Microsoft Sends Google DMCA Takedowns For Microsoft's Own Website

from the yeah,-that's-working dept

Tue, Jul 30th 2013 7:54am — Mike Masnick

Remember back when HBO sent a DMCA takedown notice to Google that included links to HBO.com? Apparently, the various services, which do automated DMCA takedowns, haven't gotten much better. TorrentFreak has the amusing story of how Microsoft apparently is paying good money to LeakID to send DMCA takedowns, on behalf of Microsoft, to Google over links to Microsoft's own website -- including to its store.

Note that the "original work" URLs and the "allegedly infringing URLs" are identical. It really makes you wonder how much Microsoft pays to LeakID for this kind of "service." LeakID certainly has quite a history of bogus takedowns, suggesting that whatever system it's using to issue these takedowns is a complete joke. But, of course, since there's no real penalty for bogus takedowns, LeakID can just keep sending completely ridiculous notices like this one. While Google caught this one before taking stuff down, that doesn't always happen. For a functioning DMCA that doesn't lead to censorship, it seems only reasonable to have real penalties for false takedowns and (at the very least) a notice-and-notice system that gives someone a chance to respond before the content is initially taken down.

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: automated, copyright, dmca, takedowns
Companies: google, leakid, microsoft

60 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 3:58am

But but...piracy! Mike, this is just a rare anomaly, who cares if Google silences speech due to not catching a mistaken DMCA. After all, making sure Microsoft keeps their copyrights is more important than making sure Microsoft can make speech. If Google takes down the links, then it's their fault, no way sir-ree it can be the fault of the automated DMCA bots or of Microsoft who pay them.
PIRACY!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  " Mike, this is just a rare anomaly"
  
  That's *exactly* what it is, you silly buffoon.
  
  Does it come even remotely close to equaling the amount of legitimate takedowns? No, it doesn't.
  
  That, by definition, is an anomaly.
  
  And you, by definition, are a complete fucking idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    How many anomalies does it take before you've impeded someones 1st amendment right?
    
    0.01% of a 1 000 000 is still 100. There are plenty more takedowns than that...
    
    There's a reason the justice system is supposed to follow due process. The rights are supposed to be GUARENTEED.
    
    I'd rather catch 50% of all murderers than 101%. The next time you push for that 101% just remember that 1% could be you...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe DIrt, 30 Jul 2013 @ 11:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Seems to me that the exceptions are what we usually base our laws on.
    For example... What percentage of the population would you say is transgender? 0.3% according to a study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.
    That would, to me, also fit the definition of an anomaly.
    So based on your statements above, we shouldn't need to address their issues right? We don't need to assign any penalties to those that wrongly infringe on their rights. They are an anomaly.
    Pick any fringe issue you like and I am sure it's percentage is lower than the percentage of erroneous takedowns that have been issued.
    
    In this country (U.S.) we err on the side of the people's rights.
    
    Blackstone's formulation comes to mind, or Benjamin Franklin, or Maimonides, or John Adams. They all are actually based on something written in every Christian bible...
    
    Genesis 18:23-32
    
    23 Then Abraham approached him and said: �Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[a] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing�to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?�
    
    26 The Lord said, �If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.�
    
    27 Then Abraham spoke up again: �Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?�
    
    �If I find forty-five there,� he said, �I will not destroy it.�
    
    29 Once again he spoke to him, �What if only forty are found there?�
    
    He said, �For the sake of forty, I will not do it.�
    
    30 Then he said, �May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?�
    
    He answered, �I will not do it if I find thirty there.�
    
    31 Abraham said, �Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?�
    
    He said, �For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.�
    
    32 Then he said, �May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?�
    
    He answered, �For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.�
    
    And is name-calling really necessary?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mr. Applegate, 30 Jul 2013 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "And is name-calling really necessary?"
      
      and the answer is:
      
      When that is all you have, Yes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 12:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you sure this isn't covered by Abraham's copyright? Afterall, it's only been something like 4,000 years....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PRMan, 30 Jul 2013 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's God's copyright...and thankfully, he's a pretty forgiving guy...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 3:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Did you really fall for Rikuo's trolling of the trolls and think it was a serious post????
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 6:29am

Clearly Google should stop including Microsoft links in search results for a day or two until Microsoft complains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:53am
  
  Re:
  I think they have a week or two to put it back up. No need to rush.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 30 Jul 2013 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re:
  I hope Google doesn't remove MS links. I find it easier to look for MS software & patches by searching with Google then it is going to MS's site and searching... :-(
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 7:21am

It is said that Google does some background check to try to avoid bogus or erroneous claims from going through but I wonder if they do so in these cases. I mean it's stupidly obvious it is a mistake but maybe if they let the errors go unchecked the copyright-morons will start hurting themselves enough to realize even they can't do it right KNOWING what is infringing and what isn't...

I'm fairly sure Microsoft removed itself from Bing too, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:10am

Google should just comply
I think Google should just go ahead and remove them. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:47am
  
  Re: Google should just comply
  Sure, why not?
  
  On a normal bogus complaint they should push back. But when when a bogus complaint means a company is taking its own stuff down, why not? The DMCA clearly states that Google has no liability for complying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 30 Jul 2013 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: Google should just comply
  Agreed! Since there is effectively no legal penalty for bogus takedowns, making them suffer from their own indifference or ineptitude is just about the only recourse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 30 Jul 2013 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Google should just comply
    I can think of no better proof that Google follows it's motto of "Do no evil." Personally, I would be tempted to give Microsoft what they asked for, instead of what they want. But Google isn't doing that. Good for them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ed C., 30 Jul 2013 @ 2:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Google should just comply
      That might sound like a principled stance, but the only way to prevent these ridiculous abuses is for the abusers to suffer for it.
      
      Or to put it another way, it's like a spoiled child who demands ice cream all the time. If you keep giving him ice cream, but then give him an anti-acid because you want to "do no evil" and prevent him from getting a belly ache, he'll never learn. The only way he'll learn why he can't have ice cream for every meal is if he suffers the consequences.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:10am

I was thinking along the lines of BentFranklin and Ninja. If I was Google I'd go ahead and comply with the take down notice. Then when MS complains about it (biased algorithm, rabble, rabble) they can just point to the takedown notice and cover their butt. What's the downside to doing that? That would point out the ridiculousness of these notices as well as censor a competitor, at the competitor's request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  I think they should take them down also. But they should expand it to include all the record labels, TV studios, and movie studios. The content owners would then have to insist on accuracy from the companies they hire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:12am

In before ootb whines about anomalies without grasping the actual points being made!

But yeah, I wonder how much time and money is actually being wasted to issue and process these notices rather than actually fix the reasons people pirate in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:21am
  
  Re:
  Oh and I thought I'd check the knowledge base article listed in the URLs (no way I'm going to try and guess the long URL at the top), and it's a support article about Office 2010 SP1. Presumably then, the URLs are relating to a free patch, and not any paid product.
  
  So, while the product in question will be copyrighted, it's sure as hell not losing anyone any revenue. At best, you could argue that fake copies of SP1 should be taken down for security reasons but if so it's especially hilarious that they're inadvertently trying to take down the official source for the patch, and thus force people into areas that will put them at more risk.
  
  Yes, this is clerical error/poorly formed bots/whatever, but that doesn't excuse it when people are calling for draconian punishments against people accused by such a system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    From the view of the lawyers and companies getting paid to issue as many notices as they can, this is not a waste.
    
    If you adjust your perspective to being sociopathic, you can find the good in all sorts of fucked up situations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  Woah there captain freetard. You can't fix pirates, you have to lock them up or put them in financial slavery for the rest of there life.
  
  Fixing reasons indeed, it's like you people think that people pirate because the services they need aren't available or are massively over priced or something...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AC Unknown (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can't tell if sarcastic or real.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:36am
  
  Anomalies
  Doctor, to the family of the patient after a botched surgery:
  
  "Oh, sorry we botched the operation and killed the patient. Turns out that I can't do heart surgery very well while under the influence of Tequila.
  
  Anyway, don't feel sad: this only happens 5% of the times! Rest assured that we will not make any changes to our procedures. This incredibly low amount of perfectly preventable incidents does not warrant such changes, in our honest opinion.".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alt0, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:21am

It just may be a cry for help like, "Stop us before we hurt ourselves".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:31am

there definitely needs to be a fine for issuing bogus take downs that is equal to the penalty for genuine ones. from what i read, Google had double the number of take downs issued to it from the US entertainment industries. shame it doesn't say how many of those were bogus! mind you, before there were anything done to make it cost the one issuing the bogus take down, a lot of politicians, including Obama, will need to be converted, as they are funded by these industries. while you have the odds stacked against you, the change wont take place until it becomes an offense as well to accept any sort of 'lobbying' remuneration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baldaur Regis (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  The DMCA has no provision for fines or penalties. However, there is precedent for the argument that companies are entitled to administrative fees for processing legal claims.
  
  Let's say Google charges a $10 fee for processing just the patently bogus copyright claims. According to Google (as quoted in this TD article), about 37% of all claims are bogus. And according to Google's own stats, they received 13,956,302 removal requests just last month. That gives us 5,163,832 bad claims, times $10 is...$51,638,317.00. Per month. Times twelve is $619,659,808 per year.
  
  $619.7 million dollars is chump change for Google, but still...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    "37% of all claims are bogus"
    
    LOL uh, no.
    
    Not even close.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, great counter-argument!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, almost as good as posting a 4 year old Google press release, issued before companies got sick of Google's grifting and started issuing them millions of legitimate takedown notices.
        
        You're also a complete fucking idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AC Unknown (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And reported for ad-hom attacks. Congratulations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Google's grifting"
        
        You know, I'm actually glad we have terms like this floating around. I helps identify the complete morons who haven't considered any of the arguments.
        
        I note you haven't refuted any of the arguments presents, you jumped straight to swearing and throwing a tantrum. Nice.
        
        "millions of legitimate takedown notices"
        
        Do you have actual figures for this, especially figures for legitimate vs. illegitimate notices (and no, the figures on "correctly filed" DMCA notices don't count, since the above MS vs. MS would count as "legitimate" under those criteria)? If you do, I'd love to see them since they'd lay to rest some arguments.
        
        I suspect however, that you're one of those people who assumes that all most notices are correct, and don't give a shit how many rights are trampled over in the process so long as your **AAs think they're making a difference (which they're not so long as they try to rip off everyone from artists to streaming services and their legal customers).
        
        So come on, are one of you people going to provide valid evidence for once, or is it half-assed assumption time again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    That could be an interesting initiative. Charge for bogus copyright claims (and stop processing the claims from those who don't pay). I wonder if it would be legal?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:40am

Is that Microsoft falling copyright strike 5 time.
And so they should be cut of from the internet and have there bandwidth managed once they are reconnect and then ever user in the Microsoft offices will have to do a online copyright education program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:42am

Thanks to my tutoring you can all recognize an anomaly!
Since there's nothing here but Masnicking, I'll just say that when I saw this bit of trivia a couple days ago, KNEW it'd show up here, eventually.

Masnicking: daily spurts of short and trivial traffic-generating items.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:55am
  
  Re:
  What anomaly?
  
  Considering that HBO did it to themselves, and NBC did it to themselves...
  
  Yeah, one's an anomaly, two is a trend, three is a problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: Thanks to my tutoring you can all recognize an anomaly!
  You knew this was coming up and didn't prepare a thousand word Google rant? I'm disappointed.
  
  With regards to what you said, I find it interesting and helpful to have an easily searchable list of these "anomalies" so that I can show to others that they're not anomalies by their sheer number.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- S. T. Stone, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: Thanks to my tutoring you can all recognize an anomaly!
  When a bogus takedown over official websites happens once, you can call it an anomaly.
  
  When the same kind of bogus takedown happens twice, you can call it a coincidence.
  
  When those bogus takedowns happen multiple times, however, you can call it incompetence.
  
  This situation makes it look as if LeakID has a problem with identifying actual infringing links. Any company that would want to hire LeakID to handle DMCA notifications should take a long look at this situation and consider whether LeakID's incompetence makes for a worthwhile investment.
  
  The government should also look at this situation and consider whether the cost that companies incur from dealing with these bogus takedowns (in both money and time) makes for a worthwhile reason to create an actual punishment for filing false DMCA notifications.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: Thanks to my tutoring you can all recognize an anomaly!
  You knew it'd show up here eventually? Another example of a system that isn't perfect that copyright goons insist are infallible with every fiber of their being till they are blue in the face would SHOW UP ON TECHDIRT.COM?!
  
  Wow! You must be this century's nostradumbass, please, feel free to break your arms patting yourself on the back for cracking the complex and alien code required to figure out what TechDirt will report on!
  
  I hope your parents proudly beat you to death for this accomplishment and then notifying complete strangers on the internet with your pointless babbling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:36am
  
  Re: Thanks to my tutoring you can all recognize an anomaly!
  Whether this is an anomoly or not really isn't the point.
  
  The point is that both the movie and music distribution industry keep complaining that Google isn't doing enough to stop links to pirated media from showing up in their search engine, and yet they can't seem to identify their own content themselves without including links to themselves/each other/content the don't own.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Thanks to my tutoring you can all recognize an anomaly!
  Mr Vegeta, what's the anomaly count?
  The tracker cannot bear the sheer amount! It broke down just over 9000!
  
  Welcome to ootb world, where everyday events are considered anomalies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:49am

Google should have complied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Howard, Cowering, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:50am

OOTB #14
And many thanks for boosting that traffic with your visit and post. Keeps Mike in business and lines his pocket with advertising dollars. So kind of you to have Mike's well-being at heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:56am

Notice-and-notice system
"Hello, Microsoft? I'm calling you about a DMCA notice sent by Microsoft alleging that you, Microsoft, are infringing Microsoft's copyright."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JP, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:09am
  
  Re: Notice-and-notice system
  Oh no, Microsoft lawyers on infinite loop. That's going to be one big legal bill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re: Notice-and-notice system
  BSOD...over the phone. Huh...wonder what that would sound like.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:12am

Looks more like Microsoft confessing to piracy to me!
This looks more like Microsoft confessing to Google that they're a bunch of evil pirates to me! Google should respond by removing all Microsoft links in their search engine, after all, Google doesn't want to support pirates like Microsoft, do they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 30 Jul 2013 @ 1:28pm
  
  Re: Looks more like Microsoft confessing to piracy to me!
  Three strikes in one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:20am

If Microsoft can't even get DMCA right, makes kinda wonder what kind of info the NSA is getting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Martin, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:22am

What are they hidiing..
They should just take all of their links out of the search index and be done with it. Problem fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:43am

Google should have honored the DMCA with a warning to Microsoft that the domain "microsoft.com" appears to be infringing on a "commercial scale" (since there were so many infringements at one time) ... and then required Microsoft to "prove" they are the copyright holders before reinstating the URLs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:52am

Linux FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:59am

If the system lacks a penalty, ADD ONE
For cases like this, Google should follow the DMCA claim to the letter and take the infringing link down, and only put it up when the companies involved personally send a notice that the link was in fact legitimate.

Also don't let them 'opt out' of being targeting like this, make them send the notice for each and every link, maybe if the companies have to actually go through the hassle of unblocking their own products and sites each and every time something like this happens they'd make sure the accuracy of the DMCA service they use was just a titch better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aikiwolfie, 30 Jul 2013 @ 10:04am

If I were Google I'd have complied with this request and then informed Microsoft. I'd then charge Microsoft a fee to re-list their site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 30 Jul 2013 @ 3:22pm

If Microsoft is sending takedown notices for their own site, obviously they want it removed from the listings. After all, if you can't trust Microsoft to know whether or not they want their own site removed, who can you trust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ODD, 30 Jul 2013 @ 9:58pm

Its clear that Microsoft is a pirate. After all when was the last time they paid to install a copy of Windows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
edinjapan (profile), 31 Jul 2013 @ 7:51am

I'm Bored
LinkID Employee #1; I'm bored. There's nothing interesting to do.

LinkID Employee #2; Here's a work order from Microsoft to take down infringing content. Check this out! It's for the DMCA takedown of Microsoft's site.

LinkID Employee #1; Let's do it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopponit, 31 Jul 2013 @ 11:15pm

takedowns, microsoft
I'm beginning to think that Google needs to go ahead and start taking the sites down as soon as asked. Why! To give a good dose of feedback to companies that they are doing it WRONG. If they can do it in a manner where it hits the legacy industries the hardest it might be worth the suffering that would ensue. Can you imagine how loud the cry of "Wait! I didn't mean do it to me too!"would be? I don't think some of them would learn, but most might.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trent Granstaff, 7 Aug 2013 @ 7:05pm

Your right, most of them would learn and probably pretty fast. There would be a few that would not but for the most part it would be a good idea and they would learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]