Anonymous DCMA complaint from CAM MODELS PROTECTION
 

https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/14966616

What a load of crap.

Everyone that has gotten a DMCA takedown notice from CAM MODELS PROTECTION should do a gofundme and hire a lawyer in The Netherlands and sue the fuck out of them. If a consortium of a few hundred contributed to the legal costs -- the costs would be trival and CAM MODELS PROTECTION would end up bankrupt.

What is even more disgusting is a foreign business profiting off a US law.

You should have to pay $10 to file and give your real physical address of legal service it you want to make claims. None of this no jurisdiction anonymous crap.

Then you won't see these robo-filings and the seo spam filings.

What a fucking joke *input string optional*
This is made for fraud and SEO spam.


https://www.harvard.edu/copyright-issue

The problem is jurisdictional -- Google should not act on any notice not made according to the US laws regarding DMCA. DMCA is US law.

Go ahead,create gofund campaign and I will be the first one to donate

If you own the rights or a license to publish the content then you don't have a problem.

:2 cents:

Not my concern currently -- but if you are affected I can ask some attorney licensed to practice in the Dutch Courts if this is feasible.

I am tied of this sort of shit (and hearing about it all of the time). The supposed *good faith* statements made anonymously are a crock of shit.

Google is running scared from the EU and will just throw you under the bus -- you are just a number to Google :2 cents:

That does not apply to live broadcast content in all instances.

A video that you filmed and sold for download or pay per view yes.

You have to prove ownership of live broadcast images. That you did in fact broadcast that particular image.
With TB DAILY of unique feeds -- good luck finding your needle in a haystack.
If it is a static image, from a profile that is another matter.

If the model was cansplitting?
Then there are 3 legit owners with non exclusive transmission rights. Their affiliates are sub licensees.
Can you prove that one way or the other?

And at what expense?

You wouldn't ask me to prove shit if you weren't fucking up and making a bunch of excuses.

:1orglaugh

Well just provide the contract/license/terms that prove the above statement.
And if you can't, then stop inventing rules just because they are convenient.


:2 cents:


Further more, your claim is as false as CBS claiming rights to re-show NFL games because they already showed it once and are affiliates.

:helpme

If Lucinda J. Smith is Romanian I'm a black North Korean Jew

Consider this scenario:

Mary Model is working Chaturbate Jasmin and Xlovecam as a model using a cam splitter and broadcasting to all 3 cam sites at the same time.

Each cam site has contractually non-exclusive copyright granted to them by the content creator -- Mary Model.

Each cam site has white labels and promotional tools for content licensed affiliates, using sub licensed images -- by and through Mary Model's contract with each of the cam sites.

All of these images are not in copyright violation -- they are all licensed.

You can't answer because you do don't know -- straw man argument overruled.

It is a fake name -- that is typical of Eastern European cam models.
Also Lucinda is a name used 100 years ago in America.
It's a fake name an American would not use.

You don't own the content on the white label, the sponsor can cut it off at anytime.
Sorry, but that's just some shit that you made up.

:2 cents:

I know south korean black webmaster :D

Does anyone here know the Cam Model Prorection people? I think it is fair to say that they do not DMCA correctly, although this is the first I've heard of them using fake names. Not disagreeing, but what is the evidence of this, aside from one unusual name?

interesting :)

The images are on your URL and you domain (in most cases).
So you get the DMCA regardless of real ownership -- That simple.
=====
The whole process is corrupt.

Google just accepts their bullshit without question because they will have no legal liability in doing so -- Google does not care. Actions speak louder than words -- always.

===
A lot of good shit in this thread -- this bullshit has been going on for years.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8848544

===This is not a recent issue -- abuse of the DMCA process

If you cannot face your accuser how would you know if there are other mass - DMCA frauds from the same source. The US 6th Amendment only applies to criminal law -- criminal. US laws are not admissible in foreign jurisdiction except by treaty.

they dmca a blank page of mine makes little since.

Fuck me, they've been on my case too, even after I removed it, they DMCA me 8 days later with the same request on different pages. I've noted who it was and I won't allow it on my website again.:321GFY

https://image.prntscr.com/image/xzwr...8CtGhc35Ew.png

https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/14966616

I get a 403 forbidden error here... am I special?

Works for me?

maybe it is you IP or browser? IDK.

I got someone I know in The Netherlands that will be looking for any business records with the owner(s) or the corporate resident agent's address to serve them. The may just be hiding with a front in The Netherlands too ...

Good idea if anyone knows the ip's CAM MODELS PROTECTION is using I will get the CDIR they are using -- they will have to buy more ips in a different netblock -- we can start making them run in circles.

Start here >:P

We found their parent corporation and their office address
(10:20:04 AM) investigator 1: Leakserv B.V.,Hoofdvestiging
KvK 63891522
Vestigingsnr. 000032763115
Middelerf 63851SP Ermelo

Leakserv B.V., registered at (3851SP) Ermelo, Middelerf 6, registered with the Chamber of Commerce under “KvK” number 63891522

Cam Model Protection is using the same business number -- you cannot hide your business on the internet -- we can find you

(11:03:27 AM) me: Nick Steenland begon afgelopen september met Leakserv
(11:03:42 AM) investigator 2:: Co-founder Nick Steenland started last September with Leakserv.
(11:04:05 AM) investigator 2:: September 2015

https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/nederla...-het~a14e1fd0/

too easy

Time to let the dogs out ;)

FYI: https://ipinfo.io/AS51696/195.211.72.0/22

Same server? and IP ...hmmm

Folks who own the copyright finally got somebody who will take the fight to google....Too many pirates are making money from stolen content... So go sue Lumen, ( I will hire them and thanks for actually telling me about them;)) you will loose...stealing is stealing, and if you really own the stuff you have nothing to worry about.

I have now delisted 7 sites stealing my content , 2 with Google and 5 with Youtube.. It is about time the thieves got their right treatment ....Google ranking "0"

Ugghhh.....

you are an idiot -- this is not about copyright theft -- this is about mass fraud DMCAs that are filed anonymously. HARASSMENT

Copyright trolls

I asked about Cam Model Protection on co.uk

https://gfy.com/21990349-post38.html

but dont get any reply.

From that company " Our agents search daily for illegally distributed content. Each month we report more than 150.000+ pirated links! "

As a content creator, I am very frustrated by piracy and it is doubly frustrating to see these guys charging cam girls an arm and a leg and then inflating their "success" numbers with DMCA notices which include content which is not piracy. Also, I'm not sure it is awesome for cam girls to have their legal name and cam name permanently searchable together in Google.

The whole system is flawed, when pirates get away with devaluing content and the parasites charge content creators a pseudo-tax while creating animosity and privacy invasion without actually helping.

If you look at the form carefully

I consent to be served? HOLY FUCK
that means in legaleze: come and serve me a lawsuit that is my address
FUCK Them these people have assholitus -- do what ever you want.

I would just remove the content if you believe it to be infringing, if you are or your server is in the USA.
read this:Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content | Digital Media Law Project

If anyone is a licensed attorney and wants to comment -- be my fuckin' guest

What is being missed here is that content in cam thumbs is content licensed to the broadcasting cam site, and sublicensed to its affiliates, at its time of production -- it is not infringing. The model is saying: I don't want my pictures used -- so what -- your use is legal if you have license.

In most cases as a courtesy, but not as some legal mitigation, most webcam sites will just delete the images for reason that most of these models' images are really useless and without value if they are not longer working.

If you are an affiliate using sponsor authorized content you are a copyright sub-licensee in succession.

This is all about: my new boyfriend, I got a new job, I don't want nobody to know --- shit like that -- is what this is about.

Personally, I have always honored any polite requests from models that are no longer working to remove their content. POLITE REQUESTS through proper channels and not fraudulent DCMA takedown notices. Offering recording captures of private shows may be a right of publicity infringement -- but their copyright is that the website, and if the transfer is non exclusive; also of the model's retained copyrights. DMCA does not cover *right of publicity* that is a civil tort (in the USA anyway). You have to file suit in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person..._jurisdictions every country has different laws.

This is just a cheap shot :2 cents:

the problem is some courts have ruled that linking to infringing content is infringement. Without foreknowledge Google has safe harbor -- if they remove the infringing link. You are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent and that is contradictory to US law -- DMCA is a US Law. Welcome to fucking internet court :P

Not sure I get your point..?:helpme

I have heard a lot of bad things about Cam Model Protection sending fake DMCA notices and overcharging models for their service.

Also seems suspicious apparently nobody knows a real person from there.

Someone could think that company is shady, while being VERY anti-piracy.

Make sense?

I am not an attorney, so do not take this as legal advice, but, if you believe the content is infringing, you shouldn't post it in the first place.

The real victims here are the models. They are thinking that this company has the right to even file on their behalf for something they don't even own the rights to in the first place.

It's a big scam and they need to be shut down.

The tubes sites stealing content and publishing it under the guise of "anonymous uploads" need to be shut down

Cam sites use model's images with copyright license.
Affiliates of these respective cam sites receive a sub license for any official offered promotional material from their sponsor.

License to use these copyright licensed images is not revocable by the licensor (the cam model). Often times a cam site will remove these images at some model's request -- as a courtesy -- and not as an obligation.

I am not talking about copyright infringing *pirated* content.

DMCA complaints are made under a penalty of civil perjury.

The reproduction and distribution of any copyright work that is streamed to you with any encryption or copyright protective technology is a civil tort and in extreme circumstances of copyright theft for profit, 18 U.S. Code § 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright is a criminal offense.

Capturing cam shows and distributing them for profit can be a US Federal criminal felony but if you operate outside of the USA and there is not a similar law ... No such laws in Hong Kong or many other places ...

So, Google becomes the policeman of the world and sleaze-ball shysters like Cam Model Protect game the system.

Good night Irene ...

Can't you guys just file a counter DMCA? It's not that difficult to do ....

The right process is models should request remove image to cam site not hire to dmca company.
So remove image from https://roomimg.stream.highwebmedia....addyntwink.jpg by cam model protection is false.

im confuse the model actually know or not? they already pay for dmca and got false report.

Most people do not read internet contracts nor understand what they are agreeing to.

These copyright terms are written by lawyers in legal English that most people do not understand.

DMCA has no legal standing outside of the USA it is a US law. You want to be a monkey filling out forms all day be my guest ...