Googles DMCA Complaints - Screwing Your Competitors.

I recently uncovered a plot to take over the world - well, not quite the world, but I’m sure thats what you’re up to. Republishing my information like that is just downright wrong ! And outranking me like that for my own keywords - outrageous !

I recently received a DMCA complaint from Google where a third party was claiming that one of my sites was reproducing their content without their permission. Moreover, the site was reproducing others content too ! - I really couldnt help but laugh. Initially, I went looking for an email I might have missed, or some other indication that I had in fact received a complaint from the complainant via normal channels. But of course, contrary to their claims - no such communication had taken place.

It surprised me that in their complaint, the complainant had mentioned third party sites they couldn’t possibly represent (because I owned them), but not just that, they had 2 weeks prior published an article on a similar topic. Was this their ‘experiment’ ??

Google requires you to respond to the complaint not only with remedial action, but in accord with a legally binding agreement that makes you subject to federal jusrisdiction in the United States. If like me, you’re located on the other side of the globe, you’re actually expected by way of this document to MAKE yourself subject to same. I actually had to do a double take when reading this recommended response to the complaint, in that which halfwit, wherever they may be from, would actually agree to being legally bound in this way ??

My response of course was to ignore the complaint and register using a different business entity. And yes, to placate any naysayers, remove the ‘infringing’ content. But it does lead me to question why Google would actually compell third parties to agree to be bound by the DMCA when the process can be so easily abused by complainants.

Remedy through removal of infringing content - fair enough. Expect earners to bend over and take it up the @ss legally because a competitor wants to play cute - I dont think so.

Its easily sorted as described above, but still annoying when it could have been sorted through simple communication (assuming genuine intent and assertable rights).

Google noose anyone ?