Fox Sends DMCA Takedown To Google To Remove Link To DMCA Takedown Sent By Fox
from the got-that? dept
Ah, meta DMCA takedowns. We just recently noted the growing trend of some DMCA notice filers to claim that the notices themselves are covered by copyright and thus should not be sent on to ChillingEffects.org, the clearinghouse for DMCA takedowns. It's highly questionable whether or not such DMCA notices are actually covered by copyright, but we hadn't seen anyone actually challenge the claims. However, TorrentFreak has an article on a slightly different, but related situation, where it appears that Fox sent a DMCA takedown to Google, ordering it to block links to a DMCA takedown Fox had sent Google earlier.That may be confusing, so we'll go through this slowly. Basically, Fox sent Google an initial DMCA takedown, to get it to stop linking to links to unauthorized copies of the movie Avatar. Fair enough. Google, as it does, forwarded this takedown to ChillingEffects and removed the links in its index. However, then Fox apparently sent another DMCA takedown, demanding that Google take down the link to its original takedown in ChillingEffects. The second takedown has a huge list of links that it wants Google to stop linking to, so the ChillingEffects one is buried in there.
However, I have to wonder if that's a legit DMCA takedown. The only way it's legit is if Fox really does have some copyright claim over the original DMCA takedown notice, and that's iffy, at best. Of course, Google is pretty quick to takedown these links in order to retain its safe harbors. However, I do wonder if the folks at ChillingEffects, who certainly understand the law, will decide to pushback on this one.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chilling effects, copyright, dmca, search results, takedown
Companies: fox, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Also, I just got a takedown notice in my inbox for this comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://inception.davepedu.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dunder-Mifflin is hiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Although I'd love for lawyers to have to come up with unique expressions of any argument they make, or face civil and criminal liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A closer question is whether anything done by chillingeffects.com is actually infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i think the first question's more useful, in a 'vaguely associated with reality' sort of way...
legally speaking is an entirely different story mind you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You may be confused about what trademarks are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in before yo dawg!
also in before philosoraptor:
if you send a DMCA take down on a DMCA take down, does that mean a DMCA take down notice is protected content?
or, if if you send a DMCA take down on a DMCA take down, does that take down the original DMCA take down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: in before yo dawg!
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation disappears from face of the earth. Random witnesses reported seeing a very large logic wormhole appearing just prior to their disappearance. Story at 11:00.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in before yo dawg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: in before yo dawg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in before yo dawg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Google
Or a link that reads it aloud. I suppose the "reading aloud" crackdown is next though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I kinda see why they don't like chilling effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I kinda see why they don't like chilling effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I kinda see why they don't like chilling effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I kinda see why they don't like chilling effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No wonder revolutions always turn violent when the "rebels" don't have the means to play the game "by the book."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The winner is whomever gets the "biggest" work taken down (aka claiming to own Star Wars), better yet let's claim ownership of works that are in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think perjury can get you up to five years in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and all those corporate lawyer types who get content issued by their company, all authorized and the like, taken down on DMCA grounds... (we've had stories of this happening), they're in jail now, right?
yeeeeeeeeeah, that's what i thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe those folks did have a good faith belief but were mistaken, or maybe they didn't. At any rate, it would be harder to prove a criminal charge against them than it would be against someone claiming to own Star Wars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who signed that paperwork?
Why aren't they facing justice?
84,000 sites seems like quite a pile of perjury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA Takedown
An item isn't copyright if it is a legal document because a legal document is 1. published by being sent or served and 2. it is not being re-published but it's existence is being established by a link. In this case it is simply being exhibited. As such, links to it would come under fair use law.
Fox is just creating another version of a SLAMM lawsuit. They know their reputation is to be the A********** of creation and it is in their very nature to continue being so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA Takedown
As far as "legal documents" again I have trouble understanding what you're saying, but something does not lose copyright protection simply by virtue of being a "legal document."
I do, however, think chilling effects has a strong fair use argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA Takedown
The assertion that DMCA letter is "protected" by copyright should be immediately dismissed under both "fair use" and the First Amendment. Give me a break, the local bully picks on you and you are prevented from protecting yourself!! That is an absurd proposition.
Not only that, but lets consider the DMCA notice as a "gift". As a gift, the issuer of the DMCA notice gives up all rights to the content. After all, the DMCA notice is not something that you requested. If not requested why should you be bound by its demands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DMCA Takedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA Takedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA Takedown
I RITE AS ATTORNEY 4 XYZ CORPORASHUN.
AS U R, NO DOUBT, AWARE, XYZ OWNS ALL OV TEH RITES 2 (STUFFS WE THEENK U STEALIN FROM US) AN ALL RITES RELATIN THERETO (COLLECTIVELY "OUR PROPERTIEZ"). THEES RITES R PROTECTD BY NUMEROUS COPYRITES TRADEMARKZ IN BOTH TEH PROGRAMS THEMSELVEZ AN TEH CHARACTERS, SETS, AN OTHR ELEMENTS APPEARIN IN DOSE PROGRAMS.
WE HAS RESENTLY LERND DAT U HAS POSTD VARIOUS ELEMENTS OV OUR PROPERTIEZ ON UR SIET AT www.BUNCHAMEANSTEALERS.COM. UR POSTIN OV THEES ITEMS IZ AN INFRINGEMENT OV XYZ'S RITES IN OUR PROPERTIEZ.
BASD UPON TEH FOREGOIN, WE HEREBY DEMAND DAT UR CONFIRM 2 US IN WRITIN WITHIN 10 DAIS OV RECEIPT OV DIS LETTR DAT: (I) U HAS REMOVD ALL INFRINGIN MATERIALS FRUM UR SIET; AN (II) U WILL REFRAIN FRUM POSTIN ANY SIMILAR INFRINGIN MATERIAL ON TEH INTERNET OR ANY OTHR ON-LINE SERVICE IN DA FUCHUR.
TEH FOREGOIN IZ WITHOUT WAIVR OV ANY AN ALL RITES OV XYZ CORPORASHUN, ALL OV WHICH R EXPRESLY RESERVD HEREIN.
VRY TRULY YOURS,
ATTORNEY
P.S. DONT TELL NOONE BOUT DIS LETTER OR ELSE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the DMCA notice contains the links to the content
http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=31773
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice
Sincerely,
Evan Stone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again, IANAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't that invalidate it as a proper instrument of law?
At the very least, it reveals it to be from boilerplate, and not the original work it would need to be for even the most dubious DMCA claim to get a toehold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]