5 ms·

I'm kind of amazed at how effective this digital reputation management technique is: * publish an exact copy of the offending content on a web site and include

I'm kind of amazed at how effective this digital reputation management technique is: * publish an exact copy of the offending content on a web site and include something that looks like a datetime which is earlier than the publication date of the offending content * tell the web site's ISP and other service providers that they're violating copyright, pointing to your fake content and using the providers' copyright-violation processes, which you know all about because your reputation firm does this stuff all the time This also works for search engine deindexing, right? It's just remarkable to me that (a) we all know this works super well and (b) it keeps working even though everyone knows about it.

incompatible 7y ago
I didn't realise people bothered to put up fake websites. I thought a plausible-looking DMCA notification was sufficient to get a provider to take something down.
- strogonoff 7y ago
  If it were so easy and cheap as many comments on this page imply, why aren’t we seeing this often used against large well-known businesses in bad faith? E.g., someone creates a puny single-person LLC, and files DMCA notices against New York Times, Amazon blog posts, Apple press releases, et cetera. According to claims I see here, the content will have to be down for 10-14 days regardless of how quickly the counter-claim succeeds, which if used at the right moment could cause significant damage to the target/substantial profit to the attacker. If this was happening, I’m sure the regulation would be fixed promptly with powerful lobbying from the aforementioned big players—perhaps by imposing a fee for issuing DMCA takedowns, increasing legal cost of a successful counter-claim, etc. Such cases would’ve definitely be noticeable to the public, so I can only assume that they don’t happen because either (A) no one have thought of it yet, or (B) there’s some non-obvious cost to DMCA takedowns or successful counter-claims. EDIT: Removed shady source for DMCA counter-claim info.
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    If it were so easy and cheap as many comments on this page imply, why aren’t we seeing this often used against large well-known businesses in bad faith? Because medium sized companies know not to mess with large companies but don't care about small companies?
    - strogonoff 7y ago
      You wrote “not to mess with large companies”. What are the consequences of issuing a DMCA notice against content published by a large company?
      - incompatible 7y ago
        They probably just send you a counter claim without bothering to take anything down. Perhaps also a nasty note from their lawyers?
        strogonoff 7y ago
        Wouldn’t it put them in violation of a federal law? If they send a counter-claim without taking the content down, can’t they be sued for DMCA non-compliance? The law appears to mandate immediate takedown for certain period of time regardless of counter-claim status. Playing devil’s advocate here, and may obviously be missing some points of the regulation.
        incompatible 7y ago
        I don't know about this. There's a difference between taking down supposed infringements from your users (or "subscribers") and your own material put on your own site by your own employees. I'm not sure that the DMCA mechanism is relevant for the latter.
        kd5bjo 7y ago
        Honoring a DMCA takedown isn’t ever required, but ignoring one strips away the safe harbor protections for that specific content. This in turn makes you liable for any copyright infringement of that content as if you had published it yourself. If it’s legitimate, you’ll presumably win the court case and quite possibly get your attorney fees back.
314 7y ago
Why not file a counter-claim and then make them attempt to prove their copyright in a real court?
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  The counter claim would do noting to prevent your own content from going down: the service providers very clearly don't care about the legitimacy of DMCA claims, they just automatically comply and let their customers suffer damages for all the false claims.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The DMCA requires contested content to be offline for at least 10 days, even if a counterclaim is filed. If a counterclaim is filed, that period can extend to no more than 14 days.... Unless notice is received of a court action to restrain further publication. 17 USC 512(g) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
prepend 7y ago
I’m not sure there’s anyone bothered by it enough to make a change. ISPs don’t seem to care. Individuals have other coping mechanisms (Tweet our the story) so it’s a lot of low impact incidents. I think this is a PR opportunity for some “freedom loving ISP” that has a large global footprint and would benefit. In the US the ISPs are media companies do not so close. Maybe we’ll see Google or Microsoft try but they too have too many media ties to try to upset dmca. The most likely fix, I think, is for large enough orgs like the Guardian to sue Linode and the takedown issuer for fraud. That will cost a lot, but they may be interested. If ISPs have a large risk of damages then they will be more careful. Currently it seems like a bot or intern issues these things and does not really care about anything but avoiding DMCA risk.
dredmorbius 7y ago
The risk, presuming one can find counterparties and venues to sue, is that this approach raises numerous legal liabilities of its own. Copyright violation carries both civil and criminal penalties, and might be aimed at numerous parties, including claims (DMCA, possibly other) against the hosting site of the pirated content.

incompatible 7y ago

I didn't realise people bothered to put up fake websites. I thought a plausible-looking DMCA notification was sufficient to get a provider to take something down.

strogonoff 7y ago
If it were so easy and cheap as many comments on this page imply, why aren’t we seeing this often used against large well-known businesses in bad faith? E.g., someone creates a puny single-person LLC, and files DMCA notices against New York Times, Amazon blog posts, Apple press releases, et cetera. According to claims I see here, the content will have to be down for 10-14 days regardless of how quickly the counter-claim succeeds, which if used at the right moment could cause significant damage to the target/substantial profit to the attacker. If this was happening, I’m sure the regulation would be fixed promptly with powerful lobbying from the aforementioned big players—perhaps by imposing a fee for issuing DMCA takedowns, increasing legal cost of a successful counter-claim, etc. Such cases would’ve definitely be noticeable to the public, so I can only assume that they don’t happen because either (A) no one have thought of it yet, or (B) there’s some non-obvious cost to DMCA takedowns or successful counter-claims. EDIT: Removed shady source for DMCA counter-claim info.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  If it were so easy and cheap as many comments on this page imply, why aren’t we seeing this often used against large well-known businesses in bad faith? Because medium sized companies know not to mess with large companies but don't care about small companies?
  - strogonoff 7y ago
    You wrote “not to mess with large companies”. What are the consequences of issuing a DMCA notice against content published by a large company?
    - incompatible 7y ago
      They probably just send you a counter claim without bothering to take anything down. Perhaps also a nasty note from their lawyers?
      - strogonoff 7y ago
        Wouldn’t it put them in violation of a federal law? If they send a counter-claim without taking the content down, can’t they be sued for DMCA non-compliance? The law appears to mandate immediate takedown for certain period of time regardless of counter-claim status. Playing devil’s advocate here, and may obviously be missing some points of the regulation.
        incompatible 7y ago
        I don't know about this. There's a difference between taking down supposed infringements from your users (or "subscribers") and your own material put on your own site by your own employees. I'm not sure that the DMCA mechanism is relevant for the latter.
        kd5bjo 7y ago
        Honoring a DMCA takedown isn’t ever required, but ignoring one strips away the safe harbor protections for that specific content. This in turn makes you liable for any copyright infringement of that content as if you had published it yourself. If it’s legitimate, you’ll presumably win the court case and quite possibly get your attorney fees back.

314 7y ago

Why not file a counter-claim and then make them attempt to prove their copyright in a real court?

SiempreViernes 7y ago
The counter claim would do noting to prevent your own content from going down: the service providers very clearly don't care about the legitimacy of DMCA claims, they just automatically comply and let their customers suffer damages for all the false claims.
dredmorbius 7y ago
The DMCA requires contested content to be offline for at least 10 days, even if a counterclaim is filed. If a counterclaim is filed, that period can extend to no more than 14 days.... Unless notice is received of a court action to restrain further publication. 17 USC 512(g) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

prepend 7y ago

I’m not sure there’s anyone bothered by it enough to make a change. ISPs don’t seem to care. Individuals have other coping mechanisms (Tweet our the story) so it’s a lot of low impact incidents. I think this is a PR opportunity for some “freedom loving ISP” that has a large global footprint and would benefit. In the US the ISPs are media companies do not so close. Maybe we’ll see Google or Microsoft try but they too have too many media ties to try to upset dmca. The most likely fix, I think, is for large enough orgs like the Guardian to sue Linode and the takedown issuer for fraud. That will cost a lot, but they may be interested. If ISPs have a large risk of damages then they will be more careful. Currently it seems like a bot or intern issues these things and does not really care about anything but avoiding DMCA risk.

dredmorbius 7y ago

The risk, presuming one can find counterparties and venues to sue, is that this approach raises numerous legal liabilities of its own. Copyright violation carries both civil and criminal penalties, and might be aimed at numerous parties, including claims (DMCA, possibly other) against the hosting site of the pirated content.