I know I posted it on Shecki's thread but I want to post it again because I keep seeing it repeated. Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true but it does give big corporations more oomph in areas where they legally shouldn't.
(
http://www.microenterprisejournal.co.../20030714.html)
"Among other things, the DMCA also very cleverly allows service providers such as web hosts, ISPs, search engines and the like, to avoid liability for infringements while encouraging them to cooperate with those intellectual property holders. Under this law, if a service provider is notified by a copyright holder of a possible infringement by one of the service provider's customers, then they can avoid liability by pulling the plug on that customer.
There have been plenty of complaints about this law among music fans and computer programmers, but very few people realize the way this law has given large, branded companies a club with which to beat up small businesses -- sometimes even when they have no right to do so.
More often than not, an online microbusiness that is presented with a cease and desist letter from the attorneys for some corporate giant will opt to comply rather than take on a protracted legal battle. In fact, more often than not, the small business owner will assume that the lawyers know what they are talking about and that the big company is within their rights.
But sometimes, corporate attorneys pick fights with the wrong people. Some small business owners get mad, and then they fight back.
One such microbusiness is Tabberone (
www.tabberone.com), an online retailer of handcrafted fabric products operated by Karen Dudnikov and ably assisted by her programmer spouse, Mike Meadors. Without benefit of legal counsel, Dudnikov and Meadors have tangled with corporate giants such as Disney, M&M, Mars, Warner Brothers and, most recently, Major League Baseball. What's pretty cool about all this is the fact that the proprietors of little Tabberone keep winning.
I bet you're wondering what all the fuss is about.
Basically, Dudnikov and Meadors have been taking these companies to court in order to win the right to sell what they make out of what they buy.
Karen Dudnikov purchases licensed fabrics bearing trademarks of all those companies, and uses them to make everything from aprons to eyeglass covers. She sells them from her web site and from eBay. After eBay closed a number of her auctions upon receipt of DMCA notices from the relevant trademark holders, Dudnikov and Meadors got fed up.
After learning just how expensive legal representation would be, they decided to represent themselves in court. Meadors started doing research online and put together a legal case that seems to be cowing corporate attorneys left and right.
Their basic argument is essentially the same legal case for selling used books or other reproductions of copyrighted items. "The law allows a lawfully acquired copy of a copyrighted item to be sold or given away -- because its your property," Meadors told me in a telephone interview.
They have been to court facing off against Disney, M&M and Mars. All three backed down within one month, with Disney's legal counsel going so far as to candidly admit to Meadors that they did not want to be the test case here. They have had out-of-court confrontations with Warner Brothers and Precious Moments, and neither of those companies were willing to cross the line they drew in the sand, either. "
From Tabberone's website:-
' "The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution."
Justice Stevens, delivering an opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L'ANZA RESEARCH INT'L, INC. (96-1470), 98 F.3d 1109, reversed. '
(from
http://tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html which also has a whole bunch of information on it about trademarks and copyrights and other good stuff)
Linear Mode
