2016-03-21 - Charles Gellman: "1448 Madison Street apt 409 Oakland, Ca US" -

[Null]

Charles Gellman has complained about us many times before. Now he's resorting to bugging Cloudflare with phony DMCA requests and has doxed himself in the process.

Copyright claim #1: He owns his name and you can't talk shit about him.

Copyright claim #2: He owns the emails he sent to me and I can't post them.

I guess he didn't know that Cloudflare data gets sent to the host. lol.

 

[Jackie Chin]

Sounds like DSP.

 

[Doc Cassidy]

Gellman is a cuck faggot. I hope he gets AIDS.

 

[KingGeedorah]

Can we finally dox his kid?

 

[millais]

Sounds like DSP.

This site is stealing his kwality kahntent

 

[chimpburgers]

Even if he wasn't Manhood101, this guy is a tard of the highest order. Gellman, eat shit.

 

[Tookie]

 

[NumberingYourState]

Die Jellyman.

 

[KFC]

So he lives at the Lake Park Terrace Apartments in Oakland, California? That's nice. Leave them a call at 5108933433

http://www.yelp.com/biz/lake-park-terrace-apartments-oakland

But seriously, why are they still contacting CloudFlare?

 

[SpessCaptain]

Of course Gellman would be stupid enough to post a real home address to an online entity.

 

[SpessCaptain]

https://goo.gl/maps/ZAjJxCJtFjw

 

[NumberingYourState]

Of course. He has to live in California.

Why does this not surprise me?

 

[chimpburgers]

Charlaay!

 

[GS 281]

To the best of my understanding, even if he did have any claim based on the posts made in his thread, he would have no claim against Kiwi Farms or Kiwi Farms ownership.

Posters own the content they post and this is nothing but a vessel of communication. He should be filing these claims against users themselves and I don't understand what CloudFlare can be expected to do here because in Null's case if he starts removing posts in this case then it could be argued later on by some other person discussed here that Null takes some degree of ownership over content because there is precedence of him removing content. He should be contacting individual posters, showing them how the misunderstanding came about and asking them to remove the content. If they refuse and the content's existence does him any form of damage then he may have a case. But for him to be filing DMCA, accusing defamation, etc., he may want to look at this from different angles.

This isn't and never should have been a matter of "I'm gonna get da JERKOPS to make you take that off the god damn internet... and fast!" He should have contacted Null, explained the situation and asked him how they could most expeditiously removed incorrect content. To his credit it appears the dox may be incorrect based on information gained post hoc, however it is fair that not all people buy his case and threats never help. It might be best if he cooled his head and contacted null, proved his case, and asked null to pass the information along to people who have personal info in their posts and then went from there.

 

[AnOminous]

Of course Gellman would be stupid enough to post a real home address to an online entity.

You have to provide real information for a DMCA request. Of course, he has no legitimate reason whatsoever for a DMCA request since the idea his name is copyrighted is looney toons bullshit.

 

[Luminous Being]

Of course, he has no legitimate reason whatsoever for a DMCA request since the idea his name is copyrighted is looney toons bullshit.

:David-Wynn: Miller would like to have a word with you. :V

 

[Sarcastic Username]

Charles Gellman probably does have a legitimate claim to say that his emails are copyrighted. They are a creative work put into a fixed form, which means copyright.

There are no economic damages, of course, but the DMCA doesn't care about that. A fair use counter-response would be pretty easy to arrange. Don't assume that because he's stupid that he must be wrong.

His name, obviously, isn't copyrighted.

 

[Luminous Being]

Charles Gellman probably does have a legitimate claim to say that his emails are copyrighted. They are a creative work put into a fixed form, which means copyright.

There are no economic damages, of course, but the DMCA doesn't care about that. A fair use counter-response would be pretty easy to arrange. Don't assume that because he's stupid that he must be wrong.

His name, obviously, isn't copyrighted.

The mails are auto generated and sent by Cloudflare not Gellman. Wouldn't Cloudflare be the copyright holder? Are DMCA takedown requests even considered to be protected/privileged information?

 

[DrJonesHat]

Emails equally belong to the person sent them, so if they shared them willing, he's SOL. Also, isn't filing false DMCA take-down notices a crime, or at least legally actionable?

 

[AnOminous]

Charles Gellman probably does have a legitimate claim to say that his emails are copyrighted. They are a creative work put into a fixed form, which means copyright.

There are no economic damages, of course, but the DMCA doesn't care about that. A fair use counter-response would be pretty easy to arrange. Don't assume that because he's stupid that he must be wrong.

His name, obviously, isn't copyrighted.

You can't impose a duty of confidentiality on someone by just emailing them something, and the only way of letting other people know someone sent you a threatening email, which you have a right to do, is often to repost it in its entirety. I'd feel no fear counter notifying that.