Qualcomm Uses DMCA To Shut Down Its Own GitHub Repository (Plus A Bunch Of Others)

from the because-copyright! dept

Mon, Jul 7th 2014 7:39am — Mike Masnick

Another day, another story of ridiculously errant DMCA takedown notices. The latest involves Qualcomm hiring Cyveillance to issue a DMCA notice to Github, demanding the site take down 116 repositories for allegedly violating Qualcomm's copyright. Of course, among those repositories are... Qualcomm's own repository. Because, apparently, like many other companies out there that do DMCA takedown notices, Cyveillance doesn't much care about collateral damage, and issues overly broad takedown notices because it can, and because there's simply no penalty for doing so. The takedown also impacted CyanogenMod developers and Sony's own Xperia dev Github repository. Because if you're going to create collateral damage, why not try to hit everyone?

The impetus behind the takedown request is a WiFi config file – literally a text file – which is taken straight from a Sony firmware release. In this takedown Qualcomm also took down PRIMA mirror which is open source code for Atheros wireless chipsets that they release on the CodeAurora gitweb site.

The article at Ausdroid also points out that Qualcomm has been trying to create "better relations with the open-source community for sometime." I would imagine one way to do that would be to not pull down their GitHub repositories with bogus DMCA claims. But, of course, Qualcomm has long been known as a patent and copyright bully, so apparently old habits die hard.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, github, open source, respositories, take downs
Companies: cyveillance, github, qualcomm

33 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 7:03am

and issues overly broad takedown notices because it can, and because there's simply no penalty for doing so

It's a wonder. If you falsely accuse somebody of something you get your ass sued for it. Companies can't simply take your possessions because they claim you haven't paid, they have to prove it. The Govt can't take down your business (usually) because they think something is illegal inside, they have to prove (usually). Why is copyright be different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Manry (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 7:49am

Qualcomm is reversing
A Qualcomm representative stated:
"Since issuing these requests, we have been advised that at least one of these files may, in fact, not be Qualcomm Confidential. At this time, Qualcomm is retracting all of those DMCA take-down requests, and will be either reviewing such files further for possible approval for posting, or reaching out collaboratively to the project maintainers for assistance in addressing any remaining concerns. To those project maintainers who received these DMCA notices, we apologize for the approach taken."
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/07/05/qualcomm-backtracks-after-issuing-dmca-takedown-notic es-for-116-github-repos-including-some-belonging-to-cyanogen-sony-and-qualcomm/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:07am

This sounds familiar...
Because if you're going to create collateral damage, why not try to hit everyone? [...] Qualcomm has been trying to create "better relations with the open-source community for sometime."

It's the Dick Cheney method of creating better relations. "Shock and awe" bombing in the major population centers, lots of collateral damage, and then expect the population to greet you as liberators.

Watch for Qualcomm and Cyveillance to dismiss this as a hunting accident.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:08am

"latest involves Qualcomm hiring Cyveillance to issue a DMCA notice to Github, demanding the site take down [...] Qualcomm's own repository."

Maybe one lesson might be to do your own dirty work in future. Perhaps a Qualcomm employee might have noticed s/he was demanding a take down of their very own repository.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:23am

The Witch hunters of old would be proud that their practices are still being used and perfected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:24am

Re:
Because corporate lobbyists paid good money to buy these laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:28am

Re:
Unlikely. As things are, they don't just save paying their own staff, but they get to deflect blame when things go wrong. Even if the perjury provisions within the DMCA are actually applied for once, they might be able to get round it by saying that it was Cyveillance rather than Qualcomm who agreed to that clause.

The only way around this is for those who issue false takedown notices to face real punishment, especially in cases where they're clearly just spamming without checking what they're asking to be taking down (as in this case). They'll only behave themselves when they're held accountable. Sadly, that either requires a major change in the law, or the results of a major lawsuit that will probably take years to complete. Not holding my breath for either of those in the near future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:34am

Re: Qualcomm is reversing
IOW: "Oops, I guess that was pretty douchey of us, maybe we should do it properly now."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:52am

Re: Qualcomm is reversing
"To those project maintainers who received these DMCA notices, we apologize for the approach taken."
Qualcomm seems to have forgotten to add "and we promise to appropriately compensate the affected parties for the damage we caused through our gross negligence in this matter."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:56am

Re: Qualcomm is reversing
When a corporation thinks someone has a text configuration file that might, somehow, be their property, it's a major emergency, in need of sooper dooper emergency DMCA powers!

If said corporation uses said nuclear weapon on many targets, and then realized it was a mistake. It's just an Ooops, sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ThatFatMan (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 8:57am

Re: Re: Qualcomm is reversing
Not forgotten. It was in the Terms & Conditions on their website that they aren't financially liable if they issue a Bogus DMCA takedown notice. You agreed to it, remember?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 9:06am

Re: Re: Re: Qualcomm is reversing
I never visited their website, so I never saw or agreed to a Terms & Conditions. Besides, you're confusing "financially liable" in the sense that I could get a court to force them to do it with "morally liable" in the sense that they look like jerks for trying to get off with nothing more than "Sorry we broke everything for days. We might do better next time, but probably not."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 7 Jul 2014 @ 9:14am

Re: Re:
The only way around this is for those who issue false takedown notices to face real punishment, especially in cases where they're clearly just spamming without checking what they're asking to be taking down (as in this case).

Have some well meaning congress critter add on an unknown amendment, because they didn't read it (we all know," we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"), making a single word change in the DMCA takedown requirements (late at night, before a holiday weekend major sporting event, natural disaster or country invasion), turning "under penalty of perjury" to "under penalty of death". Then have the government carry out a few of the sentences (in Texas, so it will be done in a timely manner), while saying, "Sorry, sorry", and that is how to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 7 Jul 2014 @ 9:14am

Re: This sounds familiar...
the Dick Cheney method of creating better relations

I thought that was just shooting your friend in the face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 9:24am

Re: Qualcomm is reversing
No punishment issued. Expect more "errors".

Still, if it was indeed an honest mistake it spells incompetence all over it. Dunno which is worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 9:51am

Re: Re: Qualcomm is reversing
At the very least, the "punishment" was bad PR for Qualcomm, so in a way they've received their public punishment and shaming. Whether that matters to them or not is a different matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 10:00am

Re: Re: This sounds familiar...
Well, this was arguably a case of Qualcomm shooting their friends in the face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ThatFatMan (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 10:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Qualcomm is reversing
You're right. I should have said they weren't liable for compensating the affected parties. All I was really trying to do was take a crack at KlearGear and General Mills and others for their ridiculous Terms&Conditions (e.g., https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140417/08180426946/general-mills-says-if-you-like-cheerios-faceb ook-you-can-no-longer-sue.shtml ; https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140324/03123726668/kleargear-no-shows-hearing-reinstates-3500-no n-disparagement-clause.shtml ) I clearly failed :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 11:39am

I can't wait for the day when these companies finds out how "whitelisting" works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 11:50am

Re: Qualcomm is reversing
I would be better if they continued with:
"And we will be firing those people responsible for issuing the false takedowns and we beg you not to take your business elsewhere."

But why should they? A simple "Oops, our bad" is all companies do when this happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
beltorak (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 12:07pm

Re:
I dunno, I think they might view this level of automation as witchcraft; or at the very least "the work of the devil".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Snape (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 12:31pm

Every time a company makes a mistake like this, the errorists win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 1:40pm

Give them what they ask for, just not what they want
Every time a company outsources their DMCA 'duties', with the almost inevitable affect that the company's own site gets included in the takedown list, the one receiving the list should do exactly as asked, and de-list/remove the site in question.

HBO hires a company who lists HBO.com as infringing? Well, obviously they'd know best, de-list it.

Company targets it's own programming repository like this? Well, if they really want it removed, better pull it right away.

Basically any company targeting their own stuff/sites, either directly or via a third party, should have those parts of the DMCA claims taken at face value, with scrutiny only applied to the grey area stuff, where it's not as clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 4:10pm

I've been waiting for one of these DMCA-happy RIAA members to shut down its own sales site. ("That site is selling all kinds of copyrighted music! Kill it!")

Not quite there yet, but it'll happen. Wait for it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 6:08pm

Re:
It's only failed to happen because the ones receiving the notices haven't followed through with it like I suggested above.

Remember, HBO hired a company that listed HBO's own site as hosting pirated content, imagine how hilarious it would have been had Google taken them at their word and delisted them due to it.

How Much Does HBO Pay MarkMonitor To Send DMCA Notices Removing Its Official Content From Google?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130205/03124421884/how-much-does-hbo-pay-markmonitor-to-s end-dmca-notices-removing-its-official-content-google.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 7:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Qualcomm is reversing
I never visited their website, so I never saw or agreed to a Terms & Conditions.
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2014 @ 9:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
Nah, these companies won't care about losing a few staff.

Punishment for issuing a bogus DMCA notice, including a notice which is successfully appealed under fair use claims, should be a mandatory loss of the copyright to the public domain, plus a small fine to assist funding a registry of known public domain works.

Then these companies will care what their outsourcing partners are doing on their behalf!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jul 2014 @ 10:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
For added humor value, and since they seem to like them so much, use a 'Strikes' system.

Strike one: The ones who filed the DMCA claim pay any fees or costs caused by the false takedown. Anyone can make mistakes, so this is to deal with that.

Strike two: The ones who filed the DMCA claim pay any fees or costs caused by the false takedown. Additionally, no DMCA claims may be made by the copyright owner, or any company they hire or employ, for a period of one month.

Strike three: The copyright in question is immediately revoked, and placed into the public domain. In addition, the copyright owner, or any company they hire or employ, may not file a DMCA claim for a period of six months.

If a company can go for one full year without getting a 'strike', the next strike they would incur starts at the lowest level, 'Strike one'.

If however they incur further strikes within a year of their last one, after having reached the third strike on a different copyright, they are punished as though they had received another 'Strike three', and the copyright in question is revoked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 8 Jul 2014 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lets include the same statutory damages for filing false DMCA claims and takedown, as statutory damages for copyright infringement, and I believe we have a deal.

Maybe the fear of being held civilly and monetarily liable will make them double and triple check, before randomly shooting off their DMCA mouths.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 12:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, all you'd need to do is to enforce the perjury penalties for filing a false DMCA claim, those come with prison time, and if they knew that filing an obviously false claim would get them behind bars for a year or two, I think they'd be a lot more careful to check before filing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Companies do not care about prison time (especially since they can just get another warm unsuspecting body to sign on the "under penalty of perjury line"), because you can't send a company to prison, but they do care about money.

It is their bottom line they're worried about, not the part-time (because it doesn't take 40 hours a week to sign on the dotted line) employee. The way they see it, why waste perfectly good money on a hiring a full-time employee, with health care, 401K benefits and a company parking space, who is going to end up in prison for perjury anyway? It is only the bottom line they are concerned with, and that bottom line is and always will be: M-O-N-E-Y.

As long as they can keep making money, even if their company is ground into the dirt through the court system (and they subsequently start up a new one doing the same old song and dance), they don't care.

Take their money and make it hurt, put them out in the cold and take their shirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eldakka (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 8:17pm

Perjury?
IANAL, but my understanding is that DMCA takedown notices are issued under "penalty of perjury". I.e. it's a affidavit/stat dec.

I thought there were penalties for false statements made under "penalty of perjury". So while there is no specific penalty for issuing a false/wrong DMCA notice, surely the damaged parties could fall back on using making false statements under penalty of perjury complaints against the issuer?

I thought one of the 'canned' statements in the DMCA takedown was something along the lines of "I declare under penalty of perjury that the requested takedown material breaches copyrights".

Therefore when it is used to takedown trademarked material, they have outright lied on signing their name to the DMCA notice. They have perjured themselves.

I think an argument could also be made for perjury when the issuer issues a takedown for copyrights they don't own or that don't exist. Surely there is a duty of care when swearing under penalty of perjury that at least a valid copyright exists, otherwise on what basis is the belief that a copyright is being infringed made on?

Again, IANAL, but surely even if there are no specific penalties for issuing a false DMCA notice, there are penalties for perjury that could be applied?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Wanderer (profile), 20 Jul 2014 @ 4:56pm

Re: Perjury?
If I recall and understand matters correctly, the only "under penalty of perjury" part is the statement certifying that the person filing the DMCA takedown request either is the copyright holder for the work they're issuing the claim under, or is acting on behalf of the same.

There are no apparent penalties in the law for making a false statement about the rest of it - including, again IIRC, the claim that the work at the identified location infringes on the copyright in question. You do have to certify that you have a "good faith belief" that some parts of it are true, but that's a very different thing from certifying that those parts are true, and virtually impossible to disprove.
[ link to this | view in thread ]