Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
[this is reworked from an email to safe--which preceded the subpoena.
i zap safe's comments quoted from ars and rework the first half, but
leave the specifically AT&T - related stuff near the end so the style
is inconsistent.]
http://henry.ugl.lib.umich.edu/libhome/copyright/dmca.html
is a good general info site and
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/hr2281.pdf
has the actual entirety of the law -- in GODDAMN pdf format
if subpoenaed by the nut-cult and your material is yanked, you need to
invoke the counternotification procedure of the so-called "Digital
Millenium Copyright Act."
specifically, that enumerated in 17 USC section 512, the "Online
Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act."
first, the ISP itself is not indemnified against liability if they do
not have a designated agent as required by this section.
but first, note this specific liability section--it could be juicy
and eventually quite useful
"(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
"(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by
mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including
costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any
copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a
service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result
of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing
or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing,
or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to
it."
now specifically important is exactly what needs to go into your
counternotification. try to cite the statute as well, as 17 USC
section 512, and/or as the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability
Limitation Act" passed Oct. 1998.
this is what that section (g)(3) says:
"(3) CONTENTS OF COUNTER NOTIFICATION.--To be effective under this
subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication
provided to the service provider's designated agent that includes
substantially the following:
"(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
"(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which
access has been disabled and the location at which the material
appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
"(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a
good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a
result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed
or disabled.
"(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a
statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal
District Court for the judicial district in which the address is
located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United
States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be
found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the
person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an
agent of such person."
that would only apply if your account was already blocked--but you may
care to cite it anyway and respond in that format. or you may
not--the DMCA also includes provision for uncovering the name of an
alleged copyright infringer so it may be a can of worms not to open
*yet*.
if you expect the ISP to knuckle under but can still access your
account, keep this information on your normal computer in case you
lose access to email etc and back everything up and remove all
personally identifying information from the account immediately--also
understand that by invoking 17 USC section 512, subsection (h) they
can subpoena to identify an infringer, if you are pseudonymous
"(h)SUBPOENA TO IDENTIFY INFRINGER.--
"(1)REQUEST.--A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the
owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district
court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of
an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection."
NOTE: this *only* requires the clerk of the court--as the southern
district of new york has shown us, this may confuse the court and they
may be unable to locate it. in this case, the court *may* be
committing an administrative error that *might* be one of the very few
occasions in which you can sue a court. (IANAL and a real one should
comment on this.)
i would also request, since you're facing potential termination, that
the ISP adhere to the DMCA notification process, and note that if they
do not, they lose the indemnification against liability provided by
this law--demand only to communicate with their authorized agent as
required by 17 USC section 512, subsection (c)(2), on designated
agents.
"(2)DESIGNATED AGENT.--The limitations on liability established in
this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service
provider has designated an agent to receive notification of claimed
infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through
its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the
public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the
following information:
"(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of
the agent.
"(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may
deem appropriate.
"The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of
agents available to the public for inspection, including through the
Internet, in both electronic and hard copy formats, and may require
payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of
maintaining the directory."
in this case, AT&T *does* have a designated agent.
it is Edgar B. Stephenson.
Name of Agent Designated to Receive Notification of Claimed
Infringement: Edgar B. Stephenson
Full Address of Designated Agent to which Notification should be sent:
and they comply by having it available on their web page:
http://www.att.net/general-info/claims.html
---
so this subsection applies, to the notification of the cult,
17 USC section 512, subsection (c)(3)
"(A)To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed
infringement must be a written communication provided to the
designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the
following:
"(i)A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act
on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
"(ii)Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed,
or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered
by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that
site.
"(iii)Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing
or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed
or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably
sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
"(iv)Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider
to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone
number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the
complaining party may be contacted.
"(v)A statement that the complainant has a good faith belief that use
of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the
copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
"(vi)A statement that the information in the notification is accurate,
and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized
to act on behalf of the owner in an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
"(B)(i)Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner
or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner
that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph
(A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining
whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts
or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.
"(ii)In a case in which the notification that is provided to the
service provider's designated agent fails to comply substantially with
all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with
clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this
subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to
contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable
steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially
complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A)."
this is kind of a mouthful -- but it means if helena kobrin or ava
paquette sent email with no electronic or physical signature, the
registered agent can promptly demand such notification. if they
didn't comply with (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv), it can be safely ignored.
if you are not already corresponding with Edgar B. Stephenson, i'd
probably insist on it. then i'd also demand notification of what
specific infringements are alleged and a chance to explain it. and
then, if your account gets yanked, the counternotification procedure
detailed above--which if you don't do it *exactly* as laid out in the
law, doesn't work.
it appears AT&T is so far in compliance with these requirements, so
i'd start out without any bluster so much as an explanation. but it
might be best to ask if the ho note AT&T got was substantially in
compliance, and to request a copy.
rob
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
Subject: Notification/Counternotification/Subpoena Provisions of DMCA
From: Rob_Clark@justicemail.com (Rob Clark)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:40:39 GMT
"(f) MISREPRESENTATIONS.--Any person who knowingly materially
misrepresents under this section--
1800 Perimeter Park Drive,
Morrisville, NC 27560
Telephone Number of Designated Agent: (919) 319-8187
Facsimile Number of Designated Agent: (919) 319-8154
E-mail Address of Designated Agent: estephenson@ems.att.com
"(3)ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION.--
Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate:
XENU.NET
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.