[TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780

[replying only to list] At 2023-03-15T20:36:06-0400, Rich Salz wrote: Speaking here as an observer of many DMCA fights over the past ~25 years, having become politically animated by it at the time of the law's passage, but not as a person qualified to give legal advice (because I'm not a lawyer)... I would counsel against this sort of pessimism. Sites survive DMCA takedown notices all the time. (Part of) the point of the takedown notices prescribed by the DMCA is that if you comply with one, your liability ends there. Your whole site doesn't have to die, just the infringing material. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/i-got-a-dmca-notice-now-what Secondly, in a situation of obvious historical and educational interest[1], arguably low commercial impact, and almost certainly no meaningful trade secret implications[2], it's an issue worth pursuing--if not on the TUHS site, then perhaps one set up for this express purpose. Thirdly, a DMCA takedown notice has specifically identify the allegedly infringed work and the copyright holder. For cases where the chain of title is unclear or complicated by a multi-party revision history, this may not so easily be asserted with confidence to a standard that would satisfy the DMCA law. How much money did IBM and SCOX(E) spend on this very issue, with it _still_ remaining unresolved? My guess is "more than a rights holder could possibly hope to recover in damages even in a lunatic fringe fantasty". Fourthly, a DMCA takedown notice can be challenged with a counter-notice. If the takedown notice is defective, serving counter-notice often (usually?) disposes of the issue for practical purposes.[3] The Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken on cases like this, and won. Doubtless many defective or even fraudulent takedown notices have been successful because the recipient lacked the courage to respond, demanding clarification as they are entitled to under the law. Protecting ordinary Internet users and business from investigation, seizure, and litigation by overbearing private firms and the government agencies to which they've outsource enforcement is EFF's literal origin story.[5] They also happen to have attorneys-at-law, and _can_ dispense legal advice. Regards, Branden [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp. [2] I trust we all recall the amusement of reading the source to the System V "true" and "false" shell scripts on many thousands of machines accessible to college undergraduates, which were proclaimed as highly sensitive "UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T" or similar verbiage. [3] It may be impossible to know any real data here. Like the use of deadly force by U.S. police agencies[4], there is no reporting requirement for issuance of DMCA takedown notices, and almost certainly no interest among institutional copyright holders and their trade cartels (the MPAA, the RIAA, etc.) to report reception of counter-notices and the success rate of counter-notices at voiding the takedown notice. (You can be sure we'd hear all about it if the success rate were extremely low.) [4] https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/us/police-use-of-force-legislation/index.html [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Se…