It makes no reference to your personal life, or to your professional life outside of your public career as an author and filmmaker.Īs for your decision to try to have the review removed now, I would point out that you have known about my site for years, as attested by your multiple emails about multiple visits my site is routinely on the first or second page of Google results for both the book's title and your nom de plume your takedown notice referred indirectly to your fear that my site was drawing visitors, and directly to your fear of loss of royalties and you recently reissued DotG and published the sequel.

It says, at length, that a particular book stinks, and criticizes the author's skill in writing said book. It's an entertaining review of a very bad book. There are no other reviews, especially 5 page reviews, on your site. I do not need to justify publishing my own legal content on my own legal site. What possible legitimate reason can you have for insisting on keeping it? It's from 2007, there is no legitimate defence for refusing.Īs my response to your takedown notice points out, you have no legitimate reason for insisting that I take it down. If you have facts to contest, give me the details, and I will make such corrections as are justified by the facts in question and your evidence to the contrary. 'and misrepresents several plot points' = interpretation and analysis are covered under both points 1 and 2, and points 5 and 6. 'which exceeds fair use' = see original letter, points 5 and 6 Of all the possible names you could associate with me, how in heck did you come up with Vanessa? What possible legitimate reason can you have for insisting on keeping it? It's from 2007, there is no legitimate defence for refusing. I'm objecting to a 5 page article which exceeds fair use and misrepresents several plot points. I am not complaining about your book reviews.

Dance of the Goblins by Jaq D. Hawkins