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."

20 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Noticed this earlier today by zenlessyank · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  2. Takedown the election by jonsmirl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone please send DMCA takedown notices to all sites currently covering the US presidential election. That might get the problem fixed.

    1. Re:Takedown the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hahaha, yeah nothing would fix the election like an uniformed population. Removing news coverage would just let the candidates escape the dumb things they say.

      And that would differ..... how?

    2. Re:Takedown the election by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      And that would differ..... how?

      Since the recent debate Romney's popularity sharply dropped in the ages 3-8 demographic.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Takedown the election by dryeo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd guess that some decide to not vote after hearing the candidates.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  3. Knock out the spammers by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Knock out the spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How can you say that? Do you know for sure that the Caesar's Civil War entry on Wikipedia isn't infringing on the Windows 8 Beta IP? I mean, 5 years after Caesar crossed the Rubicon he was named dictator. And 5 years after Windows 95 was released Microsoft was named a monopoly. Is this a coincidence? Consider this: Steve Ballmer was born on March 24, 1956. 2000 years and 1 week prior, Caesar had defeated his last enemy on March 17, 45 BC. Coincidence?

      The only logical conclusion that any sane person can come up with is that Gaius Julius Caesar is the property of both Ballmer and Microsoft and any reference to him or the number 45 (for 45 BC) is a copyright violation. Case closed.

    2. Re:Knock out the spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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."
    1. Re:Bad law is bad by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you wrongly claim to own the copyright or be the agent of someone who does, there is a penalty under the perjury clause. If you wrongly claim you are the person who the notice was targeting or an agent of them, the same exists.

      However, the validity of the take down notice as in the actual content is what you claim or that the use of it was an actual violation of the copyright does not carry an explicit penalty under the DMCA. This is because the DMCA is not really about the claims, copyright, or fair use, but a way for network and service providers to act on the claims without becoming liable themselves.

      Practically speaking, anyone who is the victim of a fraudulent claim can sue the person who made the claim for damages. If they pretend they are in collusion with the service provider and it wasn't a DMCA take , then the service or network provider that disabled access to the service is not shielded from liability either. Unfortunately, often the damages are far less then the cost of suing or the resources someone might have available to push the buttons.

  6. Well, that will teach Microsoft by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  7. If it's not already legal to disregard automated by doug141 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    dcma takedowns, it should be.

  8. last paragraph sums it up by chowdahhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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!
  11. 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.

  12. Re:Keep it rolling boys by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  13. Re:Keep it rolling boys by Genda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps you haven't put the line through all the dots yet... that is the plan. Crush the internet as we know it, and replace it with something that resembles phone service. You pay for their service, they give you what they feel like, you pay what they demand, and you shut your mouth and enjoy it, or do without. This wild anything goes hippy-fest, communist plot that we currently call the internet is an unending pain in their collective sides and they must do anything they can to kill it, so when you say you hope it dies, you're in fact serving their interest.

    It is time for Americans, to build a completely free and unregulated internet. One not subject to government control, and for the luv-o-jebus utterly inaccessible to large corporate interests. It should be free, open and paid for by donations from users who want to circumvent the increasingly pay-per-screw models being inflicted on the users by the monolithic service providers of the world. Most important, it should route around existing systems of control and manipulation. There is no sane argument against having a free and unrestricted system of communications among people. We've been fed lies and hyperbole by people whose interest is that we keep the masses in line. This isn't about stopping a handful of predators, and it never has been. You don't destroy a $50,000 vehicle to get at a 10 cent fuse. Our entire society has become a means by which wealthy powers have concentrated wealth and power to give them control and authority over the groveling masses. Its about time for the masses to tell the powers to kiss their collective asses, we'll take care of ourselves thanks.