Monday, March 16, 2009

How Mo'-bills Messin' jar won

firearm mobile phone
Vague interpretation of copyrighted material causes removal of said material from this blog.

I posted Mobile Messenger's Summary of Terms, available elsewhere on the web. In this post, there is widely available rate information for customers of other mobile phone services, as well as a 33999 number that I still have never used and don't know what that means but everyone else knows because they search for it on search engines, on web and Google caches and archives, and Craig List.

I am privileged to have received a haughty demand from someone at the MobileMessenger:

Please remove the above post of Mobile Messenger's summary terms and then this post. Thank you.

I bolded the obnoxious censorship demand. They wanted me to remove not only the content of the post ("the summary terms") but the comment ("this post") itself.
to which I have replied:

I understand the nature of your request. Please remember that blogosphere and the web in general are public domains where information obtained from other public domains, and through publicly accessible sources is the most most natural to the content of sites and blogs. The right to post such information is indelible and undeniable.

Just think for a moment about myriads of sites offering advice on illegal access to trade secrets, proprietary information, and other security related data. The web is full of hacks, as well as tricks, including such hacks to exploit the service of your own corporate products. Out of respect for any business, I do not contemplate using such illegal information.

You can easily discover that I do not post any cheats, hacks, and workarounds to any of your services. The content posted has been highly visible on other sites, after all, that's is where I have obtained it.

In light of this, your request to remove it and the comment following it is deemed as being against the concept of web's public domain and freedom to post therein any openly available information.

And then I get this message:

Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that content in your blog:

allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others.

No sense fightin' the city hall. Boss Hawg is running the show in this county, and when he says that the publicly available information is not public, then the spade is not a spade.

The bottom line - this post, and the blog itself, is not worth the hassle ($0.20 of revenue per month!), and while the Mo'-bills Messin' jar has spent more corporate man-hour sweat dollars and career-risks-in-light-of-the-recession on this, I'll gladly succumb to the censorship and remove the content. The web savvy folk will always find the copy-"righted" material elsewhere. It is indelible, as is the inalienable right of said folk to be aware of any corporate information presented to a potential customer.

You can always reach me by submitting a post for moderation, which I will read and per your request, not publish.

No comments: