The point I was making is that you are confusing the DMCA with the Copyright Act of 1976. If you had read (or understood) either, you would realize this.

“There is no prerequisite anywhere that one party “must be” a corporate entity.”

I never intended to imply that there was a prerequisite, simply that it is extremely likely to be the case. The DMCA by and large provides no redress for end users (except in defense of an action taken out against them). If your copyrighted song is being sold by iTunes’ (now defunct) DRM system and someone circumvented it, that would be their fight, not yours.

So the C in DMCA means “cucumber” and not “copyright.” Gotcha.

“If anyone out there is “claiming DMCA’s,” either an ISP or a software/recording/broadcasting/etc. company is going to be on one end of it.”

That’s absolutely false. Parties on either side of a DMCA-filed complaint can both can be companies, or both be individuals. There is no prerequisite anywhere that one party “must be” a corporate entity.

“…unless you created some sort of DRM…”

False again. DRM is an access control technology; you don’t “create” it at all. You use a corporate entity’s form (ex: Apple’s iTunes system) of DRM because there’s no way you can afford it. You don’t manufacture iPods.

Please, at least do a cursory reading of what access technologies are and how they pertain to copyright law before you go about (mis)informing the public.

In large part, you seem to be confusing the DMCA with “copyright.” If anyone out there is “claiming DMCA’s,” either an ISP or a software/recording/broadcasting/etc. company is going to be on one end of it. If someone else is using your copyrighted material, unless you created some sort of DRM which that person has circumvented to get to your content, the DMCA is of absolutely no use or concern to you. (However, copyright law probably is–check out the Copyright Act of 1976!)

Please, at least do a cursory reading of the law before you go about (mis)informing the public.

The DMCA actually has two major goals, the anti-circumvention provision you mentioned, and the one you actually ended up discussing–to alleviate ISPs and other intermediaries from a number of direct and indirect liabilities when users using their services committed copyright infringement, provided that they took certain precautionary measures. Thus, if YouTube suspects that you are infringing copyright, they may well “use DMCA” on you in that they will make remove the video, or provide information in the investigation of your infringement should it get that far (it never does). The same goes for a post-DMCA Napster-like entity; if they make the required effort to stop and/or report infringement, then they should not be liable for your breaking the law by up/downloading copyrighted material. (of course, if the service has no other recognizable purpose than to promote infringement, then…well, that is a different discussion)

The anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA make it illegal to bypass electronic content controls (DRM), without regard to whether your use of the material infringes copyright or now. That is, even if you have a fair use claim to use/copy material from a DVD, it is still illegal to circumvent the software protections keeping you from directly copying it. (Unless, that is, you qualify under the recent DVD exemption intended primarily for educational/artistic/documentary uses: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/)

It should also be noted that fair use covers a considerably wider spectrum than your examples, which both fall under journalistic purposes (factor 1.: the purpose and character of the work), and that fair use it is a defense, not a right. That is, if accused of copyright infringement, you could then argue that your use was fair based on relative weight of the factors supporting your use were stronger than those factors against your case. There are definitely better and worse cases for fair use, but speaking literally it is never correct to say that something “is” a fair use until it has been challenged and determined legally.

I hope this helps!

This time I had some luck since eBay picked on a fake login page I displayed after I had asked eBay on several occasions to get the page remove and from what I can understand they are upset about the eBay log at the top of the pages but it’s not like the site trying to compete against eBay and provides hundreds of links back to eBay.

The reason I present copies of pages is because eBay often remove pages where a dispute is involved so just how can anyone present case of wide scale fraud when it is becoming impossible to present evidence without have a gag order place on your host.

Yes I understand the reason for the DCMA but using it’s powers in this manor strikes at the heart of democracy and is allowing eBay to do as it pleases and in some cases it is not possible to remove the logo as some of the pages displayed on the site have been hijacked by script injection using hexadecimal code to overwrite the original page and therefore making it all but impossible to remove the eBay tm logo and no I don’t have a zillion$ to get involved with eBays lawyers but I do have freedom of speech so if that involves moving the site offshore then that is what I will do

Search Engines (SE) take a dim view of duplicate content and in some cases will ban both web sites that are complicant in removing the duplicate content.

No indexing by the SE’s no free traffic, something to think about, I suggest you get a full copy and keep it handy incase you find some of your valuable content has been duplicated.

MHO…