Copyright Holders Still Sending DMCA Takedowns On Content That's Been Gone For Months
from the dmca-failures dept
We keep seeing various DMCA takedown failures, and the folks over at TorrentFreak have discovered another common error while going through Google's Copyright Transparency Report and found that big copyright holders are still filing DMCA takedown notices on content hosted on sites like Megaupload and BTJunkie, despite the former being shut down in January and the latter shutting itself down in February.If you look, you can see a bunch of takedown requests for Megaupload links in the past month.
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: content, dmca, takedowns
Companies: bpi, btjunkie, emi, google, ifpi, megaupload, sony music, universal music
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
If you run a web site, and want to get rid of a troublesome user, just point your domain to the server the government uses when seizing a domain, and your troublesome users will never return, because it will appear that your site was seized. However, it took Google some months for the content to filter out of Google's search engine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you think Wells Fargo bank will ever get burglary charges?
“Owners Lose Possessions After Home Near Twentynine Palms Is Mistakenly Foreclosed”, CBS Los Angeles, September 5, 2012:
If banks are too big to get burglary charges, then why shouldn't record companies be too big to get perjury charges?
Aren't records companies entitled to equal protection of the law—just like banks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.”
Look. Wells Fargo bank is not going to be charged with burglary. It is not going to happen. Not going to happen.
So if the banks can get away with burglary, then isn't it just fair to let the record companies get away with a little perjury?
C'mon, which is worse? Burglary or small-time perjury? If you're going to let corporations get away with stuff because they're too big too charge, then it's just fair to apply the law to 'em all equally. They all get free passes.
[ 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:
The couple, however, didn’t have a mortgage on the home."
That "crew" had better be police/sheriff and waving a court order high and clear, or if they ever try to pull that shit on me, they are getting carried out in body bags. And yes, thats a threat to anyone who thinks they can take what is not theirs from me. Thats home invasion and burglary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Calm down, ya hothead.
KABC-TV News includes some more details that the CBS story didn't cover.
“Bank's foreclosure mistake leaves couple's retirement home in ruins” (Sept 5, 2012):
So you can talk real big about shooting up the bank's crew and putting them into the ground. But that's just talk. Blow-hard talk.
The bank will not be charged.
Oh sure, they'll pay out a little bit of cash to make the problem go away. But that'll be that.
So the point remains: If the banks get away with burglary, then it's just fair to let the record companies get away with some minor mis-statements.
Filing a false DMCA notice is nowhere near as bad as breaking into someone's house, stealing their stuff, and wrecking the place.
Remember that America stands for “liberty and justice for all”? That “for all” should mean something. It should mean everyone. All the honest businesses —not just the big banks— but the record companies too.
The record companies are good folks—good citizens. They're not really criminals. Not bad people. They deserve to be treated equally. With justice for all.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you understand the robo-signing mess? Did you understand that Wells Fargo was part of that?
Here's a description from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Memorandum No. 2012-AT-1801: Wells Fargo Bank, Foreclosure and Claims Process Review, Fort Mill, SC, March 12, 2012:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it about time that internet hosters such as Goggle and youtube as well as a host of others start filing perjury charges against false claims? Be willing to bet one guilty conviction will put them on notice it's time to police up the wild west method of application.
The demonstration of the cut off of the Hugo Awards as well as the DNC is proof positive no one is actually checking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"George Orwell's "1984" - Audio Book Download - Digg - Megaupload"
Not that the list you pointed to includes "others" for each - which means some of those sites who may have includes mega upload links and such, and the mega link is just being included in case it still works.
Mike, really - can't you take 5 minutes and do a little reserch? Or is this one of those moments when you choose not to be a journalist again, even though you claimed to be one about a week ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about that do you find confusing?
Explain the logic in sending DMCA complaints to sites that don't even exist, please. At least try to back up your bullshit.
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't find it confusing at all. However, I can understand the scope of the problem of copyright violation, and that companies are forced to deal with it using technology and automation, in an attempt to keep up with the flood.
I can understand also that there are many chat board, blogs, and phpBB installs that have links that still point to sites like megaupload, even if they content has been removed. It should be pointed out that the method used by the US govenrment in "hosting" mega means that every page returns a 200 OK result code rather than a 301, 302, or 404, which means it is more difficult for automated tools to know if the page truly does exist or not.
"At least try to back up your bullshit."
I operate in the real world and understand what they are doing. It's not bullshit. You however may want to deal with your anger issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it doesn't, all they need to do is create an IF scenario within the tools (which are mostly based on scripting languages anyway though even if c++ its easy to recompile) that if the site sends a 200 response then "DONT SEND NOTICE" or in the event of weird 200 sites log them into a file which then needs to be checked by human eyeball mark 1.0. Due Diligence.. it might cost a bit more but it is minimum that is required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You assume they're smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, since the phantom pages continue to haunt us on Google, it seems only normal to DMCA them out of existence. Further, Google has some of the best bots in the business, and they keep listing the pages anyway.
Are you suggesting that the rights holders should each be required to write bots that are better than Google's? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they're sending out DMCA notices, which are legal notices that are supposedly issued under penalty of perjury if they contain false information - yes! If that's too hard, use some frigging human interaction at some point to filter out the lying false claims that some other company is going to have to hire someone to filter when they file them. Not that hard.
Google search results = suggested information to help people find what they might be looking for. DMCA claims = legal documents accusing another of committing a crime. Damn right there should be different standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That they don't makes them at least as big a lawbreaker as the people they target (Hmm more techically since AFAIK perjury is a criminal offence and copyright infringement by and large civil). That they don't need a better bot than Google is little short of criminal on the part of the government. Last time I looked the law was supposed to apply equally to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say that would be incorrect. The standard is good faith, not perfection. They could, acting in good faith, claim to have been mislead by the government take over of the domain that does not generate 404 errors on pages that have been taken down (intentional, I think, to make it harder for link checkers to work).
So the standard you are trying to apply (perfection) isn't possible here.
Remember too: This is DMCAs to Google, not to the sites in question. The links still exist in Google, and the DMCA notice is factual that those links did in fact at some point link to infringing material. There is nothing in the law that suggests that they have to be prompt in reporting.
So your arguments pretty much don't make sense at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is an interesting point you semi-make. You are saying that the rights holders shouldn't need to know what file host (because fyi, being a file host in and of itself is NOT illegal nor make them illegal, regardless of how you may feel) is up or down at any given moment.
To that end, I think in that case, that it should NOT be the responsibility of anyone else to know what is or isn't infringing.
You see, people like you don't think before you write and hit submit. You want one set of standards for everyone else, and another for copyright holders. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't not equate. You are making a many to one translation that doesn't work.
There is only one movie called Avatar. There are thousands of file hosts. One doesn't need much intelligence to know that Avatar is copyright. One requires omnipotent power to know know which file host is up and has your file at a given second.
"You see, people like you don't think before you write and hit submit."
Yes we do. I am sure you will do it next time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Liar. 5 seconds of research would prove this wrong, even if you weren't aware that there was an anime series of the same name (and so could have files named Avatar). IMDB lists 11 films with that title, of which the earliest is clearly public domain, and many films containing that word. Assuming that your bot isn't programmed to reject extra characters following the word "Avatar", that's a lot of content - much of it potentially legitimate content - that might be wrongly targeted.
Would it honestly kill you to research your false claims before basing your entire argument on them?
"One doesn't need much intelligence to know that Avatar is copyright."
See, now we've established that it isn't so easy. That's even disregarding the many other factors involved in determining infringement - for example, the copyright status changes depending on who uploaded the film and the rights they hold, how it's used, etc. There's even the sillier assumptions you're making yourself - such as the idea that any file called "Avatar" must be Cameron's film, and not another film - or that any copy of Avatar would be named "Avatar"! By your logic, any legal file named Avatar must be taken down for infringement, yet if someone named their copy of Avatar "Pandora's Box", they must be in the clear since the most famous film with that title is public domain!
"One requires omnipotent power to know know which file host is up and has your file at a given second."
Wait, i thought that your entire defence of broken links being targeted with DMCA notices is that they have to depend on Google's listing? What is it - is it impossible to know, or is it possible if you have access to certain technology - which is publicly available for nothing? Pick one argument, please.
"Yes we do. I am sure you will do it next time!"
Considering the contents of your post, I'd think carefully yourself, lest you look like a lying moron again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lets have a citation on that, or STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps when you consider the scale of the issue, you won't rush to judgement or to try to find an easy way to dismiss my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So the solution is to allow automatic bots to blast links from the internet without any consideration as to the validity of the accusation? If mistakes are made (and there are a LOT of them) and legit or non-infringing content and protected speech is taken down then...what? Too bad? Tough? They shouldn't let themselves get accused then or something? Screw them, Big Media is always right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder if there's any connection to the scale of the issue with how little the public actually cares about copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are not performing basic reasonable checks to see if what they are sending in fact exists or is what a reasonable person would expect to be infringing and is accurate.
In legal terms this is called due diligence.
From the actual notice:
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Whether they have committed perjury or not is up to a court to decide yes, though they also have entered into a civil contractual situation (estoppel if you prefer) in that they could face civil actions (any immunity by the sender under the DMCA is voidable in this situation) since a fair amount of wrongs could be shown to be committed dependant on what the actual receiver of the DMCA (respondent if you wish) does.
Tortuous Interference is first one that springs to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the scale was an issue, actual loss would be immediately recoverable and provable.
Or are you stating instead based on this so called ambiguous scale of yours that this sending of wrongful and unlawful notices is de minimus instead? In that regard you might be correct but this also means that an equitable response is needed on the other way and that courts would need to allow de minimus in any and all infringement cases too. Oops.. let me guess, equity isn't your strong suit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you have the gall to claim that there is no offending material on the net, and that the tens of thousands of links to offending material reported every day to Google are all made up?
What color is the sky in your world? Rose?
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But from what you're saying, if I do this
George Orwell's "1984" - Audio Book Download - Digg - Megaupload
I have now broken copyright law and will get sued by whomever owns 1984 just because there is a blue "1984" up there.
Please don't teach your willful ignorance to your children. They will not survive the future if you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> ... Mike, really - can't you take 5 minutes and
> do a little reserch?
You should take 5 minutes (or maybe 5 hours, or whatever you require) to actually read and understand the content of the posts, before posing idiocy. In this case, Mike's whole point was that the fact that Google has entries for content which doesn't exist doesn't make it sensible for rightsholders to file DMCA takedowns concerning that content.
I suppose, if I were to put up a parody page parodying Megaupload, you would think it perfectly OK that it gets DMCA-ed out of existence, because it appears to provide links to files which are (erroneously) claimed to be infringing content? You do realize that that more or less means closing down any site which enables user-provided content, like this post --- example:
*** Download the latest blockbuster movie here at URL http://this.link.goesnowhere.com/Harry_Potter_vs._Bambi ***
Ooops, I guess there goes this whole discussion, down the DMCA-hole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, reading comprehension fail again? Or just one of those troll-lies where you read something and then claim the writer said the opposite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Run it this way
A DMCA complaint carries a $500 fee, which results in a 30 day investigation of the alleged infringement (leaving the content up until proven one way or the other), this being refundable if it is proved to be a genuine complaint.
On the other hand, if it proved to be bogus, the $500 would be forfeit and an extra charge of $1000 would be imposed to cover the cost of the investigation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People for the Ethical Treatment of Robots (PETR)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These were the headlines real recently.
It is possible that the cartel membership is starting to understand that their insane fight against "piracy" is costing them way more than "piracy". They spend more and more money in their war, and get less and less in return other than consumers who are moving well away from them.
Your a spiffy DMCA notice takedown company with a lucrative contract with a label or 5.
You use code that a 16 yr old banged out in a weekend that does the most basic keyword matching, and spits out a notice.
You send a report to your employer saying you sent out 30,000 takedowns last month.
If you don't keep your numbers inflated you will be replaced or make less money.
You know the cartel members you work for don't understand anything technical, so you keep churning along even when the target doesn't exist.
You show your boss your 30,000 takedowns and get your paycheck, and no one is the wiser that you were sending fraudulent notices, because there is no penalty for lying in these documents.
And this could explain the irrational bubble we see around the cartels, they are surrounded by people who only make money if there is a war on piracy going full blast. If you don't distort the picture you might get fired
It would be nice if the cartel membership actually had to bother to look outside the imaginary reports from the cartels to see that they are wasting money that should have been spent to meet consumer demand and embrace new technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's one of those "cause and effect" things that isn't supported by the evidence.
The real evidence is that (a) there are fewer large record labels, and (b) their income is off a staggering amount. It's not unusual to think that they would reduce fees paid to associatiosn.
The rest of the post therefore is supposition not supported by basic facts, just wishful thinking.
Also, remember this: At the point they no longer care about piract, it's the point where they are no longer in business - and the content rights itself gets handed over to some "copyright troll" who will chase you to the end of the earth for infringing. Careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your point is as silly as the AC's point which claimed that SOPA would have been better for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bad news for you: The judges cannot re-write the laws. If the trolls have the rights in all good form, there is nothing stopping them from going forward. It would require a change of the law to get there, and that isn't likely to happen.
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point about nothing stopping them from going forward only makes sense if a majority of these cases went forward in the first place. The one who fails is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no checking. Not even if you contest the notice will they check it. The only way of contesting this is to go to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]