fixed means something you spend once and it's over. That would be all costs related to pre-production, production, and post-production of a movie, as well as marketing I think. Though you could argue that you spend more marketing money to get more sales, so not totally sure on that. Variable costs are costs incurred for each item sold. That would be (maybe) costs to send movies to theaters, and to print and ship DVDs.
So in movie making almost all the costs are fixed. Since price tends toward marginal cost, it would be in their benefit to sell absolutely as many copies as possible, but that doesn't really seem to be their goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Notice OOTB
Translation, OOTB is an uneducated Luddite jealous of others' success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Twain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
Fundamentals of Rational Copyright Somewhat redundant to clarify related aspects. Don't worry if you can't grasp these all at once: I'll be using magic to post it often.
) Creators inherently have SOLE RIGHT TO COPY their work.
) Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying.
) The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It's specific setting out of "intellectual property" rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying.
) Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it's still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.)
) Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent copiers and the general public from copying works (during the limited time). The societal agreement is that only creators can attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period.
) There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one's "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work.
) Machines doing the labor of copying doesn't confer any new right to do so.
) Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.
) Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical.
) Putting an entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.
) Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators.
) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.
) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.
) When independently rendered, fashion "ideas", "art" in general, "look and feel", jokes, bits of wit, and musical "riffs" are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don't throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may play "stolen" riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual "sampled" audio as basis for your main theme.)
) Many persist in using the canard of "copyright can't guarantee income". -- Misleading. The older body of copyright (beginning in the US Constitution) was to guarantee creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt.
) Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
I'll only ask for you to prove one:
"Putting an entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit. "
Prove that piracy actually "does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.".
Studies made by people with many more resources (and, I'd say, more skill) than you have, so far, been inconclusive. But they seem to lean towards your assertion being false.
Comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
Not true. Once a copy is given to someone else then that so called right is null.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
His interpretation of copyright law leaves out the ability to install software, make backups, fair use etc. Sheesh, thanks for the lesson Blue. ;D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
Hey OOTB better turn that infringing computer equipment off, for if you turn it on it makes copys of copyrighted files.
So do yourself a favor turn off the computer and have it shredded. Don't even think of buying an electronic device ever again.
Don't even bother to thank me for saving you from being a Pirate OOTB, a fate worse than death, just turn it off, NOW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
"Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them."
" No one's "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work." (That's what copyright is! It REMOVES MY and EVERYONE'S right to copy)
"When independently rendered, fashion "ideas", "art" in general, "look and feel", jokes, bits of wit, and musical "riffs" are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don't throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may play "stolen" riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual "sampled" audio as basis for your main theme.) "
So I can use...how do you steal riffs? I can use them...but not use them?
Blue...cite some god-damn evidence to back up all the ridiculous shit you keep vomiting. Nowhere in copyright law does it say who is allowed to make money. It only says who has the right to copy works.
") Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical. " Subjective morals and ethics, not absolute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
Did he pay the creators to do so?
If not, he has no standing in this forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
he ALREADY has no credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
Actually, the reason people are confused about copyright is because of people like you. You know, people stating things about copyright that are blatantly false (see your list of "corrections" below).
I had to pause for a few minutes to collect myself off the floor from laughing so hard at the rest of that sentence. Woo. Damn blue. That was good. Onto the point by point debunking.
"Fundamentals of Rational Copyright Somewhat redundant to clarify related aspects. Don't worry if you can't grasp these all at once: I'll be using magic to post it often."
Ah, you'll be spamming articles with your completely false copyright nonsense. So, just another day at the office, huh?
") Creators inherently have SOLE RIGHT TO COPY their work."
This one is correct and true. No debunking needed.
") Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying."
This one is false. It is NOT, nor has it always been, more difficult to create than copy. Proof of that lies with Disney. It's easy to "create" if you take what others have done, slap it in a shiny new packaging and call it a day.
But at one point, copying was rather quite difficult, to the point that only a handful of people were doing it and it required extremely specialized, not to mention expensive, equipment to do.
") The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It's specific setting out of "intellectual property" rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying."
Well, it's only true, what you wrote that is, if you take the twisting of copyright and the expansions of the laws surrounding it. However, seeing as how copyright was created at a time when copying was extremely difficult, you're flat out wrong.
") Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it's still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.) "
No, actually it doesn't. Copyright only specifies who has the right to copy a given work. Thus the name, copyright. It DOES NOT at all state who can gain money from a given work. This is blatantly false.
The rest of your sentence is irrelevant to the point. What is or isn't ethical is in the eye of the beholder, but by and large irrelevant to the nature of copyright, which is basically: He/she who creates controls distribution. Nothing more, nothing less. But ONLY for a limited time, after which the creation shall belong to the public.
Can't put it any simpler than that, but consider your lies corrected.
") Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent copiers and the general public from copying works (during the limited time). The societal agreement is that only creators can attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period."
No, copyright law is about who can control the right to copying. Not necessarily the way you phrase it about preventing others from copying. Nor is it correct that only creators can attempt to gain from it during that time. The societal agreement is that for that time ONLY the creators can control the methods of distribution for a given creation.
") There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one's "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work."
Actually, completely false. Copyright is very much a removal of other people's rights to copy something. Because it makes their ability to do so illegal. That means something they can naturally and technologically do is being disallowed to them, thus a right has been removed from everyone.
The bit about they can't copy what hasn't been made is irrelevant. I could just as easily say you can't copyright what hasn't been created. See what I did there? Chick and the egg. It's a bullshit point, but one largely used in an attempt to dismiss a valid point. The rights of others are removed/restricted by copyright.
") Machines doing the labor of copying doesn't confer any new right to do so."
Considering no one has said otherwise I fail to see how this has any relevancy. At all.
") Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment."
Actually no, it's societal purpose is for works to be given to the public and it does so through the use of copyright specifically allowing creators limited rights in the form of controlling copies to their work.
") Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical."
Completely false. It is in no way CLEARLY illegal, immoral or unethical to even indirectly gain income from providing freely the works of others.
If it was we wouldn't have the issues we're currently having. And again, regarding immoral and unethical, that's largely in the eye of the beholder. So it's largely, again, irrelevant.
") Putting an entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit."
It IS sharing. Maybe not necessarily fair use, but that is for a court to determine. It also can be fair to creators. Again this depends on a number of differing things. But flat out stated as you put it, not true.
Also, unless you have some evidence that eludes more enlightened minds (researchers and what have you), works being released freely has yet to have anything in the way of evidence showing that there is a degree of potential, and actual, profit removed and denied the creator of a work.
") Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators."
Hypocrisy, thy name is blue. Railing against Mike for blasting or not blasting corporations one moment, then saying we should all meekly submit to the laws generated and specifically written in some cases by corporations (namely Disney).
But again, unjust laws by their definition DESERVE to be disrespected and ignored. Regardless of what they may be, who they may be written by/for, and so on and so forth.
At this point in time, the original agreement has been for all intents and purposes declared null and void by the creators, as such we the people have no reason to respect our end of the bargain.
") Many persist in using the canard of "copyright can't guarantee income". -- Misleading. The older body of copyright (beginning in the US Constitution) was to guarantee creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt."
Not misleading. Copyright is not a guarantee, nor a monopoly, on the attempt to earn income. It is merely the right to control distribution. Nothing more, nothing less. You are beyond wrong regarding this point.
") Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means."
Actually all of the above you wrote is invalidated or weakened by the points I brought up in rebuttal. Namely, that the agreement has been broken by the creators. As such it is very much invalidated and weakened.
Blue, you're an idiot. I just want to say that. And I'm going to keep doing so. Mostly because I find it interesting how you insult others day in and day out but wag your finger at them for making ad homs. Many don't. In fact most don't. Your definition of "ad hom" is correcting you or telling you to shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd blame Mike and Minions (if they had any influence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear OOTB
竜影
Shadow Dragon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what next? send takedowns on ALL website that got a log-in page features?
*cue the said fool DID send takedowns on all websites with log-in pages, including Yahoo mail, Gmail, etc.*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OOTB: Blah, blah, blah, copyright, long winded rambling, blah, blah, blah, creators, more long winded rambling, piracy!, blah blah, blah.
TD: What's this got to do with copyright? It's a freaking login page!!1!
OOTB: Blah, blah, blah, I'm insane, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
TD: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
too much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: too much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: too much...
I'd like an option to collapse the entire thread so I don't have to scroll past 50 spam posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I blame judges for this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
laugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
Being the target of a bogus anti-competitive DMCA takedown is bad. Being able to return fire with an allegation of violating the anti-trust act would be AWESOME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA takedown
They are also claiming copyright ownership of this: www.camerasim.com.
I have spoken to the owner of www.camerasim.com who has confirmed that is not the case and iphotography have been contacted to stop them asserting copyright over it.
I absolutely assure you, I have no interest in this kind of publicity and had to work 3 days over Christmas to move hosts to a country that doesn't bother with DMCAs. This is because my US host were going to disable my login page for 10 days while in dispute. That's how it works.
Then, if they don't receive notice of a lawsuit, the content is restored - but not for 10 days.
Clever eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA takedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comments
I'm sure there are better ways of posting an intelligent and well thought / laid-out message....but maybe is just me thinking that !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ZOMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unbelievable
For more information on the DMCA, go to www.dmcahandbook.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]