Fake Entities Are Still Abusing The DMCA Takedown Process To Hide Facts They Don’t Like

Copyright

from the paving-the-road-for-abuse-with-good-intentions dept

The DMCA process remains as easily abused as ever, even as companies like Google (and, especially, Automattic) do what they can to head off this abuse.

It’s a numbers game. When you’re the size of Google, it’s impossible to vet every takedown demand. The easiest thing to do is comply immediately and, if need be, reinstate content when these demands are contested. But that puts the burden on proof on those whose content has been illegitimately removed, rather than on those who are issuing the takedowns.

It’s all the wrong way around, but the incumbents hold all the power. For years, lobbying efforts and misguided legislators have managed to turn a process that was supposed to be equitable into one where content removal requests are honored and follow-up questions are never asked.

So, it forces regular internet people to do the work large tech companies won’t. That’s where people like Dan Neidle from UK site Tax Policy Associates step up and let the rest of us know how much DMCA abuse is still occurring. (h/t longtime Techdirt reader BentFranklin)

Why is a tax lawyer writing about these things? Well, it’s probably because it’s too shady and shitty to ignore. Observe:

I wrote recently about a fraudulent attempt to use US copyright law to take down an article I’d written which was critical of a fake PR firm, “Mogul Press“. I was shocked to see how they did this – they copied my text into a fake website, then filed a takedown notice at Google claiming my article had copied theirs:

The notice was sent by “LMG Media Group” in the UAE. I don’t believe it exists – but Google rather brilliantly accepts takedown notices without checking if the person filing it exists.

Another identical notice was sent by “Lamar Media Corporation” in the US, which also doesn’t appear to exist:

These two takedowns targeted Niedle’s site. That’s his personal interest. But his informative post also uncovers other dubious takedowns utilizing much of the same language (like the distinctive phrase “completely infringing our copyrighted texts”), also issued by supposed business entities that don’t appear to exist.

Using that phrase, Niedle was able to find another 180 takedown requests in the Lumen DMCA notice database. One company that does exists — Spain-based Eliminalia — appears to specialize in this sort of thing, the laundering of its clients’ reputations via bogus copyright takedowns.

The company names used are as nonsensical as the requests. Ventucky Media Corporation. Venkata Media Corporation. Yan Media. And, for some reason, a bunch of fake firms specifically interested in removing Harris County, Texas court records from Google search results.

And there’s other stuff we’ve seen before happening here. Not only are fake firms issuing bogus takedowns claiming copyright of content they obviously didn’t create, but some of the more proactive abusers are creating fake sites for the sole purpose of issuing fraudulent DMCA notices.

The set-up is simple: the fake site copy-pastes the content it wants removed, backdates the post on the bogus site, and then sends Google a takedown notice claiming the site creating the original content “completely infringed” the content they copied/pasted to create “proof” of this “infringement.”

Multiple attempts to take down accusations of sexual misconduct by a founder of a New Hampshire network of addiction clinics. Lots of attempts to takedown investigative reporting by journalist Matei Rosca. A number of attempts to takedown a report alleging a student is an antisemite.

These are the acts of people trying to hide something but without any legal justification for doing so. Rather than live with it, they’re employing people with even less scruples than they possess to do it for them. And this will always be a problem because the burden of proof is never on the accuser. It’s the victims of fraudulent takedowns that are required to jump through multiple hoops to get their non-infringing content reinstated. The victims don’t have the power to stop this abuse. But, they’re at least willing to let us know when and how it’s happening. And hopefully continued reporting on these abuses will prompt Google and others to take a closer look at some of the sketchier requests that come across their proverbial desks.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, abuse, censorship, copyright, dmca, reputation management, takedown notice