6 ms·

If the version of your software they are hosting is subject to a non-permissive license, you should simply be able to tell them so and theoretically, they're ob

If the version of your software they are hosting is subject to a non-permissive license, you should simply be able to tell them so and theoretically, they're obligated to take it down. The DMCA may or may not be precisely the right tool (license violation and copyright violation are similar but not 100% the same thing), but it should also work OK. (IANAL, but this is my experience.) If your software is MIT licensed or similar, you can still ask, but you're probably SOL if they don't agree to remove it. With those kinds of licenses, they're under no obligation to remove it just because you ask them. Simply contacting them at any of the email addresses listed here: https://www.cnet.com/about/contact-us/ https://www.cnet.com/about/contact-us/ or calling them should get you routed to the right person eventually. You could also try generic emails like legal@cnet.com, abuse@cnet.com, dmca@cnet.com, etc. In the worst case, here's a list of CNet employees: https://www.cnet.com/about/meet-us/ https://www.cnet.com/about/meet-us/ - figure out their email format (e.g. firstname.lastname@cnet.com) and shoot them some emails. However, you should be prepared for them to simply do nothing unless/until there's an attorney involved. Do you stand to lose income or receive some other kind of material injury if they don't take it down? Edit: The help center at the bottom of the Download site took me here: https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/articles/en_US/Knowledge/Copyright-complaints?retURL=%2FCBSi%2Fapex%2Fknowledgehome%3FsfdcIFrameOrigin%3Dnull&popup=false&categories=CBS_Interactive%3ACNETDownload&template=template_download&referer=dl.com&data=&cfs=SFS_Download https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/articles/en_US/Knowledge/... - this might be what you want?

teddyh 5y ago
> (license violation and copyright violation are similar but not 100% the same thing) How? Absent a license, there is nothing permitting the redistributing of software. There is no such thing as a “license violation”; if you do not fulfill the terms of the license, you have no license to distribute, and are violating copyright.
- dataflow 5y ago
  One example: "If the licensing agreement states that a licensee will have to pay additional fees for use beyond the scope of the agreement, a breach of the licensing agreement on these grounds generally will be considered a breach of contract, rather than copyright infringement." https://www.romanolaw.com/2020/01/13/is-breach-of-a-licensing-agreement-considered-a-breach-of-contract-or-copyright-infringement/ https://www.romanolaw.com/2020/01/13/is-breach-of-a-licensin...
  - teddyh 5y ago
    IMHO, that kind of thing is a contract, not a copyright license. And a contract is only valid if certain conditions are fulfilled, like if you signed it, if both parties are actually aware that a contract has been established, etc. (Exact conditions vary with jurisdiction.) The main point is, you can’t be party (and bound) to a contract if you only downloaded something without the direct knowledge of the provider. EDIT: To clarify: You are still always bound by copyright law, and always need a license to distribute. If you don’t fulfill the terms of a license you were given, then you don’t have permission to distribute, and are violating copyright if you do.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      You're gonna need to back that up with legal text (by which I mean a lawyer's interpretation matching yours).
      - teddyh 5y ago
        IANAL, but I’d start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds
        dataflow 5y ago
        Yeah, that's not gonna fly, sorry. I've wished the contract world worked that way, but my understanding has been it doesn't, and you're gonna need a lawyer's interpretation matching yours to back up your claim, not your own interpretation of a link to Wikipedia.
        teddyh 5y ago
        You’re being very dismissive and condescending when your link does not back up your claim either, from what I could tell. Also, from what I understand, this kind of thing varies from place to place. You might be correct about your own situation, but not about mine.
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  With regards to US law, and again, IANAL, so if an attorney chimes in I'd defer to them: "License" is a very general concept. You can give somebody "license" to do almost anything. See e. g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/license https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/license "Copyright" is a specific thing that you can possess - see the definition here: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html You can therefore grant somebody license to use something over which you hold copyright. You can also grant them license to do all sorts of other things, and you can breach the license in all sorts of ways. See for instance: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e4b1226a-b6b4-4915-8897-a8e474060481 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e4b1226a-b6b4... My main point, though, is that simply informing CNET that they are in violation of a program's license should be enough to make them stop, in theory. You may not need a DMCA takedown to do it, though one wouldn't hurt. > Absent a license, there is nothing permitting the redistributing of software. That's not true, because of fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use. > if you do not fulfill the terms of the license, you have no license to distribute, and are violating copyright. You may still have a license to distribute. You just aren't, in this case, distributing in accordance with that license. Licenses don't necessarily terminate upon violation (though they often do).
  - srtjstjsj 5y ago
    Can you find one case ever where distributing an entire copyright-protected unlicensed software program was ruled fair use?
    - ivraatiems 5y ago
      Sure, though it may depend on how you define "entire program". https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-short-history-of-the-fair-use-defense-3540274/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-short-history-of-the-fai... has a few, including Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., where the entirety of the BIOS for the PlayStation was copied. I think that counts as an entire, copyright-protected, unlicensed piece of software. I suppose one could argue the BIOS were not necessarily "redistributed", depending on how you define that term, but I think it counts. There are some other examples in there as well.
throwaway984393 5y ago
> https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/articles/en_US/Knowledge/ https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/articles/en_US/Knowledge/... - this might be what you want? That contact is for CBS Interactive. CNET was sold to Red Ventures in October of last year, so OP needs to contact Red Ventures' legal department, or CNET's. (they could try to contact CBSI, but there's no guarantee they'll forward on the message) Red Ventures contact info: https://www.redventures.com/contact https://www.redventures.com/contact CNET's contact info: https://www.cnet.com/about/contact-us/ https://www.cnet.com/about/contact-us/ An additional contact form for CNET: https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/submitcase?template=template_cnet&referer=cnet.com&cfs=SFS_TECH https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/submitcase?template=templ... OP should get on the phone to CNET and ask them who to direct DMCA takedown notices to, and mention that the legal contact info is still pointing to CBS Interactive. OP should send a physical copy of the DMCA takedown notice in the mail (certified mail) as well as e-mail, and follow up after a few weeks. They will probably take longer than normal as it seems they're still cleaning up from the acquisition.
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  I saw the Red Ventures info, but given that the Download site's help pages still link to CBS, is it possible not every part of CNET was sold or there's some other arrangement going on there? Either way, I think your fundamental advice (call and ask where to send legal process) is probably right.
fsckboy 5y ago
> you should be prepared for them to simply do nothing unless/until there's an attorney involved. your answer is illogic masquerading advice. Why would you expect them to do nothing if you file a DMCA? yeah, that's right, all your analysis dodged the DMCA that you put a question mark next to for no reason.
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  > Why would you expect them to do nothing if you file a DMCA? I didn't say "expect", I said "be prepared for", and that advice is relevant regardless of whether the communication is a DMCA takedown or a regular one. Large companies routinely ignore complaints and legal requests of all kinds from smaller entities or individuals and get away with it. See, for example, https://turbofuture.com/internet/how-to-combat-plagiarism-when-DMCA-notices-are-ignored https://turbofuture.com/internet/how-to-combat-plagiarism-wh... Here's one case where Twitter ignored a series of DMCAs until it was sued (and maybe even after, the article doesn't say): https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/01/14/twitter-sued-for-ignoring-dmca-takedown-requests/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/01/14/twitter-sued-for... There are hosting companies who make money by ignoring copyright violation notices: https://www.quora.com/What-is-DMCA-ignored-hosting https://www.quora.com/What-is-DMCA-ignored-hosting https://www.reddit.com/r/webhosting/comments/jbwvin/blueangelhost_ignoring_dmca_takedown_notice/ https://www.reddit.com/r/webhosting/comments/jbwvin/blueange...

teddyh 5y ago

> (license violation and copyright violation are similar but not 100% the same thing) How? Absent a license, there is nothing permitting the redistributing of software. There is no such thing as a “license violation”; if you do not fulfill the terms of the license, you have no license to distribute, and are violating copyright.

dataflow 5y ago
One example: "If the licensing agreement states that a licensee will have to pay additional fees for use beyond the scope of the agreement, a breach of the licensing agreement on these grounds generally will be considered a breach of contract, rather than copyright infringement." https://www.romanolaw.com/2020/01/13/is-breach-of-a-licensing-agreement-considered-a-breach-of-contract-or-copyright-infringement/ https://www.romanolaw.com/2020/01/13/is-breach-of-a-licensin...
- teddyh 5y ago
  IMHO, that kind of thing is a contract, not a copyright license. And a contract is only valid if certain conditions are fulfilled, like if you signed it, if both parties are actually aware that a contract has been established, etc. (Exact conditions vary with jurisdiction.) The main point is, you can’t be party (and bound) to a contract if you only downloaded something without the direct knowledge of the provider. EDIT: To clarify: You are still always bound by copyright law, and always need a license to distribute. If you don’t fulfill the terms of a license you were given, then you don’t have permission to distribute, and are violating copyright if you do.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    You're gonna need to back that up with legal text (by which I mean a lawyer's interpretation matching yours).
    - teddyh 5y ago
      IANAL, but I’d start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds
      - dataflow 5y ago
        Yeah, that's not gonna fly, sorry. I've wished the contract world worked that way, but my understanding has been it doesn't, and you're gonna need a lawyer's interpretation matching yours to back up your claim, not your own interpretation of a link to Wikipedia.
        teddyh 5y ago
        You’re being very dismissive and condescending when your link does not back up your claim either, from what I could tell. Also, from what I understand, this kind of thing varies from place to place. You might be correct about your own situation, but not about mine.
ivraatiems 5y ago
With regards to US law, and again, IANAL, so if an attorney chimes in I'd defer to them: "License" is a very general concept. You can give somebody "license" to do almost anything. See e. g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/license https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/license "Copyright" is a specific thing that you can possess - see the definition here: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html You can therefore grant somebody license to use something over which you hold copyright. You can also grant them license to do all sorts of other things, and you can breach the license in all sorts of ways. See for instance: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e4b1226a-b6b4-4915-8897-a8e474060481 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e4b1226a-b6b4... My main point, though, is that simply informing CNET that they are in violation of a program's license should be enough to make them stop, in theory. You may not need a DMCA takedown to do it, though one wouldn't hurt. > Absent a license, there is nothing permitting the redistributing of software. That's not true, because of fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use. > if you do not fulfill the terms of the license, you have no license to distribute, and are violating copyright. You may still have a license to distribute. You just aren't, in this case, distributing in accordance with that license. Licenses don't necessarily terminate upon violation (though they often do).
- srtjstjsj 5y ago
  Can you find one case ever where distributing an entire copyright-protected unlicensed software program was ruled fair use?
  - ivraatiems 5y ago
    Sure, though it may depend on how you define "entire program". https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-short-history-of-the-fair-use-defense-3540274/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-short-history-of-the-fai... has a few, including Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., where the entirety of the BIOS for the PlayStation was copied. I think that counts as an entire, copyright-protected, unlicensed piece of software. I suppose one could argue the BIOS were not necessarily "redistributed", depending on how you define that term, but I think it counts. There are some other examples in there as well.

throwaway984393 5y ago

> https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/articles/en_US/Knowledge/ https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/articles/en_US/Knowledge/... - this might be what you want? That contact is for CBS Interactive. CNET was sold to Red Ventures in October of last year, so OP needs to contact Red Ventures' legal department, or CNET's. (they could try to contact CBSI, but there's no guarantee they'll forward on the message) Red Ventures contact info: https://www.redventures.com/contact https://www.redventures.com/contact CNET's contact info: https://www.cnet.com/about/contact-us/ https://www.cnet.com/about/contact-us/ An additional contact form for CNET: https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/submitcase?template=template_cnet&referer=cnet.com&cfs=SFS_TECH https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/submitcase?template=templ... OP should get on the phone to CNET and ask them who to direct DMCA takedown notices to, and mention that the legal contact info is still pointing to CBS Interactive. OP should send a physical copy of the DMCA takedown notice in the mail (certified mail) as well as e-mail, and follow up after a few weeks. They will probably take longer than normal as it seems they're still cleaning up from the acquisition.

ivraatiems 5y ago
I saw the Red Ventures info, but given that the Download site's help pages still link to CBS, is it possible not every part of CNET was sold or there's some other arrangement going on there? Either way, I think your fundamental advice (call and ask where to send legal process) is probably right.

fsckboy 5y ago

> you should be prepared for them to simply do nothing unless/until there's an attorney involved. your answer is illogic masquerading advice. Why would you expect them to do nothing if you file a DMCA? yeah, that's right, all your analysis dodged the DMCA that you put a question mark next to for no reason.

ivraatiems 5y ago
> Why would you expect them to do nothing if you file a DMCA? I didn't say "expect", I said "be prepared for", and that advice is relevant regardless of whether the communication is a DMCA takedown or a regular one. Large companies routinely ignore complaints and legal requests of all kinds from smaller entities or individuals and get away with it. See, for example, https://turbofuture.com/internet/how-to-combat-plagiarism-when-DMCA-notices-are-ignored https://turbofuture.com/internet/how-to-combat-plagiarism-wh... Here's one case where Twitter ignored a series of DMCAs until it was sued (and maybe even after, the article doesn't say): https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/01/14/twitter-sued-for-ignoring-dmca-takedown-requests/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/01/14/twitter-sued-for... There are hosting companies who make money by ignoring copyright violation notices: https://www.quora.com/What-is-DMCA-ignored-hosting https://www.quora.com/What-is-DMCA-ignored-hosting https://www.reddit.com/r/webhosting/comments/jbwvin/blueangelhost_ignoring_dmca_takedown_notice/ https://www.reddit.com/r/webhosting/comments/jbwvin/blueange...