Site is cloaking stolen copy- DMCA Violation

I don't know if DMOZ cares about this or not, but the following site is using stolen copy on a cloaked page for their home page:

International Inflatables - US manufacturer of inflatables, bouncy castles, moonwalks, slide inflatables and play structures.
-- http://www.inter-inflatables.com/ Shopping: Entertainment: Party Supplies: Rentals: Inflatables (1)

International Inflatables and Moonwalks - Leading US inflatables manufacturer of bouncy castles, moonwalks, slide inflatables, inflatable games and cold air play structures.
-- http://www.inter-inflatables.com/ Regional: North America: United States: California: Localities: D: Desert Hot Springs: Business and Economy (1)

Their home page is cloaking as seen in this cached page:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach...eat+for+parties+at+home+or+in+the+park.&hl=en

Or not seen, as it's invisible copy. But if you view the source you will see the copy has been lifted directly from:

www.hullaballoorental.com/moonwalk.php

This site is benefiting from the many reprints of the ODP that are in use around the internet, but they are not ranking on the merits of their own page. I wasn't sure if DMOZ recognized or felt an obligation to honor the DMCA regulations for copyright infringement.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to look this over.

As regards double listings, if a site has appropriate content it can be listed in both Regional and the relevant Topical area.

It may just be me but I see no signs of cloaking on that site. Nor does it seem to be the same as the second site. Cached pages can be out of date and viewing the active site is preferable and more accurate. In looking futher, it is possible that the first is an affiliate or franchised reseller of the second, as that is an option on their web site.

As for any DMCA violations, that is between the a copyright holder and the alleged violator.

You can see the cloaked content only through the cache. That is the definition of cloaking- showing something different to users than you show to search engine spiders.

The cache contains a page written in invisible text with a hidden scrollbar. If you view the source, you can see the stolen copy on the page. You can also clearly see it in Google's description of the site, which includes copy about a "jumping Giraffe" when the "real page" doesn't contain those words at all.

I was under the impression that the ODP would honor DMCA violations. Obviously not.

Just a note, one is definitely NOT a reseller or franchisee of the other. I am the author of the copy that is being used on the cloaked page and I did not authorize it's use.

I have DMCA complaints registered with the major search engines and I thought the ODP would have a similar policy to protect copyright holders.

A last note about the freshness of the cache- the cache was dated Aug 1 and I found the violation on Aug 2. It's not just a changed page.

You're quite right about the cloaking, and if you tell Google about it you may very well be able to get them banned. At the very least, they may well use the information you provide to refine their algorithms and make it stop working.

But serving different content to a search engine is not an issue for us. We list and describe based on what the user sees on a page, and completely ignore what a search engine sees. If we should just happen to remove this listing, it would be because it doesn't meet our standards in some way, not because of what it shows to some spider.

I was under the impression that the ODP would honor DMCA violations. Obviously not.

Click to expand...

That looks almost like an accusation, and so I almost deleted it. If you know of anything written by an odp editor which violates your copyright, please let us know.

ODP editors do not take allegations of DMCA violations, nor should we. We aren't lawyers, and we don't work for an ISP. And in any case, insofar as I understand the law, the only DMCA violator here is -- YOU!

See, the DMCA mostly doesn't define COPYRIGHT violations (which is actually what you're accusing someone else of.) That's mostly covered elsewhere.
The DCMA outlines a PROCESS for requiring sites that violate copyright to be taken down. (You are welcome to start that process, but -- we aren't involved in it.) A complaint about a copyright violation should be sent to the HOST of the website. And in that process the various parties (ISP, accuser, webmaster) all have legal responsibilities and options as defined by the DMCA.

YOU AREN"T FOLLOWING THAT PROCEDURE! YOU ARE MAKING ACCUSATIONS IN THE WRONG PLACE! AND YOU ARE LIABLE TO DMCA VIOLATIONS FOR MAKING ALLEGATIONS OTHER THAN THROUGH DMCA PROCEDURES! But the webmaster hasn't violated the DMCA until THEY haven't followed its procedures opon being properly informed of copyright allegations against them.

When do we get involved? Not for a LONG time. If the website is brought down as a result of that legal action, then obviously we will want to remove our dead link. Until then -- until it is actually adjudged a copyright violation by competent legal authority, then we're well out of it.