Craig Brittain of IsAnybodyDown.com has apparently responded to his critics in an almost-coherent screed [PDF] threatening thunder and lightning on, inter alia, Randazza, “Ken Popehat,” and myself, and proclaiming that he’d be worth at least $8 million if it weren’t for that rascally Obama character. (Update: he’s now removed the post and is instead rambling about coal?)
He also had the courtesy to respond to me via email.
What have we learned?
First, there’s no denial that Craig Brittain is behind the site. Rather than identify himself by name, however, Craig names only Chance Trahan. Pure class, this one.
Second, Craig is still implying that David Blade III, attorney-at-law, is a real human being, and suggests that even more attorneys are being added to his team:
Furthermore, I’m not the Takedown Lawyer, Takedowm Hammer, David Blade, or anything else and neither is Chance. [...] I am in the process of adding people to my legal team who can hardly wait for a rematch with Mr. Randazza. This includes numerous attorneys and co-claimants.
This roughly echoes his emails to me, in which he implies that he’ll sue Randazza for defamation and, um, something. When asked if he intended to sue Randazza:
I’m preparing to deal with Marc Randazza. [...] His claims are false, he has subjected me to emotional, mental and financial distress, engaged in numerous violations of the Bar Agreement and alleged violations of the law, and in general, he’s just a cocksucker.
Which claims are false? What “Bar Agreement” rules were broken?:
All of them.
ALL OF THEM.
Craig’s emails also evade — repeatedly — the question of whether David Blade exists, only suggesting that he’s done nothing questionable or illegal. Craig, in fact, flatly denies the suggestion that David Blade does not exist. Craig also refused to identify who his new ‘legal counsel’ was — apparently Mr. Blade is unavailable? However, in stupefying emails to Marc Randazza, Craig claims that David Blade (his college buddy) is his mortal enemy.
Third, Mr. Blade — or any other imaginary lawyer — isn’t reading Craig’s posts before he makes them. When contemplating a defamation lawsuit, it’s poor form to revel in your status as a “public figure” [emphasis added]:
I have never scammed or ripped anyone off, nor done anything illegal, nor engaged in anything questionable. [...] It feels good to be polarizing as a public figure. You love me or you hate me. You love Chance, or you hate him. Do you know what I’d be doing with my life if it wasn’t for this website? Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Back against the wall, going to interview after interview and being rejected like every other honest, hard-working American. [...] I really hate this job and I do not do it for revenge, to hurt people, etc., I do it because Barack Obama is the second worst President in US history [...] A talented guy like me is easily worth seven figures or more in a good economy (if Randazza’s worth $2.5 million, I’m worth at least $8 million).
Perhaps Craig’s conscience bothers him because he sees his site as a weapon. Craig — or someone using his same IP address – attempted to modify the Wikipedia discussion on nudity, suggesting that IsAnybodyDown should be added to the page as part of a discussion of “Nudity as a Weapon.” (Coincidentally, the same IP address is used by David Blade III, “attorney-at-law.” I knew public defenders are significantly underpaid, but unable to afford his own computer in his own time zone? Sad.)
Further, as Ken points out, it takes some mighty chutzpah for a convicted felon to proclaim that he’s never done anything illegal. Employing Occam’s Razor here, perhaps that might be a bit more to blame than Barack Obama for Craig’s difficulty finding gainful employment. (Craig has openly posted about his sentence before and, frankly, my conscience isn’t concerned by subjecting one to scrutiny who makes his living subjecting unwilling participants to more humiliating forms of exposure.)
Fourth, Craig isn’t denying that he or his associates solicited the photos via Craigslist and posted them themselves. Honest, hard-working Americans don’t deceive people to post nudie pictures on the Internet. The President is not forcing Craig to deceive people into sending him their pictures.
What has Craig learned?
Apparently little. Craig has demonstrated that he does not understand — even on a feral level — the nature of consent or copyright:
I comply with removal requests sent through proper channels. We haven’t had a single complaint since the now-Takedown Hammer service was added.
That you use a “lawyer” to collect fees to remove photos that you don’t own the rights to is not a service, it’s a scam. Remarking that your scam worked since it began is not helpful to your potential wire fraud case. But, please, continue.
Everyone pictured on this website consented to appear on here. Anything else is total nonsense. They took the pictures themselves. They transmitted them via Fair Use. The submitters agreed to the terms of submission prior to sending them.
What consent? To know that’s not true, you only need look so far as the emails Craig boasted about on his site — until I posted about them here and they were deleted. For example — and note that most of these peoples’ pictures are still on the site:
- In this email he tells a woman that he’ll only remove photos if she can prove she was underage.
- Or this email, where he tells a woman that the person who probably sent her photos in was “probably some random dude you slept with.”
- In another, he tells a woman that the only way to protect her pictures is to patent them — which, even if you could, would be wholly irrelevant.
- Then there’s this email, demurring to a woman’s complaint that she’s receiving threatening calls because her phone number is posted on the site.
- Or this classic – he accuses a woman of lying about receiving threats of being gang raped – then embarks on his own parade of hyperbole, accusing her of endangering children by taking away valuable government resources because she complained to the state that her images may have been taken when she was underage.
- Or in this exchange, where his only response to being informed that the woman pictured did not consent to the posting was “lol.”
The people pictured are complaining that they never submitted the pictures and don’t want them posted. The site openly advertises the services of a ‘lawyer’ to have images removed for a fee. If anyone can fathom how this is consent, please seek help.
But Craig tries. The only – only – way for these people to have consented, under Craig’s definition, was to have consented to have their picture taken at some point and sent it to someone else, and that someone else sent it in. That’s not how consent or — crucially for Craig — copyright work. We discussed this yesterday. Please show it to your legal team (assuming they don’t all have to use your computer.)
There has been some harping that if you send someone else your nude photos, you risk them sharing them with others. That doesn’t begin to justify another profiting off of them or attempting to solicit money from you via a fake “attorney.” Nor does it justify posing as an interested person in order to deceive them into sending the pictures. Frankly, the suggestion that the men and women pictured on the site somehow deserve to be publicly humiliated for pecuniary gain wreaks of a blame-the-victim mentality.
And Craig apparently sympathizes — the site’s supposed to be a weapon, isn’t it?