Record Labels Issue Takedown To Take Kim Dotcom's Album Down From His Own Site

from the just-another-accident dept

Thu, Sep 4th 2014 4:02am — Mike Masnick

We've heard some folks claim that all these bogus takedown notices we write about are just "anomalies" rather than a pattern of abuse of the law for the purpose of censorship. And yet, there are more and more examples every day. The latest one is particularly bizarre. IFPI (the international version of the RIAA) has apparently been issuing a series of bogus takedown notices to get Kim Dotcom's album "Good Times" taken down off of his own site, Mega. That's... quite incredible. This does not appear to be a strange attempt to hide Dotcom's music, but it looks to just be pure sloppiness on the part of the IFPI issuing misguided takedowns. That is, the IFPI takedown notice lists a totally different song (and it turns out this is the second time this has happened to Dotcom's album in the past month). As short-sighted as the IFPI is, it would take an other wordly level of stupidity to directly target Dotcom's music with a bogus takedown. Even the IFPI must know that that would backfire badly. The story that it's an "accident" makes much more sense.

Dotcom filed a counternotice and the album was back up after about a day of being down. However, the real issue here is just how common this sort of thing is. And it comes from the same folks who like to (1) insist that it's "easy" to tell infringing works from non-infringing works and (2) demand that entire sites be blocked based just on their say-so that those sites are "illegal." Of course, Dotcom has some experience on that front, seeing as his own website, Megaupload, was shut down nearly three years ago, despite no adversarial hearing in a court of law on whether or not it was legal.

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: kim dotcom, takedown
Companies: ifpi, mega

86 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 2:20am

Wait...Dotcom had to file a counter-notice for his OWN SITE? Why didn't he just read the IFPI's notice, laugh and throw it in the bin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:24am
  
  Re:
  Because without the records to show that the site administration takes even this crap seriously, they might get shut down completely.
  
  DMCA compliance is not optional.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    DMCA compliance is not optional.
    
    Actually, it is. They'd lose immunity from liability if they didn't comply, but since they OBVIOUSLY aren't liable here, that hardly matters.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      THIS!!!
      
      Most people have this strange assumption that if you ignore a knowingly bogus DMCA you are somehow still liable.
      
      Also to note is MEGA is an organisation of New Zealand. The DMCA is a USA ONLY LEGISLATION and has NO BEARING whatsoever on non US entities and is worth basically squat.
      
      Interestingly whether this is a mistake or not Dotcom (and to a lesser extent Mega) now has a cause of action against IFPI under NZ law. Hopefully he will take them to task.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Without upfront immunity, you have to pay your defense in court. There are no more deep-pocketed lawyering departments than those of the music industry. They can afford the cost of hassling a target much longer than it can pay for its defense.
      
      And your money is gone unless you can show clearly frivolous intentions. And the bar for that is rather high. When they commit an "honest mistake" due to you not responding to legal notices, they can beat off the frivolity claim rather easily. And once they are past that, your legal tab is running.
      
      And theirs is fielded by the artists: the artists get paid percentages of the profits. The profits are reduced by the legal costs. "Too bad, dear artists, our legal costs skyrocketed because of us having to fight piracy. Less money for you, complain to the Internet."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Actually, it is."
      
      It's technically optional, but is not actually optional in real-world terms. As designed. It's actually a pretty good example of how "voluntary cooperation" is quite often not voluntary at all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mason Wheeler (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Precisely. As I've said before, these stories Techdirt and similar sites run so frequently about "DMCA abuses" are not abuses at all; they're the DMCA performing exactly as designed, when it was drafted by a bunch of copyright maximalists. The problem isn't people "using it wrong;" the problem is that the law itself is evil and needs to be repealed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bergman (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 5:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This. The DMCA seems to be riddled with loopholes that allow for abuse -- and people always assume that the lawyers who wrote the law put them in by accident.
        
        The DMCA seems to have safeguards when read by the average guy on the street, but those safeguards are negated by the lawyerese they are written in, such that a court takes one look and dumps the "safeguard".
        
        It's pretty clear that none of that is accidental.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 1:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    DMCA compliance is not optional.
    
    Is Mega an US company or subject to US law? -eye roll-
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Tell that to DVD Jon, or Dimitri Skylarov, or, for that matter, that NZ company whose servers were taken in a questionably legal raid not long ago and whose owner has been threatened by the FBI for not complying with contradictory demands.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:27am
  
  Re:
  Because he has to be extra careful, so that his actions or failure to act cannot be misrepresented as piracy. In particular the RIAA and MPAA would love to be able to show that he ignores notices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    That. But he now has the ammo to shoot the MAFIAA practices. You see, they complained he didn't follow the DMCA things in the US (no mention that MU didn't have any business in the US). He can clearly use this as an example of how flawed their process is and how much burden it poses in user generated services.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Problem is that, as Mike said, it only looks sloppy. Courts have held that he has to show it was actually malicious. Good luck with that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Geno0wl (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Which is why we should make it illegal to have automated Takedown systems...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That would take changing the law, and you can be damn sure that there would be one massive fight to avoid making automated takedowns illegal. Good idea, but not likely to happen any time soon.
        
        Instead, just do what one of the AC's below has done:
        
        'I have gotten rid of automated takedown notices via the simple expedient of firewalling out the mail servers that send them. (After all: I am under no obligation whatsoever to provide free email reception services to ANYONE.)
        
        Anybody who is actually serious about sending a takedown notice should send it via registered mail. Anyone who is too lazy, stupid, ignorant, cheap or sloppy to do that can just pound sand.'
        
        That way you can still comply with the system/law, but automated takedowns are almost completely eliminated. If someone wants something down, it's going to take work on their part, so they're much more likely to double-check everything first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If Google were to do this with firewalling out the mail servers that send them out then no doubt there will be outcry from the MAFIAA who send millions of DMCA's to Google each month via email who will no doubt insist that Google is doing everything to avoid following the law of the DMCA etc.
        
        I would be glad if Google were to firewall the mail servers and that the MAFIAA has to send the DMCA's to Google via the postal service which will take longer to reach Google for them to process. It won't come cheap for the MAFIAA to send via postal service but then they should be paying the cost being as they are the ones having to police for their copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 3:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google won't do this for a very simple reason: it would cost them a LOT more money to handle DMCA takedowns that way. There's a reason they set up their takedown system the way they did, and it wasn't (for once) to appease copyright holders. It was to reduce their own costs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not so sure. If they required takedown requests to be mailed in, their costs for handling them might increase, but so would the costs to those sending them out. Postage alone would make the 'millions of requests' per month prohibitively expensive, so I imagine the number being sent in would drop drastically pretty quick after such a change.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe the solution is to create a form which is effectively a giant CAPTCHA - using random names on the form fields and repositioning them with CSS and Javascript should keep the MAFIAA's bot programmers entertained for a while.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " I imagine the number being sent in would drop drastically pretty quick after such a change."
        
        Maybe, but I rather doubt it. It would cost more to actually mail out physical requests, but not prohibitively more. What is the cost of them just doing what they already do, except instead of emailing the requests, they print them up and ship them in bulk? I'm not sure, but if the expense of sending out junk mail is any indication, it would be pennies per request.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Courts in the USA state that.
        
        The DMCA doesn't concern Dotcom here since he is not under it's jurisdiction (and neither are IFPI).
        
        See this can become a major problem now IFPI under NZ civil law and maybe criminal as well if they signed a document that can be construed to be the same as signing something under the Oaths Act.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:33am
  
  Re:
  He is not the CEO of the website anymore, even tho he is the founder and owner, just like Bill Gates and Microsoft.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pegr, 4 Sep 2014 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  That's what I was thinking. Do absolutely nothing. Let them get their lawsuit pants on, then counter-sue them. I would love to be a juror on that trial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fred, 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:08am

you don't thibk maybe Kim is sending them himself? i wouldn't put it past him to try to get attention from the media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:33am
  
  Re:
  I'm not saying Kim is a nice person, but he would have to be a fool (and I don't believe he is) to not have thought this through to what would happen after the initial short term good publicity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:08am
  
  Re:
  Compared to the number of things I wouldn't put past the rightsholders, I consider this quite less likely.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  "you don't thibk maybe Kim is sending them himself? i wouldn't put it past him to try to get attention from the media."
  
  I was thinking this myself , Dotcom is an attention whore so why not drum up some free PR for his music , I certainly hope it's not true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Whatever (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 8:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    I was also thinking that source of this story (Torrentfreak) is a bit on the weak side. Kim Dotcom either owns part of that site, or is paying them for publicity, because they are about the only ones who will run his stories anymore. Notice that the story doesn't come with the actual take down notice.
    
    Oh, and for the record, Kim claims not to own or control Mega. So it's not his own site, unless of course he's full of shit about ownership control too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Speaking of full of shit, we are still waiting on those citations for everything false you stated over the last few days about Android and "agreements to use an app and allow it access to your data".
      
      It's kind of interesting how you never respond to those who directly call you out on falsehoods.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Whatever (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hi Paul, so you are down to posting as an anonymous troll now?
        
        Still using the "make a statement a few days later and then call you a liar" routine? Aren't you bored of it yet? Sorry if I don't go back to older threads to engage you some more, it's really too dull to try to keep up with you.
        
        BTW, the login thing is at the top right of the page, you can click it before you post next time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        yes, it is much easier to just move on to the next article to spread your lies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're not really one to start talking about not logging in while posting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 1:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, so your basing things on false assumptions rather than evidence isn't restricted to your technical opinions, but everything you do? Good to know.
        
        No, that wasn't me. I don't post anonymously. I post honest opinions, and don't need to hide since I'm not afraid to back down, change my mind and apologise if proven wrong. That you are so dishonest that you can't cite your own "facts" (aka outright lies) or make an honest argument, doesn't mean that others are similarly dishonest.
        
        So, deal with the fact that more than one person recognised that you're a pathological liar or present the requested evidence to back up your own claims for once. I have a long weekend planned, so whatever phantoms you imagine are me talking to you will not be me. Good luck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 2:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, that wasn't me. I don't post anonymously.
        
        Oh come on Paul. You can do better than that.
        
        I post honest opinions
        
        Yes, too bad you don't extend that courtesy to others.
        
        That you are so dishonest that you can't cite your own "facts" (aka outright lies) or make an honest argument, doesn't mean that others are similarly dishonest.
        
        That you don't agree with someone doesn't make them a liar. It means you disagree. One day you may come to understand that.
        
        deal with the fact that more than one person recognised that you're a pathological liar
        
        Only one guy with a pack of adhom attacks on me personally, and that's you. Sucks to get caught, doesn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 2:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Aww hurt your little feelings again? Cling to your fictions and refuse to back up the crap you spew, I expect nothing more from you. I do wonder what it's like to have to cower in a fantasy world so you don't have to deal with harsh reality, though. Perhaps the AC can get a better answer out of you than I can.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't hurt my feelings troll, you just make me laugh. Sucks that you got caught out, next time try better!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry dude, your preferred fiction is not the truth, yet again. I was not the AC you presumed I was. But you'll stick to lies, and anyone pointing out that you lied is a "troll". Of course, you'll whine if anyone calls you a name, even if it's true, but see no problem in calling others names, or even falsely accusing them of criminal activity. But, god forbid people call you a liar based on you, well, lying, or even simply ask you to cite the bullshit your claims are based on.
        
        Pathetic as ever, you sad, strange little man.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now, that's the most unjustified use of being cocky in a long time. Impressive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Only one guy with a pack of adhom attacks on me personally, and that's you. Sucks to get caught, doesn't it?
        
        Nope I think you are a complete & hypocritical confabulating malcontent as well.
        
        So again you are wrong.
        
        Sucks to be you hey?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Oh come on Paul. You can do better than that."
        
        Just FYI, that wasn't Paul. That was me and I choose to post anonymously.
        
        "That you don't agree with someone doesn't make them a liar. It means you disagree. One day you may come to understand that."
        
        That is all true. Yet, again, you have stated things about Android and about "agreements that have been entered with to provide data to use apps" that are at best simply false and are at worst flat out lies.
        
        I specifically called you out numerous times, both that day and again yesterday and now again right this moment, and asked you to cite sources for your statements or admit that they were bullshit.
        
        You did not do so then (yet you managed to post again numerous times throughout that day in other articles and at least once more in that same one) and have refused to do so now.
        
        So what we have is clear proof that when called out to cite sources for claims you make and "facts" you spew, you will not do so.
        
        That makes you a liar.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Only one guy with a pack of adhom attacks on me personally, and that's you. Sucks to get caught, doesn't it?"
        
        Oh and it's not an adhom to call someone a liar who refuses to cite sources for claims they make.
        
        You see, how it works is, if you do something like, I don't know, make things up then that does indeed make you a liar. Which means it is something true and therefore not an ad hominem to state as much when the time comes to do so.
        
        So no, as much as you feel persecuted and attacked by Paul, it wasn't him who called you a liar and said you're full of shit. It was me. Why? Because at present, until you provide proof to the contrary, via citations, you are in fact full of shit and a liar. At least when it comes to everything you stated about and relating to Android, app development for it and apps that block data to apps via so called "agreements made to use them".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hi Paul.
        
        You are fooling nobody, except maybe yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        After reading through the threads it would seem that the person is just making comments to cause annoyance on purpose because they find it funny to act that way. If people were to click on report for spam/troll comments rather than play the persons game and reply to them then people will be able to have a good debate rather than playing some persons game for their enjoyment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's because Whatever's a troll. When is everyone going to learn to stop feeding it? If all of you hadn't caught on before, it should been obvious a few days ago when this consummate Google hater defended Google as soon as Masnick criticized them. This is blindingly obvious trolling. I can only conclude that for all the hypocritical complaints about this fucking troll, that people actually enjoy feeding it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 10:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Kim Dotcom either owns part of that site, or is paying them for publicity [..]
      
      Does the phrase "stepped on your crank" mean anything to you? because you have now totally done it..
      
      You really have no freakin idea what or whom runs Torrent Freak do you? And by that statement of yours you have absolutely discredited yourself and shown you have absolutely no - if there was any to start with - credibility WHATSOEVER!
      
      Just wow... The conspiracy theories are strong with you aren't they! Maybe you should join people like Kimberlin, Crystal Cox, and Ayyadurai and make a Club! You'll fit in well
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I totally agree. Until the poster provides evidence of Dotcom owning a part of the TF site or controls it then they are just pissing in the wind with spouting opinions that are devoid of factual evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Whatever (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you pay attention, Torrent Freak is about the only site that posts "news" from Kim Dotcom. You can go an check out some of the stories (and non-stories) about Kim, even the comments are generally "how much are you guys getting paid?". TF has resolutely continued to be Kim's public mouth piece.
        
        It's clear that Kim has a relationship with them that goes beyond the norm, and that they are writing stories favorable of him hoping that more mainstream sites like Techdirt might pick them up and amplify them.
        
        As a result, it's pretty fair to ask if Kim has an ownership interest or is paying to get his stories run. Even the most loyal of TF reader rolls their eyes and makes snide comments when his stories run.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only thing here that is clear, is that you are a paid Hollywood shill and a lying sack of crap
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  It's pretty obvious he did just that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 2:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If it's 'pretty obvious', then it should be 'pretty easy' to get some evidence to support that claim, shouldn't it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Whatever (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did you notice a lack of a "DMCA" letter in all of this? No example, no scan, no nothing? You know Kim, if he had the goods he would be waving it around. The lack of material is sort of obvious here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Which might have something to do with the DMCA being an american law, and therefor not applicable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Notice the "DMCA" part? In New Zealand, there is no DMCA law, which means in fact that any claim of copyright infringement could in fact lead directly to a lawsuit - WITHOUT NOTIFICATION. That companies extend the courtesy outside of the US to send them notification is a positive things, and not a negative things.
        
        A DMCA style notification outside of the US is pretty much the first step towards a lawsuit. It's like a lawyers letter, without having to be quite so formal.
        
        DMCA may not be the law outside of the US, but most honest hosting companies are happy to accept those types of notices, as it's better than getting served with a lawsuit directly - which is legally very possible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 10:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you meant DMCA-like, as in a notice that serves the same purpose, your wording wasn't the best there.
        
        From the source article:
        To find out why the album was removed we contacted Mega for an explanation. The company informed us that music industry group IFPI requested the removal of Dotcom’s album through a takedown request sent on September 1.
        
        If you and other posters are going to claim that it's 'obvious' that he sent the notification himself(which raises the question why?), then it's on you to provide supporting evidence for such a claim, because I, or any other person could just as easily say it's 'obvious' that he didn't send the takedown notice himself, and the events are indeed as they are reported.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 2:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, but the "source" article is TorrentFreak talking to the company that Kim "owns". You want to bet that Kim sent the story and the company "answer" at the same time?
        
        If you and other posters are going to claim that it's 'obvious' that he sent the notification himself(which raises the question why?),
        
        Why? Let's see... I can guess he is royally pissed off because he lost in court (again) in regarded to seized assets. Think of it as an attempt to create a little "positive" press when he keeps on losing in court.
        
        He may or may not have sent the notice himself, but the timing is a little too good, and he is a little too quick to crow about it, we are talking literally 2 days from notice to resolution to Torrentfreak story. Is he that desperate for attention? I think so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 1:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Notice the "DMCA" part? In New Zealand, there is no DMCA law, which means in fact that any claim of copyright infringement could in fact lead directly to a lawsuit - WITHOUT NOTIFICATION. That companies extend the courtesy outside of the US to send them notification is a positive things, and not a negative things.
        
        Lets put this in the real perspective shall we.
        
        US Companies do NOT extend any courtesy whatsoever in fact the only reason they do so is becasue they are very worried and absolutely hate the New Zealand legal systems requirement of LOSER PAYS! Australia has the same requirement!
        
        See if a bogus copyright dispute is taken to court and the alleged copyright owner (plaintiff) loses the case then court costs including solicitor fees are awarded AGAINST them and they HAVE to pay. the MPAA et.al found out this at their peril in regards to iiNet ;)
        
        So the only courtesy they have is the courtesy not to flood the court with bogus claims because they know they will wear the costs.
        
        As for getting served without notice.. NOPE again you are wrong, there are specific procedural motions that need to go through before a lawsuit could even commence. Procedural Fairness is a big thing in New Zealand, Australia and countries with pure democracies you see. Unlike the USA.
        
        Oh and great use of an ad hominem in declaring that any hosting company that refuses to kowtow to the USA's jurisdictionally anomalous DMCA legislation is somehow not honest. *slow clap*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 2:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you honestly think that "loser pays" would be an issue? All things being equal, in a loser pay situation they would win a huge percentage of their cases and be in good shape.
        
        The real issue is that for the most part, they would be suing empty pocket defendants and corporations hiding their assets offshore who would never fulfill their losing judgements. So no matter how big a percentage of the cases they would win, they would still be losers.
        
        As for getting served without notice.. NOPE again you are wrong, there are specific procedural motions that need to go through before a lawsuit could even commence.
        
        None of which would change the facts of a case. They wouldn't get a chance to remove the offending content and say "sorry", because there is not DMCA style laws. It would just be steps towards the lawsuit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        One reason they don't sue personal downloaders in Australia is that they are restricted to actual damages (and only the rights holder can sue, not, say, a record store). If they actually did sue someone, the tiny amount would (a) mean they're restricted to the small claims court so they can't bury the downloader in fees and procedures, (b) everyone would realise how little "harm" is done by private pirates, and (c) everyone would realise that it is cheaper to just download everything and cough up when sued.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:53am

Well, bogus notice for bogus notice without punishment why don't we all start issuing bogus notices to take down IFPI from the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 4:53am

So at what point are we going to attach any costs for what amounts to lying?
Anyone getting the faulty notice has to pay the costs to deal with the slipshod crap they shovel at them (Google gets huge numbers of invalid claims every single day.)
They refuse to improve the system because they hope that stuff they want gone, even if it isn't theirs will just get pulled. There is nothing making them get better, in fact I am guessing they are getting worse. They make a lovely feather in the cap when wanting more expansion of the broken copyright laws around the world, we sent 22 kajillion requests! 21,999,999,999,999,999,999 of them were completely invalid but those are the costs others have to bear.
And when they hit a smaller host, they have to scramble to remove it first and cope later because the law will punish them for not answering the demand to jump now.

$100 per bogus takedown seems about right. $50 for the target, $50 for the host. They would owe the GDP of several nations right quick unless they improve their systems. To much making everyone else bear their costs for a legacy industry bent on keeping control even if they have to burn the world to keep it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:28am
  
  Re:
  Nononono I only see two balanced options:
  1. Treat every lost server requests as a lost click on the shopping basket confirmation button and multiply the number of denied server requests during the downtime with the average sale price multiplied by 3 for punitive measures.
  2. three strikes: 3 false take down notices concerning the same piece of work results in that work going public domain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Just Another Anonymous Troll, 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    As for 2, you do realize that any troll can file false takedowns, right? This would completely destroy the good or bad of copyright, because I could file three notices on anything I want into the public domain or just to spite a certain artist and poof, public domain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think he means that you lose the rights to the work you're claiming the target is an infringing copy or derivative of, which you have to claim ownership of under oath (and that's the only part which the comment about perjury applies to).
      
      If a takedown notice can't be authenticated, then it should be permissible to treat it as valid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alternatives(), 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  at point are we going to attach any costs for what amounts to lying?
  
  At the point when lawyers and others in lawsuits start getting nailed for such.
  
  $100 per bogus takedown seems about right.
  
  Simple cost of doing business for SLAAP'n someone you don't like then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 11:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Given that each notice being sent can contain thousands of links, and a large portion are bogus the amount would climb very quickly.
    Not a per request, per bogus demand.
    
    There are no lawyers sending these requests (well mostly) it is firms that specialize in really poorly written bots who compile larges lists and send them on.
    As they are authorized to act on behalf of the rightsholder, the rights holder should bear the costs.
    
    One would think that having to pay out even 50 of these would make a nice ripple. $50K here for 1 bad submission... shame they send out 300 requests that day with the same flaws.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 8:28am
  
  Re:
  $10,000 per bogus take down notice, per board member of the organization issuing the notice. Automatic fraud charges against all board members individually after 10 notices in 12 consecutive months. Minimum sentence if found guilty is 12 months in federal prison and forfeiture of all assets gained during the time period of the 10 bogus notices relating to the organization issuing take down requests.
  
  You want this to stop? Make the people at the top liable for what their business is doing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:00am

Maybe there should be a rating system whereby entities have their ratings lowered for every bogus take-down they issue. Once the rating reaches a certain point, they would lose the privilege of being allowed to issue automated take-down notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:01am
  
  Re:
  Better yet, just get rid of automated take-down notices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    I have gotten rid of automated takedown notices via the simple expedient of firewalling out the mail servers that send them. (After all: I am under no obligation whatsoever to provide free email reception services to ANYONE.)
    
    Anybody who is actually serious about sending a takedown notice should send it via registered mail. Anyone who is too lazy, stupid, ignorant, cheap or sloppy to do that can just pound sand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:20am
  
  Re:
  Maybe there should be a rating system whereby entities have their ratings lowered for every bogus take-down they issue.
  
  All that would really be needed would be to publish this information in the form of a league table. Google could easily do it.
  
  Of course such a table would quickly become a target itself....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can we call it the "Special 302 Report"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:07am

IFPI teasing Dotcom - annoyed they haven't been able to take down MEGA yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:07am

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 5:55am

It is worth remembering that the same IFPI that is DMCA'ing DotCom's own work from his own service is also colluding with the PIPCU in the UK to come up with a secret list of "infringing" sites. Now why should we think that IFPI's efforts in determining that list are any more competent than their takedown processes? I can't think of any...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:59am
  
  Re:
  I expect that IFPI is likely to define any site they've sent a DMCA request to as an "infringing" site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  What does the IFPI have to do with this? Where is the proven citation they had anything to do with it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    We will use your usual industry standard. Guilty until proven innocent. Where is your proof that they didn't?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 6:58am

I can't wait for the City of London Police to weigh in on this. Afterall, they are the copyright police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MadAsASnake (profile), 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  Unlikely. They have to ask IFPI or FACT for a response anyway - they don't seem to know any answers themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 7:38am

"Even the IFPI must know that that would backfire badly. The story that it's an "accident" makes much more sense."

No.

No, I won't make their excuses for them. This happens too often to be excused as an accident. After all, if it was an accident, they would have *fixed* it by now, wouldn't they?

They do this sort of shit, and rob other people of their income, and they have the *gall* to complain about piracy? No. I don't want excuses any more. They don't cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re:
  After all, if it was an accident, they would have *fixed* it by now, wouldn't they?
  
  No. Why would they care about fixing the bogus takedown problem? It would cost money to build a better system, or higher more competent companies to handle this for them, and they gain nothing by doing so. They're already open and explicit in their desire to socialize their costs by making everyone else pay for the enforcement of their copyrights while keeping all the profits for themselves. Why would they be willing to burn their own money to fix someone else's problems?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2014 @ 8:24am

Bogus Take-downs are INFRINGEMENT!
Bogus Take-downs are INFRINGEMENT! Period. Could he make use of that revenue stream because of it? No. Did it prevent the dissemination of his works? Yes! Then it is infringement. Might even be actual real world damages owed. Provable ones. Sic'em, Kim!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questioner, 4 Sep 2014 @ 8:48am

Good-Faith Deposit for Takedown?
Wouldn't it reduce censorship via fraudulent take-down notices if a web site first required a good-faith deposit? If no objection is raised, the deposit could be returned after a reasonable period to allow the objection to be made.

Unless the would-be censor chooses to pursue the attempt via the courts, the deposit would be split between the censorship victim and the site as a minor offset to the inconvenience caused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 2:47am

And yet again, a copyright maximalist group sends out a fake takedown notice.

Sadly, since we can't prove malicious intent (despite it being obvious in most cases) they will get away with it.

This must stop. It's time the DMCA is amended to remove the good-faith provision, as it's clear the copyright groups haven't been using the DMCA in good faith for a long time.

Any DMCA takedown request *must* swear under penalty of perjury that *all* requested content is owned by the person or group filing it, and does not come under Fair Use.

Perhaps large fines and jail time will convince these people to do the right thing for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GEMont (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 6:32pm
  
  Re:
  Methinks the Just Ice System is holding off on adjusting things in that direction until after they can eliminate the whole concept of Fair Use.
  
  Of course, then it will be un-necessary to adjust things in that direction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEMont (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 6:29pm

The real question is.....
The only question I'd like an answer to, pertaining to this awful state of affairs called DMCA, is why is the law continuing to allow this obviously criminal behaviour when there are actual legal repercussions for misusing the process?

Why is American Justice absolutely blind to the continued misuse of this system and unable or unwilling to punish those who actually break the letter of the law, repeatedly?

Oh! This just in.

A plain brown-paper envelopes addressed to "You Guys" from "The Hollywood Division of Graft and Payoffs.", and oh look what's inside! 25,000 dollars!

Never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]