| nettime's_digestive_system on Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:30:49 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> Science of Identity cult agents attempt take-down of chrisk [3x] |
Table of Contents:
Fwd: [Libre-Discuss] Science of Identity cult agents attempt take-down of chrisk
David Berry <[email protected]>
Re: [cc-community] Fwd: [Libre-Discuss] Science of Identity cult agents attempt
Andrea Glorioso <[email protected]>
Re: [fc-uk-discuss] Fwd: [Libre-Discuss] Science of Identity cult agents attempt
Richard Clayton <[email protected]>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:40:14 +0100
From: David Berry <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: [Libre-Discuss] Science of Identity cult agents attempt take-down of chriskcon.com based in spurious copyright law evocations
Can anybody offer advice?
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Matthew Z
> Date: 8 April 2007 20:06:38 BDT
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Libre-Discuss] Science of Identity cult agents attempt
> take-down of chriskcon.com based in spurious copyright law evocations
>
> http://www.mjzhosting.name/collaboration/view_topic.php?id=167
>
> This might interest some people on the copyleft front. Being
> personally involved in the matter, what I'm most interested in is
> the weight of a certain claim in Jeannie Bishop's letter to myself:
> "The information stated above is accurate, and under penalty of
> perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of the Science of
> Identity Foundation, the exclusive owner of the copyright that is
> being infringed."
>
> If anyone with some insight into the actual legal mechanisms that
> might arise here has any thoughts on the matter, I would be very
> interested in hearing them. To what degree could the "penalty of
> perjury" come into play? What are worst-case-scenario
> ramifications? etc. Are they just talking shit? Should it be easy
> to keep this website online?
>
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://libresociety.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_libresociety.org
- ----
David M. Berry
[email protected]
EDB128
Media and Film Department
University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RH
01273 606755 x4837
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/mediastudies/profile125219.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:04:37 +0200
From: Andrea Glorioso <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cc-community] Fwd: [Libre-Discuss] Science of Identity cult agents attempt take-down of chriskcon.com based in spurious copyright law evocations
Dear David,
on a first glance, this case looks very much similar to the (in)famous
Scientology v xs4all case in the Netherlands.
I'm a bit afraid of giving an advice without more thought on the
matter - including understanding what would be the applicable law
here - but I suggest checking whether provisions on "fair use", "fair
dealing", "exceptions/limitations" and/or "free usages" (depending,
again, on what is the applicable law) would not be a valid defense
here.
In particular, infringement of exclusive rights granted by
copyright/droit d'auteur law for the purposes of criticism/discussion
is in principle admissible in various jurisdictions.
Whether it is also admissible also in practice depends on a range of
conditions, again depending on the particular law to be applied. Only
judicial power can decide that.
I would suggest to check whether such exceptions might possibly apply
before taking any other decision.
P.S.: nothing in the above excludes liability under other laws (e.g.
libel).
Ciao,
Andrea
- --
Andrea Glorioso Assistant Researcher, Politecnico di Torino
Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Internet Media Group
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino (TO) - Italy
T: +39-011-564-7036 M: +39-348-921-4379 F: +39-011-564-7099
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:18:05 +0100
From: Richard Clayton <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [fc-uk-discuss] Fwd: [Libre-Discuss] Science of Identity cult agents attempt take-down of chriskcon.com based in spurious copyright law evocations
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message <[email protected]>, David
Berry <[email protected]> writes
> Can anybody offer advice?
not without knowing which jurisdiction the website is in...
>> "The information stated above is accurate, and under
>> penalty of perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of the
>> Science of Identity Foundation, the exclusive owner of the
>> copyright that is being infringed."
>> ?
>> If anyone with some insight into the actual legal mechanisms
>> that might arise here has any thoughts on the matter, I would be
>> very interested in hearing them. To what degree could the
>> "penalty of perjury" come into play?
this text is present in order to jump through a technical hoop in the US
in the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act ....
... this may or may not matter, depending whether the site is actually
hosted in the US
however from the looks of it, 65.98.116.234 may be the relevant site,
and since that's hosted in Texas the DMCA is just what you need to read.
This has various defences, and a "put back" mechanism.
IANAL (and certainly not a US one!)
- - --
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBRh4jfZoAxkTY1oPiEQL/vQCfc2a7s7CZk6c6isZtUKnC+OQeD5wAoLeY
6H618kGW/PNsCuvAabxHFgFI
=IifQ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]