I'm very clear that every instance of any of the books I wrote for O'Reilly, or anything from any of the Perl CDs, being present on the web for public consumption, is piracy.

I'm also of the opinion (which I know isn't shared by everyone) that the presence of electronic copies of these O'Reilly books does indeed damage the marketability of the books, because there are people who would not buy the book if they didn't have to, and would have otherwise, and the books do not need any more publicity than they've already gotten.

Therefore, as a courtesy to me, as an author with something at stake, I kindly request that my requests for takedown be acted upon with haste, and not waiting for a formal sequence of events involving the publisher and lawyers and served papers. It seems common sense.

The Monastery has no "common carrier" protection, nor would fit the safe harboring provisions of the DMCA. I'm pretty sure that based on past actions taken here, it would be silly to assume that the operators of the Monastery would be held harmless if continued copyright violations show up.

Given that, swift action, and editing to minimize damage, seem the only logical course.

The Monastery has no "common carrier" protection, nor would fit the safe harboring provisions of the DMCA.

Can you cite a single instance of US caselaw where the operator of a site which merely linked to infringing material has been found liable under the DMCA, except for where the site:

• exists primarily to link to infringing materials,
• links to devices primarily intended to circumvent DRM, or
• links to externally-hosted infringing material in an attempt to circumvent an injunction against hosting infringing material itself?

As an author and copyright holder myself, I find it exceedingly rude to see my copyrights infringed as well, but the idea of issuing takedown notices to places such as PerlMonks for merely linking to infringing work (and that, often, unintentionally) is more unpalatable than the linguistic trick of equating copyright infringement to violent, extranational thievery.

...the idea of issuing takedown notices to places such as PerlMonks for merely linking to infringing work (and that, often, unintentionally)...

IANAL, but I think that a DMCA takedown notice issued for a link to infringing material is actually violation of the DMCA because it would not be valid (the takedown should be to the site hosting the infringing material). At least that's the impression I get from recent cases dealing with inappropriate DMCA takedown notices. So before issuing one consult with a competent attorny. The EFF has been involved in a few so you can probably find more info on their website.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Therefore, as a courtesy to me, as an author with something at stake, I kindly request that my requests for takedown be acted upon with haste, and not waiting for a formal sequence of events involving the publisher and lawyers and served papers. It seems common sense.

Perlmonks aren't hosting your books, so huh?

So you want to be pirate police?

No, I wanted to ask a question to the community. Thank you for your input, but please try and keep weasel words out of what IMO is a good discussion.

...and there is liability becoming pirate police (ask a lawyer).

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

I agree you are not a lawyer, but you are trying to give legal advice. So please follow your own advice and ask a lawyer. There are several Pro Bono resources you could ask (I would advise getting permission from the gods), why don't you? You can establish what I suggested is/is not a liability and that leaving links is/is not. Then leave weasel words and conjecture elsewhere.