One of the catch phrases a bully in those books uses is “Cake Sniffer.” The series of unfortunate post lifting events that I wrote about yesterday took an amusing Lemony Snicket like turn shortly after that post went up. The Cake Sniffing sight I wrote about in Yo Ho yesterday lifted Yo Ho in its full glory and re-posted it. Now that is just moronic.
However their encroachment upon one of Kerri’s post about her child is more than copyright infringement. It is an obscene intrusion upon the innocence of a child I hold as dear as a niece. Copying that post was a lot more than moronic. Following Kerri’s lead of more polite public discourse I will refrain from the short descriptive words that communicate the intense guttural repulsion I feel for that intrusion.
I have been asked in emails about this site. I don’t link it because beyond giving it any sense of dignity links to a site are a component of search engine ranking. These unfortunate Cake Sniffers don’t warrant that cyber recognition.
I did however send a fax and letter of notice of copyright infringement to the Cake Sniffing site’s host. I also forwarded a copy of the pertinent information needed to file a similar letter to the copyright holder of SixUntilMe.com. A recipe for filling a complaint as it were, in case she didn’t have time to look it all up. (Hey Web crawler! See that link there? One more in the thousands that reference SixUntilMe.com.)
If anyone else needs said recipe to whip up an infringement notice to these diabetic cake sniffers drop me an email bennet (at) YDMV (dot) net.
As I was typing this bit up, my fax spawned the following email:
This message is to acknowledge receipt of your DMCA complaint.
We may respond to your notice by removing or disabling access to material claimed to infringe, and/or terminating users of our services. If we remove or disable access in response to such a notice, we will make a good-faith attempt to contact the owner or administrator of the affected site or content so that the owner or administrator may make a counter notification. We may also document notices of alleged infringement on which we act. As with all legal notices, a copy of the notice may be made available to the public and sent to one or more third parties who may make it available to the public.
In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)]. If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]
Network Security Administrator