Guy Who Forged A Court Order To Delist Content Issues More Bogus Takedown Notices To Remove Posts Discussing His Forgery

from the when-your-logic-is-a-flat-circle dept

The wholly-expected has occurred as a result of Eugene Volokh's exposure of bogus takedown demands targeting unflattering content -- like criminal complaints and factual news articles detailing criminal acts. The Volokh Conspiracy has been targeted by two bogus takedown requests by the same party who engaged in the bogus takedown requests Volokh previously wrote about.

The first one received targeted a post of Volokh's hosted at the Washington Post. Hilariously, it claims Volokh is the real troll here.

A group of trolls/rivals are continually targeting us and creating copied content to bully, defame, and threaten our business and staff. Also, there is same content has been posted on different sites. The respective links of the copied content are mentioned below.

That's not what DMCA notices are for, even if any of these assertions were true. But none of it is true, starting from word one. The publication of a criminal complaint cannot be defamatory, and in no way did Volokh "bully" or "threaten" Don Lichterman, who previously forged a court order to try to remove content detailing him being sued for copyright infringement. Volokh covered this case, as he has several others where the same tactics (forged court documents) have been used.

The DMCA notice doesn't even claim there's been any copyright infringement. I guess that's a good thing, considering one of the URLs targeted links to the criminal complaint filed against Lichterman for forging a court order.

The second notice is a bit more on point, even though it's no more honest than the first one. This one is a delisting request tied to a court order, so there's no abuse of the DMCA process. That being said, the court order doesn't say what Lichterman wants it to say. Here's Volokh's summation of the second bogus takedown attempt.

As best I can tell, the theory behind the deindexing request is that this order somehow requires that Mr. Lichterman's name be redacted from the Criminal Complaint, and that therefore my post, which links to a copy of the complaint, should be deindexed. But of course nothing in this order so requires: It appears that the court ordered that the presentence report remain sealed (as is normal with such reports), and required the removal of information from certain "sentencing submissions" -- but it says nothing about the Criminal Complaint, which is a public document. (The Complaint was originally filed under seal, but was unsealed a few weeks later, as the prosecution began.)

The Lumen Database's post of the takedown request sums up the problem with this request a little more succinctly (although it's unclear whether Google added this or Lumen did):

This Judgment does not apply to search engine providers, including Google Inc.

Not only is Lichterman wrong about the contents of the court order (perhaps deliberately wrong), but he's wrong about who it actually affects. Lichterman is unclear about a lot of things and seems to assume just forwarding a court order referencing sealed documents should be enough to push Google into action.

But these tactics have been used too often to be effective anymore. Multiple sites have covered fraudulent takedown notices -- some including forged court documents and others involving entirely falsified lawsuits snuck past inattentive judges. A rogue strain of "reputation management" emerged over the last few years -- one that operates using nothing but disreputable tactics. Google is paying more attention to claims targeting press coverage of criminal actions or other unflattering content and, for the most part, has refused to humor these bogus requests.

All Don Lichterman has succeeded in doing here is draw more attention to his prosecution for forging court documents. He's only bullying himself.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, defamation, dmca, don lichterman, eugene volokh, fake lawsuits, takedowns
Companies: google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 Jan 2019 @ 10:52am

    The sad thing is, until the courts start enforcing actual legal consequences for filing false DMCA claims, that dumbass will keep going.

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

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2019 @ 10:55am

    How is this dood not behind bars? Impersonating a police officer is a serious crime. Why isn't impersonating a court?

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

  3. identicon
    bob, 28 Jan 2019 @ 10:56am

    all your posts are belong to us.

    Also, there is same content has been posted on different sites.

    And reposted again and again.

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

  4. identicon
    anon555, 28 Jan 2019 @ 11:03am

    Why are we assuming this was Don Lichterman? Has Barbara Streisand been ruled out?

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

  5. icon
    Ninja (profile), 28 Jan 2019 @ 11:19am

    Where have we seen people digging further down again? Can we call it the Carreon Effect?

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

  6. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Jan 2019 @ 11:28am

    Re:

    Well its kinda of copyright.... he keeps doing the same shit he always did & demands the world change to suit him.

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

  7. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    MathFox, 28 Jan 2019 @ 11:34am

    Why is that geriatric Barbara mentioned every time tries to remove some information from the Internet... Who's the publicity manager that arranged that stunt?

    You say Techdirt Mike coined the phrase "Streisand Effect"? How much did he get paid for it?

    Nothing... I wonder whether he will do my publicity for a fee, he is a genius for getting her name mentioned almost every day!

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

  8. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 Jan 2019 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    Better idea: Call it “quicksand thinking”.

    “I can reach this one thing to pull me out of trouble if I just keep struggling and fighting and doing everything I can to make the situation worse for me. This is an excellent plan.”

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

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2019 @ 11:57am

    Actually, the "fair report privilege" has been under attack for some time. Whther or not it even exists ha been called into question by many courts.

    Putting something in a pleading is not an automatic shield against defamation lawsuits related to republishing them online.

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

  10. icon
    Gary (profile), 28 Jan 2019 @ 11:57am

    Re:

    Mike doesn't get paid, but everytime someone mentions her we get to see pictures of her house that she doesn't want us to see so it's all good:

    https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS749US750&q=Streisand+beach+property+pictures& amp;tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjg6_iLoZHgAhXJm-AKHcYFAqEQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1 513&bih=688

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

  11. icon
    Thad (profile), 28 Jan 2019 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re:

    I was going to go with "Dig up, stupid!" but now that you mention it, "Now I'll pull my arms out with my face" is also an apt Simpsons reference.

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

  12. identicon
    MathFox, 28 Jan 2019 @ 12:09pm

    Yes, she's living on the edge!

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

  13. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 Jan 2019 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The Simpsons reference was in my mind, too, but I thought it was too obvious.

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

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2019 @ 12:45pm

    First ones on the house

    MathFox: a failed attempt at a backhanded compliment, spurred on primarily by petty jealousy.

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

  15. identicon
    Dan Neely, 28 Jan 2019 @ 12:48pm

    Re:

    He was sentenced to time served + 3 years of supervised release. That was in Feb 2016, so he's still under court supervision. Makes you wonder if sending more bogus take down notices is a violation of his release terms and might get him thrown back into the slammer doesn't it.

    https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=239972622&z=4eba34d5

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

  16. identicon
    Christenson, 28 Jan 2019 @ 6:32pm

    Re: First rule of holes...

    Maybe the Hansmeier effect??? lol

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

  17. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2019 @ 12:36am

    Re:

    it's just a violation of the First Rule of Holes.

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

  18. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 29 Jan 2019 @ 12:49am

    What next, legal consequence for punching someone?

    Legal consequences for filing fraudulent DMCA claims? Well that's crazy talk.

    Everyone knows that the DMCA simply cannot be abused, and as such anything that looks like abuse is merely in the damaged mind of the person making the claim. At most people can make the occasional tiny, inconsequential mistake, and clearly punishing people for those would be very much out of line and disproportionate.

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

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2019 @ 1:04am

    The expression "theft of copyright" gets used a lot--generally without understanding what it means. But it really exists. Copyright is the right to make and distribute copies; when someone tries to take that away from you (for instance, by sending invalid DMCA notices or fraudulent court documents), they truly are stealing (depriving you of) your (copy)rights.

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

  20. identicon
    Qwertygiy, 29 Jan 2019 @ 6:44pm

    Not theft of copyright

    Ironically, it looks like your comment falls into the very category you lament.

    Stealing, aka "theft", requires there to be one party which loses something of value, and another party that receives it.

    Copyright infringement is not theft, as the original party does not lose their content nor their ability to produce that content.

    Preventing someone from publishing their content is not theft, as nobody obtains the content or the legal right to publish it.

    In the case of infringement, the original party has been deprived of the rights granted to them by copyright law.

    However, in the case of invalid DMCA notices, it's not as simple. There are no laws granting someone the right to be published. This is seen in the failure of all the lawsuits against YouRedFaceTwit over content that was removed or declined by moderators, despite the content itself being perfectly legal.

    A DMCA is nothing more than a notice of potential legal action. The only change in rights is that after the receipt of the DMCA, the issuer is now able to sue the publisher over copyright infringement.

    If a user's content is taken down by a publisher as the result of a DMCA, there is nothing legally preventing the user from finding another publisher even if the DMCA continues to be considered valid, nor is there anything legally requiring the publisher to reinstate the content even if the DMCA is invalidated.

    Outside of the matter of what "copyright" actually contains, there is an enormous difference between invalid DMCA notices and forged court documents, mainly due to what can happen if you ignore a real one.

    Issuing a fraudulent court order is a criminal action in and of itself, no matter what it contains, because it purports to carry the weight of a legal system that has the ability to punish you with arrest, fines, jailtime, and more if you ignore the document. If you don't obey a genuine court order, you're guilty of contempt of court, no matter what other laws are in question.

    But there is no penalty for issuing a baseless DMCA, because the legal weight it carries, per se, is essentially equal to that of telling someone "Stop doing that or I'll sue you!"

    Obeying a DMCA provides immunity against monetary liability under all other copyright laws. Disobeying a DMCA does not create (or worsen) any civil or criminal liability. It just means that now, if you're taken to court, you have to prove you were following the same laws that apply to traditional analog distributors instead of being able to instantly dismiss it.

    TL:DR; in the United States, the right to copy, display, or sell your work does not include the right to have anyone else copy, display, or purchase your work. Thus, someone who fraudulently convinces someone to not publish your work is neither stealing anything from you, nor depriving you of any legal rights.

    TL:DR; Part 2: issuing a fake court order is punishable while issuing a fake DMCA is not because ignoring a court order is a crime, but ignoring a DMCA is not.

    TL:Dr; Part 3: What is actually theft of copyright, then? "You made this? No, I made this."

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at publiccode.eu
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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