Slashdot Log In
How Not to Write a Cease-and-Desist Letter
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:39 PM
from the love-seeing-bullies-get-bullied dept.
from the love-seeing-bullies-get-bullied dept.
In our overly litigious society it seems that many companies are all too happy to fire off a cease-and-desist letter if they see something they don't like. Many times these letters end up online just causing further embarrassment for the company. One such company has decided to try scaring their targets out of this response by including a copyright notice for their cease-and-desist letter. Public Citizen has fielded one of these dumb letters and has invited them to try to assert their cease-and-desist copyright (which isn't even registered).
Related Stories
[+]
Entertainment: Law Firm Claims Copyright on View of HTML Source 601 comments
An anonymous reader writes "A law firm with all sorts of interesting views on copyright has decided to go the extra mile. As reported on Tech Dirt, they've decided that viewing the HTML source of their site is a violation of copyright. From the site's EULA: 'We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so.'"
[+]
Court Says You Can Copyright a Cease-And-Desist Letter 349 comments
TechDirt has a follow up to a case they covered back in October where a law firm was trying to claim a copyright on the cease-and-desist letters they sent out. Public Citizen poked a number of holes in this claim and invited the lawyers to "try it." Well, unfortunately the lawyers decided to bite and what's more, they actually got a judge to buy it. The news was announced by the victorious lawyer who now claims he can sue anytime someone posts one of his cease-and-desist letters. "The copyrighting of cease-and-desist letters is an easy way for law firms to bully small companies who have committed no wrong, but who have no real recourse to fight back against an attempt to shut them up via legal threat. Until today, many companies who were being unfairly attacked by companies and law firms misusing cease-and-desist letters to prevent opinions from being stated, had a reasonable recourse to such attacks, and could draw attention to law firms that used such bullying tactics to mute any criticism."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
HOW NOT TO WRITE A SLASHDOT TROLL. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:HOW NOT TO WRITE A SLASHDOT TROLL. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Ssh! (Score:5, Funny)
*READ BEFORE POSTING PLEASE* (Score:5, Insightful)
2. You DO need to register it before pursuing legal action in the US AND damages are limited to actual damages, not statutory damages. Legal fees expended in defending the copyright are also ineligible to be claimed in this case.
There are about 50 posts in this thread already going back and forth on this point and it's really clouding up what is a good discussion.
Parent
Re:*READ BEFORE POSTING PLEASE* (Score:5, Insightful)
From its content alone, your post is completely indistinguishable from any other post by someone who claims to know how copyright works in the US. It should be obvious that just because you know you're right, that doesn't mean the rest of us can tell that just because you sound certain about it. So, please post a link to a reputable reference, rather than just adding another post going back and forth on the issue and clouding up the discussion.
(FWIW, I think you're right about this. But it would add a lot more to the discussion if you could actually include a reference.)
Parent
Good idea / bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
How to get *good* press: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialgetafirstlife.shtml [farmersreallysucks.com]
-nB
In the UK... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Good idea / bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative
commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods
or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
-nB
Parent
Re:Good idea / bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Copyright registration (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copyright registration (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Copyright registration (Score:5, Informative)
I was about to correct you, but I went to the US Code to find a relevant quote, and holy crap, it looks like you're right! Title 17, Chapter 4, 411:
"Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title."
The exceptions in 106A appear to be about plagiarism/misrepresentation cases, not about simple "making unlicensed copies".
I thought you registered your copyrights so you'd be eligible for statutory damages and attorneys' fees in a lawsuit. That's in the law, but it's just a reason to register copyright before any infringement begins rather than right before you sue. You learn something new every day. This must be why lawyers charge the big bucks.
Parent
Re:Copyright registration (Score:5, Informative)
The proper method to deal with publication is to go ahead and press the case, and ask the judge to issue an order prohibiting both sides from discussing the case in public forums as a pre-trial motion. There is no real venue to stop publication of the legal notice short of actually taking the case to court, and there are some powerful SCOTUS decisions on the first amendment issues involved that say any such method would be prior restraint.
(please note my Sig. Any actual lawyers please feel free to correct me if I have got anything wrong here.)
Parent
Re:Copyright registration (Score:5, Informative)
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Copyright Registration."
Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Copyright Registration" and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.
I've heard about a "poor man's copyright." What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a "poor man's copyright." There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration [ephasis added by me].
so the mailing it to yourself adds no special protection.
Parent
Re:Copyright registration (Score:4, Informative)
Thats just false. If you do NOT register a valid work, you must prove it is yours. By providing a federal datestamp, it does provide some basic claim that it was created by X date.
You still cannot sue for violating copyright if you didnt register it. The mail trick only works in preventing others from suing YOU.
Parent
Re:Copyright registration (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, this is wrong. Registration of the copyright provides a number of advantages, which are summarized here [copyright.gov] by the Copyright Office. Among them is that, if the copyright is registered within three months of publication or prior to infringement, statutory damages and attorney's fees may be obtained. If not, only actual damages may be recovered by the copyright owner. In the case of a letter such as this, which has no commercial value, actual damages would be zero, so the failure to register the letter effectively eliminates any financial recovery. (Of course, the author of the letter is unlikely to succeed in the threatened suit since this is an absolutely classic case of Fair use.)
Parent
Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Note: I am not an attorney. I used http://www.publaw.com/advantage.html [publaw.com] as my source.
Parent
Funny Stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
They attempt to use Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC decision as a reason that Leonard is legally liable for hosting defamatory statements about an infomercial company! This is Charles Montgomery Burns quality humor.
Also, for further comedic value, I heavily recommend The DirectBuy website [directbuy.com] done entirely in flash. Which doesn't offer much except a registration form (click the upper right hand ticket). I can't find a damned thing on how their business model works unless I sign up for it. Seems to be a way to get home furnishings as discount prices. But for some reason you have to go to a show room for that. Sounds like something where the value isn't really there but they're certain they can sell you on the idea if they get a half hour of your time. Probably not a scam but pretty damned close--time share style!
Also what's interesting is how they respond to negative feedback questions [directbuycares.com]:
DirectBuy's unique business model is very different than mainstream retail operation. Our concept, combined with our continued growth over 36 years, has made DirectBuy, just like any other sizeable corporation, a target for controversy.
That being said, most of the information online is posted by individuals who have not attended an Open House, or have chosen not to become members.
We realize that DirectBuy is not for everyone, and that's why we encourage individuals who are interested in taking a calculated approach to undeniable savings to attend an Open House to learn about our unmatched selection, savings, and service. The complaints you see online from those who have actually visited DirectBuy represent a very small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of individuals each year who attend an Open House. (And to set the record straight, DirectBuy has never been involved in a class-action lawsuit.)
We're very proud of our long track record of satisfied members who have enjoyed the undeniable savings and wide array of merchandise that we offer. Our members invest upfront to avoid paying traditional retail markup and save significantly on virtually everything for in and around their homes. Members' satisfaction is our number-one priority.
But the only way to make an informed decision about whether DirectBuy membership is right for you is to attend an Open House event at a showroom near you. There, you'll learn more about the benefits of DirectBuy membership by gaining exclusive access to our showroom and getting a firsthand look at the savings, selection and services available to members from our team of knowledgeable professionals.
DirectBuy members, tell McBain about your membership experience here, too. We'd love to hear from you!
I'll bet any amount of money that wasn't written by a person with a soul. Shady legal threats from an even shadier company. What do you expect?
Re:Funny Stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
The really funny part is that their service is pretty much a scam... I've read up on them and apparently some of their policies are a little suspects, such as clause that do not allow you to return merchandise, cancel an order, or even (get this), terminate your membership! And where did this information come from? Try Consumer Reports [consumerreports.org]. DirectBuy is just another company with its head in the sand. Personally, I can't wait to see if this will end up in court.
Parent
Re:Funny Stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
I find this bit the most amusing:
As if, somehow, only looking for positive information about something is the best way to come to an "informed" decision. If anything, I'm looking specifically for negative information when I am trying to make an informed decision before buying something.
Parent
One Possible Reply.. (Score:5, Funny)
7. No License... No Reading by Todd on Oct 8th, 2007 @ 8:41am
Dear Lawfirm,
Regarding your recent letter containing copyrighted content, I seem to not have an appropriate license to read your letter. I sure wish I could respond to whatever allegations you claim, but that would require that I read your letter, of which I do not have a proper license to do.
Sincerely,
Your Victim
Submission License (Score:4, Funny)
form letter (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, she received a letter from an attorney that demanded a response, but stipulated that form letters would not be accepted as legit response.
She sent a letter, but it was returned with "FORM LETTER REJECTED" stamped all over it, and the lawyer subsequently demanded more communication.
Which she ignored, because:
a) it wasn't a form letter;
b) even it was, the attorney couldn't possibly prove it;
c) even if he could prove it, you can't dictate the terms of the response as long as it's legally sufficient;
d) his stamping of the letter provided nice verification that he had received it and read it. He may as well have signed for receipt.
He kept demanding further response, and she followed up with letters that basically said "see previous".
Re:Oy vey.... (Score:4, Funny)
You forgot "noodle".
Parent