| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > DMCA Safe Harbor > Notices > Telephony Company Asks Google to Remove Links to Alleged Infringer (NoticeID 1339, http://chillingeffects.org/N/1339) | Location: https://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1339 |
July 06, 2004
|
Sender Information: |
Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA
Sent via: postal mail
Re:
Dear Partner in Internet Services: Thank you for your kind and measured response to our current frustration with a web site pirate that is copying our website and hiding their identity. While our biggest concern is that they are deliberately trying to hurt our web lead generation by de-ranking our website with Google, your and our biggest line of defense is likely to be their violation of the copyright on our web site. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, service providers, such as Google and ISPs, have Safe Harbor provisions that protect them if they follow the requirements outlined in the act. These provisions allow and require service providers to "expeditiously remove or disable access" to infringing material when they become aware of the violation without becoming liable to either the copyright holder or the infringer. The alleged infringer then has the right to contest the removal. Thus we do not see Google as part of the problem and we do not desire to take any action against Google. Rather we see Google as part of the solution and are looking to continue the great relationship we have had with Google over the past three years. To do that we are requesting that Google: 1. Not penalize the ranking of DialResults or its parent DataResults due to what looks like search engine spamming by www.etopiagolf.com and/or www.vantagevoicesystms.com. 2. After reviewing the information below, remove links to www.etopiagolf.com and www.vantagevoicesystems.com that lead customers to their infringing web sites. The remainder of this letter outlines the details of the infringement as your legal department requested. 1. Copyrighted Work Infringed The content is the same except that our logo has been pasted over with a pictures and our trade name DialResults has been replaced with either etopiagolf or vantagevoicesystems. All of the navigation page URL names are the same if you replace DialResults with either etopiagolf or vantagevoicesystems. 2. Material that is Infringing www.etopiagolf.com and www.vantagevoicesystems.com. both have copied our web pages and replaced our logo with a picture and our trade name DialResults has been replaced with either etopiagolf or vantagevoicesystems. They have kept the same URL names with their company name replacing ours for the pages in item 1 above (that is www.Dialresults.com/solutions.html becomes www.etopiagolf.com/solutions.html). In terms of Google search names at least the following are of concern: Search Query Search Results It is easy to see that our site is the original because:
The www.DialResults.com web site and most of its navigation pages, including: www.DialResults.com/solutions.html
www.DialResults.com/products.html
www.DialResults.com/difference.html
www.DialResults.com/features.html
www.DialResults.com/employment.html
www.DialResults.com/emerging.html
www.DialResults.com/partners.htm. (part)
www.etopiagolf.com www.etopiagolf.com
etopiagolf.com www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com www.vantagevoicesystems.com
vantagevoicesystems.com www.vantaaevoicesystems.com
predictive dialers www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
predictive dialers www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
predictive dialing www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
predictive dialing systems www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
predictive dialers voip www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
contact center software www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
contact center management www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesysterms.com
call center software www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
call center systems www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
call center management software www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
CTI software www.etopiagolf.com
www.vantagevoicesystems.com
|
Question: Is all copying piracy?
Answer: No. Copyright gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, publicly distribute, perform and display their work. Nonetheless, the law allows "fair use" of copyrighted material. Fair use permits, in certain circumstances, the use or copying of all or a portion of a copyrighted work without the permission of the owner. Copyrighted works may be used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider, in part: Courts balance these factors, placing an emphasis on the fourth, however rulings have been unpredictable. Parody may be protected by fair use where the user is actually making a comment on or criticism of the copyrighted material, even if a profit is made from the use. Still, distributing copyrighted software will rarely be fair use because people will use those copies instead of buying the software from the legitimate vendor. Question: Can a copyright owner find out the identity of the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material? Answer: The safe harbor provisions permit a copyright owner to subpoena the identity of the individual allegedly responsible for the infringing activities. [512(h)] Such a subpoena is granted on the condition that the information about the individual's identity will only be used in relation to the protection of the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner. [512(h)(2)(C)] The DMCA subpoena provision does not apply to requests for the identities of users of ISP conduit 512(a) services, but only to users of hosting or linking, for which a takedown may be sent under 512(c)(3)(A). Thus DMCA subpoenas cannot be used to find the identities of users engaged in peer-to-peer filesharing. Recording Industry Assoc. of America v. Verizon Internet Svcs., Inc. 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 are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?
Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider's network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable. 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 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 is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"? Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury. As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability. Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury. (See What is contributory infringement?.) Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party 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:
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the person harmed for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)] See also How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?, and the counter-notification generator. Question: Can search engines be liable for copyright infringement by providing hyperlinks to search results? Answer: Some Internet search engines have been getting "takedown" requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512 (see DMCA Safe Harbor for more information). The DMCA provides a safe harbor to information location tools that comply with takedown notices, but it is not settled whether they would be liable for copyright infringement if they did not use the safe harbor. Arguably, computer-generated pages of links do not materially facilitate infringing activity or put their hosts on notice of copyright infringements. 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: 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 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)] Question: What information is available to someone researching domain name ownership? Answer: A "Whois" record. A "Whois" record is the information provided to a registrar when someone registers a domain name. This record generally includes the name and contact information of the "owner" of the domain name, as well as the technical contact and the billing contact. Often, these contacts are the same person. (The IP address for the web site is also included in a Whois record. This provides the address of where the site is hosted.) Question: What defenses are there to copyright infringement? Answer: The primary defense to copyright infringement is "fair use." 17 U.S.C. Question: What does "under penalty of perjury" mean? Answer: Law.com offers a good definition of perjury: "Perjury is the the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although it is a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood." 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. |
|
|