stories filed under: "takedown"
Modern Warfare Game Modder DMCA's Infinity Ward
from the bogus-DMCA-claims-are-no-laughing-matter dept
Reader Cameron Boykin alerts us to the news that a game modder appears to have filed a DMCA claim against Infinity Ward for its video of a certain part of Modern Warfare 2, claiming that the element in the game was influenced by a mod he had created. While this may seem amusing to the folks who are pissed off at Infinity Ward for various consumer-unfriendly positions, it still appears to be an abuse of the DMCA. It doesn't sound like Infinity Ward flat out took this guy's code or anything -- and having similar gameplay elements is unlikely to be copyright infringement at all. While it may have just been a joke or a "protest" sort of move, filing a bogus DMCA takedown is bad news no matter how you look at it, and can get the filer into a lot of legal hot water pretty quickly.Filed Under: copyright, dmca, modern warfare 2, takedown
Companies: infinity ward, youtube
Perfect Pitch Accused Of DMCA Abuse To Censor Criticism [Update]
from the copyfraud dept
Michael Scott points us to yet another (yes, another) case of copyfraud, where someone sends a DMCA takedown notice to stop criticism, rather than actual infringement. In this case, the party accused of misusing the DMCA in this manner (which is illegal) is whoever is behind the website PerfectPitch.com, who offers a fee-based training program that is supposed to help people learn to have (surprise, surprise) perfect pitch. Mac Donn had put up a blog post on TheSession.org, asking about the general concept of having perfect pitch (not the course specifically) leading to a relatively tame discussion in the comments. However, one comment sorta kinda maybe referred negatively (barely) to the website PerfectPitch.com, suggesting that that there are plenty of free resources to help train your ears. In response, it certainly appears that the owner of PerfectPitch.com, Gary Boucherle, sent a DMCA takedown request to Google, who removed all links for that supposedly-offending page from its search index.But, of course, that makes no sense. Nothing on the page violates the copyright of Boucherle at all. There isn't any content from his website. There is just a reference to it (and it's basically an aside, rather than a direct discussion). From what's presented, it's difficult to see how this isn't a violation of the DMCA with Boucherle claiming copyright on content that he has no rights (at all) over, in attempt to remove from Google's index a webpage that suggests that there are free alternatives that are better than paying for expensive courses.
We see this kind of abuse of the DMCA all too frequently, as various parties use it as a sledgehammer to censor content they dislike, rather than for anything having to do with copyright infringement. It's a massive problem with the DMCA's notice and takedown process, which puts tremendous pressure on services like Google to simply remove the content first, before there's any actual evidence of infringement.
Update: To his credit, Gary Boucherle stopped by and wrote up what appears to be a very sincere apology. We'll take him at his word that this was just a big accident for which he feels bad, and will work to prevent from happening again.
Filed Under: copyrfraud, dmca, gary boucherle, perfect pitch, takedown
Companies: perfectpitch.com
Latest Bogus DMCA Takedown Sent By NPR?
from the you'd-think-they-know-better dept
You wouldn't normally associate NPR with sending bogus DMCA takedowns, but via the EFF we learn that NPR has sent a DMCA takedown to YouTube over a commercial that uses a clip from NPR. The commercial is from a group that opposes same-sex marriage, so there's likely a political angle here. NPR claims that it issued the takedown to "protect NPR's valuable reputation as a trusted and unbiased source of news," but that's not how copyright works. This is quite similar to when CBS tried to stop the McCain campaign from using a snippet of a broadcast in an ad. In both cases it seems that the use is a clear situation of fair use, with the content not being used for commercial reasons (yes, we'd like to believe that politics still isn't commercial) and only a snippet was being used.Ralph Lauren Admits It Needs Photoshop Help... Doesn't Say Much About DMCA Help
from the could-go-a-bit-further,-you-know... dept
Following last week's hubbub over Ralph Lauren and its lawyers sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites who posted a Ralph Lauren ad that appeared to show an inhumanly skinny model, the company has put out a statement confessing that the ad was terrible:"For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."That's nice and all... but it doesn't address the question of sending bogus takedown notices to both the Photoshop Disasters' webhost and Boing Boing's webhost. The fact that the company later admits that its photoshopping was done poorly actually makes the situation seem even worse -- as the company, rather than admit that at first, used a bogus legal proceeding to take down legitimate criticism -- criticism that the company itself is now admitting was perfectly legitimate.
Filed Under: dmca, photoshop, takedown
Companies: ralph lauren
Ralph Lauren And Its Lawyers Discover The Streisand Effect On Bogus DMCA Takedown
from the someone's-bright-idea dept
Will they never learn? Issuing bogus DMCA takedowns to get content down that you don't like, rather than which is actually infringing, is going to backfire. Badly. Last week, the website Photoshop Disasters put up a post showing a ridiculous Ralph Lauren ad with a woman who was too skinny to be alive. Boing Boing put up a post about it, along with the tag line "Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis." While some have questioned whether the ad is even real, one thing is clear: Ralph Lauren was not pleased. The company's lawyers at Greenberg Traurig sent DMCA takedown notices concerning both posts. Despite Blogger's new DMCA policy, Google still quickly took down the post at Photoshop Disasters, causing the site to ask whether or not Ralph Lauren or its lawyers have ever heard of the Streisand Effect (yay). BoingBoing's host, however, doesn't automatically take content down and passed along the info to BoingBoing, who quickly pointed out that this was clearly fair use (commentary, criticism, etc.) and the DMCA takedown wasn't being used to stop infringing content, but to stifle speech.
So, not surprisingly, BoingBoing put up a nice post explaining the whole thing, including a nice quote from lawyer Wendy Seltzer about fair use... and, of course, another version of the image, and dared Ralph Lauren to sue. Hopefully Ralph Lauren and its lawyers get the message and offer a quick apology. In the meantime, it makes you wonder what the hell anyone was thinking in sending out such a bogus DMCA. Do people really not recognize the consequences?
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, streisand effect, takedown
Companies: ralph lauren
Why Is CBS Trying To Take Down Letterman Revelation Video?
from the what-good-does-it-do? dept
Last week, soon after the news broke that David Letterman had confessed, on air, to a variety of affairs with staffers, following a blackmail attempt about those affairs, Peter Kafka over at AllthingsD pointed to a YouTube video of the 10 minute revelation, noting that he expected CBS to be playing wac-a-mole in trying to force all of the clips offline. And, indeed, that's exactly what's happening. CBS has apparently been sending takedown after takedown to YouTube to get the clip offline. This is odd for a few reasons. First, CBS is actually one of the few TV networks to actually like YouTube, and use it regularly to its own advantage. Way back in 2006, the company announced that tests showed that when it put clips on YouTube, it resulted in more viewership, not less.So why take down all these clips?
The anonymously sourced explanation in the article is just that there was a request from Letterman's production company to CBS not to put that clip online. I can see why that request was made in the first place (who wants that embarrassing clip up there...) but it still doesn't make much sense once you think about it. If Letterman didn't want that video out there, then why discuss it at all on the show? The show went out to millions of people. It's pretty silly to then pretend it doesn't exist at all. All it really does is call that much more attention to the situation. Meanwhile, the clips keep going up, and employees at both CBS and YouTube have to waste a ton of time repeatedly taking them down... And, in the end, the clips will end up on other sites anyway. If anyone wants to see the Letterman explanation, they'll see it. So why not put it up on the official CBS/Letterman feed and deal with it that way?
Filed Under: david letterman, takedown, videos
Companies: youtube
YouTube Takedown Again Being Used To Try To Block Newsworthy Content
from the but-why? dept
Apparently, there's a big hubbub up in Canada over an embarrassing act involving Prime Minister Stephen Harper pocketing a communion wafer during a Catholic funeral. The video of the episode is getting a lot of attention... but now one of the main copies of the video has been taken down due to a YouTube copyright claim. Still, what's really odd is that the video was done by CPAC, but the takedown notice is from Radio Canada. As Michael Gesit points out, it's difficult to see what the copyright claim is, as the clip itself can be considered newsworthy and "fair dealing" (Canada uses "fair dealing" rules rather than "fair use") for others to show it.Filed Under: canada, copyright, fair dealing, stephen harper, takedown
Once Again, Before Sending A DMCA Takedown, It Helps To Actually Own The Content
from the just-a-suggestion dept
Jason points us to the news that, once again, someone who doesn't own the copyright to something has sent a DMCA takedown on a YouTube video. The link doesn't fully explain the situation, which is explained in the following video:Filed Under: dmca, fox news, takedown
Companies: discovery institute
The Next Big Copyright Battle? The 'Real-Time' Web
from the it's-coming dept
The history of copyright law is pretty straightforward: basically every time some new technology comes along that shows just how obsolete copyright law is, rather than recognize that fact, entrenched interests warn politicians about how they'll just die if they don't get new protections, and another layer of protectionism is slapped onto the law -- not (as copyright law intends) for incentives to create new works, but as a policy to protect an old industry. That's created a house of cards, where copyright law keeps getting stretched and twisted every time it's adjusted. In 1909 the problem was player pianos. A big part of the reason for changing copyright law in 1909 was the fear that player pianos would destroy the market for sheet music and even (potentially) live performances. So the law was changed... but the player piano soon died. But the copyright law it gave us stuck around. When radio came about, we got changes to copyright law to deal with that. When the internet came about, we got the DMCA. So what's next? Perhaps the internet's new big buzzword: "the real-time web."We've already talked about how it was only a matter of time until someone was sued for "lifecasting." With video recording and streaming technologies getting cheaper and cheaper, there are a number of services out there that let people broadcast anything they're doing. For many of them, it's a lot of fun... but in almost every case, some copyright lawyers could make an argument that it represents copyright infringement. If you are videotaping, and you walk past a TV broadcasting a copyrighted show, some would argue that's infringement. If you happen to hear some music, that's infringement. Yes, there may be a fair use defense, but this is hardly a situation where people are going to want to go to court just to defend the fact that they walked past a TV.
In reality, this should (again) demonstrate the silliness of copyright laws right now. The fact that merely walking past a TV while streaming video could be considered a copyright violation should be seen as a joke. It's legal if I see it with my own eyes, but if I include a virtual eye that lets others see it as well... that's infringement? Yet, there are already lawsuits over this sort of thing, and Liz Gannes at NewTeeVee has a thoughtful article wondering if copyright holders are going to start complaining that the DMCA is insufficient to deal with these sorts of situations.
As it stands now, the DMCA already goes too far in allowing someone to claim they are a copyright holder and demand a takedown of content they believe is infringing. To retain the DMCA's safe harbors and avoid potential liability, a site then has to take down the content. This gives copyright holders (or even those who claim to be copyright holders) tremendous power to force content offline for at least a few days. Yet, the fear is that in a "real-time" world, that's not fast enough. If I'm watching a baseball game, and turn on my camera, by the time MLB or whoever the broadcaster is discovers it and sends out the takedown, the game is already going to be over. They could still sue me and perhaps that acts as a deterrent, but we've see how little a deterrent mass lawsuits have had in the music industry.
So what happens next? My guess is that we'll see some sort of push to change copyright laws again to try to deal with this "problem." Perhaps even something that would put liability on any company that enables "real-time" streaming. The content companies won't want the burden of actually changing their business model, so they'll try to dump the burden of enforcing the old business model on the innovators. Hopefully, though, there are enough folks out there who won't simply let such a change go through unchallenged.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, life casting, live streaming, real-time, takedown
