“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”.”
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.
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.
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.
Getting very close to that myself. Definitely limiting my intake
Wikipedia for important things, Google trends for what people are likely to be talking about.
- that we have a good-faith belief that the use is not authorized […]
- 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)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.