OSDev.org

Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2021 9:33 am

by nexos

Hello,
I was looking at the PCI page on the wiki and noticed how a link to the PCI Local Bus Specification is provided. I am not sure how all of this works, but isn't PCI closed? If that's the case, then is it legal for the wiki to contain a link to the PCI spec. If it is OK, then that's great, as I always thought I wouldn't be able to find it. I just don't want any legal question to come on this site
Thanks,
nexos

Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2021 5:51 pm

by Octocontrabass

It's probably not legal.

Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:56 pm

by foliagecanine

I didn't know that DMCA could apply to hyperlinks (though the DMCA letter you linked shows that PCI-SIG believes it does and is willing to act upon it).
I would think that PCI-SIG would send a DMCA letter to the site that was hosting the PCI spec rather than the site linking to it...

Another thing I've noticed is you can find links to the PCI spec on Google. In that case, legally, is Google supposed to take these down, or does it have some sort of immunity from this?

(I know this isn't a legal forum or anything, just curious is all)

Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:52 am

by nullplan

foliagecanine wrote:I didn't know that DMCA could apply to hyperlinks

Disclaimer: IANAL. To my knowledge, the DMCA does not apply to mere hyperlinks. However, if faced with a demand letter from a law firm, and your project doesn't hinge upon the existence of the link, it might just be smarter to comply rather than fight. Particularly in America, where by default each party bears their own costs (unless a fee-shifting provision is written into the law, which is the case for bad-faith DMCA claims, but good luck proving that).

There was a case of a YouTuber making a video on the eve of the 2016 Presidential election, another YouTuber taking that video, re-editing it, and uploading the result (as a form of commentary), and then the first one sued. The process took four years, was resolved in spring of 2020. The case was resolved in the pleadings stage, which is the very earliest stage of a civil lawsuit, and the judge said that what the defendant did was "quintessential" fair use. So you think it would have been easy to resolve. And the defendant's costs were still 50,000,ドル which we know because in that case the fee-shifting provision applied, and the fee motions are public.

Therefore, even if the demand is not meritorious, not everyone wants to fight a legal battle for years and run down the legal defence fund by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that ultimately does not really matter to them.

foliagecanine wrote:Another thing I've noticed is you can find links to the PCI spec on Google. In that case, legally, is Google supposed to take these down, or does it have some sort of immunity from this?

Google are known to only remove content in response to court orders, although I don't know about DMCA demand letters. So unless they have been asked to remove specific links, they don't. To my knowledge they are not breaking any law in so doing, and lawyers are going to have a much harder time attacking a giant international Internet corporation compared to a small non-profit like the Wikimedia Foundation.

Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:38 pm

by Octocontrabass

Google removes links from search results in response to DMCA claims. I guess the lawyers think they can successfully argue that Google is not obligated to remove search results without a request from the copyright holder.