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 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.
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!
Corporations are psychopaths. And what kind of monsters scare psychopaths? Shareholders.
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
I wonder how long it will take till someone decides to use that tool to take a specific artist off the net everywhere?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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...