Sunday Times sends copyright threat to The Intercept over critical article

[doctorow]

[Read the post]

[davide405]

“Not only do we deny your claim of copyright, we’re going to trumpet your clumsy, heavy-handed attempt to hide the evidence of your shoddy, sloppy “journalism”.”

[Raoul]

When are organizations going to start to get charged for making demonstrably false DMCA claims? Still waiting for that part of the act to kick in.

[daneel]

The best thing about Murdoch’s paywall for his papers is that to me, they simply don’t exist any more. I haven’t seen any Times ‘journalism’ in years.

[Woodchuck45]

I haven’t seen any Times ‘journalism’ in years.

And I bet you’re happier for it.

Turning off the news, full stop, did wonders for my mental health and daily outlook.

[Raoul]

Getting very close to that myself. Definitely limiting my intake

[peemlives]

Wikipedia for important things, Google trends for what people are likely to be talking about.

[zathras]

We state

1. that we have a good-faith belief that the use is not authorized […]
2. under penalty of perjury that the information in our notice is accurate […]

So… is it prossible to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the legal affairs office of a UK firm did in fact know that US copyright law does allow for reproductions for the purpose of criticism?

There sure is plenty of circumstantial evidence (meaning: it’s obvious) that a UK lawyer sending a DMCA complaint would know at least that much about US law, but would that be enough to convict?

(IANAL, and besides, IANA,SEIIWALIWK - I am not American, so even If I was a laywer, I wouldn’t know)