Messages

1876

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: DMCA complaint regarding Julie Stewart thread of discussion

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:51:00 PM »

I have provided eApps, my hosting provider, a very special counter-notification letter that goes beyond the typical form letter. I have upload my letter to Scribd in all its formatted beauty.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72964099/DMCA-Counter-Notification-Letter-to-eApps-Julie-Stewart

This DMCA counter-notification letter was sent to eApps in response to Julie Stewart's DMCA complaint about the email she wrote to Matthew Chan & Oscar Michelen which they openly shared and posted for others to read.

This DMCA is not just a cookie-cutter letter. It is a letter that goes way beyond standard letters in explaining why the counter-notification letter was sent with a stiff warning of liability exposure for intentionally and knowingly filing false DMCA complaints.

She has continued to try to suppress business communications she herself has been sending out and abusing the DMCA complaint process.

I have also pasted the main text below.

================

November 16, 2011

Legal Department
eApps Hosting
7742 Spalding Drive, Suite 363
Norcross, Georgia, USA 30092
FAX: (404) 601‐7454

Dear Eapps Legal Dept:

This letter is written in response to your notification to me of a DMCA complaint [LEGAL
#CGE-424-69119] received about a web page(s) on my website. The page in question is:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html

My response to this complaint is as follows:

Allegations of Copyright Violation / Digital Millennium Copyright Act

The claims of copyright violation should be rejected because:

> The original complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other
tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith
belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present
unsupported.

Because of the nature of the material being reported, I have strong belief that the
original complainant (who is a copyright lawyer herself) did not simply make an honest
error but has knowingly and willfully filed a false DMCA complaint. She has now
exposed herself to potential liability as described in 17 USC 512(f).

Let me be very clear. It was an email sent directly to me and my lawyer associate, Oscar
Michelen. Every email user in the world much less a copyright lawyer knows that
business communications for the intended recipient ARE NOT PROTECTED! If you
send email to someone, you take the risk of the receiver openly sharing it! Almost every
email user in the world knows this! Quite frankly, I find it outrageous that I have to
even write this letter given the material being complained about!

This communication to you is a DMCA counter-notification letter as defined in
17 USC 512(g)(3):

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright
violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or
deliberate misreading of the law.

Further, according to 17 USC 512(f), any person who knowingly misrepresents that
material is infringing shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees
incurred by me and other related parties as a result of removing or disabling access to
hosting services or other materials claimed to be infringing or in replacing the removed
material.

My name, address, and telephone number are as follows:

Matthew Chan
1639 Bradley Park Dr.
Suite 500, PMB 110
Columbus, GA 31904
(762) 359-0425

I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which I
reside. I agree to accept service of process from the original complainant.

Having received this counter notification, you are now obligated under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to
advise the original complainant of this notice, and to allow us to restore the material in dispute
(and not take the material down).

Please notify me in writing when you receive this counter-notification letter. Please don’t
hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Matthew Chan
President

1877

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network Settlement Demand Letter Collection

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:10:05 PM »

Fortunately, we have you that knows the Canadian environment well.  Keep educating. We are all ears.

"Upper Canada" is in fact Southern Ontario.
Strangely, "Lower Canada" refers to a northern part (Newfoundland, Labrador and a section of Quebec).
These terms go back to the time of the British Colonies.

But, I don't expect anyone south of the Mason-Dixon line to know all this.  lol.

S.G.

1878

Getty Images Letter Forum / Information About Filing a Formal Complaint Against a Canadian Lawyer

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:03:19 PM »

Because this information is so valuable to keep Canadian Lawyers in check, I have started a new thread and reposted this information first shared by BuddhaPi.

==========================

Law Society’s Professional Conduct Department
Mail: 845 Cambie Street, Vancouver BC V6B 4Z9
Fax: 604.605.5399

The Law Society is the organization that licenses all BC lawyers. It protects the public by setting professional standards of conduct and competence for lawyers; it monitors, evaluates, and disciplines them.

The Professional Conduct Department has commercial crime investigators, forensic auditors, and lawyers. The Department reviews all complaints against lawyers, as follows:

First, the Department decides if they have the authority to investigate your complaint. If not, they close the file. If they have the authority to investigate, they look into your complaint in detail and contact the lawyer for a response – so the lawyer will learn of your complaint. Then, they do one of the following things:

Take no further action if the complaint cannot be proved or does not show conduct serious enough to justify further action.
 
Send the complaint to the Practice Standards Committee if competency is the issue. That committee decides if the lawyer needs to upgrade skills, change their practice, or obtain other guidance.
 
Send the complaint to the Discipline Committee if there are ethical concerns or breaches of Law Society rules. That committee decides if there should be a review of, or a formal disciplinary hearing into, the lawyer's conduct.
Law Society discipline hearings are like court hearings – Law Society staff present the case against the lawyer and the lawyer gives his or her side of the case. A hearing can lead to:

A reprimand (a warning) of the lawyer.
A fine up to $20,000.
Conditions controlling how the lawyer works.
Suspension of the lawyer from working as a lawyer or from working in one or more areas of law (with or without conditions) for a certain time.
Disbarment of the lawyer (meaning the lawyer cannot work as a lawyer).
For more information on the complaint process, phone the Law Society at 604.66

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/lawyers/436.aspx

===============

I credit SoylentGreen for the links below. Thanks, SG.

===============

I think that you'd be interested in the "Law Society of Upper Canada":

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/

Complaints:

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=644

1879

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network Settlement Demand Letter Collection

« on: November 16, 2011, 06:40:12 PM »

SG,

I am quite convinced they know that what we have posted is not copyrighted material.  These are supposedly copyright lawyers and so they will be held to a higher standard and should what is copyrightable and what is not. Oscar and I have explained to them that their business communications they send out is not protected under U.S. copyright law and they know it. 

What they have just done (especially Julie Stewart in trying to suppress an email she sent directly to us) is created liability exposure for themselves as described in 17 USC 512(f) for knowingly filing a false claims in a DMCA takedown notice. I have no problems in saying that IF they decide to open that Pandora's box and a lawsuit lands on my doorstep, you can believe there will be boomerang consequences.

This excerpt from http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content says it all.

For instance, in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004), two students and their ISP sued voting machine manufacturer Diebold after it tried to use DMCA takedown notices to disable access to Internet postings of the company's leaked internal email archive. The court granted summary judgment to the students and ISP on their claim, finding that portions of the email archive were so clearly subject to the fair use defense that "[n]o reasonable copyright holder could have believed that [they] were protected by copyright." According to the EFF, Diebold subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 in damages and fees to settle the lawsuit.

I also have to believe that Canadian lawyers are held to a high professional conduct and not allowed to engage in frivolous complaints. It would be tragic if it got so far that people would have to file a formal written complaint to the Canadian Bar Association (or whatever they are called there).  Can someone check that out for me who Canadian lawyers report to?

The lawyers probably had no hand in posting the images on wallpaper sites far and wide.
But, I suspect that they know more about all of this than they'd let on.
All three lawyers are extremely aggressive about subverting information.

I mean, phony DMCA takedown notices?
That's all the evidence that I needed...

S.G.

1880

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 16, 2011, 06:15:45 PM »

I am withholding my full opinion and analysis at this time because this bus is still moving at 100mph and I need to stay focused on the highest priority items.  When it all settles down, I WILL be sharing my personal opinion of these folks and analyze what they have done to themselves.

Let's just say they appear to be very inexperienced in the ways of the world and just because you are a lawyer does not mean you are beyond reproach or cannot receive a real challenge from non-lawyers.

They continue to embarrass themselves. To think this all started out with a couple of buried posts that no one barely read...  Amazing.

1881

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Canadian Settlement Demand Letter by Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 16, 2011, 06:04:28 PM »

The attacks to ELI continue.  Julie Stewart has filed a DMCA complaint to Scribd attempting to hide and cover up her letter.  She knows that business communications she sends out is not under copyright protection but she has done so anyway. It appears I have to provide Scribd with a counter-notification letter.

=================

Scribd:

Hello, extortionletterinfo --

We have removed your document, "Blackline Settlement Demand Letter " (id: 70625769) in response to a third-party notification or other indicia that this document was uploaded to Scribd.com without the authorization of the copyright owner. If you believe the removal of this document is the result of a mistake or misidentification, please visit our Scribd Support Desk to access the instructions for providing a counter-notification.

For more information, read about our Copyright Management System or contact us through [email protected].

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that content was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability. Please also be advised that we enforce our policy that provides for the termination of users who are identified as repeat infringers.

Thanks for your cooperation.
-Scribd Customer Care

P.S. You can always fine-tune which notifications you receive or opt-out completely.

Scribd Inc., 539 Bryant St., Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA

1882

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Brandon Sand Settlement Demand Letter

« on: November 16, 2011, 04:15:19 PM »

I requested a copy of the DMCA complaint made to eApps which they were compelled to act on and share with me.

==================

Hello,

Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I am requesting the take
down of the following infringing documents hosted on your server:

***
***

Both documents are infringement of works of authorship as defined in Title
17 of the Copyright statute.

I have a good faith belief that use of the material on the above mentioned
website is not authorized by the copyright owner.

The information in this notification is accurate, and is made under penalty
of perjury. I am the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.

I may be contacted at:
[email protected]

Brandon Sand, Esq.
699 14th St, Apt 252
San Diego CA, 92101

Electronically signed,
/s/ Brandon Sand

1883

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 16, 2011, 04:04:27 PM »

This is the original complaint I made to eApps. I made a formal request to get the original complaint.

===================

Hello,

Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I am requesting the
removal of the following infringing document/s hosted on your server:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html

The document is an infringement of a copyrighted work of authorship as
defined in Title 17 of the Copyright statute.

I have a good faith belief that use of the material on the above mentioned
website is not authorized by the copyright owner.

The information in this notification is accurate, and is made under penalty
of perjury. I am the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.

Julie Stewart
Lawyer, Blackline Art + Entertainment Law
T: 1-(416)-628-8364
F: 1-(416)-628-8364
www.blacklinelaw.ca

This e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential
and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized review, copying, transmittal,
use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this message in error. Please immediately notify us by reply
or collect telephone call to 1-(416)-628-8364 and destroy this message and
any attachments.

1884

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: DMCA complaint regarding Julie Stewart thread of discussion

« on: November 16, 2011, 12:28:38 PM »

In my follow-up with eApps, my hosting provider, I got further clarification of what I need to do to reverse this bogus DMCA complaint.

This is a very informative link and I invite everyone to read this and share your thoughts.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content

The one thing I am particular happy about is this excerpt:

Note, however, that this provision also works against a person or company sending a wrongful takedown notice. If someone claims in a takedown notice that you are infringing their copyrighted material while knowing this to be false, then you can win damages from them in a lawsuit. In recent years, the targets of wrongful takedowns have fought back and won damages and favorable settlements from individuals and companies sending bogus takedown notices. For instance, in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004), two students and their ISP sued voting machine manufacturer Diebold after it tried to use DMCA takedown notices to disable access to Internet postings of the company's leaked internal email archive. The court granted summary judgment to the students and ISP on their claim, finding that portions of the email archive were so clearly subject to the fair use defense that "[n]o reasonable copyright holder could have believed that [they] were protected by copyright." According to the EFF, Diebold subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 in damages and fees to settle the lawsuit.


This is a great sample Counter-Notification Letter that I have incorporated most of into my own letter to eApps.  (I will soon post my own version.)

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html

1885

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: DMCA complaint regarding Julie Stewart thread of discussion

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:53:13 AM »

My two-part rebuttal against the DMCA complaint.

=============================

Dear Eapps Legal Department:

Respectfully, this link has an entire thread of discussion with mixed content. However, I am guessing the content being objected to is the email Julie Stewart sent directly to us.  If I am incorrect, please let me know.

I absolutely challenge and dispute this claim on the grounds that this supposed "copyrighted material" were actual emails sent to attorney Oscar Michelen and myself! Business letters and email issued to the intended recipient cannot be copyrighted. Any legitimate recipient of a business communication has the right to openly share their communication as there was no confidentiality agreement ever agreed to.

I would also like to point out there are no traditional privacy issues violated in that there is no sensitive financial or identifying information involved. She simply does not want the email she sent directly to us to be shared openly.

In reading your terms for counter notification, I will be forwarding you the copy of her email that was intended and sent directly to us. I will reference the case number to prevent confusion.

Matthew Chan

======================

Dear Eapps Legal Dept:

As promised, I have forwarded the actual email being sent to us that was posted online and referenced here claiming that it is "copyright infringement"

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html

Business communications to intended recipients cannot be copyrighted and not protected under DMCA.  This is clearly evident as embarrassing emails are regularly reprinted in traditional media and tabloid media with no fear of reprisal.  If they have no fear of reprisal, hosting providers should have no concerns. While sent emails may be embarrassing, they are not remotely protected under any law and certainly not under DMCA

We believe this is the content in dispute.  The remaining content in the notated URL are posts from community members as well as post by myself and Oscar Michelen.

Please let me know if our counter-notification is sufficient to resolve this matter.

Matthew Chan

1886

Getty Images Letter Forum / DMCA complaint regarding Julie Stewart thread of discussion

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:50:52 AM »

I received a DMCA complaint on this thread by my hosting provider. They are doing their job so I am not mad at them. However, this is very annoying to me.

My best guess is that Julie Stewart did not like us posting her email to us and she is now claiming copyright infringement over her email. I have challenged this DMCA complaint and my rebuttal will be in a separate post.

=================================

To Whom It May Concern:

We have received notice of a complaint of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violation under 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A), regarding material hosted on your account. The infringing material can be found at:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html

Please remove the infringing content and respond to us confirming that this action has been accomplished. The disputed material must be removed as swiftly as possible. Please note that if the disputed material is not removed within 48 hours, we reserve the right to suspend your site to conform with the requirements of the DMCA.

If you feel that this complaint was made as a result of a mistake or of a misidentification of the disputed material, please send us a written counter notification within fourteen (14) days. A valid counter notification must substantially contain the following (as required per 17 USC § 512(g)(3)):

(A). A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber
(B). Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C). A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D). The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c) (2) (C) or an agent of such person.

Any counter notifications should be addressed to:

Legal Department
eApps Hosting
7742 Spalding Drive
Suite 363
Norcross, Georgia, USA 30092

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this complaint, please let us know.

Regards,

eApps Hosting

1887

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:47:37 AM »

I received a DMCA complaint on this thread. My best guess is that Julie Stewart did not like us posting her email to us and she is now claiming copyright infringement over her email. I have challenged this DMCA complaint and my rebuttal will be in a separate post.

I also requested a copy of the actual complaint that eapps was compelled to follow through on. For the record, I am entitled to see the actual complaint from the original complainant. They cannot simply make a complaint and hide behind the hosting provider's notice.

Matthew

========================

To Whom It May Concern:

We have received notice of a complaint of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violation under 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A), regarding material hosted on your account. The infringing material can be found at:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html

Please remove the infringing content and respond to us confirming that this action has been accomplished. The disputed material must be removed as swiftly as possible. Please note that if the disputed material is not removed within 48 hours, we reserve the right to suspend your site to conform with the requirements of the DMCA.

If you feel that this complaint was made as a result of a mistake or of a misidentification of the disputed material, please send us a written counter notification within fourteen (14) days. A valid counter notification must substantially contain the following (as required per 17 USC § 512(g)(3)):

(A). A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber
(B). Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C). A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D). The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c) (2) (C) or an agent of such person.

Any counter notifications should be addressed to:

Legal Department
eApps Hosting
7742 Spalding Drive
Suite 363
Norcross, Georgia, USA 30092

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this complaint, please let us know.

Regards,

eApps Hosting

=========================

>> Original Complaint filed to eApps <<
==============================

Hello,

Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I am requesting the
removal of the following infringing document/s hosted on your server:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html

The document is an infringement of a copyrighted work of authorship as
defined in Title 17 of the Copyright statute.

I have a good faith belief that use of the material on the above mentioned
website is not authorized by the copyright owner.

The information in this notification is accurate, and is made under penalty
of perjury. I am the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.


Julie Stewart
Lawyer, Blackline Art + Entertainment Law
T: 1-(416)-628-8364
F: 1-(416)-628-8364
www.blacklinelaw.ca

This e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential
and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized review, copying, transmittal,
use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this message in error. Please immediately notify us by reply
or collect telephone call to 1-(416)-628-8364 and destroy this message and
any attachments.

1888

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Brandon Sand Settlement Demand Letter

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:26:42 AM »

This was my reply to eapps regarding the DMCA Complaint. I had intended on eventually removing all PDFs from the ELI website due to bandwidth concerns so removing the PDFs were really not a big deal to me.

========================================

Hello eapps Legal Dept:

I want to acknowledge receipt of this email and wish to continue maintaining a good relationship with eapps as I have done for many years.  Please forward a copy of this to Rick as I want to personally assure him of our good intentions and introduce him to my attorney friend, Oscar Michelen, who is an experienced intellectual property attorney in such matters and that we will do everything we can to minimize such occurrences.

As you can see for yourself, ExtortionLetterInfo.com is a widely-read website that deals with heavy-handed tactics used by the stock photo industry supposedly in the name of copyright protection. However, we feel they are actually engaged in acts of "legalized extortion" in trying to scare people out of many thousands of dollars per image which far exceed the actual market value of the images in dispute! This is an issue other customers on eapps will likely face sometime in the future and we are leading authority website in the U.S.

A quick study of our website should reveal that we run a highly-credible website with community rules and enforcement in place. Oscar Michelen, a highly respected well-established New York attorney works with me on this cause-based project.

Up to recently, we haven't had issues with DMCA takedown requests. But now, because the spotlight has been shined on some of the lawyers involved and their embarrasingly lack of legal experience compared to the legal threats they regularly issue, they seek to suppress the information where they can.

Regarding this particular DMCA takedown request, because the information is available elsewhere on Internet and we prefer to not host such large PDF documents due to bandwidth concerns, we are happy to comply with this particular request. The documents have been entirely removed from the web server.

The two files in question have been entirely removed and the internal referral links to those documents have been changed.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Matthew Chan

1889

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Brandon Sand Settlement Demand Letter

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:22:40 AM »

Actually, the original links were ELI links to PDFs we were hosting. I removed the the files and simply pointed them to scribd.

Matthew

1890

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Peter T. Holt's Letter to Oscar Michelen & ELI website

« on: November 16, 2011, 06:49:56 AM »

Great point!  This political correctness thing is apparently a sensitive issue now for the lawyers themselves.  They don't like being associated with an aggressive letter campaign that many people consider "legalized extortion".

Matthew

Well done indeed, good sirs.

Time to copyright the phrase "settlement demand letter".
All the political correctness that dirty money can buy...
The words "extortion letter" can remain free for trolls like Mr Holt to use.