Harry Potter Pirated Editions on Kindle Again - Page 8

HarryT · 08-19-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'm a UKer.

The problem isn't that so much, but that the penaltys involved will usually be low, and you have little return for /your/ time spent. Sure, the lawyers get paid, but...

Sorry - I thought you meant that it wasn't worthwhile because the legal costs would outweigh the awarded damages. I see now what you mean; thank you for the clarification.

Shaggy · 08-19-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

As to the DMCA, it's up to the actual copyright holder to pursue the companies involved making the false claim of ownership. This is generally not cost-effective.

I don't think so. If a company makes a false claim of ownership, it's considered perjury. That's something the government enforces, not something an individual would sue them for.

It would require that the site hosting the material stand up to the company though, and not just automatically cave in.

DaleDe · 08-19-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I don't think so. If a company makes a false claim of ownership, it's considered perjury. That's something the government enforces, not something an individual would sue them for.

It would require that the site hosting the material stand up to the company though, and not just automatically cave in.

And the ISP to stand behind the site that is standing up.

Dale

Shaggy · 08-19-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Unfortunately, as the one getting the notice, I could do very little about it. Most hosts will yank the account, or at least the offending portion, and ask questions later (if at all).

In theory, what's supposed to happen is that Guy #2 issues a DMCA. The host yanks the material. You send notice to the host that you are disputing the DMCA and copyright ownership, and put the material back up. At that point, Guy #2 has to pursue it in court. We both know that's not how it will happen in reality though.

Quote:

Really, the DMCA is horribly flawed, and favors the person who makes the claim.

No argument there. Especially if the "person" making the claim is a large company.

Hellmark · 08-19-2009, 01:35 PM

Quite often, the site is willing to stand up, it is the host that caves. In many instances the host caves before the site owner is even aware of what's going on.

Shaggy · 08-19-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaleDe

And the ISP to stand behind the site that is standing up.

The ISP shouldn't have much stake in it, since they are a safe harbor and are not liable. The way it's written is that if someone issues a DMCA against you and your ISP pulls the material, you are supposed to be able to dispute the DMCA and get the material put back up. As long as the ISP pulled it originally, and has something in writing from you that you are disputing it, they should not be held responsible for the material going back online.

That's how it's "supposed" to work. Not that it really does work that way. Usually what goes on is that a company abuses the DMCA in order to intimidate an ISP, the individual user is screwed, and the company is never held accountable for perjury.

HarryT · 08-19-2009, 01:42 PM

A classic example is the US copyright holder of "Gone with the Wind", who will vigorously go after any Canadian site which hosts a copy of the book, even though it's in the public domain in Canada. Pure "scare tactics", but for many sites it's just not worth the hassle to argue about.

Shaggy · 08-19-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellmark

In many instances the host caves before the site owner is even aware of what's going on.

They're actually supposed to. Once the host receives the initial DMCA, they are required to take the material down. Theoretically, the site owner has the right to dispute the DMCA and put the material back up, but that usually doesn't happen.

In order to go all the way to trial, the site owner would have to inform their host that they are disputing and put the material back online. Then the company issuing the DMCA would sue in court. IF all that happened, then a judge could (theoretically) rule that the company committed perjury if they were not the copyright holder. I've never heard of that ever actually happening though.

Hellmark · 08-19-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

In theory, what's supposed to happen is that Guy #2 issues a DMCA. The host yanks the material. You send notice to the host that you are disputing the DMCA and copyright ownership, and put the material back up. At that point, Guy #2 has to pursue it in court. We both know that's not how it will happen in reality though.

No argument there. Especially if the "person" making the claim is a large company.

Yeah, but, you try getting it put back up. Some hosts refuse to, or if they reenable things, the portions in question were deleted and you have to reupload them if you have a backup.

What really blew was that Guy #2 was sending the notices to a bunch of places other than my host. In all like a half dozen notices were sent out for the same thing. To top it all off, I knew all the people involved, and the guy could have easily just asked me.

Riocaz · 08-19-2009, 01:56 PM

Harry even in the UK it's not "pretty much always" often maybe.

My parents came damn near close to bankruptcy despite winning what should have been an "open and shut" case that dragged on for the better part of a decade.

rlauzon · 08-19-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm not sure I understand the example you're giving.

The "under penalty of perjury" means that they're not supposed to just guess or assume that they hold the copyright, they're making a legal claim that they knowingly hold it.

In order for Conde Nast to issue a DMCA takedown request for the material on Project Gutenberg, they have to legally state that they knowingly hold the copyright on that material. I don't see any wiggle room there for "oops, our mistake".

From Wikipedia:
"Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding"

Note the term "willful". If I assert an untruth, but believe it to be true, I am not willfully doing it.

So there's plenty of wiggle room there for "oops, my mistake".

rlauzon · 08-19-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

If that was true, then the Harry Potter books would not have been up there, would they?

You are getting off the discussion. The discussion is whether Google's book database would help. Not whether or not Amazon actually applies that information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Sorry, but this is nonsense. If the electronic rights are seperate from the physical, which is normal for most commercially published books, then those are the rights which must be respected. There's no permission for Harry Potter ebooks sales, in this case.

And the only person who can give the permission for a work to be copied is the copyright holder - whether or not the work is in an electronic format.

Abecedary · 08-19-2009, 02:05 PM

Something else to remember about the whole Google/Amazon database thing—Google has talked with publishers about opening their own eBook store to go up against Amazon. I seriously doubt Amazon would want to license the database of what could be one of their biggest competitors.

Shaggy · 08-19-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Note the term "willful". If I assert an untruth, but believe it to be true, I am not willfully doing it.

How do you state that you are the copyright holder for something you are not, without it being willful?

DawnFalcon · 08-19-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlauzon

You are getting off the discussion. The discussion is whether Google's book database would help. Not whether or not Amazon actually applies that information.

And the only person who can give the permission for a work to be copied is the copyright holder - whether or not the work is in an electronic format.

Don't try that on me. I brought the topic of the database up, because it's clear that Amazon's filtering, if any, is hopelessly inadequate. The point I made stands.

And your second paragraph is plain incorrect. It's perfectly possible to give that right to other parties (exclusively or non-exclusively), and seperately for print and electronic forms...and for a miriad of divisions of such. Ask a published author.

Abecedary - Remember I'm talking about the database which identifies rights holders, not the content of the books themselves. Although I'd actually argue that Google should have to provide the database of rights holders for the public for any use in return for what they're getting in the settlement.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Harry Potter	happy_terd	Lounge	1	01-21-2010 02:18 PM
Harry Potter on Kindle	desertgrandma	Lounge	60	01-30-2009 01:15 AM
Harry Potter 6 e-book already being pirated!	Colin Dunstan	News	144	03-27-2008 12:52 PM
Official Harry Potter e-books, thanks to the Amazon Kindle?	TadW	News	36	09-19-2007 05:09 AM

08-19-2009, 01:35 PM	#110
Hellmark Wizard Posts: 2,549 Karma: 3799999 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: O'Fallon, Missouri, USA Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3	Quite often, the site is willing to stand up, it is the host that caves. In many instances the host caves before the site owner is even aware of what's going on.

08-19-2009, 01:42 PM	#112
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	A classic example is the US copyright holder of "Gone with the Wind", who will vigorously go after any Canadian site which hosts a copy of the book, even though it's in the public domain in Canada. Pure "scare tactics", but for many sites it's just not worth the hassle to argue about.

08-19-2009, 01:56 PM	#115
Riocaz Fulfilled but not by iRex Posts: 932 Karma: 286846 Join Date: May 2006 Location: London Device: Far too many	Harry even in the UK it's not "pretty much always" often maybe. My parents came damn near close to bankruptcy despite winning what should have been an "open and shut" case that dragged on for the better part of a decade.

08-19-2009, 02:05 PM	#118
Abecedary Exwyzeeologist Posts: 535 Karma: 3261 Join Date: Jun 2009 Device: :PRS-505::iPod touch:	Something else to remember about the whole Google/Amazon database thing—Google has talked with publishers about opening their own eBook store to go up against Amazon. I seriously doubt Amazon would want to license the database of what could be one of their biggest competitors.