HBO Abuses The DMCA Process In The Name Of Game Of Thrones Spoilers
from the winter-is-[redacted] dept
We've talked in the past about how HBO has jealously protected its Game of Thrones property. The show, wildly popular to the point of being proclaimed as the most pirated show over certain time spans, has enjoyed success due in part to that piracy, according to the show's director, who made sure to add how much he hated that piracy that helps his show. Add to that HBO's insisting that certain fan gatherings and events centered around the show be shut down and we have a picture of a company and property very much at odds with anyone looking to share it in a way outside of their control.
As a parallel, the topic of spoilers often centers on this show. I happen to hate this topic with the fire of a thousand suns, but there is no doubt that some folks out there see unbidden spoilers as the great scourge of our generation. And perhaps that made some people pause when it came out that HBO had issued a DMCA takedown on a YouTube video that discussed such spoilers.
Besides from actual copies of episodes, HBO also appears to have an eye on those who talk about what may happen during the rest of the season. The Internet is littered with spoilers which HBO doesn't like, including those posted in Spanish by YouTube user Frikidoctor. Unlike many others, Frikidoctor is remarkably accurate with his predictions, and claims to have a source close to the fire who feeds him information. HBO doesn't like this and has pulled several of his videos, arguing that they are infringing their copyrights. This also happened to the video featuring several episode three spoilers which was uploaded a few days ago.Again, perhaps there are some who have the instinct to cheer this on over a dislike for spoilers. Sadly for them, the law is not even remotely on HBO's side here. The claim of copyright on this specific video, in which episode three predictions are discussed, is as bullshit as it gets. While many of these kinds of videos will use actual episode footage to provide evidence of specific predictions or spoilers, Frikidoctor used zero footagein this video. In fact, the only content on the video altogether was the author appearing in it and discussing the upcoming episode. That's it.
"I uploaded the video and two hours later HBO decided to take it down on YouTube [claiming] copyright infringement," Frikidoctor says, responding to the surprise takedown.
Frikidoctor admits that he used snippets of trailers and other promotional material in earlier videos that were removed, but says that the video with the episode three "predictions" didn't include any HBO audio or video.Very much so, yes. As annoyed at spoilers as HBO might be -- though why they would be is beyond me -- there is nothing about someone dressed in Mexican wrestling garb discussing predictions for an upcoming episode of a show that could be remotely seen as copyright infringement. The claim behind the takedown is so far from reality that it might as well serve as a chief example of the way the DMCA takedown system is abused.
"In the last two videos they took down I had some frames from teasers and trailers they decided to share with everyone for promotional purposes. This time the video did not have a single frame or sound that belongs to HBO," he says.
Instead, the video was just him dressed up in a Mexican wrestler costume, discussing what would happen in the upcoming episode.
"So, they think that me dressed as a Mexican wrestler talking about predictions for episode three of Game of Thrones is their property. That it’s copyrighted material that belongs to them," Frikidoctor notes. "Isn't that misuse of the DMCA?" he adds.
Fortunately, Frikidoctor has appealed the takedown with YouTube, and has even gone as far as to consult a lawyer as to what his next steps will be. Here's hoping he finds a way to punch back at the bully.
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, dmca abuse, frikidoctor, game of thrones, spoilers
Companies: hbo, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as Google giving anyone who has any type of copyright, trademark, etc over an entity irregardless of date, they determine what constitutes fair use, what is not copyrighted, etc. Try uploading something that no longer has a copyright to youtube and see what happens, guaranteed if there is a later work; your video will be taken down and/or the company claiming the copyright will be able to monetize your work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Novels = spoilers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Novels = spoilers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Novels = spoilers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What was infringing?
So please explain how merely talking about Game of Thrones hurts HBO's intellectual property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What was infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
Thank you. I'm glad you finally saw the errors of your ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
If you want intelligent conversation, don't talk to yourself.
If you want to see a true idiot, look in the mirror.
If you want to insult other peoples' intelligence publicly, don't start by proving yourself a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
I'm sorry, but you do seem to have fundamentally misunderstood some aspects of this story, and/or some aspects of copyright law. Please consider these points:
- Owning the copyright on a work, like a show or a book or a song or anything else, does not mean you can stop other people from discussing it or referring to it by name. That is not even close to any of the enumerated legal rights that constitute copyright. To discuss Game of Thrones, to review Game of Thrones, even to spoil Game of Thrones, is in no way copyright infringement all by itself. That's not debatable, that's a fact.
- The question of whether something makes money is largely irrelevant here. The definition of copyright infringement is not dependent on whether the potentially infringing work makes money or not. The question of making money can be a factor in a Fair Use determination, but that is also irrelevant in this case: the video did not use any material from Game of Thrones, and as such is not even potentially infringing, so there's no fair use question here. There is no "use" that has to be determined to be "fair" or not, because there's no "use" at all.
So, please, instead of continuing your "i'm a genius and everyone here is an idiot" rant, dig into this situation a bit and explain your position. No footage was used, no copyrighted material of any kind was used, there was absolutely nothing in the video that constitutes even potential copyright infringement - not from a legal perspective, not from a philosophical perspective, not from any perspective. What rights are you alleging were violated? Can you please explain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What was infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speculation = infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 11th, 2016 @ 9:32am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know you're just kidding around, but that's far from the only problem with that idea :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. What about fair use is a "misnomer"? And what point are you trying to make about "compensation" exactly? Presumably you do know that copyright law has little to do with compensation, and is in fact about permission (with the exception of mechanical royalties in music). Neither the fair use doctrine nor any rulings that invoke it or deny it make any mention of "compensation" - so it's unclear to me why you're bringing it up here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) He (or she) is a troll.
2) He (or she) is a moronic idiot with no understanding whatsoever of the subject he (or she) is prattling on about.
3) (My favourite). Both 1) and 2).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spoilers don't hurt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spoilers don't hurt
Not true, the actions have convinced me NOT to buy the DVD sets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect case for 512(f)?
I mean there is 0 way HBO could have actually thought anything in the video was infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfect case for 512(f)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perfect case for 512(f)?
But I definitely wouldn't blame him for not suing because 512(f) definitely seems to be nothing at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'My bot did it.'
For example despite the theoretical requirement for the one filing a DMCA claim to swear under penalty of perjury that they attest to the accuracy of the claims made courts have seen nothing wrong in use of bots, which cannot swear under penalty or analyze fair use or anything beyond 'Does content X show up here?'(and even then their accuracy can be rubbish), in clear violation of the requirement.
If a company gets caught sending bogus claims and taken to court? 'Not our fault, it's a problem with our bot, and we're looking into the matter'. No punishment, rarely even a warning, just 'Everyone makes mistakes, and it's not like anything important was harmed by your false claim, so case dismissed.'
At this point I'm pretty sure the one sending the claims would have to admit, in court, that they knew for a fact that the DMCA claim they were about to file was fraudulent and so knowing sent it anyway, and even then I imagine the judge would let them off with a "Don't get caught doing it again" slap on the wrist at worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'My bot did it.'
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the deviously worded DMCA does not in fact require that, theoretically or otherwise. The "penalty of perjury" portion only applies to the statement that the notice-sender is (or represents) the copyright holder of the work that is allegedly infringed upon. The remainder of a DMCA notice requires only a "good faith belief". This is not only true of the template notice text, but true of the requirements as set out in 512(c)(3):
Frankly, I have to tip my hat to the people who devised that wording. Nearly everybody, when discussing DMCA notices, assumes that a penalty of perjury technically applies to the entire thing - but that's simply not the case, thanks to the subtle positioning of those words mid-sentence in point (vi) -- after the requirement of a statement that the information is accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'My bot did it.'
But in the context of corporate persons, I thought of a variation on that ploy: instead of looking dumb, it helps make 'good faith' seem reasonable if one appears to be a self-centered, narcissistic jerk with an extremely inflated ego. If you can't imagine ever making a mistake, you obviously can have no doubt that your every action is valid and legal.
Put 'em together, and suddenly the whole world makes sense: 'good faith exceptions' explain why everything seems to be run by idiots or egocentric psychopaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'My bot did it.'
I guess I as well as many others assume that the entire claim is under penalty of perjury, which would make sense given you're talking about something that will remove speech and/or content posted by someone else, rather than just the assertion that the one making the claim is who they say they are.
As you say it's an incredibly devious and sleazy bit of wording, and one that has people thinking one thing while the law says another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]