Is Major League Soccer Sending False DMCA Takedown Notices?

from the maybe-so dept

Dave writes in with an interesting story suggesting that Major League Soccer is potentially violating the DMCA by issuing a takedown of footage for which it does not own the copyright. The details are a little confusing, and some parts aren't entirely clear -- but from the account at the link, two Major League Soccer teams participated in a separate tournament, called the U.S. Open Cup. The event was not televised at all, despite efforts among fans to provide a streaming webcast. Apparently, at the soccer match, a fight broke out, and the local news covered it, using footage from the game. Following this, some bloggers posted the news stations' story about the fight on YouTube -- at which point MLS sent a DMCA takedown notice. The question is whether or not MLS has copyright over the footage (MLS's trademarks are meaningless here, as the DMCA only refers to copyright).

What is not clear is who took the footage. Considering that the game was not televised and the event itself was not an MLS event, it's difficult to believe that it's MLS's footage, and thus, MLS wouldn't hold the copyright over it. However, even if it is MLS coverage, the fact that it was a newsworthy event, and the footage was used in a news report, it would suggest that this particular snippet was actually fair use as used in commenting on it for news purposes. And, if anything, the copyright on the overall clip of the newscast belonged not to MLS, but to the news company. Overall, it seems quite likely that this attempt to censor the clip from YouTube was illegal, as MLS is probably asserting copyright over content for which it does not hold the copyright. But, these days, that's just all in a day's work of misusing the DMCA.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, soccer, takedowns
Companies: major league soccer, mls

Would The Entertainment Industry Follow A Three Strikes Rule Itself?

from the three-strikes-and-*you're*-out dept

The entertainment industry has been increasingly pressuring ISPs to be copyright cops. The "three strikes" approach being pushed in France, the UK, Australia and possibly Canada is one of the more extreme attempts which would have unauthorized file sharers kicked off the internet entirely. Cory Doctorow asks if such companies would accept their own rule with a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy for sending out erroneous copyright notices -- meaning that they lose their own access for sending out three bogus takedown notices. Given that organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have sent takedown notices to laser printers and believe that providing proof of infringement is too hard, why not cut them off from the internet too after three questionable takedowns? Doctorow's proposal is admittedly Swiftian; aside from being entertaining, it highlights the ridiculousness of the whole three-strikes-and-you're-off-the-internet idea. If the entertainment industry wants ISPs to impose a three strikes rule for improper usage, they shouldn't mind being held to the same standard.

Filed Under: copyright, isps, takedowns, three strikes

Mock Outrage Over An Ad You Paid For? Reverse Streisand Effect

from the oh-come-on dept

As the concept of The Streisand Effect has become more and more well known, the question I'm most frequently asked is whether or not a company stupidly demanding something be taken down is really being done by someone that understands the likely result and is just using the resulting "attention" to their advantage -- that is, are they pulling a "reverse Streisand Effect." It's often pretty difficult to sort out these cases from the real Streisand Effect, and when in doubt, it's often best to just assume the simplest explanation that the company really was acting stupidly.

However, in this latest case, I'm really not sure -- and am starting to suspect a Reverse Streisand Effect by J.C. Penney to promote a new viral video. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that J.C. Penney is pissed off at its ad firm Saatchi & Saatchi for "leaking" a "fake" ad that "appears to be endorsing teen sex." The ad involves a young boy and girl practicing getting dressed as quickly as possible before the boy goes over to the girl's house to hang out in the basement, while the girl's mother is upstairs. Supposedly J.C. Penney "instructed Saatchi to take any action it can to have the ad removed from the Internet."

Uh huh. And now, suddenly, that ad is all over the internets. The whole thing smacks of mock outrage with a demand to takedown content knowing that it will only spread far and wide. So what do people think? Is this a Reverse Streisand Effect or is J.C. Penney just clueless?

Filed Under: commercials, reverse streisand effect, streisand effect, takedowns
Companies: j.c. penney, saatchi & saatchi

Atari Sues Websites Over Pre-Release Reviews Of Games

from the what's-illegal-here? dept

Slashdot points us to the news that Atari has started suing various websites that posted reviews of new games prior to the release date of the games. The reviews are negative, but the real problem, according to Atari, is that there was a press embargo on reviewing the games, and if someone has a copy of the game prior to the embargo and hasn't agreed to the embargo, then it's clear that they pirated the game. At least one site has explained that it purchased the game legally from a retail source who mistakenly sold the game before the release date -- which would suggest the problem is with the retailer, not the reviewer. No matter what, the whole thing seems ridiculous. Suing those who review your games (even if the reviews are not good or if the reviews come out early) is a sure way to make sure many sites refuse to review anything you do again.

Filed Under: pre-release, reviews, takedowns, video games
Companies: atari

AP Quotes Blogger In Discussing Bloggers Quoting AP; Hilarity Ensues

from the i-want-my-$12.50 dept

The ongoing ridiculous situation brewing between bloggers and the Associated Press has now taken a turn towards the enjoyably hilarious. We had already mentioned the fact that, despite the AP's complaints that bloggers quoting less than 100 words were violating fair use, the AP had a long history of quoting more than 100 words from bloggers -- and not even linking back to the original blog. Now, in a bit of ultimate irony, the AP's own article about this brouhaha quoted (without linking) twenty-two words from TechCrunch. That's 18 words more than the supposed four word "limit" the AP has suggested. With an ironic chance that wide, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington couldn't resist, and asked his lawyer to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Associated Press, along with a bill for $12.50 (directly off the AP's own pricing schedule). He admits that it's ridiculous, but that's what his actions are designed to present. By law, the AP should be required to takedown the content before filing a response -- though, since it's filing the response to itself, then perhaps it won't need to takedown the content. Either way, this helps illustrate the insanity of the entire situation.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, michael arrington, takedowns
Companies: associated press, techcrunch

Metallica Says It's Sorry About Review Takedowns; Blames Management

from the always-management's-fault dept

Mathew Ingram alerts us to the news that the band Metallica has responded on its own website to the controversy over representatives from the band demanding reviews of the band's latest album get taken offline. The band's response is basically to blame its management company:

We were informed that someone at Q Prime (our managers) had made the error of asking a few publications to take down reviews of the rough mixes from the new record that were posted on their sites. Our response was "WHY?!!! Why take down mostly positive reviews of the new material and prevent people from getting psyched about the next record. . . that makes no sense to us!" So after a few rounds of managerial ear spank and sentencing everyone at Q Prime to 20 push-ups each, we figured why not take matters into our own hands and just post the links here on our site.

And, with that, they linked to the reviews. While plausible, the whole thing sounds sketchy at this point. It seems like a weak cop-out to say "oh, it was our managers' fault" when the band has had so much controversy concerning how it has interacted with the internet community. Besides, even this response rings hollow. The band only seemed concerned that the management team took down "mostly positive reviews," not the fact that it took down reviews. It's nice that they have now linked to the reviews, but the fact that this happened in the first place still seems like a problem.

Filed Under: apologies, internet, metallica, reviews, takedowns

Metallica Still Doesn't Get It: Forces Early Reviews Of Latest Album Offline

from the have-they-ever-used-the-internet? dept

While Metallica has been trying to appear more internet friendly these days, it sounds like the band still has a lot to learn. Representatives of the band invited a bunch of music journalists and bloggers to a "listening party" last week to hear tracks off its upcoming album. Attendees weren't asked to sign any kind of embargo or non-disclosure form. So, as you might expect, some of them went home and wrote up quick reviews based on what they heard. And that was the point at which Metallica representatives went around demanding that these early reviewers take down the reviews, claiming that the songs they heard were an early mix of the album, rather than the final cut. If that's the case, then they shouldn't have played it for journalists -- or they should have at least required a non-disclosure agreement. To go around forcing journalists to remove their reviews of music played for them by a Metallica representative is simply ridiculous. Not only that, but it wasn't even as if the reviews were bad. Last time we wrote about Metallica, we noted that the band was still suffering from the hit its reputation took in 2000 when it sued Napster and various colleges. Pulling stunts like this only makes sure that its reputation will continue to slide.

Filed Under: internet, metallica, reviews, takedowns

The Difference Between Content And Communication In The YouTube/Viacom Billion Dollar Spat

from the this-may-take-a-while dept

It's been well over one year since Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion, but these things take time. Late Friday, Google filed its response to Viacom's recent filings in regards to the lawsuit, and basically said pretty much what you'd expect Google to say:

1. that it follows the rules of the DMCA's notice-and-takedown procedure
2. that it does everything it can possibly do to stop the sharing of any copyrighted content that it's alerted to and
3. that Viacom's claims that it's not doing anything are clearly incorrect.

Google also makes the rather important point that the DMCA safe harbors were put in place for a very good reason (to make sure liability is focused on those actually liable) and if the court were to overturn those safe harbors it could dismantle much of what makes the internet work as a communications platform.

What's really left unsaid (but is an important point of conflict that we're going to see more and more of over the next few years) is that this suit demonstrates the different ways that certain companies are viewing the internet (and how our existing laws are basically duct-taped together to account for this difference). Media companies still look on the internet as a content platform. That is, they think of it as a new broadcast medium. Most other folks recognize that the internet is a communications medium, and the focus should be on the ease of communication. That's a problem for anyone who comes from a world of broadcast media, and it creates all sorts of problems for copyright law that is designed mainly to protect a broadcast-style media. Yet, when it comes to communication, the idea of using copyright to restrict content gets weird in a hurry.

In typical communication, copyright makes no sense. You don't worry about copyright (even though it exists) when you send a letter or an email to a friend. You're communicating, so of course the idea gets copied and repeated. In broadcast, the broadcast media model was always based on control and artificial scarcity. The DMCA safe harbors are kind of a kludge to deal with this difference, putting the onus on the communicator not to be breaking someone's copyright, leaving the communications platform out of it. Yet from the perspective of the media companies, they view the internet as a broadcast media, and thus the YouTube's of the world aren't communication platform providers, but competing broadcasters. Hopefully, the court will recognize the reality that the internet was always a communications platform, and it's just the broadcast media (who are late to the party, anyway) who are trying to force it to act more like a broadcast system.

Filed Under: communication, content, copyright, dmca, takedowns
Companies: google, viacom, youtube

YouTomb Joins Chilling Effects In Tracking Takedowns

from the tracking-the-takedowns dept

The DMCA lets copyright holders send takedown messages to various sites, demanding allegedly infringing content be taken offline. It's been rather successful in doing that. A few years ago, a great site, Chilling Effects sprung up to track all sorts of takedown notices (not just having to do with copyright, but any kind of cease & desist threats -- though DMCA takedowns are common). It's a joint effort by the EFF and a bunch of universities, and has been invaluable in tracking the efforts by some to threaten people into taking down various types of content. Now, in a similar effort, MIT is sponsoring a site that will track takedowns of videos on YouTube. The site is creatively named YouTomb. This isn't to say that the copyright holders are wrong in sending the takedown notices -- but it's important to collect information and data on how often these tools are being used and by whom to get a better understanding of whether the system really makes sense.

Filed Under: chilling effects, copyright, dmca, mit, takedowns, videos, youtomb

Mormons The Latest To Make Their Secret Documents More Popular By Trying To Take Them Down

from the is-streisand-a-mormon? dept

A couple months ago, in discussing The Streisand Effect with a reporter, the reporter asked if I thought lawyers would one day be accused of malpractice for not informing their clients of the potential implications of demanding some content be pulled off the internet. While I doubt it will reach the point of malpractice, it certainly does make you wonder what some lawyers are thinking when there are such clear examples of what happens when you try to suppress material online. Earlier this year, the lawsuit that brought plenty of new attention to the concept of The Streisand Effect was when a Swiss bank, Julius Baer, convinced a judge to shut down the site Wikileaks for hosting some documents related to a lawsuit Julius Baer was involved in. Of course, not surprisingly, the attempt to shut down Wikileaks got those documents much more attention (and did the same for Wikileaks as well). Eventually, the judge reversed the order and Julius Baer dropped the lawsuit. But the end result showed how badly the strategy backfired on Julius Baer. Before it demanded the documents be taken down, almost no one saw the documents or even knew that the bank was involved in a case that accused of it laundering money. Afterwards, a lot more people knew about the lawsuit and had seen the documents -- and they were still online.

That situation got so much publicity, you would think that anyone would think twice about going down the same path. No such luck. Last month, Scientology threatened Wikileaks for hosting Scientology documents, and this morning (as a whole bunch of folks have sent in) news is coming out that the Mormon Church is threatening Wikileaks as well, for hosting church documents. In this case, the Mormon Church isn't just going after Wikileaks, but also threatened the WikiMedia foundation and document hosting site Scribd. It went after WikiMedia because WikiNews ran an article about the document and linked to them (which is hardly copyright infringement). Scribd was apparently hosting a copy of the documents as well (since taken down). Wikileaks, however, true to its charter, is refusing to take down the documents.

While you can understand why the Church might not like it's documents being made public, it does seem ridiculous that whoever decided to start threatening everyone didn't do the most basic research to recognize what would happen as soon as they threatened sites. Given what happened with Julius Baer, it should have been abundantly clear that threatening Wikileaks would almost guarantee that the documents were both more widely seen than before and copied widely across the internet.

Filed Under: documents, mormons, scientology, streisand effect, takedowns, wikileaks, wikinews
Companies: wikileads, wikimedia