Revealed: How To Get The IFPI To Issue Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Just About Anything, With No Questions Asked And No Review
from the incredible dept
A few weeks ago, we wrote about how the IFPI (sort of the international RIAA) had bizarrely issued a DMCA takedown on Kim Dotcom's own album off of his own website, Mega. Obviously, the IFPI holds no copyright on Dotcom's album, and the takedown was obviously false. We noted that, while some might believe that this was a deliberate move by the IFPI in its anti-Kim Dotcom crusade, that seemed unlikely. It seemed like pure sloppiness. However, a recent post at TorrentFreak reveals more details about why and how the IFPI sent such a takedown -- and why it happened again just weeks later.The simple explanation? The IFPI is not even remotely careful in how it builds its list for takedowns. It's scraping links from Pastebin and assuming they're what people say they are, even if they're totally unrelated. Yes, some pranksters have basically been posting links to Dotcom's music on Pastebin, pretending that they're some other songs, and the IFPI is sending takedowns based on that alone.
Eventually we stumbled upon a series of Pastebin pages where the URL of Dotcom’s album is linked to titles of other artists. Several of the artists mentioned in the pastes are the same as the one’s IFPI listed in their DMCA notices, so this would explain the mistakes.Good investigative work by TorrentFreak. Horrible investigative work by the IFPI. Especially given the seriousness of demanding content be taken offline entirely based on bogus copyright claims.
But this is even more troubling in that it basically means any prankster can probably get the IFPI to start removing... just about anything. If there were real punishments for sending bogus DMCA takedowns, this sort of practice would stop, but since there isn't, the IFPI can just keep doing this, and pranksters can "guide" the IFPI into taking down plenty of legitimate content. It's yet another example of copyright as censorship, rather than having anything to do with legitimate copyright purposes.
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: censorship, copyright, dmca, pastebin, takedowns
Companies: ifpi, mega
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The bleeding obvious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bleeding obvious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bleeding obvious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope some prankster on Pastebin does target legitimate content so that the punishment for DMCA abuse can be tried in court and should it be found guilty then it will set a precedent to be used against a copyright holder for their bogus DMCA takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read the article. That's what they're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd guess that the IFPI probably has a whitelist though, so they'd have to go after other influential people who may be able to do something after getting upset -- aren't there some US senators who have written some music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From a group that included members that have opted to demand more than the law allows and then abused that access?
Yeah couldn't possibly have come from one of them.
There really needs to be a penalty for a bogus demands, they will not make it better without motivation. It costing them money or worse would result in the firehose being turned down.
The costs of them flooding requests are all born by everyone else. Someone has to pay to handle them, people have to "pay" by having access to material removed if the takendown is bogus, meanwhile the industries are still making vast amounts of money and still demanding government handouts to lower their costs even further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Denial of Service attack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Globally, a list of excluded/acceptable sites maintained to prevent this, and then one ass politician to suggest, THIS should be the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great job taking down content you don't own! It inspires so much confidence in your efforts, and really gives the copyright hawks on this site something to be proud of!
Keep up the marginally retarded standard of work! It's characteristic of how well the DMCA is working, and without your efforts, someone might get the wrong idea that you're abusing it, and not verifying that the works are actually yours.
Respectfully,
(/s - just in case...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it's yet another Techdirt post complaining about a handful of illegitimate notices in a sea of legitimate ones. I agree that these notices are unfortunate, but I think they need to be put into perspective: It's only because piracy is so rampant that's it's not possible to put the time and resources into each notice that you seem to think rightholders should. Why no mention of that? And why is there NEVER any mention about "real punishment" for the infringers represented by the legitimate notices? Those infringers don't even get a slap on the wrist, but, of course, Techdirt never complains about that. I'd ask you to explain why your posts are so lopsided, but we both know (1) why that's so, and (2) that you won't talk about it. But, yeah, you're not anti-copyright. No, not at all. (I'm sure this comment will get "reported" because my views aren't popular here, and I think that's just sad. You guys should welcome dissenting views, not "report" them as "abusive" simply because you disagree with them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Based on the conversations I've had with several rightholders, no, I don't think it's always possible, given the huge scale of piracy. Let me ask you this: Do you agree that every legitimate notice represents an infringer who is abusing the law, yet Techdirt never bothers to mention or condemn that? If so, why do you think that is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So as you say that it is not possible for the rightsholder to check to see if its infringement then when they report the url (without actually checking the file to see if its infringement or not) then what they report could well be something that they do not have the copyright on. Why do you think its acceptable for a copyright holder to take down a perfectly legitimate file that they do not have the copyright on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Acceptable? Not exactly. I think the problem is so rampant that some automation is needed, and mistakes will be made. Efforts should be made to minimize those mistakes. I don't expect a perfect system, as many here presumably do. But the rest of my point is that it's strange to me how incredibly upset Mike gets at the thought of one erroneous notice, yet he appears to have no problem whatsoever with the millions of legitimate notices and all of the purposeful infringement they represent. If a rightholder makes a MISTAKE, that's criticized very, very heavily. But if an infringer INTENTIONALLY violates someone else's rights, that's not criticized at all. It's the silly double-standard that I'm commenting on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, even one incorrect takedown is a violation of free speech and thus of the first amendment of the Constitution and any violation of the Constitution contributes to a political climate in which people see that it's okay to violate the Constitution (moreso than the government has already contributed to that climate in the last several decades). Allowing corporations to violate free speech because they're too lazy to ensure that they're not issuing a takedown on content they don't own the copyrights to perpetuates the corporate mindset that laws are just rules you can break with impunity or enough apology money or rules you can purchase with enough lobbying and campaign contributions.
To assert otherwise is to contend that hypothetical money for faceless, unethical corporations is more important than basic human rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which means you certainly have any credible numbers to back that up, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not possible...the rest of us see that as "fucking lazy" (not that anyone who would defend committing an act of perjury would care).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm NOT defending unlawful behavior. How is it unlawful? My understanding is that the standard is subjective bad faith. And I'm pointing out that Mike never, ever says anything critical whatsoever about the pirates who intentionally break the law which is what leads to the notices in the first place. One single mistake by a rightholder = new TD post condemning them. A million intentional violations by a bunch of greedy children who don't want to pay a few bucks for a movie = total silence. So which one of us "defending unlawful behavior"? I think you have it backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple - IT'S NOT THEIRS!
Do you have your head so far up the IFPI's ass that you're too ignorant to get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple - IT'S NOT THEIRS!
Do you have your head so far up the IFPI's ass that you're too ignorant to get it?
Oh, look, more abuse that won't be "reported." I'm referring to the actual legal standard. You know, the actual standard that actually determines whether these notices are actually unlawful. Try and keep up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said before - they're fucking lazy, and they're breaking the law (see that "under penalty of perjury" part of the notice that you can't seem to wrap your pointy head around).
Let me put it to you another way, simpleton. Is it fair that their bullshit takedown notices prevent access to someone else's material? Is it fair that they can infringe on someone else's intellectual property rights because they can't be bothered to see if the work is something they actually own?
Try and keep up...yeah, take your own advice dipshit.
All the money they have, and they can't be bothered?
That's the biggest pile of horse shit I've ever heard. Perhaps if the job is "too hard" for them, then they need to find another line of work.
And BTW - yes, I reported your post - Ignorance like yours needs to be eradicated as much as possible, so the rest of us can continue to evolve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From Wikipedia:
'In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.'
But hey, no big deal...after all, it's their "right" as you call it to file these requests, because doing it right is hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
IF it is 'impossible' (?really?) for the COPYRIGHT HOLDERS to recognize THEIR OWN WORK (or the converse, to recognize what ISN'T their work) as being infringed upon*, then how in dog's name do you expect 'average' nobodies who have little knowledge/experience with copyright to do so ? ? ?
that is insane...
as per usual, you expect 'normal' people to do what 'experts' can not; and forgive the 'experts' for their MULTITUDES of failures, but will enforce draconian punishments on innocent traducers, no matter HOW minor the (so-called) 'damage' is...
you are not fair or symmetrical in your judgments in any way...
*i do NOT believe for one second that 99.99% of the time it is 'impossible' (or even difficult) for a copyright holder to either recognize their own works, or recognize what ISN'T their own works... IF that is the case, that implies their 'creation' was so commonplace as to defy any recognition as their 'own' creative work...
i have created hundreds/thousands of graphics, and other physical objets d'art: i can not IMAGINE *NOT* recognizing my own work... hell, i remember specific grain patterns from bowls and platters i turned years ago; i remember the little (generally unnoticeable) flaws that i didn't *quite* sand all the way out (and, yes, it bothers me to death)... i remember -out of hundreds of pieces turned on a lathe- that i left a teeny, tiny smudge of a fingerprint on a finish on the bottom of a bowl, i remember ALL THAT SHIT after spending DOZENS of hours turning, sanding, finishing a bowl/platter/etc...
THEY ARE MY BABIES, and i love them all, even with the imperfections no one else sees...
NOT recognize my own work ? ? ? IMPOSSIBLE ! ! !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, well that settles it then.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It may be worthwhile to have a person responsible for actually looking at what you claim is yours before you get caught lying to Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for your other question: being a useless troll is why all your comments get reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because people break laws all the time. You can't live in the United States without breaking laws. It isn't possible. If I look closely I can guarantee I can find some law that you've broken within the last week, if not the last day.
Between copyright law, road law, business law, and just insane law, I will find something to charge you with. Heck, you're probably breaking copyright law by using Techdirt's "Insider" graphic without permission as a derivative work. Do you know the artist that created that particular 'T' logo graphic? Did you ask permission to modify it? Maybe Mike should DMCA all your posts and save us the trouble!
One of the legal requirements for a DMCA takedown notice is the "good faith belief" that the content in question is a copyright you hold or one you are authorized to speak for. Falsely issueing a DMCA notice is punishable as perjury under federal law.
So let me ask you this...is a computer capable of establishing a "good faith belief" that something is infringing? How, if no human is reviewing whether or not the content is infringing, can you legally state you have not commited perjury by a false takedown?
So why are you not bothering to mention or condemn this abuse of the law? It's fine for companies to mass perjure themselves via automated takedown requests but it's not OK for people to infringe on copyright?
How can you call someone else out for ignoring part of the law when you're doing the same exact thing? Keep in mind that these companies are violating someone else's copyright when they takedown legal material that they do not own the copyright to. When did "well, they started it!" become a legal or moral defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I make it through the days without intentionally violating the property rights of others. It's not hard to not download a movie. Give me a break. As far as my avatar goes, I don't think it's infringing. I welcome any legal challenges Mike or Floor 64 want to bring my way over it. Can you imagine the irony of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gads, but you're a self-centered, insufferable git.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gads, but you're a self-centered, insufferable git.
Abusive much? (And, of course, your abuse isn't "reported.") It's not infringing. I don't need permission. Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder than that. Maybe you could try discussing the issues on the merits. I know it's TD, so the chances of that happening are quite slim, but I'm throwing it out anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can, but only the irony of you as a copyright maximalist shill doing something that your rightsholder masters condemn all the time.
At least Mike is consistent in his views and will let you run with your pathetic Avatar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The other frequent critic here (Whatever), by comparison, has his posts reported infrequently at best. I don't agree with him most of the time and think he frequently doesn't communicate his views here well, but I don't think he's a troll.
You, on the other hand, go out of your way to be as abusive and obnoxious as possible. And, that is why I always click report on every single one of your posts. I will continue to do so because I don't believe that you'll ever change and your sole motivation for being here is to simply be a thorn in Mike's and Techdirt's side.
As long as Mike is willing to give you a vehicle by which you can be an abusive prick and as long as you continue to behave as such, the community here will continue to report your posts. Whine all you want about that, but change must come from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your posts don't get reported because they present dissenting views and you know it. They get reported because they tend toward being abusive and spammy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do i get this feeling that these 2 people are one on the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Regardless, a troll is a troll, it doesn't much matter how articulate they are or how well they grasp the English language.
I've seen some very insightful posts by people who obviously don't know proper grammar and punctuation. It helps in reading the post if proper grammar and punctuation is used, but I don't personally mind if it isn't as long as I'm able to understand and decipher what they meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe the fact that you have a relatively small percentage of companies fighting against millions of people worldwide should indicate that they're doing something wrong.
Suppose a particular company was granted an exclusive, world-wide license as the only authorized producer of hats. You'd have police stopping people on the street to check their hat labels, SWAT raids on department stores for selling authorized hats, kids being arrested for wearing "balloon hats" on their heads, web sites being taken down and the owners arrested for linking to black-market hat sites, DIY hat videos being censored from YouTube...
Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet replace "hats" with "IP" and that's pretty much the situation we have today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So if a million people decide to violate your rights, you should just shut up and take it? Oh, and it's your fault, right? I'm not much for victim-blaming, so, no, I don't agree. Can you seriously not admit that the millions of people who make the conscious decision to violate someone else's rights are the ones "doing something wrong"? Amazing, if you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where is the "right" of copyright on Maslow's hierarchy of needs again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Constitution would imply the former, but the DMCA disagrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2 - These companies are free to take infringers to court anytime they want. In fact, for a number of years that's exactly what they attempted to do. I wonder why they stopped? Maybe it was that exact same waste of time and effort trying to control everything that happens online.
3 - You seem to think if Techdirt reported things differently, that piracy or something will just magically go away. If you don't like what Techdirt reports on or the way it reports, why bother reading it? Go find a website that informs you about all piracy and illegal activities. Or better yet, start your own while the internet is still open and free. Don't waste your life hating things.
4 - You can make all the contrary statements you want (and that's all you're really doing - being contrary to anything written here), but if you make personal attacks on the writers or insult the readers, expect to be reported in short order. This includes the constant goading of Techdirt to admit to some secret agenda that their only real purpose is to encourage and promote piracy and abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
:)
Wow. Someone replies to my comment, I respond with a smiley face, and that comment gets "reported"? But, then, there isn't a single one of you who can admit that the "report" button gets abused? Sigh. I've got news for you: If you're "reporting" harmless comments like this, you're the troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset
http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not your dissention, it's your attitude and how you express your dissent.
You are reported because of your BEHAVIOR, not because you hold a differing viewpoint. This is not censorship, this is *OUR* expression of your approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually they are being reported cause you are an asshat.
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you honestly incapable of seeing how this kind of abuse has the potential to turn a handful of illegitimate notices into a sea of them, making your sea of legitimate notices look like a tiny little mud puddle by comparison? Seriously? Good lord, everyone here has been right about you all along, antidirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You may have a legitimate point. The problem isn't what you say, it's how you say it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At any time the piracy problem could be eliminated almost over night. License those sites. No more hunting pirates, no more searching the web for infringements, no more worrying about it. It's very odd you never hear anything about that isn't it? Yet if piracy is so time consuming and such a pain to get right, there is the answer all wrapped up with a ribbon on it.
Any time I see a troll, identified by their abusive methods, I report them. Don't always say something about it but that's what I do. You wanna be heard, act like a real human instead of something that creeped out of 4chan. Otherwise, too bad, so sad.
There is one last thing I want to bring up here before ending this. Because of all the hypocrisy that these entertainment groups have managed to do, along with a total lack of morals (despite them claiming otherwise) I've gotten one distinct message. Don't mess with major media content... period. I am no longer a customer nor a consumer of their content. It has quite literally driven me from that market and I doubt I will ever return. As someone else mentioned, I am not a pro all all this owned IP when it isn't marked and fenced. Much of the time the entertainment industries go out of their way to disguise that it is. So the real answer is never to fool with any of it. So the industry has gotten exactly zero as they ruined the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you imagine that works? The sites don't want to pay for a license, and most of them can't anyways.
Giving away a free license "solves" the piracy problem, but only in the same way that unconditional surrender "solves" a war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You'd never get the maximalists to believe that, as far as they are concerned piracy sites are raking in untold amounts of money(somehow).
Of course, were that actually true, the obvious question becomes: 'So why aren't the official companies doing the same? With a little time and money they could easily offer a better service, and be raking in the cash themselves.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legality of false links?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: legality of false links?
In practice however? Not even close, I'm not aware offhand of anyone actually being found guilty of abusing the system in court, as various courts have raised the bar so incredibly high that it's effectively impossible to reach short of the one making the claim admitting in court that they knew the file wasn't theirs, and filed the claim anyway. Even then the odds of a judge handing out more than a slap on the wrist for their 'mistake' is likely zilch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: legality of false links?
for instance if a person where to make links to all sorts of industry and gov sites and post them such that they apeared to be links to files that where actively being searched for and dmca'd by the bots. (as someone above mentioned)
How would the law handle such a thing? It's obviously harmful behaviour- but is it illegal, and if so what statutes would cover it? I'd think it's something along the lines of inciting a criminal act, or some hacking statute. (the irony being that while the criminal act is never prosecuted, the incitement of it might be.)
I wonder how many illegitimate take downs are a result of people posting links like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's not forget that the purpose of the large penalties used in the DMCA was to go after commercial infringers. The RIAA immediately abused that law by going after non-commercial infringers and filesharers in attempts to terrorize the P2P networks into closing.
Now, it looks like the maximalists just spam takedown requests without bothering to check them. No apologies for accidental takedowns of legitimate material,
They need to be stopped. They *need* to be punished to set an example equivalent to what was intended with the filesharer lawsuits.
I think a fair outcome would be to strip all of these groups of DMCA powers, or at least require them to swear under penalty of perjury that the takedowns are only for content that they hold the rights to. No "good-faith" shield to hide their wrongdoings behind.
Of course, as pointed out above, reducing copyright back to more reasonable levels would eliminate a good portion of takedowns. Naturally, the maximalists won't go for that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They do that already if they file a DMCA claim. You know what would get their attention though, and all but remove abuses of the system practically over night? If the perjury penalties were enforced. No new laws needed, no additions, all that would be required to solve most of the abuses of the system would be if the penalties already in the law were simply enforced.
From Wikipedia:
'In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.'
Throw a few people in jail over bogus DMCA claims, and you can bet the rest of them would be a lot more careful with just what they are filing DMCA claims against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GET CONGRESS INVOLVED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is time to start showing the bag guys buddies in public office and the some-law enforcement weenies just how nasty their bogus takedown system really is.
Lets start taking down everything all the DMCA abusing assholes put up everywhere they happen to be - over and over again.
Authority will not pay attention as long as its just the bad guys who are alone abusing the system, so how about the good guys start taking down all the legitimate protected dinosaur industry shit repeatedly until the authorities no longer have any choice but to start enforcing the rules.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Our top priority is to prevent the continued availability of the IFPI Represented Companies’ content on the internet. Unauthorized copies of sound recordings that are freely available, especially pre-release recordings, cause substantial damage to the IFPI Represented Companies every hour and day they remain available. In sending this notice we are seeking to ensure that infringing content is removed from the internet as quickly as possible through your cooperation. However, please note that we do not admit that we or the IFPI Represented Companies are responsible for detecting infringing material and notifying you of it.
Our use of a notice in this form, as required by you, is meant to facilitate your removal of the infringing material listed above and we neither admit nor accept that you are a 'service provider' for the purposes of the DMCA or that it is necessary to serve, or that you are entitled to be served, a notice in compliance with the DMCA. IFPI itself and on behalf of the IFPI Represented Companies expressly reserves all rights in this regard."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IFPI filing false DMCA notices even on Twitter tweets
I hope that someone will sue these jerks to the maximum extent under the law for filing these ridiculous claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]