DMCA Fun: Movie Studios Issue Takedowns Over Their Authorized Films
from the but-of-course dept
We've covered how often DMCA notices seem to be sent improperly, taking down others people's work, but it's also true that we see people send DMCA notices on their own work pretty often. TorrentFreak has done a great job detailing many cases where Hollywood's biggest and most famous studios have been issuing DMCA takedowns on their own movies, as well as their own movie promotional pages. Among the takedowns are ones from Lionsgate taking down authorized versions of a film on iTunes, Amazon, Blockbuster and Xfinity.Then there's 20th Century Fox trying to protect Family Guy... by issuing a takedown of the Wikipedia page about the show. Even worse? Another takedown for the show How I Met Your Mother, in which the "original work URL" listed is the CBS website for the show (which makes sense), but that very same URL is listed for takedown
While these may be amusing to point out, they raise a much larger issue. Copyright holders like to insist that companies like Google and others can just "obviously" tell what is and what is not infringing and they should be able to magically stop piracy because of that. And yet... here we are, where the studios themselves can't even figure it out. How the hell do they expect others to figure it out for them?
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: copyright, dmca, takedowns
Companies: bbc, disney, fox, sony pictures, summit entertainment
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
it is obvious to them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it is obvious to them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it is obvious to them
i would note that as is *often* the case in these stories where outright idiocy, wholesale perfidy, and bald extortion are being undertaken by the MAFIAA, their apologists are virtually no where to be found...
hmmmm...
they REFUSE to address the numerous posts which describe -say- 'hollywood accounting', and attempt to defend the indefensible, since it is obvious there is no rational, real-world, commensensical way to do so... The They (tm) shut up real fast on those type of articles...
but let a tech-challenged grannie unknowingly have their grandbrat *try* -not even complete- a download of some pop music crap on her 'puter that they've already heard a billion times, and suddenly these rough customers, these ne'er-do-wells, these, these *PIRATES*, are responsible for the downfall of western civilization, and the bots will scream about it ceaselessly...
funny, that...
what i call 'diode morality': only works one way...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly...when you're telling Google to take down your own website...that's insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
maybe they are finally putting money where their mouth is, if they want to demonize the internet better take themselves off it too
i agree with them, ban all MAFIAA sites from the net!
[ 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:
Design web page: charge as business expense.
Get Google to shut down access to web page: charge as business expense.
Sounds like a win so far!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We could reinstitute the old tradition of burring them facedown, so that if they do reanimate they'll end up digging a hole to China, but I've heard they're already negotiating a trans-hell freeway.
[ 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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Full Circle
So here's the back story:
MPAA to Google: "Can we copy your automated takedaonw system?"
*Google to MPAA* "Sure, here is the code...you have to set the temperatures yourself as this was only meant for YouTube."
*MPAA* "Cool, lets set the automated URL finder to all asterisks and see what we find...."
Someone please tell me how long did it take for that automated system...which was clearly copied from Google's ContentID system (albeit rather poorly)...to come full circle on the MPAA?
I asked my wife how long it would take for it to come full circle on the MPAA when this automated stuff began began....she said "Somewhere between 3 to six months"...I now have to prepare her a fancy dinner as it seems I lost....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full Circle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well OBVIOUSLY I'm guilty of infringing on my own songs & music I record and upload to my personal/business websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same old duck -- I mean canard.
Your repeated lameness isn't even up to your glory days, Mike.
Take the link to hear Melancholy Mike cover a Springsteen tune reminiscing his one big quip and nothing since:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days
"Glory Days" (Bruce Springsteen)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
So why such a high failure rate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
Sure you are of the mind that if people make mistakes they should be responsible for them right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
So sick of seeing this little troll here egged on by all of you. I'll admit that, until now, I was a smallish part of the problem.
The only way this guy's ever going away is if we ignore him completely.
From now on, I'll be reporting all posts by OOTB as well as all who reply to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
> than ignoring him.
How exactly would ignoring him be dangerous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
WHAT????
Responding to him is a guaranteed way to make your stress levels rise since he NEVER EVER responds back anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
If they want to be taken seriously they should consider revising the standards at which shills are allowed to make posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
If they want to be taken seriously they should consider revising the standards at which shills are allowed to make posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A matter of time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A matter of time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It should have read "Yes it is no piracy!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It should have read "Yes it is no piracy!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So
But LOVES to use Google because they can Trace the sites that HAVE the pirated shows..
Then Doesnt EDIT, the list properly..LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the studios pay some outside firm to do it, theyre getting scammed hard. Lovin it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why we need Six Strikes laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why we need Six Strikes laws
So far, 6 strikes is in limbo for a couple of reasons. The main reason cited by the copyright office is that Hurricane Sandy hit New York. But this may or may not be the only reason. Most ISP's in the US are held by contract to protect the identities of their customers unless it actually comes form a judge's direct court order in that specific area in which you were served notice.
Bare with me here.
The only reason I can think outside of Hurricane Sandy as the main reason is that Verizon has been sued by a copyright troll for not coughing up the personal identifications of accused users based on their IP addresses tied to the users' accounts.
In short it seems like nobody wants to be first to plunge into this mess due to privacy clauses embedded in their contracts. It has to be court ordered and it is far more expensive to get a court order off of a civil suit when client confidentiality is in danger of being breached, than it is for customers in the system to chuck out the proposed US$35 to clear your name.
I guess you could say it puts most Telco's in a quandary to keep their customers rather than loose them after they get booted from their services. The blame on Hurricane Sandy by the US copyright office shows complete and utter denial on their part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's simple, really.
Basically, as long as mistakes are painless there is no reason for them to correct them. Google oughta charge 'em. Wouldn't need a court order or new law or anything. Just bill 'em for invalid notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the Thoughts of a Movie exec
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the article
From what I understand, given the update at the bottom of the TF article, these takedowns were issued by a third party without authorization from the companies. Kind of a troll on trolls if you will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd say $100,000 per improper takedown would do for a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've listened to this argument for years, and even supported their argument for a long time, but eventually I realized the core of their argument mostly amounted to "if you simply allowed us to continue to control all the distribution channels, and kill off or gain control of anything - thereby effective allowing us to maintain our control of all distribution channels - that might potentially compete with our control, then we wouldn't have this problem." At that point I decided I couldn't in clear conscience support their position anymore.
Whenever I hear their rhetoric anymore it makes me think of a line from Captain America:
Abraham Erskine: Do you want to kill Nazis?
Steve Rogers: Is this a test?
Abraham Erskine: Yes.
Steve Rogers: I don't want to kill anyone. I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what kind of punishment will these companies get? I say "name and shame" any company who sends takedown notices to any legit site, such as Wikipedia, a review site, or the actual site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont trust clewless lawyers who only know law and not how the in
This is why its important to hire a reputable dmca takedown service company. Not some clueless lawyers with no idea on how the internet or what fair use actually means and how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont trust clewless lawyers who only know law and not how the in
This is why its important to hire a reputable dmca takedown service company. Not some clueless lawyers with no idea on how the internet or what fair use actually means and how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]