More Details Emerge On Key Legal Fight Over DMCA Abuse
from the oops dept
We recently wrote about a key legal fight over DMCA abuse and whether or not you can expect punishment for bogus DMCA takedowns under 512(f). The fact that even the MPAA has weighed in to make sure that there are basically no remedies for its faulty DMCA notices suggests how important this fight is -- even though at its core it appears to be a silly petty squabble among two bloggers who clearly hate each other. You can read back over the previous posts to get the details, but a few details have come out since the last filing, which may be quite relevant.Gina Crosley-Corcoran's (the blogger who filed the DMCA notices) filing against Amy Tuteur (the blogger who sued claiming a DMCA 512(f) violation) made a few claims that, if true, would likely weaken Tuteur's case dramatically. The key claims were that neither of the hosts that Tuteur said had removed her blog/account had actually done so. Without the actual removal or loss of account, Tuteur's overall claim is much weaker, since some cases have argued that you can only win a 512(f) case if the content was actually removed in reaction to the DMCA notices. Crosley-Corcoran's filing claimed that the first hosting company, BlueHost, never took down the content or the account, but that Tuteur chose to switch accounts, saying that BlueHost only warned that it could take down the content or shut down her account, but that it did not. However, Tuteur has posted to her own blog a screenshot from Crosley-Corocran's own blog that includes not just a screenshot of Tuteur's blog being shutdown on BlueHost, but also where Crosley-Corcoran brags about BlueHost taking down the entire blog. So... for Crosley-Corcoran to claim in her filing that BlueHost didn't take down the site, when Crosley-Corcoran's own statements show that it did... I can't imagine that will go over well in court.
Amy,Considering the only legal liability that had come up had been the DMCA notice, combined with the fact that he directly highlights how the first host he suggests handles DMCA complaints, it seems pretty clear that the DMCA takedowns and further threats of more takedowns was a (if not "the") driving force behind telling her to look elsewhere. Given that the deposition from the same owner, Nick Esposito, appears to conflict with what he directly told Tuteur, he may face some interesting questions as well from the court.
I spoke with the lawyer I’ve used with my businesses earlier today about the situation with your website and it being targeted. He informed me that hosting your website is a liability on a few different levels which is a risk to my business. While I support your cause and understand the situation you are in, I will no longer be able to host your website due to the risk and liability it poses to my business.
I do not want to leave you and your website out in the cold because I can understand that fighting against the people who are targeting you is not an easy task. I have done some research for you and found a couple of different businesses that should be able to host your website better in terms of dealing with it being targeted.
The first host I’ve found is called Alibabahost.com. On their website they state “AlibabaHost provides freedom of content and speech. Regarding the DMCA complains, we forward them to you and you decide how to proceed next.”
For what it's worth, Crosley-Corcoran appears to have shown up in our comments on the last post claiming:
I did not "brag" about my DMCA taking down her site. In fact, the court has the evidence (submitted by her side, ironically) showing me saying that I, quote, "wish I could take credit, but this was more than me." I knew then that the host did not take action to remove her site because of my DMCA, and she knew it too.Given the screenshot above, this appears to be wholly untrue. She does appear to have very clearly bragged about the DMCA notice taking down her site. Also, there was a Facebook post from Crosley-Corcoran that talked excitedly about how she was spending the "legal fund" that she had solicited from her readers to help take down the site from Daring Host, and: "if she keeps on doing what she's doing, this will keep happening."
Also, while it's cut off at the end of that screenshot above, that original post from Crosley-Corcoran appears to clearly admit that she's using the DMCA notice not to stop copyright infringement, but to silence protected speech:
She could owe me statutory damages, but because I'm a fair and reasonable human being, my attorney and I felt it was best to discuss a non-monetary settlement with Amy and her lawyer. I'm not looking to be greedy — I simply wanted a resolution. In exchange for me not pursuing the damages, we wanted Amy to agree to stop personally attacking me. It was that simple.Combine all of that, and it seems like a pretty strong argument that Crosley-Corcoran used the DMCA to silence criticism, rather than for stopping copyright infringement, and that she knew and celebrated that fact publicly, contrary to what she stated in her filing and in our comments.
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: 512f, amy tuteur, blog fight, copyright, dmca, gina crosley-corcoran
Companies: bluehost, daring host
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not me. Your buddies from the MPAA seemed to think it was a big deal. Seems like maybe the legal issues are important, and you don't want that to happen, so you start throwing insults.
Very adult like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not me. Your buddies from the MPAA seemed to think it was a big deal. Seems like maybe the legal issues are important, and you don't want that to happen, so you start throwing insults.
Seems like your pirate apologist buddies at EFF jumped into the fray even before the MPAA. I don't see case this moving the dial the way you piracy apologists hope it goes.
Very adult like.
Damn man, are you getting soft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...and with that phrase, you demonstrate that you're a liar who is not worth listening to. Thanks for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm... that Karl's a drooling moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The EFF are not, and have never been, piracy apologists, much less "rabid" piracy apologists.
It's exactly like calling the ACLU "Nazi apologists" because they fought for the right to free speech in Skokie, or calling them "Communist apologists" because they fought the Palmer raids.
Anyone who says something this ridiculous shows that they have a radical agenda against free speech and public rights. So, again, thanks for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm still waiting for your blog, boy, where you'll astound us all with your insight on these matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why am I not surprised?
This is the same thing that you found with Shepherd Fairey and Jamey Thomas. Some people just aren't that trustworthy and you want to base some great philosophical crusade on them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why am I not surprised?
You cannot address the actual topic. Always trying to change the focus or create a distraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why am I not surprised?
The principle is that derivative artists have rights to their fruits of labour.
Telling different versions of Star Wars, or The Lord of the Rings, or The Lion King IS "doing your own work". And copyright deprives artists of the right to do that.
What do you think websites like deviantArt and fanfiction.net have been doing for so long? Unless you want to really be consistent and say that these websites should be shut down, you're going to have to step back and see how copyright is AGAINST the principles of John Locke, not for them.
Crowdfunding, whether its through the many tried and tested examples of collecting tickets for gigs, or through Kickstarter, or pre-ordered copies of DVDs, is superior to copyright in every way because both original and derivative artists have their fruits of labour protected. It makes copyright discreditable from every angle.
You are not entitled to say how you are best defending the "rights of artists". So many markets have been wiped out as a result of the communist-tendencies of copyright and the life, liberty and property has been sucked out of derivative artists for too long. Crowdfunding gives us no excuse for it.
There. And I didn't have to mention how you've exculpated the accountability of corporations for what they do through using pirates as scapegoats. "Since the pirates are running riot, why should be do anything about privacy invasions?" I think there are even many principled copyright maximalists who could call you out for this nonsense. It is a matter of principle. The Patriot Act is to be opposed unequivocally, and I say this as somebody who supports the fight against Islamic fascism. It's the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why am I not surprised?
Next time, try reading. I know, I know, that involves actually understanding the issues at play -- and that's not the sort of thing you do -- but it might help you not sound so completely confused all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why am I not surprised?
Have you considered that the "original email" could be not exactly original? The claim here is that the hosting company, which has no reason to do so, has lied in court against it's own customer... how weird is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why am I not surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why am I not surprised?
YU so stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why am I not surprised?
Still mad that John Steele got what he deserved, I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why am I not surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why am I not surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why am I not surprised?
Is that you name or what you do?
Oh and look. I'm just as on topic as you are! Yay me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why am I not surprised?
I look to my left, I see a whole pile of PS3 discs and DS cartridges on my bedside cabinet. I look on my desktop, I see an icon for Steam and Origin, both with a large library of games. (We're talking hundreds of euro's worth).
I also infringe.
That's the problem you and your ilk have. You want to attack the pirates, but you ALWAYS, always always always, forget that the biggest pirates are also the biggest customers. You simply cannot separate pirates from customers. We're both. I'm both. Attack me for infringing, and I will stop paying altogether (mainly because you, in your infinite wisdom, would think that taking away my internet connection somehow helps your profit margin)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh and Gina, because its clear you can't let any mention of your name go past without injecting your woe is me tale, it is awfully hard to rewrite history on the internet. It never forgets.
Oh and again this story isn't so much about you as it is about a process ripe for abuse and a court ruling about that issue. Your fall is just icing on the cake you whackjob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did the DMCA notice explicitly claim the entire blog was infringing? If not, then how did an entire site get taken down?
Not to side with anyone in this ridiculous situation, but the bragging to me seems to come off as "I sent them a DMCA to remove a picture and instead took down the whole blog! LOL!"
Did I misread?
Wait. Why am I even concerned over this. DMCA abuse is so rampant, I doubt it's even used for legitimate claims. :S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passerby - NOT a silly fight.
This fight is about Dr. Amy's efforts to combat misinformation from the "natural birth" community, which is repeated as gospel around the web, and has contributed to the preventable deaths of mothers and babies. There are lives at stake here. After witnessing 20 births, Gina confessed that perhaps she wasn't the expert on birth that she thought she was, and Dr. Amy pounced on this admission. Gina's childish reaction shows how important her credibility with the "natural birth" crowd is to her. It's much more important to her than the evidence.
This is much more than a catfight, and if you had a wife/daughter led astray by the influential Ginas of this world, as many of the skeptical ob's followers were at one time, you would understand why it's so important that Dr. Amy not be silenced because Gina can't refute Dr. Amy's rock-solid analysis of the evidence. This fight is the furthest thing from silly. Please read the hurtbyhomebirth blog if you have any more doubts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Passerby - NOT a silly fight.
Due to regulatory capture causing copyright, as well as patent law, to go far beyond anything reasonable, copyright and the DMCA are frequent topics here. The reason for this article is specifically the abuse of the takedown provisions of the DMCA, rather than the fight itself. This is a clear and obvious attempt to silence free speech using the DMCA is the method, despite defenders of the takedown provisions claiming that nothing about copyright can or will harm free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Passerby - NOT a silly fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Passerby - NOT a silly fight.
Sorry I don't see this as a censorship case. More like a contractual dispute between the owner of the website and the web hosting company. Nothing on the DMCA required the web host to take down the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Passerby - NOT a silly fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Passerby - NOT a silly fight.
One need not have any stake in the underlying argument to understand it's important not to allow copyright to be abused to silence speech. Even if Gina is right and Dr. Amy is wrong, the DMCA abuse still needs to be stopped - the argument has nothing to do with that issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The court ruling has a chance to change the landscape in a dramatic way, that benefits many more than these 2 bloggers in their fight. I see much of the escalation as being driven by 1 parties need to be the correct martyr that the bad people want to silence. Sadly that seems to be the typical reaction nowdays when someone disagrees with someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]