DMCA vs. simple email to website owner

Which is more effective?And how worth it is it?

[HRoth]

Recently I spent some time using Copyscape in a much more systematic way than I usually do, and I found a much greater number of sites using my text without my permission. I usually send an email to the website owner saying that the text is being using without my permission and please remove it immediately. Generally this is effective. But this time because there were so many, I thought to send DMCAs to the webhosts instead. I used a boilerplate DMCA notice from a legal site, modified with the pertinent info. This got me a range of responses, but one thing I noticed was that when the webhost passed the email on to the site owner, the site owner was truculent. One ranked me out about how you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Another "thanked" me for being so "loving." So I wondered whether it was better, in the experience of other folks here, just to send an email to the domain owner instead of a DMCA to the webhost. Perhaps the fact that the DMCA has such a legal sound to it made people behave more defensively (leaving aside any discussion about whether they have a right to be defensive for stealing my text). I thought the DMCA would be better because it has no "passion" in it, ya know? Whereas my individual emails to website owners are usually rather brusque.

The other thing I wondered is how worth it this is. I found that people using my text ranged from folks teaching "classes" in MSN groups to would-be competitors using my text to sell their products. There were so many that I decided to focus on the competitors only. Is it worth pursuing people who are using even great gouts of text in supposedly "educational" contexts? Someone told me that not defending your copyright even in those contexts was bad for your copyright. True? I only have so much energy to devote to this issue. I really had to triage this last time.

[ildarius]

Heh, you must be pretty good i guess..
Don't understand your problem though, on one hand you don't want to insult them with a DMCA on the other hand you don't want them to be insulted by your personalized yet brusque messages.

I would pick whichever one is easier for you.

[purplecape]

Well, in spite of the fact that they were "truculent," I suspect you've accomplished one thing that they may not have said to you--your use of the DMCA makes it far less likely that they'll try this again in the future with you!

But you might want to consider a two-step approach.

First prepare a boilerplate email text to use, with the goal of making it polite but firm.

Leave places where you can insert pertinent details.

Use that instead of typing up an email each time.

Let them know in the email that if you have not received confirmation from them in X number of days that the offending material has been taken down, you will take further action.

With those sites that do not respond, take that further action--the DMCA notice.

(I think you are right to defend your copyright, though the issue that you asked about isn't really an issue with copyright. It can be with trademarks. But the reason it's good to take these actions is that if you do NOT, the copying can snowball, as the copiers copy more and others see the copiers getting away with it and so do it too.)

[HRoth]

How many days do you think I should give them?

About the DMCA vs personal email thing, it was not so much insulting people as achieving the desired result: having the material taken down with as little fuss as possible. I thought the DMCA would work towards that end, but it seemed counterproductive. That's all I was saying. But purplecape makes a good point that maybe the DMCA will ensure that they won't do it again.

[purplecape]

A small number! Five business days? I'd personally be inclined to give them fewer than that, but I guess one needs to cut a little slack to someone who is out of town for a few days.

[HRoth]

Shoot, I've been giving them 24 hours.:)