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."

35 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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...
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 03:46 · 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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?
9. 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
10. 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. . . .
11. 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.
12. Re:Why? by SuricouRaven · 2013-05-21 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because they have better lawyers and political allies than you.
13. 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.
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 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.
Re:Thank you by zmaragdus · 2013-05-21 03:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

I hope the Barbara Streisand effect snowballs this from here.

--
(((dB)))
"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?
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.
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
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