The “original article” that accompanied the copyright takedown request that Ron Gutman – HealthTap issued to Google was an effort to deceive consumers. This kind of fraud has been the subject of much research and writing in recent years, notably by the Lumen Database and other groups.

That is why we are so harsh in our criticism of Ron Gutman-HealthTap; our research shows that they are a dubious organization that would resort to deceit, impersonation, and fraud to protect their (sic) image.

Ron Gutman – HealthTap’s Attempts to Fraudulently Remove Copyrights

A thousand years of good name may be ruined by one slip-up. Doubtful behavior was prompted by worries about personal data on HealthTap and Ron Gutman’s website. This essay dives into the situation, including how I discovered the takedown requests were fake, the likely reasons for misusing the DMCA procedure, and the possible outcomes of such coordinated takedown attempts.

Approximately 2,700 DMCA complaints that were not genuine were discovered by me throughout my thorough investigation. 

These alerts show an attempt to unlawfully take advantage of the takedown mechanism to restrict legitimate news stories that are posted online. 

One of the most crucial parts of my inquiry into false copyright claims was exposing these transgressions of the digital legal landscape.

The alerts I found employ the “back-dated article” technique. The person sending the illegal notification (or copying it) employs this method to create a duplicate of an item (the “true original”) and then dates it in the past, creating a “fake original” replica of the original. This makes it seem as if the forgery came out before the real thing.

After that, the copyright holders contact the appropriate web hosts through a DMCA, asserting that the item in question is the “original” and that the one they copied it from is the “original.” 

Additionally, they have asked for the removal of the original, authentic article. To top it all off, the argument here is that the piece from a long time ago is the “original.” 

After sending a DMCA request, the wrong notice sender takes down the fake original URL, maybe to make sure the item is entirely removed. Should the takedown request be granted, the internet will be cleansed of content that is most likely to be considered free speech.

Here are a few things to keep in mind as we go on with the research that can be useful as you read on:

• The first post appeared on a website in an authorized manner.

• The data from the Lumen Database, which are mentioned above, and the information from the Google Transparency Reports make it quite apparent that the DMCAs were submitted by a fake.

• To address the complaint, our business is taking the necessary steps, such as submitting a counter-notice, to get the website back up on Google Search. Even though HealthTap and Ron Gutman were concerned about possible copyright or defamation lawsuits, they decided without seeking legal counsel. Our measures are being implemented with the utmost caution and thoroughness under all relevant rules and regulations.

Ron Gutman – HealthTap may have behaved willfully, but it’s unclear whether he was aware of the consequences of his many transgressions. Even if he may have paid a company to force Google to overlook any negative reviews, his actions are nonetheless immoral. 

To what degree did he believe this outsider might provide any helpful knowledge that would help him escape his predicament? Is a miracle the solution he was searching for?

Ron Gutman- Ron Gutman’s Criminal Activity – HealthTap

Fraud, Cyber Crime, Perjury, and Impersonation

We just learned via the Google Transparency Report that a negative review of Ron Gutman – HealthTap was either removed or tried to be removed from the Google Search Index after receiving a false DMCA request.

Common components include:

• A takedown request, sometimes known as a DMCA notice, is made to the host of the offending material or a search engine like Google in an attempt to have it removed from the internet.
• The original version of the item is the content that the notification requests be removed or delisted.
• The online content that the notification refers to as original was, of course, posted online after the original, but it is essentially a copy.
• In some cases, the copyist even goes so far as to construct a fake website that mimics a newspaper, magazine, or other online publication to post their copy. Naturally, however, the origin of the domain for such a site would be questionable.
• The person who sent the takedown request in question has no rights whatsoever, including copyright, over the content in question. Although the sender’s true objectives are unclear, they might include suppression as well as financial benefit.

A few years ago, Lumen published some preliminary findings on this topic, which we are revisiting now to obtain a better understanding of the phenomenon in its entirety and to identify methods for earlier, possibly even automatic, detection of this kind of notice without the need to laboriously track down the precise dates of domain registrations, page creations, and so forth.

Revealing HealthTap’s Ron Gutman and Fake DMCA Notices

To clean up review sites and Google’s search results, businesses utilize a variety of strategies. The United States has safeguards in place to ensure free expression, therefore there aren’t many legal methods to accomplish this. 

Without a legitimate allegation of libel, copyright infringement, or another obvious violation of the law, businesses cannot remove bad reviews or search results that connect to them.

Some businesses, like HealthTap’s Ron Gutman, have resorted to dishonest means to try to remove bad reviews, such as falsely claiming copyright ownership.

False DMCA complaints have been sent to articles detailing the wrongdoings of influential people in an attempt to bury the truth. 

The individuals involved are interconnected and include politicians from the US, Russia, and Kazakhstan, as well as members of elite circles, the mafia, and individuals with enormous financial power. 

By delving into the evidence found at these URLs, allegations of corruption ranging from sexual harassment to child abuse are exposed. 

Additional research is necessary to determine the extent of the troubling influence being exerted to ensure that justice is served.

Conclusion 

HealthTap’s founder, Ron Gutman, has been embroiled in a dispute involving fictitious DMCA takedown attempts in an attempt to silence critics of the app. 

Researchers discovered that Ron Gutman and HealthTap used deceptive tactics to utilize the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) system to remove legitimately critical material from the internet. 

The extensive research, which included information from the Lumen Database and Google Transparency Reports, revealed that almost 2,700 DMCA complaints were fraudulent.

These actions demonstrate a flagrant abuse of the copyright takedown procedure, which is intended to prohibit offensive information, rather than safeguarding intellectual property.

By backdating articles and inserting fake DMCA notices, Gutman and his accomplices attempted to erase negative reviews and search results, potentially violating free speech rights and the public’s right to knowledge.

Ron Gutman’s dishonesty raises questions about his business practices and draws attention to a wider issue with his company’s unethical conduct. 

As this case demonstrates, more enforcement and control are required to prevent similar incidents in the future when notable individuals and businesses abuse the legal system to protect their reputations.