|
|
|
|
| |
| |
The plaintiff has posted messages saying the website was removed as the
result of DMCA complaints. The operators of the websites have stated
there were no DMCA notifications given, which means the removals did not
fulfill the legal requirements of the DMCAct to avoid liability for
removing material as the result of false complaints.
From the Ray-Gordon.net website:
"The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and
rules as to its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and
takedown procedure, a copyright owner submits a notification under
penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the
service providers designated agent. Failure to comply substantially
with the statutory requirements means that the notification will not be
considered in determining the requisite level of knowledge by the
service provider. If, upon receiving a proper notification, the service
provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in
the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability. In
addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for
claims based on its having taken down the material. (Section 512(g)(1)).
"In order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent
notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection
(g)(1) gives the subscriber the opportunity to respond to the notice and
takedown by filing a counter notification. In order to qualify for the
protection against liability for taking down material, the service
provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or
disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter
notification complying with statutory requirements, including a
statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or
disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright
owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the
service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business
days after receiving the counter notification."
Was a notice submitted by plaintiff, under penalty of perjury, that
material on the site did, indeed, violate the DMCA? Could it be
successfully argued a trained and experienced paralegal would have known
the difference bwteen fair use and a clear violation? Were there other
goings-on, allegations, inducements, claims, or otherwise that might
have contributed to a removal in violation of the notification
requirements of the DMCA? This appears to be a matter for discovery, as
well as other events that involve web hosts, internet service, etc.
When all is said and done, perhaps one or both of the remaining
defendants will publish a chronicle of all that happens in the
proceedings, including the discovery and trial phases.
HS
Vince Runza wrote:
Oh...It's archived in various places. Didja know that?
So when you whine slander, libel and defamation it will be for
naught...because the FAQ will be the truth. Your words, your actions.
You use the courts to bully people.
and
Uh, GORK, have you been to http://www.insurgent.org? Nobody's goading these
guys, and you sure don't scare them!
Vince
--
8===
|
| |
| |
With a court order, it becomes a criminal offense to violate it.
That's
the
difference.
This explains why he felt he had to get a TRO to get the site taken down
during RICO I.
I'm still seeking the injunction.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Well, wouldn't a legal injuction against the site kill two birds with one
stone? One: get the site taken down without hacking or threatening via
e-mail, and Two: keep it down? Seems to me like that would keep others from
questioning how you managed to get the site taken down legally without a
court order..
|
| |
| |
The plaintiff has posted messages saying the website was removed as the
result of DMCA complaints.
It was.
The operators of the websites have stated
there were no DMCA notifications given,
I notified the ISPs. Can't say what happened after that.
I did my part.
They are leaving out one very important step of the process, probably
because of what it would reveal.
|
| |
| |
The response from the plaintiff can only be taken as an acknowledgment
that such declarative complaint notifications, made under penalty of
perjury, must exist, are in the possession of the service providers and
can be obtained through discovery.
How many aspects of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Crimes and
Offenses (Title 18) pertain to behavior on the part of the commercial
business interest (plaintiff)? The following is the pertinent citations
dealing with perjury (as in false DMCA notifications- penalty=5 yrs.
$5,000), inconsistent statements.
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18)
PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES.
CHAPTER 49. FALSIFICATION AND INTIMIDATION
Subchapter A - Perjury And Falsification In Official Matters
4902. Perjury.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of perjury, a felony of the
third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement
under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of
a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does
not believe it to be true.
(b) Materiality.--Falsification is material, regardless of the
admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if it could have
affected the course or outcome of the proceeding. It is no defense that
the declarant mistakenly believed the falsification to be immaterial.
Whether a falsification is material in a given factual situation is a
question of law.
(c) Irregularities no defense.--It is not a defense to prosecution under
this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in
an irregular manner or that the declarant was not competent to make the
statement. A document purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at
any time when the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed
to have been duly sworn or affirmed.
(d) Retraction.--No person shall be guilty of an offense under this
section if he retracted the falsification in the course of the
proceeding in which it was made before it became manifest that the
falsification was or would be exposed and before the falsification
substantially affected the proceeding.
(e) Inconsistent statements.--Where the defendant made inconsistent
statements under oath or equivalent affirmation, both having been made
within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may
proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count
alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not
believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for
the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or
the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.
(f) Corroboration.--In any prosecution under this section, except under
subsection (e) of this section, falsity of a statement may not be
established by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.
HS
Ray Gordon wrote:
It was.
I notified the ISPs. Can't say what happened after that.
I did my part.
They are leaving out one very important step of the process, probably
because of what it would reveal.
|
| |
| |
The response from the plaintiff can only be taken as an acknowledgment
that such declarative complaint notifications, made under penalty of
perjury, must exist, are in the possession of the service providers and
can be obtained through discovery.
Of course they can. In fact, they were even already submitted to the court
as exhibits in the current lawsuit.
<yawn>
How many aspects of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Crimes and
Offenses (Title 18) pertain to behavior on the part of the commercial
business interest (plaintiff)? The following is the pertinent citations
dealing with perjury (as in false DMCA notifications- penalty=5 yrs.
$5,000), inconsistent statements.
No perjury in the notification.
Something amazingly simple is being overlooked here.
|
| |
| |
This explains why he felt he had to get a TRO to get the site taken
down
during RICO I.
I'm still seeking the injunction.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Well, wouldn't a legal injuction against the site kill two birds with one
stone?
Only against an individual publisher.
One: get the site taken down without hacking or threatening via
e-mail, and Two: keep it down? Seems to me like that would keep others
from
questioning how you managed to get the site taken down legally without a
court order..
I used a DMCA notice.
|
| |
| |
"HeeroYuy" <h@h.h> wrote in message news:<p180d.33932$8.2715@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
With a court order, it becomes a criminal offense to violate it.
That's
the
difference.
This explains why he felt he had to get a TRO to get the site taken down
during RICO I.
Well, wouldn't a legal injuction against the site kill two birds with one
stone? One: get the site taken down without hacking or threatening via
e-mail, and Two: keep it down? Seems to me like that would keep others from
questioning how you managed to get the site taken down legally without a
court order..
As noted by the judge in RICO I, the TRO would only be good for a
limited time (sic) two weeks. He found in the initial matter that
there was no compelling reason to issue a TRO, nor would the TRO offer
the relief that the Plaintiff was seeking.
One has to wonder about the process served to the various ISP's under
the DMCA as well, based on the info under 502 (c) 3 as well, as ably
stated by the esteemed Mr. Stanton. IF the complaint was an informal
complaint via US Mail and not a properly sworn complaint, with
penalties under perjury applying, per the statute, one would have to
wonder about the validity of the takedowns and whether those who
suffered same might have legal recourse against both the plaintiff and
the ISP(s) involved...
Just a few thoughts on a late night...
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
|
| |
| |
Well, wouldn't a legal injuction against the site kill two birds with
one
stone? One: get the site taken down without hacking or threatening via
e-mail, and Two: keep it down? Seems to me like that would keep others
from
questioning how you managed to get the site taken down legally without a
court order..
As noted by the judge in RICO I, the TRO would only be good for a
limited time (sic) two weeks. He found in the initial matter that
there was no compelling reason to issue a TRO, nor would the TRO offer
the relief that the Plaintiff was seeking.
Yet a Florida judge gave an ex-parte TRO to a beauty queen. Go figure.
One has to wonder about the process served to the various ISP's under
the DMCA as well, based on the info under 502 (c) 3 as well, as ably
stated by the esteemed Mr. Stanton. IF the complaint was an informal
complaint via US Mail and not a properly sworn complaint, with
penalties under perjury applying, per the statute, one would have to
wonder about the validity of the takedowns and whether those who
suffered same might have legal recourse against both the plaintiff and
the ISP(s) involved...
Sure, IF.
However, in this case, the DMCA notification was legal.
|
| |
| |
in article tzg0d.317$PJ3.192@trndny09, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 9/10/04 7:51 AM:
Well, wouldn't a legal injuction against the site kill two birds with
one
stone? One: get the site taken down without hacking or threatening via
e-mail, and Two: keep it down? Seems to me like that would keep others
from
questioning how you managed to get the site taken down legally without a
court order..
Yet a Florida judge gave an ex-parte TRO to a beauty queen. Go figure.
Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that Gordon's request for a
TRO was DENIED.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<tzg0d.317$PJ3.192@trndny09>...
Well, wouldn't a legal injuction against the site kill two birds with
one
stone? One: get the site taken down without hacking or threatening via
e-mail, and Two: keep it down? Seems to me like that would keep others
from
questioning how you managed to get the site taken down legally without a
court order..
Yet a Florida judge gave an ex-parte TRO to a beauty queen. Go figure.
Which has NOTHING to do with YOUR case, as any paralgal would know, so
stop the non sequiturs.
Sure, IF.
However, in this case, the DMCA notification was legal.
So post a copy and list the Notary Public's name that stamped it,
please. Without that, it does not comply as no Oath was taken, as any
paralegal would know.
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
|
| |
| |
Yes, in all of this, something very simple is being overlooked. This was
found on the ray-gordon.net website.
http://www2.verizon.net/policies/tos.asp
ATTACHMENT A
ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
1. This is Verizons policy on the acceptable use of the Service. It is
designed to help protect the Service, Verizon's customers and the
Internet community, from irresponsible or illegal activities.
2. Verizon reserves the right to deny Service to you, or immediately to
terminate your Service for material breach, if your use of the Service
or your use of an alias or the aliases of additional users on your
account, whether explicitly or implicitly, and in the sole discretion of
Verizon: (a) is obscene, indecent, pornographic, sadistic, cruel or
racist in nature, or of a sexually explicit or graphic nature; (b)
espouses, promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism; (c) might be
legally actionable for any reason, (d) is objectionable for any reason,
or (e) in any manner violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy.
3. You may NOT use the Service as follows: (a) for any unlawful,
improper or illegal purpose or activity; (b) to post or transmit
information or communications that, whether explicitly stated, implied,
or suggested through use of symbols, are obscene, indecent,
pornographic, sadistic, cruel, or racist in content, or of a sexually
explicit or graphic nature; or which espouses, promotes or incites
bigotry, hatred or racism; or which might be legally actionable for any
reason; (c) to access or attempt to access the accounts of others, to
spoof or attempt to spoof the URL or DNS or IP addresses of Verizon or
any other entity, or to attempt to penetrate or penetrate security
measures of Verizon or other entities' systems ("hacking") whether or
not the intrusion results in corruption or loss of data; (d) to bombard
individuals or newsgroups with uninvited communications, data or
information, or other similar activities, including but not limited to
"spamming", "flaming" or denial or distributed denial of service
attacks; (e) to transmit unsolicited voluminous emails (for example,
spamming) or to intercept, interfere with or redirect email intended for
third parties using the Service; (f) to introduce viruses, worms,
harmful code and/or Trojan horses on the Internet; (g) to post
information on newsgroups which is not in the topic area or charter
(e.g. off-topic posting) of the newsgroup; (h) to interfere with another
person's usage or enjoyment of the Internet or this Service; (i) to post
or transmit information or communications that are defamatory,
fraudulent, obscene or deceptive, including but not limited to scams
such as "make-money-fast" schemes or "pyramid/chain" letters; (j) to
damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and
subsidiaries, or any third parties;
The stipulations concerning "whether explicitly or implicitly, and in
the sole discretion of Verizon: (a) is obscene, indecent, pornographic,
sadistic, cruel or racist in nature, or of a sexually explicit or
graphic nature" is very much on point for current use of the service,
and even more applicable is "(g) to post information on newsgroups which
is not in the topic area or charter (e.g. off-topic posting) of the
newsgroup; (h) to interfere with another person's usage or enjoyment of
the Internet or this Service". Are we currently seeing a predatory use
of commercial to silence the first amendment rights of critics of a
commercial product by its owner/distributor? Would Verizon allow a
precendent to be established, if that is true, opening the door to abuse
of their service by any and every commercial interest whose sole aim is
to intimidate and silence consumers and critics of their product?
HS
Ray Gordon wrote:
Of course they can. In fact, they were even already submitted to the court
as exhibits in the current lawsuit.
<yawn>
No perjury in the notification.
Something amazingly simple is being overlooked here.
|
| |
| |
Lee Darrow wrote:
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<tzg0d.317$PJ3.192@trndny09>...
However, in this case, the DMCA notification was legal.
So post a copy and list the Notary Public's name that stamped it,
please. Without that, it does not comply as no Oath was taken, as any
paralegal would know.
Now THAT's not accurate. The DMCA notification must be made under
penalty of perjury, but need not be notarized.
Not that I think Ray made a proper DMCA notification....
|
| |
| |
in article 41420630.137B@Intell-transport.com, Howard Stanton at
HS3127@Intell-transport.com wrote on 9/10/04 3:53 PM:
Yes, in all of this, something very simple is being overlooked. This was
found on the ray-gordon.net website.
http://www2.verizon.net/policies/tos.asp
Verizon, like every other ISP, will enforce its TOS only when it would cost
them money NOT to.
|
| |
| |
Lee Darrow wrote:
So post a copy and list the Notary Public's name that stamped it,
please. Without that, it does not comply as no Oath was taken, as any
paralegal would know.
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
Uh, I hate to have to be on Ray's side on this one, but you're incorrect
as a statement made 'under penalty of perjury' does qualify as a
statement under oath. Otherwise the IRS could never charge someone for
perjury for lying on a tax return.
And I happen to BE a notary public.
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<41421CF0.1593595@sprintmail.com>...
Lee Darrow wrote:
However, in this case, the DMCA notification was legal.
Now THAT's not accurate. The DMCA notification must be made under
penalty of perjury, but need not be notarized.
Not that I think Ray made a proper DMCA notification....
Easiest way to do that is to have yourself sworn in and the complaint
notarized, isn't it? ;)
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
|
| |
| |
So post a copy and list the Notary Public's name that stamped it,
please. Without that, it does not comply as no Oath was taken, as any
paralegal would know.
Now THAT's not accurate. The DMCA notification must be made under
penalty of perjury, but need not be notarized.
Not that I think Ray made a proper DMCA notification....
Easiest way to do that is to have yourself sworn in and the complaint
notarized, isn't it? ;)
Gee, the original statement was that notarization was *REQUIRED* when it
clearly is not.
Despite the authoritarian delivery, the pompous, overberaing, officious
windbag is WRONG.
|
| |
| |
Despite the authoritarian delivery, the pompous, overberaing, officious
windbag is WRONG.
Here we have, yet again, another deliciously self-referential comment by
GORK. I bet he failed to see the irony as he was clicking <SEND>.
Vince
--
8===
|
| |
| |
"Vince Runza" <v_runza@hotmail.com> wrote in news:2qkjcjF10b70sU1@uni-
berlin.de:
Despite the authoritarian delivery, the pompous, overberaing, officious
windbag is WRONG.
Here we have, yet again, another deliciously self-referential comment by
GORK. I bet he failed to see the irony as he was clicking <SEND>.
Vince
--
8===
Nah. Come on, Ray's not "overberaing", is he?
|
| |
| |
Lee Darrow wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<41421CF0.1593595@sprintmail.com>...
Not that I think Ray made a proper DMCA notification....
Easiest way to do that is to have yourself sworn in and the complaint
notarized, isn't it? ;)
NOTARIZATION IS NOT REQUIRED. Only a document signed under
penalty of perjury, stating the relevant facts.
|
| |
| |
bump
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<4145DA28.2E27B56A@sprintmail.com>...
Lee Darrow wrote:
Not that I think Ray made a proper DMCA notification....
NOTARIZATION IS NOT REQUIRED. Only a document signed under
penalty of perjury, stating the relevant facts.
|
| |
| |
Buck Fush wrote:
bump
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<4145DA28.2E27B56A@sprintmail.com>...
|
| |
| |
NeoRenegade wrote:
Buck Fush wrote:
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Time is clearly of no significance to a DMCA notice --
obviously, the letter is written after the material was
on the offending web site.
We would like to state, for the record, once again, that we
NEVER recieved ANY notice of ANYTHING from Gordon Roy Parker,
or ANYONE ELSE despite the fact that we have a standard DMCA
policy form on the MAIN page of The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ.
Here is the text of that DMCA Policy directly from the site:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ respects the intellectual
property rights and proprietary rights of others. The
OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ may, under appropriate circumstances
and at the sole discretion of the Editorial Staff, remove
certain content or disable access to content that appears to
infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights
of others. If you believe that your copyright has been violated
by material available through The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ,
please provide the Editorial Staff with the following information:
- Identification of the copyrighted work that you claim has
been infringed;
- An exact description of where the material about which you
complain is located within The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ
collections;
- Your full legal name;
- Your legal address of record, telephone number, and a
working email address;
- A statement by you that you have a good-faith belief that
the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner,
its agent, or the law;
- A statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that
the aboveinformation in your notice is accurate and that
you are the owner of the copyright interest involved;
- A statement identifying you as the author of record of any
and all material in question, which contains your full legal
name, the name under which you posted or wrote the item, and
a legitimate working email address, along with an electronic
signature.
You may forward this information directly to us HERE.
After all this information is received, we will do our best to
determine whether or not the information we present for
educational and archival purposes meets the requirements of
Fair Use. If it is determined that it does not, we will send
you a notice that the material will be removed at the next
regularly scheduled update cycle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, we offered more than once to remove the site from
the internet. All of these offers were completely ignored.
At NO time did the author of any posts we have on the site
EVER write to ask us if we would remove any material, nor
were we ever notified by the webhost, or their provider that
we had material on the site that was in dispute.
In the absence of any legal DMCA Notice that we are aware of,
the site was removed from the internet by our provider by
illegal means. Period. We believe we have been able to determine
how it happened. Someone, posing as either an attorney or a
judge, contacted the upstream provider of our webhost, and
made a false statement to them, with regard to the content
of the website. They were bullied into disabling access to
the site by someone who lied to them about who they were, and
what was on the site. ALL of those documents were and still are
available to the public through various means. Not one of them
ever caused a legal DMCA notice to be sent to either us, or to
the webhost, or to their upstream provider. Not once.
--
The Editorial Staff
-----
A quote from Gordon Roy Parker, AKA "Ray Gordon":
"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit
the following website: http://members.tripod.com/~rayfaq.html)*
This site contains many lies about me, but as a defender of
free speech I fully support its right to exist."
-Message-ID: <6ertau$76b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
*The original RayFAQ was removed from the internet as a
result of dozens of complaints from Gordon Roy Parker.
Freedom of Speech is WORTHLESS without Social Responsibility.
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
|
| |
| |
So Arthur L. Rubin sez to me, they sez:
Time is clearly of no significance to a DMCA notice
Neither are facts:
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-1001095.html
--
Hi Everybody But Jade!
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
WRONG, AGAIN. Time is of little importance in most copyright cases.
In the instant case, all parties agree that Ray wrote the material;
the only question is whether the copy is legal.
Not so. The copy is legal, as it was attributed as prescribed by law,
and was unaltered. It is a question of the use that has been raised. The
issue is whether the use in accordance with fair use doctrine present in
copyright law.
Time is clearly of no significance to a DMCA notice -- obviously,
the letter is written after the material was on the offending
web site.
To use the term "offending" denotes presumption of violation where none
has been ruled. Point of order; there are very definite time limits
involved in the DMCA complaint process, just as there are very specific
notification requirements under the act.
"The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and
rules as to its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and
takedown procedure, a copyright owner submits a notification under
penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the
service providers designated agent. Failure to comply substantially
with the statutory requirements means that the notification will not be
considered in determining the requisite level of knowledge by the
service provider. If, upon receiving a proper notification, the service
provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in
the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability. In
addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for
claims based on its having taken down the material. (Section 512(g)(1)).
"In order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent
notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection
(g)(1) gives the subscriber the opportunity to respond to the notice and
takedown by filing a counter notification. In order to qualify for the
protection against liability for taking down material, the service
provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or
disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter
notification complying with statutory requirements, including a
statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or
disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright
owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the
service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business
days after receiving the counter notification."
You can read the text of the act at
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
HS
|
| |
| |
Howard Stanton wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Not so. The copy is legal, as it was attributed as prescribed by law,
and was unaltered. It is a question of the use that has been raised. The
issue is whether the use in accordance with fair use doctrine present in
copyright law.
Wrong. The copy is EXACTLY what is illegal if it was posted without
permission, and does not fall under a fair use exemption,
regardless of attribution.
To use the term "offending" denotes presumption of violation where none
has been ruled. Point of order; there are very definite time limits
involved in the DMCA complaint process, just as there are very specific
notification requirements under the act.
Time is measured from receipt -- not the time the complaint was
created (the only thing that a notary would certify), or even
the complaint was mailed. I say again, what need is there of
a notary?
....
You can read the text of the act at
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
The text of the act is not there.
|
| |
| |
Mr. Stanton, what is your opinion of the following?
We posted this, and have as yet, had no comment on it:
We would like to state, for the record, once again, that we
NEVER recieved ANY notice of ANYTHING from Gordon Roy Parker,
or ANYONE ELSE despite the fact that we have a standard DMCA
policy form on the MAIN page of The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ.
Here is the text of that DMCA Policy directly from the site:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ respects the intellectual
property rights and proprietary rights of others. The
OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ may, under appropriate circumstances
and at the sole discretion of the Editorial Staff, remove
certain content or disable access to content that appears to
infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights
of others. If you believe that your copyright has been violated
by material available through The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ,
please provide the Editorial Staff with the following information:
- Identification of the copyrighted work that you claim has
been infringed;
- An exact description of where the material about which you
complain is located within The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ
collections;
- Your full legal name;
- Your legal address of record, telephone number, and a
working email address;
- A statement by you that you have a good-faith belief that
the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner,
its agent, or the law;
- A statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that
the aboveinformation in your notice is accurate and that
you are the owner of the copyright interest involved;
- A statement identifying you as the author of record of any
and all material in question, which contains your full legal
name, the name under which you posted or wrote the item, and
a legitimate working email address, along with an electronic
signature.
You may forward this information directly to us HERE.
After all this information is received, we will do our best to
determine whether or not the information we present for
educational and archival purposes meets the requirements of
Fair Use. If it is determined that it does not, we will send
you a notice that the material will be removed at the next
regularly scheduled update cycle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, we offered more than once to remove the site from
the internet. All of these offers were completely ignored.
At NO time did the author of any posts we have on the site
EVER write to ask us if we would remove any material, nor
were we ever notified by the webhost, or their provider that
we had material on the site that was in dispute.
In the absence of any legal DMCA Notice that we are aware of,
the site was removed from the internet by our provider by
illegal means. Period. We believe we have been able to determine
how it happened. Someone, posing as either an attorney or a
judge, contacted the upstream provider of our webhost, and
made a false statement to them, with regard to the content
of the website. They were bullied into disabling access to
the site by someone who lied to them about who they were, and
what was on the site. ALL of those documents were and still are
available to the public through various means. Not one of them
ever caused a legal DMCA notice to be sent to either us, or to
the webhost, or to their upstream provider. Not once.
--
The Editorial Staff
-----
A quote from Gordon Roy Parker, AKA "Ray Gordon":
"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit
the following website: http://members.tripod.com/~rayfaq.html)*
This site contains many lies about me, but as a defender of
free speech I fully support its right to exist."
-Message-ID: <6ertau$76b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
*The original RayFAQ was removed from the internet as a
result of dozens of complaints from Gordon Roy Parker.
Freedom of Speech is WORTHLESS without Social Responsibility.
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Wrong. The copy is EXACTLY what is illegal if it was posted without
permission, and does not fall under a fair use exemption,
regardless of attribution.
One need not obtain permission for use to fall into the legally
recognized category of Fair Use. Please cite where permission is
necessary to qualify as Fair Use. Necessitating permission negates the
foundation of the Fair Use concept.
Time is measured from receipt -- not the time the complaint was
created (the only thing that a notary would certify), or even
the complaint was mailed. I say again, what need is there of
a notary?
In the notiification process, time is measured from the time the author
of the content is notified that a comforming complaint has been filed,
and they receive a copy of it. Conforming denotes a complaint that
fulfills the stated requirements of the detailed DMCA notification
specifics. If the content is removed without a conforming notification
being given to the author, the removal carries liability. If the
complaint appeared to be conforming, meaning it was signed under penalty
of perjury, lists the specific content being at issue, meets all other
notification requirements, and that the complainant stated he/she
HONESTLY believed the contents to be in violation of the DMCA (including
Fair Use provisions), the liability for removal can legally be passed on
to the complainant.
In the current case, the plaintiff has regaled the public with an
alleged expert knowledge of the legal system, attributed to employment
as a paralegal. If that is to be accepted as a true claim, it can most
likely be argued plaintiff was aware any DMCA complaints were filed
falsely, being that the use obviously qualifies as Fair Use.
The text of the act is not there.
The stated URL contains a summary of the Act, compiled by the U.S.
Copyright Office itself. If readers would rather dig through the full
text of the Act, it can be found at the following URL:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html
Perhaps the U.S. Copyright Office personnel mistakenly omitted pertinent
information from their summary that would lend a more favorable light to
your argument. Please feel free to share what and where that information
might be.
HS
|
| |
| |
Howard Stanton wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
One need not obtain permission for use to fall into the legally
recognized category of Fair Use.
Agreed. See my choice of conjunction. If permission was obtained,
the question of "Fair Use" is moot.
....
In the notiification process, time is measured from the time the author
of the content is notified that a comforming complaint has been filed,
and they receive a copy of it.
Even if accurate (and I think we're talking about different DMCA
notifications -- I was talking about the claimed infringer notifying
the ISP, and you seem to be talking about the ISP notifying the
"author" (scare-quotes, meaning the person responsible for uploading
that content to the ISP)), what does notarizing have to do with
it?
....
In the current case, the plaintiff has regaled the public with an
alleged expert knowledge of the legal system, attributed to employment
as a paralegal. If that is to be accepted as a true claim, it can most
likely be argued plaintiff was aware any DMCA complaints were filed
falsely, being that the use obviously qualifies as Fair Use.
It can be argued that any DMCA complaints were filed falsely, not
because of fair use, but because of permission.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
One need not obtain permission for use to fall into the legally
recognized category of Fair Use.
Agreed. See my choice of conjunction. If permission was obtained,
the question of "Fair Use" is moot.
I repeat..."Necessitating permission negates the foundation of the Fair
Use concept."
Nowhere is permission required to use content under Fair Use.
I also repeat..."Please cite where permission is necessary to qualify as
Fair Use."
Time is measured from receipt -- not the time the complaint was
created (the only thing that a notary would certify), or even
the complaint was mailed. I say again, what need is there of
a notary?
In the notiification process, time is measured from the time the author
of the content is notified that a comforming complaint has been filed,
and they receive a copy of it.
Even if accurate (and I think we're talking about different DMCA
notifications -- I was talking about the claimed infringer notifying
the ISP, and you seem to be talking about the ISP notifying the
"author" (scare-quotes, meaning the person responsible for uploading
that content to the ISP)), what does notarizing have to do with
it?
Where is an author regarded as someone who uploads content to a website?
Perhaps you are referring to a publisher connotation? Even that is not
technically correct.
I have not discussed notarization, since it has nothing to do with the
essential core of the liability shield provisions of the DMCA
notification process. Without proper notification, liability and
penalties are attached, both for the service provider and for the
complainant.
As I understand it, in the current case, no conforming notification was
given to the alleged author, publisher, uploader, maintainer, account
holder or anyone, called by any terms, the plaintiff alleges was
responsible for the public display of whatever content he says was in
violation of the DMCA. If true, the service provider is liable for any
legal costs necessary to secure the righful restoration of the content.
The filer of a false complaint could be actioned in the same cause with
the provider.
It can be argued that any DMCA complaints were filed falsely, not
because of fair use, but because of permission.
| | |
