Web archives and sites with DMCA Assume the following: A website is indexed by a web archive like the wayback machine. The website receives a DMCA takedown and the content is removed. Does the web archive need to remove the saved content as well or only if the web archive receives a DMCA takedown, too? Are there mechanisms in place to automatically remove content if the archiver detects a 451 unavailable for legal reasons HTTP status code?
Nothing in 17 USC 512, which includes the DMCA Safe Harbor and Takedown procedures requires an online service provider to notify others who may have made copies of content (including archive sites) claimed to be infringing that a takedown notice has been received or that access to the content has been blocked or removed. A separate DMCA takedown could be sent to the archive site. The internet archive honors robots.txt files set to deny access to a particular site, page, or section of a site by removing from public view all archived versions of that content. This is often done when a new owner acquires a domain and it is repurposed or put up for sale. To the best of my understanding there is no legal requirement that an archive act in this way, but the IA at least does so.
Written down computer code is subject to copyright. If you do not have the permission of the owner to copy it you are breaching their copyright unless your use constitutes fair use/dealing.
A cease and desist letter is not binding or mandatory (for copyright infringement, and in most other circumstances). You are not required to send such a letter, and even if you do, any vague suggestion that compliance guarantees that the future plaintiff will not sue is non-binding. Such a letter simply warns the recipient of possible consequences of continuing the action. The closest connection to an enforceable cease and desist letter in the case of copyright infringement is that under DMCA, a plaintiff may send a certain kind of cease and desist letter to an internet service provider, and if they comply (etc.) the provider cannot be sued for contributory infringement.
First, I don't know what "Sir is" means - I assume it is a typo of "sue us" and answer on that basis. Also, you don't tell us where you are and local law differs - I will assume US law. They can't sue you successfully - that's not how the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act" works. The way it works is: You give the "online service provider" (YouTube) a notice of the claimed infringement that complies with section 512. YouTube must expeditiously remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing material and take reasonable steps to promptly notify the alleged infringer of the action. The alleged infringer then has the right to object to the takedown. If they do, you have 14 days to bring a lawsuit in the district court alleging breach of copyright: If you don't then YouTube will restore the material - essentially you have given up your claim that the material infringes your copyright, If you do then the court will decide if the material does or does not breach copyright. The alleged infringer can raise a fair use defense if they like and they may or may not be right. If you win, you get damages, if you lose, you pay damages. In practice, you and the alleged infringer may opt for an out of court settlement instead.
Given that filing a DMCA counter notice is essentially an invitation to a lawsuit, consulting a licensed lawyer in your jurisdiction before filing a counter notice is highly recommended. To understand what is happening, one must understand the relevant intent of the &quot;safe-harbor&quot; provisions of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). Essentially, there are/were two &quot;complications&quot; of standard copyright doctrine to the internet: The standard of Anonymity online, which makes filing a traditional lawsuit more difficult. Because of the nature of the internet, a) few people host their own content, either using a hosting company directly (like most websites do), or post their content on someone else's website (like Youtube and StackExchange), which makes them distributors, traditionally liable for infringement, (and much nicer targets for litigation, because they have deep pockets). However, without the ability to post on someone else's website, the internet as we know it wouldn't exist (we'd basically blogs, and maybe email). Both of these issues were &quot;solved&quot;/dealt with via the takedown notice/counter notice system. A displayer of other's content (e.g. Youtube or StackExchange, ISPs, etc.) has &quot;safe harbor&quot; protection from liability for hosting copyright infringing content, provided that they respond to a properly formatted takedown notice within the specified time frame. Someone one the other side of this, who believes that they do have the legal right to utilize such content, either due to owning it, licensing it, or fair use, can file a counter notice, and upon receipt of a properly made counter notice, must return the content in a specified time period 10-14 days. This &quot;solves&quot; both of the above issues: The intermediary service is no longer legally liable, instead acting as a message carrier, and if the person uploading the disputed material believes that the DMCA should not apply, they can reverse the takedown, by filing a counter notice that allows the original claim filer to file a standard lawsuit. Essentially, the hoster gets to say &quot;I want no part of this, this is between you guys, I'm just a messenger&quot;. But what does a counter notice need to contain? 17 U.S. Code § 512g(3) states that a counter notice must contain 4 things (legal code below, my comments are in italics): Contents of counter notification.—To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider’s designated agent that includes substantially the following: (A)A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber. This is a legal document, you must sign it, either physically or electronically. (B)Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled. Clarification of what material is specifically being requested to be made accessible again; this information should also be in the original takedown notice (C)A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. This is essentially the bit that gives legal cover for the hoster to restore access to the disputed content, and places the liability on the counter notice filer's shoulders. Note that this is under the penalty of perjury, so jail time can concievably result if this is made falsely. (D)The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person. Essentially stuff that makes it easy for the filer of the original takedown notice to sue you. Sources: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.crucialp.com/resources/tutorials/web-hosting/how-to-file-dmca-counter-claim/
You probably can. There are a few questions here. First, is the message protected by copyright? In general, it probably is, but there are many exceptions that might allow you to use it without permission. Unfortunately, these exceptions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The exceptions tend to allow the use of small excerpts of a work for various sorts of purposes that don't undermine the copyright holder's ability to profit. That leads to the second question, which is why you are using that message. If you're including it in your source code so you can test whether a message generated at run time is in fact that message, that's one thing, and it's probably okay. On the other hand, if the owner of the copyright sells a database of all its message strings, and you're compiling a similar database that you also intend to sell, that's probably not okay. A third question concerns the Firefox license terms. It's entirely possible that they allow you explicitly to do what you're considering, in which case it doesn't matter what copyright law says about it. On the other hand, Firefox is open source software, and under some open source licenses, if you incorporate any of the source code in your own product, you are required to release your product's source code under the same license. If you're not already planning to do that, you should consider carefully whether including that error message would trigger that provision (if there is one) of Firefox's open source license.
Here's where you went wrong legally: Suppose I legally obtain some digital image created by somebody else (e.g., by downloading from a public website). That, right there, is copyright infringement- unless the copyright owner has granted permission or the image is public domain you cannot copy it - this breaches "the right to make reproductions". By posting it on the web (assuming that it isn't itself an infringing copy) they have given implied permission for you to look at it in a web browser but not to copy it into a presentation even if that presentation is never presented. If it is presented then that makes the infringement worse - it adds breaches of "the right to communicate to the public" and "the right to use the work as a basis for an audiovisual work". How is this different from the computer wallpaper? It isn't. If you are using the one of the defaults that shipped with the OS then the license gives you permission. If you are using someone else's copyright without permission then it's a breach. There are defenses to copyright infringement but these are quite nationally variable - search this or other sites for "fair dealing" and "fair use".
If a legal action is filed, the take down order generally remains in force until a court orders otherwise. If a legal action is not filed with the required time frame, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) such as Google is no longer required to honor the take down order. See generally here and here. Also, an ISP is not required to honor even a valid takedown order. Doing so sacrifices the ISP's statutory immunity from copyright law liability, but that is all.