| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > DMCA Safe Harbor > Notices > Hold the phone (cards) (NoticeID 1713, http://chillingeffects.org/N/1713) | Location: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1713 |
February 25, 2005
|
Sender Information: |
Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
Sent via: Fax
Re:
This is the reply letter regarding copyright infringment claim I have made. 1- The infringed material is a website that I have developed. I am the owner of www.zscomm.com and all of its pages, and the text, this website and all of its pages are created by me, and is copyrighted. The infringment occurs by another website that copied my text and put it in hundreds of its pages. The website that is infringing is www.prepaidtelecomhq.com When you type " phone card " search term you can find this website. On the other hand the infringment is not in the index page of www.prepaidtelecomhq.com it is in the sub pages. Here are the pages, and the clear evidence of infringment. On the index page of www.prepaidtelecomhq.com and www.zscomm.com there are drop down menus to go to individual country pages to find the calling card rates. My website www.zscomm.com has listed hundreds of pages, as well as the infringing www.prepaidtelecomhq.com website. If you chose one of the country names (example 1: Albania) you will go to http://www.zscomm.com/albania.htm (on my site) and http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/albania.shtml on the infringing website. The infringment occurs as follows. On http://www.zscomm.com/albania.htm (my website) I have used the following text: "Check out the lowest calling cards rates and phone cards rates below. Click on the calling card name for more details and to purchase. We provide the rates of all of the phone cards to specific countries for convenience." at the top of the page for my visitors. The infringing website http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/albania.shtml has used the copy of my text "Check out the lowest phone cards rates and calling card rates below. Click on the phone card name for more information. We provide the rates of all of the phone cards to specific countries." On my website I have used: "With more than 50 prepaid calling card online you will be able to get the cheapest calling card rates to call Albania, with Albania phone cards and Albania calling cards, we provide the high quality online calling card rates with high quality long distance calls from USA. Please browse the table below for all of the prepaid phone card rates to call Albania, and then click on the name of the international calling card to get more details." And the infringing website has used: "More than 500 prepaid phone card in our database, you will be able to get the cheapest phone card rates to call Albania, with Albania phone cards and Albania calling cards, we offer the cheapest rates, price and quality long distance calls from USA. Please browse the phone cards below for the prepaid phone card rates to call Albania, and then click on the name of the international calling card to get more details." As you can see there is a clear violation of copyright material, as this website is stealing text from my website and putting it to their own use. The same copying happens in the following pages. (My website www.zscomm.com and its extensions have been copied by www.prepaidtelecomhq.com) http://www.zscomm.com/afahanistan.htm (My website) http://www.zscomm.com/algeria.htm (My website) http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/algeria.shtml (infringing website) And hundreds of more pages on top of the above pages. You can find the pages by using the drop down menus for the country rates on my website www.zscomm.com and also the infringing website www.prepaidtelecomhq.com If you would like me to give the list of hundreds of pages my copyright material being infringed and unlawfully and unauthorized use please contact me and I will send the remaining hundreds of pages links. The pages can be found easily by visiting both websites and using the drop down menu that lists the country names. I hereby certify that the www.prepaidtelecomhq.com has used my own intellectual property, web pages I have created at www.zscomm.com for his/her own benefit without my authorization and agreement. I swear under the 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. The above information is correct and accurate and I am officially filing a claim with your company to remove the web pages of www.prepaidtelecomhq.com that infringes with my copyright rights, that emerge at my website www.zscomm.com. Please accept my humble request and remove the www.prepaidtelecomhq.com that infringes my rights off your search engine database. [Private] The same thing happens in the remaining web pages. My website www.zscomm.com has been copied over and over again by www.prepaidtelecomhq.com and it is frustrating. I would be glad if you guys can take a look at this matter, and compare my website with the infringing website and do what is applicable by law.
http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/afahanistan .shtml (infringing website)
http://www.zscomm.com/andorra.htm (My website) http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/andorra.shtml (infringing website)
http://www.zscomm.com/armenia_htm (My website) http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/armenia.shtml (infringing website)
http://www.zscomm.com/argentina.htr (my website) http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/argentina,shtml (infringing site) http://www.zscomm.com/buenosaires.htm, (my site) http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/buenosaires.shtml infringing site http://www.zscomm.com/argentinacell.htm my site http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/argentinacell.shtml infringing site http://www.zscomm.com/aruba.htm my site
http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/aruba.shtml infringing site htto://www.zscomm.com/australia.htm my site http://www.prepaidtelecomhq.com/australia.shtml infringing site
[Private]
[Private]
Plano TX 75093
Phone: [Private]
E-mail: [Private]
Thank you for your time, and understanding.
|
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:
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:
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:
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. Question: What kinds of things are copyrightable? Answer: In order for material to be copyrightable, it must be original and must be in a fixed medium. Only material that originated with the author can support a copyright. Items from the public domain which appear in a work, as well as work borrowed from others, cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. Also, certain stock material might not be copyrightable, such as footage that indicates a location like the standard shots of San Francisco in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Also exempted are stock characters like the noisy punk rocker who gets the Vulcan death grip in Star Trek IV. The requirement that works be in a fixed medium leaves out certain forms of expression, most notably choreography and oral performances such as speeches. For instance, if I perform a Klingon death wail in a local park, my performance is not copyrightable. However, if I film the performance, then the film is copyrightable. Single words and short phrases are generally not protected by copyright, even when the name has been "coined" or newly-created by the mark owner. Logos that include original design elements can be protected under copyright or under trademark. Otherwise, words, phrases and titles may be protected only by trademark, however. Question: Who may hold a copyright? Answer: A copyright ordinarily vests in the creator or creators of a work (known as the author(s)), and is inherited as ordinary property. Copyrights are freely transferrable as property, at the discretion of the owner. 17 U.S.C. 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. Question: Does copyright protect words or short phrases? Answer: No. Names, titles, and short phrases are not subject to copyright protection. These are not deemed to be "original works of authorship" under the Copyright Act. Names may be protected by trademark, in some instances. See the Trademark FAQ for more information. 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. 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:
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. Question: What are the penalties for copyright infringement, such as making infringing copies of software? Answer: In a civil suit, an infringer may be liable for a copyright owner's actual damages plus any profits made from the infringement. Alternatively, the copyright owner may avoid proving actual damage by electing a statutory damage recovery of up to $30,000 or, where the court determines that the infringement occurred willfully, up to $150,000. The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just. (17 U.S.C. 504) Violation of copyright law is also considered a federal crime when done willfully with an intent to profit. Criminal penalties include up to ten years imprisonment depending on the nature of the violation. (No Electronic Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. 2319) Question: What are the communication requirements that Section 512 imposes on OSPs, complainants, and alleged infringers? Answer: Each of the parties -- the complainant, the Online Service Provider (OSP), and the alleged infringer -- has the right to communicate with the other parties. In addition, OSPs and complainants are required to engage in certain communications in order to take advantage of the DMCA's notice-and-takedown and safe harbor provisions. (For more information about the process see FAQ 130.) The complainant starts the Sec. 512 process by notifying the Online Service Provider (OSP) or the OSP?s agent in writing of a copyright infringement. (See [FAQ 127 for more information about what constitutes an OSP and FAQ 450 for more information about what constitutes copyright infringement.) Section 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) sets out the requirements for notice to OSPs. Under this section, the complainant must specifically identify the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. The complainant is not required to contact the alleged infringer at any time. [§ 512(h)(5).] However, complainants who do wish to contact the infringer, or to file suit on an infringer, may use the Sec. 512(h) subpoena process to require an OSP provide its customers? identifying information to the complainant. The OSP has two separate sets of communication obligations. First, the OSP is generally required to establish policies regarding copyright infringement and repeat infringers and to inform subscribers and account holders about those policies as well as about the actions taken against repeat infringers. [§ 512(i)(1)(A).] This applies both to Sec. 512(c) ISPs and Sec. 512(d) information location tools. Second, once an OSP receives a Section 512 takedown notice, either one, Sec. 512(c) ISPs or Sec. 512(d) information location tools, is required to notify its subscriber that it has disabled access to the allegedly infringing material. [§ 512(g)(2)(A).] A recipient is not required to respond in any way to Sec. 512 notices from OSPs or complainants. However, without a recipient response, the OSP will generally remove or disable access to the material, possibly even disabling an ISP account. To avoid this, the recipient may file a counter-notification with the OSP, denying that the material infringes copyright. [§ 512(g)] If an OSP receives a counter-notification, then the service provider must notify the complainant that it will cease disabling access in 10 business days unless the complainant obtains a court-imposed restraining order. [§ 512(g)(2)(C)] Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed. Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed. 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)]. |
|
|