Author Topic: DMCA demand from CALO (Read 6229 times)

psy · « **on:** June 23, 2009, 11:47:31 AM »

We have just recieved a DMCA takedown notice from Ken Huey. Under the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act, we have no choice but to comply with the demand. As always, a DMCA can be countered with a counter-claim. If a counter-claim is recieved from "well proxied" and a lawsuit is not filed within 14 days, the information will be restored. If "well proxied" chooses not to file a counter-claim the information will remain deleted and will not be restored. Attached is the demand letter.
[attachment=0:2k2agpfc]dmca demand to fornits.docx[/attachment:2k2agpfc]

SatansLawyer · « **Reply #1 on:** June 23, 2009, 12:13:28 PM »

It's interesting that Ken only claimed copyright on the names and treatment profiles. If he had wanted to, he could have claimed a whole lot more. It would appear this particular program director does not mind open discussion and debate about his program and has even go so far as to post here. We've never seen that before. Why?

Anonymous · « **Reply #2 on:** June 23, 2009, 12:22:39 PM »

can't open that download. any chance of a more accessible format?

Inculcated · « **Reply #3 on:** June 23, 2009, 12:31:49 PM »

Here:
June 23, 2009
To Mr. Michael Crawford, Administrator of Fornits, and Ginger McNulty, creator of Fornits,
This letter is relative to postings about to the treatment and identity of CALO students. Certain threads on your site have the names of current and former CALO students and the treatment team summaries of three students. We have now confirmed that all of this information was obtained by infiltrating the email accounts of two CALO staff. Once in these accounts, Dan McGrath, posting as â€œwell proxiedâ€, stole these digital files and published their contents on your site.
This letter is a demand under the DMCA (Digital Media Copyright Act of 1998) that all postings containing the names of students and their treatment summaries be removed immediately. The names of students were contained in a shift note email that was copied and pasted with exact misspellings. CALO owns the copyright on all internal email. The treatment summaries were similarly stolen and CALO owns the copyright on those summaries.
This letter further demands that any future posts stolen digitally from CALO be removed upon notification of their existence by any source.
Sincerely,
Ken Huey, CEO
CALO
130 CALO Lane
Lake Ozark, MO 65049

Troll Control · « **Reply #4 on:** June 23, 2009, 12:47:17 PM »

OK, now who the hell is Dan McGrath? Or is this just a fictitious name attached to an account somewhere??

psy · « **Reply #5 on:** June 23, 2009, 12:49:54 PM »

Quote from: "Guest"

OK, now who the hell is Dan McGrath? Or is this just a fictitious name attached to an account somewhere??

Why do you want to know? Where did that come from? It's not mentioned in the document.

Anonymous · « **Reply #6 on:** June 23, 2009, 12:53:43 PM »

It appears to be in the doc:

Quote

Once in these accounts, Dan McGrath, posting as "well proxied", stole these digital files and published their contents on your site.

Is there proof of Mr. McGrath's alleged misdeeds? Why doesn't Ken sue Mr. McGrath?

Anonymous · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2009, 12:58:27 PM »

He has not provided proof that Dan McGrath posted it.

Anonymous · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2009, 01:03:07 PM »

How can CALO own the copyright to someone else's NAME? I can understand how there might be issues with a piece of original or personal writing, but someone else's name?

Anonymous · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2009, 01:32:59 PM »

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf > The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Of 1998

psy · « **Reply #10 on:** June 23, 2009, 01:41:38 PM »

The validity of the DMCA takedown is not anybody's concern but the courts, or the allegations within. The only people they concern is Ken and Well Proxied (who can easily contest this action if he wishes to).

Anonymous · « **Reply #11 on:** June 23, 2009, 01:54:00 PM »

I wouldn't be surprised if psy asked them to send a letter like this, so then he would have an excuse to take the names down.

Anonymous · « **Reply #12 on:** June 23, 2009, 03:18:02 PM »

Quote from: "sneekysneeky"

I wouldn't be surprised if psy asked them to send a letter like this, so then he would have an excuse to take the names down.

If that is the case, he knew ALLOT more than we all knew.

Anonymous · « **Reply #13 on:** June 23, 2009, 03:34:20 PM »

I'm pretty sure it's not that. I'm almost 100% positive. It could, however, be a competitor trying to take out CALO and fornits in one fell swoop. I have a working theory but it's pretty far out...

Remember the name of the guy who outed all those WWASP staffers? Well. That was "well proxied", but it wasn't this "well proxied" (there are at least two). How do I know? I just do. And not with any IP information.

Let's figure for a moment it's WWASP that wants to take out fornits, or at the very least all posts by "well proxied". They then post some of CALO's information they gain access to, hoping that it starts legal action against fornits, well proxied, etc... and CALO's reputation of protecting kid's privacy along the way. They then take out a competitor, a critic, and a critical website... all without firing a shot. Of course that's silly talk.

psy · « **Reply #14 on:** June 23, 2009, 04:12:54 PM »

Hey. I'm as confused as anybody else here. How the hell would Ken get the name "Dan McGrath".

Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry