You've linked to an individual Cry Havoc post.
To see more entries and current content, click
here.
category: general
posted 5/9/2007 11:03:07 PM
Hot Air and Michelle Malkin Receive Crap DMCA C&D, The Fun Starts Now
Seems I have seen a lot of these wierded-out DMCA complaints to keep conservative media and commentary off of the air and, as much as they asre able, off the net.
Hot Air seems to have been a target of similarly vacuous charges of copyright infringement, keeping on of Michelle Malkin's criticisms of rapper Akon and his filmed assault of an underage teenager at a concert. Universal Music Group filed a DMCA cease and desist; ScrewTube yanks the video.
But there is a little more in store for Universal than they bargained for.
More after the jump.
After only a cursory review of the wrightup at Michelle Malkin's site (link above), the charges will be clearly thrown out. But more to the point, Michelle and Bryan Preston (Michelle's producer, if you're not aware) have written a counterclaim: and those that file false copyright claims don't just say "aw, nuts" and go on their way after being thwarted. As evidence of this, I give you the story of one Michael Crook, of "Forsake the Troops" fame.
Michael, in September 2006, according to the account at 10 Zen Monkeys (the target of his complaint), he claimed DMCA rights in order to get 10ZM to pull an image of Crook, a screencap of Crook during a Fox News interview, off of their site. I won't go into a complete history of the goings-on afterwards, but suffice it to say that he then engaged in a stunning flurry of DMCA complaints against many other sites -some of them quite large and well-endowed with legal defense funds- even sites that simply /reported/ on the Crook affair.
In the end, he was the target of quite a few counterclaims and then found himself on quite on the defensive, as there was a safety in the DMCA, as 10 Zen Monkeys reports:
But deep within the DMCA law is a counter-provision 512(f), which states that misrepresenting yourself as a copyright owner has consequences. Any damage caused by harmful misrepresentation must be reimbursed. In 2004 the Electronic Frontier Foundation won a six-figure award from Diebold Election Systems, who had claimed a copyright on embarrassing internal memos which were published online. So not only was Jeff Diehl legally free to publish Crooks picture; Crook was in violation of the law for pretending he owned a copyright.
Unfortunately, Crook proved legally indigent, so monetary awards weren't going to be forthcoming and so a settlement was reached. Basically, he got spanked in every way that didn't actually involve inprisonment or monetary damages. He had to sign all sorts of apologies, agree to quite a few conditions regarding filing claims in the future, and lastly record a court-ordered apology film that I find rather funny (please go to the 10ZM site and read it, and watch the video) as well as sad, because he displayed Paris Hilton levels of true atonement and sincerity. You know that he'd be back up to his tricks as soon as his five years of restriction are up.
Anyhow, back to the current case. Universal picked the wrong group, the wrong time, and certainly the wrong case to press a DMCA cease and desist... and they certainly have deep pockets.
Can someone say Settlement? Hey Bryan P... start pricing out that new Sony HD Cam you had your eye on.
link to post
trackback link
