Hollywood Studios Use DMCA To Censor Pirate Bay Documentary

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."

Comments

Its a Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

That the studios won't get sued for it.

Re:Its a Shame

[Penguinisto]

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.

Re:Its a Shame

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Its a Shame

[HungryHobo]

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.

Re:Its a Shame

[suutar]

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.

Why?

[HalAtWork]

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.

Re:Why?

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Why?

[Bob9113]

>> 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.

Re:Why?

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Why?

[faffod]

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.

Re:Why?

[SuricouRaven]

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.

Re:Why?

[strength_of_10_men]

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

Re:Why?

[SuricouRaven]

Because they have better lawyers and political allies than you.

Not surprising ...

[gstoddart]

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?"

Re:Thank you

[zmaragdus]

I hope the Barbara Streisand effect snowballs this from here.

"Arch rival"?

[Sockatume]

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.