Another Day, Another Anomaly: Paramount Issues DMCA Takedown On Ubuntu Linux Torrent
from the but-stopping-copyright-infringement-is-easy? dept
The legacy copyright industries keep insisting that it's "easy" to recognize when something is infringing and thus it's "easy" to stop copyright infringement. They're very, very wrong on both counts for a variety of reasons. We could go into the details for why, but it's easier to just let them show us themselves. Not too long ago we wrote about Warner Bros. issuing DMCA takedown notices on its own sites (and also Amazon and IMDB links for its movies), and now TorrentFreak alerts us to Paramount issuing a DMCA takedown on a torrent of Ubuntu, the popular version of Linux that many people use all the time.It's kind of a weird request, and it's not at all clear why it's included in this takedown notice, which is for a variety of movies. In the section on the movie Transformers: Age of Extinction, Paramount (filed by notoriously clueless IP Echelon), it includes a link to a torrent of an Ubuntu iso. So, once again, we have a major Hollywood entertainment entity -- which has been insisting for years that Google and others should "just know" when something is infringing and take it down and block all future infringements -- who can't even properly identify the content that it's claiming to hold the copyright over. And, again, copyright is context specific, meaning that the absolute best party to understand if there's infringement is the copyright holder, rather than some random third party. But in just a week or so, we've seen examples of how two of the biggest studios in Hollywood can't even figure out their own takedown notices properly. How can they possibly expect others to do so for them -- and why should we trust them when they ask for a "notice and staydown" system that will inevitably take down (and keep down) tons of non-infringing material?
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, false takedowns, linux, takedowns, torrents, ubuntu
Companies: paramount
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember back with me to the Hotfile trial.
Hotfile had given one studio super access to kill infringing things of their property.
They immediately were taking down other studios works, things with matching names but not their content, and programs they just didn't like.
They did this repeatedly while still complaining Hotfile wasn't doing enough... yet Hotfile was living up to their DMCA requirements and this access was supposed to solve the issue.
There needs to be real penalties for bad takedowns, it is the only way the will improve. We have to pay a price when they fuck up and remove content they don't own, its time they have to bear their own costs. Stupid should hurt, and given how stupid many of these takedowns are even a nominal fee would hurt quite a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If film companies want to claim they own intellectual property and therefore it is not legal to copy it, then so do the people whos intellectual property was stolen from them by a take-down notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Penalties
I still like the idea of notice and staydown when applied to their own sites. WB should have been de-indexed from all search engines. Kinda hard to point consumers to legitimate content when they can't find it via a search engine.
Maybe the solution is to make it so that if they issue so many bad DMCA takedown notices over their content, when they reach a certain number (i.e. 100 bad takedowns) that content is automatically and irrevocably released into the public domain. This would have the three-fold effect of increasing material in the public domain (which is where all copyrighted material should eventually end up0; force the studios to pay more attention to what their proxies are doing; and give them an incentive not to issue bad takedowns. It could even be construed to count Fair Use takedowns against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Penalties
Well we consumers keep voting for the fuckers writing these laws. We fucking deserve it. We will change the diaper known as Congress when we get fucking tired of it.
Every Nation gets the Government it deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Penalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Penalties
The answer is to vote in politicians who won't be bought but good luck with finding them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Penalties
I have no sympathies for copyright infringers, though copyright and patent "protections" have become insane. I haven't been to a movie, or bought a first sale DVD in that time. But it will take a significant portion of the population to read a book, listen to previously purchased music, trade materials, buy used, buy from Magnatune, or have sex, before the **AAs get the message.
I have no real hope that anywhere near the number of people needed are willing to "suffer" without their fix of the latest garbage produced by the **AAs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Penalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As ever, the issue isn't the obvious mistakes, it's the fact that them happening so often must mean there's other, less obvious legal product being taken down. It's bad enough that the decks are already stacked against those, but it's far worse if you can't explain why the mistake happened. Because you know you have to in the guilty until proven innocent climate these corporations have created.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe
🎵Ubuntu - Movies in disguise🎵
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is worth mentioning
Now filthy thieving pirates misuse BitToreent to download copies of Ubuntu without paying for them. :-) Or without paying Hollywood it's fair share. A lost sale of Ubuntu.
The collection racket societies need to get involved. Your organization should have a blanket ASCAP license to cover your use of Ubuntu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with Linux is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with Linux is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
Still, my point stands; just because it's Linux doesn't mean it's not spying on you. Though I'll grant that Canonical eventually backed off the search ads, and in 16.04 they're opt-in instead of opt-out.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
Your point is fair -- that it's not reasonable to possess the level of skill that I do or go to the expense and trouble that I did; the vast majority of users simply aren't going to set up a hardware firewall that blocks tracking.
But here's the thing: the vast majority of users aren't going to hunt through Ubuntu's settings menu to opt out of advertising, either. Any option that's set as the default is the option most users are going to stick with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
Windows users have no such luxury. It's true that being FOSS/Linux doesn't automatically mean that nothing objectionable will happen, but its strength is that you're free to choose whether you accept those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
Some could, sure, and that's been a big reason Ubuntu's lost ground to Mint, and certainly a contributing factor to why the "feature" was eventually disabled by default.
But Ubuntu is an entry-level Linux distro that targets ease-of-use, and as such, a lot of its users aren't savvy enough to go around switching distros -- or, say, switching to another Ubuntu flavor like Xubuntu, which would solve the problem, or even just going into settings and turning the ads off (which was always an option).
Well, sure they do; a Windows user can switch to Mint just like an Ubuntu user can. Or they can roll back to Windows 7, if they've still got the installation media. Most won't. And most Ubuntu users didn't switch after 12.10 either, though some did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
The specific Linux distribution that we are talking about is Ubuntu. When the comment said "Linux doesn't include the surveillance features built into Windows," it was referring, specifically, to the Linux distribution we are discussing. Or possibly you are arguing that the comment was a total non sequitur and was not intended to have any relevance to the context of the discussion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Linux is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too cheap to censor
Perhaps service providers could require the takedown requester to post bond amounting to the estimated damages for a takedown. If the requester later withdraws, which would constitute an admission of error or bad faith, the money is paid out to the damaged parties (unless the requester can show cause not to).
An unchallenged takedown results in returning the money to the requester.
A counter-notice and persistence of the requester automatically forwards the dispute and money to the relevant district court.
Indigent requesters (or shell companies) could require manual review.
Streisand effect, compensatory promotion, and/or higher prices for certain types of content could deter censorship of critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd torrent T:AOE in protest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd torrent T:AOE in protest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's obvious
Uses the same letters as our movie, then it must be infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, doesn't that make it even worse? Legal content being taken down (or attempted to) because there's a link in a sidebar that's unrelated to the actual content? Any sane person would see that as a major problem with that process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's fair right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DMCA notices are generally *takedown* notices. They're not "erm, we saw a dodgy link, can you remove it". They're usually "remove this entire page/file or face further action".
So, it's irrelevant whether the link on the page is indeed infringing (we'll ignore the idiocy of a mere link being considered infringing for the moment), the result of this DMCA notice, if obeyed, is going to be that legal content is remove because of the existence of another link.
Whether our usual clown knows this and is playing ignorant, or genuinely didn't consider the ramifications of the notice in his usual scrambling attempt to refute something in the article, is unclear. But it's unquestionable that perfectly legal content is being ordered down because the owners of a 2 year old, $1+ billion grossing movie are afraid they haven't made enough profit yet. I'm sure that's somehow acceptable in his mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"DMCA notices are generally *takedown* notices. They're not "erm, we saw a dodgy link, can you remove it". They're usually "remove this entire page/file or face further action"."
Since a torrent site generally is proving a link to allow people to download the material, it follows that it could be a page with the content on it. That would include the COPYRIGHT image of the box cover that the site happens to use (oh, darn, there is that reality crap again ruining your rant!).
"Whether our usual clown knows this and is playing ignorant, "
So the images on the page are not copyright? The links to the pirated torrents are not invalid?
Come on Paul, stop being a twit. You use to be way smarter in your comebacks, now it's just pure baiting bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I see. So it *could* be. Not necessarily *is*. Like you, Whatever, *could* be a child molester, and thus should be treated as if though you are. Yes, it is all so clear now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your view seems to be that if every page started with a Ubuntu distribution, that there could NEVER EVER EVER EVER be anything else on the page that would be bad. They could put up the pictures that are rumors to exist of what your Father did with you when you were young, and that would be okay, because Ubuntu?
You are a piece of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You *do* spend lots of time writing paragraphs of easily debunked fiction, however. Instead of making up lies about me, which I've already refuted, perhaps you should write less and acquaint yourself with reality instead?
Amusingly, as I read this I'm halfway through a 3 day business trip and I'm writing this in my hotel room in the Stratford area of London as a break from my work here. That's right, I'm so scared of the UK, I'm sitting here earning money working for my employer's London office! But, since your fevered imagination is the only place where I don't pay all applicable taxes, this is perfectly fine with all people involved, including Her Majesty's Customs & Excise.
So, the question remains - are you aware of the fact that what you say has no basis in reality, or do you actually think you're addressing the truth? In other words, are you a liar or delusional?
"Since a torrent site generally is proving a link to allow people to download the material, it follows that it could be a page with the content on it"
So?
"That would include the COPYRIGHT image of the box cover that the site happens to use"
So? The image would be on the target page, not the page with a link. Unless the link is embedded in an image, but that's usally not the case and in any case the copyright claim should then be against the use of the image, not the content being linked to.
It's sad the twisting you have to do to pretend to have a point, and even then you fail misrerably.
"Come on Paul, stop being a twit. You use to be way smarter in your comebacks, now it's just pure baiting bullshit."
a.k.a REALITY. Get to know and love it, you'll feel better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, if you had bothered to look (like, research a bit) you would discover that in fact, the site in question uses boxcover images to link to their torrents, and has a 2 x 5 or so list twice on the left hand side of every page.
Reality. Damn, it sucks when you go on and on and it turns out you didn't even bother to check!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shoo fly, shoo!
[ 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: Re: Re:
Whether he's logged in or out, the shit doesn't fall far from the asshole, it seems.
[ 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:
Actually, if you had bothered to read, I've not been able to do that because my professional life doesn't allow me to browse torrent sites, unlike yourself. However, my point stands, despite your usual attempt to sidestep it in favour of whatever random aside you can use to ignore reality.
Nice that you stopped making shit up about me on a personal level, though, and instead reverted to mere ignorance of the facts in front of you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incentives or lack thereof
Put some real penalties for bogus claims('That was your sixth bogus copyright claim this year, say good-bye to the copyright for that item'), or simply enforce the ones on the books and then and only then will you see accuracy in this sort of thing improve. Before that it's spending money they'd rather keep, to avoid collateral damage that they are completely indifferent to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Temp Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is a conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is a conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, I Missed Something
YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! They are demanding a TAKE DOWN FOR AN OPERATING SYSTEM ISO IMAGE?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! Since WHEN did Paramount Studios BUY Ubuntu OS?
Seriously - you'd think that any competent court would throw the case out for BS like this. Absolute incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, I Missed Something
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOLLYWOOD, PARAMOUNT, or MOVIES! It's like someone naming your dog in a lawsuit over your latest embezzlement case. Nothing relates, here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, I Missed Something
When you don't have to worry about paying for 'collateral damage', and accuracy costs time and/or money you don't want to spend the incentives are all on the side of sending out as many claims as possible and worrying about whether or not they're actually accurate when inaccuracy holds some penalty, which is to say not any time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, I Missed Something
DMCA - Daily Making Crap Accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that it would work but they are not the sharpest crayon in the pack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Challenge accepted!
Ubuntu accept challenge, mano a mano. Ubuntu even offer Paramount chair - only used once by Indiana Knight. Ubuntu not need chair, Ubuntu have distros!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had the same problem but switched company
This is why I no longer trust lawyers or freelancers with protecting my wordpress plugins from piracy because they have no technical knowledge whatsoever. I switched to Pirat for my DMCA takedown service needs and im highly satisfied that only verified links will be taken down and that I wont be in any legal battle for false dmca claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]