Copyright As Censorship: Birth Blogger Fight Goes Legal Over DMCA Abuse

from the wtf dept

We've talked in the past about DMCA abuse to silence criticism, but it appears that a blogger, who felt wronged by someone who slightly mocked her, took DMCA abuse to new levels and is now facing a lawsuit in response. This case is interesting (and crazy) on a whole bunch of levels, which we'll try to illustrate here. Jackie points us to GetOffMyInternets, which has a pretty good summary of the long series of events that resulted in the lawsuit. Let's start with that summary, and then dig in on a variety of levels. The dispute involves two bloggers who appear to absolutely hate one another, Amy Tuteur and Gina Crosley-Corcoran:

OK, so Gina wrote this post about how she's learned soooooooooo much after being a doula at 20 births.

Dr. Amy responded with this post, basically saying, "If you've learned this much after 20, what do you think you'd learn after a few thousand?" It really wasn't terribly mean, by Dr. Amy standards.

Gina then responded with a photo of herself flipping Dr. Amy the bird, and saying, "I don't want to leave you without something you can take back to your blog and obsess over, so here's a picture of me."

Dr. Amy then wrote about it (and included the photo, which is now gone) in this post.

Gina THEN proceeded to scream "Copyright infringement!!!!" and send Dr. Amy a letter demanding money, which she wrote about in this post. (The letter was originally posted but later deleted.)

Dr. Amy's husband, who is a very big-deal lawyer, wrote back to Gina and told her she didn't have a case. Gina then repeatedly filed DMCA takedown notices to Dr. Amy's host (and then her new one, after she switched hosts), which she detailed here. She also started a legal fund so she could go after Amy. It was VERY clearly an attempt to abuse DMCA in order to shut Amy up. Gina was also encouraging other people to fill out forms saying that Amy had "stolen" (aka quoted, with proper citation) their stories.

Then, Dr. Amy countered with this suit

Phew! That's a lot of stuff. You can see the actual lawsuit here if you'd like (and it's also embedded below). I will say that prior to getting this, I'd never heard of either of these women, and I have no idea what the real crux of their dispute is about -- though it's quite clear that there's a much bigger history going on between these two women prior to the events listed above. In the post showing the middle finger picture, Gina describes a long history (in, um, snarky terms). Either way, one or both of these women may have wronged the other at some point. I have no idea, nor does it really matter concerning the specific events above.

Reading the blog posts back and forth (which isn't as easy as clicking on the original GOMI links, because Gina has blocked any traffic coming from that site with a message listing two possible reasons you're getting the blocked message -- with the first one being the likely issue: "you clicked on a link to my site from a really, seriously effed up place on the internet, in which case, for real? Why are you hanging around such places? Nevermind, ick, I don't wanna know.") I'm obviously not going to get into the long term fight the two are having over birthing methods or education -- but on the copyright issues, it seems fair to weigh in.

It's pretty clear that Gina way, way, way over-claimed things in her original blog post alleging infringement. She makes it sound as if Dr. Amy is guilty and must pay up, solely based on the accusation. She also claims that because her host has been contacted, they have to take down the content. Neither claim is true or accurate (it's possible she got questionable legal advice here):
By law, Amy now owes me $750 per incident, and up to $30,000. Think twice before stealing things off people's blogs. In case you're wondering, that is a VERY serious offense.... Her host has also been contacted, and by law, they must remove the content.
No, by law, Amy is not required to pay up until a court decides she has to. Also, copyright infringement is not stealing, but that's a whole different fight. As for the host being contact, they do not have to remove the content by law, though there are very strong incentives for them to remove it. Of course, those incentives apply solely to the content in question, and not the rest of her content. However, the host (apparently Bluehost) ridiculously killed the entire account, which Gina celebrated. Celebrating outright censorship through abuse of the DMCA doesn't seem wise. Amusingly, in cheering it on, Gina posted a screenshot of the blog being down, with a giant "protected by DMCA.com" sticker on it -- which is highly questionable. She really does appear to be claiming a copyright over a screenshot of someone else's website (even one that's been taken down). That's also highly questionable -- especially for someone who was just arguing that you shouldn't be "stealing things off people's blogs." And yet, she has no problem taking a screenshot of someone else's blog? Hmm...

As for the use by Amy of Gina's photo... it would appear that she would have a very, very strong fair use claim. She did not just use the photo, but provided significant commentary (again, whose commentary you agree with is meaningless here). Also, as claimed in the lawsuit, Amy argues that Gina's claim that she posted the photo for Amy to "take back to your blog and obsess over" is actually an invitation to repost the image. That last part may be a stretch, but not a completely ridiculous stretch. It just feels like the fair use claims are a lot stronger.

In fact, Gina later talks about her real goal in all of this is to use the threat of a DMCA action to silence Amy. I'm not sure who Gina's lawyer is, but you'd think he or she would tell Gina that flat out admitting publicly that you're seeking to use the DMCA to silence someone who is criticizing you and others is an abuse of the DMCA:
She could owe me statutory damages, but because I'm a fair and reasonable human being, my attorney and I felt it was best to discuss a non-monetary settlement with Amy and her lawyer. I'm not looking to be greedy — I simply wanted a resolution. In exchange for me not pursuing the damages, we wanted Amy to agree to stop personally attacking me. It was that simple.
That is, Gina flat out admits that she used the DMCA as a tool to seek to silence Amy's criticisms. That's not going to go over well in court. And, that's where some of this is playing out.

The lawsuit reveals even more info, including the claim that part of the "settlement" offer was that both Gina and Amy would agree never to discuss each other again in blog posts. It also states that Gina's own attorney admitted during a phone call that there was no legitimate copyright claim, and that they would not be pursuing any actual legal action. Furthermore, it reveals that after Bluehost had received the initial notice, Amy had filed a proper DMCA counternotice.

Next, she notes that in the most recent blog post on this, Gina not only solicited money for a "legal fund" to fight Amy (despite her lawyer apparently already saying they had no legal claim), but also encouraged her readers to "report" other instances of believed "copyright infringement" by Amy. A few days later, Amy got another takedown notice from Gina, directed at her new host, DaringHost (whom Amy had moved her blog to in the middle of all of this). Amy submitted a second counternotice.

Following that, Gina started posting on Facebook excitedly, implying that she was "spending" the "legal fund" to takedown Amy's site on the new host. Furthermore, she noted: "if she keeps on doing what she's doing, this will keep happening," which could certainly be read as a threat to keep sending DMCA notices over and over again.

So.... what's the lawsuit actually about? Amy argues that Gina runs afoul of the infamously weak "misrepresentation" clause in the DMCA (also known as 512(f)). We've discussed just how weak this part of the DMCA is, but if anyone has a case of someone falling on the wrong side of 512(f), this might be the case -- which makes it especially interesting. The filing is pretty clear on how and why Gina's takedown notices were a clear misrepresentation, and that Gina knew or should have known, that they were being filed in bad faith (her own admissions on the blog seem to admit that).

Separately, the filing argues tortious interference with contracts concerning the two hosting companies. The argument is that since the DMCA notices were filed in bad faith, it rises to the level of tortious interference.

If this case actually goes forward, Gina may regret jumping so eagerly into the claims of copyright infringement as the weapon she tried to use to silence a critic. It certainly looks like Amy has a pretty strong argument, given Gina's own statements. Oh, and if you want to see the picture with the middle finger, despite Gina's aggressive claims of "copyright," the image itself was (obviously) included in the actual filing, so it's now a matter of the public record, which you can see below.

Again, I don't care much about the initial and ongoing argument the two are having over birthing methods. I don't know or care who is right (though, it's quite interesting to see the different tones and argument styles used by the two). But, on the copyright front, this one seems like a pretty clear cut case of trying to abuse copyright law to silence a critic, and that's a big no no.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 11:34am

    Hosts should never take action on DMCA notices. They should forward and request a counter-notice giving proper time for the uploader defense which then should be forwarded to the rights holder. Next the holder should have to go to court if they still thought they were right.

    Copyright lacks due process. Maybe not at it's conception but that's how it works today, the content is taken down before a proper ruling can be delivered by a court. I don't (usually) see police raiding and seizing first then going to the judge later with very few and specific exceptions. (I am aware the US Govt seems to love warrantless seizures but I'm gonna keep this to the word of law which the US Govt often disrespect themselves).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    BeaverJuicer (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 12:53pm

    I miss the days when they would just fill an inflatable swimming pool with jello, and settle these disputes woman to woman...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 12:54pm

    What, didn't she see the big sign that says for MPAA/RIAA abuse only?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    jackn, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    I don't want to leave you without something you can take back to your blog and obsess over, so here's a picture of me

    It seems like she gave permission to use the photo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:01pm

    Re:

    How do you figure? That sentence pretty clearly to me says she is posting the picture because she doesn't want Dr. Amy to take it back to her blog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:01pm

    One of the morning radio talk shows that I occasionally flip to on my way to work plays a soundbyte for stories like the fight above:
    "Everyone in the room is now dumber."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:02pm

    Re:

    (not that Dr. Amy should need her permission anyway of course)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re:

    ask, nevermind, missed the double negative.. lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:11pm

    C-C-C-

    Catfight!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:21pm

    Oh Em Gee! Somebody abused copyright! You must be creaming in your pants! That totally is the fault of copyright and not the people involved!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:35pm

    It's pretty clear that Gina way, way, way over-claimed things in her original blog post alleging infringement. She makes it sound as if Dr. Amy is guilty and must pay up, solely based on the accusation.


    Gee, I wonder what gave her that idea? Maybe three strikes legislation all around the globe? Or the "six strikes deal" back home? No, no, I know -- it was the ICE seizures of Dajaz1 and several other hip-hop blogs based solely on bogus recording industry accusations!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Rich, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:36pm

    Re:

    Sigh, you don't even try anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Lowestofthekeys (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:37pm

    Wow, this Gina lady's a character.

    She apparently hunted down someone who called the cops on her after she made "passively suicidal" statements on her blog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:38pm

    Re:

    A breach of contract, necessary to facilitate the aforementioned abuse, was protected and even encouraged by copyright law.

    Further, the degree to which the relevant law has used in this manner necessary for the abusive party, who is not legally inclined and was working counter to the advice of their lawyer, to be aware of this method points to a poorly designed law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:38pm

    Re:

    [Yawn]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:39pm

    Links aren't working

    All you get by going to thefeministbreeder.com is a login screen. Looks like sombody's retreating to the bunker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:40pm

    The state of the DMCA:

    A lot of people seem to want to equate copyright infringement with theft, to the point of having trouble picturing it any other way, so lets see how that analogy plays out:

    If someone accuses you of stealing a photo they handed to you, your house is burned down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    charliebrown (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:40pm

    Seriously?

    OK, I know that this article is about DMCA abuse, but.... seriously? These two bloggers get their own Techdirt article? Words fail me!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:40pm

    Re:

    By taking action despite the counter-notice, they actually lose their safe haven, don't they? The person could possibly sue for loss of their website, depending on the terms of service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:41pm

    Re:

    Yes, to some extent it is. Copyright's very purpose is to give someone a limited ability to bar certain speech, with allegedly the best of intentions. And it's become stretched and distorted, and powerful special interests have tilted the playing field strongly in favor of those making copyright claims and against those defending against such claims.

    Giving them copyright, in other words, was like handing these feuding people some loaded guns. They would fight anyway, but they're now very likely to do a lot more damage while doing so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:41pm

    $5 on NO Lawyer

    In my experience, most people who make ridiculous threats and talk about their lawyer:

    1) Don't have a lawyer; or
    2) Spoke briefly with a lawyer, and them removed all the *if* statements from what the lawyer said (e.g., "if this were the case"), and only used the *then* statements that they liked (e.g. "you would have a claim"). Which as you coders know, results in a fatal error that requires debugging.

    My money's on no lawyer at all, unless Gina's reading of blawgs counts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:45pm

    This is the first time in a long time that a story has interested me without causing me to click through to the source. I don't care who's right and who's wrong (although the article makes it seem a bit like Gina is crazier than the plan to rescue Han at the beginning of Return of the Jedi), but I don't want to see the original sources out of a fear of giving either of these people more of an audience.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Re:

    Am G! Copyright is just like a loaded gun! We must do everything we can to stop it! For the children!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:50pm

    So, what happened to Gina's blog?

    All of the links to Dr. Amy's posts (on the blog that's supposedly been taken down twice) pull up fine, but the ones going to Gina's give me either a server error, a "not authorized", or a WordPress login screen.

    It would be pretty ironic if, because of Gina trying to get Amy's blog offline, the Streisand Effect caused her own blog to get overloaded and shut down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    jackn, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't want you to leave WITHOUT something you can TAKE...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:01pm

    Re:

    I was just going to say something along those lines...

    I think it should be a law that catfight disputes like these need to be settled through a live streamed mud wrestling grudge match.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    cjstg (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    i think we should ban assault copyright and high capacity copyright magazines. we should also look into the better mental health options for bloggers so this never happens again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:12pm

    Re: So, what happened to Gina's blog?

    she probably deleted it when she realized the entire world now knows shes an asshole.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:15pm

    "Dr." Amy Tuteur is a serial troll. She frequently attacks people from the natural birth community (among others) on her blog. I remember reading stories about her taking accounts of mothers who had miscarriages and use them as an excuse to badmouth said bereaved mothers, calling them a slew of names including "murderer."
    As bad as this all may seem, it's well deserved after years of unchecked abuse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:16pm

    Re: $5 on NO Lawyer

    Then again maybe she hired Carreon. If that was the case it would be completely understandable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Travis, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:17pm

    These bitches be crazy

    Someone wise once said... "An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind." Or in this case everyone ends up with a lawsuit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Or, and this might be a touch extreme, we can lock them up for 33 counts of Being Excessively Snarky, totalling 175 years in Guantanamo Bay for both of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Machin Shin (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: $5 on NO Lawyer

    Or could be John Steel and Prenda Law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:40pm

    Re:

    I think it's safe to say that Mike was speaking for the majority of the community here as well when he said he doesn't really care who is right or wrong in the issues between them. Really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    anonymouse, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:41pm

    Re: Seriously?

    Do you not think a case about something this site discusses almost every day is relevant.
    Why is it that there are people that attack sites and their authors for no reason other than the fact they can.
    Calm down, these two individuals have created a nice example of how misunderstood the DMCA is, and how it can be abused so easily.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    anonymouse, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:43pm

    Re:

    Not really relevant to this discussion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Links aren't working

    nope its now down all together... wanna bet things are being erased... LOL way to prove the case against you.. guess they never heard of cache and destruction of evidence...

    then when it all bites her on the ass, she will blame the doc... this is great comedy to watch..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:47pm

    Re:

    Well guess we found Gina.. or AJ pretending to be Gina...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    qw, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:52pm

    Re:

    ""Dr." Amy Tuteur is a serial troll. She frequently attacks people from the natural birth community (among others) on her blog. I remember reading stories about her taking accounts of mothers who had miscarriages...
    As bad as this all may seem, it's well deserved after years of unchecked abuse."

    Let's do some deductive reasoning here.

    You're not likely to be a Techdirt regular - as well as being A. Coward, you're not commenting on the copyright issues.

    Neither are you likely to be a regular Techdirt critic, as you're not criticising the usual straw men.

    You put 'Dr.' in scare quotes, but your reference to the natural birth community is politically sensitive. So you're here from the natural birth community, that's all but a given.

    The TFB blog is down, now. However, the remaining wordpress login box suggests the takedown was by the owner, not a redirect by the host. So it's likely this was taken down by Gina herself, not due to any counter legal action.

    Then you have posted within a half hour or so of the TFB blog being taken down, which would likely have been coincident with someone being logged into their admin tools, and aware of where traffic to TFB was originating.

    So whilst I've got your attention, Gina, let me say something directly to you: As much as *you* care about natural birthing, *we* at this blog care about how abuse of copyright and IP law is damaging our culture.

    We have no interest in the rights and wrongs of your petty squable, and we could care less if you have a lawsuit in the general.

    Our concern is that you may currently be abusing the intended purpose of the DMCA, in order to achieve a personal goal.

    Don't do that. Please.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Jessie (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Seriously?

    This is the first time I've actually heard of a case that may actually, possibly, sort of have a chance at winning on this portion of the DMCA. Maybe if we can start seeing some DMCA abuse cases won we might get some momentum for cases against the RIAA and MPAA.

    Then again, if someone were to actually win a case of DMCA abuse, it would probably just provide momentum for lobbying to remove that "loophole" from the DMCA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 3:07pm

    Re:

    It is not copyright in itself lacking due process. It is the enforcement of DMCA that is abysmal on the due process front.

    It would seem to be a good idea to stop the meaningless back and forth filings at one from each side and let the counternotice open up for injunctions if the original DMCA sender wanted it to be taken down. Problem of this solution is: Who pays? Nobody has the money invested on the DMCA-part of the internet, so nobody wants a dispute to go to court! It is very unfortunate that politicians stretch the rights of the rightholders to completely unacceptable lenghts to compensate for the lack of international consensus. The lack of international consensus is a problem of money. It is expensive to keep feeding the litigious system with too many cases! Only where enough money are bound in IPR-reliant industries are we seeing a strong IPR enforcement!

    Who pays seems to trickle down and into the juridical system. It seems like a more important question today than right or wrong. Welcome to the world where patent poker, IPR trolling/bullying and DMCA abuse are the arguments for increased enforcement of IPR!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Aaron *Head* Moss (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Opening up the possibility of more DMCA notices regarding the live streamed Jello grudge match.

    Way to go AC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 3:27pm

    Re: Re:

    Bravo. Well done and said...except for one tiny little problem with just a few of your chosen words - which I have to admit is kind of a "fingernails on a chalkboard" thing for me whenever I see or hear it. The expression is "couldn't care less" not "could care less." Could care less makes no sense. If you could care less, why don't you. See what I mean?

    By the way, my wife says this all the time and pointing it out just makes the situation worse so I've stopped trying to fix it there. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 4:06pm

    Re: Re:

    If the law generates a scenario wherein abuse can exist without deterrent, the law needs also to provide suitable deterrent. Obviously, it is preferable (from the standpoint of government spending) to adjust the law to write out all but the most extreme of such scenarios, thus making the need for enforcement a rare occurrence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 4:52pm

    Re: Re:

    Might I add, Gina I would like to invite you to stick around a while. You might actually learn a few things about copyright, the first amendment, and technology related issues. The articles here (and most of the commentary) is very well informed, and well written. This is one of the reasons I have stuck around for the past couple of years since I found it. ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Jess, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 5:11pm

    Re:

    I see by your use of TFB's pet name for Amy Tuteur, "Dr." Amy, that you are one of her sheeple. It's Gina who's the troll and who thrives on her own wharrgarbl.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Yellow Wallpaper, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 5:19pm

    Re:

    "I remember reading stories about her taking accounts of mothers who had miscarriages and use them as an excuse to badmouth said bereaved mothers, calling them a slew of names including 'murderer.'"

    But you never went to check for yourself if this was true? 'Nuff said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    VHB, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 5:32pm

    Re:

    Oh, that's not the half of it. She also sicced her fans on a blogger whose baby had recently died: http://itsabeautifulwreck.com/2010/08/turn-other-cheek-and-take-punch/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 5:39pm

    Re:

    Just another troll, but for the benefit of others...

    "That totally is the fault of copyright and not the people involved!"

    Some people are assholes. You will never prevent this. Give an asshole access to a bad law and you will get bad results. The practical and obvious solution is to fix the bad law, because you will never fix assholes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    VHB, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Links aren't working

    She's gone to a paywall-style site. Just $350 for lifetime access!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    VHB, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 5:45pm

    Re: $5 on NO Lawyer

    Her lawyer is named in the document. Her area of expertise is "the legal aspects of breastfeeding, domestic violence, child sexual abuse, abortion, reproductive rights and technologies, and HIV/AIDS."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 5:58pm

    Re: Seriously?

    The whole point of the article was the chance of a rare legal victory against DMCA abuse, not the two bloggers. Words didn't fail you, you failed them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 5:59pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    A vigilante industry is "privatising" most of this enforcement. Can't get it much cheaper than that!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Jan 29th, 2013 @ 6:05pm

    Re:

    "As bad as this all may seem, it's well deserved after years of unchecked abuse."

    Thanks for selfishly not seeing the bigger and more important picture, and condoning censorship through copyright abuse. Personal vendetta's are no excuse for abusing a very bad piece of legislation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 6:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You could try and make her watch David Mitchell's Soapbox: "Dear America..." on youtube

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 1:08am

    Re:

    Sorry, mate! I think Tara Carreon currently holds the position of "Batshit Crazy Woman who Occasionally Posts on TechDirt".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 1:22am

    Re:

    You've just given me an idea.

    Since the DMCA process itself is usually pretty automated, what's to stop an ISP or video hosting service automating an opt-in DMCA counter-claim for their users?

    It would have to be opt-in, because otherwise it would expose every user to a lawsuit automatically. But if you're a creator and are confident that every video you post will be fair use, or your own work - you should be able to automatically set up a DMCA counter notice that your service provider can automatically respond with and keep your content up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 3:03am

    Re: Re:

    Epic comment is epic! 100% agreed.

    You know, the keyword here is TOLERANCE. When people become intolerant and fail to accept different ideas then we have things like this. And people bombing themselves to kill hundreds just for a God that actually preaches peace and understanding.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    charliebrown (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 5:07am

    Re: Re: Seriously?

    You raise a good point. I would like to see some push back on people/companies who abuse the DMCA.

    It just seems strange to me that this is the story that might actually cause the push back. In my opinion, both bloggers mentioned in the article are idiots (but I do agree they have the right to be idiots!) especially the one who issued the take down notice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: $5 on NO Lawyer

    I see that now. Although it seems she is a Public Defender, per LinkedIn. A lawyer out of her field can be worse than no lawyer at all...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That would be just asking for trouble. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    magnafides, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re:

    Read it again: "I don't want to leave you without..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    I Forgot, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:46am

    Biatch slapping and Cat fighting

    Is still legal somewhere on this planet? Let them settle it there. NEXT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    I Forgot, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And people bombing themselves to kill hundreds just for a God that actually preaches peace and understanding.

    Sorry, that's not GOD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 12:52pm

    Re: $5 on NO Lawyer

    The first attorney she used when she started all of it was a county Public Defender

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    pearls_clutched, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    Re:

    Dr Amy comes across as an abrasive and harsh bitch. She does not badmouth moms who have had miscarriages. Dr Amy does report about homebirth disasters and blames bad midwives and stupid moms who care more about the experience of giving birth than the actual goal - healthy babe and mom

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:37pm

    I cant bring myself to feel the slightest bit of sympathy for someone who claims to be a "dr" and takes an oath to "do no harm" but consistently hunts down women whose children have died (even if their homebirthhad zero to do with their death) and sics trolls after them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    tam, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 11:10pm

    Re: So, what happened to Gina's blog?

    She's now on a subscription only basis. Yep, she's CHARGING people to read her special brand of crazy. Good luck with that!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    my2cents, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 3:08am

    crazy women

    Sounds like the professional help Gina really needs she will not recieve from a lawyer. I hope once she cools off she speaks to someone about her mental health issues. Why would people pay to read a blog which is written by a crazy woman - especially if it is advice about raising your children?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 5:35am

    Re: Re:

    "Give an asshole access to a bad law and you will get bad results."

    Write a bad law and assholes will gravitate to it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 5:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I was going to say something about the innocent party being locked up in Guantanamo as well, but then I realised the whole point of Gitmo is counter to national and international law anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 5:46am

    Re: Re:

    "We have no interest in the rights and wrongs of your petty squable, and we could care less if you have a lawsuit in the general."

    I hear similar when trying to enlighten people about copyright.

    If you want people to listen to you, pull the fingers out of your ears when they are talking.

    I thought this blog was to inform, not just whine and bitch amongst ourselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    i think we should ban assault copyright


    Repeal notice-and-takedown!

    and high capacity copyright magazines


    Especially automated takedowns!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    Sheogorath (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 3:19am

    Explicit licence, methinks

    "I don't want to leave you without something you can take back to your blog and obsess over, so here's a picture of me."
    Pretty damn clear, no? This is Gina giving Dr. Amy explicit permission to, and I paraphrase, "take the photo back to [her] blog." Thus I expect the case to collapse at the pre-trial stage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    Jim Bee (profile), Jul 27th, 2013 @ 2:48am

    DMCA takedown abuse first-hand

    This is an old article now, but I just came across it. It matches the level of stupidity of my own experience pretty well. As I commented under a more recent story at TechDirt, I was recently in a DMCA takedown spat with a Hollywood screenwriter who objected to my putting screengrabs of her Twitter posts on a blog and making fun of them. She filed a DMCA takedown request, which promptly got my blog taken down. She also alleged I was a "stalker" even though the amount of contact I had with her was forty-eight hours worth of Twitter.

    This sort of thing rather wears you down because there's no recourse. I gave up on it for a month, then put the blog back up last night. I feel sure it'll be taken down again soon by another phony request. But what do you do? There's no justice in it anywhere. File your own (phony) claims against the other person's website and sink to their level? Let your speech be silenced? And how do you defend yourself against a "stalking" charge today when it's so plausible (at least in the public's eyes)?

    It's a lose-lose.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This