Gone In 3 Hours

[ethics]

Via Boing Boing:

Members of the Bits of Freedom group conducted a test to see how much it would take for a service provider to take down a website hosting public domain material.

They signed up with 10 providers and put online a work by Duthc author Multatuli, who died over 100 years ago. They stated that the work was in the public domain, and that it was written in 1871. They then set up a fake society to claim to be the copyright holders of the work.

From a Hotmail address, they sent out complaints to all 10 of the providers. 7 out of 10 complied and removed the site, one within just 3 hours. Only one ISP actually pointed out that the copyright on the work expired many years ago. The conclusion of the investigation is worth reading, it starts 'It only takes a Hotmail account to bring a website down, and freedom of speech stands no chance in front of the Texan-style private ISP justice.'

PDF doc here: http://www.bof.nl/docs/researchpaperSANE.pdf

[ravital]

Too many small ISPs or even web sites simply don't have the means to effectively protect themselves, so they protect themselves by assuming the worst-case scenario. As I'm sure you know, it America, it's enough for an attorney to send a threatening letter to get results, whether he's right or wrong. Anyone can flex a muscle and force something to be taken off-line, whether for good reason or not. This experiment proves it.

Another one: I'm convinced that it is perfectly legal for us to post full-length articles we may get via subscription, since the purpose is not commercial gain but discussion and study - which is perfectly legitimate and legal. Of course, I won't do any such thing for as long as that's the rule here, but I should point out that "the other site" has allowed it for a while now, since they verified their facts about a year ago or so. [This is in no way a criticism, just reporting what I know.]

It's obvious that the internet needs some kind of a clearing-house through which to obtain verification of the copyright status of any work made available on-line. Since it's likely to be expensive (fighting lawyers with brass gonads and no facts on their side is never cheap) and that there's no monetary upside to it, I don't see it happening soon.

[ethics]

Another one: I'm convinced that it is perfectly legal for us to post full-length articles we may get via subscription, since the purpose is not commercial gain but discussion and study - which is perfectly legitimate and legal. Of course, I won't do any such thing for as long as that's the rule here, but I should point out that "the other site" has allowed it for a while now, since they verified their facts about a year ago or so. [This is in no way a criticism, just reporting what I know.]



All I know is that I see plenty of other sites reposting entire articles. I don't see the need to abide by a rule but Stanley is convinced. :)

[joseftu]

I'm convinced that it is perfectly legal for us to post full-length articles we may get via subscription, since the purpose is not commercial gain but discussion and study - which is perfectly legitimate and legal. You may be convinced, rav, but the law is actually far from clear. The "fair use" standards which used to obtain before the DMCA were totally obliterated by that Act--the purpose for using copyrighted material became completely irrelevant. If you used it, without permission, you were in violation. The TEACH Act has restored some of the "educational use" provisions (specifically in an educational context--not just "discussion and study" but use in an actual course in an actual institution), but the whole concept has still not been tested in court very thoroughly at all. Nothing is automatic, and if the copyright holder should decide that the "use" is not "fair," then the only way to resolve the issue is in court. And there's no telling, in many cases, just how the court will decide. That's why (some) lawyers get to drive BMW's.

I think Stanley is right not to want GA to (even potentially) be the test case. If the site gets sued, we might lose. We might even win--but it would not be a good experience for anyone.

Stanford University has a very good website on Fair Use and Copyright. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ An excellent resource.