MicrostockGroup

Interesting article on a book blog about the counterfeiting of books and re-selling as e-books.

http://blog.bookmarket.com/2010/05/amazon-kindle-swindle-authors-people.html

I liked the comment by steeleweed, about his author friend who abandoned e-publishing because "he was spending all his time filing take-down notices."   As it is today, when stolen content is sold on the web, the legal recourses available to photographers and authors are worthless.  A "takedown" notice is based on the quaint idea that "putting up" such content takes time and effort.  That may have been true 15 years ago but today it can just be moved to another server - in another country - in seconds.

Protecting IP in today's world of the internet will require new international law and cooperative policing - in essence, the beginnings of a world government.  I don't think that's just hype.  When law enforcement becomes uniform and perpetrators can't hide behind national boundaries, those boundaries no longer mean what they used to mean. And it can't happen soon enough for me.  It's one world and the sooner we acknowledge that the better for all of us.  

That's the point I've been trying to express. We can get a take down, DMCA and Oh Boy, I feel good, because it's gone and 100 more people will have stolen the image or content and we can spend the rest of our lives on take down notices and get nothing in return. There needs to be some change in the laws of infringing, or it's a waste of time and the crooks win and ignorant innocent people never get a clue.

A toothless dog chasing it's tail. That's what DMCA is.

When Amazon starts selling your work the appropriate remedy isn't a takedown notice its a demand for restitution for a breach of copyright. This isn't a case where they're simply acting as a host for material - they have a direct financial benefit - the safe harbor provisions have no application. If what is in the article is true, Amazon is acting like a shop selling stolen goods - they can't just plead ignorance and keep the money - they'll have to cough it up if someone takes them to task.

The initial response from copyright holders in this situation needs to be a letter demanding the material is taken down, a full account of all money received and damages for breach of copyright. Sending a DCMA is a flag that tells the recipient you are an amateur and have no idea about your rights.

The remedies exist, its just the enforcement that's lacking - often because the wrong message is spread online.

Well the article is referring to Amazon selling the work. In this case its not like Amazon is an innocent bystander - if you formulate the approach properly then they need to respond appropriately. A lot of their business depends on confidence in their product and that they have the rights to sell it. Its not in their interest to sell in breach of copyright at all - their whole business depends on selling legitimately copyrighted work. If this sort of thing went to court and Amazon were found to be wilfully selling material in breach of copyright the damages would be significant - particularly because they're a large corporation. I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't take a complaint seriously.

For example if their sales relate to Australian copyrighted material then the Australian copyright act applies: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s132ae.html FWIW a conviction in the case of a company for this sort of thing carries a maximum statutory penalty in Australia of about A$450,000.

If its some blogger, what actions you take depends on where you are and where the offender is. Its worth noting that in many jurisdictions selling this material isn't a civil issue, its a crime, so the remedies are similar to stealing physical goods, so the remedies include fines and prison sentences.

The free and international distribution of IP is a Problem for all creative people. I thought already a lot about this, but I do not believe that any "punishing" law can be a solution. I think there should be charged a certain amount of money - maybe as a flatrate - with every Internet access account as a fee for IP and this money should be distributed to the copyright holders at the end of the month. Sure there are some logical difficulties but I think this would be the way to go. The End user could simply consume whatever he wants without worrying about legal issues and the Copyright holder would get his money in any case.