Wordpress Wins Case Against DMCA Abuser... Who Ignored The Proceedings

from the it's-a-start dept

Fri, Mar 6th 2015 4:06am — Mike Masnick

Back in the summer of 2013, we wrote about yet another case of someone abusing the DMCA to censor content, rather than for any legitimate copyright purpose. The story was quite ridiculous, involving a group in the UK, called "Straight Pride UK." The group did an interview with a student named Oliver Hotham, who had emailed the group, noting he was a journalist with a list of questions. The guy behind "Straight Pride UK," Nick Steiner, responded to the questions with a document, which the group labeled as a "press release." Hotham posted his article, which, quite reasonably, made Straight Pride UK look ridiculous. In response, the group issued a DMCA takedown notice to Automattic, the company behind Wordpress.com, and the host of the article.

A couple months later, the legal team at Automattic decided it had had enough of these kinds of bogus takedowns and filed two lawsuits concerning bogus takedowns, including Nick Steiner's. As we've noted for years, the DMCA does have section 512(f) which allows for some punishment for bogus DMCA takedowns, but in practice, 512(f) has been almost entirely neutered by the courts. Yet here were cases of clear abuse.

So it's good to see that the court in the Hotham/Automattic/Steiner case has now ruled for Wordpress and awarded $25,084.00. Unfortunately, Steiner has more or less ignored the entire case, so it is really a default judgment. And, assuming Steiner never comes to the US, it may not ever truly impact him, and it's doubtful that he'll pay up. Still, at the very least, it's nice to see some sort of victory against bogus DMCA takedowns, given that it is so rare.

Wp Steiner (PDF)Wp Steiner (Text)

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: 512(f), 512f, censorship, copyright, dmca, nick steiner, oliver hotham, wordpress
Companies: automattic, wordpress

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

dimko, 6 Mar 2015 @ 4:24am

precedent decision?
I wonder, how precedent dicision works in this kind of situations in USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alternatives(), 6 Mar 2015 @ 5:23am
  
  Re: precedent decision?
  Until it goes to an appeal - not much.
  
  Then only provides 'guidance' for Judges not under the Court where the appellate decision was made.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 4:31am

"Hotham posted his article, which, quite reasonably, made Straight Pride UK look ridiculous."

If the name of the group accurately reflects the attitude and logic I think it does, they're most likely doing that themselves without any help.

"Still, at the very least, it's nice to see some sort of victory against bogus DMCA takedowns, given that it is so rare."

But, an empty victory, really. It's now been demonstrated that a foreign actor can negatively affect a US business with false or misleading claims. But, even if found guilty of abuse under the laws and penalties provided, said actor can not only ignore proceedings but never receive his punishment so long as he stays out of the jurisdiction involved. The same jurisdiction, by the way, that has no problem with them using local mechanisms for filing the false claim in the first place.

A proper victory would be for a similar judgement - per instance - against the companies who carpet bomb the internet with false DMCA notices. This case just seems to show how weak and open to abuse the whole thing is even if victims opt to fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 5:32am
  
  Re:
  But, an empty victory, really.
  
  The only way to win these disputes seems to be a default judgment so yeah, there is no protection against bogus takedowns despite what the usual shills say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dirkmaster (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 6:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    How about this? You take away their ability to file until they pay?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 6 Mar 2015 @ 7:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or get the DOJ to sic the FBI on them like they did with Dotcom. Wait...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 6:04am

Question
If this guy/organization is a foreign actor, thus not held accountable for the false takedowns, why can he sumbit takedowns in the first place? Do DMCA's from non-US entities have to be honored? Or can they be summarily ignored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 6:24am
  
  Re: Question
  Do DMCA's from non-US entities have to be honored?
  
  Well that depends on whether US you think think the US rules the world
  /S
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 6:46am

Cake, Eating, and Cognitive Dissonance
1) Since he is a foreigner and won't come to the US, he'll never have to pay.

2) Since he is a foreigner he is obviously a fugitive from Justice and must have a foreign government seize all his assets.

Sounds like somebody thinks the US rules the world...under certain conditions, of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 6 Mar 2015 @ 7:25am
  
  Re: Cake, Eating, and Cognitive Dissonance
  Shall I butter the popcorn in anticipation of his likely extradition battle or sigh with regret because pigs are more likely to sprout wings and fly than perjurers are to face justice?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re: Cake, Eating, and Cognitive Dissonance
    Well, pigs must sprout wings every time a lie costs a company money if this truly is the case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: Cake, Eating, and Cognitive Dissonance
  > ... seize all his assets.
  
  Actually, if there was ever a case for "Extraordinary Rendition" this is it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:22am

I wouldn't count this as a 512(f) victory either. The judge basically said "You've obviously tried to find this guy to serve him, but he isn't coming forward, so here's a judgment for the money you spent."

It doesn't address the bogus DMCA notice at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 3:27pm

It's meaningless as a precedent, but the ruling does have value.

It can establish a demostrated pattern and likelihood of abuse -- foreign entities filing DMCA requests, implicitly submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, but refusing to accept the responsibility associated with using the court's power.

With a few examples, Wordpress can start to require a confirmation of requests -- making the sender explicitly acknowledge that their request puts them under the jurisdiction of the district court. That doesn't conform with the law as written, but the district court is unlikely to consider it problematic given the proven history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2015 @ 10:08pm

Seems utterly pointless to me. Why file against someone who isn't in the jurisdiction of the court you file in?

The result is good, but meaningless in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Mar 2015 @ 4:43am
  
  Re:
  "Why file against someone who isn't in the jurisdiction of the court you file in?"
  
  Well, what other recourse do they have? What they did isn't illegal under UK law, since despite the MPAA's claims to the contrary, the DMCA (and thus its penalties for false claims) don't apply there. The defendant is now also in trouble if he ever does decide to visit the US.
  
  "The result is good, but meaningless in the real world."
  
  It's less meaningful than a judgement that wasn't caused by a default. But, it's a good example to point to to show how badly the DMCA can be abused and how little realistic comeback innocent parties have when attacked.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]