Court Not Impressed By Dentist Using Copyright To Try To Censor Online Reviews
from the copyright-as-censorship dept
We've written a couple of times about dentist Stacy Makhnevich, who used some forms from a company called Medical Justice, to make patients agree to assign the copyright on any online reviews they might later write over to the doctor or dentist. This struck many as of questionable legality and even more questionable ethically speaking. Medical Justice -- after receiving much criticism -- has completely changed its model (and name) and has urged doctors and dentists not to use its earlier forms. However, Makhnevich, actually sent one patient an invoice for $100/day, claimed $85,000 in damages, and asked for $25,000 in "general damages for fraud" (sending the patient a prepared legal complaint with that amount) after he posted negative reviews on Yelp and other sites. The patient, Robert Lee, filed a class action lawsuit in response. Makhnevich also sought to force Yelp to take down the review with a DMCA notice, but the company refused to do so (kudos to Yelp for not caving on a bogus DMCA notice).The court has now rejected Makhnevich's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, and appears to have some choice words for the dentist, directly calling some claims "ridiculous":
Defendants' argument that no actual controversy exists is specious. Defendants created the controversy with Lee by attempting to enforce the agreement, which they extracted as a condition for gelling dental treatment. Further, under the totality of circumstances, the controversy is sufficiently "real" and " immediate." Defendants cannot pretend now that their notices to Lee were "just kidding," or that Lee lacked any reasonable apprehension of liability. A brief review of Defendants' conduct in response to Lee's exercise of basic rights shows how ridiculous their arguments are: (1) Defendants twice threatened Lee with suit, the second notification being from an attorney who did not specify a deadline by which suit would commence; (2) Defendants prepared and sent a draft version of the complaint they would file in a New York state court (Ex. D); and (3) Defendants sent two invoices, one which threatened referral to a collection agency. No reasonable person could view Defendants' constant barrage of threats as anything other than a real controversy.The case is not over, and there's a long way to go, but the dentist is not going to get out of this easily.
Further, Defendants have not released Lee from liability for the amount threatened in the draft complaint, which is in excess of $110,000, or the amount charged by the two invoices. There is an objectively supported threat of future injury-which Defendants' conduct as created.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dmca, stacy makhnevich
Companies: medical justice
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Stacy Makhnevich: Good, what's her name?
Secretary: Streisand.
Ahem. I wonder if it's just me and Ms Streisand but I think trying to silence criticism is a rather effective way to drive people away of your clinic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought you hated Judge Crotty since he didn't share your same silly views on the domain name seizures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't have a citation for this then you thought wrong.
This is the same mistake my child keeps making trying to think what someone else thinks. He can't do it and neither can you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick, M. (2011, August 5). Judge Says Making It Harder To Exercise Free Speech Does Not Create Substantial Hardship | Techdirt. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/10212515405/judge-says-making-it-harder-to-exercise-free-s peech-does-not-create-substantial-hardship.shtml
or
Masnick, M., 2011. Judge Says Making It Harder To Exercise Free Speech Does Not Create Substantial Hardship | Techdirt. Available at: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/10212515405/judge-says-making-it-harder-to-exercise-free-s peech-does-not-create-substantial-hardship.shtml [Accessed April 24, 2013].
What you wrote was a hyperbolic link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*What the 'original' AC wrote was a hyperbolic link (full of hyperbole and vitriol)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Present an example of "ageist nonsnese", boy...if you dare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, this doesn't mean all their views are bad.
People can agree with some views while disagreeing with others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Age and technology do go together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have working brain cells, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
And an inherent problem is that there's really no penalty for mis-using copyright. If Mike got off his "needz more dataz" non-stance then maybe he could at least advocatve some penalties be applied for such mis-use. -- But that'd be Mike going against his own 1% class. Not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
We already have penalties on the books. Why not use those?
Oh. Right. Those in power get to write the rules and weasel their way out of those penalties. Imagine that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
Pretty apparent since he labels the female dentist as "Rich guy" right there in his comment header.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
When it becomes the typical instead of the atypical (as it has) your ramblings for pay from corporations become pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
Are you a harrasser and possibly a stalker? an online bully if you will?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High court low court
Abolishing copyright is the only way to abolish abuse of copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High court low court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not copyright. Rich guy mis-using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, no...not a pun. It was a palindrome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this judge secretly want to become a writer?
"Defendants' hardly defensible practices"
Uh oh. When the judge is using that sort of language in your motion to dismiss, you know this case isn't going to go well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man, are people ever fked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You just called someone else an angry dipshit in an angry dipshit tone of voice. WTG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Libertas et natale solum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd be more willing to accept the provision if it were part of a contract that was actually negotiated by the parties, instead of one that is imposed by one side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 2:45pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]