Incidentally, this wasn't in the US, but the EU's version is based on the US version, so it is effectively the same thing. Some technicalities might be different, but by and large it appears to work the same way as the US version.

And it's still the fault of the US Congress, more than anybody.

Because such a registrar does not exist. All registrars, ISP's, search engines, and anybody who could possibly be remotely considered a distribution channel for potentially copyrighted material, must abide by the DMCA or risk losing their "safe harbor" status. If they lose safe harbor, they are legally responsible for any and all copyrighted material that is distributed using their services. In other words, if they don't comply with the DMCA, they're fucked.

The DMCA procedure is simple and clear: If you receive a DMCA take-down notice, you immediately cease distribution. In the case of a registrar, that means suspending the DNS hosting for that address. If they don't comply immediately, they're fucked. If they contact the infringing website first, they're fucked. The only option they have is to remove the service as soon as they receive the notice, then contact the website owners and notify them that the service has been suspended due to DMCA infringement. If the website owner replies that their use of the material is legal and they contest the claim, then the registrar (or anybody else) is free to resume the service as usual. At that point it is up to the copyright holder to sue the website owner, and the registrar (or anybody else) is in the clear until a judge tells them to stop service again.

That's how the law is written, and there is nothing GoDaddy, an ISP, Google, or anybody can do about it. It is disgusting, but you have your representatives in Congress to thank for the nasty piece of work that is the DMCA, not GoDaddy.

Point the blame where it belongs and quit letting Congress off the hook for this shit.

No registrar that wishes to remain legal will refuse a DMCA takedown notice. Ever.

They don't get that right under the law.

This is a problem with the DMCA, not GoDaddy (or any other registrar).

They can go after anyone in the chain, it doesn't have to be the content host.

For example, Google has to abide by DMCA notices regarding their searches.

Anybody in the communications pipeline that is capable of denying access to the material is a potential target for a DMCA notice. It's usually smarter to go after either the website itself, or the ISP of the website, but search engines and registrars are certainly not off limits.

And the DMCA leaves no option for a recipient of the DMCA notice. They must remove the material immediately or risk infringement themselves. It's only when the alleged infringing party contests the claim that the hosting service (or search engine or registrar or whoever) can put the content back up.

That's exactly what happened here - dumbass company sends a DMCA notice to GoDaddy, GoDaddy shuts down IMSLP, IMSLP contests the claim, GoDaddy is now in the clear to re-enable IMSLP's domain name, and they do so.

This is just how it works. It is an incredibly one-sided law, as the original poster has no right to contest before the content is removed, and there are zero ramifications for issuing a fraudulent DMCA notice. It's an obvious tool for shutting down stuff you don't like, even if you have no copyright to it.

That's how the DMCA works. Any entity that wishes to claim safe harbor must immediately remove the material in question. The DMCA notice goes to the party that is directly distributing the content, not the original infringing party, so there is no option to allow the infringing party to contest it before take-down.

It is only after the infringing party notifies the distributing party that they have a right to distribute the material that the distributor can once again put the material back up for distribution.

That is the procedure that was laid down by law, and yes it is disgusting.

I have no idea whether or not GoDaddy is ethical, but in this case it is not their fault at all. It is the DMCA that is unethical, and numerous court cases have established that in order for someone like GoDaddy to maintain a Safe Harbor status under the law, they must remove the alleged infringing content immediately, with no consideration as to weather or not the party issuing the takedown notice has a legal right to issue such a notice.

Personally, I would be fine with this part of the DMCA if it contained ramifications for filing fraudulent or frivolous DMCA take-down notices. As it is though, it is horribly one-sided.

P.S. Would it kill you to capitalize? Not doing so makes you look twelve, despite the fact that you otherwise write reasonably coherently and punctuate reasonably well.

I think it can be argued that way, and the DMCA doesn't leave any choice in the matter.

If it can be successfully argued that they should have complied and did not, then they will be held legally liable for breaking the DMCA. The absolute only way you get safe harbor in a DMCA dispute is if you comply immediately and blindly. Only when the infringing party denies the claim (either by claim of ownership or fair use, doesn't matter) can you put it back up.

Mod parent up.

Germany is a member of the Berne Convention (a founding member, even - the US came very late to that party), which is the basis for our current copyright laws.

While there might be slight differences, they are extremely similar, by necessity of complying with the treaty.

The InfoSec Directive of the EU (to which Germany complies) is very similar to the DMCA, but I'm not entirely sure about whether or not US DMCA take-down tactics are possible under the EU directive or Germany's version of the law.

As langelgjm said, German copyright is completely non-transferable (which is really, really nice, IMO), but there do exist exclusive licenses which are nearly as good as transferring copyright. It gives the licensee full control over the work. Since corporate ownership of copyright is not possible in this instance, they generally have agreements with their employees to grant exclusive licenses to the company. It works out about the same.

That's exactly what it says to me. Besides, they'd never get a decent google rating otherwise.

Gotta love loop-holes!

I agree as long as you weren't planning on doing anything anyway, and you don't have to pay for it in any way.

Otherwise don't waste your time.

It's long enough that it will take six seasons before it becomes a problem, though. Might even squeeze 8 seasons out of it, the books are pretty dense.

Still waiting for A Dance With Dragons.

Apparently you don't even need to see it to recognize how much it sucks.

I wish I'd known before I wasted my time and cash on it.

So it's geek cred to think a shitty movie is awesome just because it was based on a comic?

Nice.

I bet you enjoy Uwe Boll's movies too. (The difference between an Uwe Boll movie and The Watchmen is an Uwe Boll movie makes money)

Rorschach was about the only character I liked in that movie. The Comedian was alright, too.

Really, it works like this: Box-office sales - production cost = profit.

If profit is negative, it will be very difficult to make another just like it. So if you have a movie like Watchmen, which brought in around $100 million at the box-office yet cost almost $150 million to make and is now relying on DVD sales just to break even, a studio is not going to want to risk that kind of cash on something that will probably fail. They can make a handful of $30 million dollar films and reliably profit from them, so why risk it?

This is why Uwe Boll, despite making the worst movies on the planet, still gets studio backing for his films. They each cost $20-30 million and bring in a reliable $10-20 million in profit, every single time.

The Watchmen (and other such bombs, like Waterworld) did not even live up to Uwe Boll's level of success. What the hell kind of studio would be dumb enough to repeat that mistake?

Unfortunately, the ending in the movie didn't work either. Pretty much ruined it, in my opinion. And I didn't read the original, so this isn't some "it's not the original" disappointment here. The ending of the movie sucked all on its own.