DMCA from Black Rifle Coffee Company®

DMCA from Black Rifle Coffee Company® (Voat)

submitted 5.9 years ago by PuttItOut

Voat has received a DMCA takedown request on behalf of Black Rifle Coffee Company® regarding the following user account: @BlackRifleCoffeeCo.

The peculiar situation with this DMCA request is that the user @BlackRifleCoffeeCo permanently deleted their profile on 2018-10-10. Majority of the time this would suffice to satisfy a company like Black Rifle Coffee Company®, but they have persisted to have this user account completely wiped off of Voat (ghosted).

The problem we have at Voat with fulfilling this request, is that we don't have any way to permanently ghost an account. Since we value transparency, it simply isn't possible with the code we've written unless we go in and 'spez' the data itself.

In full disclosure, it appears this account was not affiliated with Black Rifle Coffee Company®, so they have every right to want it disassociated with their trademark. The unfortunate thing is that when I realized who this company was, I attempted to contact the CEO personally to discuss the difficulties with this on our end. I just figured, naively, that a 2nd Amendment company (BRCC) and a 1st Amendment company (Voat) could work out an issue the old-fashioned way. Needless to say, I was never able to 'get past the receptionist' so to speak.

The reason I am bringing this up is for a couple reasons.

We at Voat have gotten used to a free-for-all website, but that isn't actually true. We have to operate within the confines of the law, and DMCA takedown requests are a law we have to follow.
Any subverse or username that infringes on a trademark has to be taken down if we receive a valid DMCA request from the trademark owner.
Voat will publicly post all DMCA takedown requests in which we modify content (data) to satisfy.

Black Rifle Coffee Company®'s DMCA request to CloudFlare

Now to figure out how to do this.

If you guys have any ideas on how we can satisfy DMCA requests like this and still log that they occurred, I’m all ears. These situations are likely to only increase.

Edit 1

Voat has reluctantly complied with this request. Access to 'claimed infringement' has been disabled.

Edit 2

Since very few read:

TL;DR: Account was already wiped as user had deleted the account months ago (i.e. Voat did NOT delete any submissions or comments). Actions against Voat continued despite this. Voat made the account 'disappear' after posting this submission in order to fully comply with request.

In this particular situation, given the context and all things considered, this is the best option for Voat.

757 comments

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

ChiComs 5.9 years ago

REFUSE AND OBJECT! Make them PROVE YOU ARE MAKING MONEY via stolen COPYRIGHTED materials and tradedress,

REFUSE!

They will NOT WIN!

Also... get the hell off of CloudFlare so that you can have real properly encrypted https streams!

link

ScrewdriverOo 5.9 years ago

This is honestly the best advice here. They could sue, but would have to go after the individual that created the account. They're filing a DMCA because they didn't exercise due diligence. The only way they can sue someone is by a court order for that info and Putt should only comply beyond what he already has after the order only. By deleting the posts, they would be hurting their case if the account was created maliciously by their competition. This all seems like they wanted to create an account here and found out the name u/BlackRifleCoffeeCo was already taken. U/BlackRifleCoffeeCompany hasn't been taken so they could take that one. The names of key persons in the company aren't taken either.

DMCA isn't supposed to be used like that and Voat could sue them for a false DMCA claim. I actually would suggest Voat and Putt to look into suing for the false DMCA claim.

link

SearchVoatBot 5.9 years ago

This comment was linked from this v/RidersoftheReich comment by @commonsenseisded.

^{Posted automatically (#18207) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

link

sadam029 5.9 years ago

YOu need to barbara streisand this on torrentfreak ASAP

You don't think this was their intent? Who the hell is black rifle coffee? They are doing this in hopes of attracting attention....

link

SearchVoatBot 5.9 years ago

This comment was linked from this v/whatever comment by @Fibbideh.

^{Posted automatically (#18189) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

link

idk 5.9 years ago

They could possibly go after the user IF the user was falsely acting as a representative in a malicious manner. But that wouldn't be trademark infringement (unless that user was also selling a similar product.). They could also apply for a cease & desist in that situation, but it's more discretionary. It seems like a legal intern over there got over zealous.

I suggest Putt gets some legal advice.

Pedantic correction because I find this interesting... "Any other spelling , lacking spaces, is historically NOT INFRINGING unless they also own that. The sole exemption is a domain name created AFTER a trademark and lacking spaces."

Periods, commas, and case also make it non-distinguishable. So you could get sued if your company was Black Rifle Coffee, company.

link

antiliberalsociety 5.9 years ago

Breitbart is owned by Jews, they aren't going to help us

link

Cleanhobo 5.9 years ago

@TheBuddha another lawfag.

link

Cleanhobo 5.9 years ago

@puttitout THIS

link

SearchVoatBot 5.9 years ago

This comment was linked from this v/QRV comment by @15998119.

^{Posted automatically (#18143) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

link

475677 5.9 years ago

@Puttitout This is what you need to do. The second you bend the knee any account with a company name like google or reddit in their username will be seen by their lawyers as a way to make a shekel or to shut you down and it's probably going to be both knowing the vermin you're up against.

That said if you want to bitch out and throw them a bone just change the account's name to something generic like SHOAH_01 and each time it happens just count up. As a free speech platform it goes against the principles that this site was founded on to remove the posts but changing the name finds a middle ground.

link

Glock-N-Roll 5.9 years ago

Not to mention the fact that every libtard out there is gonna make a shitload of accounts with trademarked names and start posting everywhere in order to bring the place down because “free speech bad”.

link

sLnTsRvC 5.9 years ago

If this is true it's really great news because we can tell them to suck a sick.

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

This is the smartest comment in the entire thread. Here's why @PuttItOut won't do it:

1) It requires the testicular fortitude to be comfortable with asserting your rights and claims.
2) The "Law is scary and for smart people only" meme. He clearly drinks dat kool-aid.
3) He's already showing signs that he's going to comply first, even before asserting any rights he may have. This could be good, if you don't cuck-out and fail to sue afterwards (see 1).

link

heygeorge 5.9 years ago

Who is going to fund the protracted legal battle and associated costs?

Is this the best use of Putt’s time?

It is interesting to fight. From my brief reading, I’d wager it’s as simple as someone at the company did a websearch and the Voat userpage comes up in the search.

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

Ah, you must've not read 2). Good job falling for that meme.

link

heygeorge 5.9 years ago

I don’t agree that the CEO of Voat should be spending his time personally litigating. I have defended myself successfully, and also hired help when prudent. The legal profession is not much different from any other skilled profession.

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

I have defended myself successfully

If that were true, you wouldn't be paying someone to do it afterwards. Paying someone $40k to write the equivalent of an essay and submit it to a judge isn't very bright behavior for a rocket surgeon such as yourself. Do you see why I don't believe you?

Even if your personal credentials were the topic here (they aren't), @PuttItOut isn't even exhibiting the kind of legal scruples that come with someone comfortable with standing up for their rights while staring down a judge ( see "3)" mentioned above), so the "CEO of Voat" (the multi-billion dollar corporation that it is) isn't exactly exhibiting Executive Officer behavior, unless that behavior is to cuck-out and comply.

link

heygeorge 5.9 years ago

I know plenty of people who have changed lightbulbs, switches, outlets, heck, even rewired a room. Yet when the job gets beyond them, they hire a professional. Even professionals at times hire professionals to help them. It doesn’t matter that you don’t believe me.

I don’t see why Putts should waste much time on a non-issue. And I don’t recommend anyone take legal advice from Voat. So what you’re saying is all well and good, but that doesn’t mean it’s not ignorant.

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

i

Yes yes, we're back to you again. Perhaps you can also recommend that people not take CEO advice from voat, either?

link

heygeorge 5.9 years ago

Royal We

Lel

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

so, no?

link

admin2 5.9 years ago

WRONG.

Complying shows GUILT, and infringement suits FOLLOW admission of guilt! Infringement suits for cash can ONLY OCCUR is someone foolishly admits they infringed a trademark!

link

heygeorge 5.9 years ago

WRONG.

Complying shows GUILT, and infringement suits FOLLOW admission of guilt! Infringement suits for cash can ONLY OCCUR is someone foolishly admits they infringed a trademark!

Are you replying to the correct person?

link

admin2 5.9 years ago

yes YOU because YOU typed these sentences :

Who is going to fund the protracted legal battle and associated costs?

and

Is this the best use of Putt’s time?

It implies putt can AVOID the pending lawsuit magically by capitulating and reacting now, where historically this is step one to force an admission BEFORE a spurious trademark lawsuit LATER.

and also you are wrong because you wrote "Is this the best use of Putt’s time?" to a poster above that wrote "He's already showing signs that he's going to comply first, even before asserting any rights he may have" and that implies you meant putt should show admission of guilt and do actions now that show capitulation.

Do you understand?

THE WORST THING PUTT CAN DO is overcapitulate, in fact ignoring is better than falsely admitting blame and guilt of a non issue.

link

heygeorge 5.9 years ago

In which state did you pass the bar?

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

California and Nevada. He's right.

link

FuckYesJefferson 5.9 years ago

you're calling our best friend a pussy.

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

If you haven't dealt with a protracted legal case or three on your own, you definitely don't understand the testicular fortitude required.
Asserting your rights ain't easy. It's always worth it, but it takes cojones to make that stand and stick to it long-term.
Add to this his comments in this thread showing he's most interested in ways to technically comply, and you can accurately measure the testicle size.

link

FuckYesJefferson 5.9 years ago

So twice the size of yours ?

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

Your defense of Putt is admirable. He should give you a badge on your profile page.
Your lack of intelligent rebuttal is sufficient evidence that you accept my point of view. Have a great day.

link

FuckYesJefferson 5.9 years ago

Your fedora needs to be resized for your big brain.

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

Can you just post the Navy Seal Copypasta and get it over with, tough guy? You're just desperate for the last word anyway, so at least entertain everyone reading while you scramble to get it.

link

admin2 5.9 years ago

"post the Navy Seal Copypasta and get it over with, tough guy"

Hah! Biggest laugh this week. Too bad the recipient feigned ignorance to meme concept, or truly cannot understand "internet tough guy" concept.

link

FuckYesJefferson 5.9 years ago

What's navy seal copy pasta?

link

Dortex 5.9 years ago

Asserting your rights ain't easy. It's always worth it, but it takes cojones to make that stand and stick to it long-term.

Can confirm. Is hell and doesn't even necessarily pay off. But I'd do it all over again.

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

Congratulations on your success. Those who do not assert their rights have none.

link

Dortex 5.9 years ago

Oh no, i failed. Had all my money stolen by a relative who had custody of me, got locked out of my hone when a judge refused to give me a protection order in a case she admitted was open and shut; hence the qualifier. I'm just saying I'd do it again.

link

thisistotallynotme 5.9 years ago

Sounds like you succeeded to me. Most men turn to husks when they lose their innocence.

Learn contract law, and I bet you'll have tons of success in the future. Good luck to you.

link

NiklausTheNaked 5.9 years ago

Really interested in a response from @puttitout regarding this. If they won't even give you the time of day to speak with them, then doing no more than the the letter is the law seems just.

link

toldyouso666 5.9 years ago

Putitout is not going to respond to this in any meaningful because it's not his agenda. His agenda is to establish a mechanism for curating voat the way Reddit starting being modded when they got their corporate sponsor. Sponsors don't throw money around because they like losing money, and money NEVER comes without strings.

link

clamhurt_legbeard 5.9 years ago

Sure thing, Ted.

link

Richard_Kranium 5.9 years ago

Agreed. This seems to be interesting timing, especially since voat just received some outside investor money. I don't know the particulars of that arrangement, but if @puttitout does not make a stand where he is legally able, this could set a precedent for other companies to request account removal if a username paints a company in a bad light. I hope legal advice is sought here, and the response is thought through to consider any downstream ramifications.

link

clamhurt_legbeard 5.9 years ago

this could set a precedent for other companies to request account removal if a username ~~paints a company in a bad light~~ exists

u/blackriflecoffeeco isn't painting ANYTHING, because it was deleted.

link

admin2 5.9 years ago

Technically, deleting only LOWERS the civil litigation award that eventually occurs, or lowers the arbitration settlement. It does not get you "off the hook" , but a common carrier (internet and colo) would be off the hook, a web site, less so. Of course I am talking about ACTUAL trademark infringement , not this situation that is an actual non-issue.

BUT DELETING ONLY CAUSES GUILT and admission of wrongdoing and ironically strengthens a lawsuit against you (that is pending)