Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: psy on June 23, 2009, 11:47:31 AM
-
We have just recieved a DMCA takedown notice from Ken Huey. Under the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act, we have no choice but to comply with the demand. As always, a DMCA can be countered with a counter-claim. If a counter-claim is recieved from "well proxied" and a lawsuit is not filed within 14 days, the information will be restored. If "well proxied" chooses not to file a counter-claim the information will remain deleted and will not be restored. Attached is the demand letter.
[attachment=0:2k2agpfc]dmca demand to fornits.docx[/attachment:2k2agpfc]
-
It's interesting that Ken only claimed copyright on the names and treatment profiles. If he had wanted to, he could have claimed a whole lot more. It would appear this particular program director does not mind open discussion and debate about his program and has even go so far as to post here. We've never seen that before. Why?
-
can't open that download. any chance of a more accessible format?
-
Here:
June 23, 2009
To Mr. Michael Crawford, Administrator of Fornits, and Ginger McNulty, creator of Fornits,
This letter is relative to postings about to the treatment and identity of CALO students. Certain threads on your site have the names of current and former CALO students and the treatment team summaries of three students. We have now confirmed that all of this information was obtained by infiltrating the email accounts of two CALO staff. Once in these accounts, Dan McGrath, posting as “well proxied”, stole these digital files and published their contents on your site.
This letter is a demand under the DMCA (Digital Media Copyright Act of 1998) that all postings containing the names of students and their treatment summaries be removed immediately. The names of students were contained in a shift note email that was copied and pasted with exact misspellings. CALO owns the copyright on all internal email. The treatment summaries were similarly stolen and CALO owns the copyright on those summaries.
This letter further demands that any future posts stolen digitally from CALO be removed upon notification of their existence by any source.
Sincerely,
Ken Huey, CEO
CALO
130 CALO Lane
Lake Ozark, MO 65049
-
OK, now who the hell is Dan McGrath? Or is this just a fictitious name attached to an account somewhere??
-
OK, now who the hell is Dan McGrath? Or is this just a fictitious name attached to an account somewhere??
Why do you want to know? Where did that come from? It's not mentioned in the document.
-
It appears to be in the doc:
Once in these accounts, Dan McGrath, posting as "well proxied", stole these digital files and published their contents on your site.
Is there proof of Mr. McGrath's alleged misdeeds? Why doesn't Ken sue Mr. McGrath?
-
He has not provided proof that Dan McGrath posted it.
-
How can CALO own the copyright to someone else's NAME? I can understand how there might be issues with a piece of original or personal writing, but someone else's name?
-
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf (http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf) > The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Of 1998
-
The validity of the DMCA takedown is not anybody's concern but the courts, or the allegations within. The only people they concern is Ken and Well Proxied (who can easily contest this action if he wishes to).
-
I wouldn't be surprised if psy asked them to send a letter like this, so then he would have an excuse to take the names down.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if psy asked them to send a letter like this, so then he would have an excuse to take the names down.
If that is the case, he knew ALLOT more than we all knew.
-
I'm pretty sure it's not that. I'm almost 100% positive. It could, however, be a competitor trying to take out CALO and fornits in one fell swoop. I have a working theory but it's pretty far out...
Remember the name of the guy who outed all those WWASP staffers? Well. That was "well proxied", but it wasn't this "well proxied" (there are at least two). How do I know? I just do. And not with any IP information.
Let's figure for a moment it's WWASP that wants to take out fornits, or at the very least all posts by "well proxied". They then post some of CALO's information they gain access to, hoping that it starts legal action against fornits, well proxied, etc... and CALO's reputation of protecting kid's privacy along the way. They then take out a competitor, a critic, and a critical website... all without firing a shot. Of course that's silly talk.
-
Hey. I'm as confused as anybody else here. How the hell would Ken get the name "Dan McGrath".
-
Hey. I'm as confused as anybody else here. How the hell would Ken get the name "Dan McGrath".
I just want to know who he is. Staff, student, ex-staff, outsider? Whi is Dan McGrath??
-
Who is John Galt?
-
Hey. I'm as confused as anybody else here. How the hell would Ken get the name "Dan McGrath".
You should touch base via. telephone to see if this is legit.
-
The treatment profiles are your independent works of fiction. On this we are in full agreement and I am glad you have acknowledged that. I do not contest your copyright on those documents.
However, if you honestly want to walk into a US courtroom and claim that you own a legal copyright to a list of real children, I dare you, no, I beseech you to please come and try that and we can see how things turn out. You might be holding them, but I absolutely will not permit you to claim that you own them.
Again, this counterclaim is for the list of the names, not the three documents.
Why didn't you claim to own the staff as well?
Dan McGrath
South Africa
-
The treatment profiles are your independent works of fiction. On this we are in full agreement and I am glad you have acknowledged that. I do not contest your copyright on those documents.
However, if you honestly want to walk into a US courtroom and claim that you own a legal copyright to a list of real children, I dare you, no, I beseech you to please come and try that and we can see how things turn out. You might be holding them, but I absolutely will not permit you to claim that you own them.
Again, this counterclaim is for the list of the names, not the three documents.
I'm not sure if this counts as a valid counterclaim. Research and email me a valid DMCA counterclaim and that will give CALO 14 days to respond. If they do not file a lawsuit within 14 days, the list will be restored. Since you've already conceded the treatment profiles, they will not be restored.
Also, Keep in mind that I have no way of verifying you as the original poster. Your IP addresses don't match. Here is how the counterclaim process works:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID132 (http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID132)
See the part about what a proper counter-claim requires:
* The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
* Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]
Why didn't you claim to own the staff as well?
That's an interesting question.
-
Man, can I try and influence you to flip that on it's head and do it backwards?
Let me pause here and reiterate that I claim no authority to tell you what to do and wouldn't want it. In fact, having spent too much of my early life in association with a totalitarian cult, I'm somewhat allergic the the very scent of control and coercion. This is just a personal appeal.
I also do NOT wish to know who you are. Sure, it's sort of fun to speculate so long as it's just that. But as long as I don't know and shouldn't reasonably know then I cannot be compelled to tell anybody. I like that a lot! :nods: So I hope you're as strong minded as you are provocative and will not ever give in to the temptation to name-fag.
Here's the thing, though. The only thing about your original posts that I found really disturbing was the names of these kids being published in this context. Personally, if my name were on that list I'd have dropped to my knees and sucked your dick on sight I would have been so grateful. But that's just me. My best coping tactic has always been to just really, truly, in the extreme not give a flyin' run at a rollin' donut what anybody thinks of me. But people have different ways of dealing with things. I know of a few kids and adults who have been seriously emotionally hurt and also materially injured just by having their names turn up in association with programs. And I agree that that's nowhere near the worst of what has already or could happen to them. But still, you think these people need even another ounce of grief?
The content of those treatment reports, on the other hand, minus the names and faces are another story. From what I've been able to gather so far (and that's not saying much as my time and tolerance for this issue has been severely limited lately) CALO has a reputation for being a kinder, gentler mindfuck. Some of the factual details as well as linguistic cues and other clues contained in those reports give lie to that take on things. That part, I think, is worth discussing and will not come back on these kids on down the road. Not only that but Huey actually seems like a very sincere sort of fellow. That means that to some degree he may be open to reason and, if not, easily debunked as yet another sadistic lunatic posing as a champion of lost souls.
I'd rather see the reports, and more of them, without the personal identifying information if it's all the same to you.
But I guess that depends on what your objective really is. I'm not a very trusting soul (uh, did I mention that I spent some time held captive and tortured under the guise of "therapy?")
It may be you just want to bring some critical attention to CALO
May be personal vindication
May be one or more of those kids are special to you and you're trying to shame the family into pulling them out
May be you just want to try and bait me and Mike into fucking up so badly that Fornits blinks out of existance
Or may be it's all for the lulz
Something else?
I don't know, you tell me, please.
Oh, btw, no one claimed ownership of the people named in that list, just of the created content. I ain't no copyright lawyer nor judge so I can't say if that's legit or not or if you're having acquired the data by whatever means or publishing it was legal or not. Just sayin' the argument missed the target by about 3 zip codes.
-
Hey. I'm as confused as anybody else here. How the hell would Ken get the name "Dan McGrath".
Is this a court order? Doesn't this have to go to court before one can obtain an order?
-
The treatment profiles are your independent works of fiction. On this we are in full agreement and I am glad you have acknowledged that. I do not contest your copyright on those documents.
However, if you honestly want to walk into a US courtroom and claim that you own a legal copyright to a list of real children, I dare you, no, I beseech you to please come and try that and we can see how things turn out. You might be holding them, but I absolutely will not permit you to claim that you own them.
Again, this counterclaim is for the list of the names, not the three documents.
I'm not sure if this counts as a valid counterclaim. Research and email me a valid DMCA counterclaim and that will give CALO 14 days to respond. If they do not file a lawsuit within 14 days, the list will be restored. Since you've already conceded the treatment profiles, they will not be restored.
Also, Keep in mind that I have no way of verifying you as the original poster. Your IP addresses don't match. Here is how the counterclaim process works:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID132 (http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID132)
See the part about what a proper counter-claim requires:
* The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
* Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]
Why didn't you claim to own the staff as well?
That's an interesting question.
what if someone else posts the names and profiles? They are still availaible through cache.
-
Of course I don't have the same IP address. I don't even know what my IP address is right now.
The lot of you are so bloody determined not to leave their names online because of "privacy concerns", as if their privacy wasn't being violated on a regular basis right this moment, that I suppose I will bow not to Ken Huey's laughable demands but rather to social pressure. Of course I can't control what others may do. By now, everyone with any sense and any willingness to use it for its proper purpose, that being contacting the parents to persuade them to release their children from this nightmare, has already saved a copy of everything.
Not only that but Huey actually seems like a very sincere sort of fellow.
You haven't been reading his email. You also apparently haven't been paying attention to what's been posted here regarding CALO. The man is as sincere as a pack of vipers and an infantilist pedophile. If you believe a single word he tells you about any topic, you are a fool. If Ken Huey tells you it will rain, leave your umbrella at home.
This will be my last post. Any future posts by "well proxied" are someone else and not me. Now someone else gets a go.
-
Of course I don't have the same IP address. I don't even know what my IP address is right now.
The lot of you are so bloody determined not to leave their names online because of "privacy concerns", as if their privacy wasn't being violated on a regular basis right this moment, that I suppose I will bow not to Ken Huey's laughable demands but rather to social pressure. Of course I can't control what others may do. By now, everyone with any sense and any willingness to use it for its proper purpose, that being contacting the parents to persuade them to release their children from this nightmare, has already saved a copy of everything.
Not only that but Huey actually seems like a very sincere sort of fellow.
You haven't been reading his email. You also apparently haven't been paying attention to what's been posted here regarding CALO. The man is as sincere as a pack of vipers and an infantilist pedophile. If you believe a single word he tells you about any topic, you are a fool. If Ken Huey tells you it will rain, leave your umbrella at home.
This will be my last post. Any future posts by "well proxied" are someone else and not me. Now someone else gets a go.
The pressure is not coming from everyone, well proxied. Just a couple of people, and, perhaps, largely of CYA. I LOVE me some Antigen and Psy, but I couldn't disagree more that these prisoners should have their names remain up, for a variety of reasons.
Thanks for trying to help these victims and who knows how long the names will stay down, or if they will appear through-out the internet.
There was a guy niles who used to post here, and people like him, who really are quite capable with proxies and not afraid of anything and this sort of thing is up their alley. It will be interesting to see how this transpires.
Again, thank you.
The satan's lawyer person is a troll. "Who" I am guessing. don't let him bother you
-
Of course I don't have the same IP address. I don't even know what my IP address is right now.
The lot of you are so bloody determined not to leave their names online because of "privacy concerns", as if their privacy wasn't being violated on a regular basis right this moment, that I suppose I will bow not to Ken Huey's laughable demands but rather to social pressure. Of course I can't control what others may do. By now, everyone with any sense and any willingness to use it for its proper purpose, that being contacting the parents to persuade them to release their children from this nightmare, has already saved a copy of everything.
Not only that but Huey actually seems like a very sincere sort of fellow.
You haven't been reading his email. You also apparently haven't been paying attention to what's been posted here regarding CALO. The man is as sincere as a pack of vipers and an infantilist pedophile. If you believe a single word he tells you about any topic, you are a fool. If Ken Huey tells you it will rain, leave your umbrella at home.
This will be my last post. Any future posts by "well proxied" are someone else and not me. Now someone else gets a go.
Do you know the names of these kids parents' these would be helpful. it is hard to track the parents down.
-
Do you know the names of these kids parents' these would be helpful.
I'm pretty sure he would have posted them if he did. One "mother" has already been prospectively identified.
We'll miss you WP. (if you really believe he's gone, which I don't)
-
I LOVE me some Antigen and Psy, but I couldn't disagree more that these prisoners should have their names remain up, for a variety of reasons.
I appreciate it and I might agree in part, but it's not our choice and it's completely out of our hands. We can't fight the DMCA. IF you wish to try to reform that POS legislation, here's a start:
http://www.anti-dmca.org/ (http://www.anti-dmca.org/)
Also see EFF.org and chillingeffects
-
(if you really believe he's gone, which I don't)
Oh he's gone. He failed in his mission to incite legal action between CALO and Fornits.
-
I LOVE me some Antigen and Psy, but I couldn't disagree more that these prisoners should have their names remain up, for a variety of reasons.
I appreciate it and I might agree in part, but it's not our choice and it's completely out of our hands. We can't fight the DMCA. IF you wish to try to reform that POS legislation, here's a start:
http://www.anti-dmca.org/ (http://www.anti-dmca.org/)
Also see EFF.org and chillingeffects
There was a court "ruling" on this, then? It was not just a "lawyer letter" demanding something?
-
Google Cache, get your Google Cache here! Limited time only, no refunds, step right up, devil take the hindmost!
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:_aG ... =firefox-a (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:_aGF-MxvJ1IJ:fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
-
the treatment profiles are not there, but can be found if you do your own cache search.
-
There was a court "ruling" on this, then? It was not just a "lawyer letter" demanding something?
Read teh DMCA. It sucks. It creates a legal requirement for anybody receiving one of these notices to take down copyrighted material immediately with the only recourse of having the individual poster contest it. The Church of Scientology once used it to take down over 4000 Usenet postings, IIRC.
-
There was a court "ruling" on this, then? It was not just a "lawyer letter" demanding something?
Read teh DMCA. It sucks. It creates a legal requirement for anybody receiving one of these notices to take down copyrighted material immediately with the only recourse of having the individual poster contest it. The Church of Scientology once used it to take down over 4000 Usenet postings, IIRC.
How corrupt! So there was no "court ruling," just someone claiming copyright, and the law is that when that claim is staked, unless there is a "contention," or whatever, it must be removed?
-
How corrupt! So there was no "court ruling," just someone claiming copyright, and the law is that when that claim is staked, unless there is a "contention," or whatever, it must be removed?
Yup. And there is nothing a service provider such as Fornits can do to interfere. The individual who made the post must contest it.
-
Frankly, I don't mind this at all. I didn't mind the names to much, but I was bothered a great deal by the treatment plans.
-
How corrupt! So there was no "court ruling," just someone claiming copyright, and the law is that when that claim is staked, unless there is a "contention," or whatever, it must be removed?
Yup. And there is nothing a service provider such as Fornits can do to interfere. The individual who made the post must contest it.
Or a different individual with the list of names, a valid counterclaim, a good lawyer, and a nutsack like a titan's.
-
So what, does he own the kids' names individually? Does he own them as a group? Does he reserve the sole and exclusive right to post any of the kids' names at all? Including them? Are the kids going to need to pay Ken Huey royalties to use their own names once they get out of there?
Well I'm going to post a completely random string of letters and numbers, copyright me, free for distribution. Because this is apparently all anyone owns these days. Here, watch me pound the fucking keyboard.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==
Is that really how information law works?
-
How corrupt! So there was no "court ruling," just someone claiming copyright, and the law is that when that claim is staked, unless there is a "contention," or whatever, it must be removed?
Yup. And there is nothing a service provider such as Fornits can do to interfere. The individual who made the post must contest it.
Or a different individual with the list of names, a valid counterclaim, a good lawyer, and a nutsack like a titan's.
Correct. If somebody else posted the same names and was willing (unlike "Well Proxied") to fight it (potentially in court, which is what you risk with a counterclaim.. basically stating "this is kosher to post and I'm willing to defend it in court if necessary)... Well that's something that they could fight. The question is whether it's really worth it. Is it really worth a list of Kids names who may very well not want to be on that list. Again, you're stepping in and making a decision for them, just like their parents did, and your saying "well... maybe the'll get hurt but the'll thank us in the long run... it's for the greater good.. it's for their own damn good!". What does that sound like?
You really think a list of names is harmless? How many of you. How many, come out and say "I was in a program" publicly with your full name? How many do it? How many are willing to have to explain it each and every time somebody asks... to have to defend yourself constantly. That's not something that should be forced on anybody. What about the friends who don't know they were in a program. What about the girlfriend who googles a new boyfriends name and finds he was in some place for "teenage fuckups". Because 99/9% of the public at large believe that if you were in a program you must have done something to be put there. THe idea of due process doesn't even cross their minds. Your're charged, found guilty, adn sentenced before you even have a chance to defend yourself. THAT is the price you pay for putting your name in public and it's not a decision that you should be making lightly over your own name, much less anhybody elses.
-
Because 99/9% of the public at large believe that if you were in a program you must have done something to be put there. THe idea of due process doesn't even cross their minds. Your're charged, found guilty, adn sentenced before you even have a chance to defend yourself. THAT is the price you pay for putting your name in public and it's not a decision that you should be making lightly over your own name, much less anhybody elses.
Do you really believe that? If so, then aren't you all kind of wasting your time around here? What good is educating the public as a strategy, if they dismiss what you say or even believe you deserved it.
If this statement is true, then the only thing that will stop the TTI is the govt. or maybe Obama if he knew about it.
-
Because 99/9% of the public at large believe that if you were in a program you must have done something to be put there. THe idea of due process doesn't even cross their minds. Your're charged, found guilty, adn sentenced before you even have a chance to defend yourself. THAT is the price you pay for putting your name in public and it's not a decision that you should be making lightly over your own name, much less anhybody elses.
Do you really believe that? If so, then aren't you all kind of wasting your time around here? What good is educating the public as a strategy, if they dismiss what you say or even believe you deserved it.
If this statement is true, then the only thing that will stop the TTI is the govt. or maybe Obama if he knew about it.
If all a program or a person has to do is claim copyrite of a NAME, WORD or material and it will be removed, then pretty much all of what we type is not up for removal unless we want to take it to court. So, no more submitting your WWASP , or "treatment" plans. No more statements even regarding the name of your program. Pretty ridiculous
-
I was under the impression you had a nutsack Psy, correct me if I'm wrong but you know your rights, our rights to free speech and you've already been down this road. I thought you might have the same vigor, but it seems that your opinion about these names has muddled your resolve.
I'll say this, I understand your reasoning, and believe me if i were the OP I would have gone about this in a much different way, AND be willing to extract the names once confirmation came in that the kids were out, at the very least take the whole list down within a year. BUT regardless of HOW he did it I believe the OP was justified, and futhermore, the information was not attained illegally therefore a DMCA, or even a slander case would be null and void. The only way that things like the DMCA work is if people or service providers are in the habit of pussin out and giving in to legal bullying, too afraid to stand up for the rights of free speech.
What will this mean for the rest of the information we provide here on fornits? once WWASP gets wind of Ken Huey's ass rape of fornits? Will we have to take down that long list and information we have on them? will we be barred from even mentioning these schools? when does it stop?... if you give in to frivolous seize and desist orders that have no merit or case against your posters will we soon be barred from speaking out at all?...
I understand that you are more comfortable obeying this as if it were some sort of legal obligation but honestly you should have appealed that this order has no basis in this category, copyright law DOES NOT cover cases of inflammatory or "privledged" information that was obtained on a public medium and was not orginaly copyrighted, or created (granting tangible medium copyright). This information is not even copyrightable. This is an issue of consent, and it is not illegal to post the name of someone without their consent on the internet.
I really think if you were willing to defend your policies as tenaciously in this case as you do with others you would have put a bit more effort into seeing that Ken Huey didn't succeed at this.
-
I was under the impression you had a nutsack Psy, correct me if I'm wrong but you know your rights, our rights to free speech and you've already been down this road. I thought you might have the same vigor, but it seems that your opinion about these names has muddled your resolve.
I'll say this, I understand your reasoning, and believe me if i were the OP I would have gone about this in a much different way, AND be willing to extract the names once confirmation came in that the kids were out, at the very least take the whole list down within a year. BUT regardless of HOW he did it I believe the OP was justified, and futhermore, the information was not attained illegally therefore a DMCA, or even a slander case would be null and void. The only way that things like the DMCA work is if people or service providers are in the habit of pussin out and giving in to legal bullying, too afraid to stand up for the rights of free speech.
What will this mean for the rest of the information we provide here on fornits? once WWASP gets wind of Ken Huey's ass rape of fornits? Will we have to take down that long list and information we have on them? will we be barred from even mentioning these schools? when does it stop?... if you give in to frivolous seize and desist orders that have no merit or case against your posters will we soon be barred from speaking out at all?...
I understand that you are more comfortable obeying this as if it were some sort of legal obligation but honestly you should have appealed that this order has no basis in this category, copyright law DOES NOT cover cases of inflammatory or "privledged" information that was obtained on a public medium and was not orginaly copyrighted, or created (granting tangible medium copyright). This information is not even copyrightable. This is an issue of consent, and it is not illegal to post the name of someone without their consent on the internet.
I really think if you were willing to defend your policies as tenaciously in this case as you do with others you would have put a bit more effort into seeing that Ken Huey didn't succeed at this.
There is NO law ruling that after receiving a DMCA notice, a website HAS to remove contested material.
That a site LEGALLY has to have to remove ANY material after receiving this sort of letter, or ANY letter from a private person, is untruthful.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ ... er-content (http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content)
""if you allow your site's user to post content you can protect yourself from copyright infringement claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as you establish effective "notice-and-takedown" procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you it is infringing, and have no knowledge that the material is infringing.
"""YOU ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THESE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS , but doing so may help you avoid copyright infringement liability. The sections below address those provisions of section 512 that may apply to you and discuss what you need to do in order to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions. """
This etiquette site actually states specifically that just because they receive a notice that doesn't mean they remove material.
http://www.etiquettehell.com/content/eh ... vice.shtml (http://www.etiquettehell.com/content/eh_misc/misc/termsofservice.shtml)
" If you haven't bothered to register your works with the US Copyright Office, you have no legal case and a DMCA Notification is abusive.
In any case, we will not accept a clearly invalid or overly broad or ambiguous DMCA Notification. The DMCA is not a tool by which to bully or censor opinions on Etiquettehell.com, and those who abuse the process open themselves up to significant legal liabilities."
IF a site removes contested material it's to avoid being sued, not because of some law making DMCA notifications the equivalent of court orders. Something doesn't become "illegal" until a court rules it is
http://www.masslawblog.com/category/dmca/ (http://www.masslawblog.com/category/dmca/)
-
There are a whole bunch of IFs and BUTs there. Read my post explaining this:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27792&p=334748#p334748 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27792&p=334748#p334748)
-
I was under the impression you had a nutsack Psy, correct me if I'm wrong but you know your rights, our rights to free speech and you've already been down this road. I thought you might have the same vigor, but it seems that your opinion about these names has muddled your resolve.
I'll say this, I understand your reasoning, and believe me if i were the OP I would have gone about this in a much different way, AND be willing to extract the names once confirmation came in that the kids were out, at the very least take the whole list down within a year. BUT regardless of HOW he did it I believe the OP was justified, and futhermore, the information was not attained illegally therefore a DMCA, or even a slander case would be null and void. The only way that things like the DMCA work is if people or service providers are in the habit of pussin out and giving in to legal bullying, too afraid to stand up for the rights of free speech.
What will this mean for the rest of the information we provide here on fornits? once WWASP gets wind of Ken Huey's ass rape of fornits? Will we have to take down that long list and information we have on them? will we be barred from even mentioning these schools? when does it stop?... if you give in to frivolous seize and desist orders that have no merit or case against your posters will we soon be barred from speaking out at all?...
I understand that you are more comfortable obeying this as if it were some sort of legal obligation but honestly you should have appealed that this order has no basis in this category, copyright law DOES NOT cover cases of inflammatory or "privledged" information that was obtained on a public medium and was not orginaly copyrighted, or created (granting tangible medium copyright). This information is not even copyrightable. This is an issue of consent, and it is not illegal to post the name of someone without their consent on the internet.
I really think if you were willing to defend your policies as tenaciously in this case as you do with others you would have put a bit more effort into seeing that Ken Huey didn't succeed at this.
Ken Huey’s letter isn’t even meet the legal requirements of a DCMA notice, as far as I see.
http://www.trinitywebservices.com/copyr ... laint.html (http://www.trinitywebservices.com/copyright_complaint.html)
He doesn’t declare under penalty of perjury he in good faith believes that his copyright is being violated, and so forth.
1. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."
2. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I believe this rescues Ken Huey from liability for a fraudulent claim. I also notice that the Dan mcgrath counter claim was rejected because it was not in proper format….
-
Ken Huey’s letter isn’t even meet the legal requirements of a DCMA notice, as far as I see.
http://www.trinitywebservices.com/copyr ... laint.html (http://www.trinitywebservices.com/copyright_complaint.html)
He doesn’t declare under penalty of perjury he in good faith believes that his copyright is being violated, and so forth.
1. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."
2. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I believe this rescues Ken Huey from liability for a fraudulent claim. I also notice that the Dan mcgrath counter claim was rejected because it was not in proper format….
…and where have you seen this?
-
I also notice that the Dan mcgrath counter claim was rejected because it was not in proper format….
…and where have you seen this?
?
-
this is the counter notice was rejected for not being properly formatted. Read back in the thread:
The treatment profiles are your independent works of fiction. On this we are in full agreement and I am glad you have acknowledged that. I do not contest your copyright on those documents.
However, if you honestly want to walk into a US courtroom and claim that you own a legal copyright to a list of real children, I dare you, no, I beseech you to please come and try that and we can see how things turn out. You might be holding them, but I absolutely will not permit you to claim that you own them.
Again, this counterclaim is for the list of the names, not the three documents.
Why didn't you claim to own the staff as well?
Dan McGrath
South Africa
-
Maybe what Ken Huey wrote was good enough for them. Still, they did not have to take anything down, failing to do so would just remove their statutory exemption for culpability in copyright infringement.
Whether or not they would be culpable would be settled in civil arbitration. ISPs have refused to comply with these demands in the name of “free speech” and won.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070913niles/ (http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070913niles/)
Diebold sent dozens of cease-and-desist letters to ISPs hosting leaked internal documents revealing flaws in Diebold's e-voting machines. The company claimed copyright violations and used the DMCA to demand that the documents be taken down. One ISP, OPG, refused to remove them in the name of free speech, and thus became the first ISP to test whether it would be held liable for the actions of its users in such a situation." [/quote]
[quote="us district court in CA"] Decision: Diebold sought to use the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions—which were designed to protect ISPs, not copyright holders—as a sword to suppress publication of embarrassing content rather than as a shield to protect its intellectual property.
-
Maybe what Ken Huey wrote was good enough for them. Still, they did not have to take anything down, failing to do so would just remove their statutory exemption for culpability in copyright infringement.
Whether or not they would be culpable would be settled in civil arbitration. ISPs have refused to comply with these demands in the name of “free speech” and won.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070913niles/ (http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070913niles/)
Diebold sent dozens of cease-and-desist letters to ISPs hosting leaked internal documents revealing flaws in Diebold's e-voting machines. The company claimed copyright violations and used the DMCA to demand that the documents be taken down. One ISP, OPG, refused to remove them IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH, and thus became the first ISP to test whether it would be held liable for the actions of its users in such a situation."
Decision: Diebold sought to use the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions—which were designed to protect ISPs, not copyright holders—as a sword to suppress publication of embarrassing content rather than as a shield to protect its intellectual property.
-
flooding is for newfags
-
this is the counter notice was rejected for not being properly formatted. Read back in the thread:
The treatment profiles are your independent works of fiction. On this we are in full agreement and I am glad you have acknowledged that. I do not contest your copyright on those documents.
However, if you honestly want to walk into a US courtroom and claim that you own a legal copyright to a list of real children, I dare you, no, I beseech you to please come and try that and we can see how things turn out. You might be holding them, but I absolutely will not permit you to claim that you own them.
Again, this counterclaim is for the list of the names, not the three documents.
Why didn't you claim to own the staff as well?
Dan McGrath
South Africa
It was a fake name. Somebody trying to frame Dan McGrath. As I explained. If there was even some proof it was actually the original well proxied with real name, etc, we might have accepted the counterclaim.
This discussion is over.
-
This discussion is over.
eat a bowl of shit.
-
Ken Huey’s letter isn’t even meet the legal requirements of a DCMA notice, as far as I see.
http://www.trinitywebservices.com/copyr ... laint.html (http://www.trinitywebservices.com/copyright_complaint.html)
He doesn’t declare under penalty of perjury he in good faith believes that his copyright is being violated, and so forth.
1. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."
2. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I believe this rescues Ken Huey from liability for a fraudulent claim. I also notice that the Dan mcgrath counter claim was rejected because it was not in proper format….
…and where have you seen this?
That uploaded notice, reprinted below, was what Ken Huey used as his DMCA notice, I assume?
http://fornits.com/wwf/posting.php?mode ... 9&p=334535 (http://fornits.com/wwf/posting.php?mode=quote&f=9&p=334535)
“June 23, 2009
To Mr. Michael Crawford, Administrator of Fornits, and Ginger McNulty, creator of Fornits,
This letter is relative to postings about to the treatment and identity of CALO students. Certain threads on your site have the names of current and former CALO students and the treatment team summaries of three students. We have now confirmed that all of this information was obtained by infiltrating the email accounts of two CALO staff. Once in these accounts, Dan McGrath, posting as “well proxied”, stole these digital files and published their contents on your site.
This letter is a demand under the DMCA (Digital Media Copyright Act of 1998) that all postings containing the names of students and their treatment summaries be removed immediately. The names of students were contained in a shift note email that was copied and pasted with exact misspellings. CALO owns the copyright on all internal email. The treatment summaries were similarly stolen and CALO owns the copyright on those summaries.
This letter further demands that any future posts stolen digitally from CALO be removed upon notification of their existence by any source.
Sincerely,
Ken Huey, CEO
CALO
130 CALO Lane
Lake Ozark, MO 65049””
In order for a letter to be considered a DMCA notice, it must contain certain elements:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512)
[/b]To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must include substantially the following:
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, [/b]and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed..
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130 (http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130)In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information: that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)]. A statement by the owner that it accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner
http://www.blogherald.com/2007/06/04/ho ... ca-notice/ (http://www.blogherald.com/2007/06/04/how-to-write-an-effective-dmca-notice/)
is important to remember the six elements that the DMCA requires of any notice.
A proper DMCA notice should include the following statements that reads as follows:
“I have a good faith belief that the use of the material that appears on the service is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or by operation of law.”
“The information in this notice is accurate, and I am either the copyright owner or I am authorize to act on behalf of the copyright owner.” [/b]
Without those elements, a service provider is not expected to recognize this notice, and without a “good faith” statement, Ken Huey becomes less liable for his claims.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls= ... 22&spell=1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&ei=5rVESp_kJ8SHtgfX4PSfAQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=dmca+notice+%22no+statement+of+good+faith+belief%22&spell=1)
Appellant’s e-mails do not constitute notice under Section 512(c)(3) because there was no statement of good faith belief as required by subsection 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
-
I just feel like jumping in and saying that the full list of kids has been posted in this very thread, and it's been here for months.