[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] adobe DMCA letters
- To: dvd-discuss(at)lweb.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] adobe DMCA letters
- From: "Harold Eaton" <haceaton(at)hotmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:34:02 -0500
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
>Bryan Taylor wrote:
>The takedown provisions in no way shield those who make the allegation from
>legal consequences of making a knowingly or negligently false allegation,
>although your legal damages from not having ISP serices will be quite small
>unless you run a business or something similar.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
This is the primary thing wrong with the judical system today.
Unless you are a corporate "person" of sufficient resources to
defend your rights, then for practical purposes you don't have any.
Recent rulings have clearly shown that at the district and
apellet levels, even the judge don't think our rights matter
when "balanced" against the rights of wealthy corporations.
I challange you to find one high-speed provider in your area that
is willing to even consider any action other than blocking your
page without concrete PROOF by you that an allegation is false.
Virtually all ISPs providing service to people (not businesses) don't
want those people to be serving any content anyway - they're only supposed
to be consuming content.
We seen numerous examples of totally bogus take-down orders posted
to this list, so those claiming infringement aren't too concerned
about any consequences of their action. What would possibly motivate
an ISP to do anything other than block your content should a controversy
arrise? The cost of even examing the notification to see if it passes
the silly test is typically more than the cost of losing the few
customers who won't be intimidated.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com