> Why do you think copyright has anything to do with the post?
Because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is for copyright. You haven't stated how the blog post infringes upon BK's copyright at all, so... yes, seems like a standard fraudulent DMCA claim.
> First thing first. This is NOT DMCA abuse. The DMCA is the only way to communicate with web companies and take down content. As such, it has become the legitimate way to take down any content that needs to be taken down, in the absence of alternatives.
This assumes that companies should be able to take down any content they do not like. This is very much not the case. The DMCA is very specifically only for copyrighted content.
From copyright.gov[1]:
> To be effective, a notice must contain substantially the following information:
> ...
> (v) a statement that the person sending the notice has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
> (vi) a statement that the information in the notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the person sending the notice is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner .
This is pretty clearly DMCA abuse. TFA isn't using any of BK's copyrighted content, which is what a DMCA claim alleges. Just because people have abused the form... pretty much since inception does not mean that it's not perjury to do so.
If BK wants to press charges for unauthorized usage of computer systems, that's another route. This would involve a police report, not perjury, and would probably not take down the website.
It's DMCA abuse because that process is only legal to use in case of actual copyright infringement, not just any content you might have a moral claim over.
You can see on the email that the "Original work" field is just a link to the BK website.
> It's DMCA abuse because that process is only legal to use in case of actual copyright infringement, not just any content you might have a moral claim over.
I will reply to this comment because it's the easier to address, you're really hitting on the main misconception :D
It is incorrect to think that the DMCA form is only valid for copyright.
You need to contact the other party to start a legal dispute, you can do so by any available communication channels. The website is hidden behind cloudflare which purposefully hides the identity of the author and prevents any contact, except via a DMCA form. Burger King filled the DMCA form to get in touch with the author. It's merely a mean to legally contact the author and start a dispute, in the absence of better options.
It worked, cloudflare forwarded the form to the author (and the author decided to take down the article on their own). I really can't think of any reason why it would not be considered a reasonable and legitimate use of the form. All the better because it's an official legal form.
> The website is hidden behind cloudflare which purposefully hides the identity of the author and prevents any contact, except via a DMCA form
The blog post says that the author contacted Burger King and they had some sort of communication channel available, Burger King just chose not to use it.
DMCA is NOT a contact form. Part of the process is an attestation that you are the owner of a copyright and the content is infringing on that copyright, lying on that is perjury (even though I've never seen it enforced, perjury in general is rarely enforced). The convenience of DMCA as a contact and takedown form does not legitimize it's use as one.
It's fraud and perjury to file a DMCA claim for any reason other than someone infringed your copyright. A DMCA claim is only valid if you swear on penalty of perjury that the target infringed your copyright. Otherwise it's meaningless.
Just because it's the tool they have doesn't legitimize the use of a copyright takedown just to take down information they do not like. DMCA is specific and in theory limited (though many companies abuse it) the proper channel for non infringing content you don't like is the courts.
