Re: DMCA 1998

Torsten Bettinger <tnb[_at_]intellecprop.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> I have a question concerning sec. 512 subsection (d) of the proposal
> of Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Subsection (d) ....
> (3) responds expeditiously to remove or disable the reference or link
> upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection
> (c)(3):

Although not exactly on point, as a crim def atty and IP atty, I have a problem with the word "claimed" contained in the above. Typically, one of the most effective ways to shut someone down is tell their sysop or internet provider that "x" is infringing on "y's" trade or service mark, and based on that allegation, the sysop pulls the site. Courts of law are for settling disputes of fact regarding trademark infringement. I think "notification of claimed" should read "receipt of court order for injunctive relief or court ruling of"

Make the mark holder spend some bucks and profer testimony and evidence under oath beyond writing a threatening letter to sysops the world over. Not requiring this first, forces the (typically) small business owner or non-comercial user to have to go to fed court and spend a lot of money just to be presumend innocent. And this process does little to encourage nice relations between web sites users and their sysops.

Rose Jade
Newport, OR
<sjade[_at_]orednet.org> Received on Thu Jul 02 1998 - 04:29:20 GMT