Give me a break. One single misguided DMCA notice does not make one a copyright troll.

It doesn't make them a troll (IMO, you need to have a pattern of behavior to be a real troll) but it makes them potentially guilty of perjury, which is kind of a big deal.

DMCAs shouldn't be filed lightly (unless you have the legal resources of the RIAA/MIAA/etc to dissuade your targets from retaliation).

Not a lawyer, and haven't talked to a lawyer? Don't file a DMCA no matter how butthurt you are about being 'copied'. Just because it is relatively easy to do doesn't mean you should do so in the spur of the moment. It is a Real Legal Thing with Real Ramifications, and this is good because it limits the amount to which bad actors can abuse it, but it also means you should be really sure you're the victim of copyright violations prior to using it yourself.

Sure it does. They misused it and it is highly likely they will file another notice for another Flat UI design that in the future, for whatever reason they think, look similar to their design.

> it is highly likely they will file another notice for another Flat UI design that in the future

Or, alternatively, they might realize what a mistake taking this approach was and never do it again. That's what I think is "highly likely" here.

> they might realize what a mistake taking this approach was and never do it again

It doesn't seem like he's learned anything, considering he's making jokes about it on twitter:

https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309415721941753857

https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309416516372275200

https://twitter.com/Allan/status/309351344769204224

Here is good point view - http://manufacturednormalcy.com/?p=70

I think trolling once still makes you a troll. It takes a certain sense of naive entitlement to issue a DMCA take-down notice without understanding the legal requirements or the very specific meaning of doing so.

I sang in a choir in grade 5 once. Would you consider me a singer?

That is some ... facile ... logic.

If you murdered someone in 1995, would you be a murderer?

Murder is too loaded of a act to serve as a good example for this discussion, IMO, but just the once? I would describe myself as someone who had murdered, but not a murderer. There's an active/repetitive component to being described as an *-er.

As I replied to electic, how would you feel if I described myself as a singer upon meeting someone, having only sang for 3 minutes out of the decades of my life? "Oh, hi, I'm lowboy, and I'm a singer".

> There's an active/repetitive component ...

The persistent/active component is in having the personal constitution necessary to engaged in the action in question. The type of person, for instance, who files a false DMCA take-down request -- censoring another person's speech -- without understanding or appreciating the ethical and legal implications of what they are doing.

"Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown" -- https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI

Sure, but has LV engaged in this behaviour previously? If they haven't, then I don't think they could be described as patent trolls. Right now they might be engaged in patent trolling, but as my singing example hopefully illustrates, doing something once doesn't make one an active/repetitive doer of that thing. I'm not a singer, and feel that it would be dishonest of anyone to describe me as such. Same goes for LV with patent trolling.

You seem to have missed my entire point. Since there's nothing I could write here other than a repeat of what I wrote earlier, I will instead simply refer to my above comment.

I read it. LV is engaging in one act of trolling at the moment, and they have the "personal constitution necessary to engage" in said trolling. No arguments there, and I don't condone what they're doing.

But having the constitution to do an act doesn't mean one is a repeated doer of that act. Has LV actively trolled, or tried to censor people's speech in the past? If not, they shouldn't be described as patent trolls, merely that they are currently engaged in an act of patent trolling.

And describing someone as an x doesn't always mean they are a repeated doer of the x-act. Eg, dictator: do you think only someone who was a dictator of multiple countries can be legitimately called that? If you say, as you did for murderer, that 'this example is too loaded', then you are recognising that the reaction is different for acts of different impact, and therefore your analogy of 'singer' is irrelevant until you can show that people view 'singing' as something having the same impact of 'sending DMCA takedowns'.

Labeling sure is a tricky business. There are certain lines you cross in life though-- you get locked up, you live the rest of your life as an "ex-con" to most of society. Speaking for myself but I think also many others in this community, if you troll, whether you are later considered an "ex-troll" or just a "troll" doesn't matter, you trolled. It's an egregious offense that was foolishly committed and they will always regret it now, as they should.

The dictator doesn't have to be multiple countries, but a dictator for at least a while. Would someone who was a dictator for a day but was otherwise a civil servant for 30 years be called a dictator? I wouldn't say so. You can say he was a dictator for a short time, but not just "a dictator" without that context.

Wouldn't it be correct to call him a dictator the day that he was a dictator? My point being is that as long as LV are engaged in what you say is "one act of trolling", then they can be called trolls.

Hmm, yes I suppose it would be.

This whole thread (and my objections to the use of language here) was based on onemorepassword's comment[0] that ended with a definitive "LayerVault are copyright trolls and bullies", which I read as speaking to their core and not just what they're doing at the moment.

Maybe omp has knowledge of LV having a past history of copyright trolling, but I don't think it's a fair statement to make based on one bad-faith filing, as abhorrent as that move was.

[0]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5333339

> Wouldn't it be correct to call him a dictator the day that he was a dictator?

Dictators are a really poor example here, often it is not quite as clear-cut and there is no point in time you can say then he became a dictator. Not even in hindsight, it is usually a rise to power over years until their power becomes absolute.

Yes, a bad one by professional standards, but yes.

So how would you feel if I described myself as a singer upon meeting someone, having only sang for 3 minutes out of the decades of my life? "Oh, hi, I'm lowboy, and I'm a singer".

Here is a description of a patent troll. In this case, we have a DMCA troll.

"one or more"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

"with no intention to manufacture or market the product."

So, no.

That doesn't really speak to the issue.

Please answer my question about me describing myself as a singer. Would you feel I was being dishonest as describing myself as such?

Not at all.

It doesn't matter if you sang for 10 minutes or for 100 hours. There is no magic threshold number. If you identify yourself as a singer, you can claim to be one legitimately.

You would only be dishonest if you claimed to be a professional singer or a regular singer.

I don't think that claim would have any merit though, much as if someone opened up Chrome dev tools one day, edited an html attribute and solely based on that experience called themselves a web developer. I feel it would be dishonest, or at the very least woefully ignorant of common usage of language when someone is described as an *-er.

If you shag a sheep once...

At that point it time I would definitely consider you a choir singer, and rightly so.

And at THIS point in time, they DO file the DMCA thing.

Even if they self-correct, it's how they'll be treated. They just tapped into a massive vein of loathing for vague DMCA notices (particularly on the design trend front), and did it quite effectively. In the case of incendiary actions with ugly consequences, once is enough to brand you.

This is a legal issue. It's not a joke. It looks like LayerVault's founder turned quickly to legal bullying in a situation where he apparently has little to no justification. Just responding to and dealing with a DMCA notice like this would cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in attorney fees.

People who drag others into expensive, unwarranted legal situations are a blight on the entrepreneurial community.

> Just responding to and dealing with a DMCA notice like this would cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in attorney fees

No, responding to and dealing with a DMCA notice takes 5 minutes and a couple keystrokes. You send a counternotice, a simple e-mail you can copy and paste from any number of examples. There are no attorneys fees until there's an actual lawsuit, and there's never going to be one here.

5 minutes and then 10 days until github is allowed to act on the counternotice?

Legal issues should be dealt with by attorneys, period. Mishandled legal issues can, and frequently do, become very messy and expensive.

One who trolls with copyright is a copyright troll. This is not a difficult concept.

Making a mistake is not the same thing as trolling. Trolling is being willfully wrong, usually to gain some benefit (eliciting a pleasurable response, financial gain).

Showing that they were incorrect does not show they are a troll.

If LayerVault made a mistake and apologized, sure. But one look at their twitter page & their response on designer news implies no apology is forthcoming. So, they are copyright trolls and bullies. They are not only running against the spirit of the law, but also the letter of it.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

The term refers to entities who are in the business of enforcing patents they aren't generally even using in the marketplace. This is distinct from someone who actually thinks their work is being affected, as is the case here (even though in this case it seems to be overblown).

So what is the threshold? Two made up DMCA notices? One hundred made up DMCA notices?

Maybe a troll in training? Or a garden variety of troll?

It totally does. It means that you make an assertion you OWN something you didn't create.

That makes you the worst kind of troll out there, a knowingly lying one.

I can't believe that the threshold for a DMCA notice claim is simply that LayerVault is the sole owner of the works. No where did LayerVault specify which works they were claiming (aside from saying the whole thing was theirs) which it obviously isn't based upon the differences.

That's not quite the threshold.

It's a solemn legal claim, with consequences if they lie.

And the people claimed against can file a counter claim.

(DMCA is a terrible law, and needs to be fixed.)