DUP (close me off) Diebold now asserts copyright on a LINK

[BevHarris]

Diebold has just sent a new cease & desist letter demanding that we remove links, asserting that the link is a copyright violation.

DemActivist is working on posting a copy of that letter for your reading pleasure.

[Girlfriday]

1. Oh this is too good

Bev.....:yourock:

[RedSox02]

2. Hey Bev

Caught your interview on Salon.com today. Very interesting.

[cprise]

3. Definately submit this to Slashdot

http://slashdot.org

They are the most influential tech activist blog, and are becoming very keein on the computer voting issue. In fact they've already picked up on Bev's Salon interview:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/23/1235245.shtml?tid=103&tid=99

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Sure funny how a company that claims they have nothing to hide...

....is going out of their way to hide it.

[punpirate]

5. Uh...

... Ummm, refer them to Article 9, Universal Justice Code 3: "Eat shit and die."

Cheers.

[duh_org]

6. Prior precedent was established...

...in the vs. Electronic Frontier Foundation cases, which finally ended with EFF barred by court order from linking to web sites publishing the DeCSS program. See:

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/

EFF's workaround was to show the link in plaintext, without using a direct A-HREF hypertext link. This practice was not disallowed by the court at the time.

However, also note the second of the two links (for DVDCCA). This case is in the hands of the CA Supreme Court. The current state is that the injunction against linking to DeCSS was overturned by the CA Appellate Court, and the DVDCCA wants the injunction reinstated. There was a hearing scheduled for May 29, 2003, and there is no new news on the subject yet.

BTW, the perspective taken by MPAA and DVDCCA was not that the hyperlink itself was copyrighted, but that the hyperlink facilitated others to obtain copyrighted material allegedly obtained through illegal means. This seems, to me, in line with what Diebold is attempting to assert.

This all sucks, to be sure, but this post is to let you know that there have been some cases involved in this legal gray area.

(Edit: typo, and add last two paragraphs for clarification.)

[papau]

7. This is the case that was against M$FT for link to Intuit? - how did that

finally end up?

I know the link was removed - but was there a legal ruling?

Just saw the post re EFF

Thanks

[donsu]

8. kick

nt

[Skinner]

9. This is a duplicate.

Original is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=389773