MemeStreams | MemeStreams Discussion

Create an Account

This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Wired News: DMCA: Dow What It Wants to Do. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

Wired News: DMCA: Dow What It Wants to Do by Rattle at 5:52 am EST, Jan 1, 2003
] Digital Millennium Copyright Act charges may force an ] independent Internet service provider and its ] controversial clients offline next month. ] ] The Thing has provided Internet connectivity, technical ] support and Web design services to New York City artists ] and political activists for over a decade. ] ] But at the beginning of December, Wolfgang Staehle, ] owner and director of The Thing, was notified by his ] service provider, Verio, that The Thing's Internet ] connection would be severed on Feb. 28, 2003. ] ] Staehle said Verio is pulling the plug on The Thing due ] to charges that one of its clients violated the DMCA by ] posting a parody website mocking Dow Chemical company.
Link - Reply

RE: Wired News: DMCA: Dow What It Wants to Do
by Decius at 1:03 pm EST, Jan 1, 2003

Rattle wrote:
] ] Digital Millennium Copyright Act charges may force an
] ] independent Internet service provider and its
] ] controversial clients offline next month.
] ]
] ] Staehle said Verio is pulling the plug on The Thing due
] ] to charges that one of its clients violated the DMCA by
] ] posting a parody website mocking Dow Chemical company.

Some comments:

1. Moonpie posted the original parody to MemeStreams. Search his blog.

2. Slashdot is linking Dow's claim.

The DMCA claim is bogus. Its legal to use intellectual property in a parody.

The fraud/slander is probably not bogus. Read the slashdot thread. Half the commentators can't keep the actual Dow statements and the RTmark statements apart in their heads. You can't represent yourself as someone else with the intent of damaging their reputation.

3. The DMCA provisions that require an ISP to shut down content which is in violation of a copyright were not written with this sort of situation in mind. They were thinking "Someone posts MP3s to a website. Artist complains. ISP takes down website. No one needs to go to court." However, this is an example of speech which is very much in a gray area. When there are questions, there ought to be a preliminary injunction from a court. The law ought to err on the side of requiring involvement from a court too often. This law needs tweeking.

4. There are plenty of examples of legal speech which has been the subject of DMCA notifications. Unfortunately, the EFF et all do not have the resources to mount more challenges then they have already mounted, and several of their challenges have failed. The courts have actually decided that IP protection is more important the freedom of speech in some contexts. The final answer is that this can only be fixed through Congress.

5. This is not a good example to use as a DMCA challenge. The legal community isn't going to touch this with a 10 foot pole. Its not protected speech. Arguing DMCA specifics needs to occur in an environment where the plaintif isn't guilty of other crimes.