8

A question I've answered was deleted due to DMCA notice. From my original post on meta I've figured out TestDome claims the question infringes their copyright.

TestDome should've provided some context on how the question infringes their copyright, but to my understanding they did not do that in the DMCA notice. If we look at the question, which is to my understanding the subject of the DMCA infringement, we can observe a couple of things:

  • It is a variation of the interval scheduling problem
  • It is asked in bad grammar (which I would assume was not copy pasted from a site specializing in coding tests)
  • Most of the code does not follow coding conventions for the used language (so I would again assume it was not copy pasted from a site specializing in coding tests)

According to 17 U.S. Code § 102 software code falls in the category of literary works. It also states that "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

On top of that, the U.S. Copyright Act states that "In addition to being independently created by the author, to qualify for copyright protection a work must also exhibit a minimum of originality.". This is not the case with the question at hand, since it is a rephrasing of the interval scheduling problem, which is public knowledge. As an example, a similar question can still be found on SO.

The book that the question above references was published in 2008 (you can find the referenced problem on page 9), while TestDome was founded in 2013, making even this particular variant of the interval scheduling problem (attending the maximum number of movies given a start and an end date) publicly available years before the company was even founded.

My questions are:

  1. Was the question rightfully deleted from SO?
  2. If yes, what exactly is the infringement?
  3. If I will claim ownership of the line of code List<User> users = new LinkedList<> and send a DMCA notice to SO, will SO remove all content containing the given line?
21
  • 1
    Your quote of 17 U.S. Code § 102 doesn't seem relevant in the context of this question. That means that although a description of an idea/procedure/etc may be copyrighted, doesn't mean that protection extends to the idea or procedure itself. The DMCA notice in this case seems to be about the code itself. And in any case, although originality may come into play whether something infringes on copyright or not, that is ultimately up to a judge to decide. You cannot decide for yourself "this doesn't look original to me, so copyright does not apply".
    – Mark Rotteveel
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 10:21
  • 1
    @cecil: That question is asking why the question was deleted. This one expands on the reason itself. It would not be sustainable to rewrite their original question and expect the answers to be updated accordingly.
    – BoltClock
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 10:39
  • 1
    @MarkRotteveel Which part from the deleted question are you claiming that looks like copyrightable content?
    – user10367961
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:22
  • @MarkRotteveel IMO, it is self explanatory why adding some entities to an List is not original content. What do you think?
    – user10367961
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:23
  • 5
    I'm not sure why are you so attached to said Q&A pair. Just ask a new question and answer it with your answer.
    – Braiam
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:49
  • 1
    @Braiam I'm not attached to the Q&A pair in any way. Part of my issue is with lost rep points, which I won't regain by reverse engineering the question and re-posting it.
    – user10367961
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:53
  • Who says that? I've reposted deleted post where I didn't write anything and got upvotes for them unix.stackexchange.com/q/84676/41104
    – Braiam
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:55
  • There is no guarantee you would get those up-votes.
    – user10367961
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:57
  • 1
    @MarkRotteveel In a way I agree with you, it's way simper to delete my content and don't challenge the DMCA notice. No amount of reason is going to change that.
    – user10367961
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 12:28
  • 2
    Well, yeah, of course it is; that's literally how the DMCA is designed. Content hosters, if they don't want to be potentially held liable, have all the incentive to take down content, even from a frivolous notice. Yes, the deck is stacked. Yay, law?
    – fbueckert
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 14:49
  • 1
    You're missing the point. This is what the DMCA says to do. Not doing so carries the potential risk of millions of dollars. Chances of it happening are small, sure. But it's still something you'd have to defend, in court, if the filer believes they're in the right. That costs a lot of money, even if you win. From a risk to reward perspective, there's no downside to just complying. What, exactly, is worth that level of risk?
    – fbueckert
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 16:17
  • 2
    Only if there wasn't a good faith basis for the filing in the first place. Even there, though, you're still shouldering the up-front cost, the lost time (which you'll never get back), the stress, the potential to lose your entire business. You're going to tell me that's worth it? Yes, the DMCA is unfairly weighted towards copyright holders. Yes, it sucks. But none of that changes that the law is the law, and the most pragmatic thing to do is avail yourself of the safe harbour law, and take it down. You have no basis to say that SE is wrong to do so.
    – fbueckert
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 16:24
  • 4
    If you don't like it, change the law. Updating the DMCA to give teeth to the bad faith takedowns, all by itself, would do much to curb the abuse of the system. I, for one, would wholeheartedly support that. But railing at SE to take on that level of risk, for a random question posted by a random person? That's pretty unreasonable. It's just not worth it.
    – fbueckert
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 16:30
  • 2
    The TestDome people are so sure sites like SO won't challenge their frivolous DMCA claims that they actually built a business around it. If you look here testdome.com/pricing you will see this "Premium questions are our unique, hand-crafted questions. We offer a refund if you find any of them answered online.". The thing is, those questions are not original in any way, at least in this case. But that would matter if you would actually stand up and challenge those DMCA claims.
    – user10367961
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 16:43
  • 3
    It's not SE's job to challenge their business model. At least, not for a couple questions; it'd be different if TestDome claimed everything on SO was theirs. But, again, standing on principal is great, when it's only you paying the price. When you have employees or a family that count on you, it's a lot harder to say that's the right decision. Because getting it wrong means you can't support them anymore.
    – fbueckert
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 16:58

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
12

Was the question rightfully deleted from SO?

As far as I know, yes. Stack Exchange doesn't have the option to contest a DMCA notice without becoming party to the dispute (and thus, liable for damages). So in that sense, the content was rightfully deleted simply because a DMCA notice was served pointing to that specific question.

If yes, what exactly is the infringement?

You are establishing causality where it does not exist. The question was deleted because a DMCA notice was served, not because an infringement occurred beyond any doubt. DMCA notices can be contested and content can be reinstated (and it happens).

The post was (again) rightfully deleted because a third party claimed it infringed on their copyright.

The specific alleged infringement would be nice to know, and I believe Stack Exchange could publish the DMCA notice (Google does this all the time when they remove links from their search results).

Although in this case, I'm not sure you'd be able to contest the removal. Since you didn't get notified of your post being removed because of a DMCA notice, we know that you weren't the target of the removal; and thus I'm not sure if you can file a counter-notice by writing to [email protected].

As an answer owner, the simplest recourse for you would be to post a similarly worded question for which your answer still applies, and repost your answer there.

But asking for the answer to be reinstated on its own, when the question removal should be contested separately, doesn't make any sense.

If I will claim ownership of the line of code List users = new LinkedList<> and send a DMCA notice to SO, will SO remove all content containing the given line?

This question is a bit spurious and contains a lot of assumptions. But if you send a DMCA notice containing the following items:

  • A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or intellectual property right that has been allegedly infringed upon;
  • Identification in sufficient detail of the material being infringed upon;
  • Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing upon the intellectual property. Include information regarding the location of the infringing material with sufficient detail so that the web host is capable of finding and verifying its existence;
  • Contact information about the notifier including the name of the intellectual property owner, the name and title of the person contacting the web host on the owner’s behalf, the address, telephone number and, if available, e-mail address;
  • A statement that the notifier has a good faith belief that the material is not authorized by the intellectual property or copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
  • A statement made under penalty of perjury that the information provided is accurate and the notifying party is authorized to make the complaint on behalf of the intellectual property or copyright owner.

Cited from The Artist's JD

I'm pretty sure Stack Exchange has to comply. The due diligence how to go from "claim ownership of the line of code List users = new LinkedList<>" to there I leave up to you.

Further reading:

Disclaimer: I am very obviously not a lawyer, and the only lawyers I know practice law in a different continent, and I haven't even watched many legal TV shows recently. So I can understand if you feel my legal advise shouldn't be relied upon.

7
  • 8
    Even if you had watched many legal TV shows, I still wouldn't take your word for it ... ;)
    – rene
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:18
  • 1
    @rene Pretty, pretty sure that all they do in law school is watch Perry Mason, Ally Mc Beal, Murder One, et al all day long until they grasp the jargon. Advanced courses may include stuff like To kill a mockingbird or 12 angry men. But yeah, I don't take offense at you not wanting to blindly follow my advise. Not an unwise choice.
    – yivi
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:23
  • 1
    @yivi This Identification in sufficient detail of the material being infringed upon is exactly my point. This assumes you have something that can be infringed upon. Which it term assumes that you can claim copyright on that something. My argument is that there was nothing in that question TestDome could've claimed copyright on.
    – user10367961
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:28
  • 3
    @AlexRolea and the point of this answer is to show you what your options are from here. We, the Meta SO community, or the community moderator team (of which I am a member), nor Stack Exchange employees, can do anything about the post. It will not be reinstated unless someone challenges the notice and it has been retracted or found to be invalid.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:34
  • 9
    @AlexRolea: what we think about the claim doesn’t matter one jot and there is no point pushing people to agree or disagree on that point.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:35
  • @MartijnPieters It's irrelevant weather you agree or disagree with that point. The whole idea was to point out the absurdity of removing content because someone sends a non compliant (again, to my understanding) DMCA request.
    – user10367961
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:40
  • 16
    @AlexRolea: it also doesn’t matter whether or not we think the claim was invalid. We were not served the claim, only Stack Exhange and the question author were, we have no copy of it, and we do not have the authority to declare it invalid or otherwise overturn it. Only the question author can file a counter-claim.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 11:43

You must log in to answer this question.