Firstly, they are laws of general applicability. Secondly, BSI plays a special role in the system of delegated legislation. Thirdly, as the article makes clear, this is about far more than "laws that companies must follow" ... it is about laws that guarantee the public safety, that apply to every school and public building, that have a direct impact on life-safety.
I found your note to be highly offensive and inappropriate and a disgrace to the long tradition of reasoned discourse that is the hallmark of the Society of Friends. You should be ashamed of yourself.
To illustrate that a takedown notice is no casual affair, I went through the exercise of filling out the form to take down my own video (needless to say, I didn't hit the submit button). The form is here:
You'll note that there are over 20 fields that have to be explicitly filled out. Of particular note are these fields that you have to affirmatively check:
By checking the following boxes, I state that: ∗ I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; ∗ This notification is accurate; and ∗ UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. ∗ I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages. ∗ I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account.
It is hard to imagine how anybody could accidentally fill out and submit this form.
Here is what a takedown notice on YouTube looks like. I tried to take down the video in question, "Energy - An American Experience." Notice YouTube is smart enough to see I'm trying to take my own video down and gives me an out.
What's impressive is the number of discrete actions it takes to do the actual takedown. You have to affirmatively answer 20 different fields, including 5 checkboxes that tell you all about the legal gravity of the situation.
This wasn't a casual mouseclick kind of thing, it was a deliberate legal attack.
There has been a lot of discussion on this thread and the previous post. Thanks to Mike for doing this, but I did want to speak up since I haven't had a chance.
Georgia decided to file suit instead of talking to us despite repeated requests to come see them and talk about this. Nobody on this post or the comments to it has talked to us either. So, it is gratifying to see so many people taking the issue seriously even with only some of the facts on the table.
These are complicated issues, and I'd encourage people to read some of the background materials. Here are a few things that people might find useful:
1. I testified before Congress on Edicts of Government, and discussed Georgia in that testimony:
Both of them work. The issue is a sometime longish queue at the Internet Archive before the docs actually show up in the RECAP archive. We're aware of the issue, but right now you should expect same-day service in a nanosecond world.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by CarlMalamud.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Firstly, they are laws of general applicability. Secondly, BSI plays a special role in the system of delegated legislation. Thirdly, as the article makes clear, this is about far more than "laws that companies must follow" ... it is about laws that guarantee the public safety, that apply to every school and public building, that have a direct impact on life-safety.
Re: Re: Or use ANTI- no, not in this country
I found your note to be highly offensive and inappropriate and a disgrace to the long tradition of reasoned discourse that is the hallmark of the Society of Friends. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Carl Malamud
Letter from WGBH
https://public.resource.org/wgbh.org.20150824.pdf
Apology accepted.
Takedown Forms
https://public.resource.org/wgbh.org.20150823.pdf
You'll note that there are over 20 fields that have to be explicitly filled out. Of particular note are these fields that you have to affirmatively check:
By checking the following boxes, I state that:
∗ I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
∗ This notification is accurate; and
∗ UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
∗ I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages.
∗ I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account.
It is hard to imagine how anybody could accidentally fill out and submit this form.
What a takedown looks like
https://public.resource.org/wgbh.org.20150823.pdf
What's impressive is the number of discrete actions it takes to do the actual takedown. You have to affirmatively answer 20 different fields, including 5 checkboxes that tell you all about the legal gravity of the situation.
This wasn't a casual mouseclick kind of thing, it was a deliberate legal attack.
legal opinions
There has been a lot of discussion on this thread and the previous post. Thanks to Mike for doing this, but I did want to speak up since I haven't had a chance.
Georgia decided to file suit instead of talking to us despite repeated requests to come see them and talk about this. Nobody on this post or the comments to it has talked to us either. So, it is gratifying to see so many people taking the issue seriously even with only some of the facts on the table.
These are complicated issues, and I'd encourage people to read some of the background materials. Here are a few things that people might find useful:
1. I testified before Congress on Edicts of Government, and discussed Georgia in that testimony:
https://public.resource.org/edicts/
(You'll note two members from Georgia had pointed questions for me. They are in the description on the full hearing on the Internet Archive.)
2. Here is the paper trail with Georgia before they filed suit:
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ga/
3. Here are the court documents and their exhibits. Keep in mind this is their initial filing and we haven't had a chance to respond:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.gand.218354/gov.uscourts.gand.218354.docket.htm l
4. We have a similar situation in several other states, including Oregon, Idaho, and Mississippi. You might want to look at those paper trails:
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ms/
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/id/
https://publi c.resource.org/oregon.gov/
(If you're interested in annotations and work for hire, I'd recommend the Public Records Act request from Idaho. It's the big file.)
5. Since folks are busy, instead of talking to me, you can just listen into my answers from an interview with the NPR station in Atlanta:
https://public.resource.org/WABE.Carl_Malamud.20150727.m4a
Thanks again for your interest in the Georgia Code!
Carl
Re: Has anyone tried this?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by CarlMalamud.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt