My explanation is within your comments

Sorry, I have NO boulder ( not even a chip :1orglaugh) on my shoulder, but I have other burden. That being spending 1000's of dollars /year on legal affairs and DMCA issuance. We are fighting it daily. Frankly, I am tired of it since it is almost a loosing battle in 2020, where the attitude is that everything on the Internet is free and "free for me" to make money from.

... and guess what, I ONLY have ONE URL and it has NOT changed in 15 years. My URL has ONLY my content on it. It is a VOD site. I do NOT own a mainstream site but own a library of my mainstream movies dating back to the 90ties. There also I have people chasing the BIGGEST thieves: Those being Amazon and E Bay. We even had to chase my adult stuff edited down from both of these outfits. So go figure.

Some folks here know what my site is, BUT I am not going to publish it for now.

How do you know this info? Do you have access to their books? Come on man! :1orglaugh :)

How have you been?

That's one way to take care of the competition... I used to get a ton of dmca from hairy Potter rights holders for my hairy content... Not very smart bots

crazynes

Agreed. I would also note that crawling websites without their explicit consent might be an issue on several levels. Legitimate crawlers have a user agent and respect the robots.txt rules.

Can they really auto-submit? I didn't see an API (but I didn't look too hard).
Using bots for detection is one thing but automation of submission seems unreasonable.


I just read this:
Source: What A Shock: Scammers Are Abusing Takedown System With DMCA Claims

How are you keeping track of the false DMCA notices? Is there a way to have Lumen send you an email whenever someone files a complaint against a certain domain?

Add the site to your Google Console. :winkwink:

Your wesite disapoears from Google and you stop receiving any goigle traffic.
You can also add your website to Google webmaster tools.

Sites in webmaster tools don't seem to be showing DMCA notifications that I can see in the Lumen database.

Fiddy DMCAs and a nice big wet poo :)

2 words: Bulletproof hosting

Wow these shady mother fuckers are still doing this!? This exact same scumbag company did this to me a year or two ago, got my site penalized by google etc.

I had absolutely nothing violating any DMCA content let alone anything that they were even searching for. Want to know what it was and why they struck me? A file name of a .jpg had a similar text string as a cam model.

They exclusively filed the thing based on a file name without even looking at it (It was something completely different of course) and caused damage to my site and it never recovered.

Disclaimer: I am not talking about Cam Model Protection, I don't have experience with them, nor do I believe all model protections are bad or all webmasters are good, this is silly, use your judgement and form an opinion on a case by case using your experience

- Consider the following scenario (one simple scenario of many possibilities):

A model m has a profile picture uploaded on sponsor s1. s1 becomes owner as per their terms (terms that differ from other sponsors' terms of course). m likes that picture of hers (otherwise it wouldn’t be her profile picture) and uploads it to sponsor s2 (they have another set of terms). s1 owns the content, s1 & s2 distribute and make the profile pic available to their affiliates. Google and others index the pages that affiliates have skillfully produced. Model m searches for her username and sees thousands of matches! wtf!! she immediately gets in touch with a "model protection" service (mp) that charges her a hefty monthly recurring fee and files a dmca on her behalf not realizing (or maybe they do) they are not representing the actual owner of the content (which is s1, see above). mp use their unauthorized crawlers to detect the profile picture. Those crawlers are not perfect so they also identify wrong content and flag it in the process as per noted in the previous post. mp will file dmcas to thousands of affiliates swearing by "persuant of article xxxx" and "by God and by Law" etc .. that they represent the owner and will pay if this isn't accurate. But, indeed it isn't accurate: back to the first step, s1 actually owns the content not m. mp doesn't represent s1. mp in fact is harmful to s1 by attacking it by proxy (attacking its affiliates).


model protection service, in the above scenario:
- trespassed, used webmasters bandwidth with non-legit bots and without explicit authorization, in breach of terms, etc..
- lied under oath: the content is owned by sponsors who authorized their affiliates to use it
- are detrimental to sponsors by de-indexing pages that drive traffic to them.
- mislead models into believing dmca is a de-indexing tool.
- benefited from the confusion and entertained further confusion by mixing actual piracy content
- have been unreasonable by not attempting to establish contact before escalating


Of course this is only one case of many. Each case should be carefully addressed because nothing is ever so simple. Automation and filing in bulk with minimal human intervention seems a bad idea. To that you add that they don't try to establish a channel of discussion with webmasters.


And now the article again:
Source: What A Shock: Scammers Are Abusing Takedown System With DMCA Claims