Warner Bros. Has To Reveal The Process By Which It Sends Automated DMCA Takedowns
from the good-to-see dept
We covered the movie studio's lawsuit against cyberlocker Hotfile, which ended in a settlement, but there was an interesting side story involving a countersuit against Warner Bros. for abusing the copyright takedown process. From Hotfile's filing at the time:Warner has acted unscrupulously and dishonestly. Not only has Warner (along with four other major motion picture studios) filed this unfounded and contrived litigation against Hotfile employing overly aggressive tactics, Warner has made repeated, reckless and irresponsible misrepresentations to Hotfile falsely claiming to own copyrights in (or to have the owners' authorization to delete) material from Hotfile.com. Worse, Warner continued to make these misrepresentations even after Hotfile explicitly brought this rampant abuse to Warner's attention, ruling out any possibility that its wrongful actions were accidental or unknowing. Thus, Warner has knowingly made misrepresentations and it has engaged in DMCA abuse on an unprecedented scale by grossly misusing the powerful anti-piracy software tool that Hotfile specially created at Warner's request.Among the works taken down by WB's bogus requests were open source software. WB admitted to sending bogus takedowns, but basically said there's nothing illegal about that and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Basically, WB says that you can take down the wrong files all day long and that's fine. The only thing you're not allowed to do in a DMCA notice is misrepresent that you're authorized by the copyright holder to file a takedown (even if the takedown is bogus).
In settling, it seemed as though the issue of WB's abuse of the takedown process might fade away, but the EFF picked up that ball and ran with it, and now the court has ruled that Warner Bros. has to reveal the details of its automated takedown system to see if it's in violation of the DMCA's 512(f) clause regarding "misrepresentations" under the law. As we've described for years, 512(f) has basically been shown to be almost entirely toothless. However, there have been a number of attempts to change that. Here's EFF's summary of the judge's ruling here:
A judge found that Warner might be liable under Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which prohibits sending takedowns without having a basis for believing the content is actually infringing a copyright owned by the person initiating the takedown. The judge ruled that Hotfile had presented enough evidence of abuse that a jury could decide the issue. But before the case could be heard by a jury, the parties settled, and Hotfile shut down. So there was evidence that Warner may have crossed the line, but the details have been held under seal, inaccessible to the public. In February, EFF asked the court to release the sealed records that explain the court’s decision, including aspects of Warner’s robo-takedown system that Hotfile had challenged.While it's unlikely that anything will happen directly here, at the very least, the details here could be useful given that copyright law is up for reform, and that could (finally) include putting some teeth into punishments for abusing the DMCA takedown process to take down perfectly legitimate content.
At an oral hearing in the Miami federal courthouse on Thursday, attorney Dineen Pashoukos Wasylik argued for EFF. Noting that court records are normally supposed to be open to the public, Judge Kathleen Williams ordered Warner to release certain information within ten days of Thursday’s ruling, and to propose a schedule for releasing the rest.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: automated takedowns, dmca, takedowns
Companies: eff, hotfile, warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see some groups on the Internet having great fun with that, and if it is accepted by a court, nuclear war will be declared on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
10*(100*(per incident)^2)) in dollars within a year's timeframe.
so...
1 time = $1,000
5 times = $25,000
15 times = $225,000
25 times = $625,000
With the money going to those who had their sites taken down falsely.
Those who abuse it like Warner's will see their profits take a plunge till they learn not to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One single instance of {piracy | bogus takedown} can do huge economic damage and result in the loss of large numbers of sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heck, I've always thought it should simply be thought of as infringement.
The copyright owner is supposed to have the exclusive right to distribute their work. When someone sends a false DMCA, the owner is prevented from distributing their material in the way they see fit. Which is worse: people pirating your material, or having your material actively taken down from where you put it?
So, yeah. I'm totally in favor of $150,000 for willfully sending a false DMCA. I'd also support an injunction prohibiting them from sending any further DMCA notices for a period of, say, 10 years. If you can't play nicely with your toys, we're going to take them away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore, they don't just use copyright as a means to profit, they use it:
* as an anti-competitive weapon against anyone who might create anything interesting
* as a means to keep artists enslaved
* as a means to control artists (if you don't do what I say, pretty thing, you won't be cutting any new records)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's true, but you see that would be *fair*. As any of the copyright apologists here will admit, they don't want things to be fair, they want it biased in their favour so they can bilk as many people as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In cases where the DMCA is used to force removal of open-source software and similarly situated materials, I'd be more than happy seeing the maximum allowed fines and/or imprisonment for perjury, to boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner's proposed schedule
Within ten days Warner will propose a schedule something like:
Warner is diligently working to release its proprietary process* for sending bogus DMCA takedowns. Warner anticipates that it will be able to produce one step of the process each one quarter of a galactic turn.
Warner respectfully asks the court to keep the process under seal so that others cannot use it against us. It would be very disruptive of our business if others could send Warner bogus DMCA takedowns that had the force of law.
* Warner's proprietary process for sending bogus DMCA takedowns has been licensed to four other major studios, and the license agreement requires non-disclosure of the process used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the industries have been and are extremely quick to use the DMCA against others, even when they have no legitimate right to and have fleeced thousands from other companies and people. hopefully what they have been doing will encourage a change in the law so that false take downs carry as big fines as genuine ones. now that is gonna be interesting!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a shame that so many file-hosting sites like Hotfile have closed down without ever publishing any "transparency reports" like Google does. Considering the huge number of obviously-bogus takedowns sent to Google, it would be interesting to see if the same thing (or perhaps worse) has been happening to file-hosting sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is probably because they cannot afford to hire enough people to look at DMCA requests, and have to automate their processing of them.
I suspect that the MPAA/RIAA re trying to swamp Google with requests, so that they end up automating the handling, without looking at them. Such swamping also make it almost impossible for companies to deal with any challenges in a a reasonable fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EFF Wins Release of Warner Bros. Documents On Robo-Takedown System
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/eff-wins-release-warner-bros-documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF Wins Release of Warner Bros. Documents On Robo-Takedown System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, that will happen right after congress gets through regulating flying cars...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Mickey Mouse's copyright expiring again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let me guess.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: let me guess.....
Whatever happens though, you can bet they will fight tooth and nail to keep any document handed over from being available to the public, and thus open to challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: let me guess.....
You're absolutely right of course, that it will be stated in the best of legaleeze wording, because it will be stated by the most expensive experts in the art of legaleeze wording.
My "street version" was offered in the hopes of expressing just how juvenile the excuse is, as it is only slightly removed from the "Dog ate my homework." level.
It gets really depressing when day after day, the authorities one depends on to NOT start World War Three, act like spoiled infants of 8-9 years of age. It is even more frustrating when every other institutional "authority" mimics this behavior and the courts accept it at face value over and over again.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]