Web Sheriff Accuses Us Of Breaking Basically Every Possible Law For Pointing Out That It's Abusing DMCA Takedowns

from the but-i-didn't-shoot-the-deputy dept

Remember Web Sheriff? That's the wacky firm that claims it will send DMCA takedowns on your behalf or protect your online reputation by taking down stuff you don't like. The company is somewhat infamous for being a joke and not doing its job particularly well. A couple of weeks ago we wrote about the company abusing the DMCA to try to get Google to delist stories relating to that "celebrity threesome" media injunction in the UK that has been making news for a few months. We highlighted just how ridiculous this was on many accounts, including using a copyright takedown notice on an issue that wasn't about copyright at all. And they even tried to take down the company's own Zendesk request to remove content from Reddit.

Well, suffice it to say that Web Sheriff was none too pleased with our article. Just a day after it went up, we received an email from "JP" at Web Sheriff (though it was "signed" by "John E. Henehan") telling us that we had basically violated all the laws with that post (shouting caps in the original):

UK CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT (CONTEMPT OF COURT NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 §1 (INVASION OF PRIVACY NOTICE)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ARTICLE 8 (INVASION OF PRIVACY NOTICE)
FEDERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATIONS (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
EU DATA PROTECTION DIRECTIVE (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
UK DATA PROTECTION ACT (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §646.9 & §653.2 (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1708.7 (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK COMMUNICATIONS ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK PREVENTION OF HARASSMENT ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK COMPUTER MISUSE ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE)
EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION E-COMMERCE REGULATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE)
EUROPEAN UNION E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE (CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME (PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING NOTICE)

– and –

NOTICE OF BREACH OF ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE
NOTICE OF BREACH OF WEB-SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE

Yeah, so, none of that is true. The email pretends to be a DMCA notice (among other things), but is not a valid notice in that it fails to actually name what copyright was infringed upon. Here's what it says is the "infringing materials" where you'll note despite quite a lot of SHOUTING TEXT, no actual materials are named.

5. Infringing / Violating Materials : A. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION & ALLIED REPORTING RESTRICTIONS UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE, LONDON, ENGLAND (AND THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH CONTRAVENES & VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE SAID INJUNCTION & REPORTING RESTRICTIONS), B. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES, C. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE HUMAN RIGHTS / RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, D. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY OF THE PERTINENT SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, E. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, F. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, G. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES, H. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING LEGISLATION & TREATIES, I. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION & TREATIES, J. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED & PIRATED COPYRIGHT CONTENT / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE COMPLAINANT'S COPYRIGHT, K. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH BREACHES THE ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY, L. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH BREACHES THE INFRINGING / VIOLATING WEB SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (AS APPLICABLE – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW).

The email then goes on to try to explain how we broke all these laws and basically refuses to provide any details at all. I won't go through them all (you can see the full email published below), but just for fun, here's how we've been violating human rights:

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND TREATIES THROUGH FAILURE TO ABIDE BY RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY PURSUANT TO, INTER ALIA, ARTICLE 8 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & ARTICLE 1 §1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND WAY OF THE ILLEGAL PUBLICATION, DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF PRIVATE INFORMATION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF A COURT INJUNCTION AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SUBJECTS OF SUCH INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF AND LEGAL ENTITLEMENT TO PRIVACY)

Or, my personal favorite -- money laundering:

PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING VIOLATIONS (VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH THE HANDLING AND / OR LAUNDERING OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY)

Yes, that's right. Pointing out (accurately!) that Web Sheriff is trying to abuse the DMCA to take down material that is not subject to a copyright claim is -- in the demented views of Web Sheriff -- "money laundering."

There's also "harassment, malicious communications and cyber-stalking" where they can't even bother to name a statute:

HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH THE POSTING OF MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHERWISE THROUGH THE PUBLICATION OF MATERIALS WITH THE INTENTION TO WILFULLY & MALICIOUSLY HARASS)

For added fun, twice in the email, the company notes that the email itself is covered by copyright, and then includes this bit of pure bullshit at the end:

This communication may not be disclosed or otherwise communicated to anyone other than the addressee(s), nor may it be copied or reproduced in any way without the written authorization of Web Sheriff®.

Yeah, that's not how this works, though I wouldn't be surprised to see them send another email claiming otherwise.

For what it's worth, the very next day, we received another email from Web Sheriff that was basically identical, but demanding that we remove six comments on our earlier story about the UK injunction.

I do wonder if this kind of bullshit works for other people, in intimidating them to remove stuff from the internet because of the spaghetti/wall aspect of it all. But, rest assured, we're not concerned because Web Sheriff is full of shit here. We violated none of those laws, and the fact that the company is so focused on trying to censor an article that highlights its own bogus conduct should tell you a lot about what a complete joke this company is.

Filed Under: celebrity threesome, censorship, copyright, dmca, injunction, uk
Companies: techdirt, web sheriff

Web Sheriff Abuses DMCA In Weak Attempt To Hide Info Under UK High Court Injunction, Fails Miserably

from the hopefully-clients-are-only-paying-for-successful-takedown-requests dept

Last week, Twitter engaged in some dubious behavior on behalf of a few super-secret someones who'd rather the press didn't discuss their sexual activity. Twitter was apparently firing off "letters of warning" to users who had dared break an injunction issued by the UK Supreme Court forbidding anyone in the media from discussing a threesome involving a prominent British celebrity.

There was very little legal force behind the "warning letters" (despite threats from local authorities) and Twitter users were under no obligation to comply with the company's request. The fact that Twitter even bothered to issue these highlights the utter futility of injunctions/super-injunctions of this variety, which are really just a way for British citizens of a certain level of importance to control local media. It doesn't really matter if the UK's highest court upholds a super-injunction if it has no way of enforcing it beyond its super-limited purview.

That doesn't mean the lawyers who have obtained these injunctions on behalf of their clients aren't trying. While doing a bit of research for an unrelated story, I stumbled across Web Sheriff's utter failure to talk Google into delisting URLs by waving this injunction around in a threatening manner.

The copyright owner is (apparently): APPELLANT (COMPLAINANT’S IDENTITY PROTECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL RULING / ORDER)

Whatever these clients are paying Web Sheriff, it's far too much. Web Sheriff has issued 12 requests targeting 447 URLs. And so far, all 447 URLs are still live.

Contained in these takedown notices is an awe-inspiring wall of text -- something that might impress the average DMCA notice recipient. But Google? Not so much. Here's just a very small portion of it:

Then, of course, there are the URLs targeted for delisting, which -- thanks to Web Sheriff's failed injunction-quoting requests -- are all basically injunction spoilers.

Included in the failed notices are some seriously dubious requests, like Web Sheriff demanding an entire post at the Onion's AV Club be taken down because of a single comment and what appears to be Web Sheriff's own attempted Zendesk request for removal of content from Reddit.

Thanks to Web Sheriff's efforts to force the rest of the world to comply with UK law and its ridiculously unenforceable injunctions, more people are now aware of who's being "protected" by the ruling and where to find more details.

Filed Under: celebrity threesome, copyright, dmca, free speech, injunction, super injunction, uk
Companies: google, web sheriff

Why Is Twitter Sending Legal Letters Warning People About Tweeting About The Gagged Topic Of A 'Celebrity Threesome'

from the don't-let-the-sun-on-sunday-reveal-me... dept

For years we've written about the troubling practice in the UK of so-called super injunctions, which bar the press from discussing certain topics. It seems that these super injunctions are most frequently used to stop any discussion in the media of embarrassing situations involving the rich and famous. Of course, social media -- and Twitter in particular -- have become a real challenge to making those super injunctions have any meaning at all.

Apparently, one such super injunction was recently granted to a "celebrity couple" who added a third person to add a "trois" to the "menage." The threesome doesn't want their extracurricular activities to be discussed publicly, and the courts have obliged, with the UK Supreme Court upholding the super injunction, while the UK's the Sun on Sunday tabloid sought to break the media gag order. I'm not exactly a fan of media reporting on the personal activities of what celebrities do in their bedrooms, but it still seems troubling to have courts completely bar the media from discussing the situation at all (they can discuss that the super injunction exists, but not much beyond that).

But, again, there's social media. So it seemed doubly odd that people who had been tweeting about the "celebrity threesome" started receiving emails from the Twitter legal department alerting them that they may wish to be cautious about tweeting such things.

An email from Twitter’s legal team, seen by the Guardian, does not explicitly ask users to delete the tweets but hints that there could be consequences for not doing so.

The email reads: “The complainant requests that the following tweet, allegedly in violation of local law in the UK, be removed immediately from your account. Please confirm whether you will voluntarily comply with the request.”

It also includes a reminder that Twitter’s rules require that users “comply with all local laws regarding their online conduct and acceptable content”.

From that, it actually appears that lawyers for at least someone involved in the threesome reached out to Twitter to complain about specific tweets and argued that the super injunction applied there as well. Of course, the super injunction applies to media, which raises the question of whether or not random Twitter users qualify as "media." At the very least, the Attorney General for England and Wales is similarly warning that even those tweeting the names may be prosecuted:

The attorney-general has warned Twitter and Facebook users may face prosecution if they name the celebrity at the centre of a privacy injuction banning the reporting of his alleged extramarital activities.

Jeremy Wright QC said in a statement that anyone who breached the order, not just newspapers, could have contempt of court proceedings brought against them.

So, perhaps the email from Twitter was just trying to protect its UK userbase from facing such legal actions.

Still, it appears the lawyers trying to silence these details are going after anything online they dislike. Last month they claimed that a random blogger violated the super injunction as well, and have also sought to use Europe's "right to be forgotten" rules to remove search references as well.

Of course, all this activity seems to only be fueling even more interest on social media in leading people to figure out who the suspected celebrities are. Apparently tabloid publications outside of the UK have freely published the details of the story, so it's not like anyone in the UK has to look very hard to find the details, and that was one of the arguments used against allowing the super injunction to continue -- but apparently the Supreme Court was not convinced. Either way, even if Twitter argues it's doing this to protect its users from possible charges (as ridiculous as those might be), there does seem to be something quite troubling when a company like Twitter is basically telling people to "watch what they say" for fear of potential legal consequences.

Filed Under: celebrity threesome, censorship, media, social media, super injunction
Companies: twitter