Hollywood Studios Send DMCA Takedowns Over Kim Dotcom's Mega Service
from the they-really-don't-like-that-guy dept
Kim Dotcom launched his "Mega" service to great fanfare a few months back. Since then it hasn't really gotten much press coverage, but it appears that the Hollywood studios are looking to change that, sending DMCA takedown notices to Google to remove the Mega.com front page. You could understand it if it was a particular link to an infringing file (and, Mega itself claims to be completely complaint with any such DMCA notices). But, in this case, we have NBC Universal -- already known for being a bit overaggressive with these sorts of things -- sending a takedown notice that includes the very front page of Mega.co.nz, despite the fact that the front page has no links at all. They're claiming that the front page contains its film Mama. Meanwhile, Warner Bros. is claiming in a DMCA takedown that Mega.co.nz should be removed because it has its movie Gangster Squad.Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt, and we chalk these sorts of things up to over aggressive automated takedowns , but at this point you have to wonder if the studios aren't just attacking Mega because they can. They absolutely hate Dotcom with a passion well beyond any reason, and now that Google has told them it will hurt the search rankings of sites that receive too many DMCA notices, they have a direct incentive to look to weaken Mega, as it's something they're fearful of, in part because they don't understand it. Once again, though, we see that the major Hollywood studios completely abusing the DMCA takedown process. Is it any wonder they're so adamant that they shouldn't get in any trouble for filing bogus DMCA takedown notices?
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, kim dotcom, takedowns
Companies: mega, nbc universal, warner bros.
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Google could solve the bad takedown issues.
Google could easily solve this - they could rate the accuracy of DMCA takedown notices and negatively rank companies that send bogus ones as a penalty for wasting everybody's time. Watch how fast the studios clean up their act when their own sites stop showing up on page on.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What "thousands of other links?" The only listing in the DMCA notice was to the Mega home page. There was not one single link to any content stored on the Mega site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*Yeah it won't work, but it's almost time to start trying their tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've read this article three times now trying to find where Mike stated he "has no trouble" but I can't find it. Can you point it out for me please? Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who gets to post first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who gets to post first
Now, to like it on my FB page, and all my relatives (on 4 continents)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who gets to post first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue them
So they're actually wide open to a lawsuit for illegal assertion of copyright, aka copyfraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue them
Also, "copyfraud" usually means that rights holders are claiming rights over public domain works, or claiming rights over their own works that copyright doesn't grant them. It wouldn't apply in this case.
I think the words you're looking for are "outright lying." Legally speaking, that would be a fraudulent takedown notice, not a fraudulent copyright claim. They are (or should be) liable under 512(f), but not under 506(c).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sue them
It can also be illegal by being fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue them
> obviously do not hold copyright on. This is called plagiarism.
No, it's not. It's copyfraud. Plagiarism is something else entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of all of the thousands of fantastic, slimy, and gratuitously deceitful lies you have ever told- this stands at the pinnacle. Wow, just wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That one made me LOL. What a deranged person Masnick is that he posts such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A few examples:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11552823150/major-hollywood-studios-all-sent- bogus-dmca-takedowns-concerning-pirate-bay-documentary.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201 21026/17190420859/leakid-dmca-takedown-notice-farce.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201302 05/03124421884/how-much-does-hbo-pay-markmonitor-to-send-dmca-notices-removing-its-official-content- google.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091028/1808416709.shtml
I'm guessing you misunderstood my comment. I do certainly call out these bogus activities, but I give the benefit of the doubt on the question of whether the bogus takedowns are done *on purpose* to censor. But, in this case, it's a lot more difficult to give that benefit of the doubt.
In the meantime, what's with your sophomoric level of insults? You used to be better than that, but lately it seems like you've just been focused on spewing ad hominems. What's wrong? Your buddies not paying you enough to make actual arguments any more? Next time you should side iwth the future, rather than the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heh, heh. Set aside the lofty ignoring for a while, eh?
I'll presume to answer for "bob" -- of late, you aren't giving anyone enough to work with. Your defense of a quip here is as least as long as the text above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Besides, the other commenters can totally defeat your side's terrible arguements without Mike himself needing to correct you. Crowdsourcing sanity FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The future won't be so different than the past. The wholly unregulated, Wild West of an internet utopia you and coterie of sycophants so desperately hope for is an illusion. Your allies in the tech world see the money is in content distribution and want in the game. They're moving further, not closer to the lawless internet you so desperately want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then again, I thought you'd be smart enough to know these companies work towards their prerogatives, which is to make a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
besides, the arc of his story is towards anarchy...
(just as old school soviet russia does NOT mean 'communism', so anarchy does NOT mean 'chaos'...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, what needs to happen is that the wild wild west of politician buying, law buying, govt established (broadcasting and cableco) media monopoly, IP extremist utopia days for those in power need to come to an end.
I'm sick and tired of bought laws. I'm sick and tired of a government established media cartel feeding us propaganda. The wild wild west of bought laws through corporate campaign contributions and revolving door favors need to end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and the purpose of laws shouldn't be simply to prevent us from being 'lawless'. Laws shouldn't exist for the sake of existing. Laws should exist to serve the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're living in the past with your sycophant masters.
Get with the times, man. Laws that are stupid and serve a minority of the population don't get followed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As far as I'm concerned, the DMCA is abused over and over again with zero consequences for the abusers and that is flat out wrong. I've seen it reported often enough on other tech blogs to know it's a fact.
I'm not sure he's a paid shill. Some people value opinion over facts, and will cling to them for dear life no matter what, often making huge fools of themselves in the process. They seem to believe that repeating lies over and over again makes them true. Let's be honest, sometimes it works, but only on idiots and the easily led. In any case, the "opinion trumps fact" brigade have such an emotional investment in their cherished notions that no amount of factual information will persuade them to give them up.
The name-calling and trolling we experience here on TD is the result of their frustration at knowing they are wrong but being unwilling to admit it in case their egos get a boo boo.
It's actually quite funny if you're in the right mood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike usually says that it's legal, though troubling and questionable with how they do business.
Maybe you should wash your nose, it's looking a bit brown there, maybe your masters can offer you some wet ones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best thing? They are still doing it with his new service. I guess they will never learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you actually explain why you feel this way? I really struggle to find any reason other than jealously for people to hold such extreme personal opinions of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reply in like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reply in like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe its time to give back...
I see a perfectly reasonable (and apparently legal) solution; all of those sick and tired of these type of IP bully tactics to should issue DMCA's again NBC Universal website. Each and every page. With enough people doing this to every page, assuming Google follows their own protocol, they should be buried so far down in the search that you could find the end of the internet before they ever appear on a person's screen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe its time to give back...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe its time to give back...
It assumes you will live long enough to make it to trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe its time to give back...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe its time to give back...
I was not talking about a single person (say me) do this, but something on the magnitude of 10 or 20 thousand.
As much as they would like to, it would be hard to convict and/or sue that many.
Would they really have their site buried, I seriously doubt it, but it would do a couple of things:
a) help to point out the flaws in the current system
b) force Google to retract their policy (which was obviously just a poor attempt to shut the entertainment industry up). If Goggle decides not to retract this policy then they would seriously exposed as hypercritical, unless they apply it equally. Given that their strength lay with the masses and not the well funded (remember they make a lot of their money on advertising which means their products need to be used as much as possible). Since I don't think that Google would take the reputation hit for this and I don't think they want to up the fight with the industry, the only logical conclusion is to drop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe its time to give back...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they had just kept their mouth shut and lowered results, I doubt this would have been an issue.
Next up for the MPAA: having the DoJ block the site from US ISPs.
It's coming. You know it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
streisandstreisandstreisandstreisandstreisand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt" Really??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt" Really??
And, as I pointed out, he generally just questions the validity of it, but nothing more.
You know, like how portions of the press are questioning the IRS's actions taken against conservative political groups. There's nothing illegal about it, however, you can still question the validity of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt" Really??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL! "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt"
Those darn censors somehow got into your "free speech" zone though:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
And, of course, Pirate Mike has no trouble with the thousands of other links in the takedown notice that represent a willful infringer getting away with it. But those crazy rightholders just don't understand your buddy Pirate Kim, right, Mikey? It's just *so* hard to grasp what he and the rest of those sites dedicated to piracy are up to.
I'm sure he'll have a whole paragraph or two dedicated to it in the White Paper 2.0, Dipshit Punk Edition.
C'mon, kids. Mild comments like THAT cause enough of you to click on it to hide? Either Pirate Mike has set the number required very low or Pirate Mike sees the IP and hides it himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL! "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt"
C'mon, Blue, you're not changing anyone's mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL! "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt"
Yes. The definition of the use of the report button includes "trollish", and you're yet to post a comment that doesn't meet that definition. Even if you did, the comment contained at least 2 outright lies, along with the clear indication that you (as ever) didn't read the article properly, let alone the material it was linking to, before launching an attack. Half of the comment consists of childish namecalling with zero point ever being made. Thus, your comment was reported and hidden, "mild" or not.
If this offends you, stop lying. Stop basing your arguments on lies. Start reading the comments you're responding to before launching into kindergarten namecalling. Then, your comments will magically stop being hidden. Otherwise, just accept that your infantile whining about your idiotic comments being hidden will also be hidden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOL! "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt"
They won't need to be hidden - if they do what you suggest, they'll have no "material" to post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a compliment from someone who does exactly the same to Mike and other posters on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me...
Someone give me a link to instructions for filing DMCA take downs. We can play too and I bet there are more of us than Hollywood Studios (oh, and I don't have a website I care about either).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why give them the benefit of the doubt?
Doesn't this incident (and The Pirate Bay film incident) perfectly illustarte that they ARE actually sending these out in clear abuse of the DMCA process? Or is this just another "anomaly?"
Question: how many "anomalies" does it take to get to the center of the issue - that issue being that Hollywood is up to the same level of douchebaggery that they've been up to since day one. Abusing the process doesn't generate sympathy for their anti-piracy message - it does exactly the opposite.
A film they CLEARLY don't own, and a landing page for a site they aren't happy with? Not for nothing, but if you tards (ootb, joe, and bob...just to be clear) don't see this for what it is, then you truly have managed to execute the impossible.
How much lube and practice did it take to be able to contort yourselves in such a way that you could fit your heads up your asses?
I'm not interested in trying.
I'm just curious as to the amount of effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google could solve the bad takedown issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google could solve the bad takedown issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on a sec here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]