zlacker

That sounds like a clear lie, no? If your wish is for someone to take down a specific page, you don't report them to their domain registrar for fraud.

>>mort96+(OP)
They are saying "a partner did this, not us"

>>mort96+(OP)
Or call their mom...

>>bill87+51
Yes, but they're also saying "A takedown request was issued to address this specific page". A fraud report to a domain registrar is categorically not something one does to address a "specific page", whether it's done by a partner or by them.

>>bill87+51
A few years ago, my bank mailed me a letter basically saying "A partner got hacked and lost your personal information. It was totally the partner's fault, not ours! We care about keeping your identity safe!"

And guess which company I was mad at? The company I bank with, or the generically-named sub-contracted company that the bank only partnered with so they didn't have to be held liable for potential breach of PCI and various laws? (Spoiler: It was the bank.)

Point being, Funko can try to cover their vinyl butts as much as they want. The bad PR is going where it belongs. I only wish the finical repercussions would too for things like this.

>>caliba+E1
Seems appropriate. Call a few exec moms.

>>bill87+51
I just asked Tattoo Mike and his buddies at the Hell's Angels to look after our trademark and make sure nothing happened to it.

I am shocked - shocked! - to discover their actions weren't entirely by-the-book.

>>bill87+51
You can't delegate responsibility.

>>bill87+51
A partner that they hired, yes?

If I hire an agent, and authorize them to go around acting on my behalf doing all sorts of shitty things in my name, I don't get to say: "sorry it wasn't me, it was the guy I hired to do things in my name".

They willfully and intentionally gave authority to this agent to go around doing dumb shit with that authority.

>>TheCra+j4
Right? There is no such thing as a ‘company’ doing something, anyway… it is always a decision by an individual or individuals at a company who makes the poor decision… why do I care if you paid that person on your own payroll, or if you paid them indirectly by paying a company that employees that individual… in either case, they are acting on behalf of the company when they act.

>>bill87+51
Unless they're explicitly cutting ties with the partner, it's hard to take what they say seriously. Even if they _did_ unequivocally say that they were cutting ties, it would be hard to be sure they weren't just unhappy they got noticed rather than not wanting to them to act like this.

>>yxhuvu+N6
We use "you can outsource operations, but you can't outsource risk". The new DORA regulations out of the EU, regardless of its issues, at least is trying to put a legal framework around "you can't blame a third party and ditch your responsibilities".

>>mort96+(OP)
Obvious, lit up in neon, lie. It's "we show our customers our value by giving them a report every month on all the 'takedowns' we've delivered", and it's a tiny little step to "we get more reliable takedowns by calling it 'fraud' than a simple 'copyright violation', even though that's a lie and we know it. If we could call it 'child molestation' or 'terrorist funding' and get away with it we'd do that too.".

Follow the money.

>>bill87+51
Sort of like when you walk out of a store with a security tagged item that is now your legal property and the alarm system goes off, literally accusing you of being a thief. "Wasn't us. It was those darn computers."

>>bill87+51
They chose the partner, so it's still their problem.

>>mort96+(OP)
You report to everyone who could possibly take the page offline, as that's the metric that matters.

>>TheCra+j4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E

>>mort96+N1
It’s very typical to report to a site’s host or provider on a specific page under the DMCA. The way this works is that the host will ask you to take down the page, and if you don’t, the host needs to take action or they become liable. This is conceptually covered as “DMCA safe harbor”, and the rules around it protect service providers from liability of their clients actions.

AWS has a well-oiled machine for these kinds of complaints, but some registrars are located in corners of the earth and getting a line of communication to them is challenging. Notion’s worst outage to date happened because of a breakdown of forwarding complaints between a complainant, our DNS NIC in Somalia (.so), and the middlemen between us and Somalia - NameCheap, then some company in Germany who dropped the ball.

Source:

- I worked on UB Berkeley’s systems for handling takedown notices for infringing clients (students running BitTorrent in their dorms), we got lots of lectures on our legal duties as employees of CA state institutions

- I worked how we protect Notion from liability & damage from misbehaving clients to ensure we never had another outage that threatened our main app domain

>>TheCra+j4
I don't know the proper terminology, but I think there's a similar legal concept of: "I'm suing you for the damages, if it was someone you contracted with who is really at-fault, you can sue them in turn. The indirect cause is not-my-problem, and I might not even be able to go around you even if I wanted to."

Sometimes this manifests in odd ways, like lawsuits between loving family members in order to activate some sort of insurance-claim.

>>bill87+51
The "I hired them to do it" defence. Not very effective upon closer look.

>>bill87+51
Your honor, my partner is the one to blame for the bank robbery. All I did was hire them.

>>jitl+kc
The big issue here is that they didn't issue a DMCA request, they reported them for fraud.

>>Terr_+ed
A mechanic’s lien sounds like one instance of what you’re describing.

>>numeri+fk
It usually all goes through the same kinds of process pipeline. Complain about URL to provider, provider sends complaint to you, you remedy complaint, then notify provider. In this case it seems provider totally dropped the ball. It’s a bad look for the agency etc but also I would terminate relationship with the provider who can’t be trusted to be a functioning part of the system, and when you migrate to a new provider make sure you know every link in the chain and have a relationship or trust the link to escalate for you.

>>finnth+Ub
As much as I enjoy and share that link, I don't think it's quite the same: It would actually be more honest if banks had said: "Our deliberately insecure processes were exploited by scammers, but it's some contractor's fault."

In contrast, "identity theft" is trying to re-characterize the type of failure in order to blame the consumer.

> It was garbage, but it had been cooked by an expert. [...] The Grand Trunk’s problems were clearly the result of some mysterious spasm in the universe and had nothing to do with greed, arrogance, and willful stupidity. Oh, the Grand Trunk management had made mistakes—oops, "well-intentioned judgments which, with the benefit of hindsight, might regrettably have been, in some respects, in error"—but these had mostly occurred, it appeared, while correcting "fundamental systemic errors" committed by the previous management. No one was sorry for anything, because no living creature had done anything wrong; bad things had happened by spontaneous generation in some weird, chilly, geometric otherworld, and "were to be regretted."

-- Going Postal by Terry Pratchett

>>jitl+do
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the report was for fraud and phishing? Sending a DMCA complaint or a copyright or trademark complaint to the registrar might've made sense for the reasons you outline here, but that's not what the complaint was.

Why are you so insistent on running defense for them?

>>mort96+WM
I’m sharing my perspective and experience from working on both the provider side and the website side in the hopes it helps any HN readers building something.

Some things you cannot control - people sending takedowns, provider fuckups. Some things you can control - who your providers are, how you structure your site.

>>jitl+9x1
I agree that your biggest fuck-up here is iwantmyname who immediately took down the domain of a long-time, well-renouned customer without even contacting said customer. However, that has no relevance to what I've said or what this discussion is about, which is that Funko's actions (or that of their "brand protection partner") doesn't align with the stated goal of taking down the specific page.