So their choices are:
1) Invade your privacy, directly access your private source code and databases, and deduce how to remove the content, potentially destroying your data in the process over what might be a false claim... all of which is completely non-scalable to the millions of customers they have.
2) Edit their web server configuration to not serve that URL, and reboot the service, hundreds of times a day while this server is handling requests for thousands of websites.
3) Click the suspend site button and your site goes back online as fast as you can remove the infringing work, or file a counter-notice.
The GoDaddy "Deluxe 4GH" plan costs $6/month and could easily hold 14 web sites, and one feature they offer at this stage is "Multiple Web Sites: Unlimited".
At first it sounded like GoDaddy had simply rerouted all of her domain names to null addresses, when they could have just rerouted one of them. But no, they were providing the hosting service. If she put fourteen businesses on one account to amortise the cost among them, then she is responsible for linking them together, not GoDaddy. Presumably GoDaddy would have just shut down one hosting account -- the one that held the infringing content -- but the problem is that she only had the one hosting account.
This is why I try to keep abstraction layers. The people I research with don't hang out with my Ultimate (as in frisbee) friends or my web development colleagues; the Ultimate folks are the only ones I'm letting friend me on Facebook, and I make it a point not to preach my religion to any of the above.
Spolsky is correct that all abstraction layers are leaky, and these are too -- my professor has met my father for example, and the folks at work know that I say something quietly before lunch every day -- but there is a great value in compartmentalising. Robert Frost's neighbour confidently asserts, "good fences make good neighbours" -- I guess it's more that good neighbours respect the fences and use them to lower your own mental stress and drama.
Candice could have used a good fence between her charity and her infringing account.
And I applaud you for that.
If the person genuinely cared about their charitable work their first email would have said. "What do I need to do to get my sites up ASAP."
Their anger should have been directed at GoDaddy. If I had received the emails you had I would have responded after 12-24 hours with. "I do not respond to slanderous, false or abusive emails. If you would like to discuss this issue please reword your email"
So there are people in this world that do not live up to your standards and react with self-righteousness (btw. <sarcasm>shocking</sarcasm>) and you suggest the right way to respond to it.
Isn't that self-righteous on its own?
It takes very little to set them off -- something as simple as a declined credit card for an advertising purchase has led to multiple accusations of "denying my child food in violation of federal child protection laws". One guy CC'd every e-mail to every United States senator and the FBI.
I just send a polite reply and try to ignore the follow-ups... communicating after there's nothing more to say on the real issue just spurs them on.
It's awesome how the internet shortens the distance between you and crazy – reach out and touch someone, indeed.
Is this the link to the book mentioned? http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
(I just googled to check the length and found this heartbreaking message on one of those cheesy Q&A sites: My grandmother has a senior picture of my mom from 1969 and I wanted a copy of it. Is the copyright for that picture up? If not is there a way for me to get a copy of it?)
And that is the book, though note it's a slightly out of date version. The final version is here:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...
It's not a great work by any means, but it's a good overview of the craziness of copyrights and patents when viewed from the perpective of economics.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyr...
I can understand that someone might react against seeing their work all over the Internet used for free, and use the DMCA to prevent that. I can also understand a generous reaction, and feeling flatter instead.
While I don't agree with Ms. Borderline, I do think that if I am going to react handing take down notices, providing a way to buy the image up front it is a fair preventive measure.
After all, the internet is like a world wide getto street, and it would be naive to leave my precious jacket out night after night and be surpriced that someone finally run away with it. Attaching a price sign to it at least, and some people might respect it, while others will actually consider buying it as initial offer as oppose to a legal threat.
It doesn't work that way.
Just like you don't need to put a sign on your door saying "The belongings in this house belong to me. If you want to buy them call me on 5555-1234".
The _default_ is that if you dont own a photograph(/song/story/program/movie), then somebody else does - and unless they've explicitly permitted you some rights to use it, you have _no_ right to use it. (with some very specific "fair use" exceptions, which are far less well understood by just about everybody than they should be. If you're ever tempted to claim "fair use", make sure you know what it means first…)
I agree that in default should works the way you say, but that is theory, in practice it is not what actually happens a the OP found out. And we need to acknowledge the reality that people does not behave as theory, law, or whatever other abstract term expects (the law is so abstract that it needs a punishment machinery to be respected, it is not natural at all, and while some people will surrender their free will to goverment compliance, others will not, not even under the threat of heavy legal pain). Not realising this fact of life is naive.
You can go around beating people over their head for their wrong doings (natural or artificial), and if that makes you feel better about yourself or your position then take your measuring stick and go on your merry way.
I, on the other camp, rather attempt to figure out how people actually works, and make decisions accordingly.
Try to understand how things work vs. Do a I say or I'll beat you up. I guess that is one of the differences between tinkers and lawyers.
One book that explain tis concept better than me would be Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler.
I hope he doesn't actually file suit against her. Partly because she's so obviously nuts that I'd feel a little bad. And partly because it's a bad idea to get involved in a court case with a crazy person. You may win in the end, but your lawyer can rack up some big bills keeping up with a manic loon.
I think GoDaddy is to blame in this. Taking multiple sites down for one DMCA take down request. And the blogger too seems too happy about taking sites down as he does. He should work harder (at least for GoDaddy sites) to contact the sites directly and get a license fee.
Diplomacy before nuclear war.
I agree that GoDaddy is the problem here. When people pick hosting companies, they should think a little about how well they'll be treated when something goes wrong. Because something always goes wrong eventually.
Having worked service jobs in the past, I know that the population of the area where I worked was at least 70% lawyers, judging by the number of people who'd threaten to sue me/the business/the owners/unrelated parties when they didn't get what they wanted.
I've found the bit claiming she's the President of an organization called 'Attorneys for Special Needs Children' and in her G+ page she says 'I studied in South Texas College of Law' but she isn't claiming she's finished the studies or that she has got any title, certification, or the bar card.
> a partially disabled atty
and weakly here:
> You cost me thousands in billable time
But then directly here: (http://chicksandpolitics.com/nauseatingsagagarciaboohoo/)
> Attorney & CEO of Schwager Consulting & Marketing;
Also here:
(http://www.whenigrowupi.com/)
> though I still practice law via the Schwager Law Firm. My law practice thrives
Claims several times to be the grand-daughter of Henrik Ibsen. I have no reason to disbelieve this. But it's mildly interesting.
(http://houstonattorneysocialmedia.com/)
If I was going to go all Internet detective I'd ask the Mormons[1] for genealogy advice. And then I'd carefully check each of these logos:
(http://houstonattorneysocialmedia.com/logo-design-is-the-fou...)
I don't particularly want to pile on (perhaps a bit late) but, while I know nothing about design, I can say that I dislike those logo examples. I also dislike the copy-writing. (Removing the many errors wouldn't help.)
[1] For anyone who isn't aware, the church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (or whatever they're called) have extensive genealogical databases. They're friendly and welcoming to people who'd like to research family trees. At least, when my pa did that in London they made no attempt to convert me and provided him with help using their systems and computers.
http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawye...
What happens if I forget about the issue and never tell GoDaddy the matter is resolved? Is the site permanently down?
It does seem rather heavy for Godaddy to disable the entire site, instead of just the infringing content.
That's _exactly_ the misunderstanding that gets so many people in trouble.
Whether you like it or not, there _are_ "rules", they're called "copyright". They say that attribution or not, the creator of a photograph has exclusive rights to say what can and can't be done with their work. Nothing about whether you're nice or not, nothing about whether you attribute them or not. If they haven't said you can use it - you _can't_ use it (Yeah yeah, except in some very edge-case calle "fair use", but reproducing an entire photo on your website is _never_ "fair use" - if you are ever tempted to claim fair use, make sure you know exactly what it means first…)
TL;DR, Crazy woman is crazy and wrong. Photographer guy is using the tools society provides to assert rights society says he has. Wishing the laws were different does nothing to change them. Behaving as if the laws are the way you wish them to be has a good chance of making you very unhappy.
Actually, I use the WTFPL[1] for a lot of code I produce, so yes, you could do that, though it wouldn't be nice to do that.
My opinion is that copyright should not exist. While I can't demand copies from anyone, I don't think anyone has a right to stop me from sharing anything that I have access to, either. Putting things on the internet counts as giving me access. I simply reject the notion that people should be able to control the distribution of digital data. It's both illogical to assert ownership of something abstract and harmful to society at large.
On the other hand, I think people should be credited for their work (if they want). But that's a social issue and not one that can be solved by laws. Look at the scientific community: plagiarism is highly frowned upon and proper attribution is required. And that's mostly by social pressure, not by laws.
So in short, my believe is "Give credit where credit is due, but don't try to tell others what they can or can't do.".
When you take a photo and put it one your web site, this doesn't mean that anyone can grab it and use it.
The problem here is that people think that they can do what they want on the web and if you just send them a mail they will do nothing. DMCA is globally a bad thing but but its at this time the only way to make people respect copyright. It should go away but for a better law.
You can transpose this to software easily. If you put some of your code on your blog, you expect people to respect the law and so your copyright. If your code is under GPL for example, you don't want other peoples to take it and include it in their commercial product without respecting the GPL.
Look at all the work done by GPL violation and how its hard to make people correct their behavior when your are a now know organization. This men is alone trying to protect its right and the only thing that he can do which is effective is to fill a DMCA.
And remember that the copyright law is what make GPL possible...
It's funny you say that, because RMS has cited the creation of a post-scarcity society has one of the explicit goals of free software. In such a society, copyright would not exist, because everything would be free (as in both speech and beer). The GPL is but a means to an end, not an end unto itself, and it just so happens to use the current system of copyright to progress towards that end.
So yes, without copyright, there would be no GPL. But without copyright, we would not have most of the problems the GPL is trying to solve.
Essentially, don't be a dick and lift someones picture because it's on the internet.
But taking something, making money of it and not even attributing where it's from? That's just the lowest of lows.
And she had a simple remedy if he made a false claim; she could have filed a counter notice.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading, great story.
Ah, didn't catch that.
But just 'cause you could-but-haven't done that, doesn;t mean you can use his without his permission.
(* although they might be able to make some claim you've copied his composition if their photograph has some remarkable enough artistic input beyond "just a picture of a city")
