Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> >
> > > Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever
> > > consider
> > > censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase transit
> > > from a
> > > company that engages in this type of behavior.
> >
> > A DMCA takedown order has the force of law.
>
> The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be  
> handled.
> One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the
> takedown notice.

Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance.  Doesn't mean  
you don't have to follow the law.


> This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use,

Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make  
that distinction.


> so the proper
> response would be for the victim to send a counter-notice and then  
> wait
> for the complainer to settle the issue in court.

See previous comment.  The website owner, however, has that option.

Let's just agree that there were multiple avenues open to lots of  
people here, that HE should not have taken down more than the site in  
question (if, in fact, that is what happened), and that the DCMA has  
silly parts.

Doesn't mean you should "wait for a court order" though.

--
TTFN,
patrick