Whether worded correctly or not, the intent is clear. They have asked for removal in liu of initiating legal action. Seems like a good idea to comply unless we want to take them on legally.
They have asked for removal in liu of initiating legal action. Seems like a good idea to comply unless we want to take them on legally. I know he'd eventually have to take it down, but the DMCA specifically takes into account sites like this with third-party postings. It exempts such sites from any copyright liability unless they ignore a properly executed notification. The law then lays out exactly what constitutes a proper notification, and this isn't one. Here's how this one stacks up with the law:
- No physical or electronic signature
- They did give a representative sample of the infringing works.
- Same.
- Subject to interpretation, but the law seems to desire an address and phone number on the notification, email being a nice thing if available
- Did state the material isn't authorized.
- Did not state that the information on the notification is accurate and that the sender, under penalty of perjury, is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder.
There is then a provision where the provider (FR) can promptly contact the copyright holder to assist them in submitting a proper notice if the notice includes as much information as this one has. Basically, all Jim has to do is reply and say "Hey, you forgot this, this and this." and he's fulfilled his obligation under the law. He does not have to remove material until he's received a properly executed notice.
Would just be fun to make them do more work, maybe giving Jim more than 24 hours to clear their articles from the entire FR article database.