Hollywood Studios Use DMCA To Censor Pirate Bay Documentary

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hollywood Studios Use DMCA To Censor Pirate Bay Documentary

Posted by timothy on Tuesday May 21, 2013 @03:33AM from the we-don't-like-your-bits dept.

First time accepted submitter Aaron B Lingwood writes "As reported by TorrentFreak, Viacom, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate have all asked Google to take down links pointing to the Pirate Bay documentary 'TPB-AFK.' The film, created by Simon Klose, is available for no cost and has already been watched by millions of people. The public response to this free release model has been overwhelmingly positive, but it's now meeting resistance from Hollywood, TPB's arch rival. Pirate Party Australia opines 'Hollywood is using takedown notices to censor Pirate Bay doco, is it incompetence or malice? Always hard to tell.' Whichever the answer, the system is definitely broken."

95 of 139 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Its a Shame by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 03:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

That the studios won't get sued for it.
1. Re:Its a Shame by Penguinisto · 2013-05-21 04:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That the studios won't get sued for it.
  It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
2. Re:Its a Shame by h4rr4r · 2013-05-21 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Why does this never happen?
  Heck, can I sue for defamation if they use a DMCA take down against me for posting this movie?
3. Re:Its a Shame by gstoddart · 2013-05-21 04:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.
  Because all you have to do is claim incompetence and get off without penalty ... even if they did it on purpose, you'd probably never be able to prove that.
  Which is why there needs to be penalties for simply being wrong, otherwise it's free and they can do it all they like and later claim it was in error. They're certainly willing to destroy people's lives with their claims, they should have a lot more accountability for it.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Its a Shame by Jetra · 2013-05-21 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  What is even the point of this? Has Hollywood finally just lost their last brain cell?
  
  Hollywood: This Pirate Bay Documentary is ruining our business!
  Executives: We'll censor it!
  Hollywood: Hell Yeah
  Movie-Goer: ...it's already been seen by milions
  Hollywood: Sorry, can't hear you over the sounds of the billions that we'll rake in once we take down those scoundrels!
5. Re:Its a Shame by CanEHdian · 2013-05-21 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.
  As far as I understand the DMCA, it's only perjury if you claim to be or claim to represent the copyrightholder of a work, while in fact you are not. I can't issue any DMCA takedown requests on a outdoors videoclip with birds chirping claiming copyright infringement on the movie "Star Wars" since I am not (representing the) Star Wars copyright owner. But I could do it based on my own movie, even though it is obvious the videoclip isn't infringing.
  This is what is the problem with Kim Dotcom's MEGA; it has -purposefully and intentionally- built in the same flaw: you HAVE TO BE who you claim to be re the work you are "defending", but it doesn't matter one bit what you are taking down.
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
6. Re:Its a Shame by Arker · 2013-05-21 04:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In the US, you can generally sue for anything you can find a lawyer willing to file the paperwork on.
  Winning the case might be a bit more difficult however.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
7. Re:Its a Shame by NatasRevol · 2013-05-21 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  I don't see an answer to whether or not Google is actually taking down these requests.
  But if they respect known false DCMA takedown notices, they're complicit.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
8. Re:Its a Shame by Dunbal · 2013-05-21 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's ashamed that their lawyers won't get disbarred for it.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
9. Re:Its a Shame by HungryHobo · 2013-05-21 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  nope, it's worse than that.
  
  Scumsucker and Weasel LLC ("Scumsucker") swears under penalty of perjury that Sleazebag Studios, Inc. ("Sleazebag") has authorized Scumsucker to act as its agent for copyright infringement notification. Scumsucker's search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of Sleazebag's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the attached report.
  Scumsucker has reasonable good faith belief that use for the material in the manner complained of in the attached report is not authorized by Sleazebag, its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification under provisions of section 512(a) of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the attached report. The attached documentation specifies the exact location of the infringement. The Notice ID identifies the copyrighted works by file identification number.
  We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the user refrains from using or sharing with others Sleazebag's materials in the future.
  Please send us a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter. Please reference the Notice ID number above in your response.
  Notice how the only thing that is sworn to is that Scumsucker is the agent of Sleazebag.
  They do not have to swear that they own the copyright. They can believe it on the basis that the magic 8 ball told them so and are not committing perjury.
  On the other hand a counter notice legally requires you to swear a lot of things under penalty of perjury, far more than the initial notice.
  the law is an ass.
10. Re:Its a Shame by suutar · 2013-05-21 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It doesn't happen because it requires proving bad intent, which (barring finding an email that says "hey, file a DMCA request. It doesn't really qualify but it'll slow them down.") is nigh impossible to distinguish from (even unlikely levels of) natural stupidity and ignorance.
11. Re:Its a Shame by suutar · 2013-05-21 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  complicit they may be, but shielded from any effect they most certainly are; that's the entire point of the DMCA safe harbor provision.
12. Re:Its a Shame by ttucker · 2013-05-21 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's why you subpoena e-mails relating to the issue. Laziness will get you every time on things you should have said directly with no trail.
  Do you really think that the defendant will provide you with *all* of the emails? It would be just as hard to prove one was missing as it would be to demonstrate mal-intent in the first place.
13. Re:Its a Shame by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-05-21 07:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Know who you are and what your standing is!
  Easy for you to say, Anonymous Coward...
14. Re:Its a Shame by N0Man74 · 2013-05-21 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  complicit they may be, but shielded from any effect they most certainly are; that's the entire point of the DMCA safe harbor provision.
  Exactly.
  I've always seen the "Safe Harbor" provisions as more of a threat than a protection. If ISPs and Hosts don't respond to the take downs, then they become complicit and liable for damages.
15. Re:Its a Shame by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2013-05-21 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  What do you need accountability for, when you've got the power?
  Seriously, any organization nowadays seems to be structured in a way that makes it nearly impossible to find someone who actually is responsible for said entity's actions. Inaccountability appears to be planfully created by todays corporate or administrative leaders.
  
  --
  Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
16. Re:Its a Shame by c0lo · 2013-05-21 11:09 · Score: 2
  
  Didn't a US Senator once sue God?
  No, it was Billy Connolly: there's a documentary made on the suit :)
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
17. Re:Its a Shame by c0lo · 2013-05-21 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually... wadda ye know?... yes, it was
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
18. Re:Its a Shame by knorthern+knight · 2013-05-21 14:13 · Score: 2
  
  > It doesn't happen because it requires proving bad intent, which (barring finding an email
  > that says "hey, file a DMCA request. It doesn't really qualify but it'll slow them down.") is
  > nigh impossible to distinguish from (even unlikely levels of) natural stupidity and ignorance.
  What about suing for damge cause by gross negligence and lack of due diligence?
  
  --
  
  I'm not repeating myself
  I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Why? by HalAtWork · 2013-05-21 03:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do they have any rights to any copyrighted content that has been misappropriated for use in this film? The article does not clarify how the DMCA is being used and what "Hollywood" is claiming as a violation.

--
Twinstiq, game news
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, this is a non-story I guess. Apparently "Hollywood" is doing what they always have done, firing blindly at anything that moves. TPB-AFK was not specifically targeted.
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 03:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They aren't claiming anything specific. They are just sending generic take down notices pointed at links saying that they own the content.
3. Re:Why? by gstoddart · 2013-05-21 03:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The article does not clarify how the DMCA is being used and what "Hollywood" is claiming as a violation.
  Really?
  
  Fox, with help from six-strikes monitoring company Dtecnet, asked Google to remove a link to TPB-AFK on Mechodownload. Paramount did the same with a link on the Warez.ag forums.
  Viacom sent at least two takedown requests targeting links to the Pirate Bay documentary on Mrworldpremiere and Rapidmoviez. Finally, Lionsgate jumped in by asking Google to remove a copy of TPB-AFK from a popular Pirate Bay proxy.
  Each of Fox, Viacom, and Lionsgate issued take down notices. They're essentially using false claims to issue DMCA take downs.
  Since they don't have to support or justify their claims, and there is no penalty for making false claims, they can suppress this by just telling people it's violating their copyright.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Why? by Yebyen · 2013-05-21 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  
  but their targeting of a Creative Commons Pirate Bay documentary is something new.
  That's misleading. The only thing that's new about it is that Pirate Bay has never released this documentary before, I guess. I've heard this story before; author releases original content for free, big media censors by DMCA take-down notice. Sorry no penalty is available for them by law... but if you ignore their request, or if you read and allow someone's appeal to result in bringing the link back up, you subject yourself to expensive legal fees and big penalties if it turns out that it was indeed a valid take-down request.
  Better to just let Big Media do what they want.
  
  --
  Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
5. Re:Why? by Vektuz · 2013-05-21 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  There actually IS a penalty for knowingly making false claims, its a federal crime. But its one of those "must fight in court, full of loopholes" crimes that's not meant for Fox and friends, its meant for "ordinary people". You know, people. Not... The People.
6. Re:Why? by Salgak1 · 2013-05-21 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Which brings the question: when will some clueful legislator (I know, contradiction in terms. . . ) make a provably false DMCA takedown request either a criminal act or allow civil suit to be brought for violation of free speech. Currently, a false DMCA claim is, in effect, a SLAPP manuever
7. Re:Why? by Bob9113 · 2013-05-21 04:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >> Fox, with help from six-strikes monitoring company Dtecnet, asked Google to remove a link
  > They're essentially using false claims to issue DMCA take downs.
  No they are not. They are not invoking the DMCA. They are asking their friend Google to suppress the information without filing a formal DMCA complaint, and Google is choosing to comply of their own free will. Google does not require the majors to file formal DMCA complaints, which is why there is no penalty for them under law, and why it is so hard to get false accusations cleared.
  This is not the law being abused, this is Google siding with their fellow oligarchs in Hollywood, against the public interest.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
8. Re:Why? by gstoddart · 2013-05-21 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sorry no penalty is available for them by law
  There's supposed to be a penalty of perjury, but to date they mostly file anything they like and nobody has held them to account.
  The problem is the whole thing is skewed in their favor, and everyone else can either blindly comply even when it's bullshit, or spend a lot of their own money fighting it.
  Someone needs to start applying meaningful, and significant penalties when they do this falsely. Otherwise they can just keep taking down anything they want to with no consequences.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
9. Re:Why? by faffod · 2013-05-21 04:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Speaking of "six strikes" how do we successfully petition for a new six strikes law: If you issue 6 invalid DMCA takedown notices you lose the right to issue takedown notices for the next 12 months.
10. Re:Why? by SuricouRaven · 2013-05-21 04:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, it already is. DMCA requests are issued under penalty of perjury. This doesn't actually matter because:
  1. It has to be a knowingly false takedown. Takedowns sent unintentionally (ie, by over-zealous bot) don't count.
  2. Most DMCA takedowns aren't actually formal DMCA notices, but rather 'polite requests' issued to hosts or service providers on the understanding that a full takedown will follow soon enough if the request isn't obeyed.
  3. No prosecutor has the slightest interest in enforcing this provision.
11. Re:Why? by gstoddart · 2013-05-21 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't disagree, but it's all the more depressing because of that.
  The companies get to do anything they want, and the rest of us gets screwed in the process.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 04:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Your weird anti-Google paranoia is charming, but wrong. The media companies are sending DMCA take down notices and Google are legally obliged to honor them. From the article, which I'm sure you've read:
  
  Over the past weeks several movie studios have been trying to suppress the availability of TPB-AFK by asking Google to remove links to the documentary from its search engine. The links are carefully hidden in standard DMCA takedown notices for popular movies and TV-shows.
  Anything else you'd like to incorrectly blame Google for? World hunger, cancer, tornadoes in Oklahoma?
13. Re:Why? by compro01 · 2013-05-21 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  If you issue 1 invalid DMCA takedown notice you lose the right to issue takedown notices for the next 12 decades.
  Some small improvements.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
14. Re:Why? by Bob9113 · 2013-05-21 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  I hear you, my friend. It hurts me to see how many people here still give Google a free pass on this stuff because they were once an ethical company.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
15. Re:Why? by strength_of_10_men · 2013-05-21 04:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Hm. According to this, it IS a DCMA notice from DtecNet (for LionsGate) to Google. It's nominally for the movie "The Last Stand" but in there, they sneak in a link for TPB:AFK documentary. Care to elaborate where you get your info from?
  
  Sent via: online form
  Re: Websearch Infringement Notification via Online Form Complaint
  
  Google DMCA Form: Infringement Notification for Web Search
  
  Contact Information
  Name: [redacted]
  Company Name: DtecNet
  Copyright holder: Lionsgate
  Country/Region: US
16. Re:Why? by Salgak1 · 2013-05-21 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  Which was my point. The level of evidence needed to prosecute for perjury on a DMCA takedown is monumental, while the evidence required to FILE a takedown is Zero. Hence, my pining for a legislator to rebalance it to something approaching equity. . . .
17. Re:Why? by cheekyjohnson · 2013-05-21 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  If we had enough support to do something like that, we may as well just get rid of most of the DMCA.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
18. Re:Why? by jonwil · 2013-05-21 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, legally, if the person who posted the original content submits a valid DMCA counter-notice then the content host (the one originally sent the DMCA take-down notice) can put it back and be legally protected. Its then up to whoever sent the original notice to to file a lawsuit against the uploader if they still believe they have a legitimate case.
  IANAL but this is my understanding of the DMCA. Any experts out there feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
19. Re:Why? by spasm · 2013-05-21 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  So why aren't we all writing 'over zealous' bots designed to identify misuse of that one video we shot as part of a GE requirement in college, said bots which just happens to constantly misidentify content which large studios are selling online, so that the studios are constantly battling nonsensical DMCA takedowns too?
20. Re:Why? by Bob9113 · 2013-05-21 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  My apologies for the false accusation. I was conflating what I believe to be YouTube's over-aggressive takedown process with parent company Google's general practices.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
21. Re:Why? by SuricouRaven · 2013-05-21 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because they have better lawyers and political allies than you.
22. Re:Why? by Bob9113 · 2013-05-21 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the correction -- retraction here.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
23. Re:Why? by Bob9113 · 2013-05-21 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the correction, and for the link to the DMCA claim -- retraction here.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
24. Re:Why? by Yebyen · 2013-05-21 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I am not so sure about the part where you are legally protected under safe-harbor, or entirely sure of what makes a counter-notice valid, but I would suggest that if the legality of re-posting the link depends on your pointing the finger at the uploader and allowing them to be ruined by lawyers with deep-pocketed big media clients, your users as a whole are better off if you have a blanket policy of honoring DMCA take-down and ignoring valid, or any other, counter-notices.
  They'd (users) better find somewhere suitably protected and anonymous, and re-post it there, instead.
  
  --
  Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
25. Re:Why? by Yebyen · 2013-05-21 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  * Which of course only works in the slightest degree, if either anonymous Bitcoins, or if free Creative Commons.
  
  --
  Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
26. Re:Why? by jafiwam · 2013-05-21 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  The point of the counter notice is two fold;
  - it lets the owner (if the claim is not valid) put the content back up and protects the host
  - it passes the contact information between the two claimants, which sets the stage for "see you in court"
  Since the host has followed the law, they can wait for the court order if it comes.
27. Re:Why? by MMC+Monster · 2013-05-21 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  How about filing a DMCA claim against their movies?
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
28. Re:Why? by VortexCortex · 2013-05-21 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of "six strikes" how do we successfully petition for a new six strikes law: If you issue 6 invalid DMCA takedown notices you lose the right to issue takedown notices for the next 12 months.
  I want a different 6 strikes law: Anyone who bowls 6 strikes in one game gets to choose among any who used private channels instead of DMCA notices (to dodge perjury laws) and use their head as the ball in the next game.
  What? It has just as much chance of passing into law as yours does.
29. Re:Why? by faffod · 2013-05-21 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really think that my law makes sense. the parent post to mine referenced six strikes, and it occurred to me that the DMCA proponents seem to favor n-strike laws to ban abusers. Giving them a dose of their own medicine would amuse me - if for no other reason that to watch them contort in attempts to explain why they shouldn't be treated the way they want to treat the rest of us.
30. Re:Why? by Yebyen · 2013-05-21 14:31 · Score: 2
  
  And as soon as the first court decides that Big Media was in their rights, and Joe Bob Uploader really infringed, and is now liable for $150,000 x 2 million downloads, that safe harbor is going to be sad that it fed one of its' loyal users to the dogs.
  I know, you shouldn't file the counter-notice if you're not really the owner. Yeah, we want to see those judges outed who are in the pocket of ConglomeraCorp, and then the users will hopefully win on appeal, or we're all moving to New Zealand. I'm just being cynical, but I guess my point is, nobody ever was drowned in lawyer fees by remaining anonymous. Just how much trouble did you have in reality finding a copy of that censored Pirate Bay documentary?
  If you want to provide safe-harbor, the most bullet-proof way to do it is to facilitate DMCA take-down requests and ignore counter-claims, and let your users go elsewhere if they don't like it, and I don't know if this is the host companies' thought process, but it seems we're seeing it now again and again. Companies that provide free media hosting (say, Google) usually seem to believe these days that legal compliance is more important than having any direct communication with their users at all, it's cheaper and the cost of "users going somewhere else" must be precisely nothing compared to the price of validating counter-claims, which they're not required to do at all, in order for them to behave as they do.
  
  --
  Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
31. Re:Why? by Yebyen · 2013-05-21 16:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  A little shorter, and based on what you stated, which is entirely valid...
  You can make it easy and cost-effective to file a counter-claim, or you can make it likely that counter-claims contain valid information. The hollywood letterhead is easily authenticated, there are only a handful of major studios, if you contact them they will surely confirm, they did indeed send a DMCA notice, and you are obligated to follow up these claims.
  But even if only a fraction of users file counter-claims, some (most?) will be invalid, some will even be filed as return-address Barack Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and there will be penalties for the first company to honor one of these or similar invalid counter-claims by failing to validate the contact information and other details correctly. You can alternatively choose to ignore the counter-claims at no cost, there will be no penalty for honoring a false take-down notice and ignoring the counter-claim on content that is hosted for free (indeed a negative cost, if you are hosting media and you're obligated to delete it, you've just freed up some space), and by removing that step from your compliance, the cost of authenticating the contact information and associated details drops to zero. Plus you've insulated your users from any further harassment regarding the content/notice at hand. Most of these companies are not in the habit of obtaining contact details and validating them.
  Nor do they want to be, they just want to be in compliance with the (draconian) DMCA law. It's likely to push independent producers to use paid hosting, where there is at least an incentive and a clear path to validate counter-claims (otherwise, lose my business), or simply incite more people to use BitTorrent, where your posting cannot easily be removed by any party.
  
  --
  Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
32. Re:Why? by faffod · 2013-05-21 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  You're not going to get the board of directors to be held liable - they'll pin the blame on some low level grunt and let them serve time while they dig up a new schlep to continue filing takedowns. This way you get the entire portfolio of the company out in the open for a full year with no recourse to the DMCA. You want to talk about making the board sweat, they will make sure that no one screws it up. Keep in mind that this will include any new content they create during that year. Imagine in WB hit their six strikes (ok, not hard to imagine, but imagine if they did it with a six strike rule in effect) now they would be unable to post any takedown notices when they found an Ironman 3 video. Yeah, they would sweat that far more than worrying about some staffer possibly doing time.
Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 03:42 · Score: 1

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had not heard of this documentary yet. I will definitely watch it.
1. Re:Thank you by zmaragdus · 2013-05-21 03:51 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I hope the Barbara Streisand effect snowballs this from here.
  
  --
  (((dB)))
2. Re:Thank you by Ossifer · 2013-05-21 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Me too... Time to fire up ktorrent...
3. Re:Thank you by iluvcapra · 2013-05-21 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I admit I went to go watch it after I saw this here.
  However, the movie is in subtitles, no red-blooded American will sit through 30 seconds of it :)
  Also I'm not sure that any of the claims in the film are very earth shattering or new -- very few people get their movies from TPB, almost none rely on it, everybody knows that it exists in this legal grey area and the protagonists seem to revel in this. It preaches to the converted.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The system is NOT broken! by fustakrakich · 2013-05-21 03:43 · Score: 1

This is its design, to maintain the gatekeepers' authority..

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Not surprising ... by gstoddart · 2013-05-21 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since the DMCA allows these guys to basically do anything and later claim it was a mistake, I'm not surprised to see these guys abusing it.
I'd really like to see some harsh penalties applied against false DMCA claims -- like paying the falsely accused the same statutory fines they got put into law.
When they trot out the DMCA against stuff they don't own, it should be treated as perjury. Right now, it's "oh, silly us, did we do that?"

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Not surprising ... by zmaragdus · 2013-05-21 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Would you then have to apply such penalties to wide-sweeping automated systems that monitor for piracy and other violations? (Kind of like "If an automated car commits a traffic violation, who do you send the ticket to?")
  
  If a piece of software flags & sends notices about 300 items a minute and even 10% of them are false, that's 4320 false claims a day. If it is a $500 fine per false claim that's on the order of 2 million dollars lost a day. Hmmm...this is sounding better and better all the time...
  
  --
  (((dB)))
2. Re:Not surprising ... by zmaragdus · 2013-05-21 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, bad math. 30 a minute
  
  --
  (((dB)))
3. Re:Not surprising ... by gstoddart · 2013-05-21 04:06 · Score: 2
  
  If it is a $500 fine per false claim that's on the order of 2 million dollars lost a day
  Way too low. If they can have statutory damages of $250K/title for infringement, they should pay at least the same for false claims.
  Otherwise, there's nothing to keep them from cranking out false claims endlessly, and it's such an imbalanced system as to be pathetic -- which it currently is.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Not surprising ... by surmak · 2013-05-21 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Claiming copyright on something you don't own carries criminal penalties of a minimum of 5 years in prison plus quite a big fine.
  Unfortunately, you need to convince an overworked federal prosecutor with other fish to fry to take the case.
5. Re:Not surprising ... by void* · 2013-05-21 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Mumbling to myself, I'm wondering if there's a way to show that they're not actually meeting the good faith requirement due to a known false positive rate - and if there is, does that let anyone do anything about it legally?
  (If your copyright bot has a known-to-you false positive rate how can you in good faith claim that material is infringing simply on the basis that bot claims it is so?)
  
  --
  
  Code or be coded.
6. Re:Not surprising ... by peawormsworth · 2013-05-22 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Since the DMCA allows these guys to basically do anything and later claim it was a mistake, I'm not surprised to see these guys abusing it.
  This is all Googles fault. Because they dont want to properly monitor copyright requests, they simply take the side of the one with the least personal liability for them. This means that they will normally trust the one who claims copyright infringement and take down the link to the work. This often happens to me on youtube, where I use music tracks with the attribution creative commons license. More then 1/2 the time some agency will claim to own the rights to the musical track and begin making money off my work through advertising. I believe many of these requests come from fraud and not by accident. But since google doesnt spend the time to track fraudulent infringement requests, these companies continue to work the system.
  Google should start tracking these incorrect requests and begin to ignore companies who continue to make incorrect claims. As a minimum they should have a whitelist of valid links and ignore massive lists where any of the claims are known to not be infringement.
is it incompetence or malice'? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 03:47 · Score: 1

Hanlon's law doesn't apply here. Never assume incompetence when greedy self-interest explains it.
-mcgrew
1. Re:is it incompetence or malice'? by mcgrew · 2013-05-21 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wow... (head asplodes)
  Yes, I have said that before but never expected to be quoted. I'd thank you if I thought you'd see the response, AC.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Under penalty of perjury by tepples · 2013-05-21 03:49 · Score: 1

I'd really like to see some harsh penalties applied against false DMCA claims
Someone filing a notice of claimed infringement under OCILLA already has to affirm under penalty of perjury that he represents the owner of copyright in a particular work. If this turns out to be a shotgun claim, the next step is to press perjury charges against everyone involved in these notices. And I agree with you that I'd like to see perjury charges pressed where needed.
1. Re:Under penalty of perjury by compro01 · 2013-05-21 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  Someone filing a notice of claimed infringement under OCILLA already has to affirm under penalty of perjury that he represents the owner of copyright in a particular work
  Correct. But they aren't affirming that they represent the owner of the work being taken down, just the one they're claiming they own.
  "I affirm that I am the copyright owner on X. Take down Y."
  They are not affirming that X is Y, merely that they own X.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
2. Re:Under penalty of perjury by Kjella · 2013-05-21 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. But they aren't affirming that they represent the owner of the work being taken down, just the one they're claiming they own.
  "I affirm that I am the copyright owner on X. Take down Y."
  They are not affirming that X is Y, merely that they own X.
  Yes, the claim that Y is actually X is only covered by a small section on misrepresentation. Unless it's in bad faith there's no penalty at all and worse case they're only liable for costs incurred, no penalties or restitution. It's as if the copyright lobby wrote it, oh wait they did....
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Three words by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 03:54 · Score: 1

I suppose I should clarify:
It can be defined as “a false and malicious statement, oral or written, made in disparagement of a person's title to real or personal property, or of some right of his, causing him special damage." [Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., 68 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 1953)]
They are claiming ownership of something which they disagree with to prevent it from being seen. The right is his copyright, the damage is to his first amendment rights.
"Arch rival"? by Sockatume · 2013-05-21 03:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Rivaly implies entirely the wrong kind of relationship between the two, a competitive one. You don't have a rivalry with a squirrel that's lifting biscuits from your picnic, you have an irrational obsession with destroying it while it carries on with a kind of benign codependence.
I may have stretched that metaphor.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
1. Re:"Arch rival"? by VortexCortex · 2013-05-21 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  squirrels are never benign.
  So, they only spring forth from malignant tumours? That explains a few things...
2. Re:"Arch rival"? by Sockatume · 2013-05-22 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's a lofty expectation for a squirrel.
  Listen, the way I pack for a picnic, they could take biscuits for years and I wouldn't even notice the reduction in quantity.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Better yet.. by dgr73 · 2013-05-21 03:57 · Score: 2

I wish I could issue a DMCA takedown notice on Phantom Menace.
1. Re:Better yet.. by fibonacci8 · 2013-05-21 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  I wish I could issue a DMCA takedown notice on Phantom Menace.
  Admitting you have a problem is the first step, Mr. Lucas.
  
  --
  Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Wouldn't work. by denzacar · 2013-05-21 04:13 · Score: 1

DMCA takedown notice is not brain bleach.
That's what ECT is for.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. by kheldan · 2013-05-21 04:27 · Score: 1

Nice job, Hollywood. You just elevated TPB in the eyes of the general public and made yourselves look like even bigger villians than you already did.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
1. Re:Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. by wvmarle · 2013-05-21 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Until just now I hadn't heard about this movie. Or maybe I did but it didn't register. Now it has.
2. Re:Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. by mcgrew · 2013-05-21 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't heard about it either. Need to get a download started before I go back to work...
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
3. Re:Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. by Rakarra · 2013-05-22 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Nice job, Hollywood. You just elevated TPB in the eyes of the general public and made yourselves look like even bigger villians than you already did.
  I'm not so sure of that, the general public will never hear of this lawsuit. Slashdotters and other tech-site readers will, but they will have been bombarded with movie/copyright stories already.
vote with your wallet. by mevets · 2013-05-21 04:33 · Score: 1

Make the documentary a success; and maybe help the poor buggers with Citizen Koch while you are at it.
Yeah, that'll work by FuzzNugget · 2013-05-21 04:45 · Score: 1

It's not like I could go to any one of a several hundred torrent sites or alternative search engines.
Never watched it.... by mark-t · 2013-05-21 05:29 · Score: 1

The one time I downloaded a documentary that was released for free by the owners on pirate bay (while evidently also being released as a for-pay downloadable movie), a running subtitle not far into the film started going by, and chastised me for downloading it off of pirate bay instead of buying it.
I didn't even watch the rest of the film, and I no longer even remember what it was supposed to be about, but the experience kinda soured me against trusting people who willingly put their content onto pirate bay. If they are going to suggest that I'm a criminal for doing something they evidently were explicitly going to actively permit, I have no interest in what they have to say.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Never watched it.... by mark-t · 2013-05-21 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the documentary said in a subtitle that I was supposedly a pirate for downloading it for free.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
2. Re:Never watched it.... by VortexCortex · 2013-05-21 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's what you get for giving a shit about some whiny puff piece like indie game the movie.
  Full disclosure: I'm a part-time independent game developer.
TPB now accepting Bitcoin by cellurl · 2013-05-21 05:50 · Score: 1

I noticed their site (as well as all others in this universe) is now accepting bitcoin donations..
Touche.

Help rage against the rage.
Possible remedy by Lonewolf666 · 2013-05-21 05:59 · Score: 2

I think the DMCA should contain statutory damages for each false DMCA takedown notice. It would not really matter if Sleazebag Studios or Scumsucker and Weasel LLC has to pay, the important point is that "mistaken" takedown notices would become expensive.

--
C - the footgun of programming languages
1. Re:Possible remedy by Lonewolf666 · 2013-05-22 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Does it? All I'm aware of is the perjury aspect, and as others have pointed out, that is pretty toothless in practice.
  If content hosters (or maybe the uploader) could charge a few thousand dollars per false DMCA takedown notice, it would become financially feasible to review the notices and go after the guys who issue the fake ones.
  
  --
  C - the footgun of programming languages
Because of the weasle wording. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 06:03 · Score: 1

They say "I am the copyright holder of X, Y infringes my rights, shut it down" and the thing that is perjury is lying about the "I am the copyright holder of X". NOT "Y infringes my rights".
They don't even claim they have copyrights in Y, just that they have rights in X.
Automation by flimflammer · 2013-05-21 07:51 · Score: 1

This is exactly why it should not be legal to send out automated DMCA notifications. Far too much stuff is caught in the crossfire when the traditional response from the industry to a counterclaim is to reassert their initial automated claim regardless if it's accurate or not.
There should be a large fine you don't need to sue to make stick for all "mistaken" claims. This is beyond ridiculous at this point.
It's not imcompetence. by viperidaenz · 2013-05-21 08:49 · Score: 1

It's perjury.
It is only broke because the laws did not. by ralphaostrander · 2013-05-21 13:42 · Score: 1

Include Jail time for requesting something you dont actually own be taken down. This will fix it in a heartbeat.
"Slander of Title" by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · 2013-05-21 15:08 · Score: 1

Couldn't a case be made that false accusations of copyright infringement are forms of "slander of title"?

--
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
DMCA by drpickett · 2013-05-22 04:24 · Score: 1

DMCA is a great example of your US taxpayer dollars at work. The people that you elected to represent you and your interests were paid by you to write and enact this legislation. Did you get your money's worth? The industry lobbyists sure did.
Re:Thanks by AbsGeekNZ · 2013-05-22 10:35 · Score: 1

I'm in the exact same situation, before this I was only aware they were making a documentry. Thanks to this great advertisement, I have now downloaded this doco and will take time this weekend to watch it....bravo