How is that for brevity.
I completely agree Justin, I think I have suffered enough dane bramage from reading entire birther original posts.

I just hope I don't get baned. On the other hand, I have never denined any request of Justin's.

IMO, this concern is misplaced. There is zero liability for any discussion forum which responds promptly to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's provisions, and no liability if some bozo fails to issue such a notification. While the nuisance value alone of a kooksuit may be sufficient to justify a policy like this solely on that basis, it's not like there would be any shortage of competent counsel available to swat down something like that in no time flat.

That said, I don't disagree with the policy. It maintains the readability of the site and is just in general a good idea. I also assume the policy is implemented rationally, such that someone who actually does a line by line analysis of some legal document that is actually necessary won't get it nuked. I know I made one post quoting every relevant provision of a state constitution at the time of the founding to discuss the adoption of common law, and certainly quoted more than four paragraphs, but not all at once.

The "wall o' text" mass quotation prohibition, though, is a good thing and I'm glad it's baned. I usually skip that kind of thing even if it isn't baned. I can't imagine why anyone would need to quote more than four paragraphs of typical birfing from Orly or anyone else. Birfer text is sort of like sausage. Cut a slice out of it anywhere and you pretty much know what's in there.

What muldy said.

And some people will post a previous post in total just to say ............ "I agree"
Regards .............Dick

How about a solution? If one can print a PDF version or take an image cap of the page and upload it to a file sharing site then that will solve the "don't post the entire page content" and those who are afraid of visiting malware hacked sites.

CutePDF offers freeware software that will print anything to PDF
Fastone Capture (even Google Chrome has a plugin) can do scrolling image captures of a web page


that way, one can still post a limited content, and link to where they can download the PDF (exampe Scribd) or the image (exampe imageshack) without going overboard on the policy and worrying about others (and being subjected to trojans)

But I kind of like Justin's solution. Just don't quote lots of gibbering idiocy from birfers (or for that matter anyone else). People who want to see all that stuff can go where it is, and if where it is happens to be something like Orly's malware-infested site, they should avoid it anyway. Any other thing that people want to see, they can click on without fear.

If they don't want to see it, though, well, jeez. Four paragraphs is entirely enough to suffer from.

that's why I suggested that we keep to the request of only the paragraphs or sentences that pertain to the topic, and offer a link or "cap" of the page or site (should it be a hacked site with malware problems) if someone wants to torture themselves to see it in context

Hey, I'm all for discussion, but EVEN we can misconstrue or even get the wrong idea about a post, even on birther sites. Sometimes context is needed.

AFAIK, in order to be protected under the DMCA, Politijab would have to, among other things: (1) form a corporation or other limited liability entity to operate this website and (2) register an agent with the US Copyright Office. See http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/. AFAIK, Politijab has done neither. These are only two of the requirements for protection under the DMCA--there are more. See "Eligibility for Limitations Generally" and "Limitations for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users" at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf . Furthermore, the DMCA does not stop you from being sued in the first place and being forced to defend yourself and prove that you complied with all of the requirements for protection, and it further AFAIK only provides protection for claims made in the USA. If you believe any of the above statements are incorrect, please identify the incorrect statements and cite your authorities.

I don't see anything in the text of the statute that says it only protects corporations. If you have any support for that, I'd be glad to see it.

The statute is also peppered liberally with phrases like "complies substantially" and "substantially the following," and other language indicating fairly clearly the statute is intended to be construed liberally to accomplish its purpose and not to be full of "gotchas." This kind of drafting is intended to convey how courts should apply the law.

I imagine if the issue were ever litigated, the phrase "Internet Service Provider" would be interpreted as liberally as the similar language in Section 230 of the CDA; that is, any third party who is not the originator of the material.

Similarly, just as courts have treated claims based on technicalities about allegedly defective DMCA notifications with disdain, I doubt they're going to treat a litigant well who sues without any attempt whatsoever to notify first, on a website where it's very easy to determine the responsible party. Complying with formalities would be nice, and if Justin is actually very concerned about copyright liability, he should probably at least put a notification on the front page as to where such notifications should be sent, and if he's very, very concerned, actually register someone as an agent with the Copyright Office.

Finally, if a case did survive anyway, the four paragraph rule really isn't going to offer much protection, because four paragraphs could easily be the core of a brief but still copyrighted work. I suppose it would be evidence of a lack of intent to assist in copyright infringement.

Not that I'm really interested in a lengthy debate about the issue, though I'd be interested in your basis for the claim that you have to be a corporation to qualify as an "Internet Service Provider." I also wonder why you think a court would disregard the language in the statute itself which fairly clearly prescribes a substantial compliance standard rather than a hyper-formal list of absolute requirements.

I don't have any authorities other than the statute itself, since as far as I know, nobody has ever based a claim of copyright liability on your theory of the statute and how it should be applied.

Either you designated an agent or you didn't, and if you didn't, you get no protection from the DMCA. See page 12 at http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/201 ... re_tro.pdf . I see no practical way for a small group of individuals who jointly operate a website to designate an agent with the Copyright Office without forming some sort of organization. It is certainly possible that the organization could be a non-limited liability organization, such as a partnership where every partner has unlimited liability for any action taken by one of the other partners, but no one in their right mind would do that.

AFAIKS, the word "substantially" is used only in conjunction with the contents of notices. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 . That would not suggest the requirements I cited above (none of which involved notification) should be liberally construed. Specifically with respect to the contents of your agent designation, the Copyright Office has other ideas about that, and will not accept an agent designation that is in less than complete compliance. Try it sometime and you will see. Furthermore, if you think you are going to go into court and litigate the issue of whether you substantially complied with a law, when you easily could have been in complete compliance, then you clearly have never been involved in litigation.

The basic point however is that contrary to what you said, an online forum does not get automatic protection from the DMCA. It can get protection, but only if it carefully reads and follows the law.

Whether the Copyright Office accepts a particular filing isn't the same question as whether or not someone has actually been notified of something and complied with it. People end up "online service providers" sometimes without even knowing it. If someone like that, for instance a blogger with an open comment section got a notification because of a comment and complied with it, they'd be very unlikely to be found liable, with or without the DMCA. Even not being shielded by the DMCA doesn't mean someone has a copyright claim against you. You still have to be vicariously or contributorily infringing.

In any case, my basic point is that the four paragraph rule would be a poor protection for copyright issues, but that it's a great protection for saving my eyeballs and IQ points, so I like it. If copyright is the concern, though, it would be a good idea to use the DMCA rather than a four paragraph rule.

As to whether you need to be a corporation to file as a registered agent, that's just not true. There are plenty of people who are not corporations, who have filed as their own name, in an individual capacity, and act as their own agents.

Here's one example: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/w/wintin.pdf
Here's another: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/j/jnsouves.pdf

Even without these issues, though, a case of the sort the site is most likely to face isn't even going to turn on complex statutory construction and similar arcana. If anyone files a lawsuit, it will likely be a total nutjob who will not be deterred even by a rock-solid DMCA defense based on golden tablets bearing a designated agent's name on the front wall of the Copyright Office, but will probably be incapable of making out even the simplest claim of anything. The nuisance will just be dealing with the idiot.

While obviously if someone is going to bother designating an agent at all, one should comply with all the formalities just because it's no more difficult to do it correctly than it is to screw it up. However, it is highly unlikely that a person who complies with a takedown letter even without the DMCA will be found liable for contributory or vicarious infringement. All losing the DMCA safe harbor does is put you where you'd have been before the DMCA existed. Even then, a court would have taken a very dim view of someone who sued a third party for infringement without even attempting to notify them.

If we actually want to talk more about my prediction that a court faced with this question would take a very expansive view of the safe harbor, especially with a defendant who had acted in good faith, or would disregard the safe harbor entirely and simply rule that such conduct would probably have defeated liability even pre-DMCA, we should probably start another thread.

If you just want a last word before we terminate the threadjack, I don't mind and promise not to reply again.

I agree with the 4 paragraph rule and Justin's reasoning for it. That said, I've noticed on the Birthright Citizenship thread that MichaelN is now posting roughly 4 paragraphs of cut and paste followed by
Isn't this also a violation of the 4 paragraph rule?

OK, here's the final word. You said:



That is categorically wrong, since the DMCA affords no protection to any forum, including Politijab, that has not complied with the requirements of the DMCA, including the requirement to designate an agent with the US Copyright Office.

Speaking of Internet Powerhouse Outhouse Andy Martin....

Did he hold his press conference on the sidewalks of New York?

Here's what I know -- maybe others can supply more info.

The presser was scheduled for 2PM. At 2:30 he posted this:

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson

So, the regular routine.

I haven't seen anything more from Andy Martin. Maybe he'll reappear in DC for the Lakin hearing.

There's a new post repeating the same Internet Powerhouse story at the Demonrat Times:



_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson

...and it appears that a commenter there has left an interesting opening that someone might like to follow up...

MichaelN just surrendered, so I think we are ok.

Birther sentiments are much less strong than utter contempt for deserters. While soldiers tend to be conservative, they also tend to be pragmatists. I think they have a lot more sense than this worthless worm gives them credit for having.

New (sorta) docket entry:

New docket entry



In other words: DISMISSED.

Really nothing new or surprising, but I'm lost.

Which case is this?

Thanks.