Joe Harkins’s Comments

• Jun 3rd, 2012 @ 3:04am

  Re: Re:

  on Bogus Infringement Takedowns And The Danger Of Relying On Third Party Services With No Backbone
  I am not in favor of the words you are putting in my mouth. There is no "one sided nuke 'em" to a DMCA notice. The scenario being complained of here is not a DMCA take down.
  
  I am not in favor of anyone sending an email claiming copyright infringement and demanding take down for that. I am not in favor of anyone taking down anything in response to an email claiming copyright infringement. The DMCA does not support either the complaint or the response.
  
  I am in favor of the take down provisions of the DMCA. Have you ever actually read them?
  
  Read the law. Here are the rules that any responsible hosting service understands and will follow. http://buildinghosting.com/legal/
• Jun 2nd, 2012 @ 6:10pm

  Re: Re:

  on Bogus Infringement Takedowns And The Danger Of Relying On Third Party Services With No Backbone
  Actually the word is "thieves." A thief is one who takes or uses someone else's property without permission. The right to say who may make a copy of what I create is my property by the law. The issue here is not the original; it is the RIGHT to control copies. It says so right there in the USA Constitution and in every legal ruling based on that law in the past couple hundred years. Your replacing the words of the law with what you want it to say does not change the law. You rewriting the language of the law to exclude the right to control copies is nonsense. You attempt to twist my words about the right to control the making of copies and limit it to originals is sophistry.
  
  Aside from that juvenile foolishness, you are OT. The topic is the claim that bogus takedown are a consequence of the DCMA. That too is sophistry.
  
  The Turkey-Lurkey anecdotes here are about people who are sending out takedown notices that have zero standing under the DCMA. Respect for the DCMA is the solution, not the problem.