Notice and takedown procedure
rs9 respects intellectual-property rights and processes notices under the framework used by U.S. law at 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). The designated agent, the required statement fields, the repeat-infringer policy and the counter-notice path are recorded on this route. Notices that fall outside the statement fields below will be returned for clarification before any action is taken.
Where to send a notice
the rs9 team
Email: [email protected]
Postal: the rs9 team, DMCA designated agent, Mumbai 400001, India
Notices that arrive by email are processed first; postal notices are processed within ten business days of receipt. Notices addressed to other inboxes are not treated as DMCA notices and may be responded to under the rs9 team's normal cadence.
Six statement fields a notice must contain
| # | Field | What to include |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identification of the work | The title, author and a description of the copyrighted work claimed to have been used without authorisation. A URL is the most useful identifier. |
| 2 | Identification of the material | The URL on rs9-bonus.com where the allegedly infringing material is located. Multiple URLs are acceptable; one notice per URL set is preferred. |
| 3 | Contact information | Full name, mailing address, telephone and email address. Anonymous notices cannot be processed under this procedure. |
| 4 | Good-faith statement | A statement that the complaining party has a good-faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorised by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. |
| 5 | Accuracy and authority statement | A statement that the information in the notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorised to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. |
| 6 | Physical or electronic signature | The signature of the complaining party or of an authorised representative. A typed name plus title is acceptable on email; a wet signature is required on postal notices. |
Notices that omit any of the six fields are returned for clarification within five business days. Notices that contain all six fields proceed to the editorial review window below.
Editorial review window
1. Receipt
A complete notice is logged against the relevant URL set. The rs9 team acknowledges receipt within two business days.
2. Review
The rs9 team checks the URLs and the description against the published copy. A factual error or a duplicate of an already-resolved URL is logged and the complaining party is notified.
3. Action
Material that the rs9 team agrees is infringing is removed or rewritten. The complaining party is notified of the action within five business days of the review completion.
4. Counter-notice
If the affected party believes the removal was in error, the counter-notice path below is the route to put the material back.
The framework rs9 follows even though rs9 is in India
rs9 follows the notice and takedown framework used in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) because the framework is the most widely understood template for an editorial-side takedown procedure. The framework covers the six statement fields, the editorial review window, the counter-notice path and the repeat-infringer policy. The framework is used in the same way many international publishers use it: as a procedural template that produces consistent outcomes regardless of the jurisdiction the publisher is in.
For a notice that arrives from a complainant in India, the editorial review window is the same. For a notice that arrives from a complainant in any other jurisdiction, the editorial review window is the same. The framework's strength is its consistency across jurisdictions; rs9 inherits that consistency.
Notices that require a different legal remedy - for example, a defamation claim or a database-right claim - are returned for clarification and routed to the editorial inbox. The DMCA path on this route is the copyright path; the editorial inbox is the path for everything else.
What each required statement actually means
The identification fields
Field one identifies the copyrighted work that is claimed to have been used. Field two identifies the rs9 URL where the allegedly infringing material is located. The two identifications together pin the claim to a specific use; a notice that names the work without the URL cannot be acted on because the rs9 team does not know which page to review.
The URL set should be small. A notice that lists fifty URLs is hard for the rs9 team to act on quickly and is returned for clarification. One notice per URL set is the preferred shape.
The contact and authority fields
Field three is the contact information. Anonymous notices cannot be processed under this procedure; the rs9 team needs a name, an address, a telephone and an email to send an acknowledgement and to act on the notice. Field four is the good-faith statement. Field five is the accuracy and authority statement under penalty of perjury.
Field six is the signature. A typed name plus title on email is acceptable. A wet signature on a postal notice is required. Notices that omit any of fields three through six are returned for clarification before any review window opens.
Five business days, with two checkpoints
The editorial review window is five business days. The window opens when the rs9 team confirms that all six statement fields are present. The window closes when the rs9 team has either removed the material, rewritten it, or determined that the notice does not warrant removal.
There are two checkpoints in the window. Checkpoint one is the receipt acknowledgement, sent within two business days. Checkpoint two is the action notification, sent within five business days. The two checkpoints together ensure that the complaining party knows where the notice stands without having to follow up.
If the rs9 team cannot complete the review within five business days because the request is complex, the complaining party is notified of the delay with a revised window. The revised window is never longer than thirty calendar days from the original acknowledgement.
If you believe the removal was in error
If you are the affected party and believe the material was removed in error or that the use was authorised, you may submit a counter-notice to the same designated agent above. The counter-notice must contain:
- Identification of the material that was removed and the URL where it appeared before removal.
- A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you have a good-faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification.
- Your name, address and telephone number, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of the appropriate court.
- Your physical or electronic signature.
After a complete counter-notice is received, rs9 forwards the counter-notice to the original complaining party and may restore the material at the rs9 team's discretion, depending on the response from the original complaining party within the framework's window.
Repeat-infringer policy
rs9 reserves the right to remove or disable access to material that is the subject of a repeat-infringer pattern, and to apply the editorial-side response that fits the pattern. The framework used is the one referenced in 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). The pattern is judged by the rs9 team on a per-URL basis.
Misuse of the notice procedure is itself a basis for the rs9 team to flag the sender. Notices submitted in bad faith are not processed and may be referred to the appropriate authority.
What counts as a notice submitted in bad faith
A notice submitted in bad faith is one where the complaining party knows or should know that the use complained of is authorised, that the material is not the work claimed, or that the rs9 team has already resolved the issue on a prior notice. A notice submitted in retaliation for editorial coverage is a bad-faith notice. A notice that targets a URL set larger than the rs9 team can review is returned for clarification rather than treated as a notice.
The framework used in 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) provides for liability on a party that knowingly misrepresents that material is infringing. The rs9 team treats bad-faith notices under the same principle; the rs9 team may refer the matter to the appropriate authority if the pattern persists.
The rs9 team flags senders who submit bad-faith notices. The flag is internal and is used to prioritise review on subsequent notices; a flagged sender's notices are still processed, but the editorial review window is the longer of the two standard windows, and the rs9 team checks the prior notices first.
When the DMCA path is not the right path
The DMCA path is the copyright path. It is not the trademark path, the database-right path, the defamation path or the privacy path. Notices that arrive at the DMCA inbox but raise one of those other remedies are returned to the sender with a pointer to the right address. The rs9 team does not adjudicate the merits of a non-copyright claim; the rs9 team routes the sender to the right venue.
For trademark concerns, the rs9 team removes or rewrites material that uses a mark in a way the mark holder can demonstrate is confusing. For database-right concerns, the rs9 team rewrites the disputed material. For defamation concerns, the rs9 team refers the sender to the editorial inbox where the matter is reviewed under the editorial-side standards. For privacy concerns, the rs9 team refers the sender to /privacy/.
The routing is deliberate. The DMCA framework is the most widely understood takedown template, but it is also the most procedurally rigid: notices that fall outside the framework risk being treated as DMCA notices and rejected on the wrong grounds. The right address is faster than the wrong address.
Editorial questions and corrections
For corrections to factual errors on an existing rs9 page (typos, incorrect dates, misattributed figures), the editorial inbox is faster than the DMCA path. Use [email protected] and quote the URL plus the correction requested.