Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by Mithaldu on Thursday June 30, 2016 @01:11PM
(#12010019)
Fair use is a defense. You can preemptively declare it as that, and hope that whoever you're parodying will see the light, but it doesn't give you immunity. Once a DMCA notice is served, and not obviously invalid, the content has to be taken down by the carrier. In exchange for having to do that, the carrier isn't liable. That is safe harbour. Simultaneously the content uploader can either get the supposed owner to retract their notice, or inform the carrier they'll hash it out in court. And only then, in front of a judge, does "fair use" come into play.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by vitd on Thursday June 30, 2016 @01:12PM
(#12010035)
The article points out that this was likely not a DMCA notice.
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by Mithaldu on Thursday June 30, 2016 @01:15PM
(#12010058)
Fair enough. Still, Fair Use remains a defense in court; and i expect that whatever kind of notice was actually sent has similar procedures that do not include steps like "completely ignore it".
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by mgleason_3 on Thursday June 30, 2016 @02:28PM
(#12010654)
Oh come on - just as fair use remains a defense in court, the NRAs claim must also be proven in court. Unlike a DCMA, the compliant does not require DO to take down the web site.
Clearly DO choked and hurt free speech in the process.
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by wmil on Thursday June 30, 2016 @05:29PM
(#12011905)
The DMCA provides a safe harbour provision for hosts who take down content after a notice.
Libel / slander don't require a take down, but also don't provide any protection for the hosting company.
If this goes to court then the Yes Men won't be able to pay for the NRAs legal fees. Which means that the lawyers will be tempted to go after DO to get paid.
DO is a low cost hosting company. You can't expect them to ride or die.
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by Mithaldu on Thursday June 30, 2016 @02:49PM
(#12010797)
> Unlike a DCMA, the compliant does not require DO to take down the web site.
Does it? Please link to the legislation describing the specific complaint made.
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by gpm on Thursday June 30, 2016 @04:06PM
(#12011260)
That's not how law works, everything is permitted until it's forbidden. So given the absence of legislation they do not have to.
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by Mithaldu on Thursday June 30, 2016 @04:12PM
(#12011298)
You're assuming it is a formless complaint, as opposed to a complaint conforming with specific legislation. If you know it is a formless complaint, can you please point to the source of your knowledge on that?
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by gpm on Thursday June 30, 2016 @04:17PM
(#12011331)
As far as I'm aware the complaint has not been made public. But unless you can point to a single piece of "formed" legislation for this, I'm certainly going to assume it is formless. Both because every trademark complaint I've seen has been formless, and it is impossible to disprove that a law exists in America, only the converse.
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by wmil on Thursday June 30, 2016 @05:16PM
(#12011799)
But Digital Ocean could be partly accountable in a libel / slander suit if they don't take action after being notified.
Taking down the content is the easiest way not to end up as co-defendants with the Yes Men.
Re:NRA complaint takes down Surge's 38,000 websites
by gpm on Thursday June 30, 2016 @05:29PM
(#12011909)
No, they could not, that's prevented by this law: https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230
(This is specific enough advice I feel I must say that I am not a lawyer, just a knowledge layperson)