Citigroup's doomed attempt to erase the past The bank slaps a blogger for posting a company report in February 2009. What's it trying to hide? Andy
-----------------
Here's a hint of the reason:
``But most embarrassing of all, Citigroup's imploding finances resulted in the U.S. government announcing, on Feb. 27, that it would increase its ownership stake in the financial institution from 8 percent to 36 percent by converting $25 billion worth of preferred shares into common stock. At that point, after injecting a total of $45 billion into Citigroup (and providing numerous other backstops), U.S. taxpayers were the single largest stakeholder in the company.''
I suppose I've been watching too many conspiracy thrillers. It seems to me there is a much bigger story here than just closing Doug's blog. I wish I could figure it out.
I'd really like to hear a Behind the News on this `valid DMCA notice' bullshit.
It took a year and a half. Why? How was it spotted by who. Well, I got some answers at the link below. It explains how to serve a DMCA notice. It seems anybody can cook up their own:
http://www.marketingdock.com/copyrights/dealing-with-copyright-infringement.php
This makes fascinating reading. It is like the perfect censorship tool.
BTW `valid' I think just means Citigroup or a company that works for Citi correctly identified Doug's account by number or something. I bet it has nothing to do with valid, meaning evidence of mis-use. As far as I can tell the DMCA notice just has to claim mis-use without any evidence.