Comment Fight for what's right (Score 1) 1095
The portions of the commments that contain obvious copyright violations should be removed. They are not covered by free speech, nor by a "someone else did it - we don't own the comments" defense. Whether /. put them up or not, /. is continuing to display copyrighted material against the wishes of the owner of the copyrighted material and that is illegal and /. isn't above the law, nor should it be.
Remember that the original Kerberos spec isn't copyrighted by Microsoft so those portions can remain. Also, paraphrased Microsoft copyrighted material is not copyrighted so people can still mention (in their own words) what Microsoft is doing.
The rest of the comments should remain accessable. These include articles containing portions of the copyrighted work that is protected under fair use. The only way those portions should be removed is by court order, not the mere allegations of Microsoft.
Regardless of whether it is illegal for the commenters to post any portion of the work in question, /. didn't agree to the terms of the EULA, and so are not subject to it. (The terms of the EULA and the way Microsoft distributed it could be basis for invalidating part or all of the EULA - freely available trade secrets my hiney).
The link portion of the DMCA is worthy of a fight as a case could be made for free speech infringement. If this is an issue that /. cares about (and I think they should), then leave that comment available and force judicial review of the law if Microsoft so desires.
Also protected under free speech are comments containing information on how to circumvent the EULA. Providing code to do so might be illegal but discussing the action in general (even telling people how to do it) is protected. People probably shouldn't mention this EULA in particular though. Talk about circumventing any EULA - that speech is easier to protect. In any case, those comments are not subject to copyright laws at all.
As an aside, the legal liability of the copyright violation is probably small. If the copyright wasn't registered (which Microsoft may be scarambling to do) then statutory damages and attorney fees cannot be awarded for any violations before the date of registration. The only damages Microsoft could sue for would be actual damages and since they freely gave the copyrighted material away what damages would they have?
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
Remember that the original Kerberos spec isn't copyrighted by Microsoft so those portions can remain. Also, paraphrased Microsoft copyrighted material is not copyrighted so people can still mention (in their own words) what Microsoft is doing.
The rest of the comments should remain accessable. These include articles containing portions of the copyrighted work that is protected under fair use. The only way those portions should be removed is by court order, not the mere allegations of Microsoft.
Regardless of whether it is illegal for the commenters to post any portion of the work in question,
The link portion of the DMCA is worthy of a fight as a case could be made for free speech infringement. If this is an issue that
Also protected under free speech are comments containing information on how to circumvent the EULA. Providing code to do so might be illegal but discussing the action in general (even telling people how to do it) is protected. People probably shouldn't mention this EULA in particular though. Talk about circumventing any EULA - that speech is easier to protect. In any case, those comments are not subject to copyright laws at all.
As an aside, the legal liability of the copyright violation is probably small. If the copyright wasn't registered (which Microsoft may be scarambling to do) then statutory damages and attorney fees cannot be awarded for any violations before the date of registration. The only damages Microsoft could sue for would be actual damages and since they freely gave the copyrighted material away what damages would they have?
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
