But who would seriously interpret it that way, other than as a pedantic legal defense? ;-) When the newspaper says "Toy Story DVD Free Today!" it'd be odd to interpret that as assuming you could sell your own copies of Toy Story. I don't think authors necessarily have to stoop to defining everything in legally precise terms if the general term fits the case and, particularly, since copyright law is on their side already even if they say nothing.
The general term "completely free" means that I'm
able to do absolutely anything with it without paying.
In a court of law, it doesn't mean squat, unless the work itself has been released in public domain and even then, in some countries public domain doesn't apply or is limited.
That's why there's a copyright law that is applied implicitly and that's why releasing works should be accompanied by a real license that explicitly says what you're allowed to do.
The reason "completely free" does not mean anything is because it is ambiguous. If it refers to price, that doesn't mean you can redistribute it.
that it could be sufficient defence against a DMCA
Ambiguity was my claim initially if you read back.
Clearly you have a handle on DMCA take down notices that I don't. How, if an ambiguity in license isn't sufficient, does the DMCA protect from malicious take down notices. If what you say is true then it appears that one can simply submit a DMCA take down notice and the carrier is always required to remove the content without and need to demonstrate that it is infringing.
Obviously it's fine to remove content that is questionable, within ones ToS, but we're not looking at that.
