helleborine - 4:17 pm on Oct 28, 2012 (gmt 0)
If you've filed an online DMCA take-down notice on Pinterest recently, you may have noticed that you now have some "new" options, that you select with a radio button:
(1) Remove ALL pins
(2) Strike the pinner for infringement.
The first choice is a step backward. Prior to the change, the default was to remove all pins associated with the pinning tree (I don't know what else to call oneoriginal pin and all associated repins). Now, if you want to remove all, you have an extra step in your complaint. Pinterest probably hopes that complainants may decide to remove just a single pin, reducing user hassling.
The second choice, as it turns out, is a sham. The word 'strike' implies a system of x-strikes-you're-out. If you make this normal assumption, you have been misled.
What happens when you 'strike' a pinner?
A strike on a repin comes with a mushy letter re-assuring the repinner that they have done nothing wrong, in the most apologetic tone imaginable.
A first strike on a pin made directly from a third-party website will result in the pinner receiving some mild letter.
A second strike on a pin made directly from a third-party website will result in the pinner receiving some slightly less mild letter.
There is no letter associated with a third, fourth of fifth strike. There is no penalty to the pinner. The account remains in good standing, and no further letters are sent to the pinner beyond the first two.
That's the 'strike system' at the moment; making you feel like Pinterest is actively punishing infringers when it's not, and giving you extra work with a radio button to 'strike' pinners for absolutely nothing. In fact, the word 'strike' sounds a little harsh, I suspect that Pinteret may be hoping that DMCA complainants may decide against the 'strike,' relieving Pinterest from irritating its users with notification letters.
At the moment, I don't know if Pinterest sends a notice to pinners when the 'strike' is omitted, and what this notice would be.