Wherein The Copia Institute Updates The Copyright Office On The First Amendment Problems With The DMCA

from the rights-of-the-roundtable dept

A few years ago the Copyright Office commenced several studies on the DMCA. One, on Section 1201, resulted in a report to Congress and some improvements to the triennial rulemaking process. But for the other study, on Section 512, things had been quiet for a while. Until earlier this year, when the Copyright Office announced it was hosting an additional roundtable hearing to solicit additional input. What the Copyright Office wanted to know in particular was how recent developments in US and international law should inform the recommendations they may issue as a result of this study.

The Copia Institute had already submitted two rounds of comments, and both Mike and I had separately given testimony at the hearing held in San Francisco. This new hearing was a good chance to remind the Copyright Office of the First Amendment concerns with the DMCA we had already warned them about, many of which are just as worrying — if not more so — today.

One significant, overarching problem is the way the DMCA results in such severe consequences for speech, speakers, and platforms themselves based on the mere accusation of infringement. It is unique in American law for there to be such an effect like this: in most instances, sanction cannot follow unless and until a court has found there to be actual liability. In fact, when it comes to affecting speech interests it is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment to punish speakers or speech before a court has found specific instances of speech unlawful. To do otherwise – to punish speech, or, worse, to punish a speaker before they've even had a chance to make wrongful speech – is prior restraint, and not constitutional. Yet in the DMCA context, this sort of punishment happens all the time. And since the last roundtable hearing it has only gotten worse.

Several things are making it worse. One is that Section 512(f) remains toothless, thanks to the Supreme Court refusing to review the Ninth Circuit's decision in Lenz v. Universal. Section 512(f) is the provision in the DMCA that is supposed to deter, and punish, those who send invalid takedown notices. Invalid takedown notices force the removal of speech that may be perfectly lawful because they put the platform's safe harbor at risk if it doesn't remove it. Unfortunately, in the wake of Lenz it has been functionally impossible for those whose speech has been removed to hold the sender of these invalid notices liable for the harm they caused. And it's not like there are other options for affected speakers to use to try to remediate their injury.

Also, it is not only the sort of notices at issue in Lenz that have been impacting speakers and speech. An important thing to remember is that the DMCA actually provides for four different kinds of safe harbors. We most often discuss the Section 512(c) safe harbor, which is for platforms that store content "at the direction of users." Section 512(c) describes the "takedown notices" that copyright holders need to send these platforms to get that user-stored content removed. But the service providers that instead use the safe harbor at Section 512(a) aren't required to accept these sorts of takedown notices. Which makes sense, because there's nothing for them to take down. These sorts of platforms are generally all-purpose ISPs, including broadband ISPs, of which there are all-too-few choices for customers to use if they are cut off from one. All the user expression they handle is inherently transient, because the sole job of these providers is to deliver it to where it's going, not store it.

And yet, these sorts of providers are also required, like any other platform that uses any of the other safe harbors, to comply with Section 512(i) and have a policy to terminate repeat infringers. The question, of course, is how are they supposed to know if one of their users is actually a repeat infringer. And that's where recent case law has gotten especially troubling from a First Amendment standpoint.

The issue is that, while there are plenty of problems with Section 512(c) takedown notices, the sorts of notices that are being sent to 512(a) service providers are even uglier. As was the case with the notices sent by Rightscorp in the BMG v. Cox case – the first in an expanding line of cases pushing 512(a) service providers like Cox to lose their safe harbor for not holding these mere allegations of infringement against their users in order to terminate them from their services – these notices are often duplicative, voluminous beyond any reasonable measure, extortionate in their demands, and reflective of completely invalid copyright claims. And yet the courts have not yet seemed to care.

As we noted at the roundtable, the court in Cox ultimately threw out all the infringement claims for an entire plaintiff because it wasn't clear that it even owned the relevant copyrights, despite Rightscorp having sent numerous notices to Cox claiming that it did. But instead of finding that these deficiencies in the notices justified the ISP's suspicions about the merit of the other notices it had received, the court still held it against the ISP that they hadn't automatically credited all the other claims in all the other notices it had received, despite ample reason for being dubious about them. Worse, the court faulted the ISP for not just refusing to automatically believing the alleged infringement notices it had received but for not acting upon them to terminate people who had accumulated too many. As we and other participants flagged at the hearing, there are significant problems with this reasoning. One relates to the very idea that termination of a user is ever an appropriate or Constitutional reaction, even the user is actually infringing copyright. Since the last hearing the Supreme Court has announced in Packingham v. North Carolina that being cut off from the Internet in this day and age is unconstitutional. (As someone at the else roundtable this time pointed out, if it isn't OK to kick someone off the Internet for being a sex offender, it is less likely that it's OK to kick someone off the Internet for merely infringing copyright.)

Secondly, the Cox court ran square into the crux of the First Amendment problem with the DMCA: that it forces ISPs to act against their users based on unadjudicated allegations of infringement. It's bad enough that legitimate speech gets taken down by unadjudicated claims in the 512(c) notice-and-takedown context, but to condition a platform's safe harbor on preventing a person from ever getting to speak online ever again, simply because they've received too many allegations of infringement, presents an even bigger problem. Especially since, as we pointed out, it opens the door to would-be censors to game the system. Simply make as many unfounded accusations of infringement as you want against the speaker you don't like (which no one will ever be able to effectively sanction you for doing) and the platform will have no choice but to kick them off their service in order to protect their safe harbor.

There is also yet another major problem underlying this, and every other, aspect of the DMCA's operation: that there is no way to tell on its face whether user speech is actually infringing. Is there actually a copyright? If so, who owns it? Is there a license that permitted the use? What about fair use? Any provider that gets an infringement notice will have no way to accurately assess the answers to these questions, which is why it's so problematic that they are forced to presume every allegation is meritorious, since so many won't be.

But the roundtable also hit on another line of cases that also suffers from the same problem of infringement never being facially apparent. In Mavrix v. Livejournal the Ninth Circuit considered that the moderation Livejournal was doing – as allowed (and encouraged) by CDA Section 230 – to have potentially waived its safe harbor. The problem with the court's decision was that it construed the way Livejournal screened user-supplied content as converting it from content stored "at the direction of users" to its own content, and several roundtable participants pointed out that this reading was not a good one. In fact, it's terrible, if you want to ensure that platforms remain motivated – and able – to perform the screening functions Congress wanted them to perform when it passed Section 230. Because there's a more general concern: if various provisions of the DMCA suddenly turn out to be gotchas that cause platforms to lose their safe harbor, if in the process of screening content they happen to see some that might be infringing, they won't be able to keep doing it. Perhaps this is not a full-on First Amendment problem, but it still affects online expression and the ability of platforms to enable it.

Filed Under: 512h, 512i, censorship, copyright, dmca, dmca 512, free speech, takedowns
Companies: bmg, cox, rightscorp


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 11:40am

    It is unique in American law for there to be such an effect like this: in most instances, sanction cannot follow unless and until a court has found there to be actual liability. In fact, when it comes to affecting speech interests it is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment to punish speakers or speech before a court has found specific instances of speech unlawful. To do otherwise – to punish speech, or, worse, to punish a speaker before they've even had a chance to make wrongful speech – is prior restraint, and not constitutional. Yet in the DMCA context, this sort of punishment happens all the time.

    Wow, this is exactly what I've been saying on here for years now! Punishment for breaking the law ought to be handed down by a court of law, not a private party, particularly not an interested private party, and especially not the alleged victim! In any other context, we call such behavior "vigilantism" and it's considered highly illegal, largely because of how it leads to exactly the sorts of problematic behavior that we see from private parties under the DMCA.

    The entire privatized law system of the DMCA--both the section 512 takedown system and the legitimization and protection of DRM technology--is blatantly unconstitutional and a legal abomination even if the constitution wasn't a thing, and it's a mark of shame on our country that it ever got passed, let alone endured this long! It's time to repeal the DMCA in its entirety. It's long past time.

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

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:14pm

    "One significant, overarching problem is the way the DMCA results in such severe consequences for speech, speakers, and platforms themselves based on the mere accusation of infringement."

    Wrong: it's the UNCONTESTED accusation of infringement that causes the takedown. Pirates, of course, won't do this, and they're the ones "harmed," as they should be.

    The DMCA has a very effective counter-notification system for people with nothing to hide, like where to find them for a lawsuit.

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

  3. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:15pm

    Re:

    The counter-notification system works fine for those who aren't pirates.

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

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:21pm

    Weaponizing 512(a), coming to an internet subscriber near you...

    While Gellis here speaks in terms of "platforms", applying the underlying logic of BMG v. Cox to the 512(c) context, the problem this poses for 512(a) is even worse: the interpretation in question basically enables anyone with the means to make up and send DMCA notices to kick anybody in the USA off of the Internet as a whole by causing their ISP to pull the plug on them for (alleged) infringement, effectively enshrining a DoS attack vector into common law. How long will it be until we see abuse of this weaponized into something that a script kiddie can wield, especially considering that it's effectively consequence-free in a way that more typical attack vectors are not?

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

  5. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Weaponizing 512(a), coming to an internet subscriber near yo

    Section 230 allows for the weaponization of search engines to destroy the reputation of anyone someone lies about, and no one bats an eye.

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

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:33pm

    Re:

    It's such a wonderful fantasy world you live in where false takedowns are instantly resolved, automatically and with no impact at all on the victims.

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

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Re: Weaponizing 512(a), coming to an internet subscriber nea

    Well, no one bats an eye because your assertion, with zero evidence, remains false.

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

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re:

    Stephanie Lenz would disagree with you, as the dancing baby case took years to settle. Counter notice is a sign that you can afford to pay big money to lawyers, or that somebody will pay them on your behalf.

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

  9. icon
    Shufflepants (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re:

    Counterpoint, no it doesn't.

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

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:37pm

    Roundtable

    Yeah I remember that Copyright roundtable discussion, and that was where my heart sank because that's when I realized we were all doomed.

    I probably could have asked everyone individually at that meeting to explain the definition of "copyright" and everyone of them would have given a different answer. Not the correct answer, but what they "think" copyright should be, which is nothing but benefiting themselves and no-one else, especially not the public. Some still believe the amount of viewers and money you receive has anything to do with it, it doesn't.

    That was years ago and not much has changed except most of them involved want the control and money, and I don't see it getting better anytime soon.

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

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Poor old impotent fuckwit

    Hey Jhon do you think you can get some new material soon? You’ve repeated that gem so long and for many times it’s etched into the archalogical record. Or is the Alzheimer’s really starting to hit and you just forget bro?

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

  12. icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re:

    No, it doesn't. There have been enough stories and explanations of this. A timely counter notice in relation to a 512(c) notice can still result in two weeks without your timely content being viewed. That provides a strong incentive for those looking to take down and censor speech in critical time periods to issue 512(c) notices and then just ignore the counter notice. The law requires a period of time for the initial notice sender to respond before the content is restored, putting again all of the burden on the person receiving the notice, while assuming the accuracy of the initial notice sent (no matter how timely the response, the host will take down content in most cases, because the safe harbor encourages rapid content take down and slowly returning content).

    And 512(a) has no such counter notice provision, eliminating your entire argument.

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

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:48pm

    Re:

    Explain to me then, please, how when I'm using public domain music that has also been used in other copyrighted works and my work is taken down from some public forum, PLUS a permanent mark made on my record in that forum, it doesn't have a stifling effect.

    Because even though I've sent counter notices and had stuff reinstated, you have to do that over, and over, and over again, because filing the notices costs them nothing, and filing the counter notices costs me time AND accounts that have built up reputation over time.

    So now I don't fight the notices anymore. I submit my works to a few scanning services before publishing, and if anything gets flagged, I don't publish it, because it's not worth my time and effort to get some big multinational to admit they goofed when there's no incentive for them to do so.

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

  14. icon
    John Roddy (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:50pm

    I just received a takedown notice last week. It was rubber-stamped by a marketing company and didn't relate to anything even remotely infringing. But I still had to deal with content being taken down, and give all of my personal information to that company anyway. It would still be another two weeks before that content got restored if Twitter hadn't intervened and reinstated it faster.

    So no, the system does not work fine.

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

  15. icon
    John Roddy (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:51pm

    I have nothing to hide, but DMCA still removed non-infringing content for me. That removal happened before I even had a chance to contest it.

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

  16. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re:

    Someone who comment-stalks me with the same lame insults over and over again could use new material themselves.

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

  17. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:52pm

    Re:

    Yet you can file a counter-notification when this occurs. Did you?

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

  18. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re:

    Your problem is with the legal system then.

    Suing is an option.

    Would you rather the rightsholders just sue you?

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

  19. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re:

    [citation needed]

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

  20. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re:

    Just like the fantasy world where people who are lied about and lose jobs, friends, lovers, all because some stalker Google-bombs their name are not victims of Section 230?

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

  21. identicon
    Philip, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re:

    Did you see John Roddy's post up above?

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

  22. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's the platform's problem. A platform could easily reinstate material immediately.

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

  23. icon
    John Roddy (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:57pm

    I filed it immediately. The content was still down before I was even notified though. And I had to give out a lot of personal information that I'd rather not share openly. Good thing I have no problems with not being anonymous.

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

  24. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:57pm

    Re: You mother was a herring your father smelt of elderberries

    If you don’t like your nickname crybaby Jhon I suggest you improve your reputation. And I refuse to be any more creative or use more effort than you do bro. So until you come up with something new...

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

  25. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    http://www.reputationxchange.com/reputation-blackmail-revealed/

    What do you say to a business that was destroyed by a Russian blackmailer, say a pediatrician who was called a pedophile on "angry review" websites, who can't even sue the search engines that point people to those reviews?

    I'm told Section 230 harms no innocents. Another person said most online reputations are deserved.

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

  26. icon
    John Roddy (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The irony here is palpable.

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

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Platforms can moderate for that kind of content. They just wont be held liable for it, and indeed the person doing the bombimg is the one who should be held liable. When a drunk driver crashes a car through someones garage we dont sue the auto maker.

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

  28. icon
    Thad (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re:

    Boy, you're really phoning it in today, John.

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

  29. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Hey guys

    Don’t be mad at crybaby Jhon he’s deathly allergic to evidence. That’s why he has to make up all this bullshit.

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

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:02pm

    Re: King me!

    He really is the king of base level projection.

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

  31. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Mark Andre Prisal, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:03pm

    We can't clog courts with copyright cases at criminal level.

    As I've stated perhaps a dozen times, as you pirates yourselves hold: any one copyrighted item isn't overly valuable. The aggregate obviously can be tens of millions, but any one instance is likely well under a dollar.

    Therefore -- of course premised on the very existence of copyright in common law and US Constitution which you pirates oppose -- a streamlined system is needed to handle the many instances. DMCA is it.

    You pirates and masnicks "support copyright" until it comes to least enforcement! You believe that ANY level of DMCA is "draconian", chilling your precious "free speech" to "share" links to infringed content!

    That's the REAL case here. You -- especially this lawyer -- are pirates and pirate enablers. You'll say anything to be able to "legally" enjoy and even monetize the works that creators put time and money into, and you will never reward them with even one fraction of a cent.

    You pirates simply want to be able to take other people's work without ANY hindrance or conscience.

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

  32. icon
    Gary (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm told Section 230 harms no innocents.

    Yup, you are 100% correct! I think you mean "Blackmailers harm people." Right?

    Please stop injecting your imaginary pet peeve into every conversation. You have never even been harmed as far as we know, you are just blowing steam. Endlessly.

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

  33. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Mark Andre Prisal, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:07pm

    Wherein the alleged "Copia Institute" that exists only in minds

    of masnicks aggrandizes itself yet again.

    That is, the Sillicon Valley corporate supported against The Public, "Copia Institute":

    https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png

    What a hoot you are, Masnick! You are THE BEST self-parodying, totally unself-aware stereotype EVER.

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

  34. icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:13pm

    Re:

    Be careful with that. I get a few notices on two email addresses every other month or so.

    I don't HAVE any videos on youtube. They're obvious phishing emails, loaded with links to "appeal" their "decision under the DMCA laws".

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

  35. identicon
    hegemon13, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:13pm

    Re: We can't clog courts with copyright cases at criminal level.

    And apparently you like to spout diarrhea of the keyboard without ANY hindrance of intelligence or critical thought. None of your points have anything whatsoever to do to with the article.

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

  36. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:13pm

    Re: so close to actually having a point

    Sorry to burst your bubble bro. But none of that happened in the US. So your record of being 100% full of shit remains intact. Besides he owns the copyrights to all those emails. So he can take your advise and file a DMCA notice against any filthy pirates based in the IS.

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

  37. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: You mother was a herring your father smelt of elderberri

    My reputation is fine among those who actually matter.

    It seems my comments strike a nerve with you. Not really my concern.

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

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Jhons a filthy thief

    Oh look you can teach an old Jhon new tricks. Too bad you pirates that one bro.

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

  39. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Weaponizing 512(a), coming to an internet subscriber

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

  40. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Mark Andre Prisal, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Wherein the alleged "Copia Institute" that exists

    Just imagine if Masnick got the total corporate censorship that he claims CDA Section 230 authorizes! There'd be literally nowhere that anyone could even oppose the corporate tyrants! They control ALL search and ALL access to teh internets!

    [And by the way, about his "generosity" in allowing me a voice here: no, long before I showed up, Masnick tangled himself by making absolute statements about "free speech" that he couldn't take back without looking worse. He trapped himself.

    He has, however, banned my home IP address! That's how much he actually values "free speech". That was done out of sight, you'd never know it except for me telling you. -- Now that I'm reminded, Masnick did say fairly recently that my home IP address is NOT banned, as if never was. But it's actually lying. Me and I guess "average joe" were blocked for long while. Only the magic of TOR allowed me to get in, and took persistence until some apparent blocking of TOR nodes was dropped. The plain HTML inviting everyone in the world is just another way he's trapped himself.

    When out of sight, the corporatists are different from their PR fronts. They have a lot of dodges worked out, and of course near complete secrecy as to what they're collecting, who it goes to, and their methods of controlling the Internet.]

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

  41. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So someone using a burner IP to post, or from another country, or TWENTY people making a coordinated attack, just doesn't exist to you? Convenient.

    https://marketingland.com/increase-extortion-fueled-reputation-attacks-points-need-legal -change-228898

    "Victims" of the DMCA pale in comparison to victims of reputation extortion.

    Talk about a fairytale world: the search engines and other intermediaries (like that one in California who actually sued to keep defamatory material up) don't moderate that content.

    If you want to talk legal process, however, just sue those who abuse the DMCA!

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

  42. identicon
    tdr, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:20pm

    Re: We can't clog courts with copyright cases at criminal level.

    Prove it. Actual documented evidence that doesn't come from any copyright-connected source. You fail to recall the numerous studies that clearly show that infringers (I will not use the language you trolls chose as a way of deliberately skewing perceptions) spend more overall than non-infringers. Also that the reasons for doing so are far more complex than simpletons like you want to accept. Infringing copies of software, for instance, tend to be far more stable and bug-free than purchased copies due to the elimination of malware-esque DRM (which as the imposion of Denuvo showed, is good for absolutely nothing) and fixing of bugs which publishers often don't care to do themselves. Or infringers already paid for the content but wish to have a digital backup so they don't have to use a disc every time. Just a couple examples.

    Either provide your evidence or provide a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now.

    Failing to respond will be an admission you are wrong.
    Arguing will be an admission you are wrong.
    Attempting to deflect or change the subject will be an admission you are wrong.

    So your best option would be to admit your error directly, lest you look even more foolish than you already do.

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

  43. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The automaker can't regulate the conduct of drivers.

    Distributor liability for defamation is well-established. Section 230 is an abomination which doesn't even exist in other countries.

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

  44. icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I would expect that, in line with my express position on extralegal processes, that the business not be allowed extrajudicial means to remove the review. That is the only connection to SEC 230 I can see. Otherwise, your comment has no relation to my commentary on the failings of both 512(a) and 512(c) counter notices, and I can see no link between the circumstances.

    To engage you on the SEC 230 The answer is to sue the specific, individual reviewer. The pedophile accusation could be defamation pro se, so the harm you seek remedy for is clear. That should get enough discovery to determine if the account holder of the poster's IP was in fact a customer or personal acquaintance with a grudge, whom you can now name in your lawsuit and serve with a defamation suit. Now your case can be adjudicated on the merits. Circumstances might even warrant a court order to the named individual to remove the statements at issue, though admittedly that is unlikely.

    Assuming of course that the statement was defamatory and the review is not then taken down, you could then take the order to google and other search engines to delist the review. Its still on the angry review site, so people who use that site will likely see it as long as it remains on the website, but google will no longer link directly to the review (does it even do that for any of these sites? I always get linked to the general page for the company.)

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

  45. identicon
    TDR, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:23pm

    Again, prove it with documented evidence or directly admit you're wrong. Anything else will still be an admission you are wrong.

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

  46. icon
    Cdaragorn (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    OF COURSE I would rather they just sue me. Because then THEY HAVE TO PROVE I DID SOMETHING WRONG. Then I get my rights before a court of law. Then due process actually exists.

    None of these things happens when they are allowed to just say I did something wrong without a shred of proof or even evidence provided. In fact the whole problem with the DMCA is that the legal system isn't involved anywhere at all.

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

  47. icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Even assuming that I accept that the extrajudicial process is neccisary and should not be completely thrown out, the incentives are skewed in favor of those who issue 512(c) notices and without a strong 512(f) penalty, it is generally harmful to platforms of any significant size to not favor those who issued the notice. That is why the counter notice provision does not work 'fine' for those who aren't pirates.

    But again, this article spends a significant time on 512(a) notices, which have no counter notice provision and no recourse. Recent court cases, breaking with past precedent, have chosen to assert that removing persons from the internet over accusations is required by the DMCA, even when there is a factual basis to believe the accusations are without merit (and even when the ISP is correct in its belief that those accusations are false). So the DMCA requires removal of persons from the internet on the basis of patently false allegations. Please explain how non-existent counter notices resolve that issue.

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

  48. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:41pm

    Re: Now poss off or I shall taunt you a second time.

    “It seems my comments strike a nerve with you. Not really my concern”

    The projection never gets old Jhon boy. If I don’t matter so much bro just ignore me.

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

  49. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:44pm

    Re: It’s almost like you are a compulsive liar

    “Cases range from human trafficking victims extorted into prostitution to businesses ordered to pay ransoms to avoid financial ruin.”

    Those are all crimes covered by other laws and not by 230. You fucked up again bro.

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

  50. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:46pm

    Re: Re: Wherein blue is proven a liar again

    Remember when you said only filthy pirates use TOR?

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

  51. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Poor crybaby Jhon and his well earned reputation

    By the way bro. If they are in another country... I’ll let you figure out the rest. It rhymes with section blue-thirty doesn’t apply.

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

  52. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Weaponizing 512(a), coming to an internet subscr

    Yes, the guy who runs a search engine marketing company is wrong (what a strange coincidence!), just as you are.

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

  53. icon
    Gary (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Google-bombs their name are not victims of Section 230?

    All I see is you claiming to be wrong, but no proof - doesn't that make you the liar?

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

  54. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Blackmailers would not be able to operate without section 230 immunizing their weaponry.

    You respond in such a way that confirms only that you don't like what I point out because it struck a nerve. Too bad for you.

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

  55. icon
    Igualmente69 (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Google can't regulate the conduct of people posting reviews on Yelp. Great comment.

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

  56. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not all original publishers can be found, the cost for doing so is prohibitive, and the search engines are the ones who do the damage. No other country has an equivalent immunity, and no offline publisher has it either.

    Section 230 is on its way out anyway thanks to it having been abused. The threats to the Congresswoman last week also didn't help, since those threats were apparently left up way too long.

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

  57. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:08pm

    Copyright causes brain damage

    Accused of assault?
    Rape?
    Freakin murder?

    You might end up cooling your heels in a cell until trial if the case is damning enough and there's a belief that you're a flight risk, but even then you only get punished when it has been demonstrated in court that you are actually guilty of what you've been accused of.

    Copyright infringement though? Punished on nothing more than accusation, with further punishments if you're accused enough times.

    The fact that the idea that 'accusation doesn't equal guilt' even needs to be said demonstrates how utterly insane the law, and those involved with it, get when it comes to The Holy Copyright.

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

  58. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Google can delist the reviews (or the site entirely), to minimize the damage.

    In other countries, they have to or they get sued. Somehow, they still operate in those countries.

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

  59. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Re: It’s almost like you are a compulsive liar

    The crimes are enabled by Section 230, which immunizes search engines and review sites. Without that immunity, this crime wouldn't be possible.

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

  60. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:11pm

    Re: Re: Now poss off or I shall taunt you a second time.

    So brave they are when they think they're anonymous.

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

  61. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: We can't clog courts with copyright cases at criminal le

    Infringement is a crime, no matter the rationale given.

    Criminals are not supposed to profit in a just society. Has nothing to do with what the infringers spend.

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

  62. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Copyright causes brain damage

    Someone who did not infringe and was disconnected from their ISP would sue the ISP and win.

    It's not a repeat ACCUSED policy, and any ISP that thinks it is is taking a huge legal risk.

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

  63. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:26pm

    Blackmail existed long before Section 230. If they could do it before then, they could do it again if Section 230 were ever repealed.

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

  64. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Search engines didn't publish or write the defamatory material. And moderation on a scale of Twitter takes time to go through all the reports of death threats.

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

  65. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why should Google be held responsible for the actions of Yelp users?

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

  66. identicon
    Rocky, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's easy to find, just search for "youtube takedown horror stories" and you'll see a litany of articles where content creators has to deal with copyright trolls and a copyright legacy industry that happily will claim other peoples copyrighted works as their own.

    You already know this but you choose to ignore it because you are a dishonest person.

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

  67. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: It’s almost like you are a compulsive liar

    Counterpoint: Human trafficking, prostitution, and insurance rackets were all crimes before the Internet.

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

  68. identicon
    norahc, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What do you say to a business that was destroyed by a Russian blackmailer, say a pediatrician who was called a pedophile on "angry review" websites, who can't even sue the search engines that point people to those reviews?

    I'm told Section 230 harms no innocents. Another person said most online reputations are deserved.

    Ummm....how about suing the person that made the defamatory comments in the appropriate jurisdiction?

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

  69. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Now poss off or I shall taunt you a second time.

    So brave they are when they think they're anonymous.

    Says the AC who acts so bravely!

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

  70. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Copyright causes brain damage

    This assumes that everyday people have the money to file a lawsuit against an ISP. That suit could drag on for years, too. And it is a "repeat accused" policy if the "strike" doesn't rely on a court ruling that says "this was infringement".

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

  71. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re: Copyright causes brain damage

    It's not a repeat ACCUSED policy, and any ISP that thinks it is is taking a huge legal risk.

    It most certainly is a repeat accused policy...because there is absolutely no legal proof required for the accusation to be made and the content taken down. Too many accusations and the subscriber can lose their service....all without a court intervening or a sliver of evidence of actual infringement being introduced.

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

  72. identicon
    Rocky, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: We can't clog courts with copyright cases at crimina

    For you to take that position also means that you so far in your entire life haven't broken ANY laws without dealing with the consequences.

    Which I highly doubt which makes you a hypocrite.

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

  73. identicon
    Rocky, 16 Apr 2019 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re: Copyright causes brain damage

    So it's okay to censor people (like literally remove their ability to exercise their right to express themselves) because someone falsely claims that they are infringing someones copyright?

    It's amazing the intellectual disconnect that exists in your brain. You think it's fine for anyone to false flag someone totally innocent to kick them off the internet (which can ruin their livelihood) but you have no problem screaming about how section 230 hurts people while at the same time dropping some comments that are protected by it and would have been removed otherwise.

    How the heck do you reconcile that without being a hypocrite of epic proportions?

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

  74. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 3:03pm

    Re: Can’t stop won’t stop

    “You respond in such a way that confirms only that you don't like what I point out because it struck a nerve.”

    You just can’t stop projecting can you crybaby jhon?

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

  75. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 3:06pm

    Re:

    Wrong: it's the UNCONTESTED accusation of infringement that causes the takedown. Pirates, of course, won't do this, and they're the ones "harmed," as they should be.

    Wrong. Upon receipt of a takedown notice, the host (assuming they want to maintain safe harbor) is required to expeditiously remove the content, contested or not. Even if the user submits a counter-notification, the host is still required to keep the content down for 10 to 14 business days before it can be reinstated. Depending on what the content is, having it removed for 2-3 weeks can cause significant damage.

    Further, there are reasons why a user might not contest a takedown notice even if the material is non-infringing. For example, they may be unwilling to reveal their identity for fear of retaliation, or out of a desire for privacy. Or, they may recognize that they do not have the financial means to litigate the issue, and so simply give up.

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

  76. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 3:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: It’s almost like you are a compulsive liar

    Who are you trying to convince bro? Us or yourself? Either way you doing a piss poor job of it. Unless your goal was to be demonstrably wrong and make an even bigger fool of yourself than usual. In that case mission accomplished bro!

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

  77. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 3:10pm

    Re: And gallantly he chickened out

    Bravely sir Jhon ran away!

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

  78. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 3:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright causes brain damage

    To answer your last question. He can’t. He’s just a bitter, old, impotent, fuckwit who’s got an ax to grind because google took away his ability to scam people and/or gave them the ability to tell each other to avoid about his spammy bullshit.

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

  79. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 3:22pm

    Re: Re: Copyright causes brain damage

    Someone who did not infringe and was disconnected from their ISP would sue the ISP and win

    an ISP that disconnected a user for repeat infringement claims under 512(i) and was sued could claim safe harbor under 512(g)(1) - "...a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider’s good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing..." - so a win might not be as clear as you seem to think.

    It's not a repeat ACCUSED policy

    One of Cox's appeal theories was that the repeat infringer policy was repeat adjudication of infringement. The Court disagreed. Therefore, it's absolutely a "repeat accused" policy. The alternative requires the intermediary to judge whether or not infringement occurred, which is specifically stated in the Congressional Record as something that Congress didn't want intermediaries to be required to do.

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

  80. icon
    Gary (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 5:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Blackmailers would not be able to operate without section 230 immunizing their weaponry.

    What an glaring falsehood. As I'm sure it has been pointed out to you - blackmail existed before 230.

    Or did the voices in your head convince you otherwise?

    Blackmail wouldn't go away with 230 - but it would cause all sorts of other problems. Problems apparently beyond your comprehension, since you have ignored them being pointed out, repeatedly.

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

  81. icon
    John Roddy (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 6:03pm

    Still waiting for the explanation of how this is all justified. My tweet was forcibly taken down and legal action taken all without any prior input from me, only to be unceremoniously restored. Eventually. How is this not broken?

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

  82. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 6:11pm

    Re: Re: Poor crybaby Jhon and his well earned reputation

    Wait a minute... John Smith? Chris Silver Smith?

    Holy shit you guys, I think Jhon boy just done outed himself!

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

  83. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 6:30pm

    Re:

    We can't clog courts with copyright cases at criminal level

    Um... why the fuck not? The courts are already clogged on the civil level with those suits and those don't proceed any faster. You're shifting your caseload from one court to another.

    As I've stated perhaps a dozen times, as you pirates yourselves hold: any one copyrighted item isn't overly valuable

    If a person is at risk of paying $150,000 for something that is worth $1, you bet that the standards of evidence had better be high if you're getting that kind of payout.

    premised on the very existence of copyright in common law and US Constitution

    Okay? Name the part of the law and constitution that says that processing of DMCA claims has to be instantaneous. You're wilfully conflating "right to a speedy trial" with "please declare everyone I think is guilty as guilty and pay me more money". If murder trials were run according to your definition of speedy trial all the law would need to do is kill the first sucker upon accusation and close the case. Thank lord that's not what happens.

    enforcement

    Your definition of "enforcement" is Prenda Law. I really shouldn't need to go into detail, but if you want a recap of how thoroughly humiliated your copyright enforcement camp was by a trio of porn ambulance chasers, I'll happily provide it upon request.

    you will never reward them with even one fraction of a cent

    But you will gleefully support performance rights organizations who pirate Microsoft Office, spend the money meant for artists on hookers and blow, and sue people for playing music to horses.

    You pirates simply want to be able to take other people's work without ANY hindrance or conscience

    No, I want to purchase hard drives for backup purposes without paying a "I'm charging you extra because you must be a pirate" tax. I want to have an Internet connection without some asshole who thinks he's entitled to several thousand bucks sue me because my IP address got spoofed. I want the law to actually punish actual infringers according to a standard of evidence we get for any other offense instead of doubling as a failed porn producer's meal ticket.

    By the way, how's that Paul Hansmeier defense fund coming along, blue?

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

  84. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 6:36pm

    Re: Re:

    Okay? Name the part of the law and constitution that says that processing of DMCA claims has to be instantaneous.

    In addition to what you noted whenever someone tries the 'copyright is in the constitution!' trick it's worth pointing out that it is allowed for in the constitution, not required, and specifically allowed in order to serve the public. Congress could declare that copyright law wasn't serving it's purpose and eliminate it entirely, and that would be entirely constitutional.

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

  85. icon
    Gary (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ummm....how about suing the person that made the defamatory comments in the appropriate jurisdiction?

    John Smith says that no one should have the means to transmit defamatory statements. His solution - shut down all user generated content. And email.

    So brilliant in it's simplicity - one has to wonder why he stopped taking his meds.

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

  86. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 8:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, just didn't need that explanation to blue done to death, especially since he brought up a far juicier "expectation" this time that honestly trumps the "guaranteed copyright" claim in bullshittery.

    Of course, there's also the fact that copyright infringement is, once again, the offense that trolls deem worthy enough to hasten investigations and relax standards of evidence for. Not murder. Not rape. Not arson. Not kidnapping. The crime of making sure Chris Dodd might be a little less rich is the straw that breaks his camel's back.

    What a moron!

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

  87. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 9:45pm

    Re:

    Still waiting for the explanation of how this is all justified.

    You'd have better luck waiting for men to grow breasts and start lactating.

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

  88. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 16 Apr 2019 @ 10:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fair enough.

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

  89. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 12:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm told Section 230 harms no innocents."

    No you're told that section 230 stops YOU victimising innocents just because it's easier than going after the people responsible for the behaviour you want to shut down. You're also told that section 230 is also necessary to protect people who have nothing to do with your crusade, but would be harmed if it's removed.

    If you're going to lie, stop lying to the very people you're misrepresenting, it's not a good tactic.

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

  90. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 12:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Blackmailers would not be able to operate without section 230"

    So... you think that blackmail somehow didn't exist before the law was in place, and that they wouldn't find other ways to do it if millions of innocent people were made victims by having their protections removed?

    Yeah, yopu probably are that stupid, judging by your posting history..

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

  91. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 12:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Because it's easier than going after the people that actually did the thing he dislikes, he gets to feel all warm and fuzzy despite not actually having done anything, and he can bask in his general ignorance afterwards.

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

  92. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 12:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Google can delist the reviews (or the site entirely), to minimize the damage."

    So, you don't thin k Yelp has its own search engine that people search on?

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

  93. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 12:42am

    Re: Re:

    "Yet you can file a counter-notification when this occurs"

    No, he can't. As he has explained the damage was already done (content taken down) before he was even notified that it happened.

    Facts mean things. You should look into them occasionally.

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

  94. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 12:42am

    Re: Re:

    Not really, since hormones can induce such things, but the fantasy world that AC lives in will never mesh with reality.

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

  95. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2019 @ 1:03am

    You know, it takes a long time to read all the censored comments. Worth the extra though.

    Here’s a question - if Nancy and Mitch and Donald get together to eliminate the 230 protections, will it be retroactive?

    That is, will I be able to go over old Techdirt articles and comments and SUE?

    Or do you think it will only apply to material published after 230 is eliminated?

    Retroactive sounds right to me.

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

  96. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2019 @ 1:17am

    Re:

    Assuming retroactive application, sites will likely purge their comment database and avoid the hassle of ambulance chasers like you serving lawsuits.

    But thanks for playing.

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

  97. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 1:18am

    Re:

    "You know, it takes a long time to read all the censored comments"

    There are no censored comments.

    Oh, you mean the ones that are hidden and take less than a second to make them unhidden? Why is that taking so long for your brain to process?

    "will it be retroactive?"

    No.

    "Retroactive sounds right to me"

    It probably would, but then understanding the way things work in the real world is never your forte, is it?

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

  98. icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 5:58am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's because thorazine isn't a hormone...

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

  99. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    *What do you say to a business that was destroyed by a Russian blackmailer, say a pediatrician who was called a pedophile on "angry review" websites, who can't even sue the search engines that point people to those reviews?

    I'm told Section 230 harms no innocents. Another person said most online reputations are deserved.*

    Say what now? The legitimate, non-scammy review websites take down troll posts if you can prove that the posts were made by trolls, as I did. Search engines taking links down wouldn't have sorted that out. It's up to the platform hosting those posts to take them down as they have access to the back office to do so. Whether they will do it for free or not is another matter. The scammy ones like ROR won't. Trustworthy ones like Yelp will.

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

  100. icon
    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 6:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Gary, I don't have the resources to sue anyone for lying about me in this country, forget the foreign ones. Better to present your case as fully and completely to the platform mods and ask them politely to remove false claims than to go legal.

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

  101. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2019 @ 7:30am

    Re: Re:

    Yes I understand. And there is no crisis on the southern border.

    And there are no censored comments.

    Right. Got it.

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

  102. identicon
    Rocky, 17 Apr 2019 @ 7:36am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You read the comments, didn't you?

    Which would have been impossible if they where censored.

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

  103. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2019 @ 8:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, about that crisis... wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for that, not the US military?

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

  104. icon
    Gary (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wendy, I do not advocate suing everyone whom offends you and revoking 230 - that's John's position. He mistakenly believes that it is impossible to get bad reviews removed.

    You and many other have proved him wrong countless times.

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

  105. icon
    bhull242 (profile), 17 Apr 2019 @ 3:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I don’t view what’s occurring at our southern border as a crisis. Is it a problem? Maybe, but only to the extent that we are disrupting the lives of potential refugees. It’s certainly not obvious or near-universally agreed upon to be a problem that needs to be solved, let alone a crisis.

    At any rate, none of that is relevant to the current discussion, so why bring it up?

    As for censored comments, as mentioned by others, yourself included, reported comments are hidden, not censored. You were able to read them on this very site with little issue. I really only find the ones with responses worth reading, just to provide context, tbh, but that’s just my opinion.

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

  106. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2019 @ 4:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, he can't. As he has explained the damage was already done (content taken down) before he was even notified that it happened

    Slight correction - Whether the content is removed before a counter-notification is filed is largely up to the policies of the intermediary. Some will act on the notice before notifying the user, and some will notify the user to have them take action, only acting themselves if the user does nothing.

    In either case, though, a counter-notification requires that the content is removed for 10 to 14 business days from the intermediary's receipt of the notice before it can be restored, and if the complainant files suit during that time, the content doesn't go back up at all until the issue is resolved.

    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.
  • 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.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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