RadioReference Web Host Receives DMCA Takedown Notice from Priority Dispatch Corp

[blantonl]

Our primary hosting provider, Amazon Web Services, received the following DMCA Takedown Notice this week from Priority Dispatch Corporation regarding the content hosted on our Wiki at this link:

Priority Dispatch Codes - The RadioReference Wiki

This is the 2nd DMCA takedown notice they've filed, this time directly with our Web hosting provider. You can see the first here, along with the associated discussion:

RadioReference Receives a DMCA Takedown Notice from Priority Dispatch Corp.

See below: Legal Department J. Simón Cantarero Direct +1 385 715 xxxx simon.cantarero@prioritydispatch.net April 18, 2022 VIA USPS and EMAIL: legal@radioreference.com Lindsay C. Blanton III, President RadioReference.com 1150 N Loop 1604 W, Suite 108 San Antonio, TX 78248 RE: Notice...

forums.radioreference.com

Dear Amazon,

This law firm represents Priority Dispatch Corporation (“PDC”) in
intellectual property matters. This message constitutes notification of
claimed infringement pursuant to § 202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act of 1998 (the “DMCA”). 17 U.S.C. § 512 (c)(1)(3).

By this message, PDC provides notice of objection to the unauthorized
reproduction of its copyrighted material. Specifically, PDC’s copyrighted
Flexi software is available for download using the link shown below:

https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Priority_Dispatch_Codes

PDC’s EMS, Fire, and Police protocols are registered copyrights in the
United States. *See* U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. TX0008333136 (Fire),
TX0008333140 (EMS), and TX0007934165 (Police).

I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the
copyrighted material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent,
or the law (e.g., as a fair use).

I hereby state that the information in this Notice is accurate and, under
penalty of perjury, that I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of
the copyright that is allegedly infringed.

Should you have any questions concerning PDC’s position in this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me.

This notice of claimed infringement is sent without prejudice to the rights
of PDC, all of which are expressly reserved.

Sincerely,

*Jared L. Cherry*
PHILLIPS WINCHESTER ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4001 South 700 East, Suite 500 | Salt Lake City, UT 84107
Phone: 801-935-4932 | Fax: 801-935-4936
jlc@phillipswinchester.com | phillipswinchester.com

We filed the following counter notice with Amazon this morning:

Dear Amazon,

We received your DMCA notice and wish to file the following counter notice:

1) Priority Dispatch Corporation (“PDC”) alleges that the information at the following link infringes
on their copyrights in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act of 1998 (the “DMCA”). 17 U.S.C. § 512 (c)(1)(3).

https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Priority_Dispatch_Codes

PDC also alleges that we are hosting a link to download software called “Flexi software”

2) I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material
is allowed to be made available to the public at the above link and is protected by fair use
doctrines as covered under section 107 of the Copyright Act,  I also state in good faith
that there are no links to downloadable software called “Flexi software” hosted anywhere on
the above mentioned page.

I hereby state that the information in this Counter Notice is accurate and, under
penalty of perjury, that I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of
link above that is allegedly infringed.

3) Lindsay C. Blanton III
    Chief Executive Officer
    RadioReference.com LLC
    1150 N Loop 1604 W Suite 108-556
    San Antonio, TX 78248
    (210) xxx-xxxx

4) I consent to the jurisdiction of the United States federal district court for the judicial district
in which my address is located and will accept service of process from the person who provided
the notice set forth above or their agent.

5) /s/ Lindsay C. Blanton III, Chief Executive Officer, RadioReference.com LLC

 

[kv5e]

Now "the suits" may or may not get involved.

 

[PD47JD]

I speak as a trial attorney (State, Federal and Appellate) of 34 years relative to the copyright infringement notice which you have received. Utter nonsense. A claim such as that which is being alleged is ripe for a FRCP Rule 11 motion for sanctions following the Court granting your FRCP Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. As a law firm which holds itself out as specializing in the area of intellectual property they should know better.

 

[ten13]

Is it worth getting into a legal pissing match over something that the vast majority of RR people don't even care about? And that very small number who do, have already printed it out?

If it's copyrighted by a private company, so be it: take it down.

It would be more worthwhile to direct RR's efforts to something more relevant.

 

[prcguy]

So FRCP rule 56 must be the equivalent of "sit on this and rotate" for the layman.

I speak as a trial attorney (State, Federal and Appellate) of 34 years relative to the copyright infringement notice which you have received. Utter nonsense. A claim such as that which is being alleged is ripe for a FRCP Rule 11 motion for sanctions following the Court granting your FRCP Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. As a law firm which holds itself out as specializing in the area of intellectual property they should know better.

 

[RaleighGuy]

Is it worth getting into a legal pissing match over something that the vast majority of RR people don't even care about? And that very small number who do, have already printed it out?

If it's copyrighted by a private company, so be it: take it down.

It would be more worthwhile to direct RR's efforts to something more relevant.

Perhaps if you read through the original thread you would see how frivolous this take down notice is, if @blantonl took down all the info companies didn't like (even if as you say the vast majority...don't care about) there wouldn't be much info left.

 

[NYG]

Is it worth getting into a legal pissing match over something that the vast majority of RR people don't even care about? And that very small number who do, have already printed it out?

If it's copyrighted by a private company, so be it: take it down.

It would be more worthwhile to direct RR's efforts to something more relevant.

Yes.

 

[blantonl]

Is it worth getting into a legal pissing match over something that the vast majority of RR people don't even care about? And that very small number who do, have already printed it out?

If it's copyrighted by a private company, so be it: take it down.

It would be more worthwhile to direct RR's efforts to something more relevant.

Precedent is a real thing. If we let this fly, companies will file frivolous DCMA takedowns for information that is clearly allowed to be posted in public under fair use doctrines.

I am prepared to take this to court.

 

[kv5e]

It's the principle involved here IMHO, otherwise the letters start coming in a fusillade from "suits" trying to justify their jobs.

 

[prcguy]

Pay a visit to Priority Dispatch Corporation with a disabled friend and have them use their restroom. Then sue them for improper handicap accommodations. Negotiate the rest.

 

[ten13]

It's "Fair Use" when you're at a bar and everyone sings "Happy Birthday" to one of the patrons, No one is making money on that.

It's NOT "Fair Use" when you take, say, a picture of a fire, and publish it in your own newspapers which is you sell or have subscriptions, without permission and credit from the photographer.

If a private company has, in fact, copyrighted this info supposedly only for the use by THEIR patrons or clients, and it's now being distributed, without permission or credit, by someone who charges people to access that info,regardless if only some of the "readers" are paying, you are looking at a litigation problem, which you may lose.

They will say you are making money on someone else's work.

If that info was part of a government agency, for the use in their operation (like, say, a police or fire departments' 10-codes), it's essentially public information, because a government agency cannot copyright government documents (that is, in a free society, which is slowly coming to an end in the USA).

In other words, RR should 'pick their fights' worth fighting.

 

[blantonl]

In other words, RR should 'pick their fights' worth fighting.

We’re picking this as something we’re going to fight.

Your examples of fair use don’t quite complete the definition of fair use - but give rather fairly narrow examples of both fair use and non-fair use examples.

 

[blantonl]

by someone who charges people to access that info,regardless if only some of the "readers" are paying, you are looking at a litigation problem, which you may lose.

They will say you are making money on someone else's work.

We are not charging anyone, ANYONE, to access that material.

 

[RaleighGuy]

If that info was part of a government agency, for the use in their operation (like, say, a police or fire departments' 10-codes), it's essentially public information, because a government agency cannot copyright government documents (that is, in a free society, which is slowly coming to an end in the USA).

In other words, RR should 'pick their fights' worth fighting.

As I said earlier, read the OP from the first letter, and you'll see numerous government agencies have used and published this info within gov't documents, which are not copyrighted.

I agree with RR, this is definitely a fight worth fighting before others try to prevent RR from publishing publicly available information used by government agencies.

 

[PD47JD]

So FRCP rule 56 must be the equivalent of "sit on this and rotate" for the layman.

Got that exactly correct and it's the Court's favorite means of disposing frivolous lawsuits.

 

[PD47JD]

It's the principle involved here IMHO, otherwise the letters start coming in a fusillade from "suits" trying to justify their jobs.

It's not trying to justify their jobs. Read the model rules of professional responsibility. If a person comes to you with a claim and you elect to take them on as a client, then you have an ethical responsibility/obligation to represent that client. "You do what you gotta do".

 

[Outerdog]

In other words, RR should 'pick their fights' worth fighting.

Shhh, the grown ups are talking.

 

[harbor-tech]

I am not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly, you cannot copyright a simple list. It looks to me like PD is attempting to conflate the list of codes with 'software', which CAN be copyrighted. Also, since this list was apparently originally constructed for NAED, it would seem to me that organization would be the rights holder.

Of course, IANAL so the above is probably horse hockey

 

[jpstrategies]

Precedent is a real thing. If we let this fly, companies will file frivolous DCMA takedowns for information that is clearly allowed to be posted in public under fair use doctrines.

I am prepared to take this to court.

Absolutely correct with precedent. If this is not fought then it is used as precedent in larger more Important cases. Well said.

 

[Omega-TI]

This is just another reason I recently re-upped my subscription to RR. @blantonl has got the back of us hobbyists and has the backbone to put up the good fight.