3 ms·
How exactly does publishing a list of malware-infected stores fall under the DMCA? I always thought DMCA was meant to be for copyright infringement cases. I di
by anondon 10y ago
How exactly does publishing a list of malware-infected stores fall under the DMCA? I always thought DMCA was meant to be for copyright infringement cases.
I didn't see the list, but did it by any chance contain the logos of the online stores? If it did, the DMCA notices make sense.
- nihonde 10y agoCompilations can be copyrighted. There's a long legal history on the topic. Also, logos are generally a topic for trademark laws, not so much copyright.
- vog 10y ago> Compilations can be copyrighted. There's a long legal history on the topic. This is true, but totally irrelevant as it misses the point of the question.
- nihonde 10y agoActually, you're wrong. The DMCA was used as a premise for takedown on the basis of purported copyright infringement. I was pointing out that such a claim, however spurious you may think it is, would likely hinge on the claimant's exclusive rights in the compilation. I can't see any other theory that would support a DMCA takedown. Again, it's irrelevant to the question whether or not you think the claim had merit. Also, the question conflated trademark with copyright.
- Veen 10y agoThat's all well and good if this case ever goes to court, which it almost certainly won't. Most service providers will pull down any content that's included in a takedown notice. The alternative is for each service provider to make a legal decision about each takedown notice. That won't happen. If they don't respond in good time, they risk their safe harbor status. It's smarter (under the seriously f'ed up DCMA system) to pull it down and wait for a counter notice, at which point they put it back up, and they aren't responsible any more — the person filing the counter notice is responsible because a false counter claim counts as perjury. At that point, the original issuer of the takedown notice can sue. Of course, it almost never gets that far when the takedown notices are spurious, as in this case. That's what makes the DMCA such a bad idea — it's a perfect tool for censorship.
- vog 10y ago> I was pointing out that such a claim, however spurious you may think it is, would likely hinge on the claimant's exclusive rights in the compilation. I don't think it is that simple. Yes, you may claim a copyright on whole compilation. But you could as well claim a copyright on some parts within that compilation. Since the compilation is a single document, claiming copyright on some part of it would also be sufficient for a takedown.
- nihonde 10y agoAgreed. I think this is correct. If I recall correctly, the person filing has to bring a claim within N days.
- notatoad 10y agoit falls under the DMCA because the DMCA mandates a takedown-first and check the validity later workflow. To be in compliance, a site must respond to any DMCA takedown notice as quickly as reasonably possible, regardless of how fraudulent it might be. As long as you're okay being found guilty of perjury by a US court, or have no plans to enter a US jurisdiction in the near future, you can get any content you want taken down from any site that's required to follow the DMCA.
- bitJericho 10y agoGood luck being rich and getting prosecuted with that.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y agoDMCA is a copyright law. It requires a takedown for alleged copyright violation. That doesn't apply here. The stores don't have copyright over their domain names on a list.
- sveiss 10y agoYes. So to get something taken down, all you have to do is allege copyright violation. If you're not concerned about perjury in the US courts, the claim doesn't have to have merit. Service providers have a choice: a) follow the DMCA takedown process and be shielded from all liability, whether or not the claim has actual merit b) evaluate each takedown notice to decide if the material falls within the scope of copyright, ignore takedowns where in the service provider's opinion the material is outside the scope of copyright, and should it go to court, be forced to defend that position on its merits instead of having an automatic liability shield What sensible service provider is going to choose option b?
- ldayley 10y agoThe claims probably have little to do with DMCA violations themselves, but it has become an easy way to get content removed quickly from sites without very much review from the host service. The claims are probably from the malware perpetrators as a way to censor discussion and keep the gravy train rolling. It's possible also that the embarrassed commerce sites would file a DMCA claim to keep the public in the dark about how insecure their sites are/were.
- vog 10y agoIndeed, this is one of many cases where the DMCA is almost an invitation for abuse - which was, if I remember correctly, also one of the main points of criticism when the DMCA was created.