Copywriting Wrongs
Posted 09/24/08 at 05:00:00 PM | by Quinn Norton
With a presidential election around the corner, let’s look at how people pervert copyright law to squelch speech. Copyright takedown notices were never meant to stifle whistle-blowers or detractors, yet that’s become a popular use for them. Individual critics are likely to go broke even if they win a case, so people and ISPs tend to back down at lawyer point.
One of the most repugnant misuses of the takedown notice was by Diebold, a maker of electronic voting machines. Diebold responded to allegations of security flaws with an “Oh no, our machines are fine! Move along!” type of response. But leaked internal Diebold documentation posted on the net confirmed the company knew it was p0wned. Diebold couldn’t deny anything—instead it demanded the documentation be taken offline, on the basis of copyright infringement. According to the EFF, Diebold failed to pass “the giggle test” on that case.
Nobody loves its copyrights and hates its former members like the Church of Scientology. It makes the RIAA look like an amateur when it comes to suing the hell out of its critics, anywhere, anytime. The Church of Scientology has been at it the longest, too. When there’s no legitimate way to gag your critics, you’re down to sending a cease-and-desist letter or hiring a team of ninjas to take them out. The former is a lot cheaper. Even if the latter is more fun.
It goes on... the Jehovah’s Witnesses shutting down a critical website, the rapper Akon trying to shut up conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, etc.
My personal favorite is radio personality Michael Savage. Savage made some comments about Islam on his radio show that were, shall we say, colorful. The nonprofit Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) posted these comments on its site to highlight his bigotry. So Savage sued for copyright infringement. At no point did he actually try to defend his comments, he just tried to hit CAIR over the head with a big lawyer and intimidate the group into silence. In this case, the EFF stepped in and hit him back.
But it’s such a weak way to shut people up. If you really want to oppress someone, I say get the ninjas.
Quinn Norton writes about copyright for Wired News and other publications. Her work has ranged from legal journalism to the inner life of pirate organizations.
This is an excellent
Submitted by Wildebeast on Thu, 2008-09-25 11:00
This is an excellent article.
Summary: Just because it's a law, doesn't mean it is not (or cannot be) used abusively.
I strongly disagree with the "copyright is bad" notion. If you put in the work to create something, you have the right to expect the credit for it.
--the question is, can you forbid other people from quoting you (or maybe mentioning your name)?
no you cannot, but you can
Submitted by AndyYankee17 on Sun, 2008-09-28 04:38
no you cannot, but you can sue them for slander.
Yeah. Copyright is getting
Submitted by whelderwheels613 on Wed, 2008-09-24 16:10
Yeah. Copyright is getting way out of hand. It should be set that way the founding fathers set it, 14 years until it is public domain.
Quinn Norton
Submitted by Usagi on Wed, 2008-09-24 15:57
Wow!
Great aritcle. I hate most copyright laws, especially the ones perverted to serve the interest of groups trying to hide the truth, let alone the ones perverted to prevent fair use laws.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think Quinn Norton is a total babe?
Semper Leporid!
Great. We finally get a
Submitted by sirphunkee on Wed, 2008-09-24 18:19
Great. We finally get a female who will show her face around here regularly, and you're gonna go scariing her off.
Brilliant.
Great article though Quinn.
meh free speech > any
Submitted by AndyYankee17 on Wed, 2008-09-24 15:29
meh
free speech > any "feel good" organization










