DMCA Notification #1 - Reporting yourself.

There may be times when you are mad at yourself.
You know those times I am talking about.

It's on those days when everytime you think about how your life is going, you know you are to blame. You look at your website and shudder at the self plagiarism. You know you have done it. You've said it before and you are saying it again.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

March 11, 2011

Sender Information:
Marcia Wilbur

Sent by:
[Private]


USA


Recipient Information:

Google, Inc. [Blogger]
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA

Sent via: online form
Re: Infringement Notification for Blogger

Web Form DMCA Complaint Submitted by: Marcia Wilbur

YOUR COPYRIGHTED WORK
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):

http://dmcanews.blogspot.com/


What is the copyrighted work?:
My original DMCA notification.

LOCATION OF INFRINGING MATERIAL
Location (URL) of infringing material

http://dmcanews.blogspot.com/


Sworn Statements
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [checked]

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [checked]

Signature

Marcia "aicra" Wilbur

Signed on this date of:
03/11/2011

Fox and UFC takedown notices to take down the links to takedown notices

Say that 5 times fast.

Well, the insanity continues. Let's consider for a moment the situation.

• Fox sends a takedown notice that includes links to alleged copyright violations.
• Google sends the takedown notice to Chilling Effects.
• Chilling Effects posts the notice.
• Fox sends a takedown notice to Google to remove the links to the original notification.
• Did Google send that notification to Chilling as well?
  When will this end?
  

Here is the question - Is Google a Service Provider?

Some of their business includes providing services. The search engine portion of the business does nothing more than search and report results of a search, right? The links are available in the results. Some of these sites may be hosted by Google, but many are not. However, Google does report the results of a search. In this case, couldn't one say that Google is in fact, less of a host with regard to the search engine and more like a Library Card Catalog? 1204 b would not apply here as this is not a Non Profit.

Basically, it would seem that the results are desired by some people and these people are using whatever means they can to eliminate the accessibility to results. This would be similar to asking a librarian to remove a card from the catalog but leave the book in the library.

Maybe, I fell off the copyright train a few years too soon, but was the injunction against linking, only applicable to DeCSS?

So, who would get the notification in the case of a notificaiton sent to Google? Isn't Google the one linking to the sites? Well, in that case, can Google send a counter notification to Google?

How does this work? The second notification was to remove links, right?
Is Google trafficking? No. Google is conducting business. Google is a search engine. This engine searches for content. This is a database of information acquired through crawling or whatever technology is used. The mere indication that Google, a search engine, should remove links at all is absolutely ludicrous. I have always thought so.

The prohibition on linking to DeCSS was for just that. DeCSS. This was a DMCA issue due to the contention that DeCSS was allegedly a prohibited circumvention device. If I missed something over the past few years, let me know.

As far as I know, the trafficking of websites, is not the in the same vein.


Notifications and content of Counter Notifications?

The fact of the matter is that the ISP does not need to provide a copy of the letter to the alleged violator. That is really a shame. Communication is necessary, but the actual copy of the notification is not required. This seems a bit odd. How could someone send a proper counter notification with the information?

Contents of Counter Notifications
512 (g) (3)
Summary
Include:
• Your name, phone number, email address.
• If applicable, the specific material alleged as infringing that was removed with location.
• If applicable, the specific alleged reason for disabled access.
• A statement that you, (or)the Respondent, consents to the jurisdiction of
Federal District Court for the judicial district in which Respondent's address is located (or Delaware County, if Respondent's address is outside of the United
States), and that Respondent will accept service of process originating from
Complainant or an agent of Complainant.

Now, here it gets interesting. I suppose that one would know what material was removed if one kept good records and remembered what areas of the site were removed. If the ISP discloses that information, that seems reasonable. However, that does not always happen.

This message was found at the end of a notice from Google to an alleged infringer:

"Please note that in addition to being forwarded to the person who provided the allegedly infringing content, a copy of this legal notice will be sent to a third-party which may publish and/or annotate it. As such, your letter (with your personal information removed) will be forwarded to Chilling Effects http://www.chillingeffects.org). You can see an example of such a publication at http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=861. A link to your published letter will be displayed in Google's search results in place of the removed content."


Here is what I think happens:

• A notification is sent to an ISP.
• The ISP then reviews to ensure validity of the DMCA notice itself.
• If valid, access, content or both are removed. I do not know if there is any double checking to see if the material is even present or the sender is valid. I believe it is just the validity of the requirements for notification that are reviewed.
• The content is witheld or access denied for at least 10 days.
• If a counter notification is sent and the complainant does not notify the ISP that a court action “seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network” is filed - the ISP is required to "replace the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice."
  
  The question is whether the content is actually restored as required...
  
  Hi xxxxx,
  > >
  > > Thank you for your note. We are unable to restore images that have been
  > > removed, but you are welcome to restore the image onto your blog.
  > > We apologize for the inconvenience.
  > >
  > > Regards,
  > > The Google Team
  
  That is not according to the requirements of the DMCA... at all!
  
  Conclusion
  The notifications to any links, in general, seems like an obvious attempt at censorship. (Did I even need to mention that? Since it seems obvious! :) )
  
  At any rate, the DMCA notification process is a process set forth in law. So, could this document be considered a legal document. I would concur, yes.
  
  Was the DMCA notification creative? Well, I'd venture to say, not really. Was it a work of art? NO! Of course, art is in the eye of the beholder...
  
  Here is the question. Since the document contained only data related to the takedowns, couldn't this data be reformatted without the use of the so called "copyrighted" letter?
  
  That is one solution if there is even a problem here.
  
  ELEMENTS of NOTIFICATION
  Title 512 (c) (3)
  The notification must be written and provided to the designated agent of the service
  provider and include...
  
  (emphasis added)
  
  Now, here is the situation. Since this is a document required by law, then the document is considered a legal document, and the document itself could be considered Public Domain.

So, what is next? Is an amicus brief copyrighted? Is a court decision copyrighted? I would venture to say - No. While the DMCA notification never made it to court as a document filed in a legal action, the document is intended as the first step in the process of potentially going to court and the document is required by law. Are there other documents required by law that could be considered copyrighted? It's late in the AM and I cannot think of any but anxiously await responses.

• Just my 2 cents regarding the issue.