Copyright As Censorship: San Francisco Eviction Lawyer Uses DMCA Takedown To Censor Protest Video
from the because-that's-what-copyright-does dept
Right now the issue of housing in San Francisco is a big local topic -- and while I tend to agree that the real issue is the regulations limiting the building of new housing in and around the city, the fight has gotten quite nasty at times. It often seems to focus on two issues (neither of which are the true cause of the problem): local evictions for longtime tenants, and tech workers. You can certainly understand the frustration, even if it's mostly misguided. Still, even given that, this seems like a clear abuse of copyright law by some of the lawyers who have been helping train people to conduct those evictions: using a bogus DMCA takedown to hide a video of a protest of one of their training sessions.Jackson West attended one of the sessions and video taped people protesting it at a seminar given by lawfirm Bornstein & Bornstein. You can see the video below via Vimeo:
In West's account (which is, obviously, just his side of the story), Bornstein doesn't seem to understand copyright laws:
...he began asking to meet in person in order to be “presented as human, multi-dimensional.” I pointed out that issuing a takedown notice without contacting me first didn’t really offer me that same benefit of the doubt. I asked if he’d actually watched the video, which he didn’t confirm but instead indicated that he’d objected to the characterization of the incident in the description, complained about other videos of the event (which can’t be found on YouTube, suggesting he may have issued additional claims) and asked to be sent a copy.Just because you object to the "characterization" of the event, it doesn't magically give you the right to abuse copyright law.
Bornstein promised that if I agreed to meet he would consider dropping the matter, but when I made it clear that I reserved the right to publish a story before the meeting, he replied he’d then have to contact copyright counsel. While not directly stated, the implication was clear that if I agreed to hold the story until after meeting with him, he’d agree to drop the claim.Later in the story, there's an "update" when West goes to meet with Bornstein. After a dispute about whether things are on or off the record, Bornstein trots out another non-copyright, but still bogus, reason for issuing the copyright takedown, claiming West is not "a legitimate reporter."
When I pointed out that a story was already online, along with the video, he rescinded the offer. However, seemingly confused over the difference between copyrights and privacy rights, he seemed intent on arguing that I wasn’t acting as a legitimate reporter for having attended the event and filmed the protest without notifying the firm first.That doesn't really have anything to do with privacy rights either -- and even if it did, it still doesn't give Bornstein (a lawyer, remember) the right to abuse copyright law to takedown the video.
Yet again, we see copyright being abused for the purpose of censorsing content someone doesn't like.
Update: As noted in the comments, YouTube has put the video back up...
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: censorship, copyright, daniel bornstein, dmca, evictions, housing, jackson west, san francisco
Companies: bornstein & bornstein, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And no real punishments being delivered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know, I have a feeling this may hurt his law practice a bit considering he has come across as a total idiot with little grasp of the law.
He should eat a bowl of dicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1. Get out a bowl
2. Fill aforementioned bowl with dicks
3. Get a fork
4. Dig in!
At least now nobody can patent the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone comes up with a truly unique way to fill a bowl of dicks then yep... they can patent it!
but this is a copyright discussion right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. Add choice of liquid, solid or gelatin flavor-enhancement ingredients, or just leave bare.
3. Retrieve dicks from circular bowl-shaped dick containment apparatus with choice of dick retrieval and oral insertion utensils.
4. Insert retrieved dicks into oral entry port and begin ingestion process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They say you are what you eat, surely some BMW driving lawyer somewhere has already patented his morning breakfast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course if you don't hold the copyright, there is nothing to stop anyone from making that claim to some website, and short of the Streisand Effect, no consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but he's not suing for damages, just issuing a takedown notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy cow! All those years of 20/20 investigations done without first notifying the people they were investigating THEY WEREN'T ACTING AS LEGITIMATE REPORTERS!
Thank goodness this has been brought to our attention. From now on, we can make sure to get the STRAIGHT story from media outlets that call people to let them know before showing up to film their nefarious behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freedom of the press is about the freedom of dissemination of information to the public and is an individual right that all citizens have not just some elite class of "legitimate" reporters. In short - all citizens who choose to publish information are by definition "legitimate reporters".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The YouTube video’s back up. Something tells me this piss-poor law firm got schooled on copyright law within the past few days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment
That said, SLAPP might still apply. I might also look at laws involving fraud: Bornstein used false information to take down the video. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to get anywhere because West would have to show actual harm - he can't exactly sue for damages if he hasn't lost any money.
Honestly, his best bet is to trick Bornstein into uploading his video somewhere, and then sue him for copyright infringement. You don't need to suffer any damage for that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet another reason why the DMCA needs to be repealed in its entirety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Safe Harbor
Google has to respect takedown notices to fulfull safe harbor provisions. Once it's determined that the notice is not valid, it can go back up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's Safe Harbor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA modification
People should simply issue DMCA pull down requests to congressmen web sites.
The proposal to change the law will be immediate and will have a bi-partisan support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The advice being given by a lawyer, who plainly does not understand copyright law, makes the advice given to landlords suspect. Maybe these landlords are not getting the legal advice they are paying for quite right.
Then again, I knew nothing of this new 'service to landlords' until it showed up on Techdirt. Looks like the Streisand effect is in full bloom.
Nor does the copyright right abuse work so well against censoring what isn't known as it is now all over the internet due to this Daniel Bornstein's attempts, which has made it national famous in the process. I wonder if Mr. Bornstein has reloaded his gun. He still has another foot I assume if he hasn't made this sort of mistake before.
We again see the real need to put teeth into the DMCA law for falsifying claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA abuse needs to be criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But a national law is for everyone to use, not just the RIAA. It is the continued actions from outside players that will eventually result in said penalties. Someone such as Mr. Bornstein will provide the spark to initiate the changes through such an abuse that it can no longer be ignored with the public up in arms about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing will happen as that would set a precedent to act against those government agencies doing the same things. What do they care how the serfs suffer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*DMCA - Damage Mitigation Censorship Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA Takedown Notice
Surely a firm of lawyers that recklessly asserts ownership of a video when they have no such right, and should obviously know the copyright act and the first amendment - well, isn't that something that every Techdirt reader should be bringing to the attention of the state bar association for penalties? Maybe the government isn't going to enforce the "under penalty of perjury" clause, but certainly the California Bar should be concerned about a law firm with reckless disregard for the legalities of displaying either outright falsehood or a criminal level of incompetence about their profession on a sworn declaration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we get perjury for this one?
From arstechnia: “When it came back up [Bornstein] had posted a comment to the video asking me to take it down three months ago, which was news to me because who invites YouTube comments into their life?” West quipped.
So at this point, it would seem Bornstein knew (or should have known) he was not the copyright holder. Yet he claimed via DCMA to be copyright owner. He claims that West was not permitted to post the video, presumably under some perceived contract as being an attendee. But this is not the same as owning the copyright.
Could this be a test case, and maybe get the DCMA to work for the other side for once?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
test case
It's a much better case than trying to rail against the music industry because you got caught using Justin Beiber in your latest home workout youtube masterpiece!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: test case
Why do you bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: test case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: test case
Whatever argues against everyone who makes a salient point, in order to incur as much abuse form the crowd as possible.
Luckily, most of us are digital sadists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]