DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts

Stupidity

from the yay-dmca dept

Wed, May 30th 2012 10:34am — Mike Masnick

Google's decision to be much more transparent about DMCA takedowns for search has revealed a swathe of absolutely ridiculously stupid DMCA notices. We've covered some already, but TorrentFreak has found some more -- including multiple cases of DMCA notices by copyright holders that aren't just against their own best interests, but are often against content they, themselves, put up. This isn't even a situation like Viacom suing YouTube over clips that Viacom's employees had uploaded. In those cases, at least, it involved attempts to make the clips look unauthorized.

Here, however, it appears to just be ridiculous bad processes in place to make sure DMCA takedowns are legit. There is, for example, the case of Warner Bros. sending a DMCA takedown for the IMDB page of its own movie, Wrath of the Titans. It also demanded that the Guardian newspaper's showing of the official trailer of the movie be removed from Google search. Ditto the official trailer on Apple's site and Hulu's site. And, let's not forget the BBC America news article about how the film might be "critic proof" as well as a page from Charleston South Carolina's newspaper, The Post & Courier about the film and telling people where to go see it. Though, I guess Warner Bros. lawyers didn't want you to see it at all, because all of those were DMCA'd for being in Google's search.

It's almost as if the lawyers at Warner Bros. are so clueless that they were actively trying to hide any legitimate marketing for the movie. I'm sure their colleagues in the marketing department must have been just thrilled about these efforts.

The TorrentFreak article lists out a bunch more takedowns, directed at news sites, often promoting the works in question:

In addition to the Warner instance mentioned above, the RIAA asked Google to delist a review of the album Own The Night published on The Guardian. The artist behind the album is Lady Antebellum, signed to RIAA-member Capitol Records.

Even more worrying, the RIAA asked Google to delist Last.fm’s entire Electro Pop section because they thought it carried a pirate copy of All About Tonight by Pixie Lott.

Warner also reappeared later on, asking Google to delist a page on news site NME which lists information on the latest movies, which at the time included information on the movie Hall Pass. The same page on NME was targeted on several other occasions, including by anti-piracy company DtecNet on behalf of Lionsgate, who had info on The Hunger Games delisted.

Hollywood Reporter didn’t fare much better either. Sony Pictures asked Google to swing the banhammer against the popular news site after it published an article called “Trent Reznor Releases Six Free Tracks From ‘Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’ Soundtrack” and Sony mistook it for a DVDRIP.

But as soon as Sony’s piracy fears on the first ‘Dragon Tattoo’ movie had subsided they were back as strong as ever with the sequel. This time the sinner was Wikipedia who dared to put up an information page on the movie The Girl Who Played With Fire. Luckily Sony were on hand to ask Google to delist the page.

The more you play around, the more examples like this you can find. Zuffa, the notoriously litigious folks behind UFC, demanded a Hulu link be disappeared from Google search, despite Hulu only posting authorized content.

Sony Music and the Estate of Michael Jackson tried to get a page on Last.fm for Slave to the Rhythm removed as infringing.

Let's see... we've got Universal Music/Interscope (by way of Web Sheriff) demanding that Google delete a link to Wall Street Journal post (reprinted from Mashable) embedding an official Lady Gaga video from last year. Oh, and that wasn't all. They also went after an MTV news article about the video shoot -- which did contain some footage that someone had shot from a distance, but that seems extreme to kill the whole article. Ditto for a NY Post article.

Sony Music Nashville was so worried about a Carrie Underwood leak that it tried to erase a Reuters archive page from 2008 that just lists a bunch of headlines -- none of which has anything to do with Carrie Underwood.

TorrentFreak noted above that the RIAA asked the Guardian to takedown its review of the Lady Antebellum album Own the Night, but that wasn't the only target. The RIAA demanded that Google remove a link to a review of Lady Antebellum songs on AOL's music site. Lady Antebellum was clearly so upset by AOL breaching its copyright that the band posed for a photo at AOL studios.

For most musicians, getting onto Pitchfork is a goal. For the RIAA? Well, apparently Pitchfork must be stopped. That's why it DMCA'd the tastemaker website for daring to post an article about Coldplay, in which they embedded a song directly from Coldplay's own YouTube account. The article even notes that the band had released the song to Pitchfork. Nice going RIAA, trying to stop your own bands from getting the publicity they seek.

Anyway, that's just after a little bit of searching... I'm sure we'll have more examples going forward... Thanks to the folks at Torrentfreak for their initial research which inspired some of these other findings as well.

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: dmca, takedown, transparency report, wrath of the titans
Companies: google, riaa, viacom, warner bros, youtube

89 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 10:50am

Quid Est Macho?
Maybe I'm stupid (there's a little troll bait) but this all sounds an awful lot like corporate-driven censorship.

Moreso when faced with the fact the corporations which issue false takedowns are never fined, never jailed, never punished.... just issue a takedown and content gets "disappeared"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Great Semaj, 30 May 2012 @ 10:58am

Looks legit to me.
But what about the hundreds of thousands of possibly but not likely legit take downs these companies are requesting? We're talking about money here and big business possibly missing out on it!
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:01am

Gee, I can't help but wonder if Google had an ulterior motive to release all of this data. Mmmm....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glen, 30 May 2012 @ 11:03am

Re:
Anything that make the major corporation's lawyer look like clueless morons is fine by me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TasMot (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:05am

How long before the metaphorical foot starts hurting
I hope that Google has the good sense to let them shoot themselves in the metaphorical foot as often as they want. After all, the DMCA is never abused (despite evidence to the contrary) by them and "it is all good" they say. Or, is this really a diabolical plan to prove that they are being hurt by the pirates? After all, that "great" movie that they produced didn't do very well at the box office (for example It's a Wonderful Life and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes were box office flops but went on to become HUGELY popular movies - obviously for different reasons). BUT, if they can claim a movie failed at the box office and hide the fact that they took down all the reviews, directions to the theaters and trailers, then it must be because of pirates. Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:05am

Bots
I'm beginning to think the lawyers are being lazy and just sending bots out to find the "infringement" problems. Some of these takedown requests sound like a bot with a poor parser looking for words rather than relevance. I'm going to run an experiment and type three words to see if it gets noticed: here goes:

Torrent Download Avengers Free.

Now the waiting game :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:06am

Remember all those robo-signers from the mortgage foreclosure industry? Well after people caught on and the banks started suffering PR and court losses, a lot (But not all) of these robo-signers were tossed. Looks like they found a use for their robo-signing skills in the DCMA takedown industry =P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:07am

If you think about it, let SOPA and the likes pass, those laws would do a good job shooting the entire MAFIAA down.

If I were Google I'd just pass these suicide DMCA notices pass without scrutiny =D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 30 May 2012 @ 11:08am

Wow
When you shine the light of day on DMCA takedowns, they sure smell bad.

I am very impressed with Google's posting of this information.

But it makes me wonder. Why is violating copyright punished at thousands of dollars per occurrence, but incorrect DMCA takedowns are punished by "please give a lackluster apology...."

Wrongful DMCA takedowns should cost the copyright holders massive penalties per occurance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:10am

Due diligence? Sounds like a waste of time to me, let's just fire out DCMAs at everything on the Internet, we're bound to hit a legitimate target. Who cares about the collateral damage, that will be another person's problem and I'll still get paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:11am

Try to see things from the studio's perspective...
Geez, another lopsided article from Pirate Mike.

Studios pay millions (sometimes billions) of dollars for marketing. In fact, some of the most successful movies pay more for marketing and advertising than they do for production! Likewise, music companies pay radio stations and other places thousands of dollars for marketing and airplay.

Then these evil filthy pirate sites like AOL, Hulu, and IMDB start doing the marketing for free, taking money away from hard working executives and marketers!

Please, won't someone think of the marketers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:12am

Re: Bots
I pictured a small, tranquil village called TechDirt being attacked "War of the Worlds" style drones firing their mighty DMCA cannons all around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:13am

Re: Quid Est Macho?
Maybe I'm stupid (there's a little troll bait) but this all sounds an awful lot like corporate-driven censorship.

Stupid, my ass. That's exactly what modern America Inc. is - a country ruled by a corporate-driven conspiracy of Wealthy Anonymous Fascists out silence anyone and anything it bloody well pleases. Just ask Julian Assange or Kim Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:13am

Re: Try to see things from the studio's perspective...
LoL! I almost fell for it! Bravo!!

9/10 - u missed some swearing, it seems the new trend among the trolls
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:15am

Outta be a LAW!
Simple, treat each one of these automated takedowns as the perjury they are.
Fine the bad claimants a stock $100,000 each.
Give the proceeds to ICE, viola! no needing to add 5 Mil to their funding to protect Hollywood!

And with the money left over, Lear jets for everyone!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:20am

Re: Looks legit to me.
That is kind of funny. It *would make business sense to try and drive "Internet nickels" to your own site through nefarious takedowns. However the offenders in this have yet to even plan a useful media service people would want to use, choosing instead to spend all their time lamenting the old days, poo-pooing "Internet nickels" and settling harrassment cases out of court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:21am

Re: Re: Try to see things from the studio's perspective...
Reading through the fingers of my facepalm it wasn't until the fourth sentence that I realized the fake troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 30 May 2012 @ 11:23am

Re: Outta be a LAW!
"And with the money left over, Lear jets for everyone!"

I read this and started laughing because it reminded me of that Treehouse of Horror Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos replace Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. The scene where Bob Dole/Kang says, "Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others." And the crowd goes nuts (in a good way).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 30 May 2012 @ 11:25am

Re: Re: Try to see things from the studio's perspective...
Get your free marketing off of my internet, you damn dirty pirates!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: Outta be a LAW!
My favorite was "What are you going to do, its a TWO PARTY SYSTEM!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 30 May 2012 @ 11:28am

Re: Outta be a LAW!
Don't expect the DOJ or DHS to start curbing the practice of bad faith DMCA takedown notices.

"They want us to stop the sugar daddies...I mean, corporate citizens from making bad faith claims? Hell, we do that too! If we stop them, we'll have to stop doing that ourselves!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:30am

I'm just waiting for a company to DMCA Google's DMCA statistics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Forward Thinking, 30 May 2012 @ 11:32am

Thinking Forward
If these companies can misuse the seemingly less powerful DCMA in very "Chinese ways", how will the web turn out if crazily powerful tools pass into law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karim, 30 May 2012 @ 11:32am

Oh please oh please
I think it's clear that this awesome extension to google's transparency report is an indicator that they are not happy about the manual or semi-manual processing of some 300k Perl-script grabbed "infringing URLs" each week.

Please oh please google, please turn this into some sort of corporate espionage lawsuit. M$ keep spamming you with takedown requests while allowing those "evil" URLs to remain in their index (or shoebox or cookie jar or whatever M$'s scienticians call it). Surely that's just a way of wasting your time and resources?

In my mind, some such awesomeness just *has* to be brewing. This is more than just a toy which exists solely for the amusement of bloggers. This is more akin to the Jurassic Park water ripples. (Oh f*&^ can I get sued now?)

/rant
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loki, 30 May 2012 @ 11:33am

Though, I guess Warner Bros. lawyers didn't want you to see it at all, because all of those were DMCA'd for being in Google's search.

Given the US box office for Wrath of the Titans, I'd have to say this is one of those rare cases where their attempts to "fight piracy" may have a actually had some success.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pro Se (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:36am

Just curious if you have data showing that all of the notices you deem problematic are in fact directed at sites already authorized by the rights holder to host some or all of the content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 30 May 2012 @ 11:37am

Re: Wow
Actually, I don't believe that even a lackluster apology is required...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:39am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 30th, 2012 @ 11:30am
XD Looks like a job for Lawyer Bot XD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sehlat (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:47am

The Stupid! It burns!
'nuff said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RonKaminsky (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:51am

Who is More Macho?
Google, there's no need to take down.
I said, Google, show what's goin' around.
.....
It's fun to ban with the DMCA...

(Here's hoping my post doesn't get taken down by the Village People!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:53am

Re: The Stupid! It burns!
Hollywood has found a way to turn idiocy into clean-burning fuels. They simply have to pay people to be so stupid that it burns. The profit is expected to reach trillions of dollars within a few years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: Try to see things from the studio's perspective...
Thanks, glad it got a laugh.
9/10 - u missed some swearing, it seems the new trend among the trolls
Dammit - they're always just one step ahead of me!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 11:57am

LOL
Somewhere out there....

There is a class action lawyer just salivating
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KingofDarkness, 30 May 2012 @ 12:02pm

@ Ima Fish
I thought the same thing. Google is effectively exposing these companies and their utter stupidity by releasing these DMCA requests. I am guessing it is an attempt to squash all of the ignoramus requests that bog the whole system down.

Patents, copyrights, trademarks... these are the small fry distractions given to the public while corporate power becomes more absolute... smh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 12:05pm

I have an idea...Let's stop promoting/reviewing/linking movies. They don't want the free advertising, fine!!

With the loss of all the "word of mouth" and blog reviews, we'll see a big drop in attendance as no one will even know there are new movies out to go see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 12:13pm

Re: Wow
incorrect sir...
your statement implies there are punishments of any sort at all for bogus DMCA takedowns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 12:14pm

Re:
Yeah, like the fact that they process a quarter million a week, on their own dime, so illegit takedowns just add to that cost? That kind of motive?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 30 May 2012 @ 12:24pm

Re: Bots
That's four...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:25pm

All of it just goes to show the issues of DMCA. In order to even try to keep up with the flood of illegal uses, content owners are forced to use automated systems to try to track down all the offenders, and sometimes, yes, they overstep.

It really just proves that DMCA should be abolished - and we can return to the pre-DMCA days where all violations were straight up violations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:26pm

with luck, these dmca notices will continue to the point where there isn't a single file 'belonging to' RIAA, MPAA or MAFIAA anywhere on the Internet. i am looking forward to seeing how these industries manage to still blame 'piracy' as the main reason they are losing money then!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:29pm

Re:
Yes yes, we know you hate the internet. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 12:31pm

They are NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH with these takedowns
They need to go much further. Not only should they remove all of their own promotional materials, they should remove all others' promotional and even descriptive materials.

Theaters, for example, must remove the names of all movies from, for example, but not limited to, all outdoor and indoor signage, all tickets, movie announcements, audio recordings of show schedules, or signs showing movie schedules, web sites showing movie schedules.

And ticket prices! -- (gasp!) those should be secret!

Critics giving positive or negative reviews should be cautioned never to use the actual name of the movie.

Furthermore, any references to characters should be omitted.

For those rare movies that have an actual plot or theme, no mention of any such alleged plot or theme should be permitted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re: They are NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH with these takedowns
Still not good enough. People can still watch the movie inside the theater. I propose that it be replaced completely with warnings not to pirate it, for whatever the length of the movie is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
illuminaut (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 12:39pm

Re:
sadly, the decline in attendance will be blamed on piracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
izzitme101, 30 May 2012 @ 12:44pm

The only real solution to this is for us, the consumers to no longer link to any tv, movie, cartoon or music anywhere online, don't post criticisms of anything on any websites at all, no linking new stuff to friends at all, dont read the 'major' consumer magazines ect.
Wonder how fast they would turn around and beg.

Unlikely tho, to many sheeple about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:48pm

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
How long before Sony starts trying to stop people from selling the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack because the DVD looks like bootleg?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:49pm

how are they even able to do this, don't they swear that the stuff they are asking to take down is theirs??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Take down_example

so isn't each one of these considered perjury? how are they not being charged each time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Try to see things from the studio's perspective...
Sadly though, I'm not entirely sure this isn't the reason.

Note that the DMCA notices were sent to Google, not to the places hosting the "infringment". It's possible that the actual websites received a notice as well, but since they're still up (and there's no trace of the notices on Chilling Effects) it seems that these notices were only sent to Google.

The only logical conclusion I could come up with was that the studios sending the notices knew they were bogus, but these sites were showing up before "paid" sites in Google.

The post just flowed from there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Try to see things from the studio's perspective...
Try adding the phrase fucktardulous ass face to your fake troll posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 12:58pm

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 30th, 2012 @ 11:30am
LawyerBot 5000 Online. Initializing take-down notice and legal nastygram. Sequence complete. Parsing records for Anonymous Coward. Target acquired. Initializing squadron of SpookBots to home. Sequence complete. Initialize evil laugh. Sequence complete.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 12:59pm

Re: Try to see things from the studio's perspective...
This is my response to Big MAFIAA DMCA
1.Any Artist who signs with the MAFIAA has made the Bed they will sleep in and they are immediately a Traitor in my eyes.
2.I have absolutely no sympathy for any Artist,Company,Worker, or asny person who is in MAFIAA.They are my Enemy and I want nothing to do with their greedy Industry.
3.I wish Google would just go and remove every single mention of any MAFIAA Content from its Search Engines.I would not care one bit.Just take the whole shebang down.Fuck the MAFIAA if they don't like it.
4.Great sarcasm on your comment
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 1:11pm

Re:
I can't help but wonder how long before we see a take down notice claiming copyright of a previous take down notice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 1:39pm

I think to prove that google is the biggest benefactor of piracy links that they should just blackout all search terms and related search terms for all summer movie blockbusters. Problem solved. No more need for DMCAs of movies because no one will give a f.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re:
Chilling Effects and sites that publish the notices have gotten many of those claims already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 1:53pm

Re:
Just curious if you have data showing that all of the notices you deem problematic are in fact directed at sites already authorized by the rights holder to host some or all of the content.

Dude. Seriously?

Trust me, don't go down this route. Even though we've been showing repeatedly how consistently wrong you are, you don't want to be the guy who defends Warner Bros. DMCAing their own IMDB page on a movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 1:53pm

Re:
No one is forcing content owners to use automated systems.

It is their choice to go the lawyer threat route instead of offering compelling and reasonably priced alternatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 2:27pm

Re:
Just curious if you have data showing that all of the notices you deem problematic are in fact directed at sites already authorized by the rights holder to host some or all of the content.

Why does IMDB or NME or the New York Post need authorization from the "rights holder" to talk about the content? Sure, if they actually copied the content, I can see your request making sense, but talking about it/reviewing it is not the same as copying it. If anything, this is proof that the DMCA has some very, very serious First Amendment issues in regards to prior restraint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JeroenW (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 2:34pm

Outsourced to Elbonia?
Perhaps the studios have outsourced the DMCA operation to Elbonia?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 2:34pm

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
huh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 2:34pm

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
huh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 2:36pm

Re: Oh please oh please
I think Google's hoping someone else will start that ball rolling and they can just submit an amicus brief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DMNTD, 30 May 2012 @ 2:37pm

Proof of work..
Looks and sounds like someone(s) trying to keep money rolling in because they know it's a mad dash for quick cash. Litigation as a business model, smell that industry cooking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Soma (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 2:53pm

Re: Re: They are NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH with these takedowns
Memory wipes so we can't copy the content to our brains outside theaters. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 3:48pm

you don't want to be the guy who defends Warner Bros. DMCAing their own IMDB page on a movie.

By his past methods, he's not planning on doing that. He's wanting to occupy your time so you can't put up more of the damaging articles that are continually coming forward. Ones that paint the vested and entrenched industries as they really are.

All of it just goes to show the issues of DMCA. In order to even try to keep up with the flood of illegal uses, content owners are forced to use automated systems to try to track down all the offenders, and sometimes, yes, they overstep.

Yet during the time the DMCA was up for making it a law, the copyright industry was swearing up and down it would not abuse it, contrary to what we see today. If the copyright industry wants the law followed, how is it they can just blindly ignore with impunity the part of the law that says "on penalty of perjury". Perjury does carry punitive legal punishments that are not being sought out.

I think on the whole Google has exposed what is a burden to them financially to follow the law and is setting up the example on why it is a burden and what is going on that has been attempted to be hidden as much as possible. Again a willful act of violating the law to enforce the law. Seriously hard questions could be raised in the public sector as to why the DOJ is ignoring the breaking of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 4:00pm

Re:
The notices are all "directed at" just one site, Google, to get it to delist allegedly infringing sites. Often, those sites do host, embed, or link to unauthorized content, so the notices for those sites are ostensibly valid. But the article is highlighting two other situations for which the notices are arguably invalid: 1. sites which host/embed/link to authorized content, and 2. sites which don't host/embed/link to any content owned by the copyright owner, but rather just contain certain keyword combos. No claim was made that all of the notices are for #1; examples are given for both, with many more for #2 than for #1.

Asking for stats is fine; it'd be interesting to see what percentage of the invalid notices are for authorized content, and what percentage of all notices are invalid. But your mischaracterization of the article seems to suggest that you were actually asking a rhetorical question, trying desperately to cast doubt on the notion that the copyright owners and their agents are, at times, quite reckless in their methods, in ways that waste time & money and that ultimately limit people's access to non-infringing content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 4:00pm

Re:
It really just proves that DMCA should be abolished

I don't know if it proves that, but I do agree that the DMCA needs to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 4:13pm

I don't know about that last.fm example. The Michael Jackson song "Slave to the Rhythm" is, as far as I know, officially unreleased. The last.fm info page about the song wouldn't be infringing if the page was just informational, but the page was edited by a user to embed someone's YouTube video whose audio track is one of the leaked recordings of this song. In this situation, the last.fm page is infringing (at least from the copyright owner's point of view), so the DMCA notice for its Google listings is ostensibly valid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 5:11pm

Re: The Stupid! It burns!
Read that in the zelda cdi ganon voice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 5:33pm

Re:
>It really just proves that DMCA should be abolished - and we can return to the pre-DMCA days where all violations were straight up violations.

What guarantee do you have that no overstepping was done in the days before DMCA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 5:35pm

Processing Fee
I'm wondering why Google doesn't charge a processing fee...say $2500 each.
That should slow them down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 5:36pm

Re:
No no, that's what they're hoping will happen.

See, used to be terrible movies still got a pretty good showing, because everyone had to go and watch it themselves, or hear about it from their close friends and family to find out how it was. Now, just the first-day people can watch it, and tell the world via the internet. And from that point the sales will tank as people just don't go to see it.

So you see, reviews for movies like that actually are harming the film industry. Or, summed up in a single line:

The internet: Good for good movies, bad for bad movies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 30 May 2012 @ 6:04pm

Re:
$$$
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 6:43pm

I'm missing something here. In that business law class I took a while back, we learned that facts aren't within the realm of intellectual property protectionism. The example was that the data in the phone book can't be copyrighted - the presentation could (concievably), but not the data. (Feist v. Rural)

Now, isn't Google search fundamentally the same thing as a phone book? A catalog of webpages searchable by keywords?

So here's what I'm missing: How did a search engine's results become targets for DMCA takedowns? Can I get myself removed from phone books via DMCA? Is other data still safe to use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 7:02pm

Re:
They make those things hard to read on purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 7:03pm

Re: Processing Fee
In order to keep the DMCA Safe Harbor status, they have to take down content. There's no way currently to have the DMCA allow people to take down content after paying a processing fee.

Although, it's incredibly ironic that Google isn't charging this fee while the ISPs are trying to pass on a fee to other claims of infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 7:04pm

Re:
Exactly this. No search engine should ever be targeted, only the host sites themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 8:11pm

Re: Re:
"...Warner Bros. DMCAing their own IMDB page on a movie."

I suddenly have a vison of Warner Bros DMCAing www.warnerbros.com for infringing content!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
teka, 30 May 2012 @ 8:31pm

Re:
The enforcement side of the equation is terribly weakened by "best of my knowledge" type weasel phrases.

even with a signed document (with witnesses) outlining someones direct intent to unlawfully and falsely file a takedown notice you would probably Still have a hard time getting actual charges pressed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2012 @ 11:42pm

Re: Re:
Well, put it this way - when infringers don't have an "oops" such as the DMCA, there would be a whole lot less of them. Imagine a second something like YouTube operating without DMCA. Now more "oops, we let someone upload episodes of The FamilyGuy", it would be "wow, look at that lawsuit from Fox - we better fix our business model".

The "overreaching" that you seem to see here is nothing more than that insane amounts of efforts required by rights holders to try to stem the tide of illegal use ans distribution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 12:06am

Re:
I'm missing something here. In that business law class I took a while back, we learned that facts aren't within the realm of intellectual property protectionism. The example was that the data in the phone book can't be copyrighted - the presentation could (concievably), but not the data. (Feist v. Rural)

Now, isn't Google search fundamentally the same thing as a phone book? A catalog of webpages searchable by keywords?

So here's what I'm missing: How did a search engine's results become targets for DMCA takedowns? Can I get myself removed from phone books via DMCA? Is other data still safe to use?

The issue is 512(d), which is a part of copyright law created by the DMCA, which applies to "information location tools." Basically it grants them safe harbor if they do takedowns on notification of links to infringing content.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

I agree with you that it's *crazy* and makes no sense to think that there's any liability in links in the first place, but I don't think anyone wants to test that in court. The fear is that clueless judges would ignore the Feist issue you raise, and conclude instead that refusal to take down links acts as "inducement" under the Grokster decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:14am

Re: Re: Re:
And that justifies suing Tanya Andersen and Marie Lindor and Larry Scantlebury? No dice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:24am

Re: Re: Re:
"Now more "oops, we let someone upload episodes of The FamilyGuy", it would be "wow, look at that lawsuit from Fox - we better fix our business model"."

It's funny that you insist that this is the correct route, but resist any suggestion that the **AAs need to fix their business models to fit a marketplace that has changed irrevocably over the last 15 years (and no, I'm not referring to piracy, before you start).

But, I'm sure you won't see the blatant hypocrisy there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seegras (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 4:44am

Without DMCA
Actually, I can pretty much tell how the world works without DMCA, having been there.

Fox would just send out a notice to youtube, "hey someone violates our rights", and youtube would take the respective content down. No lawsuits needed.

They would do the same to warez sites, and if they didn't take the content down _then_ a lawsuit would follow.

On the other hand, nobody would go to google or the piratebay or whatever to demand _references_ to infringing content to be taken down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Scott Lawrence (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 10:13am

Bad DMCA!
Perhaps the studios are only sending DMCA notices to take down references to their really terrible films.

"Please delete The Clash of the Titans page. The movie was so bad it infringes on common decency, among other things. We're not sure if it's actually copyright infringement to talk about the film, but just to be on the safe side please never mention it again. And ban anyone who does."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Bots
There are 3 types of people in the world: Those that can count and those that can't
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:36pm

I rated an answer straight from The Masnick!
"...by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity..."

yup, that's what I was missing alright. That convenient little 'online' word that seems to negate physical-world allegories and precedents.

that'd be the D in DMCA, I guess
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CN, 31 May 2012 @ 3:21pm

Re: Who is More Macho?
(Here's hoping my post doesn't get taken down by the Village People!)

It won't be your post, they'll want all of Techdirt taken down because of it. Use a 200 Megaton nuke from orbit, just to be sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CN (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 3:32pm

Hollywood accounting
I suppose maybe a lot of this is free publicity. In a world of Hollywood accounting, free publicity is a horrible thing. If stuff is free, how can you charge the artists for it until they they owe you everything? If a project actually makes money, people would expect to get paid. So it makes sense to have it all taken down. Even if the stuff you paid for gets taken down, you can still charge for it, it's not your fault nobody saw it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Merl, 3 Jun 2012 @ 10:01pm

Re: Re: They are NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH with these takedowns
People may still recall significant portions of the move they saw. So, as they exit the theater, they should have to buy a memory license if they want to remember the film and by extension a conversation license if they want to talk about it. That license would be on a per listener basis, however.
[ link to this | view in thread ]