|Infringer's workaround to DMCA notice |
...and how to thwart such behavior
| 6:41 pm on Jul 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Assume that, pursuant to my DMCA takedown request, an ISP takes down a page that contains content infringing upon my copyright. What's to prevent the infringing party from simply putting the same content up again as a new (different) page, with a new (different) URL?
And a corollary query: assuming that Google has de-indexed a certain page pursuant to my request, does Google have a mechanism that automatically detects the behavior described above to keep it out of its index?
And what about ISP? Its personnel certainly wouldn't continue to monitor an errant user's behavior, would they? So would it be up to me to go back to the site occasionally, check to see if infringing content has been put back up, and then issue another DMCA notice to the ISP, hoping that the second time the ISP will simply remove that user's account (and the infringer's entire site)?
| 7:05 pm on Jul 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Presumably, the removal of the original page will lose whatever ranking had been established and the new location won't rank as well. More to the point, a repeat offender reposting the same stolen stuff will almost certainly lose their hosting (assuming the host is responsive to DMCA notices).
| 9:50 pm on Jul 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|More to the point, a repeat offender reposting the same stolen stuff will almost certainly lose their hosting (assuming the host is responsive to DMCA notices). |
Right, that's my hunch as well. If the complainant monitors the infringer's site after the first take-down, sees infringing content there again and sends a second notice to the host, the host would likely terminate the infringer's account -- or else risk liability itself. That said, I assume the onus is on the complainant to check the infringer's site from time to time. Right?
Perhaps I'm making too much of this. After all, who in their right mind would put infringing content back up on their site after its removal pursuant to a DMCA take-down notice? But then again, who in their right mind would intentionally misappropriate my intellectual property for profit, having constructive knowledge of the possible adverse consequences? (A rhetorical question, of course.)