Abusive Use of DMCA

dmcaOn March 13, 2014, the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, through its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, held a hearing regarding the copyright infringement notice and takedown procedures set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 512, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a copyright law in the United States.  On October 12, 1998, the United States Senate passed by unanimous vote, and President Bill Clinton signed into law on October 28, 1998, an amendment to Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright.  The amendment also limited liability of providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

At the Judiciary Committee hearing, Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the hearing by identifying three issues of particular interest to him: (1) the “whack-a-mole” problem copyright owners face, whereby infringing material that has been taken down reappears almost immediately on the same website; (2) the impact of takedown notices on fair use and the First Amendment; (3) the problem of fraudulent takedown notices.

Word Press addressed the problem of fraudulent takedown notices.

Paul Siemenski, the General Counsel of Automattic, Inc. (the maker of Word Press), testified before the Judiciary Committee.  Attorney Siemenki stated that the real problem with the DMCA is the “abuse of the DMCA takedown process” including counter-notifications.  He said that the counter-notification process does not work for most internet users because it is complicated, intimidating and requires them to reveal personal information.

Infoworld reports that;

“The real problem with the DMCA, public advocacy groups say, is not one of inadequate copyright enforcement but that the notice-and-takedown process is often abused. A recent report from UC Berkeley found the system is riddled with misuse and overreach …”

DMCA has been described as a guilty until proven innocent approach that is abused by people who have no copyright on the material they want taken down.

Myself and others have experienced a particular individual who files fraudulent DMCA take down notices hoping that there will be a counter-challenge that includes our personal information.  That person has a reputation of posting the personal information of others on the internet without their consent, and for the purpose to harass, intimidate, embarrass, defame, and cause great emotional distress.

As acknowledged by some who were subjected to fraudulent DMCA takedown notices, he also conducts his activity hoping to influence, and has influenced, others to do or participate in his dirty work.

Another reason for the takedown notices is to have the accounts of others suspended by the hosting company.   If that is accomplished, the perpetrater will deprive his targeted victim’s rights to free speech, and boast that he “legally” did it, as shown in the comments below.

Piercy's true reason for filing DMCA takedown notices

The above is done assuming that no counter-notice will be filed.  To protect personal information and prevent losing right to free speech, it’s important to have an attorney file counter-notices.  That is what I did, which threw a wrench in the perpetrator’s scheme.

Representative Howard Coble (R-NC) asked Mr. Siemenski whether Section 512(f) (which provides for awards of damages and attorneys’ fees against those who make material misrepresentations in takedown notices) has been effective in deterring abuse of the takedown procedure.  Mr. Siemenski felt that the provision had not been effective. Suits are rare under Section 512(f).

Automattic, Inc. has filed lawsuits against those who misrepresent that they own copyright that they do not.

Twitter needs to come up to speed with DMCA abuse.

Who Would Create The Following Collage?  A Person Who Supports That The Death Of Kendrick Johnson Should Be Investigated, or Someone Who Does Not?

Shyloh's Collage


Some people might already know that there is an ongoing, active debate on Twitter concerning the death of Kendrick Johnson.  Shyloh has a special place in her heart for victimized children.  Her website, Justice for Caylee, demonstrates her compassion and love for missing and/or murdered children.  She supports the investigation into the death of Kendrick Johnson.

Shyloh is also talented in putting picture collages together.   The person who tried to have my other blog suspended for copyright infringement, is now attacking Shyloh with fraudulent DMCA takedown notices on Twitter for the purpose of having her Twitter account suspended.  Shyloh forwarded me emails supporting this, and gave me her permission to post the following from David Piercy’s DMCA takedown notice that she received from Twitter on May 17, 2016.

“DMCA Takedown Notice

== Copyright owner: David Piercy
== Name: David Piercy
== Company: Piercy Paralegal Services
== Job title: Paralegal
== Email address: (redacted)

== Address: (redacted)
== City: Clovis
== State/Province: CA
== Postal code: 93613
== Country: USA
== Phone (optional): n/a
== Fax (optional): n/a
== Description of original work: kendrick johnson collage with commentary
== Links to original work: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154291207747203&set=a.10153680405077203.1073741826.515772202&type=3&theater

== Reported Tweet URL: https://twitter.com/shylohg/status/732530662700240896

== Description of infringement: use without permission. Twitter user @shylohg has continued to post images that have been previously removed by DMCA strike. Reposting an image removed by DMCA is a violation of Twitter terms of service. User @shylohg should be suspended.”

Please note that Piercy is not merely claiming copyright infringement. He wants Twitter to suspend Shyloh’s account. He wants to deprive her of freedom of speech to show compassion for all victims and communicate with others of like mind.

False Information Used To Impress And Intimidate

The first misrepresentation in Piercy’s DMCA takedown notice is that he has a company titled Piercy Paralegal Services.   There are types of businesses that can legitimately call themselves a business by opening a website to sell their goods or services, but a paralegal business in the State of California is not one of those types of businesses.  In California, there are laws and rules that apply to non-attorneys who prepare legal documents for non-attorneys.

In California, when a person offers to prepare legal documents for non-attorneys, they are required to be bonded and register their business with the county.  Piercy cites the statute, California Business and Professions Code 6400-6401.6, 6402-6407 and 6408-6415 on his website for his business, but he violates the law by not presenting his registration number and date of expiration on his website.

CABPC 6408 states in pertinent part;

“The registrant’s name, business address, telephone number, registration number, expiration date of the registration, and county of registration shall appear on the written contract required to be provided to a client pursuant to Section 6410, as well as on any Internet Web site maintained by the registrant, and in any solicitation, advertisement, document, or correspondence prepared or used by the registrant in electronic form.”  (Emphasis added)

It appears that Piercy has tried to circumvent the California statute that controls legal document assistants by adding “Inc.” to his website indicating that his business is incorporated.

Screenshot of Piercy's Website for his business as of 6-20-16

However, as CABPC 6405 states, even a corporation that provides legal document assistance must still comply with a certificate of registration and appropriate bond.

CABPC 6405 states in pertinent part:

6405.  (a)  (2) An application for a certificate of registration by a partnership or corporation shall be accompanied by a bond executed by a corporate surety qualified to do business in this state and conditioned upon compliance with this chapter in the following amount, based on the total number of legal document assistants and unlawful detainer assistants employed by the partnership or corporation:(A) Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for one to four assistants.   (B) Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for five to nine assistants.   (C) One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for 10 or more assistants.” (Emphasis added)

A search on the California Secretary of State for “Piercy Paralegal Service, Inc.” produced no results.

No Business Registration on June 20, 2016

Second Misrepresentation – Let’s Take A Look At The “collage with commentary.”

According to the email that I received, Twitter notified Shyloh of the DMCA takedown on May 17, 2016.   May 17, 2016 is also the date that Piercy posted the collage on his Facebook page.

Shyloh's Collage on Piercy's Facebook Page

From PIercy’s public Facebook Page

All of the photos used in the collage are available in the public domain.  Piercy did not take any of the photos.  He does not hold copyright to any of the photos in the collage.  As Twitter explains, Transformative uses add something to the original work, such as commentary, and “Transformative, non-commercial uses are more likely to be considered fair use.”   It is presented on this blog under fair use.

The commentary says, “Brian and Branden Bell Suspects in the murder of Kendrick Johnson.”  David Piercy is very active defending those two individuals.  He tweeted the following on June 13, 2016.

Piercy's activism supporting the Bells

It’s also no secret that Piercy consistently argues that the Department of Justice closed its investigation in November 2015. That in fact, he submitted a comment to this blog, (that I have not approved for public posting), trying to argue that issue on this blog and did so as recently as June 2, 2016. .

Piercy's argument that the DOJ investigation is closed

Would David Piercy like to explain to the Bells why he claims copyright of a photo collage with captions that convey that he believes that Kendrick Johnson was murdered; and that say that Brian and Branden Bell are suspects in the murder of Kendrick Johnson; and that there is a continuing investigation into the “murder” of Kendrick Johnson?

This entry was posted in cyberharasment, DMCA abuse, Internet extortionists and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Abusive Use of DMCA

  1. kajubitch says:

    Reblogged this on kajubitch and commented:
    Hmm, and GL too. Another pea in an ugly assed pod. Seems it may be time to drag out the Roach meme. That was a gift to ME. No fake DMCA filing for you, at least not here, loser boy.

    • Xena says:

      Hey Kaju and thanks for the reblog. My guess is that GL learned that game from Piercy since Piercy started the DMCA scheme in 2014.

  2. shyloh says:

    Thanks Xena. I am so glad you wrote about this. It’s a slap in the face and I hope he feels the burn. I guess Piercy doesn’t know if he’s for or against Kendrick Johnson. I just hope his followers see this. Nice collage about the MURDER isn’t it? I’ll have more to say. I work for a living lol. Love ya girl. Great Blog as usual!

  3. NavyDad0007 says:

    Reblogged this on neonthegreat132321's Blog.

  4. Pat Hartman says:

    The level of mental illness demonstrated here is eclipsed only by the level of mental illness in the person or people who committed the original crime.

    • Xena says:

      Hey Pat! Piercy started the DMCA take down on Youtube and apparently decided to extend them in 2014 to blogs. In 2015, he began stealing the work of others that he disagrees with, (or people who he simply does not like), then claiming that they stole his copyrighted material.

      What he did to Shyloh is outright malicious.

      It’s crazy.

      I applaud Word Press for their position and wish that other social media would follow their lead. The DMCA abuse is a form of harassment that takes up the time of social media staff, and inflicts emotional distress on the victims.

  5. Xena says:

    What is it that I’ve been saying? That Piercy learns correct procedures by reading my posts and comments.

    Please note: this post was published on June 20, 2016. I pointed out that Piercy represents that he has a company that is incorporated, but that there is no record with California to support that.

    Well, also on June 20, 2016, he filed his paralegal business as a corporation.

    I’m always happy to help.

  6. shyloh says:

    You crack me up Xena. You always help. That’s why we love you dearly.

  7. Reblogged this on and commented:
    Useful information … please read.

  8. I am going through this exact same issue, unfortunately it’s with a disbarred lawyer who happens to be married to a practicing lawyer. Thank God for WordPress.

    • Xena says:

      I am so sorry to hear that you’ve been going through the same issue. There are nasty people who, if they can find any little kink in the law, they use it to their advantage. Here’s wishing you the best.

Join the discussion

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s