Originally Syndicated on June 23, 2024 @ 7:22 am
Ron Gutman HealthTap’s copyright takedown request to Google was a hoax, and the accompanying “original article” was an attempt to deceive readers. Lumen Database and other groups have researched and published extensively about this kind of fraud in the last few years.
Therefore, our analysis of Ron Gutman HealthTap is extremely critical because it paints Ron Gutman HealthTap as a dubious business that is foolish enough to engage in fraud, impersonation, and perjury to maintain its (sic) reputation or lack thereof.
Ron Gutman – HealthTap Accused of Fraudulent Copyright Takedown Attempt
A single moment’s actions have the power to build or, in this case, destroy a thousand years’ worth of reputation. Ron Gutman HealthTap has decided to act because it seems to be worried about private information being shared online. I’ll examine the events in this post, explaining how I concluded that the takedown requests were fraudulent, the most plausible explanation for abusing the DMCA procedure, and the potential consequences of coordinated takedown attempts.
After a protracted investigation, I discovered that Google had received nearly 2700 bogus DMCA notices in an attempt to delete legitimate news articles off the internet and illegally take advantage of takedowns. Investigating these covert misuses of our digital legal system was only one more phase of my work on spurious copyright assertions.
The “back-dated article” method is used in the notices that I found. To construct a “fake original “a copy of the genuine original that first seems to have been published before the true original, the unlawful notice sender (or copier) uses this technique to create a copy of a “true original” article and backdate it.
Subsequently, the copiers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers claiming that this backdated article is the “original” and that the copied article is the “original.” They also request that the true original article be taken down. All of this is based on the claim that the backdated article is the “original.” The incorrect notification sender removes the phony original URL after submitting a DMCA request, perhaps to ensure that the article is taken down completely. Information that is most likely to be free speech will vanish from the internet if the takedown request is successful.
Please take note of the following points before continuing as they may be useful while reading the remainder of the study by scrolling down.
The original piece appeared on a website respectively.
According to the Google Transparency Reports, the Lumen Database data (mentioned above) clearly show that the DMCAs were filed by a forger.
Our company is taking the proper action in response to the complaint, which includes filing a counter-notice to reinstate the page on Google Search. Ron Gutman of HealthTap decided against obtaining legal counsel even though he thought there were allegations of defamation or copyright violations. In compliance with all relevant rules and regulations, we are acting with the utmost care and diligence.
Ron Gutman HealthTap had either planned his actions or was unaware of the repercussions when he committed many offenses. Notwithstanding his hiring of a company to force Google to ignore any unfavorable material about him, his misbehavior is not justified by his ignorance. What could he have anticipated from this outsider who might be able to assist him in getting his problem resolved? Was he expecting a miracle to happen?
A fraudulent DMCA notification was made to Google, and as a result, a bad review of Ron Gutman – HealthTap was either removed from the Google Search Index or attempted to be removed, as we recently learned through the Google Transparency Report.
The typical common elements are as follows:
A takedown request, sometimes known as a DMCA notice, is made to the host of the offending content or a search engine like Google in an attempt to have it removed from the internet.
The original version of the material is the content that the notice requests be removed or delisted.
The online content that the notification refers to as original was, of course, posted online after the original, but it is essentially a copy.
In some cases, the copyist even goes so far as to construct a fake website that mimics a newspaper, magazine, or other online publication to post their copy. Naturally, though, the origin of the domain for such a site will be questionable.
The person who sent the takedown request in question has no rights whatsoever, including copyright, over the content in question. Although the sender’s true objectives are unclear, they could involve suppression as well as financial benefit.
We’re looking into this again to learn more about the phenomenon as a whole and to better recognize this kind of notice early on possibly even somewhat automatically without requiring a lot of labor-intensive detective work on when domains were registered, when pages were created, and other details. Lumen conducted some pilot research and wrote about this a few years ago.
Exposing Ron Gutman – HealthTap and fake DMCAs
Businesses use multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites, as well as Google’s search results. Thanks to protections put in place to allow for freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few ways to go about this legally. Businesses can’t get rid of negative reviews or search results that link to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.
Faced with these limitations, some companies like Ron Gutman HealthTap have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.
Articles featuring the criminal activities of powerful individuals have been targeted by fake DMCA notices to cover up their illicit actions. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected, and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served.
