Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
from the could-do-better dept
So, yesterday, as you may have heard, we wrote about how a totally bogus DMCA takedown notice, coming from an "anti-piracy" firm called Armovore, deleted a key Techdirt blog post about SOPA/PIPA from Google's search results. That post apparently got some attention within Google, who kicked off an expedited review and reinstated our site and a few others. Soon after that, we got a couple emails from folks at Armovore, and they also posted some comments to the site, in which they apologized, and said that it was an "early" version of the technology. To their credit, they "accept full responsibility for the mistake" and insist that while that takedown was an automated keyword-based effort, they now only do manual takedowns. They even apologized that multiple people reached out to apologize.Of course, the apology still involved a few statements that suggested they were upset we even wrote the story, saying it was too "one-sided." The first email from the company also suggested that we shouldn't be annoyed any more since the story was added back to Google (ignoring that it wasn't for a month). They also say they haven't made any money ("aside from a single donation") and the founder said via email: "I don't feel comfortable charging anyone for an unfinished product." That's interesting, because apparently while he doesn't feel comfortable charging, he didn't seem to have much of a problem issuing a whole bunch of bogus takedowns with it, apparently without manual review, despite signing a letter that promises, under penalty of perjury, that the takedowns are accurate.
All that said, everyone makes mistakes, and even though this one was pretty egregious and involved our own content on a key post being taken out of Google for over a month, we'll accept their apology and move on. I think it would be smart and reasonable for whoever is behind Armovore to make a public donation to Public Citizen and EFF, but that's up to them to decide.
I'll also note that our situation was obviously nowhere near as bad as the various domains that have been incorrectly seized and shut down by ICE with no due process, at the request of the RIAA and the MPAA... and those sites have yet to receive any apology. And, in some cases, the sites are still being held by the government, despite a requirement that the government either give the domains back or file for forfeiture (it's done neither). Those sites deserve an apology from the RIAA, the MPAA, ICE and the DOJ and haven't received any.
Finally, what this incident really shows is just how incredibly easy it is to suppress speech under today's copyright laws. Just the fact that an automated system was able to do this should be ringing alarm bells from here to DC and back about some pretty serious problems with today's DMCA takedown process that is a shoot first, ask questions later kind of operation (as we've now seen first hand). Not only should this be a clear warning that we should not be expanding such powers via something like SOPA or PIPA, where the penalties are much, much greater, but that we should revisit the whole idea of a system that allows content to be taken completely offline prior to any chance for those falsely accused to respond. We shouldn't be expanding copyright law, we should be rolling it back to prevent abuses like this, even if they are "mistakes." A system that allows mistakes like this is a broken system.
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: apologies, censorship, copyright, dmca, sopa, takedown
Companies: armovore, google, techdirt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
we knew we did it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we knew we did it
We knew we did it, but we didn't think anyone would notice anything until we got caught.
There, FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we knew we did it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we knew we did it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we knew we did it
It's only illegal if you get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we knew we did it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In truth I'm mildly surprised ICE hasn't 'accidentally' taken this site down. Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government's Response
...Pirates."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps now you understand why the current DMCA system is such a disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's truly a bizarro world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The disconnect here seems pretty simple. You want society and the law to err on the side of censorship, we want them to err on the side of free speech.
You're entitled to your value system, but I don't think you'll find much support for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I would rather than the world errs on the side of "using what you have the rights to use". I can't take your Mom's car for a ride without her permission, can I? Yet for some reason people like you think that everyone else's property and creations are your to plunder at will. How truly odd!
DMCA created a huge permission gap that has created endless problems. It's actually both amusing and enjoyable to see Mike get whacked by the very situation he pushes to create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The current DMCA system has created an incredible burden for rights holders, and when anyone else is asked to share a bit of the burden by taking a slight amount of responsibility for their own actions and own businesses, they all freak out and start yelling "censorship". It's awesome to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A content producer could spend their entire life trying to track down illegal uses, and with DMCA, they never, ever have a way to get back what is lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just focus on making things people actually want to buy?
Oh, right, because right holders assume people don't want to buy anything.
Sounds like you cats are in the wrong business then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fairy land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120223/20250117858/if-you-want-to-compe te-with-free-this-is-what-you-need-to-know.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was an incredibly amusing post that entirely ignored any relationship to the business side of producing the stuff, and was entirely hinged on the "we can pirate it for free" mentality that is pretty much impossible to beat.
You could sell movies for $1, and still people would pirate their asses off - and you wouldn't make 20 times the business.
Sorry, you cannot compete with your own product being flogged for free. It's not workable, no matter how many times Mike says it, and no matter how many times someone tries to come up with a D&D style formula to justify their piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now on the other side of the coin, if a consumer thinks your price is much lower then what they feel the product is worth then the consumer will go and buy the product (and even score a bit self satisfaction for a great buy and who knows they may even tell others about it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the consumer doesn't like what is on offer, he can go buy a different product from someone else at a different price point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, the lost sales of the "other guy" maybe come to the first company. As long as the customer is buying instead of "borrowing", there is business to be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that that's settled, who's for milkshakes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The message that this is giving me is that these rights are indefensible.
In this situation the only wise response is to relinquish them.
Anything else is folly and whistling in the wind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much money has been lost, exactly? It's been how many times larger than the GDP of nations, now?
If you want to get back what is lost it might help to try getting back something that might actually realistically exist. Sure, go after users, but if you must treat it as theft, then treat it how the law treats theft, without the multipliers up to $150,000. Incidentally, being realistic also makes other people more willing (or less unwilling) to help you get back what is lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not your "reason" and sure as hell not your "logic".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can totally make a copy of my mom's car and take that for a ride. If you really wanted, you could make a copy of my mom and take her for a ride too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We'll be having that when 3D printers become cheap and ubiquitous and people are downloading the plans for someone's copyrighted or patented or whatever device, printing it and having, I don't know, DMCA takedowns of physical objects.
Then there's 3D simulacra of actors. Someone will be able to fire up, I don't know, Adobe Premiere 2020 and download Angelina Jolie and make movies with her and she will have to sue to protect her likeness. By then, of course, Windows 13 will automatically delete any files related to a DMCA takedown notice without any intervention by the issuer, the rights holder or the user of the computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you know what the term "err on the side of" means. You can't err on the side of no errors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry - but you don't get a choice about what the world does - you only get a choice about what you do.
You need to learn to accept that there are some things you can't change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
a lesson a large portion of the content industries seem to have missed.
*this really should be 'can and should', but there's no way to make that fit neatly, so it's rendered thusly instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I'll give you that you can't use my Mother's car without her permission.
You're strawman burns down because if you DID decide to do it, it's not then the responsibility of everyone else to just KNOW that you stole her car, is it? It's her responsibility. Isn't it?
Trol.....I mean, Try harder.
Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We already knew you were an a**hole. No need to rub it in, douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's plainly false. AC/WH/TAM would get plenty of support for his position. Take China, for instance. They'd back his agenda of "Censorship First!" 100%. I'm sure most of the Middle East regimes that fell in the Arab Spring, along with Iran, would wholly support his "Fuck speech!" plans.
And those are just two examples. Take these other supporters as cementing his backing: Satan, Zombie Michael Jackson, the kid who played Webster, Bono (sometimes confused with Satan), most record label executives (sometimes confused with the kid who played Webster), evil robots everywhere, Vogons, Pod People, The Nat'l Association of Cockgobblers, and Chris Dodd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, but the bizarro world were ISPs and hosts are suppose to be able to check all of the internet for content they don't even own and don't know who owns makes perfect sense to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe he's confusing "burden" with "benefit"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The flip side of this is that having your work taken down can be a big deal. It can be important financially, or in the case of the Techdirt post it was an extremely important piece of work that journalists and others needed to be finding. Having something taken down can also make you feel violated, especially when you discover that there is almost nothing practical that you can do to get the decision reversed in most cases.
We need to fix the system to put a real cost on bogus takedowns as well as a notice and chance to appeal before the actual takedown happens. Some of this would involve the DCMA and legal changes. However, other takedowns would involve companies like Google getting a bit of a backbone and implementing some kind of counter-notice for their own internal processes that are not directly covered by DCMA takedown issues. There should also be the strict enforcement of the part of the rules that says only the copyright holder themselves can take down the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple to fix
A system like that would keep more people honest, but it needs to be $1000s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple to fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple to fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this like Rumblefish
Are people making software that can get stuff deleted from the Internet as fast as it can be created?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this like Rumblefish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this like Rumblefish
In a word, yes.
It doesn't really take much software development to do this. Most of the big services have API's that let you search on keywords. Other API's (or something like them) let you file DCMA notices. Put them together and search for a keyword. "Torrent" perhaps. This gets you all of the sites that offer torrents, but there is a lot of collateral damage to sights like Techdirt that only talk about torrents.
It sounds like Armovore was a startup that had some amateurish software to do this. It sounds very much like a company set up to try to get some business from major rights holders. The TD takedown appears to have happened on a test run of the system. It shows how cheap the takedowns are and the flippant way that they are handled when they do test runs on a live system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They might have a point though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Armovore just doesn't get it
Armovore this this was just a mistake. It's not a big deal. They didn't make money from doing it. Etc., etc.
The major problem that seems to escape Armovore and others who support SOPA / PIPA etc, is that this is a GIGANTIC NUCLEAR big deal.
If you can falsely take down a site for a month, and then apologize to get it back up, the damage may already be done.
Look at it like this. Just when SOPA / PIPA is in the public spotlight and about to be voted on, and the SOPA / PIPA supporters want to get their point of view out, imagine someone, upon mere accusation (no proof, no due process) gets the SOPA/PIPA supporters websites all taken down so that they cannot get their message out.
Now do you see the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh the bells are ringing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that's not been enough for the copyright extremists out there who push for ever and ever more restrictive use of material under copyright while extending the term longer and longer into space and time. Naturally we hear about the people who created the material, who may have perfromed the material, who contributed to it on a movie or television shoot, who wrote the book the movie is based on and so it goes.
Funny thing is they always seem to be the last ones paid (if ever), royalties, residuals and other goodies while the corporate entities that actually have control of the copyright, rarely the creators themselves, gorge on what they see as a never ending feast. And heaven help anyone who wants to share so much as a vienna sausage of that feast.
Regrettably, copyright has moved far beyond it's original intent as outlined in the Statute of Anne and later picked up by the US Constitution as a short term incentive to provide for things like education and culture into something a patent troll would fall in lust with. And still, most of the creators never do get paid.
Add, now, to that, the development of programmed DCMA take down notice generators that, more often that not, will be mistaken, bug ridden ContentID and a raft of other ideas we once thought belonged in stories like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Lord of the Flies, The Handmaids Tale and many others of that genre.
Goodbye to freedom, liberty and free speech. Good bye to a world where issues can be discussed that the power elite would prefer weren't.
All triggered by a he-said-she-said DCMA takedown system that never bothers to as what she really does have to say till it's all gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...Okay, I see the comparison, but it still doesn't belong next to 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So in your converstaion did they ever say what "flagged" the post?
One other question, on a DMCA takedown does it require they point out the link/image/video/text that was the basis of the takedown or can they just say you had something of ours on your site and that's enough....
[ 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: Re:
So, frankly, no amount of apologizing is enough. And the reminding is for the rest of 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would have thought that that should be illegal in itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to corporations, both are generally true until it starts negatively affecting the chances of significant percentage of politician's chances of keeping their jobs. (and they have ways around That, too.)
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We counted tons of mistakes in their filing.
And, honestly, when you're talking about suppressing free speech, mistakes should not be a part of the discussion. The default should always be to protect speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's an idea, I'm giving it away, for free:
Stop trying to police the entire internet.
There, for everyone that was trying to do that, I've just saved you millions of dollars and countless man-hours. And here's another freebie:
Take all that saved money and man-hours and make your product better.
Booyah! Now you've saved millions and with a better product, you are much more likely to make lots more money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What do you think the music business would look like today if Napster was still around in it's original form? There wouldn't be an itunes, just a "napster app".
So you may think you are saving people millions, buy you are costing them billions to do it. So sorry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
i hit the funny button.
there is no better response Available to this brand of delusion.
(well, short of finding the source and Setting it on FIRE... but that's sort of outside the scope of reasonable behaviour (not to mention practicality) so we'll leave that one aside.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So sorry, but you're "doomsday" scenario just won't fly. Also, Napster is still around, in a newer form. Speculating "what would the world be like if it hadn't change" is a pointless thing to bring up. The point is, it's changed with the times. Perhaps, some of the industries and studios and labels should too. If the "thieves" can, why can't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Armovore's apology is disingenuous on multiple levels. I would suggest it was given only to forestall legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We accepted their apology, despite the fact that they blatantly abused the law to censor a popular page on our site that was important to the debate. Was it really necessary for you to question how we accept their apology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BTW, they censored nothing, unless you are now expanding "censorship" to also apply to private actors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
only Government censorship.
and even that's up in the air.
[ 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:
which doesn't really line up with accepting the apology (which... i don't really think you should have done Either, if there was a valid way to actually make some headway on this nonsense from it...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techdirt gets its nose rubbed in by the trolls regardless of what is posted or who is posting, so yes - rubbing their nose is perfectly acceptable behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I'm the one who accidentally sweeps up an unrelated site into my colossal DMCA takedown notice, I think I'd make sure that the quotation marks stay off the word "accidentally" by NOT offering my opinion of the article removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perjury or wire fraud
As long as the system has no accountability, why not try it?
Technically there's nothing preventing a nuclear war between media companies and issuing takedowns on YouTube of each other's content, forcing Google to either open themselves up, or just CYA and honor them. Given enough time, it will happen.
And yea, they do use DMCA claims to shut up things like negative reviews of a companies product. Unless you've got lawyers, they win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perjury or wire fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wasn't a mistake at all: it's part of the business plan
Fake, empty apologies (like they one issued to Techdirt) are cheap. Paying competent staff is expensive.
(Exercise for the reader: compare to the practice of robosigning foreclosures. Fast, cheap, easy, and hey, struggling homeowners don't have $400/hour attorneys, so where's the risk?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It wasn't a mistake at all: it's part of the business plan
See: Larry Lessig on Perpetual Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It wasn't a mistake at all: it's part of the business plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Working on it, time to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if
If you stop and assess this imaginary plan, it has progressed nicely. We’ve managed to churn denizens through the school system so they can not critically think on their own. We suppress individual thought in the system and outside of the system. Graduates from Asia have a much more solid scientific foundation then our grads do. We’ve lost a major amount of manufacturing capability. Big corporations have closed down factories here and outsourced it to Asia mostly. Now we are working on destroying our IT infrastructure by using copyright and patent law to destroy our last source of productivity. Innovation being stopped in the name of IP rights and only companies outside of US law will ever be able to create anything useful without the threat of being shut down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Imagine if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Imagine if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Imagine if
*imaginary or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robo-signing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA = Damaging Misused Censorship Act
Then they just turn around and say "sorry" even if the worst of them do not even do that.
Clearly DMCA law should come with a whole series of graded fines to discourage such abuse of free lawful speech where political censorship should come with a huge fine.
Had millions of dollars been at risk then they would sure think long and hard about switching on automatic software with no results validation.
Instead we have an ultra shit law that supports censorship extreme. I should go and censor all my business rivals for a laugh and if any ever figure out the cause of their huge income drop lasting months I can just say "Sorry it was all a mistake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government takedowns
http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They really don't even care then (ala Starz vs Netflix.) Starz is happy taking the approach of not receiving any money from Netflix customers instead of receiving what Netflix wishes to spend.
To them, its greed. They want all the marbles and if they don't get them, nobody does. I've seen the same attitude on the playground. Most of us grow up, but apparently money stunts your maturity and growth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This really is absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's needed is a private right of action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pursue all legal options
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, are these guys hired by the copyright holders or are they just sending out DMCA notices in exchange for "contributions"?
I would love you to look further into their structure and funding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Error?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
auto payment for false notice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA takedowns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]