On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever
consider
censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase transit
from a
company that engages in this type of behavior.
A DMCA takedown order has the force of law.
The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be
handled.
One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the
takedown notice.
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean
you don't have to follow the law.
This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use,
Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make
that distinction.
so the proper
response would be for the victim to send a counter-notice and then
wait
for the complainer to settle the issue in court.
See previous comment. The website owner, however, has that option.
Let's just agree that there were multiple avenues open to lots of
people here, that HE should not have taken down more than the site in
question (if, in fact, that is what happened), and that the DCMA has
silly parts.
Doesn't mean you should "wait for a court order" though.
--
TTFN,
patrick
