Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
Chilling Effects
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Responses > Notices > DMCA Counter-Notification Printer-friendly version

DMCA Counter-Notification

July 30, 2002

 

Sender Information:
Les Kelly Enterprises
Sent by: [Private]
[Private]
Huntington Beach, CA, 92649-176, USA

Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
Attn: Customer Su
Mountain View, CA, 94043


Sent via: FAX and EMAIL
Re: DMCA Counter Notification re [private]/Chilling Effects Notice ID=348

Counter Notice re 17 USC ?512(g)
Inappropriate Notice 17 USC ?512(c)
Misrepresentation 17 USC ?512(f)

Dear Google.com:

I am writing regarding a notice of copyright infringement which was apparently delivered to Google.com on June 26, 2002, by [private], http://clarecountyinternet.com and http://serendipityinn.net, and to which Google.com apparently responded on or about July 29, 2002, to remove all information located at http://netcopyrightlaw.com -- even material that has nothing to do with [private: the senders of the C&D] -- from its files and caches and rendered it unavailable for search results.

Please note that while I have not yet received notice from Google.com of its receipt of such complaint for takedown of material as required by 17 USC ?512(c), I have become aware by review of information located at http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=348 and notices that appear with search results for material located at http://netcopyrightlaw.com and which have previously appeared in search results at Google.com [In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed "X" result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results." The links refer to above noted Chilling Effects website.

INAPPROPRIATE NOTICE: It is my opinion that the takedown demand and complaint filed on June 26, 2002, by [private] is inappropriately based on 17 USC ?512(g) rather than ?512(c). Further, it appears that Google.com may have incorrectly relied on the filing as outlined and all rights and remedies are hereby preserved should this matter be adjudicated in the future.

MISREPRESENTATIONS: It is my opinion that [private] are in violation of 17 USC ?512(f), and may be "be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees" [17 USC ?512(f)(2) by claiming that all of the content of http://netcopyrightlaw.com is in violation of their copyright. [private] have been sued for copyright infringement by [private: the sender of this note]. ["The lawsuit, Case A02-386DOC(Anx) (PDF), will be heard by Judge David Carter, in the US District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division, Santa Ana, California.] Content at http://netcopyrightlaw.com provides information about copyright law and lawsuits which impact other copyright holders. Removal by Google.com impacts the ability of interested parties to become aware of the ruling by Judge Carter and the factual matters currently under adjudication.

It is my opinion that [private] have misrepresented their claim of copyright infringement for all material at http://netcopyrightlaw.com as well as information which documents the lawsuit as filed, specifically a PDF file of the lawsuit filed at http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvSchuhKrongoldFiled04112002.pdf, and information about a ruling against them over venue and other related issues. It is my opinion that [private] are attempting to use a complaint of copyright infringement [17 USC ?512] to suppress or censor free speech information about a lawsuit filed against them for copyright infringement.

My website at http://netcopyrightlaw.com provides newsworthy information about numerous matters of public record and/or of public interest to those seeking information about Internet Copyright Law. There is no commercial use of the material allegedly infringed nor is there any market harm. The copies of the front pages of http://clarecountyinterenet.com and http://serendipityinn.net, specifically as they appeared at the time of the filing of copyright infringement against the [private], are a part of the court documents filed and their use is protected by "fair use" under 17 USC ?107.

COUNTER NOTIFICATION: Demand is hereby made by [private], owner of http://netcopyrightlaw.com, that all material about this website, removed by Google.com from its files and caches and suppressed from its search results as the result of the above referenced Notice Of Copyright Infringement by [private], dated June 26, 2002, and executed by Google.com on or about July 29, 2002, as outlined at http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=348, be restored as provided by 17 USC 512(g)(2)and(3) and using the requested format located at http://www.google.com/dmca.html#counter

It is my anticipation that all search results based on http://netcopyrightlaw.com will be restored within a minimum of ten business days and a maximum of fourteen business days as per 17 USC ?512(f)(2).

To expedite our ability to process your counter notification, please use the following format (including section numbers):

1. Identify the specific URLs of material that Google has removed or to which Google has disabled access. For Google Groups, identify the sender, date, newsgroup, and subject matter of all the material in question.

RESPONSE:
http://netcopyrightlaw.com
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/0055521.pdf
http://www.netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/kelly_vs_schuh_civil_minutes.pdf
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvSchuhKrongoldFiled04112002.pdf
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvSerendipityinnNetFrontPage03032002.PDF
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvClareCountyInternetConnectionFrontPage03012002.PDF
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvClareCountyInternet04132002YahooGoogleSearchResultAmishLifeStyle.pdf
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvClareCountyInternetConnectionAmishLifestyle01Page03012002.pdf
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvSerendipityinnNetCMTDPage01TheAmishLifestyle03022002.pdf
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvClareCountyInternetConnectionAmishLifestyle02Page03012002.pdf
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvClareCountyInternetConnectionAmishLifestyle03Page03012002.pdf
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvClareCountyInternetConnectionAmishLifestyle04Page03012002.pdf
http://netcopyrightlaw.com/pdf/KellyvSerendipityinnNetPage01AmishBuggys03022002.pdf

[Please note that I have made a good faith effort to search each of the possible results combinations to provide the above list. Because only Google.com will have access to the files of information that were in its possession prior to the takedown, and the definitive details, I am requesting that Google.com restore each and every file that it knew was in its system and caches.]

2. Provide your name, address, telephone number, email address, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which your address is located (or Santa Clara County, California if your address is outside of the United States), and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

RESPONSE: [private] dba Les Kelly Enterprises, [Address], Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1765 [Telephone]
mailto:xxxxxxxx@concentric.net.

STATEMENT: I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court in Santa Ana, California, and I will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person. [PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PERSON WHO PROVIDED NOTIFICATION DID NOT FILE UNDER SUBSECTION (c)(1)(C) AND I PRESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO PROTEST THIS POINT. I DO NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS FOR FILING OF NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BASED ON ?512(g) AS NOTED ABOVE.]

3. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that each search result or message identified above was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."

RESPONSE:

I, [private], swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that each search result or message identified above was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."

4. Sign the paper.

ORIGINAL COPY SIGNED ON JULY 30, 2002, BY [private]

5. Send the written communication to the following address:

Google, Inc.
Attn: Customer Support, DMCA Counter Notification
[private]
Mountain View, CA 94043

COPY FAXED TO [fax]

Sincerely yours,


[private]
President
Les Kelly Enterprises

 
FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?

Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:

  • The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
  • Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
  • A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
  • Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]

If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]


[back to notice text]


Question: What is copyright infringement? Are there any defenses?

Answer: Infringement occurs whenever someone who is not the copyright holder (or a licensee of the copyright holder) exercises one of the exclusive rights listed above.

The most common defense to an infringement claim is "fair use," a doctrine that allows people to use copyrighted material without permission in certain situations, such as quotations in a book review. To evaluate fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider four factors:


  1. the purpose and character of the use
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work
  3. the amount and substantiality of copying, and
  4. the market effect.

(17 U.S.C. 107)

The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use."

Trademarks are generally subject to fair use in two situations: First, advertisers and other speakers are allowed to use a competitor's trademark when referring to that competitor's product ("nominative use"). Second, the law protects "fair comment," for instance, in parody.


[back to notice text]


Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.

In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].


[back to notice text]


Question: Does a service provider have to notify its users about its policies regarding the removal of materials?

Answer: To qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions, the service provider must give notice to its users of its policies regarding copyright infringement and the consequences of repeated infringing activity. [512(i)(1)(A)] The notice can be a part of the contract signed by the user when signing up for the service or a page on the service provider's web site explaining the terms of use of their systems. While there are no specific rules about how this notice must be made, it must be "reasonably implemented" so that subscribers and account holders are informed of the terms. [512(i)(1)(A)]


[back to notice text]


Question: What defines a service provider under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?

Answer: A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof." [512(k)(1)(A-B)] This broad definition includes network services companies such as Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, bulletin board system operators, and even auction web sites. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc., the court refused to extend the safe harbor provisions to the Napster software program and service, leaving open the question of whether peer-to-peer networks also qualify for safe harbor protection under Section 512.

There are four major categories of network systems offered by service providers that qualify for protection under the safe harbor provisions:

  • Conduit Communications include the transmission and routing of information, such as an email or Internet service provider, which store the material only temporarily on their networks. [Sec. 512(a)]
  • System Caching refers to the temporary copies of data that are made by service providers in providing the various services that require such copying in order to transfer data. [Sec. 512(b)]
  • Storage Systems refers to services which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service or a chat room. [Sec. 512(c)]
  • Information Location Tools refer to services such as search engines, directories, or pages of recommended web sites which provide links to the allegedly infringing material. [Sec. 512(d)]


[back to notice text]


Question: What is fair use?

Answer: Copyright law seeks to promote the production and distribution of creative works by conferring property rights on authors. The principle of fair use serves to mediate between these property rights and the constitutional rights of public access and free speech embodied in the First Amendment. Fair use serves an important social function by allowing for the use of parts of creative works for the sake of criticism, commentary, and reporting.

To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)]

The principles of fair use are invoked when the transaction costs associated with gaining authorization from copyright owners to make use of works is too burdensome in reasonable circumstances. Fair use also permits the reproduction of art and information for the private, noncommercial sharing of those works. Fair use allows for market competitors to use copyrighted works in ways that allow them to extract the public domain aspects of those works in order to develop innovative products.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?

Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:

  • The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
  • Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
  • A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
  • Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]

If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]


[back to notice text]


Question: Does a copyright owner have to specify the exact materials it alleges are infringing?

Answer: Proper notice under the safe harbor provisions requires the copyright owners to specifically identify the alleged infringing materials, or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, to specifically identify the links to the alleged infringing materials. [512(c)(3)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. The provisions also require the copyright owners to identify the copyrighted work, or a representative list of the copyrighted works, that is claimed to be infringed. [512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]. Rather than simply sending a letter to the service provider that claims that infringing material exists on their system, these qualifications ensure that service providers are given a reasonable amount of information to locate the infringing materials and to effectively police their networks. [512(c)(3)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(3)].

However, in the recent case of ALS Scan, Inc. v. Remarq Communities, Inc., the court found that the copyright owner did not have to point out all of the infringing material, but only substantially all of the material. The relaxation of this specificity requirement shifts the burden of identifying the material to the service provider, raising the question of the extent to which a service provider must search through its system. OSP customers should note that this situation might encourage OSP's to err on the side of removing allegedly infringing material.


Topic maintained by Chilling Effects

Topic Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts