Craig Brittain of "Is Anybody Down?" Tries To Get Popehat Posts About Him Taken Down Under DMCA

Print This Post

You may also like...

139 Responses

  1. I didn't get a takedown notice. Apparently my criticism isn't biting enough.

  2. jmd says:

    And, had he succeeded, 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) would have come into play. Neat little thorn in the DMCA if you're not familiar with it.

  3. Chris Berez says:

    Between having you and Marc Randazza on his ass (not to mention all the others), I can't imagine that Craig Brittain is getting much sleep these days. It's almost enough to make one feel sorry for the guy…

    Haha just kidding. That pathetic little worm deserves everything that's coming to him. It's such a thing of beauty to see a person that's done so much wrong have to face up to the consequences of their actions.

    Me, I endeavor never to get yours or Marc's bad side.

  4. Tali McPike says:

    Just wait, Adam. I'm sure its coming.

  5. darius404 says:

    I'm not sure, does penalty of perjury even apply to a DMCA request? IANAL, but I'd always thought perjury dealt with sworn testimony given for a court of law.

    And does Craig really need to say that he's authorized HIMSELF to do this? It seems rather superfluous.

  6. M. says:

    Hey dumbfuck, just because you don't understand speech laws doesn't mean nobody else does, especially on this blog. Did pay2gay mess up your eyes AND your ass?

  7. darius404 says:


    Your site has legs, but no teeth yet. You might want to work on the torso and neck before you get to the head.

    (Note: I have no idea what my analogy actually means, if anything, but it seemed pithy, witty, and sage advice. I await your compliance with my illegitimate mentoring advice.)

  8. Stephanie says:

    Thank you for doing this, seriously. I wanted to take a stab at him so bad but I just released a book and didn't want to deal with the headache of him doing a DCMA notice on me as well. :) You rock!

  9. Matthew says:

    No. Way. He's flagrantly violating legitimate copyrights of his victims, and has the balls to send you a takedown notice? I just.. wow.

    Honestly I thought you were being overly generous by giving this guy an out by appealing to his humanity.

    I hope you guys bury this fucker in court.

  10. Nicholas Klein says:

    There is now a Wikipedia site for IsAnybodyDown, so feel free to aggregate any more information there

  11. Daryl Herbert says:

    Dear Mr. Brittain,

    I noticed there is some embarrassing material about you on a site called

    for $200 I will help you send a DMCA takedown notice to Popehat's web host.

    I'm an independent third party attorney licensed in New York. I have no connection to Popehat, but I have had success causing them to take down embarrassing information about other online scumbags by sending flimsy DMCA requests.

    Don't worry. I've been investigated by the police lots of times. That's how you know you can trust me.


    Drake Howitzer III, E.S.P., P.P.N., E.S.Q., Ch.O.N.

  12. James Pollock says:

    Perhaps you could send him the text of 17 U.S.C. 107, since apparently Mr. Blade has declined to help him. Perhaps if you bolded "the fair use of a copyrighted work" and "is not an infringement of copyright.", he would understand why we're laughing at him (again)(still).

  13. frymaster says:


    you seem to be getting your ups and your downs mixed up. Don't let it get you down.

  14. "The posts and images above contain personal information which is owned and copyrighted by its respective copyright owners and is damaging in nature and contains personal information in violation of copyright and numerous privacy laws and must be removed immediately."

    It's okay to post nude pictures of young men and women, along with their contact information and Facebook pages. But it's NOT okay to post the felony arrest records and old pictures of the same people who do that. Such action violates numerous privacy laws.


  15. James Pollock says:

    Ken, does 17 U.S.C. 512(f) now give you an ability to sue for declaratory relief on Craig's dime?

  16. En Passant says:

    darius404 wrote Nov 4, 2012 @3:24 pm:

    I'm not sure, does penalty of perjury even apply to a DMCA request? IANAL, but I'd always thought perjury dealt with sworn testimony given for a court of law.

    In a word, yes. The copyright holder or representative must swear that the information provided is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, and that he is the copyright holder or his representative.

  17. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ah, thanks Craig for doing something… I was afraid that the necessary silence would mean we'd lack in popcorn moments. I'm glad Craig has obliged.

  18. Oomph says:

    I guess this whole sorry affair may yield at least one important result for science: an answer to the question "is stupidity finite or infinite?"

    Because if Craig keeps doubling down at this rate he's going to be pushing the boundaries for sure.

  19. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and Craig. Charles Carreon does practice criminal law as well as IP law. Ken is in California where Charles is licensed to practice, so why don't you hire Charles? I hear he needs work, and he might even do it pro bono…

  20. Kevin says:

    Since Trolldown is ostensibly a site about exposing Copyright Trolls, now that Craig is sending out fraudulant DMCA notices, I can only assume they'll be doing a feature on him next. Right?

  21. ^ Kevin wins. Thread over.

  22. Incunabulum says:

    Ken, you should offer to remove the offending posts if he will pay a fee.

    And then wait a couple of days and repost them and make the same offer.

  23. strech says:

    Since he clearly isn't the copyright holder for Randazza's emails or his criminal record, nor is he authorized to act on the behalf of the copyright holder in those cases, did he just commit perjury? (I'm not sure of the limitations of that section of the DMCA).

  24. Shane says:

    Woot! Ken is number four in google search for Craig Brittain and Marc is number 5.


  25. leo marvin says:

    Weren't Craig's copyrights were stolen by Obama?

  26. Fritz says:

    Good work. I'm glad you have the stomach for it.

  27. Marvin the Martian says:

    "1. Name(s) of copyright holder(s):
    Craig R. Brittain/Is Anybody Down/ Trahan/"

    I'm sorry, is that Craig admitting that he is the copyright holder of and

  28. Richard says:

    Marvin the Martian wrote:

    I'm sorry, is that Craig admitting that he is the copyright holder of and

    No, #1 is just listing names of the copyright owners affected. What he is admitting in #2 is that he is "authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder(s)."

    It does kind of blow a hole in the whole "independent third party team" claim though.

    "I'm mad! These people are claiming I have a business relationship with the IsAnybodyDown team! I know what I'll do! I'll give the IsAnybodyDown team authorization to act on my behalf in copyright claims!"

  29. SA says:

    That list of Copyright Holders doesn't include "David Blade III", featured in the email exchange with Randazza.

    How is Craig claiming authorization on behalf of the copyright holder of that email? Or is he figuring on saying that the copyright is held by the two takedown websites that he acts for?

    This is something so over-the-top "WTF?", I'd take it for a parody if I didn't know the background. The guy hasn't just painted a big target on his body, he's handed you the rifles, double-checked they're loaded, and interrupted your countdown to say "Wait a minute, you left the safety on".

    I call dibs on the next round of silver platters his hang-me-please rope is delivered on. SOME of us don't get paid by BigPorn, after all.

  30. twency says:

    @Matthew, re: "…He's flagrantly violating legitimate copyrights of his victims…"

    He's scum, but I don't think he's doing what you allege here. Care to elaborate?

  31. twency says:

    On second thought, maybe you're right. I was thinking of him posting pictures taken by the submitters, but I suppose many of them were taken by the victims.

  32. Myk says:

    Seeing as DCMA notices are being handed around, maybe someone should bring Craig/David's attention to Chance's unauthorised and unattributed comercial use of copyrighted works on his various sites. I've been in contact with the owner of at least one key image, who knew nothing about Chance's usage of it.

  33. Jack B. says:

    One would think that David Blade III would have told Craig that Ken's website is transmitted via Fair Use.

  34. Tali McPike says:

    If there is one bright side to this whole mess, it has to be the fact that (at least it would appear) that they have not added any new pictures to isanybodydown since this story broke

  35. SA says:

    @twency – Many of the pictures would seem to "obviously" be self-portraits. The subject is standing before a mirror while holding a camera or camera-equipped cell phone.

  36. SA says:

    @Tali McPike – I'd love to see the odds on the first call that the next victim gets being not from a heavy-breathing creep, but from someone pointing her at Popehat, Legal Satyricon, etc, and the pro bono representation offers.

    Now that there's a bit more awareness of what's going on, how could he ever be sure that the Content Acquisition person he hires, or the next set of images that they acquire, wasn't just a setup?

    One of the fun snippets of message forum traffic I ran across while surfing this topic was someone saying they had gone through their local Craigslist W4W section and responded to every poster with a warning about the scam. It reminded me of the "watch out for these types of scams!" responses sometimes sent to people who advertise cars for sale.

  37. Michael K. says:

    David Blade has the same initials as Douche Bag. Coincidence?

  38. Dave says:

    One would think that, with the storm headed their way, dumb and dumber would pull their sites down, and find the closest rock to hide under until this blows over. That, however, would take sanity and intelligence, from what I can tell no one could accuse either of having.

  39. Tali McPike says:

    Exactly! They should pull a Charles Carreon and go into hiding so they can avoid process servers

  40. Matthew Cline says:

    Note, for instance, that Mr. Brittain is asserting copyright in a printout of his criminal record and in a correspondence between "David Blade" and Marc Randazza.

    Would a court of law take that as an admission by Mr Brittain that he is in fact David Blade?

  41. Analee says:

    Kevin and Daryl win the thread, while Craig Brittain continues to epicly fail at life, the universe, and everything.

    Although I doubt knowing where his towel is would have helped him any.

  42. SA says:

    @Matthew Cline – My NAL-reading is that it really means Craig's claim is he acts on behalf of the owner of the copyright for the "David Blade" email. So there are a couple other questions to get answered first before saying "Craig admits to being David". One of which would be: Which of the entities listed in "1. Name(s) of copyright holder(s):" claims the copyright for the email written under the pseudonym "David Blade"*?

    *In the email he says "David Blade is not my real name. I operate
    anonymously in order to protect myself and my family."

  43. Ken says:

    The Wikipedia article's mention of the AutoAdmit case seems like an attempt to suggest that Marc Randazza's involvement is somehow contradictory or hypocritical.

    That's silly, and suggests that whoever wrote it isn't familiar with Randazza's role or his client in that case. References:

  44. IsAnybodyDown responding to someone else's DMCA complaints:

    "If you can't figure out how to submit a DMCA, that probably means you have no business trying to submit a DMCA, and also that your DMCA is probably invalid/bogus to begin with."


  45. Chris R. says:

    @Adam, wait you can't just use his words against him, that's like copyright infringement.

  46. EH says:

    Watch out Ken, or he'll post those upskirts.

  47. princessartemis says:

    It's almost as if "David Blade" hired him to do a little takedown on Popehat. I wonder if he pays in Monopoly money.

  48. Kevin says:


    The Wikipedia article's mention of the AutoAdmit case seems like an attempt to suggest that Marc Randazza's involvement is somehow contradictory or hypocritical.

    Thanks for those links, that line in the Wikipedia article confused me when I read it.

    One other factual point I'm confused on: what's the deal with Craig saying that Marc offered him $2500 for the site? Did anything like that actually happen, or is that just part of the porn mafia conspiracy theory?

  49. Gal says:

    @Analee: did you have to bring up Craig's towel? I just lost my appetite forever.

  50. GDad says:

    @Jack B.,

    If something is transmitted via Fair Use, do we have to pay licensing fees to the owners of that technology?

  51. flip says:

    Deliciously ironic.

    And proof positive he hasn't bothered to learn anything about copyrights and DMCA. When sending a DMCA you have to also provide a link/copy of the material that shows it's yours. Oh, and it has nothing to do with privacy or personal information.

    Sheesh, IANAL but even I know that stuff.

  52. C. S. P. Schofield says:


    Do you feel NO shame; having a battle of wits with an unarmed man?

  53. TexasAndroid says:

    Note, the below is a side/tangential issue, and should not distract from the core issues of this whole situation. But it's a side issue that I have knowledge of, and thus is actually something I can weight in on. :)

    Namely the Wikipedia (WP) page.

    I'm an admin over there, so I do have a bit of knowledge of how things work over there. :)

    The problem with the page is that, IMHO, it does not meet the requirements for inclusion on WP. WP has strict rules for what can and cannot have an article, and I just do not see that the IAD website meets those criteria currently.

    Wikipedia uses a concept that we call "Notability". But if you are not familiar with WP's definition of Notability, then it likely does not match any definition that you *are* familiar with. It basically boils down to a measurement of how much traction/interest/attention the subject is getting in "Reliable Sources" (More WP-speak).

    The problem is that blogs, even this one, are not considered Reliable Sources (RS). And most of the sources on the current WP article on IAD are blogs. The few that would otherwise be considered RS are not really about IAD, but rather about tangentially related issues (Amanda Todd).

    The page, as it is, is quite likely to be deleted fairly soon, unless some RS are found. And in this case, until/unless the more mainstream media starts reporting the whole kerfuffle, I suspect that such sources simply do not exist.

  54. Kelly says:

    I *knew* I was going to need popcorn!
    Also, note to self: Never ever get on Ken or Marc's bad side.

  55. Dan Weber says:

    Since he clearly isn't the copyright holder for Randazza's emails

    No, but he is the holder for his own emails. He actually does have a very thin case about his emails being copyrighted, but Marc's republishing of them almost assuredly falls under Fair Use.

    This guy clearly doesn't have a real lawyer yet. And he will need one if when criminal charges are filed.

  56. James Pollock says:

    Well, if criminal charges are filed, he'll get one appointed (since Obama is still President, poor Mr. Brittain will surely qualify as indigent, right?)

    If no criminal charge are filed, though, paying for a lawyer would have to come out of his own pocket. Say, when those multiple civil cases start sprouting process servers…

  57. GrimGhost says:

    My understanding (IANAL) is that emails are >not< copyrighted. The recipient can do whatever he wants with them. In any case, since these clowns feel free to publish the emails they receive from distraught women, boo-frickin'-hoo.

  58. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Dan: I wish Gideon would chime in here on the problems of being a public defender having to defend a client such as Craig.

  59. eddie says:

    I've been a little mad at Dreamhost recently

    Should you still be searching for a replacement: Scott Meyer, the creator of the webcomic Basic Instructions has just enthusiastically recommended Squarespace to his audience.

    I can't speak about Squarespace, but I enthusiastically recommend Basic Instructions.

  60. BebeTaian says:

    You know, Ken, for all this work you're putting into unearthing this creep, perhaps you should send him a "bill" for 100 ponies? Each pony must be prettier and more awesome than the last pony for every stupid thing he sends to either you or Marc. One pony must be made of moving ice, with frost breath that smells like peppermint. Another pony must be iron, and breathe fire, and have wings that are awesome and functional. Still yet another pony must have eight legs and can walk on water, and outstrip a jet liner at a ridiculous speed. At least one pony should be for your daughter; the pony must be her favourite colour with a rainbow mane, and subsists on only green Skittles. All ponies must be bilingual.

    If he continues, he must then dress up as a pony, also. I prefer Dr. Hooves, but I don't think he has that much style.

  61. Gal says:

    I'd like to just chime in and agree with Eddie. BI is a funny webcomic.

  62. SPQR says:

    GrimGhost, see Dan Weber's comment just above yours.

  63. Nicholas Klein says:

    Craig Brittain is in the fight of his life trying to blank the Wikipedia page about him and his site What's wrong? I thought you liked the free publicity…

  64. Dan Weber says:

    You can see his legal expertise here:

    I think he's generally right on one point: the page shouldn't exist. His flipping out of legal threats is hilarious, though.

  65. Jess says:

    @Nicholas – yep he's been busy trying to scrub it. However there are some things you just can't scrub off. He wanted attention. Looks like he is starting to get it and not in the way he wanted.

    Too bad :-)

  66. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, craig… Admitting on Wikipedia that you get things from craigslist??!? Naughty naughty:

  67. Dan Weber says:

    Here's the summary of his sad actions in the sad little Wiki-war over the article. Keep in mind there are other actions in-between, of other users:

    rev 521550832:

    Article reduced to "This article does not meet wikipedia guidelines" with comment "Not notable, deleted"

    rev 521551246:

    Article reduced to "Does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Article is being used to harass an individual business owner. The posters of the article are currently being investigated" with comment "Article is being used to defame and harass an owner. Article must be deleted immediately"

    (I added the emphasis.)

    rev 521551774:

    Repeat of last.

    rev 521552401:

    He's acquiesed to a let a whole paragraph live, but he's trying to strip out all the negative stuff. Comment is "Removed all non-notable sources. DO NOT CHANGE THIS EDIT."

    rev 521552760:

    Down to only two sentences now.

    rev 521552892:

    Added comment of "Must prove that the creators are notable people, if not, article should be deleted and not recreated."

    He then makes many more edits. One gem is his attempt to differentiate from "Is Anybody Up?" with "The website is a spin-off of the concept behind the now defunct [[IsAnyoneUp?]], where the primary difference between the two websites is that the majority of people posted were using the [[Craigslist]] 'Casual Encounters' message board. "

  68. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Although the other person in the edit war doesn't seem to include the note that IS Craig…

  69. Nicholas Weaver says:

    At least Carreon didn't get involved in an edit war on his Wikipedia page (he just created it, thats all)

  70. Tali McPike says:

    Please tell me someone has taken a screen cap that proves Craig is admitting to getting his pictures from craigslist

  71. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Tali: Do bears shit in the woods?

  72. Tali McPike says:

    Nicholas: :D Excellent!

  73. Panzersage says:

    Nicholas: Polar Bears don't, however nice work.

  74. TexasAndroid says:

    Enough is enough. I'd been debating whether or not I would take the step to start a deletion debate on the page. The edit warring pushed my decision. I know that, in a way it's what Craig wants, since there's little positive about his site on that page, but I have to stand up for WP's principles. There's simply (IMHO) nothing about his site that meets WP's notability criteria at this time.

    That does not guarantee that it'll be deleted, but I've set the ball in motion. If this runs as deletion debates normally run, it'll be decided in around a week. There are other possibilities that could end up with it decided sooner, but they tend to be rarer.

  75. Anita says:

    If you are still searching for a new web host, I would like to second Eddie's secondhand recommendation of Squarespace with a secondhand recommendation of my own. (Whoa, dude. I'm a little dizzy. Give me a second…)

    The people who own the Cake Wrecks and Epbot blogs have been praising mightily the efforts of Squarespace, which is located in New York and has been without power due to Sandy. They were running buckets of fuel up 17 floors to ensure their servers kept going. Looks like they've gotten the fuel pump working now.

    Their dedication can be seen on the Squarespace status blog:

  76. TexasAndroid says:

    Note, in case it's not clear from my post moments ago, I'm 100% talking about the IAD Wikipedia page…

  77. GrimGhost says:

    @SPQR — my understanding is that emails are not copyrighted, for the simple reason that this would make all emails become privileged communications. My understanding is that messages from A to B, with specified exceptions, are NOT privileged. And furthermore, not only are they not copyrighted, but the recipient is legally free to post them anywhere (unaltered).

    Suppose I sent Ken an email that said "I'm gonna kill you, rape your wife, and make your pony cry." Should my lawyer be able to suppress the DA reading that email to a jury by claiming that those words are copyrighted?

  78. M. says:

    @Nicholas Weaver: I prefer "Does the Pope shit in the woods?" and "Do bears wear funny hats?"

  79. James Pollock says:

    GrimGhost, your understanding is not correct. emails are copyrighted as soon as they become fixed in permanent form. If you delve into the bowels of copyright law, you'll find the exceptions that allow mailhosts to relay email to its destination. The recipient is NOT free to futher distribute the email further unless a copyright exception applies (typically, fair use). One of the exceptions is that copyright can be violated for purposes of trial
    That said, lawsuits based on copyright violations in email are quite unlikely. Next up: The fact that something is copyrighted doesn't prevent someone from reading it. There are specific rights granted to a copyright holder which are listed in 17 U.S.C. 106.
    A communication is privileged if one of the rules of privilege applies; these rules can be found within the rules of evidence (there's a federal version of the rules of evidence, which most states based their own evidence rules on.) The major privileges are doctor-patient, client-lawyer, lost sheep-clergy, and spousal.
    Finally, your lawyer may be able to suppress the email because A) it's hearsay, B) it's excessively inflammatory, or C) it's not relevant.

  80. SPQR says:

    GrimGhost, you've confused two entirely different concepts that have nothing to do with each other. Copyright and privilege.

  81. Tali McPike says:

    OH OH OH! More (possible) copyright infringement from Chance. He's using the Android logo on his @sparkydroid twitter handle (and webpage Unless Android is surprisingly free with their logo, I'm pretty certain he doesn't have permission to use it for his business.

  82. Bill says:

    I'd rather bitch slap Mike Tyson that pick a fight with Randazza or Ken, let alone both of them. The kid could have just pulled the content and went away, but he wants to do it the hard way. My sympathy will be saved for much more deserving folks.

  83. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Bill: its even worse for Craig and Chance. The ram has touched the wall already. As such, its no longer "Murum aries attigit" (even if Marc buys his supply at Costco).

    Instead a a new slogan in effect: "There is no such thing as overkill".

  84. Joe Pullen says:

    As we say in the South, them kids gettin fixed to be taken down to the hose rack and have a can of legal whuppass opened up on em.

  85. Jon says:

    Has Craig resorted to the defense I-can-use-photos-off-of-Craigslist-because-I-am-Craig through copyrighted email fair use?
    If so, name confusion is a serious issue! In the last case of name confusion (Lebowski V. Lebowski I believe it was) someones rug got pissed on, there was much yelling of "shut the fuck up," and let us not forget about that poor woman (who may or may not have lost a toe).
    One thing is for certain, though: Fucking nihilists, nothing ever changes.

  86. Tali McPike says:

    Does this strike anyone else as odd?
    I understand that they were/are trying to get money, but bragging that they are "a top 39,000 US site (one of the most visited sites in the US)" seems like they are pulling that out of their asses. I'm so glad investors have more sense than to give these clowns money.

  87. Kevin says:

    Unless Android is surprisingly free with their logo, I'm pretty certain he doesn't have permission to use it for his business.

    Android is an open source project, so I'd say there's about a 99% probability the logo is under creative commons…. and 1% probability it's under some other wacky kind of free/open source license, but about a 0% probability it's under a proprietary/non-free license… that wouldn't really work to have an open source project with a non-freely-reproducible logo.

  88. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Tali: Not too odd: Craig and Chance are real get-rich-quick schemers. Overstating their traffic by 100x seems par for the course. They were soliciting not just on there but on AND on is anybody down itself.

    What I'm thankful for is that THAT one included Craig's LinkedIn profile. I thought he might have been a ghost/made up by Chance until I found that little gem, since Craig's web presence on "Hey Great Website", is anybody down, etc is surprisingly low profile compared with Chance pimping his music directly on is anybody down.

  89. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Fully legit use of the Android logo. The rules are here:

  90. Tali McPike says:

    You right, but he is not following guidelines, specifically

    "Android logo
    The Android logo may not be used. Nor can this be used with the Android robot.

    The custom typeface may not be used."

    "Android™ should have a trademark symbol the first time it appears in a creative."

    "Any use of the Android name needs to include this attribution in your communication:

    Android is a trademark of Google Inc."

    "When using the Android Robot or any modification of it, proper attribution is required under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license:

    The Android robot is reproduced or modified from work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License."

    etc etc etc

  91. Tali McPike says:

    So, as Nicholas points out, the twitter is ok, but it would seem there might be some problems with his website (which needs some work anyways…get off the home page and it is terrible)

  92. Nat Gertler says:

    It looks like we have a pretty funny Craigfail over at Wikipedia.

    Craig is apparently editing as an "IP User", someone who isn't using an account with a user name. There's nothing wrong with that. Said IP user filed a request for "page protection", a status which protects regular editors from editing it, with a goal to leave it in the IP user's preferred form.

    Instead his request ended up with the page being award "semiprotection", which means basically that regular editors with use names -can- edit it, but IP users and newly-registered users cannot.

    That's right… most of the people who have been editing the page can continue to do so, but he himself cannot!


  93. Kevin says:

    @Tali The "android logo" being referred to there is not actually the robot graphic, it's the word "android" spelled out in a custom font. It looks like the text relevant to the robot is "The Android robot can be used, reproduced, and modified freely in marketing communications."

    I didn't bother to check whether or not he included attribution as required, but even if he didn't, going after him for that would be really nitpicky. It's not like anyone is actually confused about the provenance of the logo. We should be careful not to become trolls ourselves in the process of troll-hunting.

  94. Tali McPike says:

    RE their get rich quick schemes
    I'm really surprised they went the "respectable donor" route (which would be HIGHLY unlikely to give them money) instead of creating an indiegogo page and let the unwashed masses of the internet give them money.

  95. Tali McPike says:

    @Kevin The header of his site uses the "android" words written out in the custom font. And there is no attribution or acknowledgement of trademark (other than "Sparky Droid ©" in the footer) anywhere on the site.

    But you are right about the troll hunting…we should not stoop to their level.

  96. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Tali: They are enthusiastic but NOT very savvy. EG, why they didn't use some random porn add network is beyond me. They would have both made more money AND attracted less heat than their lovely little extortion scheme.

  97. Tali McPike says:

    Excellent point. That would have solved all their problems and no one would care, it would just be another little dark corner of the internet

  98. Kevin says:

    They are enthusiastic but NOT very savvy. EG, why they didn't use some random porn add network is beyond me.

    Or better yet, why they haven't made any attempt to disguise their IP despite the fact that they know we know it? Or why he registered in his own name? Or why he openly acknowledged being a public figure for the purposes of defamation law?

    You know, I'm starting to suspect that this David Blade fellow might not be providing his clients effective counsel.

  99. Phe0n1x says:

    *makes more popcorn* This is going to be good *munchcrunchmunch*

  100. SA says:

    *buys more stock in popcorn companies*

  101. flip says:


    More to the point, they actually believe they'll have a publicly traded company by next year or 2014.

  102. Tali McPike says:

    Excellent point. They really think they can play with the big boys? Without clicking on links, a cursory google search would indicate that there is only one publicly traded porn company in existence. And I'm assuming it is something on the caliber of Playboy, which I'm fairly confident that even if they weren't asshats, Chance and Craig would never be able to build that kind of empire.

    All the more reason why I wouldn't "just give [him] a restaurant to run" He really has no idea how to run any sort of company. The restaurant industry is one of the most fickle/risk filled industries you can get into and it takes YEARS before it starts to pay off (but that is true of almost any company. My dad's college buddy started a company and is now worth around $20 million, but it took 15-20 years, a bit of luck, and 2 time of facing bankruptcy to get there).

  103. Tali McPike says:

    Upon further reflection, that claim of 2013/14 is even more ballsy considering they just started the website a few months ago. How long did it take facebook to go public? Something like 10 years I think.
    And they expect to do it in less than 2?
    Man, I want some of whatever they are smoking…

  104. Tali McPike says:

    I stand corrected. They launched Isanybodydown almost a year ago…still that is an awfully short time to have it go public

  105. Nicholas Klein says:

    As the originator of the IAD Wikipedia page, I believe Craig Brittain ultimately wins on Wikipedia. This has led me (and many others, I suspect) to realize that behind its veil of "community editing", Wikipedia concentrates power within the hands of a select few whose subjective assessments of noteworthiness reign supreme. More importantly, given how often it is paraded out as an example of "New Media", I am baffled by its embarassing and confused overreliance on "reliable sources" (translation: the mainstream media, ABC, CNN, etc — the people who, themselves, cite blogs and Twitter as their sources). This was my first — and last — foray into the world of internet publishing.

  106. flip says:


    Yep, these are just two of the many morons out there who took a look at Facebook, Google or Youtube and decided that all they needed was some web hosting and a half-baked idea.

    @Nicholas Klein

    I suspect the use of mainstream media as reliable sources has to do with the fact that they're more likely to actually check the accuracy of information.

  107. Joe Pullen says:

    @Nicholas Klein @Flip

    The Wiki article was created on Nov. 4 2012. It was not created by either Craig or Chance, although Craig is doing his best to alter/delete it. The Wiki moderators state there is insufficient non biased source data to support the existence of the article – and they are probably right. There are a number of additional facts that are not yet public but which I believe will be made public in due time through other channels which Wiki can reference under their guidelines. At that time the Wiki article can be restored as it will have additional needed sources of proper attribution.

    Bottom line, I wouldn’t worry about it. I somehow doubt Craig and Chance have used all of their rope just yet.

  108. Joe Pullen says:

    @Tali – the whole thing is a house of cards. Chance is the only one advertising on IAD and he doesn’t pay for it. There are no links to other sites that would drive click stream revenue. That means the only way this site makes money is through collected fees by the fake takedown lawyer. I somehow doubt Craig is reporting that income to the IRS – especially since he admits he gives it all to his family (Mom/Dad) and Chance.

    It also makes me wonder if they’re running another scam as part of trolling people on Craigslist – what if they attempt to collect fees in order to not post the pics from Craigslist on IAD?


    I think I finally found a name for my blog. Thanks, Craig!

  110. SA says:

    Word from a Weasel? I like.

    Setting aside for the moment the specifics of this one business, is it even possible to get through all of the regulatory and third-parties-will-require-this hoops for an IPO in that short a period? To go from "OK we are set, let's do an IPO" to The Big Day that quickly?

    We hear about the new-megamillionaire whose business started in his garage or one-bedroom-walkup-apartment, but it's years and years to develop that business before ever starting the IPO process. There's a big middle step being overlooked here. Perhaps they were confusing private venture capital with public IPO?

    But I'll give +10 for the dream. Nothing wrong with ambition and dreams, it's one of the drivers of our country's philosophy. If it were an ethical and legal business, there would be plenty of people cheering them on.

  111. Jess says:

    I can't be the only one that finds it amusing that Craig complains that Marc or Ken work for or are copyright trolls when after all what do we call people who abuse DMCA copyright complaints? That’s right, COPYRIGHT TROLLS.

  112. TexasAndroid says:

    Adam. More than you likely ever want to know about the term "Weasel Words"…

  113. The site has posted even more photos, some of them sent via email today.

    Murum aries attigit.

  114. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: He passed Murim aries attigit sometime over the weekend. The motto is now "There is no such thing as overkill".

  115. Nat Gertler says:

    Nicholas, you picked Wikipedia as the site to post it on. There's all sorts of ways you could post information on the Internet, many places you could control the content. Instead, you placed it on a site with its own standards and procedures, a site that has gained a reputation based on what it has generated through those standards and procedures… and a reputation that you presumably were wanting to take advantage of to spread your word. If that doesn't work for you, don't give up on Internet publishing – just get your own platform, rather than using theirs. (Heck, if you like their platform, they'll even give you the software theirs runs on.)

  116. Dan Weber says:

    And as fully expected, Wikipedia reacts very poorly to attempts to make them shut up with threats of lawsuits:

  117. Jacob H says:

    @Dan: actually I think they reacted rather well;)

    @Nicholas: nec aliquid nimium facere? Probably incorrect conj, been a while…

  118. Tali McPike says:

    @Dan Webber
    What legal threats did he make? I can't make heads or tails of wiki talk.

  119. Ken says:

    Tali: the legal classification of the threats is "hilarious, bumptious, and somehow a little bittersweet." Sorry for the mumbo-jumbo.

  120. Tali McPike says:

    Ok, so this was in response to his "if you don't stop I'm listing you as an accomplice" threat? Or did he make more threats?

  121. TexasAndroid says:

    Tali: Wikipedia's No Legal Threat (NLT) policy normally only applies to issues made on the wiki itself, though I suppose it's not impossible that threats made off-wiki could be considered.

    The policy has two separate, and often confused, parts. The first basically says that, if you are involved in ongoing legal action against Wikipedia itself, you should not be continuing to edit WP at the same time. That part really has no role in the current situation.

    The second side of the policy has to do with people using threats of legal action, either explicit or veiled, as a way to intimidate or bully other editors. Use of threats or implication of off-wiki consequences as a way to "win" an on-wiki debate. This second is the most common use of the NLT policy, and it's what he ran afoul of. He was making comments in edit comments and on at least one editor's talk page about how the material on WP was defaming and illegal. While he never (that I can see) said an explicit "I'll sue you", the implication was pretty plain that he was trying to intimidate other users into doing what he wanted on WP.

    Violating the NLT policy is one of the fastest ways to get yourself blocked on WP, but it's also one of the easiest to get unblocked from. A withdraw of any and all threats of legal action, explicit or implicit, and a promise not to make more is generally enough to get a NLT block lifted.

    In general, WP cannot prevent one user from suing another, but we can and do prevent the threat of such being used as a weapon on-wiki.

  122. Tali McPike says:

    Ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks!

  123. Nat Gertler says:

    The IP user made this on-wiki legal threat: "Any further revision of my edits and I will make sure you are charged as an accessory."

  124. Be advised that these actions, your slander and screen shots can and will be used as key factors should a case be pursued against you. Your posting, advertising, marketing, dissipating and otherwise disseminating the slanderous materials constitute actionable violations of Mr. Trahan and Mr Brittain's rights of privacy and publicity.

  125. Tali McPike says:

    IANAL but from my understanding:
    Of course it doesn't count as actually being served, because to be served requires that there actually is a complaint, and to be served is to be given a copy of the pertinent legal documents (usually including a court summons)

  126. Tali McPike says:

    @Captain Obvious
    He left the exact same notice on wikipedia
    (H/t to Nat Gertler for finding that)

  127. Ken says:

    "Be advised," and variations thereof, are a reliable tell of (1) a third-rate attorney or (2) a third-rate idiot posing as an attorney.

  128. Joe Pullen says:

    IsAnybodyDown • Nov 11, 2012 @4:06 am

    Be advised that these actions, your slander and screen shots can and will be used as key factors should a case be pursued against you. Your posting, advertising, marketing, dissipating and otherwise disseminating the slanderous materials constitute actionable violations of Mr. Trahan and Mr Brittain's rights of privacy and publicity.

    So it appears he has left the same empty bumptious threat here, on Adam's blog, Captain Obvious' video, and on Wiki. I find it ironic that someone who who helps run a site where peoples nude pics are published without their consent is asserting that his right of privacy has been violated.

  1. November 4, 2012

    […] also helped Craig draft his DMCA takedown notice for Popehat, you can tell because of how laywerly it sounds, right? Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe […]

  2. November 4, 2012

    […] P.S. Fuck this guy! Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. 1 Comment […]

  3. November 5, 2012

    […] copyrighted material, mainly, my email exchanges with them. Like, what sort of lawyers are these? Emails are copyright. I mean any idiot off the streets of Colorado Springs can tell you that. Emails are copyrighted, […]

  4. November 5, 2012

    […] to get their pictures and information removed"?  This is the same law that Craig Brittain is now attempting to use to silence criticism of him on Popehat.  I can only surmise that IsAnybodyDown ignored the complaints of the three people who were forced […]

  5. November 5, 2012

    […] I have now been made aware that Craig might have admitted to tricking people on craigslist for pictures. I pray that is not true… Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

  6. November 5, 2012

    […] Craig Brittain resorted to the DMCA in an attempt to shut down Popehat's criticism of him.  Yes, this is the same Craig Brittain who runs a website that brags about not being subject to […]

  7. November 11, 2012

    […] and Chance try to censor his critics: Craig tried (and failed) to use copyright law to censor information about him posted at Popehat. Craig attempted to delete unfavorable criticism of him from a Wikipedia article and was banned […]

  8. November 29, 2012

    […] In response to these allegations, the people behind IAD have been sending legal threats to the sites covering them, including TechDirt and White himself. […]