Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
That's as may be, but in this case, this is undeniably a DRM-circumvention tool, and therefore the takedown notice from a US-based server was entirely lawful and appropriate.
|
The takedown notice was indeed lawful.
That doesn't mean the content was illegal, only that the copyright owner(s) believed it infringes on their copyright, and were willing to say so in a way that they can be held legally accountable for.
The way DMCA takedown notices work is,
- Copyright owner files complaint with ISP or other provider,
- Content is removed for 2 weeks,
- Content poster has opportunity to object,
- If s/he objects, s/he gives name & address to copyright owner, so that copyright owner can file suit
- Copyright owner has two weeks to take legal action, otherwise the content goes back up.
Many people don't object, and their content is just removed. Some don't object because they don't understand how it's supposed to work, and some are actually infringing and got caught, and some don't want to give their name & address to the party on the other end (who does NOT have to reveal legal contact info to the individual, only to the ISP/web host).
A DMCA takedown notice, even a legit one, is not an indication of a crime. It's an announcement that someone *thinks* something illegal has happened. Since copyright infringement is a blurry thing, the illegality has to be determined in court.
And there's supposed to be penalties for malicious misuse of DMCA takedowns, which have not been enforced. (Like when the SFWA told Scribd.com to remove hundreds of science fiction stories, claiming they were infringing on copyrights... including stories released under Creative Commons, and stories by authors who had not authorized the SFWA to legally represent them.)