Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (12119)	1/17/2016 11:08:59 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

So does that mean SI is forced under the DMCA to delete everything on SI? Of course not. But apparently attorney Michael Davis Kessler, or at least the person using that name, thinks that's not just sound logic, but the law. I beg to differ. And I contend he's breaking the law. attorney Michael Davis Kessler goo.gl Michael Davis Kessler Transparency Report Law Offices of Michael Davis Kessler – Copyright Removal ... youshengbs.com Jan 9, 2016 - Total Requests: 1. Median Requests per Week: 1. URLs Requested to be Removed: 1. % Indexed URLs, –. Median URLs per Week: 1. youshengbs.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (12119)	1/18/2016 11:15:03 AM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Lumen was formerly known a Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. Google doesn't issue takedown notices on behalf of third parties. A valid takedown notice under the DMCA requires a sworn under penalty of perjury statement that the submitter is either the rights owner themselves or their duly appointed agent. Nobody else has standing to submit a claim; anyone else doing so would be doing so fraudulently and in violation of federal law. Notwithstanding the above, it is not uncommon for fraudulent takedown notices to be sent to UGC websites, ostensibly signed by an attorney representing the allegedly infringed party, and often sent from overseas (i.e., India,Turkey, etc.) There are shops there that do this on behalf of someone that doesn't like what was published about them and/or reputation management forms. Websites are under no obligation to comply with DMCA takedowns. Failure to do so merely voids the safe harbor they are entitled to under the DMCA Notice and Takedown rules. In your example, it would appear that AP and the re-publisher website from which it was copied are the only parties with standing to file a takedown. Is there a copy of the actual takedown notice to SI to be seen? As an example, we recently received the following (non-DMCA complaint) takedown: Minutes later, this arrives: A quick review showed that, despite a 2007 datestamp at the top of the blog, it was plainly evident that the blog post was copied en masse from the iHub board, not the other way around. The blog post had links to iHub posts that occurred long after 2007, and most of the images hotlinked in the blog resolved to iHub's user image repository. It was the blog that infringed on iHub's copyright, not the other way around. After several back-and-forths with the sender describing the reality of the matter, to their credit they took down the blog post. It is quite possible, in fact, quite likely that the blog post was created and backdated merely to provide a pretext for alleging a copyright claim. Complainants will use whatever means possible to get content removed, and it's up to the recipient website to vet the validity of these attempts.