DMCA threat used in Canada
p2pnet.net News:- In what looks like another attempt by a religous group to use copyright to shut down online criticism, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) apparently pressured a US ISP to take down the Canadian website of a critical former Jehova’s Witness.
Quotes.Watchtower.ca contains various quotes from works published by WTBTS in an attempt to illustrate some of the failed phrophecies the organisation has made over the years.
From Quotes.Watchtower.ca’s press release:
For example, one of the most recent additions to the collection is Watch Tower’s 1932 claim that the “theory of gravity” is thoroughly in error and that electrical forces, instead, hold the planets in orbit and hold everything down on the earth’s surface – a remarkably ludicrous claim, even when compared to the limited scientific knowledge of the 1930s. Also included were quotations demonizing the Internet, the Media, the United Nations, and other non-Witness entities as ‘tools of the Devil.’
The WTBTS invoked Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provisions against the site back in January, which led to certain adjustments by quotes.watchtower.ca and legal correspondence, all available in the site’s News & Update section.
The site was taken offline by the ISP in May, apparently due to an administative mix-up: “Your e-mail leads me to suspect that the original [January-RL] notice was stored in the fax machine’s memory and mistaken for new, since something similar has happened once before,” says the web host’s attorney.
What strikes me about this story is the ISP apparently didn’t take the time to check the validity of the notice or inform anyone (in advance) that the website would be taken down.
It saw DMCA on an outdated fax, feared possible vicarious liability consequences and steered for the DMCA’s safe harbour provisions instead of putting up a fight for its customer, for which it can hardly be blamed since it might be said possible litigation and liability costs outweigh the displeasure of one customer. It’s the DMCA’s Notice & Take down system that brings a privatized Shoot first, Check Later situation, in which you have to pay up for an ISP that’s not so trigger happy.
This case has some relation to the copyright censorship used by the Church of Scientology.
This sci-fi sect has been particularly aggressive in trying to prevent the spread of their copyrighted works and connected criticism.
In The Netherlands, Scientology’s practices have been part of a long legal battle in which its attempts to get the so-called Fissman Affidavit removed from Dutch writer’s Karin Spaink site have failed. This summer, the Dutch Supreme Court will probably put Scientology’s legal claims next to where their reli-fiction belongs: in the trash can.
Rik Lambers – CoCo
[Lambers is a former researcher at the Institute for Information Law, Amsterdam, who's now in transition to a new full time job in the field of IP/Internet law. He's also an associate member of the European INDICARE project, which researches consumer issues related to DRM.
===================
[NOTE: The DMCA is, of course, a purely American disaster inspired by Hollywood and with no relevance or application in Canada - Ed]
===================
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
June 16th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
When the DMCA law was persued the typical responce was the the RIAA only intended to use it for what they wished. At the time I remarked that was bs as a national law is just that; national and anyone can use it.
The problem with take downs is that no one has to show proof of their claim, they only have to make the claim. Since it was handcrafted by the RIAA for themselves, they made sure that there were no repercussions to making false claims or more properly incorrect claims. If the owner of the website in question should refuse the take down notice then the ISP must either takedown the site or ultimately be responcible also. Most of the ISPs are looking at the liability side and not looking out for the protection of their customers in the process. There was one such where a Mr. Rossi was charged with allowing his members access to the Lord Of The Rings sequel far before its filming was even complete. Now whether Mr Rossi ran a scam site or not, I will not get into. However the idea that such was not possible at the time of the takedown notice was of little interest to the MPAA. They made the claim and it was backed up in court that Mr. Rossi was in the wrong regardless of if it was true, possible, or even feasible. Since there is no need to show proof of claim and no damages should those claims prove to be false you now have such as this article where some organizations toes are stepped on and they are out to stop the criticism that might lead unsure potentials away from the path that organization might wish its potential err, victims to go. Certainly some sort of penality should be required for false or misleading claims on take down notices.
June 17th, 2005 at 1:14 am
Somebody help me out here. Does anybody know if a case where the DMCA has been invoked that did/does not seem just plain wrong? There must have been at least one application of this law that was not based solely in greed and mean spiritedness?
June 17th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
This is another reason for p2p. It can be used to distribute banned websites. the files can be named something like http://www.totse.com-17062005.zip. This would allow an updated version of a website to be distributed. This would present a hard time for censors, DCMA, and other such intrusions on rights.
June 17th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
hmmm, I say once a day every day someone files a DMCA calim against the RIAA and the MPAA and have their sites taken down.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Can a child under 18 start a person injury claim ?