Memorandum

To: TLJ Alert readers.
From: David Carney.
Re: Infringement of the TLJ Alert.
Date: January 1, 2003.

I have been asked on many occasions how it is that I know that people are infringing the TLJ Alert. To date, I have done very little to detect and identify infringement. Basically, infringers have been telling me that they are infringing, but usually not in so many words. Here are four examples.

First, I receive phones calls, often from angry secretaries or assistants, who inform me that their boss has not received her copy of the TLJ Alert for the last three days. They want to know why. They want it fixed. Now! My answer is simple. Neither the boss, nor the company is a subscriber to the TLJ Alert. If the TLJ Alert has not arrived, then complain to the person who has been sending the infringing copies.

Second, I hear from attorneys about stories that I have written. Sometimes, they want more information about a pending case or bill, or body of law. Sometimes they complain that their clients should receive more coverage. Sometimes, they call to correct an error, or alert me to upcoming hearings. Or, they have other issues. And, they boast that their firm subscribes to the TLJ Alert. But again, when I review the subscription list, I see that neither that attorney, nor the firm, is on the subscription list.

Third, I frequently meet people at hearings on Capitol Hill, FCC meetings and roundtables, luncheons, panel discussions, and other gatherings, who talk to me in great detail about the content of recent issues of the TLJ Alert, and inform me that their company, firm or group subscribes to the TLJ Alert. And again, they are not on the subscription list.

Fourth, people contact me requesting to be removed from the subscription list, or to have their address changed, and add comments that make it clear that they have been reading the TLJ Alert. And again, they are not on the subscription list.

What is common about all of these people is that they openly state that they receive and read the TLJ Alert. Moreover, they all genuinely believe that their company, firm or group has bought a subscription for them. What this suggests is that a lot of people who are setting up mechanisms for systematically infringing are not cautioning their friends or co-workers about what they have done.

I suspect that there are also people who set up mechanisms for systematic infringement, and inform the recipients. I further suspect that these people tend not openly volunteer information to me about their activities.

However, some people inadvertently inform me that they are receiving the TLJ Alert. Some people have set up their own e-mail distribution lists to redistribute the TLJ Alert to people who have not paid for subscriptions, and, believe it or not, put me on the redistribution list. More often, people forward single issues, with comments, and with me on the CC: list. This lets me know what people think. But, it also lets me know who is reading.

Then, there are some people who infringe, and then want to tell me about it. People have told me of their infringement, and then made statements such as "We don't believe in intellectual property on the Internet", "You can't charge for stuff on the Internet", or "Nobody believes in paying for content on the Internet". Others assert untenable theories such as "It's a work made for hire", or it is not copyrightable subject matter. There are also the litigation lawyers who brag that they have a huge staff of IP litigators, and they will bury me in litigation, and bankrupt me, before I can get a judgment against them. All of these types often conclude their e-mails or statements with instructions to me to give the TLJ Alert away for free.

Finally, there are the plagiarists. Some plagiarists copy material from many sources, including TLJ, publish it in their own web sites, and then send out spam promoting their web sites, with me on the distribution list. I have found others by running phrases from the TLJ Alert through Google. Legitimate subscribers have also alerted me to plagiarism in publications not published on the web (as well as infringement by copying).