Fantastic: Now British Firms Are Getting In On The Bogus Website/Bogus DMCA Notice Scam
from the YET-ANOTHER-ANOMALY dept
Here we go again: intellectual property laws being abused to silence critics. In this case -- which resembles the tactics exposed by Pissed Consumer recently -- bogus copyright claims contained in bogus DMCA notices are being used to remove negative reviews from websites.
In this case, it's a British firm -- one that first tried to abuse that country's oft-abused defamation laws.
[Annabelle] Narey, who is the head of programme at an international children’s charity, had turned to London-based BuildTeam for a side return extension, but almost six months later, the relationship had turned acrimonious. The build, which was only supposed to take 10–14 weeks, was still unfinished, she wrote. “On Christmas day a ceiling fell down in an upstairs bedroom,” she says, apparently due to an issue with the plumbing. “Mercifully no one was hurt. [That] there seem to be so many glowing reports out there it is frankly curious. Proceed at your own risk,” the review concluded.
BuildTeam disputes her account. In a letter sent to Mumsnet, which the site passed on to Narey, the builders complained that the comments were defamatory. They say it is “untrue” that the ceiling fell down due to an issue with plumbing, and cited a total of 11 statements they claimed were defamatory.
Mumsnet refused to remove the post, so BuildTeam decided to start harassing Narey at her home, showing up with printouts of the negative review and asking for it to be taken down. BuildTeam's reps refused to discuss Narey's accusations or verify for themselves the damage allegedly caused by their work. They were only interested in the removal of the review.
More unsatisfied customers joined Narey's thread at Mumsnet. So, BuildTeam decided to nuke the entire thread from orbit by abusing the DMCA process and IP laws meant to protect artistic endeavors, not shoddy construction work.
As soon as the DMCA takedown request had been filed, Google de-listed the entire thread. All 126 posts are now not discoverable when a user searches Google for BuildTeam – or any other terms. The search company told Mumsnet it could make a counterclaim, if it was certain no infringement had taken place, but since the site couldn’t verify that its users weren’t actually posting copyrighted material, it would have opened it up to further legal pressure.
But there was no copyright infringement. The DMCA notice links back to a bogus site created solely for the purpose of posting the review BuildTeam wanted removed, backdating it so it appeared to predate Narey's complaint, and use that post as the basis of a bogus takedown request.
The website crafted for the purpose of crafting bogus takedown requests follows the same M.O. we've seen elsewhere: random bits of content are scraped to create the appearance of a legitimate website. After that, the reviews companies/individuals want to see vanished are mixed in and DMCA notices issued.
Someone calling themselves "Douglas Bush" now claims Narey's negative review of BuildTeam was written by him, according to his overwrought DMCA takedown request.
I'm upset at finding out my article was copied without my permission starting at "Do not be taken in by the slick facade this company presents to the public", word for word, till the very end. My name was also removed from the post, and now it looks like it's not mine. I flagged the post and mentioned that it was stolen, but they did not remove it (about a month passed). At least I want it to be removed from Google. Thank you
As the Guardian's Alex Hern points out, there is no "Douglas Bush."
The post, headlined “Buildteam interior designers” was backdated to September 14 2015, three months before Narey had written it, and was signed by a “Douglas Bush” of South Bend, Indiana. The website was registered to someone quite different, though: Muhammed Ashraf, from Faisalabad, Pakistan.
BuildTeam denies having anything to do with Ashraf, Bush, the bogus website, or its bogus DMCA takedown notice -- a statement that deserves no more credibility than "Douglas Bush" himself. This sort of thing does not happen in a vacuum. It may be that BuildTeam has created plausible deniability by placing a series of intermediaries between it and this bogus DMCA takedown, but it's no coincidence that a review it wanted removed badly enough it sent reps to Narey's house has now been destroyed by a scraper site doing double duty as a half-assed reputation management service.
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: abuse, censorship, dmca, reviews, uk
Companies: buildteam, mumsnet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Streisanded
Got that? BuildTeam.
Once more for good measure, BuildTeam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisanded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streisanded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisanded
Welcome to Club Streisand.
Much like Hotel California, you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.
- The Internet
[Not often enough does an Eagles fair use get deployed...asshats.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about con-artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like that. Call them a HARM service; it's quite fitting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:Anonymous Howard II
Was it http://buildteam.com/ you say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re:Anonymous Howard II
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we can help out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolling mumsnet?
-10 for using this scammy method to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright = Censorship
Digital Millennium Censorship Act
But to engage in far greater censorship you would need SOPA. Or you would need to pretend like it became law when it actually did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I find funny...
Bing and Yahoo are just internet wannabes. Not the real internet like Google.
It is amazing how long TCP/IP existed before Google came along and invented the internet. But all those years were just build up of infrastructure so that Google could build the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I find funny...
It's just gobsmacking how many otherwise intelligent people believe Google is inside their computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I find funny...
1. God would not allow it
2. Cameras cannot do that
3. There are no such things as souls.
(if you are working in Finance this is true no matter what)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know some old saying about how the goose and gander have compatible ports, or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what did they accomplish?
They've effectively doubled the instances of the complaints on the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what did they accomplish?
The purpose was censorship. Mission accomplished. Everyone happy.
Copyright did what it is intended to do (these days).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what did they accomplish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BuildTeam / Bust team
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Working as intended'
Oh right, there is no penalty because that's not how it was written, it's meant to be so completely one sided that there's only incentive to remove, never incentive to keep something up, and making a takedown claim carries no risk while contesting it very much does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't add up, does it?
Honeypot, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'm less offended that you lied as I am that you think I'm stupid enough to believe you."
Yes, of course, clearly some random guy in Pakistan just one day decided to fraudulently copy a comment that BuildTeam had been harassing the poster to take down for the sole purpose of fraudulently claiming that he had written it and demanding it's removal. Makes perfect sense.
They may have plausible deniability in that it's likely impossible to prove a connection between them and the fraud, but they most certainly don't have believable deniability, as to imagine that the events that occurred were just 'coincidental' in achieving exactly what they wanted but had been unable to gain beforehand stretches probability well beyond the breaking point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chicken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chicken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chicken
"BuildTeam decided to start harassing Narey at her home, showing up with printouts of the negative review and asking for it to be taken down"
You're honestly saying that the person who was being personally harassed (after putting up a fight, btw) is the problem and not the people who decided to do such over a bad review?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chicken
"You have until I make it to the control box for the sprinkler system before you get soaked. There will be no warning if you do this again."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]