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""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" 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/
