What do you think about AVS systems making $$$ through copyright violation/theft?
 

I admit that one of the things which first got me into producing pay sites was all of the AVS sites which were scanning my photography out of magazines or snarfing it from my free site. I finally figured if so many people were trying to sell my content online there must be a market for it.

When I find a violation these days, generally because someone emails the offending URL to me, I just politely ask the webmaster to remove it using DMCA language. Most webmasters comply pretty quickly. I'd certainly prefer that they not steal my work in the first place, but I don't usually really get worked up about it when infringements are removed quickly. I don't even have my attorneys send the notices normally as a simple email from me usually suffices.

I just had a weird situation where I notified an AVS through totally proper channels with proper format about a violation. The webmaster of the infringing AVS site removed the infringing content quickly, but the supposed general counsel for the AVS system was totally rude and claimed there was a format problem in the notice I sent but refused to tell me what the format issue was. Then he told me he was only going to accept snail mail notifications from my company in the future. It looks like the guy is not even admitted to the bar to practice law in California.

This is an AVS system which has violated my copyrights over and over for years. I think the least they could do is be polite when busted, but instead it seems like they are looking for any excuse to keep stolen content on their client sites. What do you think about an AVS system making $$$ through copyright violation/theft? Do you think it is part of their business model to steal or is this one representative a bad apple?

see sig for quality traffic and advertising

baaaaaaaaaah baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I don't think they really pay that much attention. They can't possibly know whose content is being used unless your url's are on the images.

Is that the case?

Yup. I don't put my membership site stuff out there unless my URL and my copyright notice are embedded visibly in the image.

I'm feeling extra concern right now because, even if they do not normally pay attention, I think it would be appropriate for them to respond politely to a polite request to stop violating a specific copyright. Then again, I would never hire a general counsel who was not allowed to practice law in California.

Its sort of like the "search engine sponsors" who buy hits from spyware/trojans and say "were just a broker".

Its the individual affiliates who are legally responsible. Thats not to say you cant be pissed about it though..

Who does this?

I'm not an expert in DMCA stuff, but, once made aware that they are billing for infringing material, aren't they legally obligated to respond properly or become legally responsible?

I think if anyone pressed the point through the legal process with the "search engine sponsors" you are talking about, they would be held responsible. I mean, a fence is held responsible if he helps sell goods he has reason to believe are not legit. Seems like there would be something there.

Not that I want more legislation. Would be nice if people would just be a bit more human to one another.

do a google search on AgeCheck and Perfect 10 - AVS's are indeed legally liable for copyright infringements on sites withing their system. AgeCheck settled out of court - judge was going to rule against them.

like free hosts, AVS systems have made millions of dollars off copyright infringement. nice racket AVS is - or was.

I vaguely remember reading that AgeCheck changed their name after this or something like that. I might be thinking of another case though. Are they still around? If so, any idea what name are they using?

Thats sucks.. shame on them!