Skip navigation

dmcaimageThere have been some accusations made over the years on the internet on various social media sites. Some of these accusations have been serious and other accusations have been minor.

There have also been denials of those accusations. In a majority of the cases, the only proof offered in the denials is the word of the accused. The nature of the accusations make denials hard to back up with evidence. Thus the public is left with nothing in which to use to determine where the truth lies and where the truth does not.

There is, however, certain circumstances where past actions can determine certain truths.

There is one case that serves as a prime example of  how such a determination can be made.

Several years ago, a woman was accused of possessing a video tape belonging to another woman who is known as the most hated woman on earth.

There were accusations of the woman taking the video and selling it for a fairly large sum of money.  At the peak of her defense against these accusations the woman named another party as the source of the video tape and offered what may have been considered, by some, as a reasonable excuse for the actions taken.

Over the next year or two, some other accusations came forward and these accusations were followed by denials of the accusations. For the most part, the woman was able to defend herself against the accusation and escape any ramifications as a result.

Recently, however, some new and interesting accusations surfaced. There began to appear what is known as Twitter sock puppets. Within these sock puppets appeared some images. Similar images also began to appear on the woman’s Twitter account.

Since the images did not belong to the woman in question, DMCA complaints were lodged and Twitter took them down.

That should have been the end of it. It was not. For some odd reason, the woman chose to dispute the DMCA and filed a counter complaint stating that the person making the complaint did not have the right to do so.

This counter claim was made even though the woman clearly knew that the image was clearly the property of the person who filed the DMCA.

She lied.

The woman lied because she knew that the only way to remedy the situation would be for the legitimate owner to  go through an expensive court proceeding to force Twitter to abide by their terms of service and deal with the woman.

The incident points out one important fact to considered. The woman lied in her DMCA counter complaint and did so after taking an oath to tell the truth.

If this woman is so willing to lie about something so important as a DMCA counter claim, what else is she willing to lie about.

Perhaps she lied about that Video and about knowing the person who appeared in it.

Perhaps she lied about not being responsible for those sock accounts that targeted a media personality, a lawyer and others.

Perhaps she lied about many other things that people have not caught onto yet.

When one considers who lied and did not lie, one must consider current and past actions when deciding where the truth lies and where it does not..

Stay tuned