Automated 'Content Protection' System Sends Wave Of Bogus DMCA Notice Targeting Legitimate URLs
from the don't-worry,-humans.-the-bots-won't-ever-do-this-job-well. dept
Yet another content protection service decides it's better off letting the machines do the work, with predictably catastrophic results. The EFF first noticed the DMCA abuse being committed by "Topple Track," a content protection service offered by Symphonic Distribution. Symphonic talks big about its protection service, pointing out its position as one of the "leading members" of Google's "Trusted Copyright Program."
The thing about trust is that it's hard to gain but easy to lose.
Topple Track’s recent DMCA takedown notices target so much speech it is difficult to do justice to the scope of expression it has sought to delist. A sample of recent improper notices can be found here, here, here, and here. Each notice asks Google to delist a collection of URLs. Among others, these notices improperly target:
EFF’s case page about EMI v MP3Tunes
The authorized music store on the official homepage of both Beyonce and Bruno Mars
A fundraising page on the Minneapolis Foundation’s website
The Graceland page at Paul Simon’s official website
A blog post by Professor Eric Goldman about the EMI v MP3Tunes case
A Citizen Lab report about UC Browser
A New Yorker article about nationalism and patriotic songs
Other targets include an article about the DMCA in the NYU Law Review, an NBC News articleabout anti-virus scams, a Variety article about the Drake-Pusha T feud, and the lyrics to ‘Happier’ at Ed Sheeran’s official website. It goes on and on. If you search for Topple Track’s DMCA notices at Lumen, you’ll find many more examples.
Topple Track's failures came to the EFF's attention because it targeted one of its URLs, supposedly for infringing on artist Luc Sky's copyright for his song "My New Boy." The page targeted by Topple Track discusses the EMI lawsuit against MP3Tunes -- one that has been on the EFF's site for eight years. If Luc Sky even exists (the EFF could find no info on the artist/track), the discussion of a long-running legal battle certainly didn't contain an unauthorized copy of this track.
Presumably Topple Track has customers. (The "Luc Sky" dead end isn't promising.) If so, they're being ripped off by DMCA notices sent in their names that target tons of legit sites containing zero infringing content. The URLs targeted have no relation to the name/title listed as protected content and it's impossible to see how an algorithm could do the job this badly. There's obviously no human interaction with the DMCA process Topple Track employs, otherwise none of the DMCA notices listed would even have been sent to Google.
What did we say about trust?
Google has confirmed that it has removed Topple Track from its Trusted Copyright Removal Program membership due to a pattern of problematic notices.
Symphonic has commented on the debacle, claiming "bugs in the system" resulted in the wave of bogus takedown notices. Possibly true, but all it would have taken was a little human interaction to prevent this abuse of the process and this PR black eye.
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, censorship, dmca, takedowns
Companies: symphonic distribution
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not far enough. They should also retroactively reverse any delisting that has happened as a result of claims from this company and let them have it out with their clients about the wasted time and money.
The problem with this sort of thing is that the bogus requests were spotted because they are so blindingly obvious as legal that nobody would honestly think a DMCA notice was warranted. How many less obvious or less well known pages have suffered as a result of this company's claims.
Since the DMCA's perjury element is clearly worthless, maybe making "we'll reverse all the work you ever did" a penalty for repeated abuse might make some of them think twice.
"Symphonic has commented on the debacle, claiming "bugs in the system" resulted in the wave of bogus takedown notices"
...and the problem is that's an acceptable excuse to too many people who claim this stuff is trivial, and they won't see the hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They've shown they can't be trusted, and we're responding."
Retroactively re-listing things might be a hard sell in court, but noting that they've got a demonstrable history of filing fraudulent claims and as such any future ones are going to need some extra work before Google even looks at them, and/or no more mass-filings might squeak through.
Making it so that a company that gets busted for fraudulent claims has to file individual DMCA claims, one DMCA claim per address, with anti-bot measures put in place to block automated filing would cripple companies that use a 'file first, ask question never' business model, provide a very real incentive to check accuracy before sending in the claim, and would (I would think) likely stand up fairly well in court if it got that far.
Just because Google or similar companies have to accept DMCA claims doesn't mean they have to make them easy after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "They've shown they can't be trusted, and we're responding."
I'd personally make it very aggressive - Make it like a three strikes rule. If the company gets punished this way three times within a five year period, they completely lose their ability to file DMCA notices.
Now it is nearly guaranteed that every single one of those companies, when hit by this DMCA one-at-a-time action, would just use a loophole where they sell the contracts to an identical company run by the exact same board and executives, thus zeroing out their status. I haev no clue how to stop that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "They've shown they can't be trusted, and we're responding."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "They've shown they can't be trusted, and we're responding."
Route file uploads via Verizons network, so that you have an excuse why the upload is so slow.
Now that's just twisting the knife. I love it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's been stories on Techdirt before about nonsense DMCA's that Google ignores (including DMCA's on the IP holder's own website, for infringing upon their own IP).
I think Google has implied years ago that only half of the DMCA's they get are valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA Takedown Bots Are Already Programmed to Hate Us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bad idea for two reasons:
1) That would be punishing innocent people just to provide a possible way to punish Topple Track.
2) Even if they had the ability to sue, the odds of those impacted getting anything beyond 'Whoops, our bad' in court are so low as to be negligible, such that they would have had to deal with their sites being delisted with no real recompense possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No harm(to us), no foul, right?
Symphonic has commented on the debacle, claiming "bugs in the system" resulted in the wave of bogus takedown notices.
Which I'm sure would be of great relief to anyone who had their perfectly legal content threatened by those 'bugs', and where the only thing that kept them from being impacted was the blatantly bogus nature of the claims your system made.
As it stands there is a very real incentive to be able to send out as many DMCA claims as possible, in this case a financial incentive at that as it makes companies like them look 'better' and 'more productive' to prospective clients. On the other hand there is no real incentive for accurate claims, and if anything there is a negative incentive, as checking for accuracy stands to decrease how many claims they can make, reducing the all important 'DMCA claims issued' number, and with no penalty for fraudulent claims there's no incentive to try to avoid them.
So long as there remains zero penalty for bogus DMCA claims stuff like this is disgusting, it highlights perfectly how one-sided and flawed the system is, but it is not in any way surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No harm(to us), no foul, right?
My brother got hit with one of those for a work place related injury. His company said all bills were paid. Insurance company said all bills were paid. Hospital said all bills were paid. He showed up in court, said trolls immediately with drew their case. The 20 other people that didn't show up got default judgements. Wonder how many of them also had fully paid bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No harm(to us), no foul, right?
He showed up in court, said trolls immediately with drew their case. The 20 other people that didn't show up got default judgements. Wonder how many of them also had fully paid bills?
You'd think that a reaction of 'Oh shit, the accused showed up, run away!' would be enough to give a judge pause in questioning whether they were being used for a scam when it came to handing out default judgements for the other accused.
'Simply showing up was enough to cause them to drop the case against that person, I wonder how many of the other cases are based upon similarly shaky/non-existent 'evidence'...'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No harm(to us), no foul, right?
We tried to locate the defendant - honest we did judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No harm(to us), no foul, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some are more equal than others
It should not matter if the DMCA notice is generated by a bot or a human. If it is defective it should have the same penalty. What was it? $150,000 per instance I believe?
These notices are supposed to be under penalty of perjury because of their super powers.
Examples of defects would be that the notice is not sent by the copyright owner or registered agent. Or it does not state an actual copyright claim including what was infringed, who owns, it, where the infringement actually exists, etc. Or the notice is sent to the wrong party, for example, to a DNS provider rather than the server hosting the infringing material. Or the notice is way overly broad, such as wanting to take down facebook.com (although that could be argued to be a good thing).
Put the shoe on the other foot.
I understand that the goose and the gander have compatible ports, or something like that, without the need of an adapter cable or dongle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am Nomad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-Stuart G. Walesh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To leave a matter as important as determining intellectual property infringement to meat processes is negligence of the highest order
So what do you call it when the automated process which you hold in such high regard messes up then, dumbfuck?
How do you know that EFF's case page wasn't infringing
How do you know Bruno Mars' official page wasn't infringing on his own music? Fuck me, you're a tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you know Bruno Mars' official page wasn't infringing on his own music? Fuck me, you're a tool.
It is rather funny the lengths some people will go to to defend companies like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The AC I responded to almost certainly meant it to highlight how absurd the claims they were responding to, questioning whether the EFF's page might have been infringing(and therefore a valid DMCA claim), and that one I'm fairly sure was if not honestly meant to be taken literally, simply trolling yet still intended to be taken literally as far as that works within a troll comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Said brain happens to be a plastic bag with a housefly buzzing around inside, its annoying screech whining and reverberating off his flimsy premises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There need to be consequences...
Pity that the "under penalty of perjury" nonsense in the DMCA wording is so hollow - this is a fraud perpetrated on the public and it is causing harm. If someone were to steal a $1 item from a department store, the police would be there. If someone steals something as intangible as freedom of speech, that had to be fought for, the loss is greater but the consequences are less? That seems so backwards.
There need to be consequences for this sort of thing, not just "oh well..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There need to be consequences...
give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Requires Humans
The problem with this is, humans cost money and they are trying to do it on the cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Requires Humans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Requires Humans
Probably only big, rich entities like Google could afford this cost. Smaller potential competitors can't compete with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attached is a DMCA takedown request we received July 22, 2018. We feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid DMCA notices.
Very truly yours,
[Google]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ouch! - you slapped my wrist ... I'm telling mom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strike policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strike policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Strike policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Strike policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Strike policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Strike policy
Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright
owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent. Failure to comply substantially with the statutory requirements means that the notification will not be considered in determining the requisite level of knowledge by the service provider. If upon receiving a proper notification, the service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the
material identified in the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability. In addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for claims based on its having taken down the material
"Upon receiving proper notification" Proper notification under penalty of perjury. Perjury under federal law is a felony that gets you a prison sentence of up to five years. Why are these people not in prison for the many blatantly false takedown notices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Strike policy
Sadly, getting that done effectively is far less likely than Google being attacked even more regularly and harshly than they already are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about delisting the company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For all the notices..
Sent out DMCA, and take downs..
AND WE TOOK IT ALL DOWN..
would there be an internet??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As they like to stack hundreds of URLS in each notice each failure should have a cost...
As always if the cost for screwing up is less than doing it right, they will keep screwing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When idiots program
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA'd?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA'd?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]