DMCA Takedown & the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

by Michael Roberts

What is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a copyright law of the United States that merges two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Provisions are made therein to heighten the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998 after passage by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate on October 12, 1998. Title 17 of the United States Code was amended by the DMCA to extend the reach of copyright while limiting the liability of on-line service providers for copyright infringement by their users.

The DMCA’s principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries. It was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000; the Copyright Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU.

Use and Abuse of DMCA Take-Down Demands

Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown demands can be an effective tool for the removal of unprotected, defamatory and fallacious speech from websites and from search engines for search results displayed as a result of searches on a particular subject, person or business. For the most part, search engines and Internet service providers are protected from liability for tort such as defamation and harassment as a result of another law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (if defamation is provided by a 3rd party). This can be incredibly frustrating for victims of the abuse of this safe harbor, particularly in instances where malicious and fallacious reports have been posted on websites such as RipOffReport.com, thedirty.com and CheaterVille.com. In such instances, victims can take advantage of a DMCA take-down demands to both the websites displaying the offending material and the search engines. A word of warning though; if you direct such a take-down demand to websites with low value speech and poor social responsibility records, then you are effectively “telegraphing your punches”. In such instances, stealth might be your best friend, as such, it might be tactically and strategically prudent to limit your DMCA takedown demand to the search engines only. Let’s face it, if it is not on Google it may as well not exist no matter how damaging the allegations.

The safe harbor provisions of § 230C of the CDA do not extend to copyright violations in most instances, although there are provisions for reasonable notice to be given to the offending Internet service providers. Search engines such as Google might ignore take-down demands for defamatory search results linking to defamatory website, such as Ed Magedson’s Rip Off Report, pursuant to the immunity granted to them through § 230C. However, if such a demand is made on the basis of copyright breaches, you may submit a similar take-down, but based on copyrighted material such as photos, images, quotations, or other copyrighted material owned by you, or another party willing to support you in your take-down efforts. If you elect to submit such a take-down demand, I would caution you to completely avoid the defamatory context because it may invite deeper scrutiny by the receiving party such as Google. Consequently, it may be rejected on the basis that the DMCA take-down demand is determined to be a disguise for relief from defamation, which as mentioned does not attract liability to the search engines because of § 230C.

(NOTE: If the copyright demand is for a photograph, then it must be made by the person who actually clicked the shutter! If you are actually in the photograph, then you are not the owner, unless you used a self-timer or tripod, or if you paid a third party to take the photograph in which case you can claim ownership of the photo based on “work for hire”.)

DMCA takedown demands can be directed to Google through the following web form; you are welcome to contact Rexxfield if your problems persist, but for the most part, unless the problem is catastrophic and a clear and present danger to your livelihood is evident, we suggest you try this form first. There’s no need to spend money on our services if you can achieve results by yourself unless the problem is severe:

Google DMCA Takedown Form

If you do not have a copyright breach vector, you might try the same form if the offending webpage is defamatory or harassing. We have seen limited success with this form on that basis, but do not hold your breath.



THANK YOU MR. ROBERTS FOR THIS GREAT ARTICLE

INTERNET LIBEL STATUTES IN THE U.S.A.

DARREN M. MEADE DEFEATED IN LEGAL CHALLENGE.. AGAIN

Today, Michael Roberts of Rexxfield.com announced that his Internet harassment whistle-blowing team has prevailed for the fourth consecutive time in Copyright legal challenges issued by Darren M. Meade who is a featured contributor for RipOffReport.com.   [Case References: Kairos-Meade vs Roberts: #1013232163,#1071357104,#1145332165, #1132706080] Orange County CA.]

According to documents associated with the copyright challenge, the YouTube videos in question depict leaked videos of Darren M. Meade describing how he "punished" a renowned physician through a systematic Internet smear campaign.

Roberts said that he plans on drawing on his experiences in these cases and publishing a self-help guide to combating fallacious copyright challenges issued by subjects of Internet videos who use the provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to chill free speech and whistle-blowing.

Roberts filed a lawsuit in January 2012 against both Google and RipOffReport.com, according to court documents Roberts alleged that Google has what he calls a "humiliation algorithm" which elevates negative sentiment. Roberts published his findings and hypothesis “RipOffReport.com and Google’s Humiliation Algorithm” via YouTube.com recently and it was an instant hit. Roberts said “I posted the video thinking that maybe few hundred people, over a span of several years, might find some understanding about the relentless battering their reputation receives if they are unfortunate enough to be listed on RipOffReport.com”. He said “the fact that a boring video about such a narrow subject has had almost 5,000 views in the last few months speaks volumes about the severity of the problem”

According to court documents Roberts alleged that Google has what he calls a "humiliation algorithm" which elevates negative sentiment. [Case# 30–2012–00557149 Orange County CA]. Roberts’ video exposé titled "Why RipOffReport.com & Negative Results Appear on Page 1 of Google" consistently ranks at the top of the search results for “RipOffReport.com” from more than one million possible results, according to current Google video searches.

According to court documents, Roberts’ alleged further that the favor RipOffReport.com receives from Google is likely influenced by the fact that RipOffReport.com is an affiliate partner of Google’s powerful online AdWords platform. He said “it stands to reason that both Google & RipOffReport.com enjoy financial gain at the expense of the businesses that have unverified complaints filed against them when visitors click on Google Ads displayed in any of the 1.13 Million RipOffReport.com pages currently indexed by Google.com”.


While EOPC doesn't usually do defamation cases - this is important  because often cyberpaths turn around and defame their victims using the internet

Thanks to Michael Roberts for This Article

FBI's Profile of THE MENTAL RAPIST

The following is transcribed from the written logs of a conversation that an individual from TalkCity had with an agent at the FBI.

The Mental Rapist Enjoys Abusing Women:
He abuses then backs off. After he has abused to a certain point he will back off and take note of his accomplishments. If he is not satisfied that he has reached his desired level of control, he will step up the degree of abuse, coming back and swinging harder. He has to win, and it is very important to him that he is always right.

He Hates and Loves Women at the Same Time:
Endless Cycle of Love/Hate with his Mother This person was probably abused by his mother and then coddled. (For example: She would slap him in a violent rage and then love, cry and apologize.)

He probably hated his mother and loved her at the same time. The relationship with his mother was a never-ending cycle of love and hate that he could not control or stop. He transposes these feelings to other women. He tries to create the same type of environment with other women. This time he IS in CONTROL.

Therefore, in his mind, he is controlling his mother through other women, surrogates of his mother. He may have a wife. If so, he is a model husband. He needs one relationship with a female that is solid and wholesome; that is why he looks elsewhere for women to abuse.

He was disillusioned by an early love, so, in his mind, all women are liars and whores. He was very much in love with someone once who he thought to be pure. The other person did not feel the same for him, and/ or turned out not to be quite the virgin he thought her to be. In his mind, if this ideal woman whom he thought was pure above all else, turned out not to be, then surely all other women must be liars and whores too. His mind is fixed on that as pure 100% fact and can not be changed.

His mother might have been the woman he loved and thought to be pure, and he may have found out that she had several affairs.

His biggest problem is simply that all women just won't admit that they are liars and whores. When a woman does not submit to him and admit what he knows to be true (that she is a liar and a whore), he feels he is back in the unbreakable cycle of his mother again. This upsets him to the point of bursting forth with so much profanity.

Delusions of Superior Intellect
He considers himself to be mentally superior to all women. He is sure he is smarter, because he knows all women are liars and whores, but he has to prove it by making them admit it. This type of individual probably possesses an above-average I.Q. He has engaged in this behavior many times and knows what avenues and shortcuts to take to reach his objective as soon as possible.

He is a Mental Combatant, not Physical
This type of person is not likely to use physical violence because he may not win. He is a mental combatant because he has learned to fight very well at that level and can always
win to some degree in his own mind. There are a few conditions in which he could be violent. Under the right circumstances this person could rape or beat a woman physically because of his dominant personality and if he felt he had to in order to prove his point. He would probably not actually stalk a woman physically, but for sure might mentally via the internet. The Internet is his preferred hunting ground.

Remember, he is most likely very shy and timid or reserved in the real world and has low self esteem until he gets on the Internet. Then he is the MASTER of his domain.

It's much easier to go on the Internet with lots of prey to pursue.

SOURCE

Some FBI Advice for Online Chatters
DO NOT be so open and honest with every person that comes into a room.

NEVER under any circumstances give detailed information about your home address or city.

NEVER give out your phone number.

NEVER post or send pictures of yourself or your family. If you email them to someone, they can use them HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT as you have given up your copyright.

KEEP all conversations about personal info as general as you can; a person that is just curious doesn't expect more and will soon forget.

GO with your instincts. Use "backing-off" behavior: If a person makes you feel uncomfortable, go to a friend and make conversation and slowly back away from the person that is bothering you; eventually ignoring him completely. If that fails to discourage the person, simply say goodbye and leave.

Legal Disclaimer: Please note that the above information is provided to help victims understand the psychological make-up of the Mental Rapist or Cyberstalker. It is only a profile, and as such, there can be no guarantees to its accuracy. Nor can one say with certainty that any cyberstalker would fit this profile 100%. Neither the FBI nor Stop Net Abusers will be held accountable for violent or distressful actions accruing from such an individual. The FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation , a Department of the Government of the United States of America, and has full ownership of the profiles it develops of the psychology of criminal natures. Stop Net Abusers, Inc.
Created: 30 June 1999 Updated: 11 September 1999 ftn

The male gender is used here but Cyberpaths & Abusers can be FEMALE as well.

Sued for Refusing to Help a Cyberstalking Victim

By Victor Fiorillo

Earlier this week in Philadelphia’s Federal Court, 25-year-old Temple grad Cailin Arena and her friend Patricia McWilliam of South Carolina sued a John Doe they say has been cyberstalking them and publishing their copyrighted photos and writings without their permission. In the same suit, they name Internet giant Google—which hosts the perpetrator’s blog, Korean Dating Bloggers, as well as a fraudulent Google Plus account set up in Arena’s name—for failing to do anything about it.

In recent years, the women have traveled to Korea and Japan to teach English to grade-school students in those countries. Arena, who has been dating a Korean man since 2010, is currently teaching in Japan, where her boyfriend resides, while McWilliam teaches in Seoul, South Korea. Both women have blogged extensively about their overseas experiences, and these blogs, which they’ve deleted, appear to be the original source of the screen-grabbing stalker’s material.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed by Arena’s father, Montgomery County attorney Charles Arena, the problems began on January 3, 2012, when John Doe sent an anonymous email to Arena’s supervisor containing a link to sexual content and stating that Arena was responsible for it, and another email to Arena, which read, “Sorry to say but you’re an ugly brown something. You probably also smell bad. Have fun in Japan, I hear the radiation isn’t bad in Fukushima. Why not buy some vegetables from there for you and your ugly brown children.” Also that day, John Doe is said to have posted racist commentary about Arena in an online forum associated with her job.

One week later, John Doe created Korean Dating Bloggers, using Arena’s full name and her employer’s name as a website tag, so that his blog would come up in Google searches for her. On the site, he posted screen shots from her now deleted blog, copyrighted pictures she says he stole from her actual Google Plus account, and negative commentary about her. He also created an impostor Tumblr account and Google Plus profile in her name. He reached out to contacts in her actual Google Plus circle, linking them to Korean Dating Bloggers. The allegations relating to John Doe’s actions toward McWilliam are similar.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant’s use of their copyrighted material violates the Digital Millennium Copyright and that Google has a responsibility to remove it. They and their attorneys have repeatedly contacted Google headquarters, demanding a resolution.

At first, Google responded that they do not remove allegedly defamatory, libelous or slanderous material unless requested by a court order, even though the plaintiffs’ claims were regarding copyright, not defamation.

Then, Google responded with a message that the plaintiffs call “nonsensical.” In it, Google stated that the company decided not to take action “based on our policies concerning content removal. We would like to assist you, but we don’t currently disclose this information. Should it become publicly available in the future, you may find it on our site at http://www.google.com/about.html.” Getting nowhere with Google, they filed the suit.

As for the identity of the blogger, the plaintiffs believe they know who he is and that he resides in Pennsylvania. They hope that the court will compel Google to reveal his true identity and intend to file more actions today. “The law hasn’t caught up with technology,” says Charles Arena. “This is scary. What do you do when someone seeks to do irreparable harm to you online?”

A Google spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.

original article here