Copyright Violations: Attention All CC Authors

[BarryDavidson]

The problem with "closed" websites is that it costs a lot of money to get new members. I've been a member of sites where nothing is visible unless you're a paying member, and they wind up costing a lot of money to maintain. Especially since you have to advertise like hell to keep new traffic coming in.

I wouldn't be opposed to people not being able to click the links for articles unless they're a verified member of the site. I wouldn't even be perturbed if I had to provide credit card information to verify my identity in order to view more than the titles.

I haven't been here long, but I love this site already. It was nice to look in my Paypal account last night and see the money I made last month. I made more here in three weeks than I did the last four at my part time job, and I got a hell of a lot more "per hour" for the actual work. I've finally found a place to set down my roots, and I won't even let something like this stop me.

Now... The host of that site is required to take down EVERY piece of copyrighted work under the DCMA. If, and I stress if, the administrator/owner of the site files a counterclaim with the host for each and every piece that is reported as a violation, then the hose will be required to put it back up. So get a list of everything together. Add the URL of the articles here, and the date submitted (perhaps even mention the URL where it's been posted without permission). Send those lists to support. If they send in a list with 500 or more then hostmonster.com will be required by law to remove that material. This will speed up the process. Unfortunately, the host must have a physically signed complaint form for legal reasons.

So keep those articles coming. Don't let one a**hole in China ruin your chances of making money.

[Lor]

[quote="brucegreat"]For a violation of your rights, I am very sorry, because robots with us acquisition of network resources only to the Web site includes articles, I have to delete all your published articles, apologized again![/quote]


Well, this is interesting. Is it for real? If so, a likely story. Kindly register with CC and pay us usage for those articles. :)

Strange

[Celeste Stewart]

So robots are too blame, perhaps? How about putting one of those annoying "enter the characters" forms on the site to ensure that only real people can view the content? Ack, I hate those things. Maybe with an option to become a "verified" customer/author via purchase/sold ratings or something...

[Ed]

Humans are to blame. Humans make and utilize robots. Unless there has been a robot takeover that I wasn't aware of.

[Lor]

Celeste, is this possible? It's nuts.

Ed, too right. And I'm not even sure this is real. Perhaps David can verify. Doesn't matter either way. I don't accept apology.

[Celeste Stewart]

True, humans put the robots to work. Surely there must be a way to turn technology against the bots? An ancient post http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/0 ... go_to_hell
provided some interesting insight.

[jrichards]

Just to chime in with Barry's and Celeste's comments,

It is foundational for Constant-Content to support and uphold writers' copyright! That said we have to strike some balance as Barry mentioned, between protecting your content and marketing your content. I appreciate Celeste's comments about integrating a captcha (the type-in-the-word protection) or putting the text into an image, both are great ideas. Once we get this incident straightened out, we're going to be doing some review of the protection processes that are available to us and seeing what new protection we can implement that provide stronger protection and avoid making the site overly difficult to use.

We will post an update on the copyright infringement situation by the end of the day.
-jrichards
Support
Constant-Content

[Celeste Stewart]

THanks Jeff. I'm writing a training course on creativity and innovation right now and just completed a section about how many people don't put forth ideas out of fear of appearing foolish or having their ideas minimized. I never had that problem, but it is still nice to see a positive response.

[BarryDavidson]

Everyone who looked yesterday for their material... Go back and recheck. It looks like all of the material that was posted there on November 18th was removed, but don't quote me.

If you still see your work up there, finish the report to send to support, and get it to them ASAP.

[Lor]

Celeste, a slight aside.
I'm not usually one of those "people" who "don't put forth ideas out of fear of appearing foolish or having their ideas minimized." Generally, my ideas are only minimized when someone else gets and takes credit for them through expansion, so I seldom "put forth ideas" here anymore. Just having a giggle.

Lorraine

[Celeste Stewart]

Wasn't implying others weren't putting forth ideas at all. Sorry if it sounded that way. Rather after writing about the topic yesterday, I was reminded to put forth some suggestions and appreciated the nice comment. That's all.

Sheesh, are people really taking your ideas and claiming them as their own here? I hope not and assume it's not intended. Ideas tend to take a life of their own as they are discussed and expanded upon. We need these discussions and brainstorming sessions and it really doesn't matter whose idea sparks a solution so long as a solution is ultimately found.

[Lor]

Celeste, I'm not that sensitive. lol. From time to time I notice but it's humbling and all good. Shouldn't have mentioned it, even in jest. Just made me snicker a little.

Been awol for a couple of weeks. No articles, but looking forward to submitting again when I can complete my present project. Haven't looked at the forums until Hayley sent me a message. Anyway, have to run.

Lorraine

[HayleyWriter]

Hi all,

Okay, I am feeling a bit better about this now, especially if the content is definitely off that site. I'll keep on submitting articles to CC, because, like Barry, this place really works for me as an author. It is easy and I get paid regularly too. I like the fact that CC does all the marketing, so if we can get a compromise between copyright security and marketing to the customers that is ok with me. However, some additional protection is obviously needed. I look forward to hearing the result from CC officially about this incident. Perhaps a brief email to each current author wouldn't go astray about the incident, the work CC did to get the site fixed, and the future protection actions. Please communicate with the authors, we need to know what is happening as a result of this distressing incident. I also want CC's official assurance that I can still sell these articles for full rights, or reasonable compensation (like the usage licence fee) if I can't. Protecting our copyright is indeed one of the fundamental functions of Constant Content, otherwise there is no way of charging customers for the articles.

Hayley

[solo]

[quote="jrichards"]Just to chime in with Barry's and Celeste's comments,

It is foundational for Constant-Content to support and uphold writers' copyright! That said we have to strike some balance as Barry mentioned, between protecting your content and marketing your content. [/quote]

That may be a problem but surely protecting writers' copyright is paramount? I think that with CC taking 35% of sales price that writers should be virtually guaranteed that authorial rights will be upheld. We are the lifeblood! I smell in some posts the suggestion that further measures to do this will cost...but authors should not have to pick up the tab for what is their legal right. Could authors be provided with more details on who has bought and what they intend to use it for (except for full rights)? That seems to me to be a gap in the system if one wants to check on use of one's work. CC still great site and I'm sorry that some tosser has disrupted a smoothly functioning system and caused you - as much as authors - super stress...

[beconrad]

Has the site started to take down the stolen articles? I found several of my articles there so far, but when I tried to look at them I just got a page with a Google search box and a bunch of ads. I wonder if they've started to remove the full text of the articles?

Bonnie