Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
Chilling Effects
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > DMCA Safe Harbor > Notices > abuzz over copying claims (NoticeID 4846, Printer-friendly version abuzz over copying claims

August 09, 2006


Sender Information:, Inc
Sent by: President
Costa Mesa, CA, 92626, US

Recipient Information:
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA

Sent via: letter and email
Re: RE: Infringement Notification

================================ = = = = = =
Proofs of scrapping from
================================ = = = = = = has been copying articles from since last 2-3 months. Till now they have copied most of our articles, and our new articles consistently get added to their site. Out of 21 categories on, 18 categories are exact copy of ours. (Remaining 3 categories copy another site in a similar way our content is copied.)

Below are some proofs that is scrapping

Proof 1:
On August 7, 2006 we added HTML comments to our articles. The HTML comment contains pageview data in the following format:
Your pageview was recorded by as follows:
URL accessed:
<!-- Copyright -->

These comments then started appearing in new articles on with the actual data, for e.g.:
<br />Your pageview was recorded by as follows:
<br />URL accessed:
<br />-->
<br />
<br /><!-- Copyright -->

This prooves that is using a crawler to get our content. Their crawler is run from and shows empty User Agent.

The comments may not stay long on so we have taken snapshots of the article and viewsource. The attached snapshots were taken for following urls (in front of each isarticle url we have provided our url to verify that same content and comments do exist on Buzzle):
ViewSource01.jpg -> ->
ViewSource02.jpg -> ->
ViewSource03.jpg -> ->
ViewSource04.jpg -> ->
ViewSource05.jpg -> ->
ViewSource06.jpg -> ->
ViewSource07.jpg -> ->
ViewSource08.jpg -> ->
ViewSource09.jpg -> ->

Proof 2:
Google search for buzzle
reveals several references to

Proof 3:
Our paid authors have been sending disclaimers that they did not submit content on and are not sure how their articles are appearing on that site.
For e.g. pays Sonal Panse ( for writing articles to publish on A Google search for sonal panse shows that all her articles on are also on Sonal quickly sent a disclaimer when she noticed this, that she did not provide the articles to

Above is just one example. All our paid authors' articles have been copied by

Proof 4:
18 of's categories are named same as The category name "History & the Human Experience" is typical of for years. We do not claim copyright for category names, but this point is just to provide additional hints.

Proof 5 :
Author names used in isarticle are exactly same as ours, while they show no author name for articles where we use "Buzzle staff" as author name.

Proof 6 :
Article meta description of is exactly same as that of It is important to note that article descriptions displayed on pages are meta descriptions of our articles. That's why there may be slight difference between descriptions actually displayed on the article page by and

More info on
Below info is just to provide additional hints to find the parent scraper network: had been displaying Adsense ads, but seems they removed the ads now. The ads can be seen if you do a Google search for
allinurl:article -print
and click on 'Cached'. Their ad code includes following line:
google_ad_client = "pub-9058490403425989"; site seems to be hosted in China, but their crawler IP address is located in Fremont, CA. (This info is based on IP Lookup).

Domain lookup for shows following info:
Creation Date: 28-apr-2006
Expiration Date: 28-apr-2007

So it is just over 3 months that the site came into existance, and the domain is registered for only 1 year. Page Rank of homepage is 5 as shown by Google Toolbar.

Supporting screenshots have been sent to as they could not be included with the fax.

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."

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.



Cc: [private], Inc.


FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]

Question: Why does a search engine get DMCA takedown notices for materials in its search listings?

Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(d), a safe-harbor for providers of "information location tools." These safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by users' materials it links to, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous.

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)].

Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)?

Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512.

Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the allegedly infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing.

Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?

Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.

Question: How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?

Answer: If you believe your material was removed because of mistake or misidentification, you can file a "counter notification" asking the service provider to put it back up. Chilling Effects offers a form to build your own counter-notice.

For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor. For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright.

Topic maintained by Chilling Effects

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