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."
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 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."
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.
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!
The point is that you should not be automating something that claims to be 100% accurate under penalty of perjury at identifying content on the internet when we know that it's simply not possible to write such a thing.
Pinning responsability for the bot on someone would be difficult
No it wouldn't. If you can't find a manager, director, CEO, etc. who can be held responsible, then just hold the Company as a whole responsible. If the Company is allowed to contribute money to an election, then it's only fair that the Company can be held liable in general for perjury, libel, etc.
I don't think that's ever been done, and to make things worse how do you get a bot to face penalties of perjury? Pinning responsability for the bot on someone would be difficult and would most likely get put on the most junior coder or somebody that's left MS.
Well if that's the case, what legal standing does a bot have to make a DCMA claim? I would argue - none.
You should create a corporation and sign your computer over to it. Then if it does get sued just have the corp sell you the computer for 1$, then let it go bankrupt in the suit. Isn't capitalism great?