Slashdot Mirror
How Copyright Law Is Being Misused To Remove Material From the Internet (theguardian.com)
London-based resident Annabelle Narey posted a negative review of a building firm on Mumsnet. She noted in her review that her ceiling fell down in an upstairs bedroom. The Guardian reports about what happened to her in the aftermath of posting that review. Building firm BuildTeam sent a letter to Mumsnet, which the site passed on to Narey. According to Narey, BuildTeam found Narey's comment defamatory and untrue, and asked for the removal of the comment from the website. The original comment saw several other users also post similar grievances, though many of these users pulled their comments in response to the legal threats from BuildTeam. Narey wanted to keep hers up. Then things got even weirder, reports the Guardian. Narey says BuiltTeam staff visited her apartment, and instead of offering any apology, asked her to remove the comment. Mumsnet received a warning from Google: a takedown request under DMCA, alleging copyright infringement. This led Google to de-list the entire thread. From the report: No copyright infringement had occurred at all. At some point after Narey posted her comments on Mumsnet, someone had copied the entire text of one of her posts and pasted it, verbatim, to a spammy blog titled "Home Improvement Tips and Tricks". The post, headlined "Buildteam interior designers" was backdated to September 14 2015, three months before Narey had written it. BuildTeam says it has no idea why Narey's review was reposted, but that it had nothing to do with it.The Guardian deep dives into what is wrong with the copyright system, the issues Google faces in dealing with them, and the consequences many users are facing because of this.
She wrote all her own stuff; the company she reviewed bitched about the bad review; someone in Pakistan copied it to his blog and backdated it several months; and then Google got a DMCA take-down.
In other words: the copyright claim is fraudulent.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And Building firm BuildTeam are fucking assholes.
And now watch this entire thread get deleted.
It really is that simple. Where power exists, abuse exists. The more power, the more abuse. The only way to reduce the level of abuse is to reduce the level of power. This is the libertarian viewpoint in a nutshell, but I'm not bringing it up to promote libertarianism. I'm bringing it up to promote common sense.
"someone in Pakistan" - AKA the guy at BuildTeam using TOR to make his DMCA claim look legit enough for Google to reject any appeals from the original poster.
Could you use the wayback machine to go back to that date to show the post was never there? This kind of stuff is very scarry. I hope the Streisand effect kicks in and burns them big time.
Funny thing is, the Streisand Effect will most likely kick-in hard for them, especially once it made the papers there.
Seriously - a multinational corporation can put up with bad press and survive, but most smaller businesses cannot.
Given that this is a UK company, I'm rather surprised that they didn't reach for the libel laws - even if the lady was absolutely correct and true, the legal costs would have likely ruined her faster than a DMCA takedown would have.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
PS: why did she not simply respond, affirming her claim of original material? It would have put her post back up, and it would have required BuildTeam to take legal action to remove it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
A company using bogus copyright claims to silence dissent and complaint? Nooooo, that's unpossible. Unheard of. Cannot happen!
Someone lying on the internet? And a company to boot? Stop being ridiculous.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But then there are those that dare to say, pirates are ignoring copyright and putting EVERYTHING on the internet.
She didn't operate the original Web site that got the take-down order.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There is a reason why there is a legal process and this is exactly the reason.
If there is a dispute between people (in this case the posting) and one party feels wronged, they should take it up with the legal system, not with a third party.
The legal system wil then not only decide if something illegal went on, but also what the consequences will be.
Otherwise you will get an 'guilty untill proven inocent' or worse 'guilty by having less money as the other party'.
People must understand not only WHAT due process is, but more important WHY.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Backdating a copy of a work to make it appear as a original could theoretically be prevented in DMCA claims by requiring that any work for which a DMCA claim is made there must already exist an official record that the work actually existed previous to the work that allegedly copied from it. If the only proof that you have of the date is evidence that you offer yourself, then you don't get to make a DMCA claim at all. Typically, this would require going through more "official" channels of copyright registration, rather than relying on implied copyright that exists merely by publishing the work.
You could still allege copyright infringement without official registration.... but in that case, you couldn't use the DMCA until infringement was proven, which wouldn't be until after you have won your case and proven infringement in court.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yeah Mumsnet, the site she posted on, should have simply sent back a counter-notice. I sure wish more people knew about DMCA counter-notice. Basically you just send back a signed note saying "I don't believe there is any copyright infringement in this case". Forms are available online.
Legal assaults have always been done against those who are not able to [usually cannot afford to] mount a defense. What is different nowadays is that the Internet allows the news of such tactics to be broadcast widely to a larger audience.
They issued a felonious request for takedown. I am sort of surprised there isn't a prosecutor looking for an easy win here.
In the spirit of Murphy's Law and Godwin's Law, I present Dave's Law: If a law can be abused, someone will figure out how and do it.
In this case I feel both the abusers and the legislators share blame since these consequences were easily foreseeable, and they listened to their financial supporters over the best interests of their constituents. The company which "had nothing to do with it", is a lying piece of merde, but if the perpetrator(s) has in IQ of at least 80, they probably covered their tracks making it almost impossible to prove they were behind it.
This is yet another example of what happens when we allow corporations to write the law. Their lawyers don't think past their clients' own self-interest and leave gaping legal loopholes that allow other lawyers to exploit ordinary citizens (or in the case of the UK, the Queen's subjects: The UK isn't a democracy).
Now they're going to pass TPP and next TTIP: Two massive bundles of laws written almost exclusively by hundreds of corporate lawyers. What's not to like about that?
The problem here is that the attorney's fees and court costs associated with due process are often cost-prohibitive.
Why is the DMCA effecting an issue that has nothing to do with the US?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Of course they had something to do with it. They caused it to be there, to facilitate a DMCA takedown. The only real question is, do they have plausible deniability, or are they directly guilty?
Loser pays laws. You do not take on a civil suit unless you can win or at least your lawyers can convince you, you can win or you access the financial information of the opposition and figure out you can bankrupt them with legal costs before the case can conclude. In the interim, details of the case are published and what you are trying to hide is exposed any how. So as typical for this kind of incident all bluff and lies, they can not target the individual so they move their attack onto the forum. The best response for the individual produce their own documented web site, email a link to the company and let them fret over how many people will see it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
... to scrap the DMCA and copyright law and start from scratch, but this time let's foucs on the "for the public good" rather than corporate interests.
"I'm rather surprised that they didn't reach for the libel laws"
They did. Mumsnet told them not to be so silly and kept the post up. Then BuildTeam sent the boys round to her place to demand she delete the post. At that point she should have told them to go fuck themselves and called the police on them for doorstepping harassment.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Checking Google reviews... Most telling is that Build Team is removing negative posts and people that say they did a bad job are routinely labeled as fakes or malcontents. Build Team states that they "hunt" people down on Google. Build Team seems surprised when projects take much longer than promised, when sub-contractors aren't working well, or when Build Team violates local ordinances. This is the worst kind of passive-aggressive PR management that I have seen. Now the real question is what other reviews and information is Google hiding from the public?
Please Build Team, don't sic your legal team on me. The comments above are entirely my own, until you backdate it and post it elsewhere. Knowing your PR strategy, you will probably report me for terrorism...
From Google reviews... (until they remove them)
(All one star reviews)
Martin Martin
Martin Martin
5 months ago-
Previous review disappeared.
Shoddy company - AVOID AVOID AVOID
Response from the ownerin the last week
This is a fake review by an individual purporting to have been a client of Build Team. We will report this to Google.
James Mcmillan
in the last week
Warning: DO NOT USE BUILDTEAM. I had one of the worst experiences with them. Very awful standard of customer service and of building. The company has many shoddy practices, and they're trying very hard to hide this from reviews. Please use someone else!
Response from the ownerin the last week
This is a fake review by an individual purporting to have been a client of Build Team. We will report this to Google.
David Murray-Thwaites
David Murray-Thwaites
a year ago
AVOID! We had a very bad experience. Build Team are well marketed but frankly awful group to deal with. Extortion is not too strong a word
Response from the ownera year ago
Build Team have not worked for this client, and having undertaken a Google search we cannot trace the individual. We have contacted Google to report the review as spam.
Great, now American law applies to foreign countries too.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
I hope they didn't put that text a file sharing network, otherwise a lot of someones owe Annabelle Narey a trillion dollars in damages.
Funny thing is, the Streisand Effect will most likely kick-in hard for them, especially once it made the papers there.
Seriously - a multinational corporation can put up with bad press and survive, but most smaller businesses cannot.
Given that this is a UK company, I'm rather surprised that they didn't reach for the libel laws - even if the lady was absolutely correct and true, the legal costs would have likely ruined her faster than a DMCA takedown would have.
Or instead they could do the decent thing and say sorry to hear your ceiling collapsed, hope everyone is ok, we'll come around have a look and fix it.
That way they get to be a decent company with good service, and this woman tells people about it. Sure it's not going to spread as far or fast as bad news, it never does. But when you're a dick about something everyone wants to know about it and it ends up on slashdot or some other website where way more people than ever would see it sees it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I think that new lady Ghostbusters movie will bomb hard will they go as low as that to get rid of bad reviews? right now we have people saying not going to see it.
Well Anton Vickerman didn't even commit copyright infringement, he simply made a website that LINKED to torrents (and official sites and official URLs too) in the UK.
How did legal process work with him? Well the Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute since it didn't appear to be illegal to build a links website (yep that makes sense). So FACT, did a private prosecution, together with the Trading Standards Body it raided his home, took him to court, and prosecuted him... for 'Fraud'. He got 4 years for building a links website to content some of which was copyright infringement... aka 'Conspiracy to Commit Fraud'.
You might want to read Vickermans side of this, he was forced to censor his views, but the comments live on:
http://pastebin.com/KDaXSZRa
Mega Download of course, it wasn't legal for the New Zealand spooks to spy on Kim Dotcom. they did it anyway, and the case continues despite the unusable evidence (which will no doubt be used anyway).
And now we have Baroness Neville Rolfe (unelected Cameron lovey, who was an exec of Tescos during the time its books were more fiction than accounting), calling for 10 years in jail for copyright infringement. This might actually become law since Cameron put it in the Queens speech.
I'm sorry but this is the UK, its p0wnd by lobbyists and due process won't help.
This is how it was designed. You need to remember that the sole purpose of copyright was to protect established interests from new technology that would destroy their existing business model, and to restrict public speech. It is a law by luddites, for luddites, nothing else. "Promoting the arts and sciences" is pure propaganda. Restricting the passage of knowledge does no such thing.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Obviously you don't understand business. See, providing excellent customer service is very expensive. That eats into profits and other vital business expenses like executive pay raises. However, businesses usually have lawyers on hand no matter what so the cost to fire off a threatening legal letter - or to sue the person into silence - is rather cheap. It's just basic Business 101.
(I'd say "this post was all sarcasm" but too many business owners would say this and be completely sincere about it.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
There is a reason why there is a legal process and this is exactly the reason.
If there is a dispute between people (in this case the posting) and one party feels wronged, they should take it up with the legal system, not with a third party. The legal system wil then not only decide if something illegal went on, but also what the consequences will be.
This sounds like a perfectly American answer to me. You might not know this, but in the UK they have this little thing called "loser pays" in their legal system. That's why it's not going to court. BuildTeam knows that they'll probably lose. On the other side, the lady in the article simply may not have the money to pay should things not go her way in court. I can't speak for UK courts, but here in the USA every case is a toss up depending on a variety of factors such as the judge (particularly in cases without juries), the jury and how stupid or smart the people are who are on it, the competency of the lawyers involved, and so on.
To me the core issue is that EU countries don't have a freedom of speech law at all. While a case like this could certainly end up in the US legal system if it happened here, eventually at some level a court would likely find it to be a freedom of speech issue, rule in favor of the lady who made the review, and it would be done. I personally find it pretty bizarre that for a group of nations with an overly sympathetic bent towards making sure that criminals have more rights than their victims, they also find free speech simply a bridge too far and happily lock up people for saying stupid things that in reality harm nobody.
Freedom of speech should trump* profits, but because of big-ass lobbying, it's the other way around. Gray areas default toward commercial and big-org interests in our current setup, and it should be reversed.
Perhaps the penalties for misusing copyrights to crush opinion and dissent should be made large enough to scare the big-orgs. Larger penalties would then make it worth it for lawyers to take on small cases.
As much as we dislike lawyers, they are often the only practical avenue for the little guy to fight back. Most regular folks don't have the time or knowledge to compete with big-org legal departments on their own. But big penalties will encourage lawyers to take their case.
* No candidate reference intended.
Table-ized A.I.
Nonetheless, in the UK the burden of proof in a libel case is upon the defendant which can certainly put a damper on things in situations like this.
and my browser was redirected to a copyright take-down notice...
CAP === 'connoted'
If you ceiling is on the floor in a wet soggy mess, proof is going to be really easy to provide. Which is why they never went straight for the civil suit but instead chose to scam their way around shutting down that forum.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The DMCA doesn't apply. All of this occurred in the UK, and all involved parties are in the UK.
The fine article explains that mumsnet refused to take the material down under the UK law. The builder then notified Google (a US company) per US law, law. Quoting the article for you:
----
Mumsnet received a warning from Google: a takedown request had been made under the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), alleging that copyrighted material was posted without a licence on the thread.
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 â" or any other terms. The search company told Mumsnet it could make a counterclaim, if it was certain no infringement had taken place
---
the dmca doesn't exist in england so why is google doing anything?
That's great for this instance, but the vast majority of this sort of bullying doesn't make the news. The Streisand Effect doesn't solve the underlying problem.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Here's a simpler fix. Do nothing to the DMCA. Once you've filed a counter-notice, that's the end of it. The counter-notice includes your real-life identity, and the claimant's expected to sue you in court should they believe there's still a copyright issue. And of course, a fraudulent back-dated article isn't likely to stand up in court, so there should be no further problem.
Not sure whether they are f***ing a**holes, but one of them openly admits 'So, in 2007, I said goodbye to a career in Corporate Banking to set up Build Team...'
they're dragging their own name through the mud by this. more experienced unethical builders and housing authorities simply change their business name to escape their bad reviews online.
there's an apartment complex nearby that is expensive (located across the street from a university) but looks kind of like crap. the siding is all dirty, and you can see horrible mold infestations growing in the wood under the walk-out patios on the 2nd and 3rd stories. this is in a town where every single place i've lived there has been mold infestations, even right next to campus. the town ... the entire state of michigan, really ... is just a drained swamp and wooden, dutch-style homes simply don't stand up to it very well.
well this nearby apartment complex has changed its name every year. from "Campus Hills" (with an umlaut over the u for some reason) to "Varsity" to now "Soho 700". The sign out front of "Soho 700" promises fast internet and other things among "newly renovated".
Well, I've lived here for two years and I walk by the place every night and day. There have been no trucks, no workers, no sign of any renovation occurring at all whatsoever.
Sadly here in Michigan there's no legal recourse for the students who get sucked into moving into that place and spending oodles of money on it. The Consumer Protection Agency actually makes things worse on people who complain about unethical business practices, by sending a copy of the complaint along with the complete identity, address, and phone number of the complainer to the company they're complaining about -- and then proceeding to sit on their own hands and do nothing. I've had a pretty scary experience due to the Consumer Protection Agency doxing me to a shady store.
You can't really rely on the Better Business Bureau, either. It turns out that the BBB is just a money-mill here in Michigan. You either apply to receive an endorsement from the BBB (which costs money) or you don't. There's no recourse for consumers who turn to the BBB to get things done. The BBB isn't actually in authority.
At any rate, in many U.S. states any business owner can get away with just about anything if they're willing to pay the fees and legal costs of incorporation on top of the fees and costs of obtaining a tax code, DBA and so on (which even for an LLC is several thousand dollars). Once you're incorporated, you get to enjoy a different set of laws and many of them don't even mention anything about jail or anything scary like that, just various monetary fines all in the thousands of dollars and upwards. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK's system is even worse, considering that heinous acts are kind of part and parcel with the British Empire, and power has a way of ensuring its own legacy.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
British who try that of course, learn that written word isn't the final word. Oh, amazing coincidences start happening. >:)
(Let's pretend this happened in US, where there's DMCA.) User knowing about counter-notice isn't enough.
Do you run any websites where the public adds content? Imagine what's involved.
You need think of every incoming DMCA notice as an ongoing project, rather than a thing that can Get Done by deleting a record. That means you are opting into something more pain-in-the-assy and expensive (both in terms of your time and technical complexity) than doing the cheapest and easiest thing.
First, you need to have content temporarily suppressed (rather than deleted) upon receiving notice. So there's a new status bit and everything that reads content needs to know to use that. Not a big deal, but it's something. (If it's a large legacy codebase, then I guess you've got an initial mini-project right here.) So I guess there's a presumption that you have the source code; you're not using some canned thing.
You need to have a way to forward DMCA notices to users, so you have to know who they are. Ok, you probably have an email address. Let's say your forward-bot doesn't get blocked by spamfilters. Fine.
The user has to provide a lot more than email address. They are going to be assuming copyright liability risk instead of you, so they have to be motivated enough to supply the required information. There is a lot more giving-a-fuck in a counter-notice than merely replying by email "hey, that comment was MINE!" You need their identity, and since most people still don't use PGP yet, email alone probably isn't going to cut it.
Let's assume the user has a fighting crusader attitude and sends back what you need, with proof of who they are (so that you're sure your ass is covered). Now you're spending time again, to forward the counter-notice to the original fraudster, and then you unset the suppressed bit on the content.
Do this right, and you've got a good system. But you just spent at least twice as much time, have a slightly more complex system, and then 99% of the time, the user never gives a counter-notice so your new process doesn't really get used often and your people are always rusty.
Are you sure you wouldn't just cut corners by having "DMCA notice means we immediately delete this stuff"? If you're sure you wouldn't cut that corner, then you're awesome. Kick ass, dude. We all love you.
But also: you're small-time and one-in-a-million.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Reading is hard.
Reading is hard.
This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.
And Building firm BuildTeam are fucking assholes.
And now watch this entire thread get deleted.
But under British law, it's illegal to say that, even if it's true. That's why Goigle deleted the thread. Normally, a DMCA takedown can be easily removed if you can show it to be false.
You can read the DMCA notice requirements rather than guessing at what they say. I'll clear up a few misconceptions for you. First, though, since you didn't read the article or apparently even the summary, I'll quote it for you:
> (Let's pretend this happened in US, where there's DMCA.)
----
Mumsnet received a warning from Google: a takedown request had been made under the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), alleging that copyrighted material was posted without a licence on the thread.
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
---
The above was the builder's strategy after their libel claim under UK law was refused.
> You need to have a way to forward DMCA notices to users, so you have to know who they are.
The law requires no such thing.
> You need their identity, and since most people still don't use PGP yet, email alone probably isn't going to cut it.
The primary information int eh counter-notice which under signed under penalty of perjury is their name contact information. The recipient doesn't have to prove the identity of the sender via PGP or any other means. They receive a sworn statement of your identity; that's what DMCA requires.
> Are you sure you wouldn't just cut corners by having "DMCA notice means we immediately delete this stuff"?
I like the protection from liability, so yes I, and over 90% of US web hosting companies follow the DMCA. If you DELETE a company's web site or other content whenever you receive a complaint, you're (rightfully) wide open to a huge liability. Think about it. Suppose you earn your living from a web site. Maybe you make your living from a web site similar to groklaw (but written by non-lawyers who haven't bothered to read the laws they are writing about). The site earns you $25,000 / month. I'm your web host. Someone sends me an email claiming you copy pasted from their site. So I delete your business, your web site. You'd probably file suit against me right away, wouldn't you. By following the DMCA process, the "host" (whoever is storing the content) is protected from liability to either side.
The problem I would see with that fix is that it does not prevent false claims from arising in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
In this case, it might be a good idea to sue the building company for damages too, if you are reasonably sure you can win. The verdict of the court should count as proof.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I find it interesting that a business doesn't like something said about it online can, with relative ease, get it taken down. But some kid who had a lapse of discretion needs an army of attorneys to get the content removed. That just doesn't seem right.
One of my forums this is still remembered - the toucan incident. Some user hotlinked a picture of a toucan in a thread. Next thing we know, the entire site is down due to a DMCA complaint.
Watch out!
http://i.imgur.com/NrY9DqB.jpg...
I still think that there needs to be negative consequences for filing a false/bad DMCA request. If every bad request is met with a counter-suit, I'd imagine that they'd stop. If only because a $10 letter just became a $1000 hassle.
I don't read AC A human right
But how are they going by UK law, who's defamation laws are seriously screwed in the first place, if they are using the DMCA which is a total piece of US bullshit!
(Yes, that's right, most of the people in the US outside of the media yahoos that pay any attention to copyright find the DMCA extremely F'd up.)
Funnier thing is, whoever posted her review is guilty of copyright infringement. $150,000 fine. If she could prove it was Buildteam, that's a win for her.
It's typical for afraid-to-offend-anyone international corporations to address conflicts between the laws of two countries with policy that expresses a horrible lowest common denominator. This one, which is Google's hamfisted tack between really bad British and American laws, is a prize example.
Funny thing is, the Streisand Effect will most likely kick-in hard for them, especially once it made the papers there.
Seriously - a multinational corporation can put up with bad press and survive, but most smaller businesses cannot.
Given that this is a UK company, I'm rather surprised that they didn't reach for the libel laws - even if the lady was absolutely correct and true, the legal costs would have likely ruined her faster than a DMCA takedown would have.
Or instead they could do the decent thing and say sorry to hear your ceiling collapsed, hope everyone is ok, we'll come around have a look and fix it.
That way they get to be a decent company with good service, and this woman tells people about it. Sure it's not going to spread as far or fast as bad news, it never does. But when you're a dick about something everyone wants to know about it and it ends up on slashdot or some other website where way more people than ever would see it sees it.
An old boss of mine whom I deeply respect said it like this:
"You don't stay in business by screwing your customers."
I find it funny that more businesses don't realize this these days, and this is really why the US economy is so sluggish, you have all these businesses that do shit like..
Try to press criminal charges against people who point out security holes in their IT infrastructure or...
Try to use the DMCA to shut down someone who expresses a critical opinion about a product or service or..
Try to demonize an ex employee, who moved on because the job was not a good fit for them.. despite the fact that blacklisting an employee is illegal..
The quicker the business owners get their heads out of there asses and realize that they are there to fill a need and not to screw people.. they will do poorly.
It shouldn't even require a counter-suit. It should be automatic that, upon demonstrating the DMCA demand was wrong, bad, or deliberately fraudulent, the DMCA claimant is charged, say 10 times the claimant's own estimate of the damages they did, or could have, incurred due to the the so-called copyright infringement. (And DMCA claims should all require an estimate of damages if the claim is not resolved.)
I think you'd see false claims (by movie studios, in particular) dry up pretty damn fast.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Unfortunately, suing someone takes time, years in fact, so suing them, especially building companies which are notorious for being shell company. You sue them and win only for them to go purposefully bankrupt, well, at least the debt ridden separate and tiny portion, in capital terms, that you actually signed the contract, and not the rest of the company or technically separate companies with the capital, never wonder why so many rich people, declare bankrupt, yet remain rich, yep, you guessed multiple indecently liable companies, dozens even hundreds, which can individual let their assets be stripped ready for roll over. I know of one particularly notorious domestic builder who routinely turned over the company every few years, and restarted it at the same location, with the same people, and just changed the spelling of the company name, to purposefully escape liabilities for it's shoddy work. Suing those bastards and make no mistake, the worse they are, the harder they are to sue and not by accident, is a complete waste of time. So yeah the best bet is to let everyone know what a sack of turds they are and suck up the loss, although you can spend some money on a expert to do an evaluation to see whether they can be prosecuted under the law for criminal actions (building regulations do have real penalties associated with them), no money but sweet revenge (crappy builders aren't fussy, they rip off the rich and the poor, hence more effective laws targeting them).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
In the first place, British law has nothing to do with this.
In the second place, the above statement is not illegal under British law. It's clearly a statement of opinion, not intended to be interpreted as objective fact, and therefore 'fair comment'. Not libellous.
There's a tremendous amount of bollocks talked about English libel law. It's bad, but not that bad. England didn't get to be the home of modern satire by accident.
Hey, I read that same, exact post a year ago!
That's why you fucking post it with a fake name from Starbucks, and if they ever take it down, just fucking post it again from Starbucks.
And Building firm B***dT**m are fucking assholes.
Watch your language. I've censored your post for you. You're welcome :)
While a case like this could certainly end up in the US legal system if it happened here, eventually at some level a court would likely find it to be a freedom of speech issue, rule in favor of the lady who made the review, and it would be done.
In addition, making this sort of false claim of authorship in the United States is likely a tort and/or crime. A rider to the DMCA (17 USC 1202) made it illegal to conceal or falsify a copyrighted work's attribution. Such "copyright management information" definitely includes the author's name, and depending on the judge, "other information identifying the work" may include the date of publication.
why the fuck do both links in the summary go to the same place?
are you trying to artificially increase the guardian's pageviews?
are you trying to artificially "slashdot" the guardian?
Where do you get the idea that it works this way?
Google took down the content due to a DMCA claim of copyright infringement. Where would you get the idea that it took the information down due to British defamation laws?
It appears that Mumsnet:
Mumsnet, following UK law on libel accusations, passed the letter on to Narey and offered her the chance to delete the post or get in touch with BuildTeam to sort out the matter.
Which is not anything to do with Google.
Later, Google received a DMCA notice for copyright infringement, which they performed the REQUIRED actions of the DMCA, and took the item down and notified the poster of the action. The proper response to a false report like this, is to reply to the false report and have the information reinstated.
You seem to have conflated two entirely separate actions into a single one, when they are surely not the same thing.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?