NC, Or Not NC: Why Suing The Sons Of Confederate Veterans In N.D.Cal For Violating The DMCA Makes Sense

from the that-is-the-question dept

In Mike's piece about Greg Doucette's lawsuit against the Sons of Confederate Veterans for abusing the DMCA, he suggests that the lawsuit might not belong in the Northern District of California. I thought it worth exploring why it might very much belong here, because those reasons may apply to most other DMCA Section 512(f) jurisprudence as well.

Mike is right that there are many things to consider in deciding where to bring a legal fight. Neutral ground, especially on issues as sensitive locally as those raised by this case, can indeed be desirable because it will help allow for clear focus on the legal questions. And in this regard Northern California is a better choice than North Carolina.

But there are also legal considerations. When I first read Marc Randazza's demand letter on behalf of Doucette, I worried that he would have to file any such lawsuit in Northern California. Which is in the Ninth Circuit, which is the sole circuit that has thus far interpreted Section 512(f) of the DMCA. And which, in doing so, basically inserted its own language into the statute when it decided that a takedown notice sender only had to have a subjective "good faith belief" that the targeted material was infringing. Which represents a substantial decrease in the amount of good faith a takedown notice sender would need to have in order to be able to send their deletion demands with impunity. Which has thus severely defanged the DMCA's 512(f) provision, which was supposed to impose a deterring penalty on those who send invalid ones. And which has therefore now opened the door to a torrent of unmeritorious and abusive takedown demands, of which the Songs of Confederate Veterans demand was just one more. I therefore hoped that if any lawsuit should follow that it be filed elsewhere, where a new court could look at the statute with fresh eyes and ignore the Ninth Circuit's statutory modifications. But I wasn't sure it could be.

Forum choice isn't exactly a science. It can sometimes be the most heavily litigated aspect of a case. And there also may not always even be just one right answer. But there are some general rules to help figure out whether a forum choice is appropriate, and one of them relates to where the harm occurred. On the one hand, the Sons of Confederate Veterans were likely located in North Carolina when they dispatched their takedown notice. But that takedown notice was dispatched to a company with corporate headquarters in Northern California, and it was at that company where the decision to abide by the takedown demand and remove the material Doucette had published was made.

And where, arguably, it needed to be made. Because a DMCA takedown notice isn't really an attack against allegedly infringing content. It's an attack against the 512(c) safe harbor that Internet platforms depend on to not get obliterated by crippling copyright litigation. Greg Doucette's speech was victimized by the takedown demand, but the takedown demand itself was the Sons of Confederate Veterans actually throwing down the gauntlet at Dropbox, demanding satisfaction. Like any 512(c) takedown notice it essentially was a declaration to the platform, "Take this content down, or we may sue you for it." And all the harm that then flowed to Doucette was due to Dropbox, a company headquartered in Northern California, yielding to this threat.

We may wish that Dropbox had resisted this facially unmeritorious demand. From time to time platforms can and do resist bogus takedown demands. But by and large it is simply not possible to pick and choose which to ignore. There are simply too many takedown demands, and the stakes are too enormous if the platform should get the call wrong.

Which is why having a provision like 512(f) as part of the DMCA was so important. Because the platforms cannot effectively filter out the abusive takedown notices, we need the senders to do it themselves. We need the fear of expensive sanction needs to be plausible enough to make a takedown notice sender think twice before sending a wrongful one. Unfortunately, following the Rossi and Lenz v. Universal cases, the decision to send garbage takedown demands is now virtually costless.

But maybe it won't be here. It's quite possible that this takedown notice, which zeroed in on a textbook-example of First Amendment-protected speech exemplifying exactly why the public interest demands we protect it, failed to meet even the flimsy Ninth Circuit standard of "subjective" good faith. It's possible that adjudicating this case, in N.D. Cal and maybe eventually the Ninth Circuit at large, could turn out to provide a precedential example that helps revive at least some of the potency 512(f) was supposed to have. True, it won't be able to incite the sort of circuit split that attracts the Supreme Court review needed to resolve the issue once and for all, as it unfortunately refused to do in the Lenz case. But given the number of Internet platforms availing themselves of the 512(c) safe harbor who are located here, in this district and this circuit, this is where we need to see the courts finally start recognizing and punishing the harm on protected speech that these meritless takedown demands inflict.

Filed Under: 512(f), 512f, 9th circuit, dmca, dmca 512, greg doucette, jurisdiction, marc randazza, north carolina, northern california, venue
Companies: dropbox

Sons Of Confederate Veterans Sued Over Bogus DMCA Takedown

from the well,-that-should-be-interesting dept

As you'll recall, earlier this month we wrote about this bizarre situation in North Carolina, in which the University of North Carolina agreed to give a bunch of racists $2.5 million to settle a lawsuit before the lawsuit had even been filed. The details of the story came out due to some inquisitive digging by North Carolina lawyer Greg Doucette. And, in response to him publishing the details, including a "victory" letter sent by the head of the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans (in which it is admitted that they obviously had no legal standing to sue), Doucette's Dropbox account was blocked thanks to a bogus DMCA letter from the group. Doucette retained lawyer Marc Randazza, who sent the Sons a letter demanding they use the $2.5 million to fund scholarships for African American UNC students or face a lawsuit for the bogus takedown. That letter argued that the bogus DMCA notice violated Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which (in theory) is supposed to stop abusive takedowns by punishing "misrepresentations" in takedown notices.

As I noted at the time, Section 512(f) of the DMCA is effectively dead, as courts rarely enforce anything about it and, at best, have said that those issuing a DMCA notice simply only need to consider fair use and if they, in their minds, think it's not, can still send the takedown. However, Randazza and Doucette have decided to move forward anyway and have sued the NC Sons of Confederate Veterans, along with its leader Kevin Stone, and Dropbox (who blocked Doucette's account). As is fairly typical of a Randazza filing, it's an entertaining read:

Some claim that memorials like these are there to celebrate “southern heritage” rather than as memorials to the subjugation of African Americans.

When Silent Sam was unveiled in 1913, KKK supporter Julian Carr announced that the Confederate soldiers it honored had saved “the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South,” and told the following story:

“One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shotgun under my head.”

With a metaphorical flamethrower taken to this myth of “southern pride,” student protesters tore the statue down on Monday, August 20, 2018. The University of North Carolina did not restore the statue to its former “glory.”

On November 27, 2019, the Sons of Confederate Veterans filed a lawsuit against UNC for its failure to return Silent Sam to his location, despite lacking standing (and knowing it) to bring such a suit. Despite the fact that the NCSCV lacked standing, seven minutes after the suit was filed, a state court judge approved a settlement between the parties.

The lawsuit has been filed not in North Carolina, but in Norther California (the other NC). The reasoning here is that because this lawsuit is over a DMCA takedown notice to Dropbox and Dropbox terms require users to consent to Northern California jurisdiction:

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because a) in using Dropbox, they consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in the state and Federal courts in San Francisco, California; and b) the sending of the takedown notice at issue constitutes sufficient minimum contacts under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and U.S. Const., Amdt. XIV, where Defendants purposefully directed their acts toward California, committing an intentional act, expressly aimed at California, causing Plaintiffs harm in California as they have been deprived of the full use of their California-based Dropbox account.

This also appears to be the sole reason that Dropbox is listed as a defendant in the case. The complaint notes that it is not asking for any money from Dropbox, just to have Doucette's account restored:

Dropbox is named as a defendant herein only to achieve complete relief; Plaintiffs seek no damages against Dropbox.

Well, these are the stated reasons for filing in California. I am assuming that the actual reason for suing in Northern California is that probably the only two successful 512(f) lawsuits both came in the Northern District of California and the 9th Circuit has probably the most caselaw on such claims -- but that includes an appellate ruling that the "good faith" requirement is subjective. That is, if the takedown notice filer believes in their minds that the DMCA notice was legit, that's enough. Of course, one other possible reason for filing in Northern California rather than North Carolina? Folks in California might not be quite as sympathetic to the Confederacy as folks in North Carolina.

As much as I'd like to see better rulings on 512(f) (or for Congress to fix it so that it has some teeth), I find it unlikely that this case will get very far -- and, frankly, the California filing feels a bit like jurisdiction shopping. It's not totally egregious as such (Dropbox is here in northern California and there are legit arguments for why the recipient of the takedown may be the proper party for determining jurisdiction), but... it's still a stretch. The declaratory judgment for non-infringement seem like much stronger claims, though they won't generate monetary returns.

In the meantime, the situation with UNC and the statue itself is far from over. Outcry and protests over the sketchy deal has resulted in at least one UNC funder pulling a $1.5 million grant to the University. And it doesn't sound like the outcry and protests are calming down. Separately, a group of UNC students have moved to intervene in the original case (the one that was filed and settled in mere minutes) trying to have the settlement tossed and then the case dismissed entirely.

Filed Under: 512(f), 512f, copyright, dmca, greg doucette, kevin stone, marc randazza, takedowns
Companies: drop box, sons of confederate veterans, unc

Lawyer Asks Racists To Use Sketchy Millions They Got From UNC To Fund Scholarships For Black Students To Avoid Lawsuit For Bogus Takedown

from the unleash-the-kraken-who-says-fuck-a-lot dept

Last week we wrote about the sketchy, sketchy deal in which UNC gave some racists $2.5 million to settle a lawsuit that was filed after the agreement was made, and settled moments later. More and more details keep coming out, making the whole situation look even sketchier (and even less legal). However, for our purposes, we're focused on the copyright angle of this story. As you'll recall, the lawyer who tracked down many of the details, T. Greg Doucette, also got his hands on a letter from the racist group, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, explaining the whole deal, including them admitting flat out that they didn't have standing to sue, and any lawsuit would be thrown out almost immediately. That is, unless you've set it up so that the University has already agreed to give you millions of dollars. Doucette posted the letter to his Dropbox account, where he had posted other documents regarding this mess.

Then, the Sons of Confederate Veterans sent a DMCA takedown notice over the letter, and Doucette's Dropbox is (as I type this) still limited. However, late last week, Doucette hired lawyers Marc Randazza and Jay Wolman to send quite a letter to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, arguing that the DMCA takedown was a violation of 512(f) of the DMCA. The initial letter (linked here and embedded below) was sent to lawyer Boyd Sturges, who represented the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their "negotiations" with UNC. However, I've been told that Sturges refused to accept the letter, claiming he had nothing to do with this aspect, and so a second (though, nearly identical) letter has been sent directly to R. Kevin Stone, the "Commander" of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

We'll jump straight to the punchline. After spending a few pages in typical Randazza-style flowery language explaining just how bullshit the takedown was (and just how sketchy the UNC deal was), Doucette (via Randazza) say that they will go to court to argue that the takedown violates Section 512(f) unless the following happens:

Should your client wish to avoid litigation, Mr. Doucette proposes the following: the $2.5 million your client did or will receive from UNC will be, instead, diverted to a scholarship fund for African American students at UNC, or other similar use, subject to our client’s approval. And of course, the DMCA notice must be immediately withdrawn. If you accept this offer, our client shall commit to oblivion the feelings your client’s actions engendered.

That's a bit attention grabbing -- as is the rest of the letter. The argument for why a suit could work is included here:

Mr. Doucette used the letter to expose and criticize the fraud you perpetrated on the Court, including suborning Mr. Stone’s perjury. After all, it was a verified complaint, notarized by you. While this might make more shams less likely, again, this is not a “market” for the original letter.

The misleading takedown notice was issued in bad faith, because it failed to consider Mr. Doucette’s fair use rights. See Lenz v. Universal Music Grp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1154-55 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine … is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to § 512(f) of the DMCA.") Your client clearly made such a material misrepresentation, and my client will not allow it to go unpunished.

The NCSCV is liable to Mr. Doucette for his damages and attorneys’ fees under Section 512(f) of the DMCA. Mr. Doucette is prepared to file suit for this, as well as for a declaration of non-infringement and any other causes of action he may have, which are still being evaluated. Mr. Doucette is considering a lawsuit not out of bitterness or vindictive feelings, but because it seems that the NCSCV has tried to wrest from him his dearest rights. This will not stand, man.

Unlike your client’s other most recent litigation, this suit will be real. Important principles are at stake, and Mr. Doucette is a man of principle.

While all of the above is accurate, what also remains unfortunately true is that DMCA 512(f) remains mostly toothless. The one useful 512(f) case, the Lenz case cited in the above section, still ended badly for the person targeted with the bad DMCA notice. While the court says you have to consider fair use, it more or less set up the rule that as long as the issuer of the DMCA briefly considers fair use before issuing the DMCA notice anyway, it's not going to matter.

So even if this did go to court, I'm not at all confident that Doucette/Randazza would win. This is why, if anything, 512(f) should be strengthened, to stop the bogus use of these kinds of censorial takedowns. So, while the letter is amusing, and a fun read, I'd be surprised if it actually results in anything significant.

Filed Under: 512(f), 512f, censorship, copyright, dmca, greg doucette, marc randazza, scholarship, sons of confederate veterans
Companies: dropbox, unc

Guy Who Tried To Extort YouTubers With Bogus DMCA Takedowns Agrees To Settlement

from the that-was-mighty-quick dept

Just a couple months back we wrote about YouTube suing a guy for trying to extort YouTubers with bogus DMCA notices. The evidence was pretty damning that Christopher Brady had been harassing and demanding money from various YouTubers and using the threat of bogus DMCA notices (which could kill someone's account) for leverage. The complaint also suggested that Brady was looking to swat some YouTubers as well. As we noted in our original post, the case hinged on Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which was supposed to be the tool to prevent false takedown notices -- but, which in practice is effectively a dead letter, as 512(f) claims rarely go anywhere. If there was some hope that a case with the facts so blatant might breathe new life into 512(f), well, that ended quickly as Brady has wasted no time at all in agreeing to settle the case.

The settlement is pretty straightforward. Brady agrees not to send any more bogus DMCA notices to YouTube and also agrees not to "misrepresent or mask" his identity on any Google property. He also agreed to pay $25,000 to Google, which probably about covers their legal bills for bringing this case. Brady also released an apology statement, which suggests he may have sent more bogus DMCA notices than were included in the lawsuit.

“I, Christopher L. Brady, admit that I sent dozens of notices to YouTube falsely claiming that material uploaded by YouTube users infringed my copyrights. I apologize to the YouTube users that I directly impacted by my actions, to the YouTube community, and to YouTube itself.”

Of course, while it's good to see such an apology and settlement, it still doesn't change the fact that bogus DMCA notices happen all the time. While Brady may have been more extreme and more blatant than most, there's still a huge problem with a law that creates a situation that mere accusation will often get content removed.

Filed Under: 512(f), christopher brady, dmca, dmca 512, dmca 512f, dmca notices, extortion, shakedown, takedowns
Companies: google, youtube

YouTube Sues Guy Who Tried To Extort People Through Bogus DMCA Takedowns

from the 512(f)-lives! dept

We've talked in the past about how Section (f) of the DMCA Section 512 is more or less a dead letter. 512(f) is the part that is supposed to stop bogus DMCA takedowns, by saying that you can be liable for "misrepresentations" in takedowns. In practice, though, courts never seem to award anything for bogus takedowns, meaning that it's a "free" way to censor anyone you'd like. Or worse. Earlier this year, we covered how some had taken the DMCA abuse process so far that they were using bogus YouTube DMCA takedowns as part of an extortion scheme. Literally, people would contact popular YouTubers (often those who made videos about Minecraft) and threaten to DMCA their videos if they didn't receive payment.

It appears that YouTube was actually paying attention, and it has now filed a 512(f) claim against at least one of the people doing this, a guy in Omaha, Nebraska named Christopher Brady -- who probably is not having the best week. You can read the complaint here. It's pretty straightforward:

Defendant, Christopher L. Brady (“Brady), has repeatedly attempted to harass and extort money from YouTube content creators through bogus allegations of copyright infringement. This lawsuit seeks to hold him accountable for that misconduct, and for the damage he has caused to YouTube.

In 1998, Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512 (the “DMCA”), to provide a framework for addressing claims of online copyright infringement. In general, the DMCA immunizes online service providers from claims of copyright infringement based on materials uploaded to the services by users, if the services promptly remove allegedly infringing materials upon receipt of notices from copyright holders. Through these notices, the content of which is statutorily prescribed, copyright holders are able to secure the expeditious removal of allegedly infringing materials from online services without the need to prove a claim of infringement in court. Users that receive infringement notices they contend are incorrect may file a counter notification by providing their name, address, and telephone number, and consent to service of process by the complaining party.

Congress also recognized that these “takedown notices” could be used maliciously to secure the removal of content that was not legitimately claimed to be infringing. Accordingly, it included a provision in the DMCA authorizing those aggrieved by fraudulent notices to bring an action against the sender for damages. This is such an action.

The complaint lays out Brady's behavior in fairly great detail.

Defendant Brady targeted the YouTube accounts of Kenzo and ObbyRaidz, among others, in an extortionate scheme.

In January 2019, Defendant Brady, using several falsified identities, sent YouTube multiple notices of alleged copyright infringement pursuant to the DMCA, claiming that two videos uploaded by Kenzo and two videos uploaded by ObbyRaidz supposedly infringed copyrights that he owned.

Defendant Brady’s notices of alleged infringement included the various representations required under the DMCA. Brady identified the specific locations of the videos posted by Kenzo and ObbyRaidz. He represented that he was the original creator of those videos, that he held the copyright to them, that the videos posted by Kenzo and ObbyRaidz infringed his copyrights, and that each of his notices was accurate. And he certified: “UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Brady even included links to other copies of the videos in question as “proof” that he, rather than Kenzo and ObbyRaidz, had created them.

Defendant Brady’s notices of alleged infringement were fraudulent. The videos posted by Kenzo and ObbyRaidz that Brady identified in his notices did not infringe any copyright supposedly owned by Brady. Brady knew that at the time he sent the notices. Brady also knew that did not hold the copyright to the videos he identified as his own in the notices. His certifications under penalty of perjury in the notices were knowingly false.

Defendant Brady sent the notices of alleged infringement for the improper purpose of inducing YouTube to remove the identified videos and assess unwarranted copyright strikes on the Kenzo and ObbyRaidz accounts.

The complaint goes on to note -- as we had in our article earlier this year -- the blackmail messages sent to the account creators, noting that once these were publicized, YouTube investigated the claims, removed the strikes on the user accounts and restored the videos. However, it appears that Brady decided to try again -- though this time it appears that it was as part of some larger fight, in which Brady was trying to expose a YouTube user's home address, likely for swatting (the user was swatted a few days later). It's interesting to see that part of YouTube's investigation of the matter apparently involved observing others' Twitter accounts:

A review of Defendant Brady’s and Cxlvxn’s Twitter accounts from this time period suggests they were engaged in some sort of online dispute and it appears that Brady sent the notices of alleged infringement for the improper purpose of inducing Cxlvxn to submit a counter notification, thereby exposing his home address.

Cxlvxn submitted a counter notification on July 4th, 2019. On July 10th, he announced via Twitter that he had been the victim of a swatting scheme that day. “Swatting” is the act of making a bogus call to emergency services in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a particular address.

Given the timing of (i) Defendant Brady’s online dispute with Cxlvxn, (ii) Brady’s false copyright claims against Cxlvxn; (iii) Brady’s receipt of Cxlvxn’s true home address via Cxlvxn’s counter-notification; and (iv) the reported swatting incident, it appears Brady used the personal information gained through his abuse of the DMCA process to engage in swatting.

Given this, it's possible that Brady may soon be in a lot deeper shit than a 512(f) civil complaint. Law enforcement often can't go after swatters since they're hard to track down. But if YouTube has done the work for them...

Either way, it's interesting to see YouTube trying to breathe some life back into 512(f). This case seems perfectly made for just such a thing. If this case can't get a 512(f) win, then no case can. YouTube is asking for Brady to cover their legal fees (which I'm sure are substantial), as well as an injunction barring Brady from submitting more bogus DMCA notices. It's interesting to note that they're not even looking to bar him from YouTube entirely -- just from submitting bogus DMCA takedowns. It's also seeking damages for the time and effort the company had to put into dealing with his bogus DMCA takedowns. (Update: I had missed this last bit initially, but have now updated the post to reflect that).

While Brady may end up in deeper hot water over the swatting claims (should prosecutors suddenly take an interest in him over this), from a purely copyright standpoint, it would be nice to see 512(f) succeed in one case before we reach the heat death of the universe.

Filed Under: 512(f), bogus takedowns, censorship, christopher brady, copyright, dmca, extortion, swatting, takedowns
Companies: youtube

Starz Really, Really Doesn't Want You To Know That TorrentFreak Wrote About Leaked Shows, Or That Anyone Tweeted About It

from the and-twitter-is-assisting dept

Something weird is going on with Starz over the past few days. Either it really, really doesn't want you to know that a bunch of unreleased episodes of well known TV shows were recently leaked online. Or it really, really, really wants you to know all about it. Which one of those two things is true may depend on just how familiar whoever is manning the Starz copyright-takedown desk is with the concept of the Streisand Effect.

You see, a week ago, TorrentFreak published the article linked above. This is a pretty typical TorrentFreak kind of article, noting that some high profile shows or movies have leaked, perhaps providing screenshots, but not providing any links or really telling anyone how to get the shows. It is just reporting that the leaks exist. Two of the shows leaked were from Starz. As TorrentFreak wrote:

There are also two full and unreleased seasons of Starz’ “The Spanish Princess” and Hulu’s “Ramy” among the leaked files. Both series have yet to premiere and were leaked from screener sources.

Then, last Thursday, TorrentFreak published a new article, noting that Starz had, in fact, filed a copyright claim with Twitter for TorrentFreak's tweet to its original story. The takedown was sent by an operation called The Social Element, which holds itself out to be a "social media agency" who can "simplify complex social media for global brands." It also describes itself as:

A global team of geeky pioneers, using our social media super powers to help our clients connect with their audience in the most powerful way.

I was at an event late last week, and only saw the latter story of the takedown message late Friday evening after returning to my hotel. I set it aside, thinking maybe I'd write up something this week. And then, over the weekend, things got weirder. Reporter Mathew Ingram told me, oddly, that his tweet about TorrentFreak's article about Stars/The Social Element pulling down TorrentFreak's tweet... also received a DMCA takedown and was removed:

He was not the only one. Copyright law professor Annemarie Bridy, who is regularly featured on these pages received one as well:

Also, the twitter account for SJD, who runs Fight Copyright Trolls:

And others as well:

And, to take it one step further, into the "asking for real trouble" category, EFF itself has announced that it had a tweet taken down for linking to the TorrentFreak article. EFF's staff attorney Kit Walsh was quoted in the original, saying "Starz has no right to silence TorrentFreak’s news article or block links to it." Then EFF tweeted a link to the article with text similar to Walsh's quote... and that tweet got taken down due to a Starz copyright claim. That's playing with fire.

A quick search of the Lumen Database shows dozens of DMCA notices sent to Twitter, many within the last week or so. I can't see most of those tweets because Twitter has taken them down. Except somewhere after a few days, it appears that Starz took the ball itself, and boy did it run with it. It just started issuing takedown after takedown on basically any tweet about this. If, initially, this was a story about a clueless social media agency gone rogue, Starz's actions over the weekend suggested otherwise.

Let's just review how messed up this and how far removed any of this is from actual copyright infringement.

TorrentFreak, a popular news source, published an article merely noting the fact that some Starz TV shows had leaked online. This bizarre "social media agency" called The Social Element decides, on behalf of Starz, that this is no good at all, and sends a DMCA notice to Twitter for TorrentFreak's tweet about the article. Already, this is ridiculous. The article was not infringing anything, nor linking to anything infringing (it doesn't even tell anyone how to get the infringing works). The tweet is even less infringing.

But then, Starz doesn't just decide to double down on what The Social Element did, it goes full on censorship crazy, sending takedowns on every tweet about TorrentFreak's new article about the bogus takedown of the tweet to the new article. This is so far removed from any kind of copyright infringement that it is beyond frivolous.

It's also a very clear violation of 512(f) of the DMCA, which would matter if 512(f) had any legal teeth at all.

Equally concerning is the question of why Twitter is agreeing to take down these tweets based on obviously bogus DMCA claims. I know that many sites do automatically take down any content on the receiving end of a DMCA notice, but most larger companies at least do a cursory review to make sure they're not obviously bogus. I'd be surprised if that's not the case with Twitter, but for whatever reason, all those tweets are being taken down -- even the one from EFF, which you might think would at least make someone at Twitter take a second look.

Of course, as you might imagine, the more Starz doubles down on this destructive and abusive campaign, the more people are hearing about how its TV shows have been leaked online. Perhaps it's some sort of sophisticated viral marketing play... or, more likely, some people who have never heard of the Streisand Effect, but are getting a very big lesson in it today.

Last night I reached out to Twitter, Starz and The Social Element with a whole bunch of questions, and may update this piece if any of them get back to me with answers.

Filed Under: 512(f), abuse, copyright, dmca, dmca 512(f), free speech, journalism, reporting, takedowns
Companies: starz, the social element, torrentfreak, twitter

Universal Retracts DMCA On Journalist Video Of Prince Fans Singing Purple Rain

from the that-was-quick dept

Well, that was quick. We had just been talking about Universal's insane decision to DMCA a journalist's video of Prince fans singing Purple Rain shortly after his death, made particularly strange as it occurred in the wake of it settling the Dancing Baby DMCA case to avoid being punished for not considering Fair Use. That retreat from a decision which would have provided precedent for whether issuing a DMCA without giving even a modicum of thought to whether Fair Use would apply was irritating to many of us for a number of reasons, but primarily because it would give room for bad actors to DMCA away without the assurance of consequence. For Universal to provide an example of that itself, and to do so immediately after the Dancing Baby case was settled, was particularly frustrating.

But, again, it seems we won't get clarity on the point. Universal appears to have realized how bad this all looked, and could get, and has retracted its takedown claim.

Now, is it ultimately good that Universal backed off this DMCA claim? Of course it is. But it should be obvious that the problem remains that it, and others, can peel off DMCA notices, including on journalists, without real fear of reprisal from the courts and simply run away when there is enough public backlash to warrant it. Again, a key here is that this DMCA notice issued by Universal was against a video that is as blatantly Fair Use as it gets. But Universal will bear no consequence for it.

When the reductio ad absurdum has become the real-life example, it's probably time we had some real codified rules and punishments for this kind of behavior.

Filed Under: 512(f), copyright, dmca, fair use, prince, takedowns
Companies: universal music

It Doesn't Matter How Much Of An Asshole You Think Someone Is, That's No Excuse To DMCA

from the that's-not-how-copyright-law-works dept

We've pointed out time and time again that one of the problems with setting up any rules that allow for content to be taken down online is just how widely they will be abused. This is one of the reasons why we think that CDA 230's immunity is much better than the DMCA 512 safe harbors. Under CDA 230, if a platform receives a takedown over content that is, say, defamatory, they get to decide how best to act, without a change in their own legal liability. They can take it down, or they can leave it up, but there's no greater legal risk in either decision. With the DMCA, it's different. If you, as a platform, refuse to take down the content, you then risk much greater legal liability. And, because of this, we regularly see the DMCA abused by anyone who wants to make certain content disappear -- even if it has nothing to do with copyright.

Take this latest example of game developer Sean Vanaman, who has promised to issue DMCA takedown notices for YouTube star PewDiePie's (Felix Kjellberg) videos featuring Vanaman's video game, Firewatch:

The issue is, more or less, that PewDiePie is, well, kind of a jackass and possibly a bigot (there's some dispute over whether he's really a bigot or just "proving a point," but I'm going with Popehat's famous Goatfucker Rule on this one). And PewDiePie did one of his awful, insensitive PewDiePie things, which has reasonably pissed off some people.

One of those people is Vanaman, who is pointing directly to this episode as the reason why he's going to issue DMCA takedowns and is urging other game developers to do the same:

And, look, it's completely reasonable to dislike PewDiePie. And it's completely reasonable to be upset that someone you dislike and believe is toxic has done videos showing your games. But what's not reasonable and also not allowed under the law is to abuse the DMCA to take down content, just because you don't like how someone's using it. PewDiePie's videos are almost certainly fair use. While we've seen some debate over "Let's Play" videos like PewDiePie's over the years, in general most copyright experts who've discussed the matter seem to feel that the standard Let's Play video is very likely to be protected by fair use.

Having seen some of PewDiePie's Firewatch let's play video, it definitely would appear to be protected by fair use. The fact that Vanaman directly and publicly admits that he's not taking the video down for any valid copyright reason, but rather because he thinks PewDiePie is "a propagator of despicable garbage" doesn't help Vanaman's case at all. Rather, it gives PewDiePie a lot more leverage to claim that any such takedown would be abusive, and possibly even a violation of the DMCA's 512(f) against misrepresentations.

But the larger point remains: no matter what you think of PewDiePie or Vanaman, the issue here is that when we create laws that give people the power to take down content, it will be abused for a variety of reasons. Often -- as is the case here -- those reasons will have absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Vanaman spouting off about his non-copyright reasons for wanting to issue a takedown only makes that so much clearer in this case.

Filed Under: 512(f), censorship, copyright, dmca, dmca 512, felix kjellberg, firewatch, pewdiepie, sean vanaman
Companies: campo santo

Supreme Court Won't Hear Dancing Baby Case... Despite Gov't Admitting 'Serious Legal Error'

from the dancing-without-end dept

Sometimes I think purgatory must be filing a lawsuit over a wrongful DMCA takedown notice. I'm pretty sure that's how Stephanie Lenz feels. After all, she's been fighting against Universal Music issuing a bogus DMCA takedown against her dancing baby, and I'm pretty sure that "baby" will be graduating high school before too long. Last we'd checked in, the Supreme Court was debating hearing the appeal in the case, and had asked the White House to weigh in. The White House responded last month with a truly bizarre argument, agreeing that the 9th Circuit's ruling contained a "significant legal error" but said that this case was "not a suitable vehicle for correcting that mistake."

Whether it was for that reason or for no reason at all, the Supreme Court has now decided not to hear the appeal, meaning that the case is back (once again) in District Court, where it may actually go to trial to determine if Universal Music knew that the video was fair use when it issued the initial takedown.

As we've discussed time and time again, this particular case is an important one, if Section 512(f) of the DMCA -- the part that says you cannot file bogus DMCA takedowns -- is to have any teeth. The problem, right now is that there are piles upon piles of abusive DMCA takedowns, targeting all sorts of content that is perfectly legitimate and non-infringing. Yet, because there is basically no punishment for issuing such takedowns, they continue. Unfortunately, this particular case keeps coming out with "mixed bag" rulings that probably won't help very much in the long term. While we may have hoped that the Supreme Court would clear things up and make sure 512(f) actually does its job, it appears that's unlikely to happen any time soon.

Filed Under: 512(f), copyright, dancing baby, dmca 512, fair use, scotus, stephanie lenz, supreme court
Companies: umg

IFPI Files DMCA Takedown... On A Creative Commons Song... Posted 12 Years Ago.

from the really,-ifpi? dept

Let's take a trip in the wayback machine a bit.

It's late October 2004, and Wired Magazine has just released its November issue, which has a cover story about how sampling is the future, in which the magazine was able to get a bunch of well-known artists to contribute Creative Commons licensed songs, which shipped with a physical CD (remember, this is back in the day) and were also posted online and free for people to share and to reuse and remix. The article about it is worth reading. It talks about the nature of creative artwork:

Building on what other musicians have done – with or without their blessing or collaboration – is what it takes to make new music, music that will delight and sustain people. That, after all, is why it's called making music (playing music is something else altogether). Elvis Presley, that pioneer of appropriation, put it best: "Fair exchange bears no robbery, and the whole world will know that it's true. If you wanna be hugged, well, you gotta hug me too."

It also talks a lot about Creative Commons and the efforts it took to get all these well-known artists to contribute their songs. Hell, the very same issue even (shockingly) included an article by former RIAA boss Hilary Rosen, talking about how much she now loved Creative Commons, after Larry Lessig convinced her to change her views.

Lots of people wrote about all of this in one way or another. We, somewhat sarcastically (hey, what do you expect?) covered Rosen's conversion to being a CC supporter. Most of the coverage, however, focused (rightly) on the music. This included a young copyfighter named Derek Slater, who back in the olden days when blogs were blogs, wrote one on Harvard's website called A Copyfighter's Musings. He was so excited about the Wired issue and Creative Commons music CD that he wrote about it and posted the mp3s.

This was, of course, all perfectly legal. These tracks were released under one of two Creative Commons licenses, but both allowed the basic tracks to be shared online. As the Wired article noted:

The licenses come from Creative Commons, the innovative nonprofit founded by Wired columnist and Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig. The songs on this CD use one of two Creative Commons licenses.The Noncommercial Sampling Plus license permits noncommercial file-sharing and noncommercial sampling. That means, first, that you can swap the songs on a peer-to-peer network (just don't sell them). And second, that you can sample from them, mash them up, use them to make something fresh – and then share that work, too (though again, you can't sell it). The Beastie Boys, Chuck D, and My Morning Jacket opted for the Noncommercial Sampling Plus license.

The other 13 artists on the CD went a step further and released their songs under the more expansive Sampling Plus license. Like the noncommercial version, it allows file-sharing. But it also allows commercial use of samples – meaning you can insert a slice of these songs into your own composition and then try to sell the new track. The only restrictions: Use in advertisements is not permitted, and the new work must be "highly transformative" of the original (translation: A flagrant rip-off like "Ice Ice Baby" doesn't cut it). More details on the licenses and their permissions are available at creativecommons.org/wired.

Okay... enough reminiscing in the wayback machine. Fast forward to today, where record labels and their trade associations -- rather than helping the industry adapt -- are spending all their time whac'ing moles by sending pointless takedowns via automated systems that never bother to check the details. The IFPI -- basically the international version of the RIAA -- is particularly crappy at this, regularly caught sending totally bogus takedowns.

As you've probably figured out, that historical world and today's world have clashed. IFPI, in its infinite (and most likely automated) cluelessness, has sent Harvard a DMCA takedown notice over one of the songs in the Wired Creative Commons collection -- the song "One Big Holiday" by the band My Morning Jacket. You can get it here because it's freely available thanks to Creative Commons.

You would think (wouldn't you?) that before sending out takedown notices, folks like IFPI are supposed to check on the licensing situation around those songs and whether or not IFPI even has the right to send such a takedown. In this case, even if they control the copyright, they most certainly do not have the authority to send a takedown, because doing so violates the terms of the license which the copyright holder agreed to when the song was released.

Thankfully, Harvard passed the notice along to Slater, who had lawyer Lila Bailey (occasional Techdirt guest poster) respond on Derek's behalf, basically saying, "IFPI, WTF?"

By sending this notice, you have knowingly materially misrepresented that this content is infringing in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), resulting in personal harm and financial expense to my client. As a courtesy to you and without prejudice to any further action we may take, I am writing to inquire whether you wish to withdraw your takedown notice....

[....]

Even the most basic investigation would have indicated that Mr. Slater's use is lawful and consistent with the Creative Commons license granted by the copyright owner. Under the United States Copyright Act, rightsholders are required to consider whether a use is lawful before issuing a takedown notice, and that requirement was plainly not followed here. This notice reflects an unfortunate pattern by IFPI, sending bogus takedown notices without any investigation into the rights status of the claimed works.

Of course, as we've discussed in the past, 512(f) of the DMCA has been rendered mostly toothless by the courts, but a good case could potentially change that. And issuing a DMCA over Creative Commons released music seems like a good test case, yes? I'm guessing that IFPI will take back its bogus takedown notice, but one wonders if it will actually change how it sends these things...

Filed Under: 512(f), 512f, copyright, creative commons, derek slater, dmca, lila bailey, my morning jacket, sharing
Companies: ifpi