Caltrops - Site Comments





	[quote name="Senor Barborito"][quote name="Jack's Inflamed Colon's Law Firm"][quote name="Senor Barborito"] a simple DMCA notification to Caltrops' webhost would probably be sufficient to get ICJ's account, and Caltrops, yanked within 24 hours. This is because under the DMCA webhosts and ISPs suffer equal financial penalty to their customers should their customers be convicted of copyright violation - and most message boards (including Metafilter, for one) grant posters copyright of their posts. Standard operating procedure within every webhost and ISP in the USA is to immediately pull the offending account upon receipt of DMCA notice and ask questions later, for one simple reason - the $15 or $25 a month you pay them is not worth the potential $150,000 per violation penalty of the DMCA. [/quote] Everyone has already been mercilously making fun of the above threat already but I want to make sure people understand just how silly it is. I am not a lawyer. But I have a lot of experience in working with lawyers on ISP take downs. If the DMCA notice doesnt come from a law firm the ISP will simply laugh at it and move on. This weeds out threats like the above which are petty and stupid and in no way were meant for the DMCA to cover, and it also saves the ISP's time seperating enraged "notes from the underground" letter writers from actual honest to god copyright damages that the ISP might be liable for. This means, you guessed it, Veronica would have to pay for a lawyer. SB would have to then meet with that lawyer at a charge to explain the situation then pay the lawyer for their time and work drafting the take down notice or C&D or whatever the lawyer decided was appropriate. I'm pretty sure any lawyer looking at this situation would probably chuckle unless they were Lionel Hutz. JICLF[/quote] First of all, the bit about Veronica getting a lawyer only applies if I were the person who was going to do this. I've already said, on no uncertain terms, that I will never do this, but that it is a vulnerability. Secondly, you are flatly wrong. It is a trivially exploitable one. Everything from <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1555">Usenet posts</a> to <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1541">pictures of Nipple Jewelry</a> to <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1527">CNet Spyware articles</a> to <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1503">simple descriptions of mobile phones</a> is valid grounds for the DMCA. If you take a look at the nipple jewelry/mobile phones one in particular, towards the bottom, you'll notice that a lawyer was neither needed nor used. Chillingeffects.org has over 496 examples of DMCA 512 as detailed in the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, aka DMCA Title 2 archived <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi">here</a>. --SB[/quote]