removals@lindenlab.com has bit my butt

17 USC 512(c)(1): "A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider ... (C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc17.wais&start=1043739&SIZE=31547&TYPE=TEXT

It looks like Linden Lab followed the law to me.

I have read in other threads, and Cito Katu cited personal experience in this thread, that Linden Lab is able to restore the material.

Linden Lab's notice asks (not requires) the customer receiving the notice to delete the material in two days, or to file a counter-claim. If one were actually going to file a counter-claim, having the items in inventory for two days will help with the counter-claim (UUIDs, describing the item- easier to do looking it in inventory than remembering off the top of one's head). I didn't really think of it the first time I read the OP, but now that I have re-read it, the fact that they give someone two days to act actually helps that someone file a counter-claim. Otherwise, if Linden Lab deleted the items immediately, it would be a lot harder to write a good counter-claim.

Read that part again; you're missing something.

They didn't respond expeditiously to remove anything; they forwarded a DMCA letter to a VICTIM, not the INFRINGER. If they were following the law, they shouldn't be trifling around with sending DMCA letters to VICTIMS. They should be about disabling access to the content period, and notifying VICTIMS that they had to do it BECAUSE of a a DMCA takedown notice they received.

The legality is wrong, the posture is wrong, and the result was stupid beyond measure.

Recipients of infringing materials cannot file "counter-claims". Recipients of infringing materials who were not a party to the actual infringement cannot be DMCAed. It is ludicrous.



According to the letter of the law, they have to disable access to the content for a minimum of 10 days anyway, EVEN IF the VICTIM could file a counter-claim.

The ONLY person with the necessary information to file the counterclaim is the alleged infringer.

The person who bought it is not the alleged infringer.

HOW the HELL do you expect someone who bought an AO off XSL to file a counterclaim? Seriously? What are you smoking?

If Linden Lab does not block access to the allegedly infringing content after receiving the claim, it does not get the safe harbor protection under the law. The result may be unfair to someone who did not realizing they were receiving infringing content, but it's hard to fault Linden Lab for protecting its legal interests pursuant to the law. The law makes no distinction as to whether allegedly infringing content appears by innocent mistake or not. The statute says what it says.

If that's what LL actually DID, we would not have a problem, but that's NOT what they're doing. They're telling someone who had no part in the infringement that they're the infringer, telling them to remove the content instead of blocking access, and expecting THEM, not the alleged perp, to handle the paperwork.

No, purchasers should not be able to file counter-claims unless the copyright passed on to them at time of purchase.

That said, LL's responsibility to it's customers is to alert them that an item is under dispute and that they will be shutting off access to it until such time as either the issue is counter-claimed or permanently removed for violation of copyright.

THAT is the long and short for a purchaser. No need to get accusatory with the purchaser at all.

Yes, that is all absolutely correct FOR THE ALLEGED PERPETRATOR.

Everyone else they're sending this notice to has

1. No basis on which to file a counterclaim.
2. No way to know when the counterclaim has been filed, if one IS filed, and thus no way to known to ask for their material to be restored.

Linden Lab is "able to" restore the material, but except for the alleged perpetrator none of the people involved is in a position to take advantage of that fact. So FOR THIS SITUATION, where they are contacting SECONDARY VICTIMS, what they are doing makes no sense at all.

What is your basis for saying they can't be sued? Civil suits are frequently filed and handled when no laws have been broken.

I'll respond to the obtuseness of your question with the obvious clarification: They can't be sued with any hope of getting past the point of summary dismissal by the judge for annoying him with such nonsense.

That doesn't answer the question. What would be the grounds for dismissal? Saying that the defendant hasn't broken the law doesn't count as grounds for dismissal.

It does answer the question you asked. You are asking another question now.

The grounds for dismissal is that the named defendant of the suit isn't the one who did the deed of which he is being accused.

"Your honor, I bought the copy in question at my local record store; here's the receipt."

"Ahh, very well; case dismissed."

Actually, it would be,

"Your honor, I bought the copy in question from the web site of the distributor of the illegal copies and that distributor has the keys to my closet."

Not really. LL isn't the the one violating the distribution right, according to the law; they are simply the conduit. That's the whole point of the DMCA safe-harbour. Even still, it wouldn't change the judge's response.

"Case dismissed."

The thing is, LL didn't do anything illegal with this notice to the OP. In fact, it was entirely legal.

What it was, was impolite. The wording could have been much less peremptory and accusatory.

If copyright has been infringed, LL has the duty to remove infringing copies of the work, including the stuff in the OP's inventory...whether the OP knowingly bought infringing content or not.

Well, no, it wasn't illegal. It's not useful, even for them, since they're not required to notify anyone but the alleged infringer, but it's not illegal.