Is it just me or does this title seem misleading? It appears (from the article) that WordPress took down an article because of an abusive use of the DMCA and is legally required to do so...
"WordPress is legally required to respond to DMCA notices, but also instructed Hotham how to counterclaim, though one of the requirements was to "consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body"."
And...
"In a statement, WordPress said it recognised that this was an abuse of the DMCA law.
"We think this was a case of abuse of the DMCA and we don't think that taking it down was the right result," said Paul Sieminski, general counsel for WordPress parent company Automattic. "It's censorship using the DMCA.""
Even if you might not like it, you have to conform to the law. If the law says you can't kill somebody, you don't, no matter how much you believe they deserved it.
If the law says you take down a page after receiving a DMCA notice, you take down the page.
If you don't, you will be punished. That's how the law works.
WordPress not complying with the DMCA could have the effect of them losing their safe-harbor status which might very quickly lead to them going off the net completely. The monetary issue aside (going off the net would mean they lose all of their revenue), is it worth losing all WP.com hosted blogs just to temporarily keep one online?
"is it worth losing all WP.com hosted blogs just to temporarily keep one online?"
The outcry from WP's users would help to push our politicians toward a real solution to copyright rather than another hand-out to well-connected corporations.
> WordPress not complying with the DMCA could have the effect of them losing their safe-harbor status
You cannot lose your status "globally" by choosing not to act on an individual notice. Each notice you respond to provides safe harbor from the potential copyright infringement suit over that one piece of material. All WP would be risking is being sued for that one interview, not the rest of their network.
The DMCA does not create any obligations to take down anything. It provides that IF a service provider CHOOSES to take down material in response to a notice, it gains liability protection for any copyright infringement it was committing by hosting that material. If WordPress believes the notice is being used for censorship reasons, and there was no infringement occurring, and thus no actual risk of being liable for hosting it, then ignoring the notice is both perfectly legal and there's zero benefit to complying with the request.
Ignoring the obviously sensationalized and wildly inaccurate headline, this is another great example of how well the DMCA actually works (not being sarcastic here). The information carrier is exempted from legal action, the party that filed the false DMCA notice has made themselves liable to be sued, and the actual copyright owner can get their contents reinstated with almost no trouble. To me, the DMCA is a textbook example of how to write a decent law.
Let's just ignore the fact that you do not actually need to be guilty of copyright infringement to have your blog / website / video / etc. forced offline by a DMCA notice. There is no court involved; it is a guilty until proven innocent process, and most people do not have the resources to sue a large corporation or well-funded organization of any sort.
The DMCA is a textbook example of how the US caters to big corporations, not how to write good laws. The few redeeming qualities of the DMCA are vastly outweighed by the harm that the DMCA has caused and is continuing to cause.
> Let's just ignore the fact that you do not actually need to be guilty of copyright infringement
I'm not ignoring that. A simple counter-claim will get your contents reinstated. You don't actually have to be guilty of copyright infringement to get sued in court. The DMCA does not change this.
> most people do not have the resources to sue a large corporation
What does this have to do with the DMCA? The DMCA is about content carriers, not end users. There is no way data carriers would allow themselves to be liable for the copyright infringements of their users. Thus, without the DMCA, they would simply comply with any legal threat regardless of its merits. The DMCA puts the power back in the hands of the people by allowing the user to file a counter-claim and getting their contents reinstated without any risk to the content carrier.
You could get sued for copyright infringement before the DMCA, and now you still can. Nothing has changed in that regard.
But why is that better than allowing the content to remain up until it is proven to be infringing? Extend safe harbor to apply until infringement is proven and you take away the ability for large organizations to abuse the DMCA to take down anything they dislike.
> the actual copyright owner can get their contents reinstated
Yeah, they just need to send a counter-notice with their full name and address to a bunch of angry homophobes, whilst being gay and running a gay rights site. Easy!
I saw this a few days ago (also first time I'd heard of "straight pride uk").
DCMA seems to work the same way as patent trolls - the little guy just gives up, too expensive, and only the bigwigs can fight back. :/
(to those suggesting a british student sue a british organisation in a US court, please think about how insanely expensive that would be, for someone without a job.)
15 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 60.5 ms ] thread"WordPress is legally required to respond to DMCA notices, but also instructed Hotham how to counterclaim, though one of the requirements was to "consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body"."
And...
"In a statement, WordPress said it recognised that this was an abuse of the DMCA law.
"We think this was a case of abuse of the DMCA and we don't think that taking it down was the right result," said Paul Sieminski, general counsel for WordPress parent company Automattic. "It's censorship using the DMCA.""
If the law says you take down a page after receiving a DMCA notice, you take down the page.
If you don't, you will be punished. That's how the law works.
WordPress not complying with the DMCA could have the effect of them losing their safe-harbor status which might very quickly lead to them going off the net completely. The monetary issue aside (going off the net would mean they lose all of their revenue), is it worth losing all WP.com hosted blogs just to temporarily keep one online?
The outcry from WP's users would help to push our politicians toward a real solution to copyright rather than another hand-out to well-connected corporations.
You cannot lose your status "globally" by choosing not to act on an individual notice. Each notice you respond to provides safe harbor from the potential copyright infringement suit over that one piece of material. All WP would be risking is being sued for that one interview, not the rest of their network.
The DMCA is a textbook example of how the US caters to big corporations, not how to write good laws. The few redeeming qualities of the DMCA are vastly outweighed by the harm that the DMCA has caused and is continuing to cause.
I'm not ignoring that. A simple counter-claim will get your contents reinstated. You don't actually have to be guilty of copyright infringement to get sued in court. The DMCA does not change this.
> most people do not have the resources to sue a large corporation
What does this have to do with the DMCA? The DMCA is about content carriers, not end users. There is no way data carriers would allow themselves to be liable for the copyright infringements of their users. Thus, without the DMCA, they would simply comply with any legal threat regardless of its merits. The DMCA puts the power back in the hands of the people by allowing the user to file a counter-claim and getting their contents reinstated without any risk to the content carrier.
You could get sued for copyright infringement before the DMCA, and now you still can. Nothing has changed in that regard.
Granted, but at the same time, the requirement to get your blog/website/etc back online isn't difficult.
Sure, just prove that they didn't believe they were filing a valid claim at the time.
Yeah, they just need to send a counter-notice with their full name and address to a bunch of angry homophobes, whilst being gay and running a gay rights site. Easy!
DCMA seems to work the same way as patent trolls - the little guy just gives up, too expensive, and only the bigwigs can fight back. :/
(to those suggesting a british student sue a british organisation in a US court, please think about how insanely expensive that would be, for someone without a job.)