PC Secret Formula Review – In Defence of Fair Use
This post was originally published in October 2007, shortly after being threatened with a law suit for a review I posted for the ebook, PC Secret Formula. (I recently noticed that I had accidentally deleted this post so am re-posting to keep the ‘related’ thread intact.)
It also presents a strong argument for maintaining ethics and integrity in your online marketing – both product creation, and product reviews. As this was/is a subject that opened my eyes to the deliberate lack of transparency of some online marketers, I hope that it will encourage others to 1) Beware of what you buy online, and 2) Be responsible with your product creation and communication methods.
For starters, the accusation that I had posted portions of his book online involved a brief “fair use” quotation from the disclaimer.
The rest of the post reviewing PC Secret Formula was thoroughly researched and clearly documented, with proper credit going to all relevant parties. NOTHING was ever cut-and-paste content taken directly from the product, as was alleged by the author and can be easily confirmed by comparing the post with the product.
It’s a little alarming to receive an email from someone claiming that you’ve infringed upon their copyright privileges just by writing a review, and to be threatened with legal action. But, after the initial shock wore off, I dropped everything to research what I had potentially done wrong.
After all…
people write product reviews all the time without being threatened.
It didn’t take long to learn that my research proved that I had done nothing wrong by writing the review. No longer feeling intimidated, I felt compelled to respond to Kris Mainieri’s threat of legal action (see the first comment in the post).
If there’s anything that will make me dig in and take a stand on something, it’s being wrongfully (and publicly) accused of something. So, let this post mark leave no doubt that I am fully prepared to defend whatever accusations come of writing an honest review about a product that leaves a lot to be desired.
While The [tag-tec]Copyright Act[/tag-tec] doesn’t define “fair use” per se, it does allows for the existence of “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research” and is NOT considered an infringement of copyright.
Otherwise…
we would all be deprived of our personal rights of expression.
What’s more, “copyright owners are, by law, deemed to consent to fair use of their works by others” (Title 17 of the United States Code, otherwise known as The Copyright Act, 1976, Chapter 1, Section 107, Fair Use).
Let’s take this one step further ….
Since I’m being accused of [tag-tec]copyright infringement[/tag-tec], I’d be very interested in knowing how ‘my accused’ would defend their act of including several instances of unreferenced content in this ebook, tacitly passing it off as their original work.
Specifically, I can identify FIVE instances in this ebook where content has been plagiarized verbatim (let’s call a spade, a spade) without any credit given to the original authors of the websites from which they came. Not so much as a quotation mark.
So, who is defending the “original” content of those websites..? Especially when/if they are most likely oblivious to the fact that their free content has been used unwittingly for profit by an over-zealous online marketer.
Copyright protection assumes protection for authorship regardless of visible [tag-tec]copyright notice[/tag-tec] and is confirmed by this reference to the [tag-tec] Berne Copyright Convention[/tag-tec] as mentioned in Brad Templeton’s post on 10 Big Myths about Copyright.
Further research led me to an interesting link of a free online tutorial by Paul Pruitt, 25 Steps to a Faster PC, that outlines every task mentioned in this ebook (plus a few others). You’ll also find some content in Paul’s tutorial that is copied verbatim in this ebook. I wonder how Paul feels about knowing how closely paralleled his free tutorial is with PC Secret Formula (including plagiarized content)?
So, at the end of the day…I’m calling your bluff, Kris.
If it’s a mountain worth dying on … knock yourself out! If you want to pursue legal action, know that I’m happy to publicize what evidences I’ve accumulated on every relevant public forum, social media site, social bookmarking site, my email list, lists that I’m on, and anything in between.
Oh and, I have a lawyer too.
So go ahead and give yours a call. I can well imagine how expensive this would become as soon as ALL of the unwitting parties involved are invited to participate — I don’t expect to be flipping the bill.
Frankly, not only do I feel pretty comfortable that my review of this product is sound - and legal, but I’m also pretty confident that there is a MUCH stronger case of improprieties on your behalf.
Besides, throwing around legal threats online is a pretty dumb thing to do!
Hurting anyone’s feelings by writing a review is never my intent. But really, if hurt feelings are the only reason for threatening legal action to someone who doesn’t like your product, then maybe you have no business being online to begin with.
My review is blunt, but it’s not defamatory.
My best advice to you, Kris Mainieri, is to move on and re-evaluate your business ethics.
Let’s just say that an “empty comment” to this post will suffice as dropped matter.
REFERENCES
Find Law – Copyrighting Law
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html
Brad Templeton’s Copyrighting Myths
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Title 17 of the United States Code
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17
Fair dealings and exceptions
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#6
Paul Pruitt’s tutorial on 25 Ways To Speed Up Your PC
http://www.socrtwo.info/text_version.htm
ORIGINAL COMMENTS TO THIS POST
(Don’t know how to add new comments via the dashboard)
1. Jonathan Bailey
23 Oct 2007, 08:32:00
I find this type of situation rather frustrating. Every so often I get a client in my consulting business or a random emailer that is upset about an alleged copyright infringement. In investigating it, I discover that that the use was very critical of them.
I always ask the same question “Are you upset that they might have infringed your copyright, or that they said bad things about you?”
Using copyright to stifle criticism has a long history of not working. Diebold failed, Michael Crook failed, DirectBuy failed, Uri Geller failed, Creation Science Evangelism Ministries failed and the list goes on.
If this individual seriously feels that there is a copyright infringement. He has avenues to get the work removed and, possibly, bring down this site. at least temporarily. However, doing so would expose him to not only greater humiliation, but also a fairly severe lawsuit.
If I were to offer my advice to this person, it would be to tread lightly. Right now this criticism of your work is limited to this site, if you do anything that is even perceived as stifling free speech, the whole Internet will know about it the next day.
Rather than hurling copyright threats, I would advise you to defend yourself in a more appropriate manner. That is, if you don’t want this to blow.
If you don’t believe me, look up the names above and find out what happened to them. The history here is pretty clear.
2. vBasic
23 Oct 2007, 09:09:25
Johnathan,
Thanks for your contribution — I’m encouraged by your response, esp the mention of precedents. Personally, I’m content to watch this thing silently go away. Life is too short.
BTW, I like what your doing with your site. I’ll definitely keep my finger on your content.
Thanks again!
3. Jonathan Bailey
24 Oct 2007, 09:54:20
No problem, its my pleasure! I’m an advocate of strong copyright protection, but people who use copyright to hurt free speech not only interfere with the natural discourse of the Web but also hurt copyright law by turning others against it and forcing the law to be changed to prevent future abuses.
I have no love for people who do things like this.
Let me know if I can help you in any way in the future!
4. vBasic
24 Oct 2007, 23:53:57
Thanks Johnathan — again.
Your comments to this post help validate that plagiarism IS a crime and should not be taken so lightly.
I’ve since re-visited your site since yesterday and really respect what you’re doing.
I hope that Digging, Stumbling (etc), and including a separate post about your site will help bring awareness of your services to people who find themselves falling victim to this sort of behavior.
Keep up the fight!
