9.2.

07

Scribd's Official Reponse to

the Science Fiction and
Fantasy Writers Association
(SFWA)
Scribd's Official Reponse to the Science Fiction and Fantasy
Writers Association (SFWA)
September 2, 2007

September 1, 2007

Dr. Andrew Burt

Vice-President
Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America, Inc.

Dear Dr. Burt:

I am an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). I write today as legal counsel
representing Scribd.com. If SFWA is represented by counsel in connection with the matter discussed
below, please let me know so that I may direct future correspondence accordingly.

On August 17, 2007, you sent an email to Scribd.com on behalf of SFWA alleging that numerous
items hosted on Scribd.com allegedly infringed the copyrights of authors who you claimed to
represent. On August 27, 2007, you confirmed in another email that your earlier communication was
intended as a formal notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

We have now heard from no fewer than four authors whose works were improperly targeted by your
notice. They confirm that they have never authorized SFWA to act as their DMCA enforcement agent.
As a result, it appears that your notice constituted a misrepresentation both of your authority to act on
their behalf and that the targeted materials were infringing.

Scribd.com takes its copyright responsibilities seriously and complies in every particular with the
requirements of the DMCA. Upon receipt of a compliant DMCA takedown notice, Scribd.com acts to
promptly remove any materials uploaded by its users. But Scribd.com does not take lightly your
apparently careless invocation of the DMCA to remove content without any valid justification.

I understand and appreciate that SFWA has taken steps to apologize to Scribd.com users whose
materials were improperly removed as a result of your notice. This letter is intended to prevent any
repetition of these unfortunate events. While we will continue to consider valid DMCA takedown
notices sent on behalf of rightsholders who you are authorized to represent, this letter puts you on
notice than any further takedown notices that contain misrepresentations may expose you and SFWA
to liability (including attorneys fees) pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(f). This would include not only notices
that misrepresent about your authority to act on behalf of rightsholders, but also any notices that
target activities (such as the inclusion of small excerpts of copyrighted material within larger original
works) that are plainly noninfringing fair uses. See Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337
F.Supp.2d 1195, 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (imposing liability for sending DMCA takedown notices
targeting obvious fair uses).[1]

Moreover, none of your recent communications have been in compliance with the requirements of the
DMCA. As you should know, the DMCA requires that a takedown notice be in writing and include
each of the following pieces of information:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted
works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at
that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity
and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient
to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party,
such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the
complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the
manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that
the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.

See 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A).

Your recent communications conspicuously fail to meet several of these requirements, including the
lack of a statement under penalty of perjury that you are acting with the authority of the copyright
owner and any identification of the work you allege is being infringed. In addition, the law requires that
all of these elements must appear in a single communication, rather than spread across numerous
email messages. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1113 (9th Cir. 2007).

You may wish to review the most recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the DMCA,
which presciently predicted the harm Scribd.com users appear to have suffered as a result of your
noncompliant notices:

In order to substantially comply with 512(c)(3)s requirements, a notification must do more than
identify infringing files. The DMCA requires a complainant to declare, under penalty of perjury, that he
is authorized to represent the copyright holder, and that he has a good-faith belief that the use is
infringing. This requirement is not superfluous. Accusations of alleged infringement have drastic
consequences: A user could have content removed, or may have his access terminated
entirely. If the content infringes, justice has been done. But if it does not, speech protected
under the First Amendment could be removed. We therefore do not require a service provider to
start potentially invasive proceedings if the complainant is unwilling to state under penalty of perjury
that he is an authorized representative of the copyright owner, and that he has a good-faith belief that
the material is unlicensed.

See Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d at 1112 (emphasis added).

The law clearly entitles Scribd.com to ignore noncompliant DMCA notices entirely. See 17 U.S.C.
512(c)(3)(b)(ii). Consequently, by failing to meet the requirements of the statute, you run the risk that
your notices will be rejected in their entirety (including any legitimate allegations of infringement that
they may include), an outcome that would be unfortunate for the rightsholders SFWA represents.

We trust that, in light of this incident, any future DMCA notices sent by SFWA shall substantially
comply with all the requirements set forth in the statute.

Sincerely,

Fred von Lohmann

Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
fred@eff.org
scribd