[linux-elitists] fwd: [SLL] Fighting evil with evil
Seth David Schoen
Sun Nov 2 11:35:55 PST 2003
Ragnar Hojland Espinosa writes:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 05:30:54AM +0000, Michael Shields wrote:
> > In message <20031031194012.GK22471@ssc.com>,
> > Dan Wilder <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > ----- Forwarded message from Glenn Stone <email@example.com> -----
> > [...]
> > > Each and every person who has ever written even a one-byte patch to Linux is
> > > eligible to DMCA-notice them, and their upstream provider when they are
> > > ignored.
> > Wouldn't it actually be anyone who has written a patch large enough
> > to have a copyright interest in -- generally considered to be around
> > twenty lines?
> I got a ~10k file signed with my name. If someone is kind enough to
> instuct me on how/where to DMCA, it will be delivered.
Sending the 512 notice to SCO itself is not appropriate; it is
supposed to go _to the registered DMCA agent_ at its ISP.
Sending a 512 notice because SCO infringes your copyright may create
standing for them to bring a declaratory judgment lawsuit against you
to try to establish that they have not infringed. If they choose to
do this and you do not answer their complaint, they can get a default
judgment against you which could permanently eliminate any copyright
claims you might have against SCO and possibly subject you to other
sanctions. I don't have any way of knowing whether SCO would decide
to do that when they are the subject of 512 notices.
The upshot of this is that sending 512 notices isn't, or ought not be,
risk-free for the sender.
Seth David Schoen <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Very frankly, I am opposed to people
http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | being programmed by others.
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | -- Fred Rogers (1928-2003),
| 464 U.S. 417, 445 (1984)
More information about the linux-elitists