[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Other Title: Inquisitr Ltd. Complaint We Received. Hello, Please investigate the following complaint within 96 hours to avoid a disruption in service. If we do not receive a response, we are legally required to act. Linode is in receipt of a verified complaint under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in connection with the below-pasted details from Bryant Gergeres, Authorized Agent of Inquisitr Ltd regarding materials that are allegedly infringing upon the complainant's intellectual property rights. You must remove access to the material immediately. If you do not, Linode must remove or disable access to the material expeditiously under federal law; this will require us to power off your Linode in 96 hours unless you comply. Whether you remove the content or we power off your Linode, you are legally permitted to file a counter-notice with us under the DMCA. This notice must comply with 17 USC 512(g)(3), and we are legally required to communicate it to the complainant on your behalf. If you choose to file counter notice, you may restore access to the material within a certain time period unless the complainant brings legal action; further instruction will be provided if you opt to do so. Do NOT restore access to the material until directed. Please note that Linode has only passed on the complainant's notice and has not sought to determine whether the materials in the complaint do indeed infringe upon the complainant's intellectual property rights. The full text or the complaint as received by Linode follows. Harold Phillips Linode Support Team ----------- To Whom It May Concern, My name is Bryant Gergeres and I am the authorized agent of Inquisitr Ltd. A website your company hosts (according to WHOIS information) is infringing on at least one copyright owned by my company. Numerous articles were copied onto your servers without permission. All of the search returns at the following search link infringe upon our copyrights: libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/latestarticles.cgi As you can see, there are several pages of results. Your client's Web site is automated to steal our content. With such a pervasive violation of my company's copyrights, I ask that, in addition to disabling the links copied below in this DMCA takedown request, you consider further action against your client's account. A sample of the original articles found on page one of the above-copied search link, to which we own the exclusive copyrights, can be found at: 1. www.inquisitr.com/2216087...-the-path-of-degradation/ 2. www.inquisitr.com/2510140...e-says-its-illegal-video/ 3. www.inquisitr.com/1692212...vage-judged-new-commands/ 4. www.inquisitr.com/374041/...mas-passport-application/ 5. www.inquisitr.com/2494892...in-guangdong-china-video/ 6. www.inquisitr.com/225978/...-for-6-hours-after-death/ 7. www.inquisitr.com/366921/...el-with-alleged-mistress/ 8. www.inquisitr.com/2080866...d-at-university-of-texas/ 9. www.inquisitr.com/2453102...ishap-at-campaign-speech/ 10. www.inquisitr.com/1782509...st-like-the-nfl-patriots/ The unauthorized and infringing copies can be found at: 1.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40556 2. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=42560 3. libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36847 4. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=32880 5. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=42446 6. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=29699 7. libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=32774 8. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=39696 9. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=42138 10. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=37308 This letter is official notification under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”), and I seek the removal of the aforementioned infringing material from your servers. I request that you immediately notify the infringer of this notice and inform them of their duty to remove the infringing material immediately, and notify them to cease any further posting of infringing material to your server in the future. Please also be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to remove or disable access to the infringing materials upon receiving this notice. Under US law a service provider, such as yourself, enjoys immunity from a copyright lawsuit provided that you act with deliberate speed to investigate and rectify ongoing copyright infringement. If service providers do not investigate and remove or disable the infringing material this immunity is lost. Therefore, in order for you to remain immune from a copyright infringement action you will need to investigate and ultimately remove or otherwise disable the infringing material from your servers with all due speed should the direct infringer, your client, not comply immediately. I am providing this notice in good faith and with the reasonable belief that rights my company owns are being infringed. Under penalty of perjury I certify that the information contained in the notification is both true and accurate, and I have the authority to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright(s) involved. Should you wish to discuss this with me please contact me directly via email reply at bgergeres@gmail.com. Best regards Bryant Gergeres Authorized Agent Inquisitr Ltd
Please use https://manager.linode.com/support/ticket/6213422 to respond to this ticket. Thank you, Linode.com
Poster Comment: Here is the lie "Your client's Web site is automated to steal our content." Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21. #9. To: A K A Stone, atrist formerly known as tater, chicom disinfo agent (#0) www.inquisitr.com/2494892...in-guangdong-china-video/ Are these from the artist formerly know as tater? He's probably the only one here who would lovingly quote the chicom gov propaganda, in response to something Ron Paul said.
#11. To: hondo68, A K A Stone, All (#9) (Edited) www.inquisitr.com/2494892...in-guangdong-china-video/ Not I, you dumbass. I know how to comply with copyright laws. Just so you will be a little smarter, but never as smart as I am, I will post some information to help you understand copyright ... what you can and can’t do when posting. The following is excerpted from: Blogger Law - 12 Important U.S. Laws. Copyright in the Web: 1. Copyright applies to the Web.
#15. To: Gatlin (#11) 6. You may use copyrighted material under the “fair use” doctrine. Before LP started up, or maybe shortly thereafter, I researched the case that FR lost in the suit raised by the LATimes and, I think, the Washington Post. From that I gleaned that what qualifies as "Fair Use" is not cut and dry. There are four basic criteria that are each weighed in favor of the plaintiff and defendant, and where the most weight falls is how the judge should rule. Whether whole articles or only a portion is reproduced is only one of the 4 criteria, so it's possible to reproduce a whole article and still be on safe ground with Fair Use. FR was using the entire articles, and though FR did lose the case, it was a close call with the 4 criteria evenly split between FR and the newspapers. Going against FR was it's pretty obvious for-profit practices of significant fundraising for site operations and, I think, advertising as well. LF has neither of those going on. I will say that when posting articles that contain links to images from the source site, that there is a bandwidth draw on the source site to send those images to visitors that are reading the LF (or alternate) site, and that technically that could cause a monetary expense from the source site to support the bandwidth. However, these days bandwidth is so cheap there may not be any cost at all for the source site to support that, particularly on a forum that is not exactly competing with BBC or CNN. Still, for what it's worth. I would certainly maintain that, in the case of LF, source sites benefit from the publicity of the links, so that these complaints may do the source site more harm than good.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#15) (Edited) From that I gleaned that what qualifies as "Fair Use" is not cut and dry. This has always been the case. As I remember, the law was left intentionally vague so that it could be open for interpretation in each case. I personally adopted a “truncated with remainder here” procedure for posting articles after the FR vs LA Times fiasco, thinking it was the safest way I could find. Whether that is correct or not can, of course, still be challenged. From what I gleaned in the past about link the Stone posted concerning the Las Vegas trial … the newspaper was suing everyone because they thought they found a "money hole" and the judge put a stop to that. But that decision did not give a “blanket” lawful authorization to anyone to declare everything is fair use. I am of the opinion that the situation here today was someone being an asshole or maybe having too much time on their hands. I believe that posting the articles here was of actual benefit to the asshole because it gave them wider dissemination and some “free reference advertising” … so to speak. There are some posters who feel “fair use” gives them the right to post anything at any time they want to. One poster on LP even suggested to post WAPO articles on LP to intentionally challenge WAPO. I felt that was asinine. The was no need go looking for trouble, especially after WAPO had written to Sally. Some people do crazy things in life sometimes … I guess that is life and they will continue to do crazy things. If there is a safe side, I will attempt to find the safe side and save a fight for something more important another day. I am a proponent of “energy conservation” … especially my energy. Thanks for your informative post to me.
#21. To: Gatlin (#20) Some people do crazy things in life sometimes … Yeah, too bad you never had any legal action taken against you for all the plagiarizing you did at LP. The thing is, you probably still do it - you just haven't been caught lately.
Replies to Comment # 21. There are no replies to Comment # 21.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 21. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|