IsAnybodyDown Update: Craig’s Pissed — because Barack Obama

Craig Brittain of 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.

Update: Craig has since launched a blog of his own; now it’s not Obama’s fault — it’s the mafia’s and “Big Porn.”

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.



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:

In an email to Marc Randazza, Craig claimed:

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:

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?


  1. You figure his probation officer will be happy to read about this?

  2. […] Update Adam's new catalog of Craig's response to people asking that their pictures be taken down is a must-… […]

  3. Dave Aubke says:

    Great… I didn’t pay attention and now I’ve got “gang-rape.pdf” in my download history.

  4. […] on your part. I also say we go after that law quoting neophyte Adam Steinbaugh for trying to make you look like a fool. These two legal harpies must, and will be taught a lesson.We can even stick it to Marc Randazza […]

  5. Czernobog says:

    “I pray to god you’ve hired Charles.” Oh man, I had a good giggle at that.

  6. Czernobog says:

    First Charles described saw fit to note that you’re a good looking guy, and now Craig claims you had some kind of porn scholarship. You seem to be drawing the wrong kind of attention.

  7. […] I discovered something a bit disturbing last night. Someone showed me that Chance Trahan puts pictures on the internet showing that he has a very cute young daughter. I'm sure he loves her very much. I'm sure she loves him. Despite the fact that he's wantonly cruel, and a meathead, it would not surprise me at all to learn that he's a doting and tender parent. But somehow Chance Trahan is able to separate, in his mind, that little girl, and her mother, and his mother, and any other women he's ever cared about, from the women being humiliated and abused on "IsAnybodyDown?" He's able to put them in a separate category when his site posts women's phone numbers so people drooling over their pictures can call them incessantly. He's able to but them in separate categories when his site posts mocking posts about takedown requests. […]

  8. Anglave says:

    I’m here via Popehat, but the quality of this post earned a bookmark.

  9. […] site were culling their photos from unsuspecting Craigslist posters and discounted their nonsensical claims that everyone who appears on the site consented to be pictured t….  This post is largely a re-hash of that evidence — with some fun new […]

  10. elitebuster says:

    This guy seems like a sociopath. Seriously, no empathy, over-inflated ego, and complete dismissal of any notion that he did anything wrong.

  11. […] Involuntary porn: IsAnybodyDown is an “involuntary porn” or “revenge porn” site, posting nude photos, names, phone numbers, hometowns, and Facebook profiles of about 700 people.  The photos are posted without their consent and are purportedly submitted by jealous ex-paramours, but appear to be culled by the site’s administrators by deceiving posters on the Craigslist personals section.  The site, hosted in Romania, claims to be immune from American copyright law and regularly posted emails mocking people who asked to have their photos removed.  Its owners apparently view their site as a “weapon.” […]

  12. -guest- says:

    “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.”

    I’m loving the coverage on this issue, just… reeks of a blame-the-victim mentality, not wreaks.

Leave a Reply to Anglave Cancel reply