How Not to Write a Cease-and-Desist Letter

In our overly litigious society it seems that many companies are all too happy to fire off a cease-and-desist letter if they see something they don't like. Many times these letters end up online just causing further embarrassment for the company. One such company has decided to try scaring their targets out of this response by including a copyright notice for their cease-and-desist letter. Public Citizen has fielded one of these dumb letters and has invited them to try to assert their cease-and-desist copyright (which isn't even registered).

Comments

Re:Good idea / bad idea

[David Gerard]

Yes. It's amazing how good a response you can get by asking nicely and not being a dick about something.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Luke Dawson]

What do you think?

I find this bit the most amusing:

We understand that negative information can make it hard for you to make an informed decision about how membership can meet your current and future buying needs, and we'd like to respond.

As if, somehow, only looking for positive information about something is the best way to come to an "informed" decision. If anything, I'm looking specifically for negative information when I am trying to make an informed decision before buying something.

*READ BEFORE POSTING PLEASE*

[drachenfyre]

1. You do not need to register a copyright in the US to enforce it.
2. You DO need to register it before pursuing legal action in the US AND damages are limited to actual damages, not statutory damages. Legal fees expended in defending the copyright are also ineligible to be claimed in this case.

There are about 50 posts in this thread already going back and forth on this point and it's really clouding up what is a good discussion.

Re:*READ BEFORE POSTING PLEASE*

[evanbd]

From its content alone, your post is completely indistinguishable from any other post by someone who claims to know how copyright works in the US. It should be obvious that just because you know you're right, that doesn't mean the rest of us can tell that just because you sound certain about it. So, please post a link to a reputable reference, rather than just adding another post going back and forth on the issue and clouding up the discussion.

(FWIW, I think you're right about this. But it would add a lot more to the discussion if you could actually include a reference.)

Here's a relevant example:

[fishbowl]

Ok, here's an example:

You have a lease contract form that was purchased at a office supply store. That contract form is copyrighted by its publisher.

You and your tenant fill it out.

Now, are you not allowed to copy the filled out, executed contract so that you and your tenant each has a copy?

If you and the tenant enter a legal dispute, are you both forbidden from copying this document (which is a derivative work, your writing on a copyrighted form) and giving the copies to your lawyers or the court?

I do not think you will ever see a judgment that declares legal correspondence to be constrained by copyright to the degree that it actually forbids a party to the correspondence from sharing that correspondence. To assert this is to abridge a party's rights, which could have fatal consequences in a lawsuit situation.

The last thing you want to do as plaintiff in a lawsuit, is give a judge a reason to believe you have been unfair to the defendant with respect to his right to mount a defense to your claims. The reason you shouldn't pull a stunt like this "copyrighted letter" is simply that you don't want to give the defendant any place to stand where he can suggest you acted in bad faith. Even in a solid position, bad faith actions can cost your case.