Duke University Tries To Shut Down Lacrosse Players' Blog

from the apparently-streisand-doesn't-play-lacrosse dept

It would appear that officials at Duke aren't particularly familiar with The Streisand Effect. As you may have heard, a few years back there was a case that got a ton of media attention, with some Duke lacrosse players being accused of rape. Eventually, after fanning the flames in the media, prosecutors had to drop the case for lack of any actual evidence -- and the prosecutor who led the charge was disbarred. The lacrosse players are striking back, suing the University and the city of Durham. As the case moves forward, they've put up their own blog, at DukeLawsuit.com. However, the university and the city aren't too happy about it and have tried to get the court to force the blog offline -- which, of course, is only drawing a lot more attention to it.

Filed Under: blog, duke, lacrosse players, streisand effect, takedown

Israel Hits Back On Charges From US Lobbyists That It Doesn't Respect Copyright

from the don't-believe-the-hype dept

Every February, a US lobbying group called the International Intellectual Property Alliance comes out with a "report" to the US Trade Representative, supposedly highlighting which countries aren't living up to their obligations with regards to "piracy" and copyright law. The hope is to get the USTR to put that country on a special watch list. In recent years, much of the focus has been on blaming countries that don't implement draconian copyright laws (even more draconian than those in place in the US), claiming incorrectly that failing to create DMCA-like laws is a failure to live up to international treaties. That's simply not true. Michael Geist is now pointing out that Israel, who was highlighted in this year's report, has responded to the "inaccuracies and hyperbole" in the report. The Israeli response includes a rather lengthy discussion of all the things the country has already done to put in place more American-style copyright and patent laws, but does push back on a couple of important points. Specifically, in discussing the fact that it hasn't put in place DMCA-style anti-circumvention laws for DRM (which is referred to as "Technology Protection Measures" or TPM):

Internal discussions on whether to implement TPM continue and in this respect the GOI [Government of Israel] notes that the experience with TPM around the world has not been uniform, nor has it achieved the results that many of its early promoters thought it would. Additionally, comments received by the Ministry of Justice following a "request" for comments on the subject of TPM, indicate that many several large authors' groups vehemently oppose TPM, while other right holders categories favor TPM. The critiques and criticism of TPM both from business model perspectives and from copyright perspectives are almost endless. Indeed, some content providers are already experimenting with non-encrypted access to content. Hence, the question of whether and in what manner to implement TPM is not straightforward and politically volatile.

Given that so many in the entertainment industry are (belatedly) realizing the pointlessness of DRM, the above paragraph is rather restrained. The response then pushes back on complaints that the safe harbors for ISPs and notice-and-takedown provisions it has for infringing content online are too lenient. In the US system, an ISP is supposed to just take the content down when informed of infringement. Israel decided on a much more balanced system that gives the other side at least a chance to respond. This seems reasonable, but it doesn't make the content industry happy. The explanation from the Israeli government is worth reading:

The notice and takedown provisions are balanced and reasonable as between the rights of persons claiming injury (copyright or libel for example) and the rights of free expression. Where allegedly infringing material is notified to the ISP or host and the uploader fails to refute the charges within three days, the offending material will be removed. The IIPA, it appears, prefers a system wherein ISPs and hosts would have to take down material as soon as there is an allegation of infringement, without need for due process or rebuttal. A "takedown" system which operates on the basis of a mere allegation of infringement would be an invitation to censorship and abuse of process. To require "take down" on the basis of "constructive notice" alone, as desired by the IIPA, would require the ISP or Host to make rulings of law as to whether certain content infringes copyright or is libelous or otherwise actionable, something that only courts have competency to do. Again to require takedown on the basis of "constructive notice" (i.e. the allegation of an interested party) alone would be an invitation to censorship, abuse and restraints on free speech. It is not the role of the ISP or Host to become a policeman of content. Requiring such would effectively bring the internet to a halt. Similarly, protecting the anonymity, to a reasonable extent, of uploaders of content is essential to the promotion of free speech and discourse on the internet, provided that a court has not ruled differently.

There's also a nice bit in the response to the claim that Israel's latest copyright law does not implement a "fair use" policy exactly the way the IIPA would like it. The Israeli government's basic response notes that even the US's own definition of fair use doesn't match what the IIPA is asking Israel to implement, pointing out that its own fair use rules are almost identical to the US's. It's nice to see at least some people pointing out the ridiculous claims made by lobbyists trying to push for even more draconian and limiting copyright laws outside the US.

Filed Under: copyright, drm, fair use, international intellectual property alliance, israel, takedown, us trade representative

Air Force The Latest To Make Illegal False DMCA Claim

from the time-to-hire-better-lawyers dept

We've seen way too many bad DMCA takedown notices over the years, but this latest one may be the most ridiculous yet. A lawyer representing the Air Force has issued a takedown notice on an advertisement that the Air Force released publicly about its cyberdefense initiatives. There are so many things wrong with this, it's difficult to know where to start. First off, the Air Force was using this as an advertisement that they wanted displayed as widely as possible. In fact, the Air Force specifically sent the ad to sites like Wired asking them to run it. Second, and more importantly, as a government-produced content, it is not covered by copyright, and therefore not subject to the DMCA. Third, even the Air Force's own website notes that the video states: "Information presented on the Air Force Recruiting website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." Fourth, Wired notes that the Air Force's marketing chief, who sent Wired the video in the first place, has no clue that the DMCA takedown notice was issued and doesn't understand why it happened. Wired eventually discovered that a law firm representing the Air Force sent the takedown notice -- and is violating the law in doing so. In a takedown notice, you need to swear, under threat of perjury, that you either have the copyright or represent those who do and that the content is infringing. It would certainly appear, under that basis, that the lawyer issuing the letter may have perjured herself, issuing a false DMCA takedown notice. Of course, as a lawyer, you would think she would know that.

Filed Under: air force, copyright, dmca, takedown

MobiTV Has A Totally Unsecured Feed, Threatens To Take Down HowardForums For Pointing That Out

from the under-what-law? dept

If you follow the mobile communications world, you read HowardForums. It is, by far, the most comprehensive set of forums for anything having to do with mobile phones and mobile operators and applications. It's a fantastic resource... and MobiTV is trying to shut it down. MobiTV, if you don't know, provides a (fee-based) TV streaming service for mobile phones. It has partnered with various mobile operators to allow them to stream TV to mobile phones (a subject we were just talking about, noting how few people really are willing to pay). For some totally unknown reason, it appears that MobiTV actually broadcasts its television streams totally out in the open on a URL that anyone can access.

Someone noted this at Howard Forums and posted the information. There is no hacking going on. There is no encryption broken. There is nothing illicit whatsoever. The feed is a public URL. However, it appears that MobiTV thinks that because it did not properly secure its own feeds and left it on a public URL that somehow Howard Forums has broken the law. In a series of emails, MobiTV's corporate counsel has threatened to take down HowardForums and have contacted his web host (and are threatening to contact his registrar). It's difficult to see what sort of claim they have here. The URL is a public site. They did not attempt to lock it down in any way.

Broadband Reports has more on this story and thanks to reader CQD for pointing this out. You would think that with all the attention Julius Baer got last week for a similar situation, MobiTV's execs and lawyers would recognize how the Streisand Effect might come back to bite them.

Filed Under: forums, howard forums, streisand effect, takedown, unsecured url
Companies: mobitv

Debunk Alternative Medicine Provider; Have Him Get Your Website Taken Offline

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Apparently, in his quest to convince the world that his alternative medicine practices are worth 9,999 euros, Joseph Chikelue Obi missed out on learning how the Streisand Effect works. Obi got upset about the website Quackometer which was making fun of Obi's claims. Rather than, you know, proving them wrong or responding to the charges, Obi had his "lawyer" send a threatening letter to Quackometer's ISP who pulled the site. The article linked here does a nice job of chronicling Obi's run-ins with the law and police investigations over the years, including various charges of very questionable medical practices, which certainly seems like relevant factual information. I wonder if he'll go after The Register for posting it. The Register also points out that the lawyer who signed the letter getting the ISP to pull down Quackometer does not appear to be a registered lawyer in the UK.

Filed Under: alternative medicine, defamation, takedown

Why Did A California Court Hide All Of WikiLeaks Over A Single Document?

from the seems-excessive dept

Over a year ago, we wrote about the Wikileaks project, designed to allow government and company officials to anonymously leak documents as a way of whistleblowing questionable activities. Apparently, it's been quite successful at times. However, in doing so, it's also building up a list of enemies, including one who has apparently convinced a California court to make the entire site disappear in the US. The Swiss banking group, Julius Baer, was upset by documents found on the site that they believe were posted by a former VP at the bank, alleging that the bank was involved in money laundering operations. Julius Baer's lawyers claim that having these documents public could influence ongoing litigation in Switzerland (one assumes having to do with money laundering). While it's understandable that the bank might not want those documents online, or that those documents might impact current litigation, that doesn't explain why the California court ordered the entire site offline, demanded that its registrar block the transfer of the domain, force the registrar to point all visitors to a blank page and also having the registrar hand over all information on IP addresses of people who accessed the wikileaks site. All of that seems rather excessive, and of questionable legality. After all, doesn't Section 230 of the CDA provide safe harbor for the service provider? I could see an order demanding the specific documents be taken down, but the rest of the order seems to go well beyond what's both reasonable and standard in cases of this nature. The folks behind Wikileaks are equally perplexed, noting that they were only given a few hours warning before the hearing, meaning they were unable to attend or send representation. All in all this seems rather excessive, especially compared to existing similar cases on record. Even odder about all of this is that since the court went after the registrar, not whoever is actually hosting the site, you can apparently still reach the actual site if you know the IP address.

Filed Under: california, takedown, wikileaks
Companies: julius baer, wikileaks

Court Says DMCA Takedown Recipients Can Fight Back On Their Home Turf

from the watch-out-for-unintended-consequences dept

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous notes that a recent decision in the 10th Circuit holds that "when a company uses the DMCA to take down stuff from eBay on grounds of copyright infringemen, the company can be sued in the state where the target resides." Specifically, the copyright holder for artist Erte sent a DMCA takedown notice for someone selling products on eBay using a variation of an Erte design. The copyright holder also sent a letter threatening a lawsuit. The eBay seller responded by suing in the local, Colorado, courts, asking for a declaratory judgment that the products did not infringe, claiming fair use. The case here isn't about whether or not there was infringement, but what's the right location for the lawsuit. The copyright holders were based in Connecticut and the UK, and claimed that Colorado wasn't the right jurisdiction for the lawsuit. However, the Circuit court found otherwise, noting that it was clear that the sellers were in Colorado (it said so on their auctions) and the takedown notice clearly impacted people in Colorado.

The post on the topic concludes: "The outcome is a harsh lesson for copyright holders who send cease and desist letters willy-nilly." That basically suggests that perhaps those who rush out to send DMCA notices won't be so eager to dash them off, knowing they may be sued at the location of the recipient. However, I'd suggest that a different result is likely -- and it isn't a good thing. Rather than just sending off nasty letters threatening to sue, expect DMCA takedown notices to be followed quickly by actual lawsuits. We're already seeing this in the patent world. Patent holders who are afraid that someone they want to sue will sue for declaratory judgment in a more friendly jurisdiction simply decide to sue first in a favorable location (East Texas), without providing much warning at all. So, the end result of this might not be those issuing DMCA takedowns become more careful, but that they start filing more lawsuits.

Filed Under: dmca, jurisdiction, takedown

eBay Strikes Back, Sues For Frivolous DMCA Takedowns

from the good-for-them dept

For quite some time we've seen companies try to make bogus intellectual property claims against people reselling their products on eBay. For example, a company making shampoo once claimed that you couldn't resell its bottles online -- even when legally purchased. The companies always claim that only "authorized" resellers are allowed to sell their products, and they must do so at a specific price. Last year, when the Supreme Court changed rules about whether manufacturers could demand retailers abide by a specific price, it kicked off speculation that we'd see more such cases. In fact, that's exactly what happened. In one case, a company named Innovate! Technology claimed that someone selling their products on eBay violated their intellectual property (including patents, trademarks and copyright!). The real complaint, of course, had nothing to do with intellectual property, but that this seller was selling below the company's official pricing. This seemed pretty ridiculous already, but these types of cases are designed to scare off small time sellers who don't have big legal guns to back them up.

However, Innovate appears to have made a huge strategic error that has brought some big legal guns into the case, and they're clearly pointed at shooting Innovate's use of the DMCA down. Greg Beck writes in to note that while the case was directly between Innovate and the eBay seller, Innovate made the mistake of pushing to get eBay involved in the case. Normally, eBay just does what's required of it in DMCA cases and gets out of the way. However, now that eBay is involved, it got involved in a big way. It's fighting back against Innovate, claiming that Innovate has been filing bogus DMCA requests and so now eBay is seeking damages, attorney's fees and an injunction preventing Innovate from filing any more DMCA notices to eBay. In other words, it's trying to make an example of Innovate. Hopefully it works, and others pursuing this same strategy of trying to stop legitimate competition through bogus DMCA notices will think twice before continuing.

Filed Under: dmca, first sale, price fixing, takedown
Companies: ebay, innovate

International Game Of File Sharing Whack-A-Mole Continues

from the and-what-good-does-that-do? dept

In what we're sure will be declared yet another "significant blow" against "piracy," the IFPI helped shut down a private bittorrent tracker site that was used by many people. Following the arrest of the service's creator and the taking down of the site, the IFPI has put up one of its typical scary warning notices about how it's now trying to track down the users of the site -- though most people view that as an empty threat. There is little doubt that this particular service was mainly used for unauthorized file sharing. However, you do still have to wonder what the IFPI and others think they're accomplishing here. It becomes increasingly laughable to have anyone think that bringing these sites down does anything positive for the industry. It's clearly not in the best interests of musicians who are quickly moving as far away from organizations like the IFPI and the RIAA as possible. At the same time, musicians are recognizing that playing this giant game of whack-a-mole is both counter-productive and stupid. It doesn't do anything to damper file sharing at all. Once a copy is out there it's out there, and shutting down one player in the space doesn't make any difference at all. The users just scatter and show up again elsewhere, further underground. In the meantime, many more are realizing that rather than worrying about these services, it's time to embrace them, recognizing that they're incredibly efficient distribution and promotion mechanisms that can be used to help a musician become much more successful. About the only people who it's hurting are those who think they're in the business of selling little plastic discs -- and we've already described why felony interference of a business model isn't a crime.

Filed Under: bittorrent, file sharing, p2p, takedown
Companies: ifpi, oink, riaa

If You Declare Your Content Is In The Public Domain, Can You Still Issue DMCA Takedown Notices?

from the just-wondering dept

The same guy who is fighting Uri Geller over bogus DMCA takedown notices may now need to be fighting the "Creation Science Evangelism Ministries," which has apparently forced a video off YouTube via a DMCA takedown notice. The video, not surprisingly, is critical of the group, but almost certainly does not violate the group's copyrights. The one really interesting thing here, is that the head of the ministry has apparently declared that all of the group's content is in the public domain -- which raises the question of whether or not you can still issue a DMCA takedown notice on content you've declared to be in the public domain?

Filed Under: abuse, dmca, public domain, takedown