View Single Post
Old 05-02-2012, 12:43 PM   #11
itimpi
Wizard
itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.itimpi ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,552
Karma: 950151
Join Date: Nov 2008
Device: Sony PRS-950, iphone/ipad (Marvin/iBooks/QuickReader)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
Was the person who allegedly had their DB account closed making copyrighted material publicly available via their DB account?
That will certainly be what any DCMA takedown request will be claiming as such a request needs to be raised by the copyright owner (or their agent) and sent to the service supplier (i.e. Dropbox) specifying the exact items to wich the request applies. In Dropbox terms this means that copyright material is exposed via the Public folder so that anyone can download it.

One weakness with DCMA requests is that they can be raised without going through any formal process and the onus is on the recipient to prove that they have not broken copyright so it is perfectly possible to get served with such an order for material that you have the right to make available. In practise most service providers simply act on them without bothering to check they are valid. There is in theory a penalty for issuing DCMA takedown requests incorrectly but I have not heard of this being applied.

Last edited by itimpi; 05-02-2012 at 12:49 PM.
itimpi is offline   Reply With Quote