LitRes.ru aggressive use of takedown notices (Android, and now Windows Phone)

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Jim Chapman

I heard that Moon+ adopted this solution, but were still challenged by LitRes, who actually wanted them to build in a black-list to block navigation to the flibusta site.

Check with your lawyers, but I highly doubt they have any grounds for requiring that be done, short of convincing a court to compel it, in which case you'd do it.

Web browsers do not have to include black lists to prevent their users visiting URLs that host pirated content and ISPS do not have to black list sites that link to piracy when requested by a copyright owner.

Now in the ISP case they will blacklist when a court order forces them to (e.g pirate bay), but that doesn't mean you have to or should block it without a court order. I would imagine most courts would take a different view on whether you're facilitating piracy by explicitly providing links to a pirate site or by allowing users to add any site they fancy which may or may not be a piracy site. You're not encouraging piracy in the latter case in my humble and not so legal opinion.

Above isn't legal advice though just opinion, need a lawyer for the former

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Jim Chapman

I heard that Moon+ adopted this solution, but were still challenged by LitRes, who actually wanted them to build in a black-list to block navigation to the flibusta site.

That has been sorted out. LitRes agree that removing the built-in link is all that is required.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Jim Chapman

Of course not. Don't be silly.

Well then it isn't the absolute matter of principle that you implied earlier, is it?

Well, just the regular 'free speech' and 'open internet' arguments to be honest. I can easily believe that flibusta is not a very salubrious setup ... but if internet access were limited to people who I approve of, using the technology only for purposes that I consider wholly righteous, the world would be the worse for it. The sentiment attibuted to Voltaire, in fact: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.".

You will defend some speech, but not others.

[Ninjalawyer]

The OP is correct, this is a grey area. Some cases in the US have held that if the link may be infringing if it was made knowing that the linked-to material was infringing and with the intent of inducing people to follow the link and infringe copyright. Other cases have, arguably, gone in the opposite direction. Generally, the better view is that in most cases simply linking is not infringing.

That said, your lawyer is probably going to tell you to remove the link. It's simply not worth the hassle to file a DMCA counter claim, which brings up a larger issue with the DMCA takedown process.

[Jim Chapman]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Well then it isn't the absolute matter of principle ...
You will defend some speech, but not others.

Naturally. I never said otherwise, and I never implied it was an absolute matter of principle (and FWIW I don't think Voltaire believed anything so daft either).

[twobits]

Originally Posted by Jim Chapman

We at Turnipsoft just received a nasty letter from LitRes.ru, demanding that we modify our Freda ebook reader app, to remove links to a competitor site, flibusta. Scanning the forums (here and elsewhere) I see they have past form at this - having pulled a similar nasty trick on Moon+ a few weeks back.

You received this notice or Google or your host did? Was it in the full and proper form of a DMCA notice?

Their claim (whose merits I will be discussing with my legal advisors) is that flibusta provides illegal access to content that LitRes has rights over, and by making it possible for Freda users to use flibusta, Turnipsoft is somehow 'participating in illegal use of copyrighted content'.

Linking usually has only been found to be an issue in some narrow instances. However, you are not an ISP or a host. You don't get DMCA protection's. So depending on just what you are linking to you could be found to be guilty of contributory infringement I would think.

I'd be interested to hear the forum's views on all this. But I would make the point that the existing 'DMCA take-down notice' mechanism does create a very un-level playing field. Just by asserting that they have grounds for complaint, LitRes can cause Google (and quite possibly Microsoft) to remove apps from the app stores - and even if their claim is quite without merit, the damage is still done.

Actually filing a counter notice is pretty simple. However if you do so, be sure to be very sure that you are not guilty of the infringement claimed, as you have to file it under penalty of perjury.

The other interesting thing is you have to agree to US jurisdiction, and so do they. What do you think they odds are of them actually following through and filing suit in the US?

What I would do, would probably be pull the link, and be ready to respond to any DMCA notice they may send to your host or Google etc with a counter notice.

[toddos]

Originally Posted by Jim Chapman

This does seem like wise advice. But if I do this, I am sure to be criticised by various of my users who liked having the link there. So that I can give them a constructive answer, can you point me at any internet-available material that demonstrates flibusta's hosting of stolen material?
Thanks,
Jim

The flibusta site should provide you all the info you need for that. Without linking to them, if you click on the "Popular Books" link (second link under the search box, if you're not running a translation or can read russian) the #1 book is George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. If you click through to that, you'll find links to download and read online. Given that the book retails for $9 in the Kindle store, I'm pretty sure they don't have the legal right to give it away for free.

I'm a huge fan of Freda and you've got to do what you think is right, but IMHO I wouldn't want this as a default source (I'm actually surprised you made it through WP/W8 certification at all with that source; there must not be russian-reading certification people on the team). Stick with quality default sources like Feedbooks and Gutenberg (basically, all of your other default sources except flibusta), and keep on providing OPDS access. If users want to use flibusta, the OPDS link is very prominent on their home page and they can easily add it as their own OPDS source. That gets you off the hook while still maintaining the functionality your various users desire.

I'd say in this case LitRes.ru probably does have the right to ask you to remove flibusta as a default source, but there's no way they have the right to ask you to remove OPDS support or add a blacklist.

[Jim Chapman]

Just to let you know how the debate has (for now) ended ...

I've agreed with LitRes that I'll remove the flibusta link from the program. Obviously, people who're already using flibusta with Freda will still be able to do so, and it's always possible to manually add it as an OPDS source. It sounds like the same solution that they apparently agreed with Moon+.