Sure it does. They misused it and it is highly likely they will file another notice for another Flat UI design that in the future, for whatever reason they think, look similar to their design.
I think trolling once still makes you a troll. It takes a certain sense of naive entitlement to issue a DMCA take-down notice without understanding the legal requirements or the very specific meaning of doing so.
Murder is too loaded of a act to serve as a good example for this discussion, IMO, but just the once? I would describe myself as someone who had murdered, but not a murderer. There's an active/repetitive component to being described as an *-er.
As I replied to electic, how would you feel if I described myself as a singer upon meeting someone, having only sang for 3 minutes out of the decades of my life? "Oh, hi, I'm lowboy, and I'm a singer".
The persistent/active component is in having the personal constitution necessary to engaged in the action in question. The type of person, for instance, who files a false DMCA take-down request -- censoring another person's speech -- without understanding or appreciating the ethical and legal implications of what they are doing.
Sure, but has LV engaged in this behaviour previously? If they haven't, then I don't think they could be described as patent trolls. Right now they might be engaged in patent trolling, but as my singing example hopefully illustrates, doing something once doesn't make one an active/repetitive doer of that thing. I'm not a singer, and feel that it would be dishonest of anyone to describe me as such. Same goes for LV with patent trolling.
You seem to have missed my entire point. Since there's nothing I could write here other than a repeat of what I wrote earlier, I will instead simply refer to my above comment.
I read it. LV is engaging in one act of trolling at the moment, and they have the "personal constitution necessary to engage" in said trolling. No arguments there, and I don't condone what they're doing.
But having the constitution to do an act doesn't mean one is a repeated doer of that act. Has LV actively trolled, or tried to censor people's speech in the past? If not, they shouldn't be described as patent trolls, merely that they are currently engaged in an act of patent trolling.
And describing someone as an x doesn't always mean they are a repeated doer of the x-act. Eg, dictator: do you think only someone who was a dictator of multiple countries can be legitimately called that? If you say, as you did for murderer, that 'this example is too loaded', then you are recognising that the reaction is different for acts of different impact, and therefore your analogy of 'singer' is irrelevant until you can show that people view 'singing' as something having the same impact of 'sending DMCA takedowns'.
Labeling sure is a tricky business. There are certain lines you cross in life though-- you get locked up, you live the rest of your life as an "ex-con" to most of society. Speaking for myself but I think also many others in this community, if you troll, whether you are later considered an "ex-troll" or just a "troll" doesn't matter, you trolled. It's an egregious offense that was foolishly committed and they will always regret it now, as they should.
The dictator doesn't have to be multiple countries, but a dictator for at least a while. Would someone who was a dictator for a day but was otherwise a civil servant for 30 years be called a dictator? I wouldn't say so. You can say he was a dictator for a short time, but not just "a dictator" without that context.
Wouldn't it be correct to call him a dictator the day that he was a dictator?
My point being is that as long as LV are engaged in what you say is "one act of trolling", then they can be called trolls.
This whole thread (and my objections to the use of language here) was based on onemorepassword's comment[0] that ended with a definitive "LayerVault are copyright trolls and bullies", which I read as speaking to their core and not just what they're doing at the moment.
Maybe omp has knowledge of LV having a past history of copyright trolling, but I don't think it's a fair statement to make based on one bad-faith filing, as abhorrent as that move was.
> Wouldn't it be correct to call him a dictator the day that he was a dictator?
Dictators are a really poor example here, often it is not quite as clear-cut and there is no point in time you can say then he became a dictator. Not even in hindsight, it is usually a rise to power over years until their power becomes absolute.
So how would you feel if I described myself as a singer upon meeting someone, having only sang for 3 minutes out of the decades of my life? "Oh, hi, I'm lowboy, and I'm a singer".
It doesn't matter if you sang for 10 minutes or for 100 hours. There is no magic threshold number. If you identify yourself as a singer, you can claim to be one legitimately.
You would only be dishonest if you claimed to be a professional singer or a regular singer.
I don't think that claim would have any merit though, much as if someone opened up Chrome dev tools one day, edited an html attribute and solely based on that experience called themselves a web developer. I feel it would be dishonest, or at the very least woefully ignorant of common usage of language when someone is described as an *-er.
Even if they self-correct, it's how they'll be treated. They just tapped into a massive vein of loathing for vague DMCA notices (particularly on the design trend front), and did it quite effectively. In the case of incendiary actions with ugly consequences, once is enough to brand you.
