Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Automated DMCA Takedown Notices Request Censorship of Legitimate Sites

Posted by timothy on from the totally-unpredictable-outcome dept.

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."

6 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Perjury charges forthcoming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  2. Bad law is bad by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  3. A DMCA takedown notice is theft. by cwills · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A DMCA takedown notice for something that doesn't belong to you is simply theft, and should be treated as such. If the whole purpose of DMCA is to protect the owner of some property, it needs to work both ways.

    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.

  4. Nothing to lose by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft has nothing to lose from this. Removing legitimate sites from Google's index only helps Bing.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  5. Re:at the sentence by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Knock out the spammers by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.