Slashdot Mirror
Automated DMCA Takedown Notices Request Censorship of Legitimate Sites
Techmeology writes "Microsoft has sent automated DMCA notices to Google demanding the removal of several legitimate URLs from its search results that Microsoft claims were facilitating the distribution of illegal copies of Windows 8, including links to BBC news articles, Wikipedia pages, U.S. government websites, and even Bing! The erroneous DMCA notices are being sent automatically by rights holders, who are increasingly using such techniques."
You're obviously doing something right!
Was looking for some info on QAM tuning for my tv tuner card and google search had a warning about blocked content at the bottom of each search results page.
Someone please send DMCA takedown notices to all sites currently covering the US presidential election. That might get the problem fixed.
Sounds like Google would be well within their rights now to label Microsoft a spam network and ignore ALL future takedown requests.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
An automated notice should fall afoul of the portion of the notice which must be sworn under penalty of perjury. You know, the part that says you are the person who owns the copyright to the work you're claiming (not under penalty of perjury) is being hosted illegally at the listed URL(s).
Captcha: victim
With no penaltys for false claims...
Why are we not spamming google to delist all sorts of media mafia related sites?
Oh right... we're not scumbags... shit.
Well anyone wanna take one for the team and be a scumbag? Start demanding google delist all sorts of media sites? I bet we could find something in their pages they don't own.
With zero penalty for bad takedown notices, even those sent in bad faith, I'm amazed this hasn't happened sooner and on a much larger scale.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
With all the embarrassment from a snafu like this, Microsoft is sure to reform their ways. Starting with a complete rewrite of the DMCA-auto tool in something other than VB.net.
dcma takedowns, it should be.
Right now rightsholders and the anti-piracy outfits they employ have absolutely no incentive to improve the accuracy of their automated takedown systems, so perhaps it’s time for them to be punished?
That is the problem--they have nothing to lose. If automated detection can't differentiate between illegal, fair use, and completely unrelated content (as in this case), then someone needs to be held liable for that junk.
microsoft should be fined for this.
Otherwise it would be ok to accuse everyone with false claims in hope some of them will get frightened and remove their content even if they do not break the law. This means censorship.
Companies should be *afraid* of making false claims!
There is an increasing trend to allow companies to act and do without oversight on the premise that they will do what is ethical. Companies, regardless of colour or stripe will always toe the line and often face plant on the wrong side of it. You simply cannot trust companies to be ethical.
If I called a towing company claimed that the car you had parked in your driveway was mine and that I wanted it towed to my house, that would be theft.
Microsoft has nothing to lose from this. Removing legitimate sites from Google's index only helps Bing.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
There's no such thing. It's all organized crime, down to the last asshole.
blame the guy who can't speak English. Ah, Tibor, how many times have you saved my butt?
While it'd be quite weird for someone to Google for Bing, I cannot help but imagine some Google employee reading the takedown notice a couple times, shrugging, and saying "OK". Ethics aside, the notice gives Google an excuse to de-list their biggest competitor.
Microsoft's bot also sent automated DMCA notices to Bing to take down any page related to Microsoft.
You should write your Senator if you are civilly minded and regularly do this. Tell them,"DMCA is being abused, and it should be repealed or give penalties for abusing it." Also explain how DMCA is similar to SOPA/PIPA. Explain just as SOPA/PIPA are against free speech, so is DMCA Maybe explain companies are using it to be anti-competitive for example, Microsoft's goal is to issue as many takedown notices as it can just to make Google jump through hoops. It is part of Microsoft's attack policy, just like Apple's policy is suing people. Oh yeah, writing about software patents being beyond useless is good too.
God spoke to me
Now, if I was Google, I'd just start charging for bogus requests. Wouldn't charge for legitimate requests, but charge like $1 or so for every bogus request that comes in.
$1 for the first one. $2 for the next. Then $4, $8, $16... I think you see where I am going with this.
My understanding is that DMCA notices require multiple components...and thieving part of a quick post from john.random.lawyer on the interwebs, it requires:
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright that is allegedly infringed.
So...I mean, what's the problem.
Is it not vacuously obvious that they had neither a good faith belief, nor a belief that the notifcation was accurate, and was it not made under penalty of perjury?
File a counter claim and make a fucking profit off of it already. Hell, someone should start a business whereby they buy the rights to sue for false DMCA claims and damages... and then eat their kid's lunch for good measure.
While you're at it, attack the very accrediation of the issuing attorney and request that their license to practice be revoked in the jurisdiction to which they sent and originated their blatantly negligent claims.
Problem solved.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=479210
Go down to Copyright claim #2, microsoft windows 8. The first 25 urls have nothing to do with Win 8. There's a few after that. The rest seem legit though.
Lol Microsoft accidentally notified Google to delist Bing, after spending millions paying to advertise Bing on Google. I hope Google complied and delisted Bing as requested, for as long as possible. Maybe put a hold on their adsense account for promoting sites challenged under the DMCA notice too.
You could have an HONEST and TRUE search engine that ignores DMCA takedown requests.
I wonder how long it will take till someone decides to use that tool to take a specific artist off the net everywhere?
http://anonymous.livelyblog.com/2012/10/05/nobody-seems-to-notice-and-nobody-seems-to-care-government-stealth-malware/
Bad.
Stop with the examples that equate data to physical property. That's why we get stupid ads that say "You wouldn't steal a handbag, would you?"
Also, to then criticize your example, it would be theft because you would end up with something that isn't yours. The way I understand it, if I get a DMCA takedown, I don't have to hand over the "data," I just have to...well...take it down.
This highlights the point of having a due process for legal claims - bring your claims to court first and when there's a court order on it then it's time to take down the content.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Knowing the "intended" funny mod totally changes the tone of the poster as if by magic :)
I've seen some posts that were meant as serious but were actually ridiculous that were then modded funny which changed the meaning completely. That they then were humorous as unintended by the original poster made them that much more comical.
While we are on topic, have you ever done a double take when you see the moderation label AFTER reading a comment that felt tasteless? a lot of WHOOSHing comments happen before anyone has mod-HINTED that the comments are supposed to be funny.
I'm a sarcastic bastard, and think that everyone is using sarcasm even when they aren't, so I get the sarcasm most of the time, in fact when I find out that some posts weren't sarcastic I am usually severely disappointed.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
microsoft sent automated DMCA notices
i quit considering this newsworthy. Automated systems from three mile island to the traffic control devices at the end of the freeway routinely fail as well. Often times these have far more cataclysmic repercussions. Im no evangelical for Microsoft, but this seems like pinata bashing. we've all written at least one script thats failed pretty spectacularly in our careers.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Due process is so last century...
There need to be serious consequences for claims that turn out to have no merit. The best consequence would not be just a huge fine but after 3rd strike you go to jail. This should be coupled with a lawyers must sign the DMCA notice so that they would not be able to claim ignorance in any way.
After enough strikes the copyright holder should lose their copyright all together and the item should go into the public domain.
... that this eventually leads the the banning of such legal automation.
I doubt it will, though.
Look, no SIG!
At one time, media companies in the US relied on the Free Speech protections like the guarantee in the Constitution to ensure their livelihood. That motivated them to defend free speech rights for everyone.
Media in the US is now mostly controlled by 5 large corporations, and they no longer rely on free speech for their livelihood. In fact in some quarters they now view it as more of a threat.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Comply. Google should comply with all DMCA takedowns issued by an entity against itself. Should help motivate them to get rid of false positives.
Maybe it only means that South Koreans are reading Slashdot too?
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
From the Law
‘‘ 1312. Oaths and acknowledgments
(a) IN GENERAL.—Oaths and acknowledgments required by this chapter—
(1) may be made—
(A) before any person in the United States authorized by law to administer oaths; or
(B) when made in a foreign country, before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths, or before any official authorized to administer oaths in the foreign country concerned, whose authority shall be proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States; and
(2) shall be valid if they comply with the laws of theState or country where made.
(b) WRITTEN DECLARATION IN LIEU OF OATH.—
(1) The Administrator may by rule prescribe that any document which is to be filed under this chapter in the Office of the Administrator and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath, may be subscribed to by a written declaration in such form
as the Administrator may prescribe, and such declaration shall be in lieu of the oath otherwise required.
(2) Whenever a written declaration under paragraph (1) is used, the document containing the declaration shall state that willful false statements are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, pursuant to section 1001 of title 18, and may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or a registration resulting therefrom.
Title 18 Section 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
It seems that there is law behind throwing someone in jail.
The real news here is that somebody would be willing to download Windows 8, pirated or otherwise.
I wonder why the tool does not even string match known good URLs out of this such as wikipedia. I mean come on, even I could see this coming. On the other hand maybe the programmer of this tool didn't like his work and this was his way to make the whole idea look bad.
"DMCA notices are being sent automatically..." - that's a new spam variety.
I think it's time to review the provisions of the process. Of course, it's a valid argument that doing it all entirely by hand is a bit much work, the internet being rather large and all that. On the other hand, fully-automated "processing" yields too many false positives, and the rights-holders don't care because they want to avoid false negatives more, nevermind the damage it does to other people's trust in the DMCA, even in copyright.
So we need to give them an incentive to make them care. In the meantime, I'd propose to require all notices to be double-checked by hand. That is, you can use bots all you want, but someone must eyeball the requests before they're issued, at the very least. That, or simply no longer listen to any requests when, not if, some botted party generates too many "oi! that's not yours to take down!" complaints about their "take this down" complaints.
I think there should be a mechanism that loses you your rights to enforce the copyrights you're holding if you're abusing the enforcement mechanism, like by generating too many false positives, yes. "Running a bot that goes amok" counts as abusing. Three strikes, anyone?
Microsoft would now face a $200 trillion fine for violating the law (When you scale up from what single persons are liable for under this law, to the income and wealth of microsoft)
If the law was balanced, I would imagine we would get fewer cases of false notices, as it is now, all they get is a bit of bad press, it is probably not even mentioned in the press for non-nerds and there so why should they not send out takedown notices for everything?
We need automatic fines for companies that make automatic mistakes.
Surely there has to be a slimy legal shit somewhere who can figure out a way to make money from each improper take-down?
bang goes my karma... again...
Starting sentences in the heading and continuing them in the comment body should be a stoning offence.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
"I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
The former clause simply states that you have a belief you are the copyright owner. The latter clause says that you swear this under penalty of perjury. But it is not reasonably possible to have a good faith belief that an automated, mass-volume tool gets absolutely every case right. In at least some cases like sending one to the BBC you will on the face of it commit perjury. The person who lends his name to this should not sleep comfortably at night.
Hahaha, yeah nothing would fix the election like an uniformed population.
Romney has Brownshirts?
Micro$soft finally realizes that Windows 8 infringes and they've come clean about it and
issues a take down of this horrible injustice.
Just sayin'
CAPTCHA = serial
Willis?
First High Frequency Trading, now automated DCMA notices.
To be fair, it's actually people who rely on computers to much who are taking over the world.
I've heard this complaint before and I don't understand it. The way slashdot shows threads this is the most efficient use of screen space, often showing a short message entirely without having to expand it.
Would be to allow a bill back process for every false claim ( and perhaps a fine too ). If the accusers have to pay for mistakes they will be a bit more careful before they start carpet bombing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's fairly obvious at this point that there needs to be a penalty associated with filing false DMCA takedown notices. It could be a financial penalty, or suspension of the right to file for a certain time.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Someone where I work does this with email. People there are beginning to agree with you.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
There are three questions to consider:
Are false accusations of infringement libelous?
Besides The US and the UK, can these false accusations be viewed in any other countries anywhere else in the world?
Does Microsoft have any money?
Actually, I'm surprised this hasn't been tried before.
But the entire point of the DMCA is to bypass due process.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.