Politicians (Wyden, Issa) and the Press (CNBC) Protect Piracy

 An hour ago, Barnes and Noble emailed me (I subscribe) to let me know that Patricia Cornwell's latest book is now available for NOOK, presumably as of today, for $14.99. 

 

Red Mist (Kay
Scarpetta Series #19)
by Patricia Cornwell
$14.99 NOOK Price

 

 This surprised me, because four days ago, December 6th, one of the most unscrupulous pirates I follow (who is allegedly funded and supported by Filesonic.com, by Google, by Yahoo, and by SocialGo, and by corporate advertising) notified me that Red Mist is available free to their VIP subscribers who pay something around $10 for a lifetime of illegal links to ebooks uploaded to Filesonic.com

Red Mist

The new Kay Scarpetta novel from the world's #1 bestselling crime writer.

Determined to find out what happened to her former deputy chief, Jack Fielding, murdered six months earlier, Kay Scarpetta travels to the Georgia Prison for Women, where an inmate has information not only on Fielding, but also on a string of grisly killings. The murder of an Atlanta family years ago, a young woman on death row, and the inexplicable deaths of homeless people as far away as California seem unrelated. But Scarpetta discovers connections that compel her to conclude that what she thought ended with Fielding's death and an attempt on her own life is only the beginning of something far more destructive: a terrifying terrain of conspiracy and potential terrorism on an international scale. And she is the only one who can stop it.

The pirate appears to have lifted the publisher's blurb directly from Amazon. They routinely snag the best bits of Amazon reviews, as far as I can tell.

Maybe Penguin knows why there are two covers for the same e-book.

Now, this sort of piracy carried out by a foreign (probably British) pirate, using a foreign site (Filesonic) is, in my opinion, exactly the sort of freetardy that SOPA ought to slow down. The rival plans simply won't work. If an author finds her new release being published and distributed globally as a "freebie" by pirates four days before the official launch day, she might reasonably wish for her DMCA notice to be respected a day or so after sending it.

Waiting up to eighteen months for a take down is going to ruin careers... not to mention the fact that the Issa/Wyden scheme would impose Government fees on the wronged author, and would require her to stop writing and go to Washington to file documents and employ lawyers.

(I have no right to assume anything on behalf of Ms Cornwell or her publisher. My comments are my own opinions based on two emails sent to me, each offering me access to her latest book.)

Google, EFF, and other tech companies that make a great deal of money from monetizing and promoting websites without regard for whether or not the attractions on those sites are being distributed legally. SOPA would presumably encourage companies to be a bit more socially responsible.

Meanwhile, the Press appears to be assisting the tech companies by writing sensational and misleading pieces as if they are news. In my opinion, one can simplify something to such an extent that it is a misrepresentation.

"Hollywood" suggests that only the powerful movie business has a problem with piracy. Not true. E-Book authors are routinely overlooked and omitted from this debate, yet e-book authors might well be more damaged than most copyright owners by rampant internet piracy which shares hundreds of thousands of illegal copies of e-books via computers, social networking sites, smart phones, and torrents.

Pitting a California Hill against a Californian Valley might tend to distance the issue.

Case in point:

Anti-Piracy Bill Battle: Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley  By: Julia Boorstin

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45605252

Ms Boorstin suggests that the issue at the heart of the debate is "how much companies should be held accountable for policing pirated material to which they might inadvertently link."

In my experience, when she states "inadvertently" Ms Boorstin is bending over backwards to be charitable.  Lord Nelson "inadvertently" didn't see the signals that he did not want to see. Red flags are ignored today. However, the fact is that SOPA doesn't ask tech companies to "monitor" or "police" or "detect". It asks them to enforce their own published Terms Of Service (that qualify them for Safe Harbour) when an infraction is brought to their attention.

In my opinion, they ought to enforce their own rules.

By presenting the copyright debate as Hollywood vs Silicon Valley, Ms Boorstin manages to remove all human interest from the "story". The piece trivializes the importance of copyright to copyright owners, and the effect of copyright infringement to those who are tempted to assume that everything on the internet is free regardless of wording such as "all rights reserved".

The proposed OPEN, (the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade) Act is worse than what we (authors and small independent actors) have now. It sets up a very expensive process for obtaining a remedy without any guarantee of improved results. There is still no compensation for copyright owners. The abuse continues for longer.  A successful claim would result in a “cease and desist” order from the ITC, a cynical remedy, given that the rogue sites in question have already demonstrated their utter disregard for U.S. law and international norms.

What are Wyden and Issa thinking? Well, there is a video on YouTube to shed light on that. They also shed

light on their true attitude toward Openness and Censorship on the Internet.

Try leaving a comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TadQc3Vc5LQ&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mVLx8AtEsk&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SPD9FA00ECDB69E09E

hhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t0Pl83_Apo&feature=relmfu

Remember, these Senators are allegedly concerned about "censorship" on the Internet. They oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act because they want to keep the Internet "Open". How "open" is it to delete all dissenting (but civil) comments on a YouTube video?

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Rant About Copyright Infringement

Currently, I am battling a site that is registered in France, China, and Russia. It is called wiredshelf.com and I understand that not only does it post e-books such as mine to entice booklovers to "subscribe" to a "subscription library" of 100,000 e-books (many of which are being advertised and possibly shared "free" without the consent, permission or compensation to the copyright owners) but it also allegedly abuses any credit card information supplied by would-be subscribers.

Wiredshelf.com looks legitimate. It turns up in searches on Google and Alexa. It is protected by various privacy-protect "fronts".

Wiredshelf is protected by Twitter. Twitter members may boast freely in tweets that they have added or uploaded copyrighted works, and direct all the world to wiredshelf.com. In response, Twitter insists on DMCAs for the copyright owners, takes two or more days about it, will not remove any link except those identified individually by actual copyright owners.

Moreover, Twitter threatens the very authors it is harming with exposure on Chilling Effects, and with lawsuits if they should dare to overstep the bounds.

EBay is awash with DVDs of e-books burned by amateurs and entrepreneurs who seem to believe that they can claim copyright on anything they can snag from a pirate site. EBay raises unbelievable hurdles to authors. Copyright owners must own specific types of accounts, they must be pre-registered, they must have access to faxes and printers... woe betide any copyright owner who happens to be travelling when she hears that her e-books are being illegally auctioned on eBay!

Copyright-infringing vendors keep their good reputations. EBayers who purchase illegal DVDs are not informed that they do not (as they were led to believe in the auctions) own the copyright to bestselling modern novels that they bought on EBay. Therefore, the same copyright infringing collections are sold over and over again in multiple auctions by increasing numbers of eBayers.

The same happens on other internet sites.

My works have been stolen, shared, sold without my permission, scanned, posted in libraries more times than I can count. My copyright has been directly infringed by SONY, AMAZON and indirectly infringed by Plunder, Astatalk, EBay, wiredshelf....

Congress and the Library of Congress must define what is a RED FLAG, and must oblige OSPs that want "Safe Harbor" to pay attention to and investigate warnings and reports from members of the public.



Something must be done to address the all-too-popular misconception that if an e-book is "freely" available on a pirate site or file sharing site, it must necessarily be "in the public domain". If the author is alive, she probably owns that copyright, in which case, no one else may claim copyright over that work.


Just because Google or Adbrite robots place respectable companies' advertisements on a site (for pay) does not confer necessary respectability on that site. It could still be infringing authors' and artists' and musicians; copyright.

Just because a hosting site has wording it its TOS and TOU that deplore and forbid copyright infringement and ostensibly threaten infringers with banning and loss of access does not mean that those sites follow through. It does not mean that sites like FILESONIC aren't paying a cash bounty  for every unwitting illegal downloader who visits their site and steals a "free" movie, game, or e-book, or for every new subscriber who signs up for a paid premium account so that they can download more "freebies" faster, before the greedy publishers and producers find out that their work is being given away free, and send a take down notice.

At the moment, creators cannot afford to sue pirates, and the pirates know it. They post "Guides" to that effect on EBay. Piracy pays, because pirates (and PayPal and Google and the advertisement aggregators) keep making money until the pirates are caught, and when they are caught, they simply have to change an email address and start again.

Sincerely,
Rowena Cherry

Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks' Assange | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks' Assange | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Bathetic as it may be, I wonder whether or not the Feds will include copyright infringement among their list of charges against the WikiLeaks founder. It might stick, and the maximum penalty for knowing, repeated copyright infringement is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each work.




Works are usually books, or songs, or movies, or games.

Usually, for full copyright protection, the "work" has to be registered with the Library Of Congress. Are state secrets entered into the loc.gov?

Can one argue that government employees' reports are "works"? Were they "works for hire" and does that make a difference? I don't know. Everything one writes is said to be instantly copyrighted to the author.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized copying and publishing of works without the permission of the copyright owner... usually the author.

It seems to me, that the WikiLeaks problem may make passage of COICA (s~3804) much more likely.

For Those Who Wish To Support Authors...Support This, please

This is an email from Lucinda Dugger, Director of The Copyright Alliance:

Dear Copyright Advocates,

A couple weeks ago I emailed you about a bill that has been introduced in the Senate that will combat online infringement of copyrighted works (it's called the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" or "COICA"). I encouraged you to sign a petition in favor of the bill.

Though many of you did this, our efforts have not been enough.

The opponents of this bill have been active in mobilizing the masses to speak out against it. The result of their efforts is that it seems like the public is against this bill. Yet, I hear from you everyday about how websites are illegally posting your creative works for others to take and how this affects your livelihood.

This bill would benefit all artists and creators! TAKE ACTION TODAY! Stand up for your rights!
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
1.   Speak up on blogs and listservs.  Last week I blogged about a musician who spoke out in favor of the bill on a website. When he did so, others verbally attacked him calling him a "greedy pig" among other things. This musician and other artists need your support on this effort. Post blogs and comments on your own websites or on websites like this one.
2.   Contact your Senator and House Representative.  Tell your congressional representatives to vote YES to the bill. Tell them your story and how piracy and infringement affect you.

      To find and email your Senator, go here.
      To find and email your House Representative, go here.
3.   Tweet this:  Stop online piracy of art, music, movies, books, all creative works. Vote yes to Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act #COICA
4.   Facebook this:  The U.S. Congress is debating a bill that could help millions of artists around the world. If passed, the bill would allow the government to target and shut down "internet sites dedicated to infringing activities" which are "primarily designed" to access unauthorized copyrighted material. Tell your representatives to vote YES to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).
WHAT IS THIS BILL ABOUT?
1.   Check out this short video by independent filmmaker Ellen Seidler as she talks about how websites that are illegally hosting her movie are profiting. Yet, she is losing money. This bill will help shut down websites like these.
2.   The bill will not target minor violations of copyright. It will target "internet sites dedicated to infringing activities" that are "primarily designed" to offer or provide access to copyrighted material "without the authorization of the copyright owner."
3.   The Attorney General will be able to request a court order to suspend the domain names of U.S.-based infringing websites. For non-U.S.-based websites, the Attorney General will be able to request a court order to require the ISPs to block the website. Credit card companies and networks providing ads to these sites will also suspend all activity with the infringing sites.
4.   A list of all the domain names that are found to be infringing copyright protected content will be posted on a "publicly available Internet site, together with other relevant information, in order to inform the public."
REMEMBER PILFERED MAGAZINE?
Last February we made you aware of "Pilfered Magazine", an online magazine that freely took images from photographers without their permission and didn't credit or compensate the photographers. Because of your emails, Tweets, and postings on blogs and Facebook, the magazine was shut down in a weekend and has never reopened.

It is important that we take collective action on this bill too. Pilfered is not the only website that hosts and offers infringing material. This bill will help remove other websites like Pilfered from the internet.

ONE VOI©E: SPEAK UP FOR CREATORS' RIGHTS

Best,
Lucinda Dugger
P.S. If you received this email from a friend, and you are interested in receiving more information about how you can speak up for your rights, sign up for our network of Copyright Advocates.

INTERNET PIRACY IS BIG BUSINESS

Internet pirates are not happy with President Obama (an author) and Vice President Biden (a well known passionate defender of copyright). Today, I received this (from EFF):

Dear Friend of Digital Freedom,

The U.S. government has made two proposals this week that threaten online speech and privacy in radical new ways. Either one, if passed by Congress, will fundamentally rewrite the rules of the Internet. EFF is fighting hard for your rights and needs your help.

These proposals are the most frightening we've seen in a long time. The first is a bill called the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act," which would give the Justice Department new powers to censor websites accused of aiding "piracy." The second is an Obama Administration proposal that would end online privacy as we know it by requiring all Internet communication service providers -- from Facebook to Skype to your webmail provider -- to rebuild their systems to give the government backdoor access to all of your private Internet communications.

EFF is battling these threats to Internet users' privacy and freedom of speech, and we need your support. More than half of EFF's funding comes from individuals like you, and none of our funding comes from government grants. That means that when EFF goes toe-to-toe against government attempts to snatch away your rights, we pull no punches in defending the civil liberties of all technology users and innovators.

Become an EFF member today, and join the ongoing fight for privacy, free expression, and civil liberties on the Internet, as we face down these threats and secure a better future for us all.

On the other hand... (say I)

PayPal makes 0.40c every time some "sharing" Yahoo group manager sells a $2.00 link to authors' in-print, in-copyright books. Why is this allowed? Why are there SEVENTEEN "Bookmix" collections of dozens of copyrighted books, some of which include four recent works by the same author?

I could understand that sharing one book by an author might be good promo, but not an entire series. Does EFF not understand what they are helping to do?

Is it right that YAHOO and PAYPAL have no responsibility for the actions their business model supports and apparently encourages?

Is it right and fair that Club Freebie can charge "a convenience fee" of $2.00 and profit from copyright infringement by pirates? Is it right that Club Freebie can legally hide behind this wording:

"Please note that we are not the 'hosts' of these books, neither did we upload them to any hosting provider. We simply find links to books, that were freely available on the web and share our findings with our members."

'FREELY AVAILABLE'? I wonder whether the publishers agree that these books are "freely available".
"Freely available" is a bland euphemism for allegedly stolen property that could very well be infected with viruses, malware etc.

Nevertheless, they are charging $2.00 to sell links to "freely available" e-books that --it is reasonable to guess-- effing pirates have uploaded to the internet.

This isn't just a single book for promo... this is multiple works. So, if this is LEGAL, the law has to change. The alternative is for the general public to side with authors, and turn in pirates, and generally let it be known that "sharing" is not right or fair.

Here's a copyright alliance petition

Dear Copyright Advocates,

As promised, we seek to keep you updated with news from Capitol Hill that affects your rights as an artist or creator. Read on to find out more about a new bill that is targeting rogue pirate sites. And take this opportunity to make your voice heard!

On Thursday, September 30th, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on legislation that will target web sites that profit from infringing music, movies, books, images, software, and other creative works. These websites don't give a dime to artists. The legislation is called "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" or S-3804. It is sponsored by 16 Democratic and Republican senators and its chief sponsor is Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

Our online world is now polluted with professional, legitimate-seeming sites that offer a wide array of artistic works for free and are supported by ads sold on the sites. Sometimes these sites even charge subscription fees for access to creative works. NOT A DIME OF THAT MONEY ever reaches the artists who create the work, such as an independent filmmaker we blogged about recently or another independent filmmaker profiled today in The Los Angeles Times. These sites profit from theft, pure and simple.

The legislation would encourage online ad brokers, online payment processors (such as credit card companies) and ISPs to cut off the income flow that feeds this piracy. As comic book author and illustrator Colleen Doran said in her Creators Across America video, "These sites wouldn't be around if not for the dough."

A growing number of artists are banding together to support this legislation. Colleen has used her blog to promote the legislation (here and here). In addition, a coalition of artists has put together an online petition you can use to let your elected representatives know how important it is to keep rogue web sites from profiting from your work. As the petition notes: "The theft of copyrighted works like photography, music, movies, books, software and games is a devastating problem... This rampant theft inhibits the ability of American businesses to invest and innovate -- and stifles the capacity of American artists and creators to earn a living, support their families, and invest in their own creative development."

You might also want to let Senator Leahy know you appreciate the hard work he and his colleagues are doing on behalf of artists.

We'll keep all of you informed as this legislative effort continues.

Best,

Lucinda Dugger

Director of Outreach

Open letter about copyright infringement to Allison Kelley, John Scalzi, Scott Turow.

Dear Allison Kelley, John Scalzi, and Scott Turow,

Thank you very much for everything you and your respective organizations do to defend authors' copyrights against copyright infringement. We very much appreciate having an address to which to send our complaints, and the comfort of knowing that you compile a database of the most egregious "pirates" and pirate sites.

Despite small triumphs, ignorance persists among honest readers; lies about the legality of "sharing" go unchallenged, and the problem is getting much worse.

Please Scott Turow, Allison Kelley, John Scalzi will you talk to one another, set up one powerhouse task force, meet regularly, share resources, engage your members, give authors one central "Go To" address where we can submit complaints, report piracy sites, blogs and yahoogroups, cc our take-down notices.

One forceful industry voice could shut down an entire account and insist on a hosting site complying with their own TOS where their TOS has been repeatedly violated, instead of individual authors taking down one file at a time.

Thank you.

Rowena Cherry
2010 EPIC Award, "Friend of ePublishing"

Permission granted to Tweet, Fark, Forward, Share.

Illegal Online Activity Funded By Major American Companies

Tehparadox is a file-sharing site. Its business model depends upon users posting copyrighted material which infringes the copyright owners' copyright. The TOS acknowledges that copyrighted material might be posted, and tehparadox disclaims knowledge and responsibility for this.

At the moment, the copyrights are apparently being violated for Harlequin books.

Here are some of the prominent companies in the business community who are displaying paid advertising (it has to be paid!) on this site. Please, if you have a moment, let these companies know how you feel about their funds making the "theft" of ebooks possible and profitable.

Citgo
AT&T
DeVry University
Universal Technical Institute
Keller School of Management
Equifax
Jeep
ESPN 3
Oreck (vacuum cleaners)
Vonage
Liberty Mutual



Are we all guilty of Misprision if we see these advertisements and fail to report them to the authorities? I seriously doubt it!

Under the US code and maybe under state codes, failure to report a felony is known as "misprision".

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=misprision&url=/usc\
ode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000004----000-.html
----------
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
Prev | Next
§ 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a
court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known
the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both.
----------

Does anyone know if being an accessory before or after the fact of copyright infringement is a felony?

Lawsuit Against Downloaders

Downloaders on "pirate" sites have long assumed that 

they are relatively safe, and that predatory copyright 

owners will only go after Uploaders.

It would seem that downloaders (at least of movies) 

aren't as safe as they thought they were. One wonders what 

"legitimate defences" people who

download copyrighted material without paying might have.

Ignorance?

Firstly, ignorance is no excuse under the law... at least, 

not in Britain.

Secondly, it is highly likely that at least some of these 

downloaders have participated in public conversations on 

public sites discussing the illegality of what they are 

doing and ways to avoid being caught at it.

EFFector Vol. 23, No. 15 June 11, 2010 editor@eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

ISSN 1062-9424

effector: n, Computer Sci. A device for producing a

desired change.

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

In our 537th issue:

* EFF IS DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF THOUSANDS OF INTERNET

USERS FROM PREDATORY MOVIE-DOWNLOADING LAWSUITS by

asking judges in Washington, D.C., to deny attempts by

the U.S. Copyright Group (USCG) to lump scores of people

as defendants into copyright infringement cases. The USCG

has stacked the deck against the defendants by requiring

all of them to defend these cases in Washington, D.C.,

regardless of where they actually live.

EFF has long been concerned that some attorneys would

attempt to create a business out of mass copyright

lawsuits, shaking settlements out of innocent people who

aren't in a position to raise legitimate defenses. EFF is

asking the court to step in now and force USCG to follow

the rules that apply in all other cases.

For the full press release and link to the amicus brief:

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/06/02

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Administrivia

EFFector is published by:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

454 Shotwell Street

San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA

+1 415 436 9333 (voice)

+1 415 436 9993 (fax)

http://www.eff.org/

Editor:

Richard Esguerra, EFF Activist

richard@eff.org

Membership & donation queries:

membership@eff.org

General EFF, legal, policy, or online resources queries:

information@eff.org

Reproduction of this publication in electronic media

is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily

represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles

individually, please contact the authors for their

express permission.

Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be

reproduced individually at will.

Wall of Shame (Book Publishers who support pirate sites)

Tate Publishing
Xlibris
WE book
CengageBrain.com
WestBow Press
Kobo

Progressive Insurance
Allstate Insurance

Just a few of the companies that give financial support to ebook piracy by advertising on at least one ebook "sharing" site. They pay per click, too...

You think the pirates are sticking it to the man. You betcha.

There's even a message on this pirate site explaining to member pirates that by clicking the banners once a day, every day, they make money for the site!

"Help the site grow, Click a Banner Ad (at the top or bottom of site) once a day, or click this link to donate."

I cannot get over the mind-blowing stupidity of publishers (!!!) who are --probably unwittingly-- encouraging ebook copyright infringement.

Have they any idea at all what they are doing to themselves and their authors with their advertising dollars? Maybe they just trusted Google. Hmmm.

Maybe the Insurance companies are insuring the pirates!

A site like this makes money from the advertising, and the shameless requests for donations. They claim to pay MEGAUPLOAD an annual fee.

"We only use Megaupload via this filebox uploader to store files.

The reason is that this site pays a yearly fee for an account with megaupload.

If you upload using the below filebox, these links won't expire like they will using other upload sites (rapidshare, mediafire, etc)"

On the other hand, Megaupload pays a bounty (they call it a reward point) for every download from their site, so if 100,000 people illegally downloaded a copy of a book from a copyright infringer's file on MegaUpload, Megaupload would reward the pirate with a year's free membership, and also $100 via PayPal.


I wonder whether this explains why MegaUpload is slow to remove infringing files.

Here are the hoops through which an author must jump in order to get an illegally uploaded copy of her book disabled.

http://www.megaupload.com/?c=abuse

We take abuse of our service very seriously. If you wish to report a copyright infringement, we need you to send us a proper notification. A proper notification MUST have at least the following information, or it may be IGNORED:

1: Identify yourself as either:

  a: The owner of a copyrighted work(s), or

  b: A person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

2: State your contact information, including your TRUE NAME, street address, telephone number, and email address.

3: Identify the copyrighted work that you believe is being infringed, or if a large number of works are appearing at a single website, a representative list of the works.

4: Identify the material that you claim is infringing your copyrighted work, to which you are requesting that Megaupload disable access over the World Wide Web.

5: Identify the material by its URL(s).

6: State that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agents, or the law.

7: State that the information in the notice is accurate, under penalty of perjury.

Authors are in an interesting position with regard to pirate sites and storage sites. The storage sites' terms of service put the onus on pirates to not store copyrighted material on them. The pirate sites claim that they have no liability for the links on their sites, because they don't host any files.

No one but the author, agent, or publisher is permitted to report infringing material.
I don't know of any rule that prevents authors, agents, and publishers to report the same infringing material.

Moreover, keep copies of your correspondence, or screen captures if you have to fill out an online form. Most of the file storage sites TOS state that they will remove repeat infringers. They never do. If you can prove that they don't, maybe further legal action can be taken against them.

Proof that they don't remove pirates does tend to lead a reasonable author to infer that these sites are knowingly and deliberately accessories before and after the fact. It might lead a judge or state attorney general to a similar conclusion.


In addition to sending a DMCA or Copyright notice,  try lodging a copy here:
http://www.fbi.gov/majcases/fraud/internetschemes.htm

Or here:
http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

Or here:
http://www.complaintsboard.com/panel.php?action=loginregister&backUrl=%2Fsendmail%2Fcr0.html


.

.


.