DMCA Takedown, inventory, re-rezzing, and the TOS

Hello LL,

I would like to know what happens when a resident issues a DMCA complaint, the item is removed from in-world and the the offender re-rezzes the item from their inventory?

If LL honors a DMCA takedown and takes the infringing item(s) down, shouldn't they stay removed from in-world? If the offender re-rezzes the item from a copy in their inventory or by other means, does this violate the TOS or CS? I would think so, but have been unable to locate any specific statement regarding this in the TOS. If it does, could you point to where it is in the TOS?

If it is not, then how would LL handle this?

Also, we are asked to provide the specific location of the infringing item. Does LL also remove the item from the individuals inventory? What about items that have been sold to others? Does the copyright holder have to locate each and every item and point to it in-world in an additional/separate DMCA complaint?

Best regards,
MadamG Zagato

Asking further about this...

When a valid DMCA notification is received, the service provider responds under this process by taking down the offending content. On taking down content under the DMCA, we will take reasonable steps to contact the owner of the removed content so that a counter-notification may be filed. On receiving a valid counter-notification, we generally restore the content in question, unless we receive notice from the notification provider that a legal action has been filed seeking a court order to restrain the alleged infringer from engaging in the infringing activity.

If Linden Lab believes that a user of SL is continually abusing the DMCA process, either with filings that appear to be without basis, or by continually re-posting content that is the subject of valid DMCA notifications, we may exercise our right to terminate the abusing party's SL account. Keep in mind though, that Linden Lab's actions still do not determine the substantive outcome of copyright disputes. Copyright matters are real-world rights, governed by real-world systems.

Finally, the DMCA does specify that the location of the item must be named in the notification in order for such notification to be complete. It is unclear how the existence of an item in inventory would constitute copyright infringement; in any case, the relevant point is that since an alleged infringer has the right to defend his or her actions in court, it would be premature to remove content from inventory without a substantive ruling on valid copyright use.