4 ms·

As a general rule, smaller companies that release their code under the GPL have almost no recourse against huge companies violating their copyrights. One of th

As a general rule, smaller companies that release their code under the GPL have almost no recourse against huge companies violating their copyrights. One of the big flash drive makers released their own portable browser based on PortableApps.com's Firefox Portable a few years back and distributed it on millions of drives with my name and all copyrights stripped off of it. This happened after I'd been in negotiations with them about using our software platform and fully informed their subsidiary in charge of their resulting software platform of the legal obligations of the GPL including a direct call with the subsidiary's CEO. The most I could do was send them a C&D. To add insult to injury, the subsidiary released a hardware product years later and another company released a similar but different product in the same segment. The subsidiary sued the other company and had this PR story published about how the CEO was so offended by the "theft" and had to sue them to be able to look his kids in the face.

themartorana 11y ago
What about the DMCA? It seems like people cower in fear of it, but only with regards to the entertainment industry. Is that only because it's dangerous when the copyright holder is a huge corporation, but remains effectively toothless for those unable to support years of litigation?
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  The DMCA safe harbor applies to intermediaries. It essentially says nobody can sue YouTube for the copyright infringement of its users if they take down user content on request. The problem with it is that the intermediaries have no practical way of knowing whether the user who posted the content had a legal right to, so it causes everybody execute takedown requests regardless of merit. People violating the GPL usually aren't intermediaries. If they don't get the safe harbor to begin with then they can't lose it by not following the takedown process. I wonder if an intermediary could be found though. If an infringer is hosting their website on AWS, what happens when somebody sends a takedown notice to Amazon?
  - ijk 11y ago
    The other thing about YouTube takedowns is that they're often technically not DMCA takedowns anymore. Technically, false DMCA claims open the claimer to penalties. But, if the Content ID match (even on a false positive) or one of YouTube's contractual obligations triggers, the content is flagged without going through the DMCA process. https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...
randx838 11y ago
This is not at all true. They are liable for significant monetary damages for violating copyright, and you can find a lawyer to take up the case if you own the copyright. There are a couple well known organizations who have gotten paid more than their expenses from lawsuits against gpl violating companies: sfconservancy.org, sflc.org., fsf.org.
- teraflop 11y ago
  In principle, yes. In practice, large companies have extensive legal resources and can afford to drag out a lawsuit far beyond the resources of a team volunteer/hobbyist developers. It's great that groups like the FSF and Software Freedom Conservancy are using their funds to support legal action when necessary, but they can't be everywhere and enforce everything.
  - randx838 11y ago
    In practice, yes. First of all, all those organizations have enforced the gpl on behalf of "a team volunteer/hobbyist developers" from large companies. In fact, it's the primary kind of enforcement they do. Second of all, individuals who have zero resources win lawsuits against large companies EVERY SINGLE DAY. Lawyers work on contingency and pro bono. Stop this hand waving crap saying the gpl can't "really" be enforced for volunteer efforts.
    - detaro 11y ago
      From the article we are discussing, you probably should recommend grsecurity a few lawyers.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      Yeah, again, no it doesn't work that way. Again, the folks you mentioned generally only work for non-profits and individual hobbyist devs. They don't work with for-profit companies (even if the company isn't making a profit at present). And the whole contingency thing... a lot less common than you think. Speaking as someone that's had his copyright ripped off multiple times and been injured due to negligence by the city of New York and/or Amtrak and looked into it with multiple attorneys in each case. For the most part, the legal system serves those with means and those with means alone.

themartorana 11y ago

What about the DMCA? It seems like people cower in fear of it, but only with regards to the entertainment industry. Is that only because it's dangerous when the copyright holder is a huge corporation, but remains effectively toothless for those unable to support years of litigation?

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
The DMCA safe harbor applies to intermediaries. It essentially says nobody can sue YouTube for the copyright infringement of its users if they take down user content on request. The problem with it is that the intermediaries have no practical way of knowing whether the user who posted the content had a legal right to, so it causes everybody execute takedown requests regardless of merit. People violating the GPL usually aren't intermediaries. If they don't get the safe harbor to begin with then they can't lose it by not following the takedown process. I wonder if an intermediary could be found though. If an infringer is hosting their website on AWS, what happens when somebody sends a takedown notice to Amazon?
- ijk 11y ago
  The other thing about YouTube takedowns is that they're often technically not DMCA takedowns anymore. Technically, false DMCA claims open the claimer to penalties. But, if the Content ID match (even on a false positive) or one of YouTube's contractual obligations triggers, the content is flagged without going through the DMCA process. https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...

randx838 11y ago

This is not at all true. They are liable for significant monetary damages for violating copyright, and you can find a lawyer to take up the case if you own the copyright. There are a couple well known organizations who have gotten paid more than their expenses from lawsuits against gpl violating companies: sfconservancy.org, sflc.org., fsf.org.

teraflop 11y ago
In principle, yes. In practice, large companies have extensive legal resources and can afford to drag out a lawsuit far beyond the resources of a team volunteer/hobbyist developers. It's great that groups like the FSF and Software Freedom Conservancy are using their funds to support legal action when necessary, but they can't be everywhere and enforce everything.
- randx838 11y ago
  In practice, yes. First of all, all those organizations have enforced the gpl on behalf of "a team volunteer/hobbyist developers" from large companies. In fact, it's the primary kind of enforcement they do. Second of all, individuals who have zero resources win lawsuits against large companies EVERY SINGLE DAY. Lawyers work on contingency and pro bono. Stop this hand waving crap saying the gpl can't "really" be enforced for volunteer efforts.
  - detaro 11y ago
    From the article we are discussing, you probably should recommend grsecurity a few lawyers.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Yeah, again, no it doesn't work that way. Again, the folks you mentioned generally only work for non-profits and individual hobbyist devs. They don't work with for-profit companies (even if the company isn't making a profit at present). And the whole contingency thing... a lot less common than you think. Speaking as someone that's had his copyright ripped off multiple times and been injured due to negligence by the city of New York and/or Amtrak and looked into it with multiple attorneys in each case. For the most part, the legal system serves those with means and those with means alone.