Copyright Trolling Lawyer Abusing DMCA To Try To Silence Critics

from the nice-try dept

Nearly three years ago, Fight Copyright Trolls had an interesting post about a copyright lawyer named Mike Meier who "flipped sides" from defending people who had been hit with copyright troll demands to becoming something of a troll himself. It featured two screenshots, showing how Meier's website quickly flipped from looking to help people who'd received a demand letter to a site that looked similar... but was clearly on the other side. Here was the original:
There he calls himself a "copyright defense lawyer." It asks if you've received a letter from your ISP or a letter demanding you pay $2,500 or more, saying "we can help." Elsewhere Meier called trolling extortion, saying:
"In my opinion, they are bill collectors for the movie industry," he said. "They're basically extorting money.
He was even listed on the EFF's page for defense attorneys who could help out people hit by copyright trolling demands, and helped highlight how bad IP addresses were at identifying individuals.

And then, very soon after that, the website changed to this:
That is, rather than helping people, Meier's website was suddenly a landing page for people who had received such letters sent by his law firm, providing them "ways to resolve allegations" (i.e., pay up!). It also has some funny text about folks struggling to make money in Hollywood because of you and your piratey ways.

For what it's worth, John Steele appears to have claimed credit for "flipping" Meier.

Either way, it appears that last week, Meier decided he no longer wanted this information online. He ridiculously decided to send a very questionable DMCA notice to Fight Copyright Trolls' registrar (not to Fight Copyright Trolls itself or to its hosting company, but the domain registrar). Oh yeah, and he sent a similar letter to ExtortionLetterInfo.com's registrar despite ELI focusing more on Getty Images trolling, rather than Steele/Meier-style trolling. ELI had, however, highlighted some of Meier's copyright trolling practices.

Meier's attempt to memory hole the stories about him are somewhat laughable. There are no reasonable DMCA claims here. The only possible copyright claims are in the screenshots, and those are clearly not infringing via fair use -- he further fails to show what content is actually infringing. If Meier actually wanted to pursue a DMCA claim he would quickly find himself up against the DMCA's 512(f) for misrepresentation. With the ELI letter it's even worse, since there were no screenshots at all, and thus the claim is even more frivolous. In both letters, Meier also claims that the information is libelous and defamatory, though (of course) he fails to state which content is defamatory and why it's false. That's because he can't. Not only is he beyond the statute of limitations for bringing a defamation claim, as far as I can tell, the statements made about him are either opinion (not defamatory) or based in fact (not defamatory).

Meier's letter also exaggerates what these registrars "need" to do. In both letters, he claims that they "need" to remove the content, saying that the law "requires" the registrars to do this. Except that's not what the law says. Service providers can remove or disable access to the content if they wish to keep the DMCA's safe harbor protections, but there is no requirement that they do so, and especially in cases of bogus demands they have absolutely no reason to do so.

In the end, it seems clear that Meier is yet another in a long line of folks trying to abuse the law to silence critics. Making questionable copyright and defamation claims may work against people who don't know the law very well (perhaps why he targeted registrars who were a couple steps removed from the sites in question). It appears to have backfired spectacularly, and some stories that had long since faded into history are now back on the front page. As are discussions of how Meier was once sanctioned in a ruling that makes for some entertaining reading, calling out Meier's efforts as "absurd," "ridiculous and nonsensical" "baseless claims and frivolous arguments" and "needlessly, unreasonably, and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings in bad faith" (and that's all in just one paragraph). Later the judge mocks Meier by noting that "any competent attorney" wouldn't have filed the claim and calls him out for "unacceptable, reckless misinterpretation and misunderstanding or on blatant and knowing misrepresentations." I also like the court's response to Meier's motion in that same filing: "No. The Court is unsure what more it need say."

Of course, none of that would be drawing attention these days if Meier wasn't trying to abuse the DMCA process to remove earlier criticism of himself.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 9:33am

    FYI I recapped the Preiss et al v. S & R Production Company et al docket, and also some filings, specifically Defendants' motion for fees (plus the first set of exhibits), which details Meier's douchebaggery including threats of criminal prosecution which may be a crime (emphasis is mine):

    Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met. It may be defined as coercion involving threats of physical harm, threat of criminal prosecution, or threats for the purposes of taking the person's money or property.


    Needless to say I would not bother to disturb the old manure if I was not annoyed by these cowardly attempt to silence me.

    Reap what you have sown, Mike Meier.

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 10:02am

    Re:

    Do you have any clue on what caused this change of heart? Hookers and weed maybe?

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    OV, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 10:39am

    Come to the Darkside, we have honeypots.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 10:49am

    Great

    Another shitbag lawyer who cant use the internet. It astounds me how someone who can get through law school can be so unrelentingly stupid.

    Next up, how to kill your career in 3 easy steps.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 10:51am

    "For what it's worth, John Steele appears to have claimed credit for "flipping" Meier."

    That was priceless! Almost peed on myself laughing so much.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Whoever, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 10:52am

    Suggested response

    "We refer you to the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)"

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 11:10am

    So Harvey Specter of him.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    S. T. Stone, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 11:18am

    So, when do you guys expect a DMCA from him?

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re:

    Coke, not weed. He's a lawyer.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    Austin (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Great

    No.

    There's stupidity. Then there's willful ignorance. My money says Mr. Meier is firmly planted in the latter category.

    I seriously doubt a person who has espoused the unreliability of an IP address for making an identification is unaware of the general technical wrongness of DMCA-ing the registrar rather than the site itself.

    This is merely a tactic. Since the DMCA puts zero burden on the registrar, there are only 3 ways this can play out:

    A) The registrar complies, Meier gets the content taken down, Meier wind.
    B) The registrar knows their DMCA law better than they should have to, they refuse, Meier goes to court and when he sees he's going to lose, claims it was all an innocent error on his part. Meier doesn't win, but doesn't lose, and can still go after the site itself.
    C) The same as option B, but the registrar simply refuses and drops the issue. Meier once again doesn't win, but also doesn't lose, and can still sue the site.

    Notice how, no matter how this plays out, Meier doesn't lose? He's pleading ignorance (or will be, if the registrar calls him on his BS) and 99% of the time, a judge will presume he really didn't know better and let him off the hook.

    In other words, he's not stupid. From a shark-in-the-dirty-waters standpoint, his tactic here is legal genius. It just happens to be very, very EVIL legal genius.

    The paralegal in me admires this price. The netizen in me wants to lynch him. Thankfully I'm only a paralegal a third of the day. Sadly I get rope burns easily.

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    Vidiot (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 1:10pm

    No truth, but no consequences

    "Under penalty of perjury, I certify the information contained in this notification is both true and accurate..."

    Why does that never happen? The "penalty of perjury" part?

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 1:15pm


    For what it's worth, John Steele appears to have claimed credit for "flipping" Meier.


    Sorry, but anyone who affiliates themselves with John Steele is a scumbag.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: Great

    I was largely being sarcastic but I appreciate the time you spent to properly iterate my point for me lol. I agree with you entirely.

    I would posit, however, that this ploy of his still demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding some pretty simple shit :)

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 1:55pm

    Re: No truth, but no consequences

    Technically, the "penalty of perjury" claim for a DMCA notice *only* applies to the claim that the person sending the notice is authorized by the copyright holder to do so. The rest is not under penalty of perjury...

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 3:17pm

    Haha!!!

    Welcome to the Streisand effect asshole!!! What a dirtbag.

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 3:34pm

    These fine upstanding officers of the court have done an AMAZING job of making me look good.

    They have shown how out of touch with reality copyright law is. They have shown how out of touch the courts are with technology. They have shown how little those supposedly providing oversight seem to care about abuses. And now we get another chapter in DMCA abuse 101.

    Is it to early for me to put in for beatification?

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Don Menuez, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 4:09pm

    Obviously there's plenty of douchebags on both sides of this fence

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    DCL, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 4:33pm

    Re: Re: Great

    ... Then there's willful ignorance. My money says Mr. Meier is firmly planted in the latter category

    Yeah... I bet there is promise of a shit-ton of money that made him that way. The Media's Sirens song will do that too you.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    S. T. Stone, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 5:20pm

    Re: Re: No truth, but no consequences

    Which is a legal loophole that the courts should really (but won't) do something about.

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 6:54pm

    Another one of average_joe's and Whatever's heroes, enforcing what they think the law should be.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2014 @ 8:17pm

    Re:

    does make him a douche's douche?

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Dave Cortright (profile), Aug 26th, 2014 @ 9:15pm

    PageRank algorithm as public consensus

    I was trying to find his web site, so did a Google search for "mike meier copyright law group". Pretty amusing that the top results are from torrentlawyer, extortionletterinfo.com, dietrolldie.com and fightcopyrighttrolls.com. After getting to page 3 or the search results, I gave up. Nice SEO there.

    https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=mike+meier+copyright+law+group

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 27th, 2014 @ 12:56am

    Re: PageRank algorithm as public consensus

    and after this latest stunt I have a feeling his rank has slipped further.

     

    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
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.