7 ms·

How I Learned to Love the DMCA

61 points by galenward 15y ago

daryn 15y ago
now there's a headline I never thought I'd see on a startup blog! :)
smashing 15y ago
The DMCA is a tool which mean it has good Use Cases and bad ones, too. This is an example of one of the good ones.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
sp332 15y ago
I really don't think this is a good idea. If they don't respond to the cease and desist, get the court and law enforcement to enforce the C&D. Don't pretend that due process of law doesn't exist.
- galenward 15y ago
  That was (and may still be) the next step. Why isn't this a good idea also?
  - benologist 15y ago
    Some of your claims are pretty flakey, it's obvious they set out to replicate what you do but judging by those screenshots most of what they did is just similar - I hope your takedown notice exclusively specified the direct infringement.
    - galenward 15y ago
      Most of the design elements that are different we changed between October and December or between December and now. You can't copy code and tweak some stuff and call it your own.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Since Amazon is hosting the content, they could be held liable for ALL cases of copyright infringement on their servers. In order to avoid this, the DMCA has a provision that, if you respond to takedown requests, you get "safe harbor" and your customer, who actually did the infringing using your service is now liable. That basically means that Amazon can't appeal the takedown request. They must take down the content before appealing, or they expose themselves to tons of liability. I don't think this system of scaring hosting sites into being content owners' personal executioners is a good idea. Specifically, there is no judicial oversight, no evidence required, no actual law enforcement agencies involved, etc.
    - brazzy 15y ago
      I'd assume, however, that a falsely requested (and implemented) takedown would expose the requester to be sued for damages.
    - elehack 15y ago
      That's why DMCA takedown notices must be filed with an assertion, under penalty of perjury, that the request is legit (requestor is authorized to issue it, it is an infringement, etc). Not perfect, but it does make a pretty big disincentive to being caught issuing fraudulent takedown notices.
      - gue5t 15y ago
        Doesn't the evidence that fraudulent takedown notices are still issued, even in bulk and via automated systems clearly indicate this isn't a significant enough disincentive? For example, according to <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml&#..., Google has stated that 37% of the takedown requests they receive are fraudulent. edit: Why does Hacker News not support <scheme://path> (with brackets) syntax? It's nothing new.
        sp332 15y ago
        Anything starting with "http:// http:// " will be turned into a hyperlink. You don't need the "<>".
scottporad 15y ago
The screenshots in this post are fantastic. To me, the real LOL part of this was the image sprite...Sutton didn't even bother to change the name of the file! Just shows that they were totally thumbing their nose at Estately and the law. Here's the screenshot of that: http://blog.estately.com/assets/Estately-images-on-Sutton_s-server-including-URLs-4.jpg http://blog.estately.com/assets/Estately-images-on-Sutton_s-....
nsmartt 15y ago
>learned to love the DMCA This is a terrible title, and "I was thankful for one benefit of DMCA" is not the same as "I love DMCA." I hope they don't really believe the DMCA is a wonderful thing just because it was beneficial to them in this one instance. I realize they pointed out that it has some horrible parts, but I get the feeling they don't feel that any reform is necessary. Copyright reform is only becoming more necessary as time goes on.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  Maybe it's an allusion to Dr. Strangelove? That's what I thought of first when I read it.
GigabyteCoin 15y ago
They "currently have the search portion of our website offline for updates". So that's what that means.
ajross 15y ago
To clarify: the linked post is bout the DMCA safe harbor rules about takedown notices. This really isn't the bad part of the law. It can be argued that the takedowns are too easy to do and that they are honored too quickly by site administrators, that they are susceptible to automation and false positives, etc... But really that's not a huge deal. Where the DMCA is widely reviled is in its other parts, most particularly the anti-circumvention provisions that, when the law was drafted, made things like security research or reflashing a consumer device criminal acts (c.f. the Skylarov case). It should be noted that this nonsense, while it's still in the law, has been significantly dilluted by a bunch of regulatory exemptions enacted by the executive branch.
- WiseWeasel 15y ago
  It's still illegal under the DMCA to back up your own DVD/BluRay, or distribute the tools to do so, which is a load of crap.
  - nsmartt 15y ago
    Actually, at present, backing up your own DVD is exempted.
    - ajross 15y ago
      There's a partial of list exemptions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Anti-circumvention_exemptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac... I was wrong, by the way: it turns out that it's the librarian of congress and not the executive branch that has the power to do this regulation. That's probably more stable and less likely to be walked back, which is good. My read is that a simple backup is not exempted though. You need to be breaking the CSS encryption for the purpose of making a fair use distribution. Obviously IANAL, you should read the law, yada yada yada.
      - nsmartt 15y ago
        Oh, oops. I think my (months) younger self must have misunderstood due to wording. >Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking. >Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected... I must have drawn my conclusion hastily. I think I also read it expecting to find that it was legal, since I've seen comments on HN, in the past, claiming it to be. Thanks a lot (not sarcasm).
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Why it's almost as if protecting IP rights actually is important to startups and developers.
- J3L2404 15y ago
  Thank you.
ktizo 15y ago
How is it a good thing in general that you got an infringing site taken down based on your word without it going through some sort of public oversight before removal? This kind of thing makes the US horribly dangerous to internet businesses and now that you have done it to a much bigger shark than yourself, they will be gunning for you. Imagine it the other way around, perhaps on something much more innocuous that is easy to miss. Would you rather a court case to decide an appropriate action against you, or your site ripped off the net, requiring you to then go to court to get it reinstated? The speed that was so helpful to you as a startup in this instance is what will leave you dead in the water if you mess up, even accidentally, in the future (I am not suggesting that what was done to you was accidental, although many of their management may not have understood the details).
- gcb 15y ago
  nobody pays attention to the law, but everyone must live under it. Like reading Kafka. This guy will be crying about the dmca when they use it to remove things such as listings from his site. Also, the company is in Canada, i was ignorant of this reach. Til
  - ktizo 15y ago
    I love Kafka, but I also find much of it hysterically funny. I think you might be right on the parallel here, we'll see over time if it plays out into an irony filled bureaucratic tragedy for them. [edit] I think of the DMCA as being something of an area weapon, and startups usually have a much smaller surface area than everybody else.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  > your site ripped off the net, requiring you to then go to court to get it reinstated Getting your site reinstated is as easy as the other person having it taken down: a one-page counter-notice sent to the same contact at the service provider attesting that you are not infringing the other person's copyright. For the service provider to have "safe harbor" from liability, they must also put your content back up just as quickly as they took it down. Now the other party has to actually take you to court to take your content down again.
leon_ 15y ago
Cases like this confirm my opinion that SOPA/PIPA would actually be a good thing helping creatives protect their work. We must not forget that the most vocal anti-SOPA/PIPA evangelists are passive consumers who just want stuff(tm) for free and don't care for much else.

61 points by galenward 15y ago

daryn 15y ago

now there's a headline I never thought I'd see on a startup blog! :)

smashing 15y ago

The DMCA is a tool which mean it has good Use Cases and bad ones, too. This is an example of one of the good ones.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

sp332 15y ago

I really don't think this is a good idea. If they don't respond to the cease and desist, get the court and law enforcement to enforce the C&D. Don't pretend that due process of law doesn't exist.

galenward 15y ago
That was (and may still be) the next step. Why isn't this a good idea also?
- benologist 15y ago
  Some of your claims are pretty flakey, it's obvious they set out to replicate what you do but judging by those screenshots most of what they did is just similar - I hope your takedown notice exclusively specified the direct infringement.
  - galenward 15y ago
    Most of the design elements that are different we changed between October and December or between December and now. You can't copy code and tweak some stuff and call it your own.
- sp332 15y ago
  Since Amazon is hosting the content, they could be held liable for ALL cases of copyright infringement on their servers. In order to avoid this, the DMCA has a provision that, if you respond to takedown requests, you get "safe harbor" and your customer, who actually did the infringing using your service is now liable. That basically means that Amazon can't appeal the takedown request. They must take down the content before appealing, or they expose themselves to tons of liability. I don't think this system of scaring hosting sites into being content owners' personal executioners is a good idea. Specifically, there is no judicial oversight, no evidence required, no actual law enforcement agencies involved, etc.
  - brazzy 15y ago
    I'd assume, however, that a falsely requested (and implemented) takedown would expose the requester to be sued for damages.
  - elehack 15y ago
    That's why DMCA takedown notices must be filed with an assertion, under penalty of perjury, that the request is legit (requestor is authorized to issue it, it is an infringement, etc). Not perfect, but it does make a pretty big disincentive to being caught issuing fraudulent takedown notices.
    - gue5t 15y ago
      Doesn't the evidence that fraudulent takedown notices are still issued, even in bulk and via automated systems clearly indicate this isn't a significant enough disincentive? For example, according to <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml&#..., Google has stated that 37% of the takedown requests they receive are fraudulent. edit: Why does Hacker News not support <scheme://path> (with brackets) syntax? It's nothing new.
      - sp332 15y ago
        Anything starting with "http:// http:// " will be turned into a hyperlink. You don't need the "<>".

scottporad 15y ago

The screenshots in this post are fantastic. To me, the real LOL part of this was the image sprite...Sutton didn't even bother to change the name of the file! Just shows that they were totally thumbing their nose at Estately and the law. Here's the screenshot of that: http://blog.estately.com/assets/Estately-images-on-Sutton_s-server-including-URLs-4.jpg http://blog.estately.com/assets/Estately-images-on-Sutton_s-....

nsmartt 15y ago

>learned to love the DMCA This is a terrible title, and "I was thankful for one benefit of DMCA" is not the same as "I love DMCA." I hope they don't really believe the DMCA is a wonderful thing just because it was beneficial to them in this one instance. I realize they pointed out that it has some horrible parts, but I get the feeling they don't feel that any reform is necessary. Copyright reform is only becoming more necessary as time goes on.

tikhonj 15y ago
Maybe it's an allusion to Dr. Strangelove? That's what I thought of first when I read it.

GigabyteCoin 15y ago

They "currently have the search portion of our website offline for updates". So that's what that means.

ajross 15y ago

To clarify: the linked post is bout the DMCA safe harbor rules about takedown notices. This really isn't the bad part of the law. It can be argued that the takedowns are too easy to do and that they are honored too quickly by site administrators, that they are susceptible to automation and false positives, etc... But really that's not a huge deal. Where the DMCA is widely reviled is in its other parts, most particularly the anti-circumvention provisions that, when the law was drafted, made things like security research or reflashing a consumer device criminal acts (c.f. the Skylarov case). It should be noted that this nonsense, while it's still in the law, has been significantly dilluted by a bunch of regulatory exemptions enacted by the executive branch.

WiseWeasel 15y ago
It's still illegal under the DMCA to back up your own DVD/BluRay, or distribute the tools to do so, which is a load of crap.
- nsmartt 15y ago
  Actually, at present, backing up your own DVD is exempted.
  - ajross 15y ago
    There's a partial of list exemptions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Anti-circumvention_exemptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac... I was wrong, by the way: it turns out that it's the librarian of congress and not the executive branch that has the power to do this regulation. That's probably more stable and less likely to be walked back, which is good. My read is that a simple backup is not exempted though. You need to be breaking the CSS encryption for the purpose of making a fair use distribution. Obviously IANAL, you should read the law, yada yada yada.
    - nsmartt 15y ago
      Oh, oops. I think my (months) younger self must have misunderstood due to wording. >Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking. >Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected... I must have drawn my conclusion hastily. I think I also read it expecting to find that it was legal, since I've seen comments on HN, in the past, claiming it to be. Thanks a lot (not sarcasm).

waterlesscloud 15y ago

Why it's almost as if protecting IP rights actually is important to startups and developers.

J3L2404 15y ago
Thank you.

ktizo 15y ago

How is it a good thing in general that you got an infringing site taken down based on your word without it going through some sort of public oversight before removal? This kind of thing makes the US horribly dangerous to internet businesses and now that you have done it to a much bigger shark than yourself, they will be gunning for you. Imagine it the other way around, perhaps on something much more innocuous that is easy to miss. Would you rather a court case to decide an appropriate action against you, or your site ripped off the net, requiring you to then go to court to get it reinstated? The speed that was so helpful to you as a startup in this instance is what will leave you dead in the water if you mess up, even accidentally, in the future (I am not suggesting that what was done to you was accidental, although many of their management may not have understood the details).

gcb 15y ago
nobody pays attention to the law, but everyone must live under it. Like reading Kafka. This guy will be crying about the dmca when they use it to remove things such as listings from his site. Also, the company is in Canada, i was ignorant of this reach. Til
- ktizo 15y ago
  I love Kafka, but I also find much of it hysterically funny. I think you might be right on the parallel here, we'll see over time if it plays out into an irony filled bureaucratic tragedy for them. [edit] I think of the DMCA as being something of an area weapon, and startups usually have a much smaller surface area than everybody else.
dangrossman 15y ago
> your site ripped off the net, requiring you to then go to court to get it reinstated Getting your site reinstated is as easy as the other person having it taken down: a one-page counter-notice sent to the same contact at the service provider attesting that you are not infringing the other person's copyright. For the service provider to have "safe harbor" from liability, they must also put your content back up just as quickly as they took it down. Now the other party has to actually take you to court to take your content down again.

leon_ 15y ago

Cases like this confirm my opinion that SOPA/PIPA would actually be a good thing helping creatives protect their work. We must not forget that the most vocal anti-SOPA/PIPA evangelists are passive consumers who just want stuff(tm) for free and don't care for much else.