More DMCA Abuse: Company Issues DMCA Takedown On Comment Spam, Claiming 'URL Copyright'
from the whazzat? dept
We've seen all kinds of DMCA abuse to take down content people didn't like, but this one might be the strangest. Thanks to an anonymous reader who sent over a post on Google+ by Jared Smith talking about a DMCA notice he received for a piece of comment spam. Yes, a piece of comment spam. His assumption is that the company stupidly hired someone to try to help them boost their Google rankings, and that company went about comment spamming, not realizing that would actually hurt their Google rankings. Then, in trying to clean up the mess, they realized they needed those comments (which were just a URL) to disappear. Enter the remote censors' favorite all-purpose tool: the DMCA notice. According to Smith, the notice claimed that it was over their "URL copyright" which, you know, isn't actually a thing. It sounds like he still took the comment down (and, as someone who deals with tons of comment spam, I can understand why), but is annoyed that someone is abusing the DMCA this way. Of course, this is a bogus takedown, but that's the nature of the DMCA takedown process these days...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, spam comments, url copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It has become a punchline to a really bad joke to many times.
It is abused, misused, and is a weapon with no drawback to its improper use.
I'm starting to think any law involving the word copyright is meant to be a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1) select URL
2) CTRL-C
3) click address bar
4) CTRL-V
5) ?????
6) PROFIT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*I know copyright doesn't cover that, but figured if everyone else gets to decide it covers whatever they want to suit their agenda then why shouldn't I. =P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"It's mine, my company filed over 1000 claims last month, of which only 10% were found to be legal, therefor my company contributed the most to it's creation!"
"No, it's mine, my company filed over 2000, none of which were found to be legal, so we contributed the most to it's creation!"
"What, do you have a gang of monkeys getting drunk and smashing the keyboards or something?!"
"How did you- I mean, of course not! It's all due to our foolproof DMCA claim issuing system, called... um... 'Chim-tech'."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1) Select URL
2) ???
3) PROFIT!!!!
Because that's technically copyright infringement under this idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright loophole? :-)
(Yeah, it's in the public domain. I know.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wish someone would try to do that by posting crap on my site ... I have members who love to post comment spam and I don't have a problem with it as long as it doesn't crossover into commercial spam. But, if someone ever "demanded" for it to be removed, I'd simply tell them to "kiss my ass" and I'll sue that person/company/individual for wasting my time with such a bullshit request.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Plus...think about it. Imagine if they were covered by copyright. You wouldn't legally be allowed to write down the phone number or email address. So how would you communicate them, barring snail mail or face to face?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
CPRT4ME@xxxxxxx
I could even make that argument for a phone number, just make it spell something on the phones keypad.
Yes, they are used as a 'signpost' but certainly there can be a creative element in the former and I could argue for one in the later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
37 CFR § 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.
The Copyright Office explains this regulation in Circular 34 as following from the requirement of “originality”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Haven't you been paying attention? Let Hollywood count those dollars and no matter how much was added to the pot, their books will show a loss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too many lawyers
I'm sorry, but I seem to have entered the following comment to your blog that I wish to remove:
[insert URL here]
I'm sure you'll agree that it's disruptive to your readership. If you have not already done so, would you kindly remove it?
Thank you,
[d-bag's name here]
-- Problem solved. No lawyers, no animosity. This isn't rocket science, folks. It's manners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i like #4's idea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In this case, it looks like the guy removed the spam comment with the URL anyway since, of course, it's a spam comment and thus not a valuable thing for him to refute the DMCA notice to protect. But until it's made uneconomical to spam sites with DMCA takedowns, or they're forced to defend the notice in court with real penalties for lying, this stuff will keep happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright email address
IfYouWantToEmailMeIThinkYouShouldTakeALongWalkAroundTheBlockToSeeIfYouThinkItIsWorthTheEffortB ecauseIWillNotTakeKindlyToAnyoneJustCopyingThisAddressForUse@DonT-Copy-Me.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either (copyright or trademark) are certainly no more ridiculous than what the big corporations do in the name of IP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Mesonoxian Eve on Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:31pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]