What The DMCA System Is NOT For: Shutting Down Twitter Accounts You Don't Like And Sending Anonymous Tips
from the it's-a-broken-system;-let's-break-it-further dept
It's long overdue, but someone needs to start running some remedial DMCA courses. The takedown notice system is severely flawed, but ultimately workable. It's supposed to be used to alert various services of copyright-infringing content. It is not supposed to be used to:- take down legitimate content, however inadvertently
- take down speech/criticism you don't like
- alert hosting services of potential trademark violations
- used as an outlet for some misguided attempt at public service
One of the key elements of a DMCA notice is the statement a sender swears are truthful:
Sworn StatementsBoth statements come into play in the following DMCA notices.
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
First up, we have a rep for the International Thespian Society issuing a takedown notice on an entire Twitter account, supposedly for using the ITS logo without permission.
Description of infringement: They are using our logo without permission, and it is the incorrect/old version of the logo.So, not only is the logo someone else's property, but apparently it's the one the Society is no longer using, which I guess makes it worse[?].
Here's the ITS logo:
Here's a screenshot of the account that was removed (via Google's cache).
There's no logo visible here and the account doesn't seem to have been active for very long. It could have been utilizing the ITS logo briefly, but by the time it was last crawled that was no longer the case. (There's not much of a gap here. Google's last crawl was Feb. 1st. The takedown notice was issued on Jan. 29th.) So, a simple request to the account owner could have possibly resulted in the removal of the logo without removing the account. But, that's not the only problem ITS had with the Twitter account. The next sentence in the "Description of infringement" is entirely baseless and is not what the DMCA is supposed to be used for.
Their tweets are also in violation of the International Thespian SocietyWhat the hell does that mean? Other than the momentary logo usage (which is far from proven), the account made no effort to associate itself with ITS. Sure, those tweeting the account mentioned things like how attractive their ITOs (International Thespian Officer) were ("The ITO at our conference was literally so attractive.") and others were a bit more off-color ("I played sweet and sour (sweet means gay, sour means straight) at conference for every boy I saw. I only guessed two sour..."), but the account itself made no claims to be affiliated with the Society. It appears someone at ITS found these tweets a bit unsavory and decided to nuke the account in order to ensure the everlasting purity of the thespian world -- at least the thespian world under its control.
So, this is speech being killed by a tight-assed Society who couldn't sit idly by while acting students lusted after their instructors or noted that the drama world attracts fewer heterosexual men than other pursuits. Terrible and, again, an abuse of the DMCA takedown system. The tweets issued by @ThesConfessions were not copyrighted material. Only the logo was, if indeed it was ever present. Even then, the only thing that needed to be removed was the infringing logo, not the account and its tweets.
Next up: making claims about copyrighted material that isn't yours to be making claims about (the "I am the copyright owner or authorized to act on the behalf of the authorized owner" section).
Here's one sent to Google from a "friend."
1. Complainant's InformationA kindhearted stranger on the internet is a rarity, especially one who uses a now-fraudulent legal form to send anonymous tips.
Name:
Company name:
Full legal name of the copyright holder: friend
Country of residence: EG
2. Your copyrighted workHelpful, but it's not really your copyrighted work, is it, friend-o?
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):
i would like to report that site www.get80.com
take look at that one and find your self he selling other people courses
Gather 'round, readers. Take one look yourself and see what get80 used to be selling before the site was blinked into nonexistence by "friend." (No link for you, readers. Even the cache pops up a dialog box -- with Adblock and such equipped.)
It certainly appears a variety of courses were being hawked at impossibly low prices. This would seem to be an open-and-shut case of mass infringement, but that's something for the authorized copyright holders to sort out, not just random internet denizens who enjoy the mundanity of filling out forms.
Now, the last example is the tiniest of infractions, but if we're going to hold the DTECnets and the IP Arrows of the world to a certain standard, then everyone needs to play by the same rules, even "friends" who stumble across cheap-looking sites apparently selling infringing goods.
But the sterner warning goes to the International Thespian Society which used a DMCA notice to kill an account it just didn't like. That's not "protecting your IP." That's just small-scale thuggery.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ROTFLMAO!
Want to buy a bridge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The takedown notice system is severely flawed, but potentially workable.
I think the biggest obstacle to making it workable is that it needs to have a better counter-notice provision that allows a account holder an opportunity to respond prior to content being taken down, where by the host does not lose safe harbor protection since if it makes a good faith decision to allow the content to stay based on the account holder's counter-notice. If that were the case, I could see it being workable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is a better phrasing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No DMCA-like laws will ever work because it falsely places a creative restriction on new works which may or may not use other copyrighted works.
In short: the DMCA and Fair Use can never co-exist peacefully because there will always be people out there who scream "It's mine! Pay me or remove it!" without realizing why their own works are/were popular to begin with.
Abolish the DMCA and copyright. Until this happens, Techdirt will have another 100 years of articles to write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uptight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uptight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When did employment become a prerequisite for having an opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DMCA is NOT for you.
Kind of like how X-Art is complaining about copyright infringement while also illegally producing commercial films without permits and violating health ordinances. NSFW link: http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2014/02/07/x-artmalibu-media-sues-alleged-file-sharers-over-illegall y-produced-videos/comment-page-1/
How can we expect rights holders to abide by all these pesky rules? That just gets in the way of their creativity. It's almost like you don't think that IP law is a special kind of law that is more important than every other type of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The DMCA is NOT for you.
The only creativity exhibited by the rights holders that make heavy use of DMCA notices is in some of the claims made in the notices. The works that they are trying to protect are those they have gained by contract, under terms that benefit them, rather than the real creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The DMCA is NOT for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since the vast majority of DMCA submissions are churned out by automated computer programs run by hired guns who apparently get paid according to how many DMCA claims they can spit out (and every incentive to 'pad their books') should we really be surprised at the astronomical level of DMCA abuse that has resulted from this terribly-written law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I beg to differ.
take down legitimate content, however inadvertently
take down speech/criticism you don't like
alert hosting services of potential trademark violations
used as an outlet for some misguided attempt at public service."
Apparently, it is. If Congress didn't want it used for those purposes they could have easily written it differently, or even changed it afterwards. They didn't. And haven't. No, the DMCA is working just the way Congress and various industries want it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the penalty for perjury?
So, at what point does this mysterious "penalty of perjury" kick in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the penalty for perjury?
The DMCA only requires a "good faith belief" that the claim is accurate. It does not even require that a human being at least review the claim before it is sent -- a computer can be tasked with doing the whole shebang. And if a programming error results in a million - or billion - wrong DMCA claims being sent out, there is no penalty whatsoever (as long as it was not intentional fraud).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CONGRESS!
who could ensure things like this didn't happen any more
CONGRESS!
who is being totally screwed by the entertainment industries, RIAA, MPAA and Hollywood, plus others, but are raking it in via under the counter deals?
CONGRESS!
when will this sort of thing stop?
Not while there is a mix between the industries and CONGRESS!!
guess we better just keep on complaining and pointing out, because nothing will change!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reporter:
Copyright Owner: International Thespian Society
Name: [redacted] --> Katherine Fischer
--> kfischer@schooltheatre.org
Company: Educational Theatre Association
Job title: Marketing Manager
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thespians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong. Twitter pulled the account. Or did they review it and come to a different conclusion than you? If twitter and youtube et al cared about their users, accounts wouldn't be getting deleted on such false claims.
P.S. How do I get "the content" loaded into 140 characters of technology? Without "the content" twitter will fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Action
Apparently no real evidence is needed and it seems as though almost anyone can file one with utter impunity.
Perhaps a massive public phony DMCA take-down party by hundreds/thousands of citizens against the companies that have been abusing the system will wake up law enforcement.
After all, the law has done nothing to date about the huge misuse of the DMCA take-down notice system, even though the law actually states that criminal charges can be brought against those that misuse it.
When the federal government and its agencies stop working for the people who pay(*1) them, there is little recourse but for the public itself to take over those services, since there is no legal means of firing the errant government and its agencies and hiring new ones.
(*1) - pay them above the board - taxpayer citizens, rather than pay them under the table - corporations, organized crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Action
Yes, and all those who take part should live outside the US so the penalties for filing false DMCA notices don't apply to them. I live in England and am willing to join in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Action
I'd think that if 200,000+ individual DMCA notices were filed against abusers like Disney, Warner Bros, and their ilk, over a one week period, it would be obvious that it was simply the public trying to send a message.
If it failed to make Law Enforcement and the Courts start to do their jobs, perhaps it would at least send the message to the abusers that the tables can be turned if they continue to abuse the system.
I have to admit though, that the rogue US Fed is now so unpredictable that it might just arrest and incarcerate half a million US citizens, simply to protect the DMCA system and its abusers - many of whom appear to be pulling the strings of government from behind the scenes.
It is indeed difficult to play poker with a cheat who holds all the cards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Action
Which is exactly why I suggested that people outside the US do it. The worst punishment I know of for abusing DMCA procedures is a large fine, something that would be difficult at best to enforce, even under the unilateral extradition treaty currently in place between the UK and the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do all these things that are in the comments section below
[ link to this | view in chronology ]