removals@lindenlab.com has bit my butt

About that invitation to sit on your knee, Ava

When?

Well gee, Phil, I know I offered you a nice place to sit while I explained some basic biology to you, but...

It's just that since then, someone has informed me that offering such courtesies for free makes me an evil commie hippie.

touché

Shouldn't it be as simple as:

1. DMCA filed
2. LL identifies UUID
3. LL deletes all instances of UUID, making a back-up first of all residents with UUID in their inventory with a specific case number as a reference.
4. LL sends email to all residents with UUID in their inventories explaining that the content had to be removed to comply with a DMCA.

Then, depending on the situation:
5a. DMCA is challenged and LL is quickly able to restore the content.
5b. DMCA moves forward and all instances of the UUID are absolutely removed from the grid. You know, the way it's suposed to be.
5c. DMCA is challenged, UUID restored, and later proven; at which time the UUID can be removed again.
5d. DMCA is resolved in the favor of the accused and the content is restored.

LL shouldn't really have any more involvement then that, should they? I don't understand why they insist on making it harder then it has to be. It just seems to me that if LL would do the things they are supposed to do, all of this crap would be so completely unnecessary.

No, Linden Lab responded to the DMCA by sending everyone who bought it the same nastygram they use for the actual infringer, instead of applying common sense. We've seen this before.

Doesn't this whole system just seem a set-up for abuse though? Seriously. I received a totally phony DMCA threat on a note-card from someone with a grudge, threatening to file one if we didn't remove sound files he didn't even create but uploaded into game FROM A FREEBIE WEBSITE which ALLOWS any use. Of course, we removed them, and he didn't file this baloney DMCA, but dang straight I would have counter-filed and even gone to court on the principle of the matter. But how come the system makes it so easy for someone to harass people with this phony stuff??? Shouldn't there be some recourse for phony filings (LL suspension?) and shouldn't customers buying things off XStreet not be made to feel guilty of something they didn't do?

There is: a civil damages claim and the normal US penalty for perjury - presumably fines and/or imprisonment. The DCMA is a formal US legal proceeding.

The obvious problem is that not everyone in SL is from the US.

You have to go to a US court to file a DCMA complaint in the first place, and by doing so you place yourself under their jurisdiction.

This is the bit about the DMCA process and SL I've never really understood.

Someone in -- say -- Australia files a DMCA complaint about some allegedly ripped content. LL take the stuff down. The person who allegedly ripped it, an Italian, responds by issuing a counter-notice saying it's his original work. LL put the stuff back up.

So far, so good. It's all been done by websites, fax and email.

But where do we go from here? Are the two parties to the dispute expected to travel to the US to ask a court to decide the rights and wrongs of the matter?

The thing that really busts my chops about this letter is this:

The person RECEIVING illegal content IS NOT IN VIOLATION. The distributor is. So LL is legally wrong when they address the recipient that way.

Plus:



Oh no they didn't!!
The only infringement that could be notified by the person claiming to be the copyright owner is the infringement in the product on offer via Xstreet - which would be in the Xstreet Magic Box and in the inventory of the seller.
How that person know to file a complaint against the OP?



I blame the Tao of Linden. This is why LL does everything in a half-assed fashion.
The culture punishes/discourages any action that could be interpreted as a criticism of another Linden.
Someone comes out with a Big Idea.
Everybody says kewl - particularly if the Big Idea is shiny - and is totally loving to that Linden, who in return is totally loving to them.
Nobody thinks out the implications of going live with only the simplest summary of the Big Idea as guidance. To do so would be to risk being seen as negative.

The result is that when the Big Idea begins to impact on residents, the Lindens on the interface come across as the sort of retards who would be sacked from jobs as burger flippers in Joe's Diner on the grounds of excessive stupidity.

Because they are Linden Lab.

Yes. The DMCA is a cr*p piece of legislation, but the DMCA take-down notice in particular can be used as a major harassment tool.

Do you have an SL stalker or some psycho griefer? Have you made something in SL that really matters to you? By filling out a little form, your stalker/griefer can destroy all your work, and you have no way to get it back except by giving said scary person your RL identity and address.

This is one of those stories that deserves media attention. Linden Lab is making a big push to have business done in Second Life. Everyone should know how Linden Lab does business. Linden Lab will happily peddle stolen content, then send a nastygram to an innocent buyer.

OMG little sister! I just found your thread. I'm calling you RL tonight. I've been so busy since we were at Dad's for Thanksgiving. Don't worry about the nasty message. I have had a few personally adressed to me by well known Linden folks, and I'm still kickin'.

Screw the free AO. Let's go shopping tomorrow night. I'll buy you a real one.

Love you,
"Jannae"

Oh hey! Welcome back Ava. What's up on your bit of the North Coast?

The DMCA notices get acted on and people made to delete allegedly infringing content without getting the name and address of the DMCA filer.

Filing a counter-notice, though, causes the original filer to get the counter-filer's name and address.

That seems asymmetrical.

Pretty bad if your SL avatar account is not one you want associated with your real life name.

Hi Jannae, nice to be back. It's cold as hell here... it barely got above 60 degress today!

/me tries to avoid icy snowballs thrown by people in places with actual winter.

This whole thing is, as has been said, most likely a "test case" of their newfangled beta "IP infringement" system. Obviously, it is pure EPIC FAIL, in keeping with their long-standing tradition of EPIC FAIL. You don't send DMCA infringement notices to people receiving infringed content.

That said, SL isn't exactly like the situation where someone buys an infringing copy of a work and takes it home. It still is more or less illegal to own said copy, but the buyer is not necessarily responsible for direct infringement simply by having it. The problem is, in SL's case, LL is still serving up the infringed copies to those who "own" them simply by allowing access to them on their service. As such, they are still violating the law as a distributor of infringed content. The DMCA procedure in LL's case means that they have to disable access to and / or delete the offending copies AS WELL AS the ones being sold by the original infringer(s).

The difference is that they need to send out a different form letter to those who have received infringing copies, and not assume those people were aware that they were infringing someone else's copyrights through their otherwise perfectly normal and legal activities on the SL service.

The DMCA process with LL should look something like this:

1) Copyright holder sends a PROPERLY-EXECUTED DMCA take-down notice to LL, identifying some alleged infringing content and the alleged people so infringing said content.
2) LL verifies the notice and the claims contained within it.
3) Upon verficiation identification of the alleged infringer(s), LL should IMMEDIATELY send them a copy of the notice, and then DISABLE ACCESS TO (*NOT* DELETE!) said alleged infringing content owned/controlled by the alleged infringer(s).
4) If a PROPERLY-EXECUTED counter-notice is filed by the alleged infringer(s) within 14 days, LL restores access to the alleged infringing content and forwards the counter-notice on to the original complainant.
5) If a PROPERLY-EXECUTED counter-notice is *NOT* filed by the alleged infringer(s) within 14 days, LL should then send out a notice to everyone who owns an allegedly infringing copy which states that, in accordance with the filing of a DMCA takedown notice, they must disable all access to said copies, potentially on a permanent basis. The email should be polite and apologetic, but firm in the stance against content infringement. It should also provide copious links to various resources on the matter, both within the context of SL/LL, and outside. It should also identify the content, the original creator's, and the infringer's SL identity(-ies) such that the person knows which content was affected, and who was involved.
6) Eventually, depending on the outcome of a later suit, or the lack of filing any counter-notice whatsoever, LL should then go ahead and delete the infringing copies permanently from its service.
7) During any part of this process, they can decide to suspend accounts related to the action.

This stuff isn't rocket science; the fact that LL can't even get something this simple right just proves the level of incompetence with which we have always had to deal.



They should freeze the assets of the infringer(s) and, once the case is "settled", they should transfer any appropriate damages from the infringer's account(s) to the complainant.



You have every right to be. It was TOTALLY improper and, if it were me, I would MAKE them apologize for screwing up so badly.



To be fair, that's not an reasonable expectation. LL is a service provider; they aren't selling the goods to you as "Linden Lab"; they are allowing other people ("third parties" to sell stuff on their service. They cannot make any guarantees for anything sold using their service. As a consumer, you have to be aware that there are indeed scams and infringing copyright content all over the place, and be smart about your purchases. If someone is acting shady, or someone's wares look shady, avoid them. You wouldn't buy movies/shoes/etc out of the back of someone's van on the side of the road, would you?



Yes, the DMCA does allow for a limited amount of abuse, but with the peril of fines and imprisonment from perjury.

The one thing I want to see changed in the law is the mandatory 10-day disabling of access to content. If a DMCA notice is filed, verified, and served to an ISP's customer, who then turns around in a short enough time frame and files a counter-notice, then access should never be disabled. This would prevent the kind of abuse and disruption that most people see in the law.

In your situation, I would have ignored the "phony" threat, contacted the original content creator, obtained a written license for your specific use, and kept it at the ready for whenever the "phony" "creator" actually got around to trying to file a formal request with LL. I would then go after said person for perjury.

The system may allow for harassment and abuse, but you DO have recourse. Nothing smells so nice as to know that someone got a hefty fine and/or a few days in jail from being an idiot. Stupid SHOULD hurt, after all.



LL is not required nor expected to honor DMCA notices from countries which do not support the US DMCA law via an existing treaty. They may still act on their own volition to take down content they deem infringing.



No, the filer of the DMCA take-down notice must provide full disclosure of their RL legal identity, and LL must provide a copy of notice to the infringer(s) when it takes down their content. It doesn't have to provide the notice or the RL identity to people receiving infringed content, but it *SHOULD* provide to them at least the SL identities of both the complainant and the infringer(s).

Nice summary, Tal. Too bad nobody at LL will ever see it.

It might make the basis of a good JIRA.

That's a good idea..I think I'll pursue that just in case.

I wouldn't agree that the DMCA allows for a *limited* amount of abuse.
In the SL context, it's a charter for abuse.
It's also a charter for stalking.

In theory, if a false claim is made, then the victim can try to retaliate against the perp. If there is a *significant* SL business involved, then maybe they would.
If everyone was in the USA, maybe that could be made to work.

The big wide trans-national nature of the Interwebz can makes it difficult to impossible.
Is someone in Argentina going to get someone in Croatia jailed/fined for perjury?

What did the perp have to submit about themselves in the DMCA?
"Provide a reasonably sufficient method of contacting you; phone number and email address would be preferred."
Hey! No prob. Pay as you go cellphone and a freebie email - totally anonymous!



Take someone who creates something in SL and has sales amounting to a few US$.
They get a notice that "somebody" has filed a DMCA.
In order to keep the rights to their own work, they have to file a counter claim - and do it absolutely correctly. If their command of English is not good, they have problems both in understanding the notices and in filing a counter claim.
A biggie might be that their RL details will get back to the perp. To them, the perp is totally anonymous.

That sort of abuse might be largely reduced if
1) The RL details of the claimant were made known to the accused.
1.a) Unfortunately, it seems that the RL details in a claim are basically anonymous.
2) The claimant had to put of a cash deposit in some trusted escrow to show good faith.



But then of course, we might see abuse by reverse.
a) A creator of SL content gets targetted
b) The perp makes an infringement and ensures that the target gets to know about it.
c) The target has to make their RL details known to the perp and put up some cash.

However, the plan only works if the nature of the infringement has major enough effect on the target.

DMCA takedown notices do not have the weight of court orders and, thus, LL is quite within their rights to refuse to honor any of them it deems are either invalid (improperly executed), cannot be verified as authentic (the complainant's identity cannot be verified), or come from countries which are not signatory to a treaty supporting the DMCA in that country.



Perjury is a criminal offense; you don't have to pursue someone for perjury, you just have to report it to the solicitor/AG in their locale. If they are outside the US, then you report it to their local criminal law prosecution officials. Since the DMCA is ratified in very few places outside the US at the moment, you don't have much to worry about from it, since LL doesn't have to honor DMCA notices from such countries in the first place.



If they are signatory to a DMCA-supported treaty, then sure. That's a requirement of the treaty. You honor our requests, we honor yours.

How that works out in practice is anybody's guess, but hey, if someone wants to risk prosecution in their own country (which often can have MUCH harsher penalties for such), more power to 'em. I'll still press charges if the situation warrants it.



The details that must be submitted in a properly-executed DMCA takedown notice are very specific:



If LL cannot verify that such person actually exists, from public records, then they can push back on the request and ask for clarification of identity. The DMCA notice is a legal document, and providing proper identification is a requirement to establish its validity as such. Failure to do so runs the risk of the ISP refusing to honor it, and still being granted safe-harbour status, even if they are sued by the complainant.

Basically, if someone wants LL to take the notice seriously, the complainant has to make sure to provide the requisite information; otherwise, LL can refuse to honor it until such time as they do.



Then they need to retain the services of an IP attorney for such a situation. As a content creator who is interested in monetizing one's creations, it is a necessary step. That, or educating oneself, both in the law, and in the language.

That said, the DMCA takedown notice must be clear enough for LL to bother to act on it, and if it is clear enough to LL, then there's little excuse for anyone else to not make the effort to understand it.



This is generally incorrect. If you have a DMCA takedown notice served to LL on some content you "own", the ISP should serve you a copy of said notice when they take down your content. You get to know who it is in RL that filed the notice, even before you respond with a counter-notice. Many ISPs not only provide the notice to the alleged infringer(s), but also publish the notices through places like ChillingEffects.



If LL honors a takedown notice, they *SHOULD* provide a copy of the notice to the alleged infringer. The law doesn't explicitly state that they must do so when they notify the alleged infringer about the disabling of access to the allegedly infringing content, but it is implicitly expected. Any ISP that doesn't do so should be taken out back and shot, anyway. In practice, the vast majority do.

In practice as an ISP, if I received a DMCA take-down notice with nothing substantial identifying the claimant, just a throwaway email address and an unintelligble signature, I would push it back and ask for more identification before I would honor it. In addition, the ones I honor I not only would IMMEDIATELY provide to the alleged infringer(s), but also to something like ChillingEffects, for publication. Google does this, for example.

I don't quite understand this, Tal. How does a country "ratify" a US Federal Law? Presumably by treaty, but -- and I'm open to correction here -- the treaty that springs to mind in this context is the proposed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement , which hasn't been written yet, let alone signed by anyone.

Am I right in thinking that the implication of what you're saying is that if the EU hasn't yet "ratified" the DMCA in whatever manner (as I think must be the case), LL can safely ignore complaints from content creators in the EU?

Treaties are how countries respect each others' laws; that's basically their primary use and intent. "I'll respect your law, if you respect mine" (bilateral) or "Let's all respect this together" (multilateral).

There are several copyright/IP-related treaties passed over the years; ACTA is the latest in a long line of these treaties, hence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_treaty_table

The DMCA is actually the US implementation of the WCT itself, with some additions.



The EU has ratified several of the aspects of the DMCA which come from the signing of the WCT, so it still applies to the EU.

According to the law, the DMCA applies to "all copyright holders" everywhere, where the ISP/host is located in a country which has such procedures, so yes, you still can file a DMCA takedown notice with LL, because they are in the US. That said, LL may choose not to honor it because it comes from a country which is not a signatory of the appropriate treaties, and be fairly safe from legal action. For example, if you are a content creator in Iran, you're likely not going to get very much traction on your DMCA takedown requests to anyone.

Of course, you could always obtain agency in the US to hold your IP, and then your agents can file DMCA takedown notices on your behalf. Not too likely for SL content, though.