BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to 
Vietnamese Duo Hit With Injunction After 117,000 Bogus DMCA Claims
from the maybe-just-make-better-t-shirts? dept
While we still lament the fact that the DMCA’s Section 512(f) has no real teeth to punish people for filing bogus DMCA takedown notices, at least some companies are still trying to use it against the most egregious offenders. Last year, Google went after two people in Vietnam, who Google accused of creating at least 65 Google accounts and then using them to send an astounding 117,000 bogus copyright claims.
Apparently, this was the strategy used by the two individuals, Nguyen Van Duc and Pham Van Thien, to try to remove competitors hawking similar t-shirts to the ones they were selling:
Over the last few years and continuing to the present, Defendants—led by two individuals, Defendants Nguyen and Pham—have created at least 65 Google accounts so they could submit thousands of fraudulent notices of copyright infringement against more than 117,000 third-party website URLs. Defendants appear to be connected with websites selling printed t-shirts, and their unlawful conduct aims to remove competing third-party sellers from Google Search results. Defendants have maliciously and illegally exploited Google’s policies and procedures under the DMCA to sabotage and harm their competitors.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the defendants chose to ignore the lawsuit. The court let Google serve them both via email and SMS, and after reviewing all the details, determined that Google kinda had a point about these jackasses. And now, the judge has entered a default judgment, enjoining the defendants from sending more bogus copyright notices.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants and their agents, employees, successors, and assigns, and all other persons acting in concert with or at the discretion of Defendants, are hereby permanently enjoined from the following:
1. Submitting any notifications of copyright infringement or takedown requests to Google based on false assertions of right of copyright ownership.
2. Creating or attempting to create any Google accounts.
3. Using any Google products or services to promote any of Defendants’ websites or products.
4. Using any Google products or services to harm or attempt to harm any third parties, including without limitation Google’s Search Ads customers.
5. Assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or entity in engaging or performing any of the activities described in subparagraphs (1) through (4) above.
Some might argue that this is all kinda pointless. The defendants ignored the case entirely. They had to be served via email, and the judgment is a default. But, still, it’s important to call out those who are abusing the legal system in such a way and establish that such activities will not be tolerated. So even if this particular result doesn’t lead to much, it’s a useful signal reminding people who are drawn to such abuses to maybe think again.
Filed Under: 512(f), bogus copyright claims, bogus dmca takedowns, copyright, dmca, search
Companies: google
Comments on “Vietnamese Duo Hit With Injunction After 117,000 Bogus DMCA Claims”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Should be decapitation.
Re:
🥱
Re: Re:
k
Re: Re: Re:
we know you’re trolling and it’s getting old
Re:
Agreed. Well said.
Not stated
Um, What country are the 2 in/from?
As USA law has little to do in other countries.
And sending Notices for Court appointments Via Email, Is Not Legal, unless the USA made a MAJOR change recently.
Re:
Vietnam. It is in the article.
The DMCA is a United States federal law. When you utilize United States federal law you come under US jurisdiction regardless of where you are, that’s subject-matter jurisdiction. There is no DMCA law in Vietnam.
The federal courts sometimes make an exception for service defendants who deliberately make themselves impossible to serve. Especially businesses like these that were certainly responding to customers, but simply didn’t want to deal with the legal responsibilities of doing business involving US law.
Re: Re: Suggest you understand International law.
“When you utilize United States federal law you come under US jurisdiction regardless of where you are”
That is a lie. You have to get permission from the Country you are trying to Practice law in.
As in the USA, State law, ENDS at the state line. But they had to Create a Federal law to take presidence, when a person ran across State borders, OR send a request to the other state to capture the person and send him back.
Re: Re: Re:
My omnipresent guy, they are not practicing law in Vietnam. A suit was filed against individuals over their activities with respect to a US company.
It works like this with some variation in most of the world.
Re: Re: Re:
“enjoining the defendants from sending more bogus copyright notices”
Will they care? Will Google somehow ignore any further DMCA claims by them or their fake identities?
Re: Re: Re: the long arm of the law
Well, actually, no. It might be inaptly worded, but the essence is this. If you reach into the U.S. to assert U.S. law against a U.S. entity, you effectively consent to U.S. jurisdiction.
It is frequently called long-arm jurisdiction when a we reach across state lines. I think you could use the same term when reaching across national boundaries.
Our Vietnamese contestents qualify. They sent DMCA notices (asserting U.S. law) to Google (against U.S. entity) in Mountain View (in the U.S.). That is a good fit for the standard model of long-arm jurisdiction.
Re:
And “Vietnamese” is in the title. If it was a snake…
Re: Re: Viet
is used as a description of Race, NOT location.
There IS no Nation named that way, its Vietnam.
Re: Re: Re:
Read the linked case:
So the two named defendants live in Vietnam and are indeed Vietnamese (not ‘Viet’).
Re: noted
Why not Goto Vietnam to file this?
Is it that Google cant be Sure Who is on the other end of the internet connection? As this has 20+ Doe listings?
Must have some Good privacy laws over there, if Google cant find the Owner of the connection.
Re: Re:
Because the DMCA is a US law. A Vietnamese court can not absolve Google of its obligations under the DMCA. Only a US court can. The Vietnamese individuals are attempting to assert a right under US copyright law against a US company. In the case a counter notice was provided to any DMCA claim, it would require filing a US lawsuit to continue to enforce rights. Similarly, any attempt to rule that the process was abused needs to come from a US court.
“send an astounding 117,000 bogus copyright claims.”
Now Mike, I know you’ve met the **AA’s and their members.
These are bush league numbers.
Re:
This duo’s primary crime is not buying politicians.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
One of the domains - myfrogtees.com
(It’s on page 10 of the complaint.) Happily hosted by Cloudflare, the first choice of criminals, spammers, phishers, and scammers worldwide.
Re:
What a stupid fucking talking point you’re trotting out here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The Anonymous Coward you’re replying to wants Cloudflare to actively moderate and websites based on an ideological stance so that they can deplatform websites they disagree with. Either that or they don’t understand the neutral web of trust that makes up the internet.
I don’t understand this generation’s pro-censorship stances. It’s like a terminal mind disease that has infected millenials and gen z.
Re: Re: Re:
“terminal mind disease that has infected millenials and gen z.”
Blaming the younger generations for all the crap going on today … What is this affliction called?
There must be some sort of psychological reference to this sort of anti-social behavior.
From what data/source did you find said conclusion about the generational desire for censorship? Or is it simply more of your bullshit?
Re: Re: Re:
SUP GOAT FUCKER!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Now do one about mass shooters and AR-15s.
You won’t. Bitch.
Re:
You speaking from personal experience, John Smith? Small wonder you won’t criticize scams when it’s the DMCA enabling them.
Re:
Your bizarre screed against Cloudflare, a DDoS mitigation services company, for not personally policing and moderating every single website that uses their service is so far beyond stupidity I can barely quantify it with words.
The companies that form the backbone of the internet deciding to take an ideological stance of any kind would be catastrophic and a massive blow to the free and open internet that allows you to post stupid ass comments like this freely. I don’t want to see your Anonymous Coward face around here ever again.
Get back to me when a corporation worth millions or billions is severely punished.
Re:
The only reason these two got anything is that they failed to contribute to the right political campaigns.
Is this Vietnamese duo dynamic?
When a law has no penalty for abuse then doing so is not a bug, it's a feature
The ruling may permanently enjoin them from filing future bogus DMCA claims but it’s not like there’s any penalty for doing so, and with how horrendously one-sided the law is I double the judge can or would have the legal standing to tell Google that due to the massive amount of fraudulent copyright claims the company is in the legal clear to ignore any future claims that they believe are from the same people.
Re:
Consider antidirt, out_of_the_blue, John Smith, Hamilton, angry dude, Richard Bennett, Michael Slonecker and all the other pro-copyright shills who insist that any abuse of copyright law is either a BestNetTech conspiracy, a one-time anomaly, or something else that “could never ever ever happen”. The fact that a couple of chuckleheads from another country able to abuse the law and actually hurt American content creators is no no consequence to them.
Still, there might yet be one silver lining. Just like Evan Stone, Prenda Law, Malibu Media and Maria Schneider before them, the more bad actors try to leverage copyright law for their own ill-gotten gain, the more judges will scrutinize copyright shills and their claims. Of course this is where pro-IP interests will insist that actually enforcing the other side of the law will hurt content creation – but this is where I’d like to remind them of something they are fond of quoting: “If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the law.”