Another Entity Thinks A Random Bundle Of URLs Is A Legitimate DMCA Takedown Request
from the please-delist-'*.com'-thx dept
Copyright as censorship is one thing. Copyright as blundering, drunken bull in the DMCA china shop is another. We've seen this before: sloppy algorithms generating DMCA notices targeting not only possibly infringing content, but also the rights holders' own websites, listings as IMDb, critics' reviews -- basically anything that might have the copyrighted content's name in the URL.
Now, there's this, uncovered by TorrentFreak: some thing calling itself "Copyright UNIVERSAL" (but not apparently related at all to Universal Pictures) has issued a string of colossal failures in DMCA notice form.
Over the course of a few days reporting organization Copyright UNIVERSAL asked Google to remove thousands of links from its search engine. In their listing we do indeed see some infringing URLs, but it’s the legal content that really stands out.
In fact, it is safe to say that no website is safe for the overzealous anti-piracy group.
Over the past week Copyright UNIVERSAL has asked Google to remove 4,224 URLs including various high profile sites.
TorrentFreak's rundown shows Copyright UNIVERSAL has "targeted" the MPAA's website, IMDb, various movie theaters' websites, Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, Verizon, Cox, the NBA, the NFL, the Verge… the list literally goes on and on.
At some point during the early part of CU's onslaught, Google itself declared the "rights holder" to be an imposter:
But it apparently withdrew that tag, either in resignation or because, despite itself, CU managed to occasionally hit its target. That being said, it's tough to tell what CU is attempting to protect. Many of its DMCA notices never declare what content it actually holds the rights to.
Instead, CU just gets down to business by listing every URL it can think of, covering such things as… Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima's Twitter account… or an actor's own Facebook page. Digging around in just a single bogus takedown request, you'll find a link to a Steam FAQ page, a listing of French Open match times at SBNation, a Netflix page, and an interview with Jodie Foster at an Australian news site.
Fortunately, Google has done little more than allow Copyright UNIVERSAL to repeatedly beclown itself. Its most recent requests seem to be a bit more targeted, but still fail to explain why an entity using the name "UNIVERSAL" is "protecting" content owned by rival movie studios.
And it's only marginally better at hitting its targets. This particular DMCA notice may only target 38 URLs, but that includes multiple web pages featuring nothing more than interviews with "Barbershop 3" cast members or trailers promoting the film.
Because rights holders want the severest of consequences for those who don't comply with DMCA requests, but refuse to apply the same standard to themselves or their DMCA takedown bots, this sort of abuse remains common. Until that end of the exchange is taken more seriously, there's nothing stopping DMCA takedown companies from solemnly swearing that every single bogus URL is correct to the best of their knowledge, even when the most cursory review shows otherwise.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, takedowns
Companies: copyright universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hoist, own, petard
please stop checking to see whether or not Copyright Universal's claims are correct, just go ahead and take those links down. The resulting furore should put a stop to any more attempts at forcing you to play copyright cops.
Kind regards,
Wendy Cockcroft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not a take down notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's not a take down notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's not a take down notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that only shows that the DMCA encourages the takedown companies to know as little as possible about the copyright status of a given page. If they can honestly say they know nothing at all about the page they want taken down, then they can also honestly say they have no information that would contradict the assertion that that page is infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If your work is wrongly taken down, people often give up because the costs of fighting back are so high.
Yet nothing happens to those who send millions of incorrect notices.
Hell even $20 for each incorrect url, would be enough to make them think twice. And those who decide they don't need to pay up, make it so they can legally be ignored until they are in good standing. Eventually the shitty companies will fold or improve and the number of notices will drop so the cartels can stop pretending that 10 million notices a week is evidence of anything other than their willingness to abuse a system to create an illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The rich can afford fines. For them, paying fines is like buying indulgences. I'd rather see them do jail time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Riight. First thing you know, you've got Popcorn Time LLC in solitary for sticking a shiv in CBS Corporation, you've got RIAA "giving its best" to Warner Music Group and and Sony Music Entertainment, Sony Pictures Entertainment AND their parent Sony having to hot-bunk in the same cell.
Hmm... You've a point, there, after all.
[ 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:
Alternatively change the law so that only the right's owner or their designated representative can send the notices, and revoke the copyright in question after a certain number of false claims within a set period of time. A change like that and you can be sure that they would be very careful to check any notices several times before they send them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Imagine Universal finding itself getting a $400K bill with a notice that all Universal sourced complaints are not going to be processed until they pay up.
While they can just try to think of it as a cost of doing business, it will add up and hurt them. They would be much more cautious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"On penalty of perjury." is what the title states. The running rate for that offense is fingerwagging and a promotion. Repeat offenders might get a tap on the wrist.
The actual idea would have been a jail sentence but we can't have that for the guys fighting the good fight against pirates and/or drugs, can we?
One law fits all would be too much of a stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rights holder wants to enforce their rights under DMCA? That's fine. Make all valide DMCA notices include evidence of a bond valued at $15k per infringement, and a written promise to pay off all the lawyers and costs on both sides.
Then, after three losses, any other cases in the pipeline are automatically decided against the rights holder and the rights holder can't file further notices for a minimum of one year, with that length of time increasing after each third loss.
That's in fantasyland. In the real world, compel the judges to grant the fee shifting awards that already exist. I believe it's at 17 USC 505, or some such, where it says 'may'. Change that to say 'must' or 'shall'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not per notice, per wrong allegation within.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it is completely crazy and the MAFI-AA's won't learn from it, but it is in some ways an interesting piece of performance art... maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2014: Russia invades Ukraine, declares the Russian troops and equipment "not Russian."
2017: Russia invades Latvia, declares the invasion to be a "valid DMCA takedown."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kobayashi Maru in real life
if google *does* take down a legitimate URL from a bogus DMCA request - they will get sued.
if google does *nothing* asked - they will get sued.
if google does *everything* asked - they will get sued.
Since they can't do the *magic* process of taking down only the "bad" ones...
It really looks like Google needs to change the rules. The only way to force that may be to take down CBS, NBC, *AA sites. Yes, they will get sued for doing so - but it may be the rule-changer that is needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take down IMDB
How long do you think it would take the cast and crew and owners of the movie to rip apart Copyright Universal for taking down it's page? Then we might start to see some change in the way these bots issue takedown notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take down IMDB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice and Staydown
"“Unfortunately, members of the general public were not invited to the Copyright Office proceedings last week. The many thousands of comments submitted by Internet users on this subject were not considered valuable input; rather, one panelist characterized them as a ‘DDoS attack’ on the Copyright Office website, showing how little the people who are seeking to regulate the web actually understand it.”"
It actually shows how little they care about public input. They see democracy more as a nuisance than anything.
We are trying to democratically deny them the service of completely controlling the government with no public input. So it is an attempted denial of service attack. After all these corporations paid good money for this service.
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/08/0224226
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Notice and Staydown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Notice and Staydown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of all things, i see this as a very good target for a trademark infringement claim, the way that system operates.
Finally, is this in fact a huge troll, or are they for real in some way? It seems to brush up against Poe's Law an awful lot for me. If they go after every ad for some next blockbuster release, it would be hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!
Take it down! And it won't be long before those idiots realize that without a valid, functional, well-defined system...their "perfect world" where any DMCA takes anything down for any reason is actually a wasteland of broken links, 404 notices and lost revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!
Otherwise the maximalists will just list everyone else's site for delisting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]