I submitted this link due to HN's proclivity for requiring the submission title to match the linked page's title, and this title was more self-explanatory than "Striking back against censorship."
That's specifically suggested in the guidelines: "If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead."
yes, but they also don't want blogspam, which they can easily classify you as if you don't add anything new to the story (i guess adding your opinion would help, not just quote the original page you're linking to)
I read the documents. The one about NewsBuletin seems like it should be a no-brainer. Someone copied the blog posts, posted them on a fake domain, made to look like NewsBulletin, then issued take-down notices as if he owned them, and they were from the real site.
IANAL but I've been censored by the DMCA before and fought it. My understanding is that perjury is a crime against the court/government, so you'd have to convince a district attorney to pursue it which is rarely done.
Also, the takedown requires a much weaker statement under perjury than the counter-takedown. "the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed". There's (bizarrely) no need to claim good faith.
These cases look fairly cut-and-dried. The one thing that makes me wonder is the international angle, neither defendant is located in the US.
Seems like the real prize is setting a precedent to be used in other cases. It would seem recovering monetary awards from international parties may be quite difficult or impossible.
That's a nice thought. But I think it might be better to save your money for someone who needs it. This lawsuit is not being brought by a couple of guys working out of someone's basement, but by a successful company with hundreds of employees. I imagine they can afford it.
This kind of abuse is often a tool used by scoundrels in acrimonious disputes. Surely, people have wanted to sue in the past. What's been stopping people up until now?
Here is a paragraph from the linked article by Automattic. It gives at least a partial answer to your question.
> We receive hundreds of DMCA notices and try our best to review, identify and push back on those we see as abusive. Our users have the right to challenge a DMCA complaint too, but doing so requires them to identify themselves and fill out a legally required form saying that they submit to being sued for copyright infringement in a place that may be far away. If they don’t, their content is taken down and could stay down forever. This tradeoff doesn’t work for the many anonymous bloggers that we host on WordPress.com, who speak out on sensitive issues like corporate or government corruption.
27 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 73.9 ms ] threadhttp://en.blog.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/striking-back-agains...
EDIT: But it's great that Automattic are fighting this, and I wish them best luck.
Disclaimer (?): I'm an Automattic employee.
(http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - linked at the footer of every page)
Any information who made these false claims?
There's an ongoing case right now that would test whether "loss of free speech" is a recoverable damage.
Best of luck to Automattic, it's nice to see someone taking action.
Also, the takedown requires a much weaker statement under perjury than the counter-takedown. "the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed". There's (bizarrely) no need to claim good faith.
Edit: here's my story: https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/9ccd3a157914
Seems like the real prize is setting a precedent to be used in other cases. It would seem recovering monetary awards from international parties may be quite difficult or impossible.
That was my initial thought, especially from the point of view of comments above about it being difficult for small companies to afford a suit.
Not a lawyer, but it must be faster/cheaper/easier to sue after a precedent has been made that can be referred to
That's a nice thought. But I think it might be better to save your money for someone who needs it. This lawsuit is not being brought by a couple of guys working out of someone's basement, but by a successful company with hundreds of employees. I imagine they can afford it.
Isn't there a thing called 'slander of title?'
Would that thing apply in the case of representing someone else's work as your own for the purpose of issuing a DMCA?
This kind of abuse is often a tool used by scoundrels in acrimonious disputes. Surely, people have wanted to sue in the past. What's been stopping people up until now?
> We receive hundreds of DMCA notices and try our best to review, identify and push back on those we see as abusive. Our users have the right to challenge a DMCA complaint too, but doing so requires them to identify themselves and fill out a legally required form saying that they submit to being sued for copyright infringement in a place that may be far away. If they don’t, their content is taken down and could stay down forever. This tradeoff doesn’t work for the many anonymous bloggers that we host on WordPress.com, who speak out on sensitive issues like corporate or government corruption.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/21/wordpress-goes-on-the-offe...