Automattic sues, strikes back at fraudulent DMCA takedown notices

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/21/automattic-files-two-lawsuits-strikes-back-censorship-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notices/?fromcat=all

by cfinke • 13 years ago

124 27 13 years ago

thenextweb.com

DanBC2• 13 years ago

The Next Web article doesn't add anything over the actual notice, which they link to.

http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/striking-back-agains...

EDIT: But it's great that Automattic are fighting this, and I wish them best luck.

cfinke• 13 years ago

I submitted this link due to HN's proclivity for requiring the submission title to match the linked page's title, and this title was more self-explanatory than "Striking back against censorship."

Disclaimer (?): I'm an Automattic employee.

DanBC2• 13 years ago

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound dismissive. TNW is a good source.

zem2• 13 years ago

that actually suggests an interesting way to get a proper title onto hn - put up a thin-wrapper blogpost and submit that. wonder how well it'd work.

power2u• 13 years ago

A very good initiative by Wordpress to deter people from doing this in the future.

Any information who made these false claims?

russellsprouts• 13 years ago

I read the documents. The one about NewsBuletin seems like it should be a no-brainer. Someone copied the blog posts, posted them on a fake domain, made to look like NewsBulletin, then issued take-down notices as if he owned them, and they were from the real site.

paulgb2• 13 years ago

An unfortunate double-standard of the DMCA is that only damages are recoverable in the event of a false takedown.

There's an ongoing case right now that would test whether "loss of free speech" is a recoverable damage.

Best of luck to Automattic, it's nice to see someone taking action.

rlpb• 13 years ago

Isn't some sort of criminal sanction for "perjury" an additional consequence? Or is that entirely toothless?

paulgb2• 13 years ago

IANAL but I've been censored by the DMCA before and fought it. My understanding is that perjury is a crime against the court/government, so you'd have to convince a district attorney to pursue it which is rarely done.

Also, the takedown requires a much weaker statement under perjury than the counter-takedown. "the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed". There's (bizarrely) no need to claim good faith.

Edit: here's my story: https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/9ccd3a157914

nwenzel• 13 years ago

Bringing some needed balance to the situation (from the original post by Paul Sieminski http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/striking-back-agains...) is a good way to put it.

interurban• 13 years ago

These cases look fairly cut-and-dried. The one thing that makes me wonder is the international angle, neither defendant is located in the US.

Seems like the real prize is setting a precedent to be used in other cases. It would seem recovering monetary awards from international parties may be quite difficult or impossible.

jmadsen• 13 years ago

"Seems like the real prize is setting a precedent to be used in other cases"

That was my initial thought, especially from the point of view of comments above about it being difficult for small companies to afford a suit.

Not a lawyer, but it must be faster/cheaper/easier to sue after a precedent has been made that can be referred to

CHsurfer• 13 years ago

Can I donate to support the case?

ggchappell2• 13 years ago

Can I donate to support the case?

That's a nice thought. But I think it might be better to save your money for someone who needs it. This lawsuit is not being brought by a couple of guys working out of someone's basement, but by a successful company with hundreds of employees. I imagine they can afford it.

zipfle• 13 years ago

dear lawyers,

Isn't there a thing called 'slander of title?'

Would that thing apply in the case of representing someone else's work as your own for the purpose of issuing a DMCA?

Pitarou• 13 years ago

Why hasn't this happened already?

This kind of abuse is often a tool used by scoundrels in acrimonious disputes. Surely, people have wanted to sue in the past. What's been stopping people up until now?

dangrossman• 13 years ago

Most people have negative net worth, not hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in a bank waiting to be used to carry out a federal lawsuit.

forgottenpass• 13 years ago

Justice is for the rich. Even with resources, it's usually more advisable to settle or just give up.

ggchappell2• 13 years ago

Here is a paragraph from the linked article by Automattic. It gives at least a partial answer to your question.

We receive hundreds of DMCA notices and try our best to review, identify and push back on those we see as abusive. Our users have the right to challenge a DMCA complaint too, but doing so requires them to identify themselves and fill out a legally required form saying that they submit to being sued for copyright infringement in a place that may be far away. If they don’t, their content is taken down and could stay down forever. This tradeoff doesn’t work for the many anonymous bloggers that we host on WordPress.com, who speak out on sensitive issues like corporate or government corruption.

rrpadhy• 13 years ago

DMCA has often been used to suppress free-speech. It is high time, this rule is re-visited and some of the context is set right.

softworks• 13 years ago

Big up to Automaticc for doing this. Right On!

chilldream• 13 years ago

Some added commentary from a lawyer:

http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/21/wordpress-goes-on-the-offe...

cft• 13 years ago

One defendant is in India, second is in the UK. How does this work- if they win, how will they collect from India?

Automattic sues, strikes back at fraudulent DMCA takedown notices

Related Stories