well, that's great
mightygodking's journal (the one with the hilarious and snarky page-by-page review of DH) has been suspended. He had said in the post that he had gotten a DMCA takedown notice (for posting the review before the book came out, evidently), so he took down the post and put it back up again after the publication date.
So, I really don't know. I mean, is LJ now allowing copyright holders to force takedowns of negative reviews? I could have seen the suspension before the book was officially published, although I think it would still be sketchy since it was so near the release date, but now? And I don't think it does make a difference if he used a pirated copy; if Scholastic wants to sue him personally for a copyright violation and use his lj posts as evidence thereof, they can, but I don't see how that is grounds for taking down his review.
Here for the moment is the google-cached page, at least. If anyone hears more about this, I'd like to know. This is more disturbing to me both as an example of LJ apparently not learning anything from Strikethrough and as overreaching by a copyright holder.
ETA: Here is the full story from the user. It looks as though LJ suspended him for having received a third uncontested DMCA notice. The other two were for a community called "improved archie", where people put up Archie comics pages with the words taken out of the bubbles, and filled in rude/adult captions. He was not posting entire Archie comics and did not post the actual carpet book -- you can see the comm if you go look it up on google cache for now.
So the problem I now have with this is that he was just complying with the takedowns for financial reasons, not because he agreed he was violating copyright. So by denying him service on a three-strikes-you're-out rule, LJ is essentially helping major copyright holders create chilling effects. :/
So, I really don't know. I mean, is LJ now allowing copyright holders to force takedowns of negative reviews? I could have seen the suspension before the book was officially published, although I think it would still be sketchy since it was so near the release date, but now? And I don't think it does make a difference if he used a pirated copy; if Scholastic wants to sue him personally for a copyright violation and use his lj posts as evidence thereof, they can, but I don't see how that is grounds for taking down his review.
Here for the moment is the google-cached page, at least. If anyone hears more about this, I'd like to know. This is more disturbing to me both as an example of LJ apparently not learning anything from Strikethrough and as overreaching by a copyright holder.
ETA: Here is the full story from the user. It looks as though LJ suspended him for having received a third uncontested DMCA notice. The other two were for a community called "improved archie", where people put up Archie comics pages with the words taken out of the bubbles, and filled in rude/adult captions. He was not posting entire Archie comics and did not post the actual carpet book -- you can see the comm if you go look it up on google cache for now.
So the problem I now have with this is that he was just complying with the takedowns for financial reasons, not because he agreed he was violating copyright. So by denying him service on a three-strikes-you're-out rule, LJ is essentially helping major copyright holders create chilling effects. :/