Internet Brands Targets Techdirt Post For Removal Because Of 'Infringing' Comment Left By A Reader

from the not-how-that's-supposed-to-work dept

The DMCA takedown notice allows rights holders to perform targeted removals of infringing… I can’t even finish that sentence with a straight face. IN THEORY, it can. In reality, it often resembles targeting mosquitoes with a shotgun. Collateral damage is assumed.

Case in point: Internet Brands recently issued two takedown requests to protect some of its cruelty-free, farmed content originating at LawFirms.com. It’s this phrase — taken verbatim from LawFirms’ “Penalties for Tax Evasion” — that has triggered the takedown notices from Internet Brands.

Tax evasion refers to attempts by individuals, corporations or trusts to avoid paying the total amount of taxes owed through illegal means, known as tax evasion fraud.

The first takedown targets several URLs, some of them merely content scrapers. Other URLs listed (like this one) target posts with comments containing parts of IB’s post — even comments providing a link back to the original article being quoted.

The second (at least according to Google’s non-numeric sorting) is a repeat of the first, except for the addition of a Techdirt post. At first glance, the targeting of this article by Tim Geigner — “Dear Famous People: Stop Attempting Online Reputation Scrubbing; I Don’t Want To Write Streisand Stories Anymore” — would appear to be exactly the sort of behavior Dark Helmet was decrying. But it isn’t.

The phrase triggering the Internet Brands takedown can be found in a very late arrival to the comment thread, more than one-and-a-half years after the original post went live. It opens up with this:

This is a very interesting. I read the whole article at New York Magazine. So someone is accused of tax evasion and then charges are dropped and then tries to clean up his reputation…. nothing wrong with that.

Then, for no apparent reason, the commenter drops in the LawFirms.com paragraph highlighted above.


Now, here’s the problem. If blogs and other sites are reposting others’ content without permission, that’s one thing. But targeting whole posts for delisting just because a commenter copy-pasted some content is abusive. It could very possibly take out someone else’s created content — covered under their copyright. Using a DMCA notice in this fashion can allow unscrupulous rights holders to bypass Section 230 protections — effectively holding site owners “responsible” for comments and other third-party posts by removing the site’s original content from Google’s listings.

From the looks of it, Internet Brands did nothing more than perform a google search for this phrase and issue takedown notices for every direct quote that originated from somewhere other than its sites. It didn’t bother vetting the search results for third-party postings, fair use or anything else that might have made its takedown request more targeted. Internet Brands doesn’t issue many takedowns, so it’s not as though its IP enforcement squad had its hands full. In fact, there’s every reason to believe actual humans are involved in this process, rather than just algorithms — all the more reason to handle this more carefully. Here’s a little bit of snark it inserted into a 2014 DMCA takedown notice.

The interview and photos are published on our website and permission hasn’t been granted for anyone else to republish them. Not only is the content stolen it out ranks our website in a Google search for the keyword “th taylor”. So much for Google being able to identify the source of original content!

If a company has the time to leave personal notes for Google (which doesn’t have the time to read them), then it has time to ensure its requests aren’t targeting the creative works of others just to protect its own. The DMCA notice is not some sort of IP-measuring contest with Google holding the ruler. If Internet Brands thinks it is — or just hasn’t bothered to vet its takedown requests before sending — it’s usually going to be the one coming up short. If Google doesn’t ignore the request, those on the receiving end of a bogus takedown will make a lot of noise. Either way, it”s accomplished nothing.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: google, internet brands

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Internet Brands Targets Techdirt Post For Removal Because Of 'Infringing' Comment Left By A Reader”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
50 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If I had to guess, it’s probably a form of trolling, ‘DMCA baiting’, where people who know how indiscriminate ‘content protection’ companies can be when throwing out DMCA claims intentionally try and cause a bit of hassle for random sites by forcing them to deal with the matter and either have something de-listed, or fight it.

JP Jones (profile) says:

Re: Re:

My guess is that someone wanted to define tax evasion for their point, so they searched for “tax evasion” and copied and pasted from somewhere that had a decent definition. They’re writing an internet comment, not a thesis; plagiarism isn’t exactly the first thing they’re worried about, let alone “content infringement.”

Either way the takedown is asinine. It’s one thing to copy an entire article, or even the article’s main points. To worry about your definition (not even a great definition) of a common term is ridiculous. Even if fair use didn’t apply (I’m pretty sure it does, but the legality can be funky) that only shows an issue with the law, not the “infringement.”

There really needs to be a way to punish companies for bogus DMCA takedowns. The argument that “there’s too much stuff out there, so we can’t verify everything!” is a cop-out. That’s like the police whining that there’s too many cars so they can’t catch every speeder. Boo hoo, nobody cares. But when your automated systems punish those who haven’t broken the law, there needs to be consequences, or all you’re doing is encouraging abuse.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The argument that “there’s too much stuff out there, so we can’t verify everything!” is a cop-out. That’s like the police whining that there’s too many cars so they can’t catch every speeder.

Accurate, but you didn’t go far enough.

Applying the logic used to defend bogus DMCA claims, that of ‘there’s too much stuff to check whether or not something is actually infringing before claiming it is’ in other situations would be like cops complaining that there’s too many speeders out there, and using that to justify sending random drivers tickets, whether they are guilty or not, or even drive at all.

And if innocent people ended up facing fines and dings against their driving record? Why, just take it to court, if you’re really innocent I’m sure that’ll clear it up. Never mind that that takes money and time that some people may not have, and is punishing them for something they haven’t done, nope, there are too many people speeding to check, a little collateral damage is a small price to pay.

JP Jones (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Fair enough, I was thinking about the automated cameras that ticket parked cars when I wrote that section. Pretty much the same general idea; using automated systems to charge people with a crime regardless of accuracy and little to no repercussion if wrong.

At least for speeding and running lights there’s actually a potential risk to public safety. DMCA takedowns only theoretically give an economic benefit to a copyright holder…and even that theory is extremely weak, if not provably false. But hey, even the slight chance that someone will make a bit of money is apparently worth the sacrifice of our freedom of speech, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Automated speeding tickets for parked cars is quite feasable.

You just have to “convince” the camera that it is stationary and drive above the stated speed limit with the camera aimed at the street side parking area.

If nobody checks the footage it could be a moneymaker.
A car was speeding and footage of a car was taken.

Ninja (profile) says:

The phrase triggering the Internet Brands takedown can be found in a very late arrival to the comment thread, more than one-and-a-half years after the original post went live.

So if we post that line into old posts we can simultaneously make the company spend more paper and man-power AND troll Tim/Mike with a bunch of spam dmca.

Tax evasion refers to attempts by individuals, corporations or trusts to avoid paying the total amount of taxes owed through illegal means, known as tax evasion fraud.

*starts browsing older articles*

Ahem. Thankfully we have no trolls in Techdirt so it’s all clear.

football says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I suspect that real reason “out of the blue” and “average joe” don’t post is simply because there aren’t even chickens here any more, just chicken shit. The site is so far down, isn’t even worth trolling.

When’s the last time Masnick wrote anything original? Hasn’t even shown up this week excepting saying he’s “exhausted” by this most recent “Copia” crap where some trust fund kids pretend they’re “innovating”! — Masnick’s record on gauging “innovation” as proven by court cases from Napster to Aereo is near zero, he couldn’t be more wrong. Case after case show it’s illegal to get money from content that someone else made, and that copying is stealing.

Michael (profile) says:

Tax evasion refers to attempts by individuals, corporations or trusts to avoid paying the total amount of taxes owed through illegal means, known as tax evasion fraud.

Wow. It’s a good thing that we have protection from people reproducing such a creative piece of…work.

How can a definition be deemed creative enough to qualify for copyright protection?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Response to: Michael on Mar 16th, 2015 @ 10:47am

The incentive to communicate such a definition isn’t to make money off the creative nature of defining tax evasion. The incentive is to get people to pay their taxes and to hopefully get people to use their tax services. Since the commenters use doesn’t deter from any of those things and, if anything, encourages people to seek legal tax services, the copy protection here doesn’t do anything to promote the progress and serve its intended purpose. So this should not be a copy protection issue.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“How can a definition be deemed creative enough to qualify for copyright protection?”

It’s pretty easy, actually. Most definitions include at least the modicum of creativity needed — writing good definitions is a difficult task that requires creativity.

That particular definition is awful, though, from a grammatical standpoint. One would think that they wouldn’t mind distancing themselves from it:

Tax evasion refers to attempts by individuals, corporations or trusts to avoid paying the total amount of taxes owed through illegal means, known as tax evasion fraud.

(Emphasis mine)

In the naive reading, this could mean “taxes owed as a result of illegal activity” rather than the intended meaning of “illegal means to avoid paying taxes owed.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

De minimis should not be confused with minimalism. De minimis applies to trivial details about a case not the number of elements in a work. Furthermore, the number of elements in a work do not necessarily correspond to the level of creativity in a work as it often takes more creativity to work effectively within such constraints. In short, less is more.

Anonymous Coward says:

Urban legend ?

I have heard that if you say Tax evasion refers to attempts by individuals, corporations or trusts to avoid paying the total amount of taxes owed through illegal means, known as tax evasion fraud. out loud, 3 times in a row, a copyright lawyer will jump out of the nearest toilet and throw DMCA notices covered in human feces at you.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually neither of you seem to be correct.

Mosquitoes have hydrophobic bodies to an extent, keeping water from ‘sticking’ as much as it might otherwise, and ‘shunting’ the water off to the side in the case of glancing blows, reducing the force they experience, and keeping them from getting soaked, and weighed down by the water..

If they take a full on blow from a raindrop, while it knocks them down a good amount, they are able to recover relatively quick, and thanks to their low mass, the force transferred is fairly light, lessening the impact.

https://youtu.be/XWyoy44oV3Q

Anonymous Coward says:

Stupid or intentional

Just another abuse that will be used to take down a site……find the nearest contraversy, dont really care about it, post it on the target website in the hopes of shutting it down……and generally cause friction in the public sphere by populating it with questionable characters who might not even exist……propogating the need for authority

David (profile) says:

Are they commenting?

A comment on a post from a year+ ago makes me wonder if they don’t have someone at their site doing the cut and paste job.

Then they target the post, proving their very effective system so they can bill somebody somewhere for their genius.

Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Although avarice has been known to sneak in there on the web more often than not.

Leave a Reply to Ninja Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...