AdWeek Articles On Google Ad VP Torrence Boone Hit With Bogus DMCA Notices Issued By Bogus 'News' Websites

from the bullshitting-bullshitters dept

It appears there's still no shortage of quasi-reputation management efforts being deployed in the form of bogus DMCA takedowns issued by bogus "news" websites.

Pissed Consumer uncovered this shady tactic back in April, noting that legitimate-sounding sites like the "Frankfort Herald" and the "Lewisburg Tribune" were issuing takedown notices on complaints posted to the gripe site. These fake news sites tended to be filled with a blend of scraped content and and negative reviews/posts from sites like Pissed Consumer and Ripoff Report copy-pasted in full and backdated to make them appear as if they'd appeared at the bogus sites first.

Our article about this tactic, containing some additional details we tracked down, caught the eye of an entity called Web Activism, which is now digging up as many details as it can about this DMCA-abusing reputation management tactic. Web Activism notified Adweek that a couple of past articles hosted there were being targeted by bogus DMCA notices.

AdWeek's Patrick Coffee notes that his website first treated these takedown requests as legitimate.

This attempt was temporarily effective in that we unpublished the story. That’s not something we’d normally do, but given that the post was 6 years old and we weren’t aware of the context, we figured it was appropriate. We recently put the post back up, because the takedown request was a big lie.

The targeted posts contained some unflattering depictions of Torrence Boone, who went from a sinking ad agency to a Vice President position at Google, working closely with its ad partners. The takedown requests weren't issued -- at least not directly -- by Boone. Instead, they came from a fake journalist at a fake new site: Jennifer Clandon at fox18news.com.

As Coffee notes, there is no person named Jennifer Clandon working for Fox News… anywhere. Not only that, but the Fox 18 News site is now unreachable. The fake article cited in Clandon's DMCA takedown request is a word-for-word copy of AdWeek's original post.

For what it's worth, Boone's lawyers deny he had anything to do with the bogus takedowns.

Boone’s lawyers have repeatedly denied to AgencySpy that he was involved in the takedown requests or that he had any knowledge of the effort that appears to have been made on his behalf. They admit he has occasionally “hired digital marketing firms to manage his online profile” but claim that “they have not taken any action directed toward [your company] on behalf of Mr. Boone in March 2016, or at any other time.”

Tellingly, though, his lawyers spent most of our exchange last week arguing against the content of the “unemployable” post rather than discussing the request to take it down six years later: “In reply to your email to Mr. Boone, he disputes the defamatory blog post reportef [sp] by AdWeek in 2010 that he was ‘unemployable’. Mr. Boone stands by his service at Enfatico.”

But Coffee also points out that Boone has previously issued DMCA notices in his own name in an attempt to remove a photo of him from the internet.

The Lumen database also includes a separate entry for a 2012 request made by Boone himself, who asked that Google remove the “Hot” post because it contains allegedly copyrighted materials in the form of “A picture of me at a Carnival parade in a costume that includes a blonde and orange clown wig.” It’s unclear whether Google responded to this request.

The bogus Fox site may be down, but the Internet Archive has salvaged a few pages. None of them are the one cited in the bogus takedown notice, but there are others that seem very out of place in a TV channel's website. One is a very angry complaint about (gasp!) a reputation management service, Reputation.com. Another refers to a medication service as a pyramid scheme. Another DMCA notice issued by the FoxNews18.com site lists an email address of anthonygrice44@gmail.com -- likely another throwaway account that would reveal nothing about the true owners of the bogus news site.

Going further back into the archives, it appears the URL once belonged to a legitimate news site that served Charlotte, North Carolina. For most of 2015-16, however, it was repurposed as a scraper site to generate bogus takedown notices.

Web Activism also pointed AdWeek to further copies of its posts at another fake news site, Lewisburg Tribune. (This site was previously mentioned in our original post on the subject.) This site has also gone dead, leaving behind only what's been saved by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.

Torrence Boone may have no direct knowledge that these actions are being performed on his behalf. He admits -- through his lawyers -- that he has outsourced his reputation management on previous occasions. The combination of scraped content, dodgy English, and zero shame seems to indicate somewhat-reputable reputation management firms are also outsourcing their reputation management work, possibly hiring people outside of US-governed jurisdictions (via any number of freelance services like Upwork or Fiverr) to whip up fake sites to plant content they want removed from Google's listings.

Even if the reputation management firms haven't outsourced their bogus takedowns, there's very little risk involved. Fake names attached to fake sites are often almost impossible to link back to real individuals or companies. The worst thing that can happen when a bogus DMCA notice is issued is nothing -- at least to the shrouded reputation management firms. The reputations they're managing might get shredded by the Streisand Effect, but it's not as though the government has much interest in pursuing those who abuse the DMCA process. Shady reputation management firms will continue to be shady as those screwed by their bogus tactics aren't going to take the risk of further exposure by publicly calling them out for turning their already-damaged reputations into mini dumpster fires.

Web Activism, however, claims to be doing something about this. It is investigating these bogus sites/takedown requests in hopes of uncovering the people/entities behind them. To date, it has rounded up 500 questionable DMCA notices, investigated 200 of those and published reports for 55 of these. It will continue to dig into these going forward, keeping an eye on the Lumen "Chilling Effects" DMCA database for new arrivals from bogus websites.

Filed Under: dmca, dmca abuse, reputation management, takedowns, torrence boone

HBO Abuses The DMCA Process In The Name Of Game Of Thrones Spoilers

from the winter-is-[redacted] dept

We've talked in the past about how HBO has jealously protected its Game of Thrones property. The show, wildly popular to the point of being proclaimed as the most pirated show over certain time spans, has enjoyed success due in part to that piracy, according to the show's director, who made sure to add how much he hated that piracy that helps his show. Add to that HBO's insisting that certain fan gatherings and events centered around the show be shut down and we have a picture of a company and property very much at odds with anyone looking to share it in a way outside of their control.

As a parallel, the topic of spoilers often centers on this show. I happen to hate this topic with the fire of a thousand suns, but there is no doubt that some folks out there see unbidden spoilers as the great scourge of our generation. And perhaps that made some people pause when it came out that HBO had issued a DMCA takedown on a YouTube video that discussed such spoilers.

Besides from actual copies of episodes, HBO also appears to have an eye on those who talk about what may happen during the rest of the season. The Internet is littered with spoilers which HBO doesn't like, including those posted in Spanish by YouTube user Frikidoctor. Unlike many others, Frikidoctor is remarkably accurate with his predictions, and claims to have a source close to the fire who feeds him information. HBO doesn't like this and has pulled several of his videos, arguing that they are infringing their copyrights. This also happened to the video featuring several episode three spoilers which was uploaded a few days ago.

"I uploaded the video and two hours later HBO decided to take it down on YouTube [claiming] copyright infringement," Frikidoctor says, responding to the surprise takedown.

Again, perhaps there are some who have the instinct to cheer this on over a dislike for spoilers. Sadly for them, the law is not even remotely on HBO's side here. The claim of copyright on this specific video, in which episode three predictions are discussed, is as bullshit as it gets. While many of these kinds of videos will use actual episode footage to provide evidence of specific predictions or spoilers, Frikidoctor used zero footagein this video. In fact, the only content on the video altogether was the author appearing in it and discussing the upcoming episode. That's it.

Frikidoctor admits that he used snippets of trailers and other promotional material in earlier videos that were removed, but says that the video with the episode three "predictions" didn't include any HBO audio or video.

"In the last two videos they took down I had some frames from teasers and trailers they decided to share with everyone for promotional purposes. This time the video did not have a single frame or sound that belongs to HBO," he says.

Instead, the video was just him dressed up in a Mexican wrestler costume, discussing what would happen in the upcoming episode.

"So, they think that me dressed as a Mexican wrestler talking about predictions for episode three of Game of Thrones is their property. That it’s copyrighted material that belongs to them," Frikidoctor notes. "Isn't that misuse of the DMCA?" he adds.

Very much so, yes. As annoyed at spoilers as HBO might be -- though why they would be is beyond me -- there is nothing about someone dressed in Mexican wrestling garb discussing predictions for an upcoming episode of a show that could be remotely seen as copyright infringement. The claim behind the takedown is so far from reality that it might as well serve as a chief example of the way the DMCA takedown system is abused.

Fortunately, Frikidoctor has appealed the takedown with YouTube, and has even gone as far as to consult a lawyer as to what his next steps will be. Here's hoping he finds a way to punch back at the bully.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dmca, dmca abuse, frikidoctor, game of thrones, spoilers
Companies: hbo, youtube

Want To Tell The Copyright Office To Stop Abusive DMCA Takedowns? Here's How

from the join-in dept

So, today's been DMCA 512 takedown day here at Techdirt. Today's the day that comments are due at the Copyright Office concerning the effectiveness (or not) of the DMCA's notice and takedown provisions. And, of course, no one's entirely happy with the DMCA, but they're unhappy in very different ways. We wrote about the legacy music industry whining that Google has built a successful service while they failed to adapt themselves. We wrote about Automattic reinforcing how DMCA takedowns are regularly abused to try to censor content (and how people are afraid to counternotice), and we wrote about our own filing, highlighting how the abuse of the DMCA process raises questions about how the current setup is Constitutional.

And, there are tons of other filings and comments flowing in, often from industry groups, written by lawyers. But it's important that the Copyright Office hear from the public as well. So our good friends over at Fight for the Future have set up a wonderful website at TakedownAbuse.org that provides more information and helps you send your own comments to the Copyright Office about how DMCA abuse impacts you.

Also, the folks at Channel Awesome put together a great video that both details the problem and suggests some key points worth raising in any comment you send in (though, I take issue with his claim that this "flew under the radar," since the comment period was announced months ago... but...). Either way please consider sending in a comment -- and doing so in as thoughtful and polite a manner as possible. I know that there are often temptations to say something angrily in such comments, but that will just open up a reason to ignore your submission.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 512, dmca abuse, notice and takedown, takedowns

Wordpress Takes A Stand Against Abusive DMCA Takedown Notices; Others Should Pay Attention

from the platforms-shouldn't-just-be-takedown-remailers dept

Automattic, the company behind blogging platform Wordpress, continues to prove that just because the issuing of DMCA takedown notices has largely been handed over to automated processes, the response doesn't need to be similarly robotic.

Its latest transparency report shows it has rejected 43% of the DMCA notices it has received as either incomplete or abusive. Contrast this to almost any other platform where the initial response is to take down content/links first and work backwards from there. (Contrast this further to services like YouTube and Soundcloud, where content is subjected to automated pre-screening that seems to result in just as many illegitimate "removals.")

Automattic's DMCA process is anything but.

We carefully review each notice to ensure it’s formally complete, and includes all information required by the DMCA, before taking action. Notices that don’t meet the requirements of the statute are included in ‘notices rejected as incomplete.’

We also may decline to remove content if a notice is abusive. “Abusive” notices may be formally complete, but are directed at fair use of content, material that isn’t copyrightable, or content the complaining party misrepresents ownership of a copyright.

In an effort to keep the worst abusers "honest" (or at least warn others performing the same intermediary functions), Automattic continues to maintain a "Hall of Shame" highlighting issuers of bogus takedown notices.

So, there's at least one major platform that has its users' backs -- something it has taken as far as the filing of lawsuits against serial abusers. And it's one of the few that will actually try to determine whether or not the usage of the disputed content falls under fair use. Automattic seems to have learned from its past mistakes, and now it's attempting to hold rightsholders and their representatives to the same standard it applies to itself. If content is going to be removed, the person(s) making these demands need to hold up their end of the bargain.

DMCA abuse isn't likely to stop anytime soon. The process to issue notices continues to become more streamlined, which puts even more non-infringing content at risk. On top of that, the automated processes used to compile lists of "infringing" URLs continues to be error-prone. This wouldn't be an issue if the companies providing these services to rightsholders spent a little (or any) time giving the notices a once-over before sending them out. The failure to do so not only has the potential to remove non-infringing content, but also to screw the same people they're supposed to be protecting -- not just in terms of reputation, but also financially.

A brief perusal of DMCA notices issued to Google finds multiple examples of non-infringing content being targeted by flaky automated processes. It also shows rightsholders are being billed for largely useless takedown requests filled with URLs covered in previous requests by the same company.

This recent request by IFPI Latin America contains 237 URLs --- 236 of which were already delisted in response to earlier requests.


This is far from uncommon and pretty much amounts to double billing. Even in cases where rightsholders pay a monthly or yearly fee rather than per DMCA takedown, it's still wasted money. While it's obviously easier to let machines do the work and humans to collect the paychecks, nothing about an automated copyright takedown notice process contributes anything towards healthier respect for the idea itself, or the creations protected by it.

Automattic, on the other hand, will continue to gather respect from its users and potential customers around the world simply by refusing to lay out a WELCOME mat for our new DMCA robot overlords.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca abuse, transparency report, wordpress
Companies: automattic

MPAA Freaks Out: Insists That Having To Consider Fair Use Before Filing A DMCA Takedown Would Be Crazy

from the oh-really-now? dept

Oh, there go the wacky lawyers at the MPAA again. Last week we noted that a key fight may be shaping up concerning the contours of Section 512(f) of the DMCA -- the clause that is supposed to allow people to fight back against bogus DMCA takedowns. The details of the fight itself are pretty silly -- basically two angry bloggers fighting with each other -- but the underlying legal issue is of critical importance. As we've noted, to date, 512(f) has been rendered almost entirely toothless, such that tons of completely bogus DMCA notices are filed all the time, stifling free speech. Here was a case that might actually allow a 512(f) win, and provide some further basis for future responses to abusive DMCA takedowns.

Is it really any surprise that the MPAA suddenly took notice of the case after the EFF filed an amicus brief? The MPAA had to step in and argue why it should be allowed to continued to file millions of DMCA takedowns without having to be that careful about bogus takedowns, because actually having to make sure a work is infringing would be too much work. So, the MPAA basically says, "we should be allowed to stifle free speech with no consequence because OMG PIRACY@!@!!" Yes, that's a paraphrase, but that's the crux of the MPAA's argument.

The MPAA respectfully submits that such an interpretation of § 512(f) is wrong and threatens to cause significant harms that Congress could not possibly have intended. The MPAA's interest in this matter is not academic. The MPAA and its members confront the piracy of their works by Internet actors on a massive global scale. One of the only means that the MPAA and its members have to ensure that Internet services that carry, host, or link to such content take steps not to facilitate such rampant piracy is through the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions. The rule that Plaintiff and Amici advocate, if carried to its logical conclusion, would impose significant and unwarranted burdens on copyright owners like the MPAA and its members who unfortunately must send literally millions of takedown notices every year to combat the mass infringement of their works on the Internet.

That's both wrong and ridiculous. It's not an "unwarranted burden" to ask DMCA filers to actually check to make sure a file is infringing. It's the whole freaking point. What's really going on here is that the MPAA is finally realizing that its now-common practice of hiring companies like DtecNet to send automated takedowns might run afoul of 512(f) because the computer programs aren't taking into account things like fair use.

So, the basic point that the MPAA is making is silly and wrong.

They're also flat out wrong on the law. The issue here, once again, is that the MPAA insists that fair use is only an "affirmative defense," and thus it has no reason to consider it before filing a DMCA takedown.

Fair use is an affirmative defense. It excuses conduct that otherwise is actionable as infringement, as the Supreme Court, the First Circuit, and numerous other courts and the Copyright Act’s legislative history have made clear.

But that is not what the law actually says. It does not say that it "excuses conduct that otherwise is actionable as infringement." Section 107 of the Copyright Act says:

... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

This is important. The law does not say that this it is an infringement, but "excused." It says it is not an infringement. If it's not an infringement, then it means that the use is authorized. And that's the key to the whole issue here, because 512(f) says you can be liable for damages if you misrepresent "that material or activity is infringing." Infringing. Again, fair use is not infringing. So if it is a clear case of fair use (and we agree that not all cases of fair use are clear), then not considering fair use whereby one would recognize that the use is authorized, and still filing the DMCA takedown, would be a misrepresentation that the work is infringing.

This isn't just me making this up. It's what the court said in the Stephanie Lenz case as well:

Here, the Court concludes that the plain meaning of “authorized by law” is unambiguous. An activity or behavior “authorized by law” is one permitted by law or not contrary to law. Though Congress did not expressly mention the fair use doctrine in the DMCA, the Copyright Act provides explicitly that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. Even if Universal is correct that fair use only excuses infringement, the fact remains that fair use is a lawful use of a copyright. Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v). An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to Section 512(f) of the DMCA. Such an interpretation of the DMCA furthers both the purposes of the DMCA itself and copyright law in general. In enacting the DMCA, Congress noted that the “provisions in the bill balance the need for rapid response to potential infringement with the end-users [sic] legitimate interests in not having material removed without recourse.”

The MPAA's desired interpretation of 512(f) is basically an attempt to reject the Lenz ruling entirely... and, more importantly, to make sure that almost no case could ever qualify for 512(f) damages. Which is exactly what they want: to be able to brush off all of the bogus DMCA notices they send without ever having to fear reprisal for stifling someone's speech.

I guess this is one more to add to the pile of evidence showing how absolutely ridiculous it is when the MPAA pretends it's a defender of fair use. A defender of fair use wouldn't support an interpretation of 512(f) that basically allows for DMCA takedowns on clearly fair use situations. And yet that's exactly what the MPAA is arguing for here.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca abuse, fair use, takedowns
Companies: mpaa

Key Legal Fight Shaping Up Over The Legality Of DMCA Abuses

from the stay-tuned dept

You may remember that, back in January, we wrote about a blog fight between two women with very different views on childbirth, which then descended into a ridiculous copyright fight. I won't rehash all of the details, but the short version was that as a part of this fight, Gina Crosley-Corcoran posted a photo of herself giving the middle finger, and in posting it she told her rival, Dr. Amy Tuteur, it was "something you can take back to your blog and obsess over." Tuteur reposted the photo to her own blog, along with a blog post about Crosley-Corcoran. Crosley-Corcoran then yelled copyright infringement, at which point Tuteur's husband (a lawyer) explained to Crosley-Corcoran's lawyer what fair use meant (and also what an implied license is). And then... DMCA takedown notices started flying, leading Tuteur to change her web host twice. Furthermore, Crosley-Corcoran bragged about using the DMCA takedowns to silence Tuteur and get her blog taken down -- and (according to Tuteur's lawyer) Crosley-Corcoran's own lawyer admitted that she had no legitimate copyright claim.

As we noted in our post, if there ever were a case to explore the punishment for violating the DMCA, this seemed like a good one. The key to this, of course, is 512(f) of the DMCA, which says that if you make a material misrepresentation in a DMCA takedown, you can be liable for damages, including costs and attorney's fees. However, at the same time, we noted why it's almost impossible to get someone punished for a bogus DMCA takedown. Still... the evidence on this case seemed so extreme, with Crosley-Corcoran more or less telling the world that she was abusing the DMCA specifically to silence Tuteur, we thought it actually had a chance.

But then, a month ago, the judge in the district court in Massachusetts made a bizarre ruling rejecting the 512(f) claim in such a way that suggested no 512(f) claim would likely ever survive. It was bizarre in a few different ways. As Eric Goldman noted in his discussion of the ruling, the court was only supposed to be looking at a separate issue, involving the jurisdiction of the court over the case, but simply chose to go ahead and effectively rule on the key parts of the case, even though neither party had briefed the key issues. Among other things, the court focuses just on the first DMCA notice, and not the subsequent ones or the blatant statements of plans to keep using the DMCA to keep Tuteur's entire blog offline. Goldman calls it "the most bizarre Article III analysis I've seen" because even though the court says that Tuteur has a plausible fair use and implied license claim, that doesn't matter, because the court argues that the DMCA filer doesn't need to pay attention to that:

there is no requirement in the DMCA that a notice-giver inform the service provider of an infringer's possible affirmative defenses, only that she affirm her good faith belief (as appears to be the case here) that the copyrighted material is being used without her (or her agent's) permission

That's not actually what the law says. And it's not actually what other courts that have ruled on this issue have said. At the very least, the court, recognizing that no briefs had been filed on the subject, gave Tuteur 21 days to respond. She did so with a long and detailed filing that reminds the court that this isn't about just that one DMCA filing, but a lot more. And also highlighting that (a) the DMCA isn't limited to just cases where things are posted without permission and (b) the other cases have said that a filer needs to take fair use into account. As her filing notes:

If fair use and license can be ignored when filing a DMCA takedown notice, persons like the Defendant (and, indeed, far more powerful organizations), would have a safe haven to freely muzzle their critics by literally chasing them off the Internet. A victim – who did nothing unlawful and whose acts were authorized by the Copyright Act – would be left without recourse and without a voice.

On the same day, the EFF along with Harvard's Digital Media Law Project also filed an amicus brief explaining why the court is simply wrong about the DMCA abuse clause. After listing out four different cases that came to a different conclusion than the judge in this case, it notes:

The DMCA requires the copyright owner issuing a takedown notice to affirm that she has a “good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) (emphasis added). “The fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright,” 17 U.S.C. § 107. An allegation that a copyright owner issued a takedown notice knowing that the use in question was in fact authorized by law, and/or that she had not formed a good faith belief to the contrary is, therefore, sufficient to state a claim under Section 512(f).

This is the fundamental mistake that the court made. The DMCA doesn't say that you can only be punished if the you didn't have permission -- but if the use is not authorized by the law. And, the law clearly states that fair use is not infringement. Thus, fair use is authorized use even if it doesn't involve permission.

Crosley-Corcoran's lawyers apparently were not at all pleased to see the EFF and the DMLP jump in on this case, and proceeded to quickly oppose the entire brief, arguing that it shouldn't be allowed in the case. The reasoning? Apparently, that Tuteur has good enough lawyers already and doesn't need any support from the likes of the EFF or Harvard:

It is rare – perhaps sadly so – that one has both the opportunity and a reason to praise the litigation skills of opposing counsel. This, then, is something of a unique opportunity. Attorney Beck, a former partner with the national law firm Foley & Lardner LLP, and Attorney Riden, a former senior counsel to Foley & Lardner, have, collectively, almost 40 years of sophisticated litigation experience. Among his many accolades, Attorney Beck is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell, a Chambers recognized attorney, a Massachusetts Super Lawyer, a Top 100 New England attorney, and a nationally recognized authority on trade secret and non-competition law. Attorney Riden is a Massachusetts Super Lawyer, a recipient of the Best Lawyers designation, a frequently quoted legal authority, and a former appellate law clerk. They are, in short, eminently qualified to represent the interests of Plaintiff in this action and to fully brief the issues raised by this Court’s Order of April 10, 2013, requiring them to show cause why the present action should not be dismissed.

This being the case, the addition of two more legal Goliaths will do little to advance this Court’s understanding of the issues raised (which do not seem to be so complex as to cry out for the assistance of non-parties), and instead will only needlessly multiply the costs of an already overly-costly litigation. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Gina Crosley-Corcoran respectfully requests that the non-party requests for leave to file an amicus brief be denied.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that, especially at the district court level, if an outside party filing an amicus curiae brief that is only repeating the same arguments as a party in the case, it is not appropriate. However, it does seem that the EFF/DMLP briefing does raise a few different key points than Tuteur's brief, which focuses much more on the specifics of her situation, while the amici brief covers much more generally the policy issues behind section 512(f) and more of the legal history there. It seems, especially given the court's apparent misreading of the law in its initial order, that it makes sense to include the brief.

Finally, on Thursday, Crosley-Corcoran filed her response to Tuteur's argument, in which she claims (of course) that "the court had it right the first time." Except, the law is pretty clear and this filing has it wrong. I don't really see how anyone can argue that. From there, they make two key arguments. The first is that, despite the fact that Tuteur ended up having to switch hosts twice, neither switch actually involved a host taking down the content in question, and thus she cannot claim any damage from the DMCA takedown notices, bogus or not. Specifically, the filing argues that Tuteur chose to move from the first host, BlueHost, after she sent a counternotice and after BlueHost had said it would take no action (though, this is after BlueHost had warned her earlier that if she didn't remove the content, it could close down her account). It then says that the move away from the second host, DaringHost, was because the site was getting too much traffic, and the owner of DaringHost, supplied a deposition stating that he had explained this to Tuteur.

This absolutely does weaken Tuteur's 512(f) claim, because it certainly decreases the damages caused by the takedown notices. But it still does ignore the two key points pushing back on this: Crosley-Corcoran's lawyer admitting that there was no legitimate copyright claim and Crosley-Corcoran herself bragging publicly about using the DMCA to silence Tuteur.

Separately, the filing goes back to the same point that we've discussed before about why it's so difficult to win a 512(f) case: the use of the "subjective bad faith" standard. Of course, one would think that Crosley-Corcoran's own statements would pass that bar. However, the filing insists that her lawyers took fair use into account, and simply decided that Tuteur's use didn't qualify (which seems to go against what Tuteur claims Crosley-Corcoran's lawyers told her). Crosley-Corcoran's filing conveniently ignores all of that and says, basically, "of course we considered fair use and rejected it" so the 512(f) claim is dead.

If that's allowed, then that effectively makes 512(f) a useless law, because all anyone has to say is they considered it before sending a bogus DMCA takedown and they can get away with it. That's clearly not what Congress intended with the law, otherwise why include it at all?

Either way, this case is shaping up to be a key one to watch in determining whether or not there are any teeth at all (even little ones) associated with 512(f) in providing a tool for those who have been attacked with bogus DMCA filings.

Filed Under: 512f, amy tuteur, copyright, damages, dmca, dmca abuse, fair use, free speech, gina crosley-corcoran, takedowns
Companies: bluehost, daringhost

EFF Gives Prince A 'Lifetime Aggrievement Award' For DMCA Takedown Abuse

from the raspberry-beret-awards dept

The EFF has inducted singer Prince into its "Takedown Hall of Shame" by giving the purple one the "Raspberry Beret Lifetime Aggrievement Award" for his consistent and neverending abuse of the DMCA process to take down content he has no right to takedown. In giving him the award, they list out three examples we've spoken about before:

1. Prince's recent DMCA takedown on six second clips on Vine of a Prince concert at SXSW. These clips were clearly fair use -- showing tiny snippets where the music isn't even recognizable.
2. Prince's DMCA takedowns sent over fan-recorded concert videos of his performance of Radiohead's song "Creep." As EFF points out, Prince has no real copyright claim here. The copyright of the song is Radiohead's -- and Radiohead demanded that the videos be put back online -- and the copyright on the video is whoever took the videos. But that didn't stop Prince.
3. Of course, no surprise here, Prince's connection to the infamous YouTube takedown of Stephanie Lenz's 29-second video of her toddler dancing to a Prince song in her kitchen. The lawsuit over that one is still going on. That one might actually be more about Universal Music than Prince, but given his other takedown actions, it would be surprising if he didn't support Universal on that one (even if he's had other disagreements with the label).

Of course, if the EFF wanted, it could make the list even longer. Prince sent a cease & desist to an artist who put together a puppet-based tribute to the artist. He similarly threatened a bunch of fan websites, claiming that any photos of him or his album covers was infringement. Oh, and then there was the time he sued 50 musicians for having the temerity to record a tribute album to Prince for his birthday. Such a nice guy.

Filed Under: dmca, dmca abuse, prince, raspberry beret, takedowns

Here's The Vine Video Prince Abused The DMCA To Take Down

from the hello-fair-use dept

We just posted about Prince's NPG Records issuing DMCA takedowns on a set of Vine videos. While noting that Prince regularly seeks to shut down internet support of his work far beyond what the law allows, we also pointed out that, given the 6 second limit on Vine videos, it seemed almost certain that the videos in question would be protected as fair use and/or de minimis use. After posting that story, we heard from Zack Teibloom who, it turns out, is the person who shot and posted the Vine videos in the first place. They were taken at Prince's SXSW concert. He noted that he treated the takedowns as "cease and desist" letters and chose to take them all down. Before he did so, we were able to snag one of the videos, which we've now posted to YouTube solely for the discussion over whether or not the original takedown was an abuse of the DMCA. We believe, strongly, that NPG's takedown notice is faulty, and it's quite possible that it violated 512(f) of the DMCA in that it appears NPG knowingly misrepresented that the works were infringing. In the DMCA notice, NPG claims:

These are unauthorized recordings and are unauthorized synchronizations As such, I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted work described above is not authorized by the copyright owner (or by a third party who is legally entitled to do so on behalf of the copyright owner) and is not otherwise permitted by law. I hereby confirm that I believe the tracks identified in this email infringe my copyright.

However, it is incorrect that the use was not permitted by law. Under both fair use and de minimis use, such a use is clearly permitted by law. Furthermore, as a court found in the Lenz v. Universal Music Group case, the filer of a DMCA takedown needs to take fair use into account before issuing the takedown. Separately, as a bootleg video, this might not even be subject to the DMCA at all.

As per Vine's own limitation, the clip is a mere six seconds long, showing five disjointed clips of a song. If we were to do a four factors test for Teibloom's original use, it seems clear that it is fair use.

The purpose and character of the use:

The showing of brief six second, disjointed clips was clearly just to highlight that Teibloom had attended the SXSW show, and was linked from his review just to highlight the sense of what the show was like. It's clearly not a full use of the song or anything attempting to be a replacement for the song or the concert itself. It was a brief "view" of one attendee's perspective, which is clearly transformative from the original work. As such, it clearly "added value" to the original, since it was showing something different and unique from the original, while providing some perspective on the experience of attending such a show.

The nature of the copyrighted work

This was a recording of a brief bit of a live event, not of the sound recording or anything like that. Again, the point was to capture the live atmosphere and experience. This prong of the fair use test is supposed to be to protect the dissemination of information, and that seems clear from the use.

Also, even the brief bit of music that you hear is a pretty generic soul / funk music riff, rather than something highly unique and identifiable with Prince himself. I'm not even sure that the song being played is a Prince song. It sounds so generic and short it's difficult to identify. As a test, I tried to use Shazam on it, and despite claiming to be able to identify a song with as little as one second of music, it said it could not find a match. If you'd asked me I would have thought it was a just a generic James Brown-style riff rather than anything specific to Prince. Given that, while the performance is potentially covered by a copyright, it's not clear that the song is covered by Prince's copyright.

Hell, just the fact that it's unclear what the song is highlights why this is almost certainly fair use or de mininmis use. One of the characteristics of de mininimis use is if you can distinguish the work. When even the expert automated ears at Shazam can't do that...

The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

Six disjointed seconds. 'Nuff said.

The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market

There is clearly no negative use whatsoever. It is not as if someone will not buy or license a Prince song because this clip was "good enough" as a substitute. There is no rational way to support such a claim.

That said, it is possible that Prince's takedown actions might cause people to no longer want to support his works, but that's his own actions, not this particular video.

That's for Teibloom. As for us reposting the video and discussing it here, our use is even more transformative, as it is now about the discussion on whether or not the video itself is fair use. Without showing the video it is difficult to have a reasonable or competent discussion on whether or not it was fair use.

Either way, we believe that Prince and NPG Records are abusing the DMCA, potentially in violation of 512(f), and using the DMCA to take down perfectly legitimate videos that are allowed under US copyright law.

Filed Under: copyright, de minimis use, dmca, dmca abuse, fair use, prince, takedowns, vine
Companies: npg records

Rush Limbaugh Issues DMCA Takedown To Censor Video Criticism

from the can't-take-the-heat dept

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh apparently has decided he can't handle criticism well, so he's abusing the DMCA to take down a video critical of him. The video does use Limbaugh video, but it seems like a pretty clear case of fair use. And, if we go by the standard established in the Lenz v. Universal case, those issuing a takedown are supposed to first consider fair use. If Limbaugh failed to do so, he could run into trouble.

But, more to the point: WTF? Why do people keep abusing the DMCA solely to silence free speech that criticizes them, at the same time they claim to be supporters of the First Amendment. You would think, by now, that Limbaugh has enough advisers who might recommend against taking down a silly YouTube video no one's watching any more -- but he seems to keep doing it, even if it seemingly goes against many of his claims.

Filed Under: dmca abuse, fair use, lenz v. universal, rush limbaugh