removals@lindenlab.com has bit my butt

There's no mention of the OP having received the name and address of the DMCA filer, but if they had filed a counter-notice then the quoted email says that "Linden Lab will forward your counter-notification, including your name, address, telephone number, and any other contact information that you provide, to the copyright claimant."

As to what actually happens I have no idea. I'm just trying to go by what the quoted email says.

Don't take this personally. I'm just on a general drift of practicality.



"..LL is quite within their rights to.." behave sensibly.
Awaken thyself, breathe in the caffeine vapours




"..LL doesn't have to .."
Yeah. Got that.


One phrase - "Cost/Benefit"
Or in layperson's terms - if it seems worthwhile on balance of the effort and cost of a housewife/unemployed with a hobby taking on international legal processes and costs.



So you quoted US Copyright Law, para 512c(3).
Which sounds all very impressive to someone easily impressed., and which is basically repeated in LL's own statement of the requirements for a proper DMCA filing.

No problemo. I can do that. My DMCA filing against something that you have created will contain all of the detailed specifics about the description and location of the 'infringing' content.
THe RL identity info as specifed by LL is as follows.
My RL name is John Goodfellow. ((OOC - Not real))
My telephone number is +447889256187 ((OOC - Not real))
My email address is [email]JohnGoodfellow@gmail.com[/email] ((OOC - Not real))
(Note: Calls to that number would be answered - on a completely anonymous pay-as-you-go mobile. Emails to that address would get a response from the perp)
This information will correspond to the information that I used to set up an account - an account that I have seeded with activity and content. Although... in an LL that demands the child avaters have to resubmit the same RL information that they submitted the last 10 times .......
Please do not attempt to assign standards of reasonable behaviour to me. Somebody doing this is, by definition, not reasonable.

LL don't require a postal address, but for the sake of plausibility I could supply a bogus postal address. LL will most probably use the email/telephone that they have expressed a clear preference for . Should they for some strange reason delay everything to wait on the response to a snailmail, I don't care - I'm not defending my copyright. I'm griefing/stalking the actual copyright owner. I'm having lulz. I don't realy care if it doesn't work. But ... I know sure as hell that LL will telephone and/or email. They explicitly expressed a preference for that.




This is the identity information that LL define as the information that they require for a properly completed DMCA filing.
http://secondlife.com/corporate/dmca.php
To File a Notification
3. Provide a reasonably sufficient method of contacting you; phone number and email address would be preferred.

That's: --- *reasonably sufficient*... phone number and email address *would be preferred.*



What's this "can" paleface?
I've already supplied all ID information specified by LL. See above.



OK. I'm a student in Brazil. I haven't a button. I'm just lucky that I get usse of a PC on a slow Net connection. I've created some good content in SL. I've "monetised" it to the tune of L$2000 per month, which when combined with some of the remaining camping available in SL pays for uploads and rental of vendor space.
You're telling me that I have to retain the services of an IP attorney. My English is not so good. Do you mean a lawyer? Can you suggest one in my village who will do this for free?


/me reads the OP to detect any indication that the a copy of the notice was served.
/me reads both the US Copyright Law, para 512c(3). that you quoted and the LL webpage to see if there is anything there that will ensure that the RL details in the notice would be verified as definitively identifying a claimant.



What's this *SHOULD* paleface?
/me reads the OP again.
What's this "If I"?

Why did the OP get the manner of communication that they received?


DMCA in the context of micropayment and/or freebie SL is a griefer's charter.

DMCA was created by big business for big business. Have your lawyers call my lawyers.

DMCA + LL + hobbyist creative on micropayments/freebie = Broken.

In the specific instance of this thread, the email sent is bogus in the first place; I already stipulated that in a previous message. The OP isn't the infringer (as far as I can tell), and needed COMPLETELY different handling.

By the law, LL doesn't even have to request that an alleged infringer take down the content; they can "just do it". They only have to notify the alleged infringer *after* they take down the content.

It would behoove them to first attempt to get the alleged infringer to remove the content at once, given a short window of time, like 24 hours; provide him/her a copy of the notice; and give him/her a short period of time (like the same 24-hour window) to respond before moving to take down the content directly. It isn't a requirement of the law to do so, but most sensible ISPs do have similar policies.

It's not a question of which person is in violation. The copy that the receiver has is an illegal copy, and LL is required to remove the content. It's the copy that's in violation.

Granted, their letter could be more diplomatic. But the essence of the letter is correct. And even though it seems obvious that this person wouldn't be able to file a counter-claim, they still have to include verbiage explaining that option.

Oh, I know. It's a pain-in-the-ass issue all around. The law sucks, LL's handling of it sucks, and RL issues mean that some people will get left out in the cold, which also sucks.



I'm well aware of LL's track record. I'm just saying what is sensible, with the law in mind.



That's life, though, regardless of whether it applies to SL or not, anyone creating a work and using copyright to protect it has to deal with the exact same process. If it is too much, then don't deal with it; either don't protect your stuff, or don't distribute it, if it bothers you.



I realize that someone could go a long ways towards spoofing a RL identity for purposes of harassing/abusive DMCA notices. Personally, as an ISP in the situation where I couldn't verify the identity of a filer, I would go the route of immediately contacting the alleged infringer, give him/her a copy of the notice, give him/her a short window of time to file a counter-notice, and then provide the counter-notice to the complainant, without ever disabling access to the content, even for the mandatory 10 days. The exception to that is if there was evidence that I uncovered in the process of locating/identifying the alleged infringing content / infringer which led me to believe that the content was indeed infringing, or if the alleged infringer failed to respond in a timely fashion to the takedown notice, by filing an appropriate counter-notice. I would then have to disable access to the content.

Again, personally, I think the way the DMCA law is written stinks, and is heavily overbalanced towards creators, to the extent of even being detrimental to said creators by opening doors to abusing them with the very process that is intended to protect them. THAT is why there must be balance in the law, and in the process; otherwise, it is a bad law, and needs to be changed.

It is also why I fight vehemently against big copyright holders and their representatives, like the RIAA and MPAA; precisely because they are the ultimate cause of all this shite law that is getting passed on their behalf from all the corrupt lobbying they do.



In that case, I would hope that LL (or whoever) simply passes back a counter-notice and doesn't bother to take down the content. You don't get your lulz, and potentially have your identity revealed in a criminal action. I'd pursue you.

As for the potential privacy violation issue, I have two statements:

1) Privacy is fleeting and illusory. Pretty much, you can expect that someone can figure out who you are and where you live without a whole lot of trouble. It might cost them a bit of money, time, and/or effort, but it can be done. It is VERY hard to maintain complete anonymity.
2) There are ways to protect your privacy in the case of DMCA abuse; you can assign your IP to a holding company, or even to another person; as long as it is a legally-existing entity, you can have them listed as your designated agent. For example, your lawyer can be the person listed on the counter-notice.



Yes, but, according to the LAW, that's not the only thing; email address and phone number are preferred as additional extras, but the law specifically uses the conjunction "and" joint, so it is inclusive of a mailing address.



Nope, you're on your own, see above. If you want to play in the copyright arena, you have to play by The Man's rules. That means: 1) Learn the law, 2) learn your rights, 3) learn whatever languages are necessary to exercise them, and/or 4) hire someone to do the work for you.



The OP's case is not relevant to the point here, since he/she was technically not an "alleged infringer", and shouldn't even been served with that kind of notice in the first place. LL could have omitted it in light of that fact, for all we know.



Because LL screwed up?



Not necessarily. There is a rather large barrier to spurious DMCA notices. Do you really want to risk jail/fines for some lulz? It is easier to get a conviction for perjury (at least here in the US) than it is to get a copyright judgment.

That LL probably will FUBAR the process no matter what is a separate issue. You just have to hold their feet to the fire.

I do not understand why someone who buys it is at fault at all! Im with you on this one OP.... That is just WRONG!

If that's your approach, why bother doing anything?

The law doesn't require you to have a DMCA process. Companies establish the process to insulate themselves against lawsuits for their part of the copyright infringement. If you don't follow the requirements as specified in the law, you're wasting your time, because a copyright owner can and will argue that you should lose the safe harbor protections of the DMCA.

Don't get hung up on the fault issue, even though the letter does read as if assigning blame. It's not a matter of blame or fault. It's a matter of being in possession of an illegal copy. The copy has to be deleted, and the owner of the copy has to be notified. It's just that the tone of the letter makes it seem like the buyer deliberately did something wrong.

Because I don't believe the law is meant to be a do-all, end-all solution for all situations, unlike some people.

If I have more than ample reason to believe that one of my customers is being falsely accused of violating copyright, I am more than happy to take up for them. If that ends up getting me named in a suit, then so be it. I can sue for damages just as much as my customer can, and I can help them with their case.

If I DON'T have reason to believe that the customer so accused is innocent, then I am likely to take the safe-harbour route to avoid liability from a reasonable doubt perspective.

Even Verio has refused DMCA takedown notices from the MPAA, and many ISPs ignore DMCA trolls, so this is not an uncommon stance.

We SHOULD get "hung up" on the "fault issue", because it isn't even a proper legal approach to take. You can't send a DMCA notice to someone who receives an infringing copy. LL can't determine that it even IS an "illegal copy" until it GOES TO COURT FIRST.

Their letter is accusatory of violating the law, of being the party for whom the DMCA notice was filed, and is LEGALLY INCORRECT.

If I had gotten that letter, I would have sent it back saying "show me the notice that names me or identifies where *I*, *specifically* am being indicated". If they couldn't, they would owe me an apology.

Just back from shopping with Jalissa. We went to Neo-Japan, and found the nicest AO's for only $L300 each. She was torn between two, so I bought her both. Bought one for myself as well ^_^. It's replacing my multi-thousand $L Vista. Low key, low lag and oh so fluid in motion.

Anyway, I did some investigation. Only getting the content from Xstreet generates the recall notice. If you were passed the item inworld, you are safe. As if we need another reason to avoid shopping on Xstreet.

My own view is that LL needs to hire some folks who have a clue in regards to customer service.

I wanted to post to thank all of you for your kindness.

In truth, the real victim is the person who bundled several free AO's and offered them for no profit. The offending content was a single sit animation that had been offered by the original creator as full perm.

I was so scared. Thank you my wonderful sister Jannae for helping me work through this traumatic experience, and all of you for your support.

LL has neither an obligation nor a reason to determine whether or not it's an infringing copy. Half the point of the DMCA process is to allow copyright owners to have infringing works removed without having to go to court.

On what basis do you say you can't sent a DMCA notice to someone who receives an infringing copy?


Show me where the DMCA says a takedown notice has to name the specific person respsoinsible.

It's not "can't", it's "aren't required to", you "have no reason to". It's not against the law to receive, just to distribute.

An illegal copy is an illegal copy. It doesn't matter whether you distributed it or received it, it's still an illegal copy.

One could argue that merely having it in inventory isn't an illegal copy, because the inventory item is merely a pointer and implied license, not an actual copy. But if you actually use the item in question, then you are distributing it, because other people will be seeing it on their computers. (But since it's just a transitory copy that can't be redistributed, those people don't get take down notices.)

Durrr. Yeah, I know that, thanks.



Because the mere possession of an illegal copy isn't against the law. Yeah, it's an illegal copy; unless the person in possession of it is the one who MADE the copy, they didn't break the law, and treating them like they did is LEGALLY IMPROPER. They can't be sued for copyright infringement if they didn't actually break the law, ya know?

The whole point of a DMCA notice is to seek to stop actual infringement. DMCAing someone who hasn't infringed and isn't infringing is pointless.



I didn't SAY the DMCA notice has to, but their LETTER CLAIMING IT DID SHOULD. They should know whether or not I am infringing, otherwise, why did they bother sending the letter in the first place? Did they use a magic 8-ball or something? "Outlook appears hazy, but send a DMCA notice anyway".

If I am in mere possession of an illegal copy, then they should use A DIFFERENT FRICKING' LETTER. How hard is this to understand, really?

Then they should deal with it as such and not treat the owner as the infringer.



No, if you use the item in question, it is NOT considered "distribution" in the sense that copyright law uses that term. At best, it would considered to be a "public performance", but even that category would be dicey, since it is endemic to the use of the object, not an actual intent by the user.

Next, you'll probably attempt to strawman my arguments to being in support of people keeping and using illegal copies. Just to head that silliness off at the pass, no, *I* have never said any such thing. LL has the responsibility to disable access to the infringing copies to EVERYONE. The difference is that using the claim that the person who UNWITTINGLY purchased/obtained it falls under a DMCA notice as an infringer is WRONG.

That's not the way the law is written.

The things in your inventory aren't really in your possession. They are in the possession of Linden Lab, hosted in its databases for you to access. The reason they have to delete items in a resident's inventory doesn't really have anything to do with the resident's actions; Linden Lab has to delete items in your inventory to get those items out of their possession.

If you unwittingly bought an infringing item through XStreetSL, which was subsquently deleted from your inventory due to Linden Lab's response to a DMCA claim, I think you would have a good argument that Linden Lab is liable to you for the damage caused by the loss of the item in your inventory. That will probably remain an untested argument, because these things never involve enough monetary damages to justify a lawsuit.

Removing the item due to a DMCA claim is what Linden Lab has to do pursuant to the law. The superfluous accusions of infringement against residents are not required by law, unnecessary, and probably inacurrate in most cases.

(1) That doesn't mean they have to treat the purchaser as if they were a crook, rather than as a secondary victim.
(2) They don't have to get them out of their possession, they have to block access to them.

They shouldn't delete it, OR require you to delete it. They should block access to it (which they should be able to). Whether they or you *delete* it that prevents it from being restored if a counterclaim is filed, and *you* can't remove access to it without deleting it.

So what they should do is block access to all instances of the content, and restor eit if a counterclaim is filed. NOT tell people to delete it (even if they don't include the inaccurate language).

Age verification, don't ya love it?

They are able to restore after deleting them.

I had a similar issue happen to me on an item I purchased on xstreet.

But it was given back since I counter claimed, cause the owner filed a dmca but I knew they wouldnt try to push it in court over 5 bucks

from their own rules



most wont be able to take that extra step in court majority of the time, so just write up your own counter and try it.

course different situation than this but it worked for me.

If YOU delete them? Even if YOU don't know to ask them about it because you're not the alleged infringer and have no idea whether a counterclaim has been filed? Putting the responsibility for deleting the content on a secondary victim makes that academic.

Just to head this continued argument about "possessing illegal copies" off at the pass...

The way it normally works in RL is this:

1) Copyright owner creates a work.
2) One or more people infringe on said work and distribute it widely.
3) Copyright owner sues infringer(s)
4) Copyright owner wins case and is awarded damages.

As a result of being awarded damages, all existing "illegal copies" that were created and distributed become legitimate, since the point of asking for damages is to recover the cost of said illegal works in the first place.

In rare cases, the court may rule that all illegal copies of a work be destroyed, in lieu of awarding damages. However, if there is no way for the court (or the copyright owner) to enforce or even locate said copies, it is extremely unlikely that avenue will be pursued.

As a result, the entire way LL went about dealing with the OP was COMPLETELY off-base, both LEGALLY(ETHICALLY) and MORALLY.