Sending DMCA Notice for Plagiarism

[3113]

Greetings all. Well, I've been plagiarized (grrr!). Not any story from this site, something else entirely. The advice I got was to send a DMCA letter ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to the website hosting the site that has stolen my e-book. This site provides a sample letter offered below (which, yes, the owner allows folks to copy ) and information on how to find out who should be sent this notice.

I thought I'd pass on this info--which probably has already been posted a few times, but, alas, we always need a refresher. Question, my e-book belongs to a particular site. Should I have the owner of the site send this letter, or do it myself?

My name is INSERT NAME and I am the INSERT TITLE of INSERT COMPANY NAME. A website that your company hosts (according to WHOIS information) is infringing on at least one copyright owned by my company.

An article was copied onto your servers without permission. The original ARTICLE/PHOTO, to which we own the exclusive copyrights, can be found at:

PROVIDE WEBSITE URL

The unauthorized and infringing copy can be found at:

PROVIDE WEBSITE URL

This letter is official notification under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”), and I seek the removal of the aforementioned infringing material from your servers. I request that you immediately notify the infringer of this notice and inform them of their duty to remove the infringing material immediately, and notify them to cease any further posting of infringing material to your server in the future.

Please also be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to remove or disable access to the infringing materials upon receiving this notice. Under US law a service provider, such as yourself, enjoys immunity from a copyright lawsuit provided that you act with deliberate speed to investigate and rectify ongoing copyright infringement. If service providers do not investigate and remove or disable the infringing material this immunity is lost. Therefore, in order for you to remain immune from a copyright infringement action you will need to investigate and ultimately remove or otherwise disable the infringing material from your servers with all due speed should the direct infringer, your client, not comply immediately.

I am providing this notice in good faith and with the reasonable belief that rights my company owns are being infringed. Under penalty of perjury I certify that the information contained in the notification is both true and accurate, and I have the authority to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright(s) involved.

Should you wish to discuss this with me please contact me directly.

Thank you.

/s/YOUR NAME

Address
City, State Zip
Phone
E-mail

 

[estragon]

3113, many thanks. Now did your DMCA letter have any effect on the thieves? We discussed this at least once before, the problem being that overseas thieves laugh at such letters.

 

[3113]

3113, many thanks. Now did your DMCA letter have any effect on the thieves? We discussed this at least once before, the problem being that overseas thieves laugh at such letters.

It has not been sent. I'm waiting on the site owner, the one who sells the e-book, to get back to me. I'm thinking the letter will have more effect if she sends it.

And I don't believe the person we're writing to is overseas, so we should be alright.

 

[sr71plt]

And I don't believe the person we're writing to is overseas, so we should be alright.

Of course, if you are in the States rather than Great Britain, you're not really all right unless you hold a formal copyright (which, perhaps, you do). Outside of that, it's all bluff. Hope it works.

 

[baphemetis]

Of course, if you are in the States rather than Great Britain, you're not really all right unless you hold a formal copyright (which, perhaps, you do). Outside of that, it's all bluff. Hope it works.

Haven't you said before that a work that is published and sold (as in this case) has a much better chance than something that is freely distributed?

 

[sr71plt]

Haven't you said before that a work that is published and sold (as in this case) has a much better chance than something that is freely distributed?

Not with that meaning as far as I can remember. It doesn't sound like anything I've thought or said.

The bottom line--which is what I've continually posted here for years--is that short of legal redress, it's all a bluff and suasion (and it's all to the good if those work). The only avenue to legal address in the United States is holding of a formal copyright registration. You can't get a court date without it.

I'm not against trying the bluff. I just counsel not bluffing yourself in the process.

What I've said about stuff being freely offered on the Internet rather than published and sold is that the courts will give no monetary value to the former (you gave it away--even if you later sold it, you were giving it away at one time, so it's legal monetary value is set at zero) but that it has established legal monetary value in the latter case.

The overriding kicker, though, is a legal judgment can only be reached if you can get it to court--which, in the United States, means if you formally registered it with the copyright office (and were the first one to do so).

 

[estragon]

A slight historical digression. The USA, now the loudest howler against intellectual piracy by other nations, was the world's capital of literary piracy in the 19th century. Gilbert & Sullivan had simultaneous premieres in England and the US (the one in England being an unstaged scratch performance on a pier in Paignton) to preserve their copyright, of Pirates of Penzance. As the law then was, if they premiered (pardon the word, I know it's a neologism) in England, they lost the US copyright, and vice versa.

Berne 1886 was supposed to solve the problem, and DMCA was supposed to make intellectual property even more secure, except, as sr71plt rightly points out, they don't in the US, absent US registration and the $35 fee.

See Title 17, US Code, Section 411 (a): "Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a)*, and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),[1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title."

*My footnote. §106A is the "moral right" to be identified as the author. Subsection (b)(1) relates to inaccurate information in the registration statement.

The foregoing is offered for information only, is not legal advice and creates no client-attorney relationship. Consult your own attorney.

 

[Jake Marlow]

There is hope if you're bluffing, because many, many sites will just take something down the second they receive a DMCA notice, because it's not worth the hassle of not doing it and being wrong. Most people don't want the hassle or the expense of being dragged into court, if it comes to that, when they could have just solved the problem by taking the offending work down.

It's actually become an issue for people in reverse. Websites take stuff down as a kneejerk response even when there is no violation. The Hitler rant videos on You Tube are the most notable example of this. They were clearly legal under parody, but policy over there is to just take it down.

 

[sr71plt]

It's actually become an issue for people in reverse. Websites take stuff down as a kneejerk response even when there is no violation.

Yep, there's been a case or two reported of Lit. doing that.

It's tough for the one who actually wrote something to accept it--but third parties on Internet postings have little or no way of knowing who to believe in an unregistered "he says/she says" argument.

I think that Amazon.com, in fact, is too quick to believe whoever files a DMCA document. This is a potential gold mine for trolls. (As would be the actual thief filing for copyright on somone else's work and winding up formally owning the work.)