Yes. Vinod Khosla, first President of Sun, came to me at one point and said to put something hidden, triggered in an unexpected way, into the ROM Monitor, so that if somebody cloned the Sun Workstation (violating our software’s copyright), we could do that unexpected thing to the competitor’s demo workstation at a trade show and thereby prove that they had cloned it.
過了三十年後 John Gilmore 被挖出來問的回應也是蠻有趣的... (可以參考原文附上的信件)
而這句話現在回頭看也很經典，尤其是最近各國政府想要在 crypto system 裡面放後門的各種反應。
“Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses,” U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote on behalf of the court. “The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) asking a federal court to protect the fair use and free speech rights of a mother who posted a short video of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song on the Internet.
Stephanie Lenz's 29-second recording shows her son bouncing along to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy " which is heard playing in the background. Lenz uploaded the home video to YouTube in February to share it with her family and friends.
In late June 2007, Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.
而環球直接挑明不在意 fair use：
In September 2007, Prince released statements that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet." In October 2007, Universal released a statement amounting to the fact that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user-generated content involving Prince from the internet as a matter of principle.
The district court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, and declined to dismiss Lenz's misrepresentation claim as a matter of law.
同時認為環球濫用 DMCA takedown notification：
The district court believed that Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in an important part of the balance in the DMCA.
The panel held that the DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.
The UMG-YouTube agreement grants UMG rights to effect the removal of user-posted videos through YouTube’s Content Management System (“CMS”), based on a number of contractually specified criteria that are not limited to the infringements of copyrights owned or controlled by UMG. Klaus Decl., Ex. 4 (Klaus to Kavanaugh letter, Dec. 14, 2011). Dotcom speculates in his declaration that Universal must have sent a so-called “DMCA notification form,” such as the one he printed and attached at Ex. E to his declaration, to YouTube. Doctcom Decl. ¶ 11. But UMG (which interacts with YouTube) does not use that form when requesting the removal of material pursuant to UMG’s contract with YouTube. UMG uses YouTube’s automated CMS system.