2019-02-17 - Roy Philipose: "DMCA TAKEDOWN"

[The Un-Clit]

Oooooh, be careful Null, he will serve you!

 

[EmpireOfTheClouds]

My favourite thing about 9/10 of these legal threats and complaints is just how fake they are, and how @Null just basically goes "thank u, next" to every one of them. Legend.

 

[Hal]

uh oh, we're screwed

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Roy Philipose doesn't know how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 work. The DMCA applies to people making monetary profits off of their copyrighted content. As far as I know, Roy isn't making any money off his shitty blog.

 

[AlexJonesGotMePregnant]

My favourite thing about 9/10 of these legal threats and complaints is just how fake they are, and how @Null just basically goes "thank u, next" to every one of them. Legend.

the times where they aren't fake null doesn't even know about the lawsuit until a judge has already dismissed it lol

 

[gREEEEEEEEEr]

Roy Philipose doesn't know how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 work. The DMCA applies to people making monetary profits off of their copyrighted content. As far as I know, Roy isn't making any money off his shitty blog.

"I'm not infringing because I got this for free" and "copyright law doesn't apply to me because I'm not making a profit from it" are both common misconceptions. Free work still has a copyright, either implicit because someone created it or explicit because they registered it. When you get a copy of the work, it comes with some kind of license that controls what you're allowed to do with it. That license may be "do whatever you want with it, just don't charge people for it"... but it may not be. You may not have permission to give it away for free.

The only real caveat is that if the owner doesn't have a registered copyright, it would be very expensive for them to sue you and they'd be able to get little if anything for doing it.

 

[The Un-Clit]

"I'm not infringing because I got this for free" and "copyright law doesn't apply to me because I'm not making a profit from it" are both common misconceptions. Free work still has a copyright, either implicit because someone created it or explicit because they registered it. When you get a copy of the work, it comes with some kind of license that controls what you're allowed to do with it. That license may be "do whatever you want with it, just don't charge people for it"... but it may not be. You may not have permission to give it away for free.

The only real caveat is that if the owner doesn't have a registered copyright, it would be very expensive for them to sue you and they'd be able to get little if anything for doing it.

That's not what he's saying.

He's claiming that the original author is not blogging for profit/obtaining any profit from it, therefore DMCA does not apply to material from his blog if someone reposts it.

From the amount of people simply collecting and reading aloud posts from various Subreddits like /entitled parent and making (sometimes a LOT) of profit from it on YouTube without any consequences, it makes me think he's correct.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

"I'm not infringing because I got this for free" and "copyright law doesn't apply to me because I'm not making a profit from it" are both common misconceptions. Free work still has a copyright, either implicit because someone created it or explicit because they registered it. When you get a copy of the work, it comes with some kind of license that controls what you're allowed to do with it. That license may be "do whatever you want with it, just don't charge people for it"... but it may not be. You may not have permission to give it away for free.

The only real caveat is that if the owner doesn't have a registered copyright, it would be very expensive for them to sue you and they'd be able to get little if anything for doing it.

Ah, I really didn't see that part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. My bad.

 

[gREEEEEEEEEr]

That's not what he's saying.

He's claiming that the original author is not blogging for profit/obtaining any profit from it, therefore DMCA does not apply to material from his blog if someone reposts it.

From the amount of people simply collecting and reading aloud posts from various Subreddits like /entitled parent and making (sometimes a LOT) of profit from it without any consequences, it makes me think he's correct.

What you're describing there is fair use, and it's not that the material isn't copyrighted (or the author isn't obtaining a profit for it), but rather, it's that the concept of "fair use" allows you to make limited use of copyrighted material for specific purposes such as criticism, commentary, or teaching.

How much profit the original author was making (if any) would only really become relevant when calculating the amount of damages caused by infringement. That's how much money they lost because of the infringement. However, in the case of fair use, it doesn't matter how much money the author claims to have lost; "fair use" is always allowed, and it isn't infringement.

 

[Shibaru]

i love when these posts introduce me to new cows.

It's Always funny to see people throw their Social lives away to jab at a community.

 

[James Smith]

@Null have you been advised on your option to seek declaratory judgement against people who threaten to sue Lolcow LLC?

 

[Null]

@Null have you been advised on your option to seek declaratory judgement against people who threaten to sue Lolcow LLC?

Never heard of it

 

[James Smith]

Never heard of it

Basically someone threatens to sue you and you go to a judge and ask him to rule that you haven't violated their rights. There are different reasons to do it and they wouldn't come up often. In the case of truly idle threats the benefit would be punishing the person for making threats by putting them in an actual lawsuit they can't drop (because they didn't initiate it) and forcing them to pay costs when they lose.

 

[Jeanne d'Arc]

He's in his thread now. Took a while.

 

[theo102]

Notice of defective service: The allegation is made against a person of diminshed legal status not laving the natural right of liberty.

Basically someone threatens to sue you and you go to a judge and ask him to rule that you haven't violated their rights.

That would only work for a judge with jurisdiction in cases involving people of full legal status. If the dispute was between corporations then my criticism wouldn't be relevant.