Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] ACTA is Under Attack in Europe, the US Cracks Down on Net's Free Speech

Hash: SHA1

____/ High Plains Thumper on Sunday 28 Feb 2010 08:44 : \____

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Rare Ruling on Damages for Sending Bogus Copyright Takedown
>> Notice--Lenz v. Universal
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> In the lawsuit over the allegedly bogus takedown of a YouTube video
>>> of a baby dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" (previous blog
>>> coverage), Judge Fogel has defined some standards for computing
>>> damages in a 17 USC 512(f) case, which creates a cause of action
>>> for sending certain types of bogus copyright takedown notices. I
>>> can't recall another case discussing the damages requirements of a
>>> 512(f) claim--the only other definitive 512(f) plaintiff's win was
>>> Online Policy Group v. Diebold (also before Judge Fogel), which
>>> settled for $125k before Judge Fogel reached damages. As a result,
>>> I believe this is a novel ruling which could have significant
>>> implications for future 512(f) cases.
>>> 512(f) says that the sender of an impermissible takedown notice
>>> "shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys'
>>> fees, incurred [by the 512(f) plaintiff] as the result of the
>>> service provider relying upon such misrepresentation..." Judge
>>> Fogel interprets the language to mean that "a Â512(f) plaintiffâs
>>> damages must be proximately caused by the misrepresentation to the
>>> service provider and the service providerâs reliance on the
>>> misrepresentation." Accordingly, 512(f) does not require plaintiffs
>>> to show that they suffered economic losses.
>> `----
>> http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/02/standards_for_5.htm
> I find it rather odd that the music artist Prince would seek legal
> recourse for the playing of a poor quality rendition of his music on the
> Internet as background for an amateur video.  Rather, I sense it is the
> arrogance of the right holders of the publishing company(s) and sense of
> greed that this would have to be judged by a court.
> For one, I would consider it free advertising.  If the listener like
> Prince's song, then they could buy a quality rendition.  I certainly
> wouldn't keep playing this woman's video of her child dancing, so I
> could hear the song.  This is a rather sad affair of the music industry,
> that it can't use common sense and judgement of what is right.
> It wasn't a professional performance for profit and Prince was not
> damaged, IMHO.
>> US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> The US governmentâs policy of leaving the Internet alone is over,
>>> according to Obamaâs top official at the Department of Commerce.
>>> Instead, an âInternet Policy 3.0â approach will see policy
>>> discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and
>>> key Internet constituencies, according to Assistant Secretary Larry
>>> Strickling, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy,
>>> child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet
>>> governance.
>> `----
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/27/internet_3_dot_0_policy/
> When government issues restrictions that prohibit free expression of
> opinion and considers criticisms of its actions as a reason for censor,
> then it has exceeded its reasonable authority.  It would not surprise me
> if such action were on its way, universally approved by all nations.

They can never quite enforce that.

Apropos, there are many newsgroup servers being taken down (retiring). It's
speech that's not centralised. 

- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      | Microsof(fshore)t Window(ntime)s Vista(gnating)
http://Schestowitz.com  |  GNU is Not UNIX  |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
      http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index