Fox Uses Bogus DMCA Claims To Censor Cory Doctorow's Book About Censorship

from the but-of-course dept

Mon, Apr 22nd 2013 8:31am — Mike Masnick

Torrentfreak has discovered that News Corp's Fox studios has been sending DMCA notices taking down Cory Doctorow's latest book, Homeland, which is available under a Creative Commons (Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivs) license, and can be freely shared. The issue? Fox is trying to take down unauthorized copies of its TV show that goes by the same name. And, in its rush to take down anything and everything that might possibly be its TV show, Doctorow's authorized novel is collateral damage. The really crazy thing is that it should be obvious to any human looking over these takedowns that it's not the TV show, as all of the links tend to have Doctorow's name in them:

This is not a one-off thing. It is happening over and over and over and over and over again. It's also worth pointing out that the actual takedowns are being sent by DTecNet. The same DTecNet that powers the infamous six strikes copyright alert system. I wonder if anyone's been getting any strikes for downloading Cory's novel....

When TorrentFreak asked Doctorow for comment, he joked, "I think you can safely say I’m incandescent with rage. BRING ME THE SEVERED HEAD OF RUPERT MURDOCH!" But, perhaps there's a more serious response. In response to Doctorow tweeting about this last week, Paul Levy from Public Citizen -- famous for defending people on the internet (including, at times, us) from bad things -- responded by asking Doctorow if he wanted to litigate.

@doctorow want to litigate?
— Paul Alan Levy (@paulalanlevy) April 19, 2013

Stay tuned, because this might get interesting. Considering that these takedowns are happening at a critical moment for the book, just as it's been launched, a very strong argument can be made that Fox has created tremendous damage for Doctorow and the success of the book. While the few attempts to go after those who send bogus DMCA takedowns haven't had much success, an argument could be made that Doctorow's situation presents a much stronger case.

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: chilling effects, cory doctorow, dmca, homeland

119 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 1:54am

Mike, I do have an honest question here. The original Torrentfreak article mentions that Doctorow had published Homeland through Tor, wrapped in DRM.
I've seen talks Doctorow has given about the evils of DRM and I agree with him there. Has Doctorow ever said why he publishes with DRM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 7:43am
  
  Re:
  I don't know for sure, though it may have something to do with Tor really only embracing DRM-free last year. Perhaps he couldn't convince them to go DRM free on some old books. But I don't know for sure. I left that bit out of the story because it seems kind of off-topic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    FRrom the Torrentfreak article
    
    When we made this discovery back in February, Doctorow was more understanding. He told us that Tor Books sends out DMCA notices with his authorization, but only in instances where the book is wrapped in DRM, or when there�s another violation.
    
    That is protecting his use of DRM free books, and presumably against someone else wrapping it in DRM.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul Renault (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    You can read all about it on Cory's blog:
    http://craphound.com/homeland/download/
    
    Tor went _all_ DRM-free last year. But they've always published Cory's book as DRM-free. In any case, read the text at the link above.
    
    Don't go for the information third-hand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 1:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Okay thanks!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  this is the actual text from the torrentfreak page. i think it is a little different to how you have tried to make it out to be
  
  'When we made this discovery back in February, Doctorow was more understanding. He told us that Tor Books sends out DMCA notices with his authorization, but only in instances where the book is wrapped in DRM, or when there�s another violation.'
  
  it still doesn't alter the fact of what is happening here. and as for collateral damage, i reckon it's bull shit. Fox is doing this on purpose. there is no bigger self righteous, blame switching arse hole that Murdoch. even when he was giving evidence over the phone hacking in the UK, he refused to take any responsibility for it, when it was his business!! what a prick!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Forest_GS (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re:
  Some publishers force the use of DRM I believe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 3:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    See link in previous post
    
    An aside:
    OOTB this is how to use a loopy link.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sheogorath (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 8:53pm
  
  Re:
  The original Torrentfreak article mentions that Doctorow had published Homeland through Tor, wrapped in DRM.
  Really? Because I just copied my copy from one folder on my computer to another, an act rendered impossible by the presence of Digital Restrictions Malware.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:00am

I wonder if they'll keep being called exceptions. I think it's about time some people recognized there is a problem with copyright as it is today eh? Exceptions, pesky exceptions....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  I thought the term was "Anomaly".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tomxp411 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  This is not an "exception" or an "anomaly".
  
  It's a simple oversight that's creating an inadvertent abuse of the DMCA: there's no way these automated systems are actually downloading the offending content and ensuring that the content is indeed infringing.
  
  I am certain that nobody is trying to censor Doctorow's book, but the fact that he used the same title as a television show makes it easy for the Fox's automated system to inadvertently flag the wrong thing.
  
  The thing is, this is a fairly simple fix, and it's all technological: the automated system being used by DTecNet ought to actually check the file type and size before sending out a DMCA notice.
  
  The thing is, I don't think this means Copyright is broken. This means that one particular enforcement system is broken: DTecNet needs to do a better job of actually determining whether a file actually infringes before filing a DMCA.
  
  Doing so by name alone is not good enough.
  
  From what I understand, there are remedies in the system for Doctorow, and I imagine he will be exercising them. Personally, I want to see this battle play out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    "This means that one particular enforcement system is broken: DTecNet needs to do a better job of actually determining whether a file actually infringes before filing a DMCA."
    
    Unfotrunately, since DTechNet is being used by BIG companies, the chance that more files will be mistakenly-DMCAed is HUGE!
    Doctrow shoud sue Fox for damages.
    Fox would lose, then be forced to sue DTecNet for failure to provide contracted services (by providing a defective product)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JarHead (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    The thing is, this is a fairly simple fix, and it's all technological: the automated system being used by DTecNet ought to actually check the file type and size before sending out a DMCA notice.
    
    The thing is, it is NOT simple to fix using only technological/automated means. File type and size? That's the easiest thing to spoof (intentional action) or collide (unintentional action). The next thing is using hashes, while it doesn't deter spoofing 1 iota, it can decrease collision chance considerably.
    
    While hashes seems like good news, consider it from copyright holder's view. 2 same media file, one slightly modified (i.e. resized by 1px for visuals, or apply filtering on unused spectra for audio) yield to a very different hash, hence uncaught infringement. Developing methods precise enough to handle this problem is hard and expensive. It's more easier to use "shoot 1st ask question never" approach cos DMCA is particularly weak in deterring this kind of approach.
    
    The only sure way to satisfy both party (accuser and accused) is to have conscious human being (or something similar ;P ) to do the final arbitration, and that still do not account for further "complications" like fair use etc.
    
    So
    (hard/expensive method for doing it right) + (no reprisal) = abuse + (collateral damage)^3
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The problem with hahes is that a 1bit (yes bit) change in a file cause a very different hash. This is why hashes are used to validate file when wrapped in public key cryptography.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tomxp411 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 12:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In this kind of dragnet application, fair use doesn't really apply.
      
      What I could see working is automated analysis of the content of the video file: it would have to be rendered and compared to an official version of the work. If the first 10 minutes or so matches up, then it could be flagged as a match.
      
      The thing is, I'm of two minds on this topic: as a software developer, I don't like piracy, but as a freedom-loving Human being, I want to see the Copyright trolls shut down hardcore.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chosen Reject (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Doing so by name alone is not good enough.
    And neither is file type and size going to do it either. File size might get you in the ballpark (a 10 KB file is probably not what you are looking for), but other than that what does a video named Homeland that is roughly the size of a one hour video (whatever that means) imply in terms of copyright infringement? Nothing more than to take a closer look. It might very well be infringement, it might be somebody else who has created a movie based on Doctorow's book or their own work entirely, or it might even be a one hour review of Fox's show that falls under fair use (perhaps not even showing a single clip from the show).
    
    If you are going to state that your copyrights are being infringed, you need to know your copyrights are actually being infringed. The copyrighted work is the entirety of the work, not the title, not the type, and certainly not the size. And with the Lenz v. Universal case, the copyright holder also has to take Fair Use into account as well. If you can't automate that, then you have no business filing a DMCA notice (under penalty of perjury I might add).
    
    Cory should sue. Fox should lose. DTecNet should go out of business. But increasing the check for filesize and type simply reduces the space required to look into. It doesn't tell you that you've found an occurrence of infringement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ShivaFang (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The companies doing mass filings will never agree to file size checks. Most infringement comes via torrents which themselves are only a couple of KB in size, and they only have the name to go on with those.
      
      The 'problem' is that piracy is so wide spread doing it by hand and having to _actually_ validate each one would take way, way to much work and make the DMCA pretty much ineffective. (Problem in quotes because I would actually like to see the perjury penalty applied for misuse!)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ed C., 22 Apr 2013 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but not doing so leaves you open to perjury under the DMCA and copyfraud. DMCA is still the law, and they have a right to use it, but carpet bombing takedowns with nothing more than a keyword match is an outright abuse that cannot be possibility seen as being in "good faith".
        
        The problem with the DMCA takedown regime is that it's not practical. It never was when it was first proposed, and never will be. The big publishers didn't care if the powers granted by the DMCA would actually be usable, they just wanted the power.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 1:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Most infringement comes via torrents which themselves are only a couple of KB in size, and they only have the name to go on with those."
        
        So? Open the file, join the stream and see what comes up. it should be relatively clear at that point, and you're not breaking any laws if you have the authorisation of the copyright holder to do that. The size of the torrent file alone is irrelevant, unless you subscribe to the lie that offering a link or torrent file is the same as hosting the content itself.
        
        Once again "it's too hard" is NOT a valid excuse for taking shortcuts with copyright enforcement - especially when those shortcuts lead to independent artists and creators getting shut down despite not breaking any laws, let alone the service providers being hammer for things they had no involvement with one way or the other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dirkmaster (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or, you could look at the file size. Compression may be good, but I don't think you can get a TV Episode video down to under 500K bytes, which is what the epub format is. Other formats may be different, but they're ALL gonna be signficantly smaller than a TV episode video file.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Libertarian, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:36am

He should
He should litigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: He should
  The American answer to everything
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:48am
    
    Re: Re: He should
    As much as I detest the sue-happy stance of America, in this case just to make a point I would support it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Baldaur Regis (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:58am
    
    Re: Re: He should
    Sadly, the only response to the assertions of posturing lawyers is to drag in another layer of attorneys. Traditional - honorable - remediations such as pillow fights or drinking contests are unavailing once the nuclear legal option is deployed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: He should
      Traditional - honorable - remediations such as pillow fights or drinking contests are unavailing once the nuclear legal option is deployed.
      
      There is precedence the other way though. I believe a game of Quake III was used (though I believe it was unsuccessful,) in Mojang vs. Bethesda. But it ended up being settled anyway and Mojang essentially won because they were allowed to keep the "Scrolls" name.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re: He should
    And yours is the ignorant outsiders' answer to everything.
    
    Just because some frivolous lawsuits are filed does not make all lawsuits frivolous. In this case, it wouldn't be frivolous, and that makes you seem foolish for trotting out the tired old "sue-happy Americans" cliche.
    
    In summation: get bent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: He should
      And just because some frivolous dmca notices are filed does not make all dmca notices frivolous.
      
      Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of this blog.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        No one said they were? That straw man you hastily constructed sure said some absurd things though. Good on you for pointing them out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Mike Masnick is constantly trying to dilute the power of the DMCA and its notification system, as it costs his employer (Google) money, and he loves piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 1:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        "Mike Masnick is constantly trying to dilute the power of the DMCA and its notification system, and rightly so."
        
        Fixed that for you.
        
        It can't be denied that an increasing number of DMCA requests turn out to be bogus, just like this one. If the copyright maximalists insist on being allowed to file overly large amounts of takedown requests, then it's only right that they be *required* to ensure that their claims are accurate.
        
        A sensible precaution would be to make *any* false DMCA claim punishable by perjury. This would prevent occurrences like the article and may reduce the amount of claims filed overall.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Yep false DMCA take downs should have some significant legal peril associated with them. I think a sliding scale of fines that increases geometrically with each infringement. One would expect that the sixth or seventh false take down would get the attention of the stock holders and corporate leadership. A thirteenth would bankrupt most companies.
        
        First fine 1 x 10^0 -> $1
        Second fine 1 x 10^1 -> $10
        Third fine 1 x 10^2 -> $100
        Fourth fine 1 x 10^3 -> $1,000
        Fifth fine 1 x 10^4 -> $10,000
        Sixth Fine 1 x 10^5 -> $100,000
        Seventh fine 1 x 10^6 -> $1,000,000
        Eighth fine 1 x 10^7 -> $10,000,000
        Nineth fine 1 x 10^8 -> $100,000,000
        Tenth fine 1 x 10^9 -> $1,000,000,000
        Eleventh fine 1 x 10^10 -> $10,000,000,000
        Twelfth fine 1 x 10^11 -> $100,000,000,000
        Thirteenth fine 1 x 10^11 -> $1,000,000,000,000
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        "And just because some frivolous dmca notices are filed does not make all dmca notices frivolous."
        
        And just because some ACs are idiots does not make all ACs idiots.
        Just you, boy.
        
        Thanks for pointing out your own absurdity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Leigh Beadon (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        And just because some frivolous dmca notices are filed does not make all dmca notices frivolous.
        
        Fair enough. Since you've got it all figured out, please enlighten us: what is the ratio of abuses to legitimate actions beyond which a law is in need of revision? Relatedly, what is the ratio beyond which reporting on the abuses is appropriate?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        According to Google's studies on the subject, depending on how you interpret the data, the percentage of DMCA takedown notices received by Google that are actually legitimate is somewhere between 3% and 40%. So no, not all of them are frivolous, but the majority are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Sorry dimwit, you've got that backwards; Google processes 97% of DMCA notices believing them to be correct. It rejects 3%.
        
        Out of tens of millions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        3% of "tens of millions". So, at minimum, 600,000 abuses of the law and violations of free speech according to you.
        
        But reporting on them is absurd?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 1:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Emphasis on "believing them to be correct". How often will a claim be believed and turn out to be bogus?
        
        As Leigh said previously, at minimum 3% is around 600k bogus claims. Why should that ever be acceptable?
        
        The companies responsible need to be brought to account and punished.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JP Jones (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        And just because some frivolous dmca notices are filed does not make all dmca notices frivolous.
        
        So if you occasionally get speeding tickets when you weren't speeding but you were driving a car that was the same color as a speeding car, that would be OK because some speeding tickets are given to the actual speeding car?
        
        Also, instead of the police, you were pulled over by a private company that had no legal requirement to make sure you had actually broken any laws.
        
        Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of your comment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        you mean like the stop light camera cartell
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Nobody ever said this. Ever. You should get bent too, but I'd imagine that's quite the feat with your head so firmly implanted in your arse already!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BentFranklin (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Why is everybody out to get me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Were you not aware? 85% of the populace is a victim of cyber-bullying. That's a lot of work for the other 15% but they're up to the task.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tomxp411 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re: He should
    In this case, it's the only answer: Copyright is asserted through civil courts, so he will have to use the civil litigation process to assert his rights. That's just how the system works.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killer_Tofu (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: He should
      Copyright is asserted through civil courts, so he will have to use the civil litigation process to assert his rights. That's just how the system works.
      
      Unless you are the RIAA or the MPAA, then you have the federal government skip the entire legal process and just start seizing everything they possibly can.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tomxp411 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        That's only in the case of criminal Copyright infringement, which has certain thresholds. And regardless, for the victim of the infringement to get restitution, he must still sue the offender.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        That's only in the case of criminal Copyright infringement, which has certain thresholds.
        
        Like the one met in the dajaz1 case?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tomxp411 (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        That's irrelevant.
        
        If I understand correctly, the domain name seizure has nothing to do with RIAA's members recovering damages. The domain name seizure is to stop further propagation of illegal content.
        
        The damaged parties, the ones whose rights are violated as part of the illegal file trading, still have to use the civil court system to recover damages.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Partially right about those who are "wronged". However, quite wrong about the government needing to do anything about it.
        
        If the government wants to view it as they have the right to take a domain, then they could be just a tad less hypocritical and still afford the websites the protections of section 230. A website is not liable for the actions of their users.
        
        The whole thing is so obviously corrupt. The government just rushes to seize anything, no matter how legal it is in the country of its operations. The US is not the king of the internet and the gov should stay the heck away from trying to police the entire thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tomxp411 (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        You may be right, but we're getting off course. THe original comment was related to the fact that Doctorow would need to use the courts to fix this problem (bad DMCA takedowns), and I stand by my response: that's the only way for an individual to assert his Copyrights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 6:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
        Except there are never any court cases here to prove any criminal copyright infringement, just the government seizing stuff illegally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BobT, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re: He should
    Yup... Ain't much that can't be solved by a couple of beheadings...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:28am
    
    Re: Re: He should
    Just because some people think it the answer to everything does not mean it's answer to nothing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:41am

It would certainly be interesting to see what happens when someone decides to litigate against bogus DMCA takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallow-T, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:43am

one for the lawyers
In the boiler-plate DMCA takedown notice, the "person" filing the notice claims a good-faith belief that the material is infringing.

Does the presence of the string "Homeland" in a file name constitute a good-faith belief that the material is infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:48am
  
  Re: one for the lawyers
  Honestly, they probably believe everything on any torrent site is infringing. The question is how stupid are you allowed to be and still have your beliefs factor into law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:28am
    
    Re: Re: one for the lawyers
    "Honestly, they probably believe everything on any torrent site is infringing. The question is how stupid are you allowed to be and still have your beliefs factor into law."
    
    You haven't been following the Prenda stories?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:56am
  
  Re: one for the lawyers
  The notice is probably generated by a script from the search results. The maximalists are prepared to torch everything in vain attempts to protect their copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tomxp411 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re: one for the lawyers
    I think so too.
    
    IMO, filing a DMCA notice based on a filename alone should be considered abusive.
    
    Now I can see how it would be prohibitively expensive to download every single infringing work out there, just to prove that it's actually infringing, it's simple for people to put up a file named "Homeland" that has nothing to do with the TV show.
    
    It sounds to me like DTecNet just isn't doing enough to verify the content they're filing takedown notices on. That doesn't mean the company should be put out of business, but I think a major overhaul of their methodology is in order here... along with an injunction to force them to stop filing takedowns until they have proven that their new system doesn't file false positives.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: one for the lawyers
      Good luck getting that to happen. No company has ever been properly called out and punished for their inaccuracies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: one for the lawyers
        Good luck getting that to happen. No company has ever been properly called out and punished for their inaccuracies.
        
        The same was said not to long ago about Copyright Trolls. That is currently working out so well for Prenda.
        
        There is always a first time for everything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        beltorak (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one for the lawyers
        the difference between this and the prenda circus is that prenda pissed off the court. the dmca takedown system is extrajudicial, meaning no court ever has to see it. and they have (honestly, sincerely) more important things to deal with than a bunch of entitled ostriches throwing a hissy over imaginary property rights.
        
        therefore it seems that the solution must also be extrajudicial. there should be some way we, the people, should be able to call out and publicly shame those that abuse the dmca takedown provision.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one for the lawyers
        the difference between this and the prenda circus is that prenda pissed off the court. the dmca takedown system is extrajudicial
        
        I agree, though this would be a perfect case for the owner to strike back. They took down material that was commercially available, which they had no copyright for, and as a result, it hurt another company. If anything should be considered unlawful interference of a business model, this should. This would be a perfect case for testing the limits of DMCA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: one for the lawyers
  "Does the presence of the string "Homeland" in a file name constitute a good-faith belief that the material is infringing?"
  
  Good point, and one thing it relates to is the constant bickering on how Google does not enforce removal of copyrighted content the same way it enforces the removal of child pornography.
  
  If these guys have such a hard time knowing what is, and isn't infringing, how is Google supposed to do it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: one for the lawyers
  I don't think they can claim a good faith belief here. Claiming a good faith belief that something with that title is infringing without checking would be like looking in the phone book for Will Smith's number and them claiming I have a good faith belief that it is the number of the actor. Maybe it is, but without further checking (like calling the number, or verifying that the address matches) it's very likely I only have the number of someone with the same name.
  
  "Homeland" was the title of a book even before Doctorow's came out. Beyond that, it's an actual word. It should be obvious to anyone that if you blindly send takedowns based only on a title containing "Homeland", you're going to get loads of material that aren't the TV show.
  
  I hope he litigates and gets not only damages but an injunction prohibiting them - both Fox and DTecNet - from sending takedown notices when they don't know what they're taking down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:59pm
  
  Re: one for the lawyers
  Does the presence of the string "Homeland" in a file name constitute a good-faith belief that the material is infringing?
  
  Absolutely. The Twilight guys got away with it too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:44am

They do it that way because there is little to no reason to care when they take down stuff that isn't infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tomxp411 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  I was under the impression that you could be fined for filing bogus takedown notices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    yes, I could. hypothetically speaking, it's possible that fox could too. That hypothetical situation just doesn't give them a reason to care when they take down stuff that isn't infringing. If once in a while, some super dedicated individual actually wins, they just pay the piddly fine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 12:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    On an individual basis, maybe, but if you're talking about a decently sized company, not a chance. At most you'd be looking at a mild slap on the wrist and a 'don't do it again' from the judge for a company that files bogus DMCA notices.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
S. T. Stone, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:44am

OOTB in to defend Fox�s shenanigans in 5�4�3�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  Actually, I'm not sure this can be defended so he will go with the standard personal attack on Mike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    My guess? He'll defend it, insisting that Doctorow had it coming for who-knows-what-fucking-reason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tomxp411 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, Cory Doctorow embraces free content, and he even dares to publish his work under Creative Commons.
      
      Something must be fishy if he's not willing to force people to pay for his work!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:
  @ S. T. Stone, Apr 22nd, 2013 @ 8:44am
  
  OOTB in to defend Fox�s shenanigans in 5�4�3�
  
  -----------
  
  Gosh, you're as eager to see me as 10-year-old girls are to see Justin Bieber!
  
  When will you dolts get over the us-them, for-with, Mike-Fox FALSE dichotomies? I'm be against Fox AND Mike, or ANY number of wrongs, all at the same time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    out_of_the_blue, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Belated click-click.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Also a number of rights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Brilliant pun! :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Gosh, you're as eager to see me as 10-year-old girls are to see Justin Bieber!
    
    That just so happens when you've earned yourself a reputation as moronic ankle-biter. Tough luck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 8:55am

Pirates should start tagging every upload with names of free CC licensed names.

It will show just how flawed their system really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:01am

So what happens to Fox now?
So, now that Fox has been shown to CLEARLY and unequivocally issued multiple takedowns that are both flatly fraudulent and perjurous (sp?), when do THEY get slapped with multimillion dollar fines and shut down IMMEDIATELY and keeping them down while their case is dragged slowly through the court system?

Why is it only the general public and fan/link/news sites that get taken out and issued lifetime-crippling fines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:21am
  
  Re: So what happens to Fox now?
  Because they've already paid multimillions, the difference is that they paid them to the government before the legislation is passed, instead of after.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:08am

There's too many links to check!
How could Fox possibly know whether any given one is authorized?

2nd point is that all publicity is GOOD publicity: as a practical fact, this lifts obscure crap with FREE publicity.

3rd: "The really crazy thing is that it should be obvious to any human looking over these takedowns that it's not the TV show, as all of the links tend to have Doctorow's name in them:" -- NO, WAIT A SEC! You've said MANY times that it's NOT obvious, Mike! "Doctorow" could just be the tag name of a pirate: they've an urge to tack their names on what they stole.

No, I'm not defending Fox, just pointing out that the usual canards here can apply in the other direction.

Anyhoo, I encourage Doctorow to sue. -- What have I got to lose? He either takes a bit of Fox's money, or the case flops, perhaps even backfires and the automated take-down systems based on mere text are better validated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: There's too many links to check!
  1. So too big for your favourite corporations to check, just like Viacom. Got it.
  
  2. There's publicity, and there's egg-down-your-face scenarios.
  
  3. So it's not obvious, and corporations should never sue for anything. I actually want the MPAA to come up with a film called "The", and then see them sue every file with "The" in the title.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: There's too many links to check!
  "3rd: "The really crazy thing is that it should be obvious to any human looking over these takedowns that it's not the TV show, as all of the links tend to have Doctorow's name in them:" -- NO, WAIT A SEC! You've said MANY times that it's NOT obvious, Mike! "Doctorow" could just be the tag name of a pirate: they've an urge to tack their names on what they stole.
  
  No, I'm not defending Fox, just pointing out that the usual canards here can apply in the other direction."
  
  How about those issuing the takedowns maybe, you know, INVESTIGATE and VERIFY before taking an ILLEGAL action to remove content that THEY DO NOT OWN? How about that, blue? How about they take some actual RESPONSIBILITY instead of just shooting at every single thing that MIGHT POSSIBLY be infringing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:08am
    
    Re: Re: There's too many links to check!
    Of course not. He's fully in the mindset of the MPAA/RIAA - "Fair use? F**k you, pay us. Oh, fair use might be a defense we can use to save money in court? Of course it applies!".
    
    The blinding hypocrisy is only one of his many failings.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Avatar28 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: There's too many links to check!
  Okay, fine. If the name isn't enough of a giveaway, how about the size? An ebook is going to be 1-2 MB at most. A tv episode is going to be MUCH larger. Oh, how about the file contents? Opening the torrent file or magnet link will give you the file names, none of which are video formats.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheogorath (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 9:26pm
    
    Re: Re: There's too many links to check!
    An ebook is going to be 1-2 MB at most.
    Mot true, I've personally seen ebooks as 19 MB PDFs. What should be checked is tags, not file size.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: There's too many links to check!
  "How could Fox possibly know whether any given one is authorized?"
  
  They should know because they are the ones doing the authorizing. But if they do NOT know, then they should not state that they have a good faith belief that the work is infringing.
  
  "There's too many links to check!"
  
  That's sad, but that's Fox's problem. And the solution is not to take down everything. That would have been like the Boston police arresting everyone in the greater metropolitan area on the grounds that there were "too many people to check".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:15am
    
    Re: Re: There's too many links to check!
    "How could Fox possibly know whether any given one is authorized?"
    
    It's funny how that's the defence used by the corporate worshippers, but the reverse - "How could Google possibly know whether any given one is authorized if Fox can't even tell?" - is usually rejected when that's pointed out. Their real aim is just to pass all responsibility on to 3rd parties and collect in court when they fail to achieve the impossible.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: There's too many links to check!
  "How could Fox possibly know whether any given one is authorized?"
  
  Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:38am
  
  Re: There's too many links to check!
  "How could Fox possibly know whether any given one is authorized?"
  
  Idiot. Who would know better whether a given work is authorized than the ones responsible for licensing that work in the first place?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:02pm
  
  Re: There's too many links to check!
  How could Fox possibly know whether any given one is authorized?
  
  By comparing file size/type? Too lazy to do it? Don't issued DCMA notices. It's almost too easy, isn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 1:38am
  
  Re: There's too many links to check!
  "There's too many links to check! How could Fox possibly know whether any given one is authorized?"
  
  Perhaps if they had incentive to ensure that they were actually making a factual claim, they would take the time to check.
  
  As I said above, the penalty of perjury for any false DMCA claim is sensible, and also well overdue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:08am

This will probably be followed by an "oops, sorry" and the abusers will, one again, go unpunished thanks to the horrible legislative situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  But this one involves a newly published book. Doctorow will probably be able to show actual damages, unlike some guy who gets his cat video taken down. And it's not some borderline fair-use case where he's using a clip from the TV show or something.
  
  And it also involves someone who cares about the issues involved, and someone from Public Citizen is asking if he wants to litigate. This means they may not settle for a small amount, as might otherwise happen. This may not end well for Fox and DTecNet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Might be tough to prove damages on a completely free book...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tomxp411 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The thing is, when the free version is blocked and removed from distribution, his First Amendment rights are being violated.
      
      And when you violate someone's civil rights, you can ask for more than statutory and real damages: you can also get punitive damages, which can add up to a lot more than just Doctorow's lost revenue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AndyD273 (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not completely free, just creative commons:
      http://us.macmillan.com/homeland-1/CoryDoctorow ($18)
      
      He just doesn't go after people who share the digital version because he uses the digital version as a promotional tool to advertise the print version, as well as promote the Cory Doctorow brand, among other things.
      By taking down these files, they are censoring his advertising which can directly effect his book sales, and hurt his brand.
      And yes, lots of people will buy the print version of something that they can get in an electronic version for free. Scott Sigler is another great example of this working.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not necessarily, although he wouldn't be able to use the idiotic "I'll assume that my losses are equal to full retail price x number of copies downloaded" used by the corporates. Doctorow does make money from his books, he just gives people to option to access a free copy. I'd presume that he'd be able to use figures from previous releases under the same model. plus, he makes income from speaking on copyright issues, etc. He could conceivably claim damages there if his reputation has been damaged by takedowns on his work without his permission.
      
      Sadly, it's not only tough, but a direction he's unlikely to follow, since he's someone that doesn't depend on court action and fantasy figures to make a living. A pity, because what's really needed is some push back from the people being negatively affected by the corporate push to "protect" their product at all costs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 9:42am

dmcaoutliers.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  poorendjustifymeanslogic.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:51am
  
  Re:
  At what percentage do "outliers" start becoming "disturbing trend"? What percentage are we at at this very moment?
  
  And if you attempt to answer the second question, please provide your peer-reviewed source.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2013 @ 2:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    "At what percentage do "outliers" start becoming "disturbing trend"?"
    
    At a guess, the moment when a corporate product is taken down by an independent's attempt at DMCA protection, at which case they'll argue for protection against DMCA notices. Which they will then ignore as soon as they stand to benefit again - see also: fair use.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re:
  deadurl.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:04pm
  
  Re:
  failed-cop-out.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:40am

The law needs remedies against improper takedowns, be they the result of negligence or outright fraud. This situation is inexcusable, and Fox should pay through the nose for it. It's not going to happen, but it should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:53am

An alternative to litigating is to DMCA all of Fox's Homeland TV show content, including everything on fox.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:23am
  
  Re:
  "An alternative to litigating is to DMCA all of Fox's Homeland TV show content, including everything on fox.com."
  Is there any non-infringing Homeland TV show content other than the content on fox.com? Remember, you are dealing with dinosaurs here. The whole "Web 2.0" thing is alien to them, and they wouldn't take down content on their own website.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ah, but here's the fun part: once the Homeland videos on fox.com have been DMCA'd, if they refuse to take them down, they can be taken to court and put in a nice lose-lose situation: either they pay out scads of money, or they have to admit in a court of law that filename-matching is insufficient to identify a file, thus setting a useful precedent.
    
    . . . We can dream, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think that any person that tried to DMCA Fox's videos would be the first and only person to ever get in trouble for a perjured DMCA notice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zos (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 10:59am

they were quick on it too. i was upping it to mobilism since cory was on tour and it didn't go up on craphound for a few weeks, they were on top of that shit. turn around and take down from various lockers was less than 5 hours, a dozen times in the first week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 11:15am

Didn't someone in the industry suggest that the VCR was to film like the Boston strangler was to women. It seems more like the DMCA is to free speech what the Boston strangler was to women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ShivaFang (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 1:17pm

It's important to realise that the DMCA notifications are made under penalty of perjury that the submitter actually owns the rights to the infringing work. I think a serious litigation for damages AND the perjury charge thrown in will be enough for these companies to wake up to the problems with their auto-submitting practices.

Either that or it will be just another 'nuisance' and they'll go about their business (that's more likely) but at least it will be a bit of a sting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re:
  Wasn't there a fairly recent ruling on a false DMCA claim that spent way to much focus that the perjured statement includes the claimant has a "good faith" belief that they own the copyright and that it was up to the person who had originally uploaded the work the impossible task of proving bad faith before they would apply the perjury penalty?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ShivaFang (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 2:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, that makes sense in keeping with "Innocent until proven guilty." You have to prove that it isn't in good faith.
    
    I think in this case it should be obvious - the system is 100% automated with absolutely NO checks, and errors are made all the time. If the system worked reliably most of the time, they could say that they have good faith in their automated system, but with the number of errors that DO happen (and they know about these) I don't think that 'good faith' can be applied here.
    
    I don't know if a Judge would agree with that reasoning, however.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2013 @ 5:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, that makes sense in keeping with "Innocent until proven guilty." You have to prove that it isn't in good faith.
      
      Yeah, on the surface, that sounds reasonable. But in the case I recall the standard being set such that you had to be a mind reader to prove it, making it impossible to get actual relief for a false take-down.
      
      Isn't something like a false DMCA filing accusation supposed to fall under the lighter civil burden of proof, anyway?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 22 Apr 2013 @ 1:30pm

Seek an injunction
He should seek an injunction prohibiting Fox from issuing take downs on any of his works. In court, question Fox about why they don't bother to be sure in the first place. Make sure to point out that Cory encourages his fans to convert his books into other formats. I think his fan base would go nuts converting into every known format just to ensure that Fox would have to spend lots of money to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 22 Apr 2013 @ 1:42pm

If people are getting strikes over this ...
If people are actually getting strikes over this, there's a credible argument that it is harming the legitimate right of the copyright owner to get his work out to his fans. This is one of Cory Doctorow's chosen distribution channels, which he has demonstrated is enormously successful. Blocking that channel with bogus claims can easily be shown to be harming him economically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]