Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 5078107" data-attributes="member: 44797">As far as I can tell, you got many things horribly, horribly wrong -- and not just from a "you were a douchbag" level, as Morrus intimated, but also from a legal level.  Here is some stuff to run by that IP attorney of yours.First, your email to PP invokes the DMCA to protect your trademark (or more accurately, your wordmark).  For those that don't get it, Rob invoked a copyright act to protect his wordmark.  Here is a link that explains how the DMCA and trademarks/wordmarks are unrelated:<a href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/trademark-user-generated-content" target="_blank">Trademark: User-Generated Content | Citizen Media Law Project</a>So on the face of it, the email is nonsensical, and in my case I would have done as the guys running EN World have suggested, and ignored it.Having said that, let's go ahead and assume that your DMCA citation did apply (it doesn't, but you've tried to make it work, so let's play it out).  <a href="http://www.mcanerin.com/EN/articles/copyright-03.asp" target="_blank">The DMCA has very specific rules about how it works</a>, and your rambling letter follows almost none of it.  First, it doesn't follow the proscribed format -- this is actually meant to be a legal document, and the legal forms have been provided by the government, and you didn't use them.  But additionally, the DMCA requires you to specifically cite each infraction and you didn't.There is no law in place that says that a forum owner must assist in (or wholly bear the burden of) educating the forum members on another company's IP, yet you suggested this as part of your legal claim.  I'm no lawyer, but doesn't that make this email of yours some kind of legal falsehood, Rob?  Ask your IP attorney.  Ask him to cite this law that he apparently believes would allow you to force other site owners to do your "educating the public" work for you.So, we've got a messed up legal threat that doesn't even follow the very rules it cites.  And this letter puts the burden of work on someone who is legally exempt from that burden.  And this letter doesn't cite specific violations, so there is additional burden on the owner that at the very least, the DMCA says is your obligation Rob, not PPs.Is it any wonder then that this wholly unrealistic letter which gets so much wrong is handled in a manner far beyond what usually happens with (proper) DMCA takedown notices?I get a DMCA takedown notice for my forum that has a specific URL to a specific post by a specific poster, and I sigh and knock it out.  I get a blanket, "figure out how to fix everything for us" email, and I'm going to do as Morrus implied -- shrug and say, "I can't read a million posts, and the law says I don't have to, sorry."  Or, if I'd rather not bother with the legal back & forth, I'll just utterly obliterate anything to do with a company that is so sloppy with legal matters.  I'd want no part of it.  And look, that's kinda what PP did.  I can't blame them, if I'd consider doing the same.To me, that's what's objectionable about your handling of this, Rob.EDIT: Steerpike7 beat me to this by over an hour.  Shoot.  I need to write my posts more quickly.</blockquote>

Verification