Slashdot Mirror
HBO Asks Google To Take Down "Infringing" VLC Media Player
another random user writes with an excerpt from TorrentFreak: "It's no secret that copyright holders are trying to take down as much pirated content as they can, but their targeting of open source software is something new. In an attempt to remove pirated copies of Game of Thrones from the Internet, HBO sent a DMCA takedown to Google, listing a copy of the popular media player VLC as a copyright infringement. An honest mistake, perhaps, but a worrying one. ... Usually these notices ask Google to get rid of links to pirate sites, but for some reason the cable network also wants Google to remove a link to the highly popular open source video player VLC. ... The same DMCA notice also lists various other links that don't appear to link to HBO content, including a lot of porn related material, Ben Harper's album Give Till It's Gone, Naruto, free Java applets and Prince of Persia 5."
I own the rights to the letter E on line
So Google better take down all links with an E in them.
And this is precisely why there needs to be penalties in place for false DMCA takedown requests.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Unless there is punishment for these types of blanket requests copyright holders will continue to abuse the DMCA takedown process.
Each link to material they do not own 100'000 USD to the target of the takedown notice and the same to the actual copyright holder. Alternatively, 30 days in jail for the executive in charge.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.
When it comes to these large media companies you should never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.
Dear HBO,
GFY.
Love,
the Whole Internet
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
What is not mentioned is that the site in question has links to other listings with the release names which may correlate to what their spider was searching, "Game of Thrones." This is very bad practice of the DMCA notice senders as linking to something which links to something which does not even have infringing content itself but a "direction or guidebook" to the potential content.
So the VLC listing had another area that had other listings or popular links and because it had the name they listed it.
There needs to be fines for false DMCA notices like this. They do not own the release name itself.
While it is not "infringing content", VLC player IS illegal in the USA. It is a digital lock-breaking device. Linux distrobutions which include DVD playback capabilities are also illegal.
This is not surprising to me, but it hardly matters because it's not like VLC will cease to ever be easily available.
Maybe my memory is faulty or not up-to-date, but VLC on Linux doesn't pay DVDs out of the box, does it? I seem to remember needing to specifically enable a non-default repository and explicitly install playback libraries for DRM'd DVDs before they would play.
I am not a crackpot.
Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.
When it comes to these large media companies you should never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.
And don't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by "better return to stockholders".
I am not a crackpot.
As you hint at, it's the libdvdcss capability that's the main problem under anti-circumvention provisions of the US DMCA.
You can get versions of VLC which only use FOSS and patent-unencumbered codecs. Debian used to (maybe still does, I haven't looked in a while) make this distinction pretty clear, the "main" packaged VLC was unencumbered, and you had to go outside the main package tree to get the other stuff.
So, in most practical installations, you're right, but it's not literally true that "VLC is illegal in the US."
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
The "I Swear It's All True" requirement is to say that you are authorized by the copyright holder to send out the notice, not that the item actually infringes.
Which is all dandy until you demand the takedown of something that any lawyer doing the most basic due diligence would know was not theirs. Which has happened countless times, some of them reported on /.
That's the kind of shit that should lead to the lawyer being disciplined. But don't. And if you want to look for things that are seriously screwed up with the USA today, you can start there since it's already on the table.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Depends on the distro. I think recent versions of Ubuntu are set up like this, they have the "controversial" stuff in a separate repo.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Pay attention to the bottom of the takedown request:
The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Fuck that "it was an accident" argument, and prosecute them for perjury.
There should be a three strikes rule on this -- submit invalid requests three times, you get ignored as a troll from there on out.
VLC? Shitty!? You must be a mac user upset that it didn't have a minimalistic interface filled with silly skeumorphisms.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I seen from TFA that HBO at one point requested their own website to be removed. If I was Google I'd be paying extra special attention to requests for Mega Corp A to take down Mega Corp B's website (or even better their own), and react quickly. Of course I might be a little slower in dealing with the subsequent undo requests whilst watching the ensuing entertainment.
> I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
See the claim:
Copyright claim #4:
Game of Thrones (Original TV Show)
Original work URL(s):
http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html
Allegedly infringing URLs:
0. https://tpb.ipredator.se/torrent/8493409/Game_of_Thrones_S03E08_480p_HDTV_x264_-VYTO%5BP2PDL%5D
snip
407. http://www.torrentportal.com/details/6093721/VLC-Media-Player-2.0.7-Final-(32-64-bit)-Official.html
They are alleging that VLC is violating their copyright on Game of Thrones. They own the copyright on Game of Thrones so they are in the clear. The fact that their allegation is completely off base doesn't matter.
This is actually a necessary and very unfortunate consequence of our copyright law... Because there aren't clear boundaries for what constitutes fair use and an original work, there is no ability to assert with any certainty that a given work is not derivative. Suppose that maybe that an error message in VLC contains a couple words from the show: it's legitimate (albeit in bad faith) to claim that VLC is now violating your copyright. So unfortunately without a revision to copyright law the only way to hold these people accountable for their 'mistakes' would require them to sue and have the court declare the work non-infringing. Maybe that would be better than the current, but it would undermine the whole point of takedown requests in the first place.
I'd still pay HBO a reasonable amount of money to watch their shows online. But I can't. First, I have to buy cable TV ($60/mo), then I also have to buy a special package that includes HBO ($30/mo), and then I still have to pay extra for HBOGO. So over $100/mo to watch a couple good shows. Yeah, I'll just keep using torrents. Even though it's still a huge ripoff compared to other services like Netflix and Hulu, I'd pay $10-15 per month just for HBO online. Let me know when you're serious about wanting my money, HBO.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
No it is not. Malice is done for the evil it does. "Better return for stockholders" is done for the benefit of certain people. This can at times cause bad shit to happen to others, but this is a side effect.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
> They cannot possibly be the owner of the copyright to VLC, shitwit.
Yeah, and no one is claiming they otherwise. They are claiming that VLC* violates their copyright on Game of Thrones.
Do they own the copyright on Game of Thrones? Yes
Has VLC been proven in a court of law to be not infringing on one their exclusive rights to Game of Thrones? No
This is therefore a totally legitimate request under then letter of the law, slimy as it may be. Ignorance and name calling doesn't change that.
*If we are being particular, they are citing a torrent page, not VLC itself. Thus your comment is even more incorrect as even if your misunderstanding was accurate they'd be claiming copyright of a page on torrentportal, not VLC.
Further, while it's not really important for this discussion, I'd point out that that detail further muddies the waters: The torrent and/or the the description may actually contain some content from Game of Thrones. I've not checked and don't care to.
Dude, you just put your name on the NSA watch list. "Regicide" has been a trigger word since Obama's 2011 Secret Executive Order 489382.19, declaring himself King of the Union For Life, and secretly changing our official name to the Holy Obaman Empire. There was a challenge to it from Congressional Republicans, who preferred Holy Reaganian Empire, but the FISA court smacked them down and declared the order constitutional. You really ought to catch up on your Coast to Coast AM backlog one of these days.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Malice doesn't have to be directed. If I plant a bomb in an attempt to blow up 20 people I don't know, that is malice. If I attempt to shoot my ex girlfriend with a rifle, that is also malice. Malice is just the intent to cause harm whether its personal or not.
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
There's generally a 4-way tradeoff in any corporate decision between what benefits management, stockholders, employees, and consumers. It's usually the case that favoring consumers does the most net economic good (translate that to moral good however you desire).
Everything you do harms some others. You can argue that the RIAA takedown notices are evil because they restrict fundamental freedoms, or because they hurt consumers more than they help stockholders or artists, but you'd need to show that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I hear the next episode is going to be called: "AnyDVD HD"
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
You can do evil unintentionally. You can not do Malice unintentionally.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?