1st dmca complaint ever and they want me to remove links?

[wtd1]

I don't know the in's and out's of this, I'm kinda slow, but the whole thing seems kinda hinky to me.

The way I get it, somebody, say, Bob sends OP an article about, say, chickens, and in the article drops a coupla links to the Bob Chicken Ranch website or Sally posts an article about hair styling and drops in a coupla links for her Curl Up and Dye Hair Salon.

Now comes, allegedly, a guy from, say, XYZ Co. saying that an article on OP's website contains links to their company and the company wants these removed.

Well, if Bob puts links in his article about Bob's Chicken Ranch and Sally puts links to Curl Up and Dye in her article, who puts links to the XYZ Co. in the offending article?

Doesn't make any sense, at least to me.

Well, never mind just read some other posts more thoroughly ....

Still think I'd check out the Bozo from XYZ Co., or at least this supposed representative and see if he's legit.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by agc

That's not true. A: There is no precedent (that I know of) where someone can require that you not reference them, as that specific circumstance is nearly universally understood as the textbook example of fair use.

So did you finally take your head out of your... and realize that DMCA letters really can be defective?

Nasty, nasty, nasty ... but anyway, there is some precedent on linking.

MS link irks Ticketmaster - CNET News

Was settled by Microsoft who agreed to link to their main site rather than linking to the purchase page, so Ticketmaster filed the lawsuit and did get the links removed that they wanted removed.

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

I feel, and so should you too since you are a webmaster, that people can't just go around telling other people what they can or can't have on their websites, and they can't go around filing bogus DMCA notices, because if we start allowing that to happen, where does it stop?

I don't blame him for being a bit miffed. I would be too. Honestly, can we just have a good discussion on these boards without someone attacking someone?

He made numerous threats to link blast the site in question and he really doesn't know who instigated the email and admits that he thinks it's dubious. So you condone link blasting someone's site?

[mojojuju]

The information on Linking at Chilling Effects looks worth reading. Read the FAQ on linking there.

[Karen Blundell]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

He made numerous threats to link blast the site in question and he really doesn't know who instigated the email and admits that he thinks it's dubious. So you condone link blasting someone's site?

Suzanne, no, if you really knew me, you'd know that I don't condone it at all. And I don't condone public attacks of people, either.

Surely you must have known that he was just venting? I knew it right away...but then again, what do I really know?

Peace out...

[agc]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

He made numerous threats to link blast the site in question and he really doesn't know who instigated the email and admits that he thinks it's dubious. So you condone link blasting someone's site?

Well, thinking it through... *IF* the sender is the site owner, then they DID try to play some shady game... have no second thoughts about wasting potentially hundreds of hours of blog owner's time. So yeah, I don't have a moral issue with sending them a little gift and emailing them the list. This is a morally bankrupt person being dealt with, so to some extent teaching that lesson is actually my duty to society.

And *IF* the sender is not the site owner, then they are trying to undermine the site owner, so sending a (much smaller) link blast would show them that trying to undermine the comp just makes the comp stronger. But on that one, there is a CHANCE that the site owner could be hurt, so, no, I can't really condone it. But I might contact the site owner directly and ASK if I can buy him a fiverr gig and tell him why.

So obviously, one would have to find the answers to a couple questions before deciding what to do.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by agc

Well, thinking it through... *IF* the sender is the site owner, then they DID try to play some shady game... have no second thoughts about wasting potentially hundreds of hours of blog owner's time. So yeah, I don't have a moral issue with sending them a little gift and emailing them the list. This is a morally bankrupt person being dealt with, so to some extent teaching that lesson is actually my duty to society.

And *IF* the sender is not the site owner, then they are trying to undermine the site owner, so sending a (much smaller) link blast would show them that trying to undermine the comp just makes the comp stronger. But on that one, there is a CHANCE that the site owner could be hurt, so, no, I can't really condone it. But I might contact the site owner directly and ASK if I can buy him a fiverr gig and tell him why.

So obviously, one would have to find the answers to a couple questions before deciding what to do.

Exactly. We don't really know who sent that email. There are numerous scenarios and you've mentioned two of them. Either way, I personally think link blasts are the wrong way to handle it. But that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

Suzanne, no, if you really knew me, you'd know that I don't condone it at all. And I don't condone public attacks of people, either.

Surely you must have known that he was just venting? I knew it right away...but then again, what do I really know?

Peace out...

No, it wasn't clear to me at all that he was just venting or joking as he said. But if that's the case ... fine. You caught that, but I didn't really. So we're clear now that he wasn't really going to do that and he's just frustrated with the language of the email.

[Chris Lockwood]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I wouldn't do that if I were you. They have every right to request that links to their site be removed, particularly if they consider your site to be a "bad neighborhood" or low quality link farm.

People can request whatever they want, but they don't have the right to demand it.

[agc]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Exactly. We don't really know who sent that email. There are numerous scenarios and you've mentioned two of them. Either way, I personally think link blasts are the wrong way to handle it. But that's just my opinion.

Thank you.

For the record, I would much rather interact with you politely and respectfully (as above) than with the personal nastiness (as elsewhere). Think that might be possible?

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by Chris Lockwood

People can request whatever they want, but they don't have the right to demand it.

Not sure about that. I wouldn't think that a DMCA would be the proper vehicle to get a link removed and a nice email probably would go further to get that done, but I read a post here about a year ago from someone who said that they received a letter from an attorney demanding that they remove all reference to their site from the guy's website, the reason being that the company that the attorney represented felt that the site in question was a "bad neighborhood" and would damage the company's reputation.

No telling whether or not it would hold up in court. I only found one lawsuit about linking and it was settled out of court (the link was removed).

But in reference to the email the OP received, he doesn't really even know who is behind it and for what reasons it was sent. Personally, I would be curious about that and I'd go to that website I linked to and ask them personally what was up.

[agc]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

No telling whether or not it would hold up in court. I only found one lawsuit about linking and it was settled out of court (the link was removed).

Ticketmaster settled its claim against Microsoft and lost a suit against Tickets.com over deep linking. (source: FAQ about Linking -- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse)

[tpw]

Originally Posted by agc

Ticketmaster settled its claim against Microsoft and lost a suit against Tickets.com over deep linking. (source: FAQ about Linking -- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse)

For those who hate clicking to another page, here is what Chilling Effects says:

Question: Is "deep linking" illegal?

Answer: "Deep linking" refers to the creation of hyperlinks to a page other than a website's homepage. For example, instead of pointing a link at Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, this site's "homepage," another site might link directly to the linking FAQ at FAQ about Linking -- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse .

Some website owners complain that deep links "steal" traffic to their homepages or disrupt the intended flow of their websites. In particular, Ticketmaster has argued that other sites should not be permitted to send browsers directly to Ticketmaster event listings. Ticketmaster settled its claim against Microsoft and lost a suit against Tickets.com over deep linking.

From Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com opinion:
Further, hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is involved. The customer is automatically transferred to the particular genuine web page of the original author. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.

So far, courts have found that deep links to web pages were neither a copyright infringement nor a trespass.

[GarrieWilson]

That's not a valid reason to send a DMCA. Your host should know that.

Garrie

[Entrecon]

Interesting blog post. I am guessing your letter came from here:
How to send a DMCA takedown notice | Guardlex – Intelectual Property protection, DMCA services, anti piracy services

[Lenny Winkle]

I predict Entricon to be the next person to receive a dmca letter for his post. Lol for those who haven't gotten my humor so far in this thread.

[Lenny Winkle]

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

That's not a valid reason to send a DMCA. Your host should know that.

Garrie

Unfortunately either they don't, they don't care, or they don't want to get involved.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

That's not a valid reason to send a DMCA. Your host should know that.

Garrie

Originally Posted by Lenny Winkle

Unfortunately either they don't, they don't care, or they don't want to get involved.

If the 'hg' in the original post refers to HostGator, I'd wager that they do know, they do care, and they don't want to be forced into wasting resources on frivolous claims against them.

So they honor the letter of the law and forward the notice as required. As I read things, and I admit to zero legal training, you then have 48 hours to respond. Since the links were the content in question, simply (temporarily) disabling them would comply with HG's requirements. Sending a response similar to the one agc posted (without the vitriol) and notifying HG that you have done so gets you both off the hook had you chosen to pursue it.

[agc]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

Sending a response similar to the one agc posted (without the vitriol) and notifying HG that you have done so gets you both off the hook had you chosen to pursue it.

Yeah, vitriol optional.

I was intentionally nasty because the DMCA notice came under the signature of a lawyer who should clearly have known better.

So either she's retarded, or she's too lazy to read what's being sent out with her name on it. Either way, as a lawyer, she well deserved every bit of nastiness in the response. I wanted to send her home in a bad mood and ruin her dinner.

[gojiberryman]

Wow, That's strange. I have never even heard of such an occurrence before. Maybe you should integrated your own posts and links in order for you website to seem less fraudulent. I mean, I have other peoples post and links on a couple of my websites also and that never happened to me before. I might be because I have a number of my own posts and links at the website as well.

[Lenny Winkle]

Originally Posted by gojiberryman

Wow, That's strange. I have never even heard of such an occurrence before. Maybe you should integrated your own posts and links in order for you website to seem less fraudulent. I mean, I have other peoples post and links on a couple of my websites also and that never happened to me before. I might be because I have a number of my own posts and links at the website as well.

um, ok.

I have a more of my own posts and links on the site than have been submitted. Perhaps you missed the part where they sent me these articles to use on my site for including the links for them?

The whole point of my post is that just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it won't. It appears to be a growing trend.

[Lenny Winkle]

Update, I sent the company an email asking for an explanation and received a reply this morning.

I think this sets a very dangerous precedent if people are willing to spam out dmca requests to have links removed. Google seems to be starting to hold weak links or links they don't like against sites. Sites want those links gone, even though they asked for them.

Some companies are offering to remove all of those links for you for a low monthly fee.

Expect a growing rash of this if something isn't done. It could waste a lot of time for all of us.

Dear Lifeshield,

I'm writing to ask if your aware of someone making dmca requests on your behalf? I was contacted by my hosting provider saying that your company filed a dmca request against my website xxxxx.com. Please verify if you are in fact responsible for the company "Guardlex" acting on your behalf in this matter. For what its worth I've removed all links to your company, but here are a few facts you should be aware of:

1. The links I was asked to remove were submitted by your company or someone acting on your behalf.

2. Articles and links were submitted via the "postrunner" system of article submissions. Do you have someone at your company submitting these articles to various websites?

3. These links and article portrayed your company in a positive light and were submitted by someone acting on your behalf.

4. The DMCA request did not ask for removal of any copyrighted material. It asked for the removal of links to your website. It did not request removal of any content.

5. This isn't a copyright issue. It's a linking complaint. A complaint about links that someone promoting your company asked for. Asking to have links removed is not a valid reason to send a dmca.

6. FYI - Attorneys fees are recoverable against someone who makes a fraudulent DMCA complaint. 17 USC Section 512 (f)

7. As I stated above, the links have been removed and I have no interest in further promoting or portraying your company in a positive light.

8. You have wasted a considerable amount of my time by first asking me to publish your content and links, then contacting my hosting service to have them removed, forcing me to find and remove the links, write multiple emails to my hosting provider and contact you. My time is very valuable.

I look forward to an immediate reply letting me know if your in fact responsible for this, why you've made this request to have links removed, if you've hired this Guardlex "company" to act on your behalf. If you aren't responsible for this I look forward to your investigating this company that's sending out improper dmca requests on your behalf.


Dear Mr. Winkle,

We do apologize that the removal of links relating to LifeShield.com have cost you valuable time.

Our VP of Online Marketing indicated the following. "Guardlex is an anti-piracy firm we hired to remove links. Google has hit us with penalties for having these links and if they are not removed we will continue to be penalized. Personally, I think the links on his sites are fine but Google does not like them."

We did appreciate your support and hope you accept our apology.

Kind regards,
Don Truax
Director of Customer Support

[Lenny Winkle]

Isn't their email reply an admission of making a fraudulent dmca complaint?

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by Lenny Winkle

Isn't their email reply an admission of making a fraudulent dmca complaint?

Yes it is. Looks like caution in linkbuilding is more important than they thought. JC Penny did the same thing and then had to go around and try to get rid of thousands of links.

Glad you emailed them so everyone knows exactly why you got that email and from who.

[Lenny Winkle]

I got a further reply:

Lenny,

Hello. I handle the interactive marketing at LifeShield. We received a penalty by Google for having ‘unnatrual’ links to our web site. They had cited sites like yours, among others, as specific examples for our penalty. Google SPAM team is getting more and more aggressive with its updates. You are merely being asked to remove our links that were distributed by a 3rd party. LifeShield did not distribute those articles or approve of those articles distributed to your web site. We do not plan to take any action otherwise. We hired Guardlex as a service to force removal as the Google Penalty has severely impacted our business.

Evan S. Kramer
SVP Interactive & Ecommerce

Refer Friends And Family to LifeShield And Earn FREE Service

My reply:

Evan,
I wonder, do you realize that your severely impacting other peoples business by sending out false dmca requests that claim copyright infringement? Dmca requests are not a tool for link removal. Your severely hurting my business as well as that of many others with your false claims. You've also wasted a lot of my time.

If those articles weren't distributed by your company or on your behalf, who did distribute them? You should really be looking into that as well.

You can read more about this in this discussion: 1st dmca complaint ever and they want me to remove links?

I found post #21 especially relevant.

[mosthost]

What a horrible tactic. Some data centers will charge clients up to $300 per incident to clean up DMCA complaints. Others might cut off the client because of two many claims.

False claims like this could become costly soon. I imagine lawsuits coming from this type of behavior very soon.

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I wouldn't do that if I were you. They have every right to request that links to their site be removed, particularly if they consider your site to be a "bad neighborhood" or low quality link farm.

Yes, they do. They do not have the right to file bogus DMCA requests that put someone's site in jeopardy over an issue they are under no obligation to comply with.

[Mike Ogbin]

Just remove them and avoid any headache that could causing you some trouble with any complicated actions that you could receive from this DCMA complaint or others or even FTC.

Maybe someday I receive a complaint from DMCA or FTC that my girl friend must change her name Michelle because is copyrighted to Michelle Obama The first Lady

USA always the best

[hardraysnight]

Originally Posted by PatriciaJ

I had the same thing happen a few months ago with my directory. I got annoyed because the creep was threatening me with a DMCA when all he had to do was ask. I sent him an email saying that it wasn't a DMCA matter and made him wait a few days before I removed the links and articles.

the letter states dmca is a Federal law, but is it international?

i do not live usa, so do i need to feel threatened by dcma?

[warrich]

I myself consider that making others remove their links because of DMCA complaint is a great idea to prevent online piracy. Because noone has the rights to share unauthorized files in the internet without legal permission from the producers.

[agc]

Originally Posted by warrich

I myself consider that making others remove their links because of DMCA complaint is a great idea to prevent online piracy. Because noone has the rights to share unauthorized files in the internet without legal permission from the producers.

Incorrect.

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. "

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by warrich

I myself consider that making others remove their links because of DMCA complaint is a great idea to prevent online piracy. Because noone has the rights to share unauthorized files in the internet without legal permission from the producers.

This thread doesn't have anything to do with piracy or copyright. It has to do with someone spamming their links all over the place and being penalized by Google for doing that and now wanting those links to disappear.

[mosthost]

Originally Posted by oncewerewarriors

the letter states dmca is a Federal law, but is it international?

i do not live usa, so do i need to feel threatened by dcma?

That depends on the data center in which your 'web operation' is located. The DC will get the complaint. If it's a US data center (or one that co-operates with DMCA) they'll run you through the process.

Most complaintants will contact you to remove the content first. If you're unsure of the legality, pull it down, apologize, and hope for the best.

In reality, anyone with a modern website should put all this information into policies to avoid problems. State clearly what your policies are concerning IP and give people a chance to contact you for removal.

If DMCA complaints aren't done right, it could blow up for people making the complaints too.

One thing I didn't like about the 'form letter' displayed earlier in this thread is that it had two versions. (I represent the client, and 'I am the copyright holder.')

In the first incidence, they're stating they don't own the copyright but are demanding the material is pulled down. Don't forget, in the USA, anyone can sue anyone for any reason basically. They might sue you, but you might sue them too. It all depends on the financial equation.

[johnweyer]

hello - methinks this is obvious. 1)Find a few thousand links on obviously spun content.
2) email the owners of the linked business and show how google is penalizing sites for this type of content (not that hard to document). 3) offer to have it cleaned up and only get paid if successful. 1000 emails; 1/2 agree; 50% effective; 250 businesses pay you $100. wow, this may be a wso. oh yeah, rinse and repeat.
I would use the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.

[PatriciaJ]

Originally Posted by oncewerewarriors

the letter states dmca is a Federal law, but is it international?

i do not live usa, so do i need to feel threatened by dcma?

Originally Posted by Terry Gorry

No, it has no international standing as it is a US copyright statute.

I posted about this before on the Warrior Forum here but the inconvenient truth can't be let stand in the way of a good WF myth

Lots of people make lots of money peddling myths..

Terry

I don't know about international standing, but most of my websites are on Hostgator which is US webspace and subject to US law. If a DMCA was sent to any US hosting company I believe that they would be obliged to act upon it. Could be wrong but that makes sense to me. As a large percent of my traffic comes from the US I would be a fool if I ignored US laws.

Lenny, thanks for posting your communications with Lifeshield here. Those of us with article sites may find the information useful in the future.

[PatriciaJ]

Originally Posted by Terry Gorry

Patricia

You live in the UK apparently.

If you had your sites hosted on UK servers the DMCA would have no effect.

Where you choose to host is obviously a matter for yourself.

I have sites hosted in the US, the UK and Ireland-the only hosting account provider who would pay heed to the DMCA is the provider in the US.

The providers in the UK and Ireland would be leaving themselves open to legal proceedings -from me for any consequential losses arising from any unlawful actions by them against my sites.

Terry

Yes I live in the UK, but I am perfectly happy with my US host where most of my sites are. More so than the UK host that I use so I have no intention of moving my US hosted sites. Therefore I and my US hosts would have to abide by the US laws.

[Lenny Winkle]

Originally Posted by warrich

I myself consider that making others remove their links because of DMCA complaint is a great idea to prevent online piracy. Because noone has the rights to share unauthorized files in the internet without legal permission from the producers.

You can't be serious? There's no chance you read a single word of this thread before posting this pearl of wisdom.



On the subject of hosting let me say I purposely used the initials of my hosting provider, as opposed to naming them, since they aren't at fault and its technically not their problem. I do not blame them in the least or hold them in any way responsible.

That said, I wish my hosting company would step up and help put a stop to this before it becomes a wide spread problem. Yes, it will cost them some money to make an example here but it would save them a lot of money in the long run by setting an example and letting people know that filing false dmca requests isn't going to fly as a method of removing links as a google pleasing strategy.

This will become much more of a problem until someone fights it. Take my example. Lifeshield got exactly what they wanted by filing a false dmca claim because I don't have the energy, inclination or resources to fight them. They used a scummy tactic to get their way but it has a high rate of success.

I'm happy with my hosting company hg, that said I know that the ceo posts here occasionally and I wish that they would take an initiative to protect their customers and make an example. Fwiw they very well could be and I'm likely unaware of efforts being made.

It does make me nervous when I get emails from my hosting provider telling me I have 48 hours to do something or face being shut down. There's a lot of potential risk.

[Charanjit]

To be honest I think the 3rd party has paid a heavy price, firstly for the back links they brought, secondly the back links they had to pay someone to clean, and as quoted before if they had asked nicely most web hosts would remove the content any way. lesson of the day, do not buy a 30,000 back link package from fiver to your web site...........

buy it for your link wheel instead. or just do seo the right way or just pray you do not get caught.

[josephseeley]

I got a couple of these letters in the past few days for a couple of my general article directories (same letter as in the OP). People are getting "unnatural links" warnings in Webmaster Tools and freaking out. The specific site that sent me the requests dropped from #1 to #12 for an extremely lucrative keyword they had been heavily backlinking for about 2 years.

I doubt removing all their links is going to help, since those links are the only reason they ever got to #1 anyways...

[Lenny Winkle]

Originally Posted by Charanjit

To be honest I think the 3rd party has paid a heavy price, firstly for the back links they brought, secondly the back links they had to pay someone to clean, and as quoted before if they had asked nicely most web hosts would remove the content any way. lesson of the day, do not buy a 30,000 back link package from fiver to your web site...........

buy it for your link wheel instead. or just do seo the right way or just pray you do not get caught.

Apparently you didn't read the thread. Let me say this again - these weren't purchased links. This was 2 links in an article that lifeshield, or someone they hired, submitted to me in an article. This company, or someone acting on their behalf, contacted me and asked me to publish their article on my website in exchange for including 2 links to their company in the article.

I was looking for content and agreed to publish the article they asked me to publish. Now they're coming after me with false dmca requests to remove links to their business. They didn't ask me to remove the articles, or claim any copyright infringement.

This is an entirely different subject than purchasing a bunch of backlinks on fiverr

[josephseeley]

I actually had 12 articles from them, 2 links in each. I just deleted the articles because it's not worth the bother. Not like they were high quality articles anyways.

(I did briefly consider the fiverr spam in revenge, but it's not worth $5.)

[Ben Roy]

The number of people in this thread that don't understand the core issue here is astounding. The point is that this company is causing work for website owners ILLEGALLY. Filing a DMCA notice for a link you want removed is clearly not covered, and I'm sure they know that.

Here's the kicker - with DMCA, your host considers you guilty until proven innocent. They have no interest in getting involved. So I can send your host a DMCA notice that says "Joe has a website that is blue, and I'm offended by the color blue. I demand that he remove the blue from his website because it's infringing on my rights." You're going to get the same form letter and be FORCED to comply or they'll turn your site off. It's just easier than actually evaluating the claim and it clears them of liability.

It's YOUR job to either a) go through however much work it is to comply with the request or b) FAX a freaking letter back to your host (sending it via mail won't get there in time). This situation is exactly why our courts are not 'guilty until proven innocent'.

This situation will only be resolved when people who receive these letters go after the company (guardlex) and force them to pay ridiculous legal fees. But people won't do that, because as everyone in this thread keeps saying "just take them down, it's easier and faster". So they'll keep charging $24 and costing website owners untold amounts of money to hunt down and remove these links.

[celente]

Originally Posted by Chris Lockwood

People can request whatever they want, but they don't have the right to demand it.

yeah sure, but the thing is most people think they are a somebody online when they are a nothing! That is what I cannot stand.

[EvcRo]

Removing *free* links cost time, i hate idiots who beg for free links and after that cause problems to remove them, also *free*

remove their links, dosnt worth the time wasted

and go post their website link on BHW with the dmca story, they will have few millions quality backlinks in 1 day.

If you are an a-hole you must get what you deserve. With Google's help ofcourse, stupid ideas result in stupid results.

P.S. I got a lot of *remove my link google spanked me* emails lately, i put them to verify their ownership with a file on their site and remove their links if they comply. It cost me time but its worth as they are business leads anyway, that can be converted.

But first idiot that will cause me problems with my host/registar via a dmca will have their websites wiped from the face of google's index (if you think negative seo cant be possible ... lol, dream on).

I distribute justice without any incentives except my own personal philosophy.

[brettb]

Interesting thread.

A Hubber once asked me to remove links to their Hubs. Since I was using the HubPages RSS feed to get the links I refused.

I'd like to know what the niche was in OP's story.

The disturbing thing about OP's story is that it shows how easy you can lose your hosting - most hosts are very cheap with wafer thin margins and they don't need hassle from lawyers. Closing your account is the easiest way for them to deal with complaints.

[agc]

I've gotten 5 of these requests in the last week.

I've started responding w/ a form letter stating that my administrative fee is $95 per link.

Maybe those autoblogs I abandoned 2 years ago will turn a profit after all. Makes me wish I hadn't disconnected all the spam feeds. ;-)

[housewarrior]

It's nearly a month later and I also have been pestered by link removals. In my case it is an autoblog that I tossed up a couple or three years ago that has since been pandarized.

The first time around I removed the links. Then the mails kept coming. I ignored them. Then I get the DMCA threat today.

The mail was from somebody at gmail. So I don't really know WHO was requesting the removal. Gutless.

But, it's pretty obvious that it was somebody working SEO. Possibly a company.

The way I read the DMCA, they are there for duplicate or stolen content...not to make SEO companies happy.

Never-the-less, I removed the links and wrote a snippy mail back to the person who threatened me. I told her that she really didn't want to mess with me and that if I heard back from her I would make whichever company it was that the link went to a "special project."

Would I follow through? Probably not. But it's a risky business threatening site owners for something they didn't ask for...promo articles.

I'd be much more happy helping an actual site owner than a scruffy SEO "specialist" with an attitude.

I put the question to the DMCA. Hopefully I'll get an answer.

In the meantime, I don't plan on being an unpaid member of some SEO staff. (But I did today. Sigh.)

I think ol AGC got it just about right... "I've gotten 5 of these requests in the last week.

I've started responding w/ a form letter stating that my administrative fee is $95 per link."
If we all started doing this, I can promise this problem would go away quickly.

Norm

[jonj31070]

I had a company send me an email also. I did find their links. They happened to be located in the comments on my blog. Some spammer was an affiliate of the company. I removed the comments and all is well. Watch out for spam comments on your blogs.

[SuzanneH]

They're still at it; a blog post from pskl.us:

We got a takedown notice from LifeShield for our positive review - pskl.us

Suzanne

[Sushiman1111]

I'm nowhere near at the level of knowledge about this stuff that a lot of people here are, but I'll add something.

I live in Japan. I got a cease-and-desist notice a little while back from a competitor who didn't like a review I'd put up on one of my blogs. They wanted the review taken down, the entire blog taken down, a letter of apology, and were threatening to sue for legal damages involving defamation, etc. etc.

This came from an attorney in California. I went ahead and removed the offending review (which, although it was completely factual, was a bit on the sarcastic side) and told them to go jump in a lake for the other stuff. How are they going to sue me in Japan? It simply won't happen. It would cost them more to just look at an attorney who is capable of suing me here than they could ever hope to get in a judgement...assuming that they could even enforce the judgement at all.

I understand that not everyone wants to live outside the USA, or uproot themselves for the sake of their business. But given how things are going in America, I think that it would be a very prudent move to get hosting in some other country (or countries). It doesn't cost much (if any) more, you can usually work in English, and the extra level of protection that you get makes any extra hassle more than worth it in my mind. Americans are used to living with the threat of extreme legal penalties for pretty much any infraction. But most other countries aren't that silly. You do something wrong, you make it right, and that's that. There aren't any millions of dollars in punitive damages yada yada.

If the OP had had his hosting in Belgium (for example; I don't actually know about the law in Belgium), this whole thing probably wouldn't be an issue.

[Josh Anderson]

Originally Posted by Lenny Winkle

Did you read the letter?

Your completely missing the point anyway. Someone with no credentails sent an email to my hosting provider and said I must do "X"

My hosting company forwarded the letter to me and said "You have to do what this guy says within 48 hrs or we'll shut down your website till it's resolved"

You don't see a problem here?

Check what Brian said again...

The law provides you the option to counter... Of course that does not mean your host will comply with the law. Here is a decent reference and tool for DIY counter DMCA notice:

Do-It-Yourself Counter Notification Letter

If you do send a counter to the complaining party send one to your host as well.

The next step the complaining party must take after a counter DMCA notice is in the courts.

[housewarrior]

I've got another one for you. Because I kept getting "requests" to pull links from a certain pesky autoblog, I just took the thing down. With no PR it serves better to just start over with something more G friendly. Now, at most, you'll get the index page. Period.

Ok... So today, a few days after I take it down I get ANOTHER removal request. The jerk using gmail, claiming to be from the offended site didn't even go check to see the page.

So, I wrote him back a very innocent note... (including the clear your history bit, heh heh...)

I'm sorry. Please recheck your information and clear the history of your browser if necessary. This link to page ( http:xxx ) does not exist. In the future we will be very happy to remove any other links upon request. The administrative fee is $95.00USD per removal, payable to PayPal. Please advise your company. Instructions for payment will be issued at that time.
Norm

Not only do these reverse SEO guys want us to do all the work for something we didn't ask for or do, but then don't even take the time to check to see if the link (or site) is even there!

If we all start politely start charging to remove autoblog links, chances are good the whole thing will go away.

In the meantime, unless I miss my guess, I'll get a second mail soon threatening me with the DMCA if I don't remove the link on the page that does not exist.

Norm