Movie Studios Filing DMCA Takedowns Over DMCA Takedowns
from the so-meta dept
We've seen this in the past as well, but TorrentFreak has noticed that a number of movie studios have been sending Google DMCA takedown notices that reference earlier DMCA takedown notices now appearing on ChillingEffects.org. 20th Century Fox and NBC Universal appear to be the main culprits. While it is true that those DMCA notices provide links to the original content, it seems a bit ridiculous to then argue that those notices themselves need to be taken down. ChillingEffects provides much needed transparency in how the DMCA is being used (and frequently abused) by companies. Google, thankfully, has so far refused to comply with such takedown requests. It's not clear if these are just the result of the usual robot searches by the studios (probably) or a concerted effort to hide takedown notices (less likely, but still plausible). Either way, it does highlight the ridiculousness of arguing that Google should be liable for links to sites that link to possibly infringing content. But... that's how the legacy Hollywood players view the DMCA these days. Anything, anywhere in the chain that might possibly lead one to a possibly infringing work must be liable as well, and those responsible for those sites must then, obviously, act as Hollywood's personal police force.
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, studios, takedowns
Companies: fox, nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
TL;DR version
I herd u like DMCA takedowns.
So we installed a takedown in your takedown, so you can screw your customerz while you screw your fanz!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TL;DR version
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Links are Communist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Links are Communist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When they hire a new company to do the takedowns the whole system of DMCA takedowns will grow exponentially eventually exceeding spam e-mail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google needs to be sued out of existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
Good luck with that.
Google needs to be sued out of existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
Why has no one done this yet?!
Seriously. Why haven't the media companies banded together to inundate Google with lawsuits of one kind or another. I mean there has to be a good reason, right? Like maybe the media companies are grifting off of Google's hard earned profits? Could it be?????
Nay, blasphemy!!!!
Every day, I hear the same old tropes about how one person or another is infringing copyright or otherwise contributing to it. Yet there's so little direct action against the infringers. Instead, it's just little bitch moves like 6 strikes. Fucking cowards, all of them.
And contributory infringement is a myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
Does not compute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:26pm
If you need this explained, you might need to check yourself for brain damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you sane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We all know the answer is no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robo DMCA Searches
I should someone my informed than I could clarify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Robo DMCA Searches
The relevant law is in section 512(f) of the DMCA. In order to get in trouble for a bogus takedown claim, you have to "knowingly materially misrepresent" your case. The key word here is "knowingly"; the takedown can be full of "material misrepresentations" (aka lies), but as long as you don't know it, you're fine. Ultimately, it would be in your best interests to never read any DMCA takedowns that you send; you're only liable under the DMCA if you know what was in the takedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Robo DMCA Searches
I think the word "fraudulent" is appropriate here, don't you? If someone sends a DMCA notice that specifically says they have a good faith belief, when in fact they have no knowledge whatsoever, with the purpose of having the service provider rely on this statement to take material down, what other word should be used? I think injunctive relief would be called for, prohibiting the use of bots to send notices - and if that is ignored, prohibiting them from sending takedown notices altogether. Now THAT would make everyone review their takedowns a bit more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Germany would not exist, nor would France, or Hollywood,all it's "products" would be gone
Washington DC? Never heard of it.
what Music?? I only hear the strumming of the celestial Stars
So many things that would make the world a Better place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One. For several years all take-down notices were implemented regardless of their implausibility/legality. Now. Its common that outlandish DMCA take-down notices are scrutinized and some ignored completely.
Two. Its an over the waterfall event. Censoring the censorship. Covering up the attempt of covering up ones mistakes/machinations/evilness/wrongness/bad-publicity/etc. This stuff is societally scary. A cancerous wart on culture. This kind of reciprocity would be infinite in both paperwork and cost if followed to its logical conclusion. Or if the monopolies have their way nobody would hear of it again with a whole new level of secret hearings and review process(s).
There is no way just liking to a questionable site/content can be considered a bad thing. Following such flawed logic ALL sites would be labeled as 'bad' and ALL links would be illegal. The very basic foundation of WWW linking technology that revolutionized/popularized the thing we call the web/interweb today!
It would be wisdom to just toss out the DMCA (the courts seem useless these days) and other bad legislation (CFAA, CISPA proposals, etc) but what the real battle from after the fact votes is... Pride! Its classic that politicians do not ever, EVER admit mistakes while in office. Its just not done because of perceived weakness and possible verbal ammunition given to the opposition.
It may be a better tactic to replace such badly conceived legislation with newer well written constitutionally correct acts and bills. They can always be sold as a better alternative and avoids the political faux pas of finger pointing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]