] HARRIS: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) laws, ] in the Internet world, are almost as controversial as the ] Patriot Act, because they tread on rights, contain ] draconian penalties, and can be abused in order to shut ] people up. What DMCA does is criminalize copyright ] issues. They were pushed in by the recording industry to ] prevent music piracy, but they have since been used for ] many other things. ] ] The provision that was used against us was an abuse of ] the DMCA pull-down-demand- process. Using this, a company ] can claim they own copyright to something, write a letter ] to your Internet service provider (ISP), demand that the ] offending page be removed. The ISP must pull the page ] immediately or risk losing everything. These pull-downs ] almost always take place without a court order. ] ] Now, in our case, Diebold didn't even claim we had a ] copyrighted document on our site, they complained that we ] had a LINK to an unrelated site which, in turn, had LINKS ] to documents which they claimed copyright to. And in our ] case, our ISP overstepped its bounds. We do not know the ] extent to which it was pressured to do so by Diebold or ] whether there were other types of political pressure. Our ] ISP not only pulled the offending link, it pulled the ] page the link was on, then it pulled our whole site down, ] then it removed access to the files on our FTP site so ] that we couldn't even relocate the files to another ] location. We have been told the site must remain down for ] 10 days, and we need to file a letter disputing their ] claim and bleed lawyer's fees to litigate this. ] Fortunately, David Allen, who knows about these things, ] had a techie-to-techie conversation with a rep at the ] ISP, and they decided their attorney had been wrong and ] granted us access via FTP, though the site is still not ] up. |