DMCA Complaint

Hello,

On 21st February I filed a DMCA complaint with the Chief Counsel of AOL to have a site removed from the ODP.

My understanding is that the correct mechanism for filing such a complaint is via http://www.aol.com/info/notify.html as the ODP is owned by Netscape Communications Corporation, which in turn is a subsiduary of AOL.

No acknowledgement to the complaint has been made by either AOL, Netscape or the ODP.

This unlawful use violates the ODP guidelines, however you should note that the site itself is not a direct copy of mine, nor is my site already listed in the directory (indeed, I am not requesting that it is).

Please can you confirm if this is the correct mechanism for filing a DMCA complaint with the ODP, or if not then please could you make me aware of the correct procedure so that this issue can be expedited.

Thank you.

I think you should have used the ODP own mechanism to report abuse.

See How can I report suspected abuse of the directory?

If you suspect that a web site or editor is abusing the ODP, please contact ODP staff with a detailed account of your claim, using the feedback form. To ensure a speedier response, make sure you choose "Abuse Report" for your subject title.

Click to expand...

The feedback form can be found at http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi?

ODP staff will be looking at you message.

The question of which site of an apparent set of mirrors is the "real" site and which is the copy -- in case they aren't all created by the same entity -- is a difficult one. We may have already considered and rejected his claim on the grounds that we couldn't confirm it.

It would be nice to know the URL and category, though.

We have long since been told that we should not ever act on legal issues, and that AOL lawyers will make those decisions. (For the record, I remember several times when they actually have.) And, as a matter of skills, aptitudes, and risks, that's not a matter for editors to act on.

So far as I know, the AOL legal department has not ruled, one way or another, on this. Or at least they haven't informed us (as they do -- sometimes at least.) You'll have to continue to communicate through the lawyers.

Hi,

If AOL Legal is the right way to go then I'll chase them to take action on it.

Although the site violates my intellectual property (and hence the ODP guidelines) the site is otherwise listable - my site isn't listed, therefore the copier's site is not a duplicate of a site already in the directory.

The DMCA process isn't quite the same as the ODP abuse process. You can file a complaint under Section 512 of the DMCA which is basically a legally sworn statement made under penalty of perjury. It's not necessary for someone to make a determination as to who copied whom, because the complaint itself is a proper legal assertion. Unfortunately it seems that AOL may have misfiled the complaint in the round filing drawer under their desks so I will have to be a little more.. forceful.

Thanks for confirming that AOL's legal department is the correct approach though.

Why not go after the site with the copied content, and get it removed?

Why not complain to whoever hosts the copied content and ask them to remove the content from their servers?

Once that content is gone, we will have nothing to list at that URL and will remove it from ODP listings rapidly and naturally.

I really don't understand why people go after sites that link to alledgedly dodgy content, rather than getting the actual dodgy content itself, actually removed.

giz, I agree with you. A DMCA complaint to a search engine or directory is pretty much a last option - if they are based in the United States then a DMCA complaint to the host is usually the best option if the copier won't remove the content.

In this particular case, the web host is out of US jurisdiction and is unwilling to act to remove the material. The copier does not respond to any communications either.

Generally though, the type of sites that use unlawfully copied content are NOT the type of site that the ODP lists, and in fact this is the first time that I have personally come across it. That's out of more than one hundred sites, so I think that's a pretty positive thing.

You should also note that even if we removed it today, there is often a considerable lag before downstream users of ODP data will process that change.

SFP,

If you believe that there is currently a site violating the DCMA pertaining to your content, you or your legal representation need to send a certified letter to AOL's legal department - unfortunately snail mail is still the only way to deal with these types of issues...this way you have certified copy of delivery of your complaint which is necessary in any and all legal affairs

If you believe that there is currently a site violating the DCMA pertaining to your content, you or your legal representation need to send a certified letter to AOL's legal department

Click to expand...

Not necessarily correct. The law allows service by E-mail if a digitial signature is provided -- but it's still AOL's option.

arubin said:

Not necessarily correct. The law allows service by E-mail if a digitial signature is provided -- but it's still AOL's option.

Click to expand...

It is a bit easier to claim *our SPAM filters deleted it* than *I didnt sign for that*