Yes, the IRS is more than willingly to give you a refund after filing a tax return that shows that you paid more than you owed. It's pretty much codified in the tax code that they have to do that.
So tax refunds don't exist in your bizarro world? The IRS has never once given my tax refund to anyone but me.
It's simply fair use regardless of being news.
Now, before someone accuses me of siding with the Sunday Times, as I've said in another post this DMCA takedown is bullshit. But to say they can't use the DMCA is flat out wrong.
I'm not confused by anything. You've clearly never read either the DMCA or any of the relevant WIPO treaties that it implements.
And the DMCA has a whole section about eligibility for US copyright protection for works from other countries. In fact, it's the first, fucking section!
And to add you don't even have to take my word for it. Read the damn DMCA. It has an entire section about eligibility of protection under US laws for works in foreign countries:
The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) each require member countries to provide protection to certain works from other member countries or created by nationals of other member countries. That protection must be no less favorable than that accorded to domestic works.
Section 104 of the Copyright Act establishes the conditions of eligibility for protection under U.S. law for works from other countries. Section 102(b) of the DMCA amends section 104 of the Copyright Act and adds new definitions to section 101 of the Copyright Act in order to extend the protection of U.S. law to those works required to be protected under the WCT and the WPPT.
The only people misinformed are the ones who have never read the DMCA like yourself.
The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England.
And owned by a US corporation.
Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985 [legislation.gov.uk]. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
Yes, it does. As I said, any copyrights in one WIPO signatory, the UK, is valid in another WIPO signatory, the US. So, yes, it is valid for them to sue over a copyright in the US. That's the entire point of the WIPO treaties.
FYI, News Corp is a US corporation too.
Even if Rupert Murdoch was a Australian citizen that has no bearing anyway. Both of the corporations involved are incorporated in the US.
Also, the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory. Ergo, a British newspaper owned by an AUSTRALIAN has no claim under the DMCA. Or am I wrong about that as well?
You're extremely wrong.
1) No one is applying the DMCA outside of the US. Both companies are US-based.
2) Murdoch's citizenship doesn't matter at all.
3) Copyrights that are valid in one WIPO signatory country are valid in another. And both the US and UK are WIPO signatories.
Well, you'd be spot-on *IF* the US & UK still operated under Rule of Law instead of Rule of/by Men. In Rule of/by Men "Law" is whatever Men currently in power say it is and are themselves not bound by any such.
No one is operating outside of the rule of law. News Corp, a US corporation, is using a US statute, the DMCA, against another US corporation, First Look Media. Now, their claim is silly, but their use of the DMCA is not outside of what the law allows.
He can tell you whether the DMCA applies in other countries that have no relationship to the USA.
No one is applying the DMCA outside of the USA. Both of the companies involved in this, News Corp and First Look Media, are based in the US.
English law doesn't apply. Both News Corp and The Interceptor's parent company, First Look Media, are based in the US. Also, any valid copyright in one WIPO signatory country is valid in another WIPO signatory company.
Now, this doesn't make what News Corp is doing valid, but trying to act like they don't have any standing in the US to bring this case is silly.
First Look Media is a US 501(c)(3) corporation.