Slashdot Mirror
Warner Bros. Admits To Issuing Bogus Takedowns
An anonymous reader sends this quote from TechDirt:
"One of the bizarre side notes to Hollywood's big lawsuit against the cyberlocker Hotfile was a countersuit against Warner Bros. by Hotfile, for using the easy takedown tool that Hotfile had provided, to take down a variety of content that was (a) non-infringing and (b) had nothing to do with Warner Bros. at all (i.e., the company did not hold the copyright on those files). In that case, WB admitted that it filed a bunch of false takedowns, but said it was no big deal because it was all done by a computer. Of course, it then came out that at least one work was taken down by a WB employee, and that employee had done so on purpose, annoyed that JDownloader could help possible infringers download more quickly."
So if my computer just happens to download your copyrighted files by algorithm, it's okay because it was all done by a computer.
Sounds reasonable to me.
What are we going to do tonight, Brain?
My wiener did. So, we're good, right?
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Penalty for infringing on copyrights: uncounted billions.
Penalty for being a dick about it: zero.
Corporate power is EVIL.
A corporation is just a legal entity. It's principals can act with almost complete immunity from personal responsibility.
How is this shit surprising?
Warner is a media company and we all know the evil that media companies have been inflicting on us.
I do my best not to consume their shit - hypocrisy alert here - I REALLY want to see Ender's Game!
Yep, give it to me - I'm a SHEEPLE - buuuyyyyyy....buuuuuuyyyyyyyyyyyy .....buuyyyyyyyyy....(*say "buy" like a sheep ...wail or whatever. Instead of "Bahhhhh" - it's "buyyyyy")
They're totally guilty as charged. They attempted to take down a video that (kinda) had some of their content. The problem was, it was a lecture about fair use AND the topic was about a song that should have been a fair use of their content. The band had been sued by Island back in the early 90's and there were lots of issues with the way the whole thing went down.
"In that case, WB admitted that it filed a bunch of false takedowns, but said it was no big deal because it was all done by a computer." Tell that to all those people who lost their homes due to robosigning.
Is anybody honestly surprised at this point?
PERJURY, with a computer!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Isn't making a false statement under the DMCA essentially like perjury? And if it is, why isn't someone being charged criminally?
It's gotten to the point where these companies ignore the letter (and intent) of the law at will, and with no penalty.
If your computer system is identifying incorrect stuff, your computer system is faulty. If your humans are illegally issuing take downs for stuff you don't own, that's a criminal act.
And don't tell me it's a civil matter, because the *AAs have gotten enforcement of this ramped up to a federal crime.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
From:
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
To:
(vi) A statement under penalty of perjury that both the information in the notification is believed to be accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
I wonder what congress critters do with a bug on a silver platter?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
what penalties do they now face?
Some days, I feel almost bad for torrenting. But then I see something like this and go back to my gleeful piracy.
Just remember the next time you fork over $12 for a movie ticket, who are you supporting with that money.
Oh, don't get started with the whole "lol their business model is threatened" bullshit. That was the hardcore gamer scene's hasty rationalization for pirating video games, and what happened? The gaming industry adapted (DLC, F2P, subscription models, gaming-as-a-service, etc), they made money hand over fist, and the hardcores switched to whining that it wasn't fair, or that it created the evil evil scary plague of casuals, or that suddenly the gaming market wasn't serving the hardcore scene, or whatever crying nonsense they came up with on any given day.
So shut your trap before the movie industry actually DOES figure out a different business model, one that's far worse for you, yet far more profitable for them.
I estimate my emotional pain and suffering at $1,000,000 per infraction. How many did they send out again? We should calculate this on a per-file basis, not on actually provable damages.
Yes, filing false DMCA is explicitly defined by the law as perjury and the EFF is currently pursuing a number of these cases. The problem is that perjury is defined as the "willful act of swearing a false oath" so they're just going to claim that they didn't know the takedown notices were wrong and that it was just a mistake.
Which raises the question, when did they find out the program kicked out false positives and did they continue to use it after that? IANAL, but if they used a program they knew would commit perjury, I can't see how it's different than committing the perjury themselves. I find it pretty implausible that a company that lives by its copyrights doesn't know -- and is not required to know -- what a legitimate copyright claim is.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Hotfile should just suppose that all takedown sent to them from the form might be bogus, and ask for handwritten letters to be sent to them to verify that a human was behind it.
But if I don't hand over that $12, the MPAA just assumes I must be pirating the movie instead and uses that as ammunition to get more ridiculously one sided laws passed to make my life even shittier.
I read the internet for the articles.
I'm glad WB does not feel that people should be penalized for mistakes made by custom computer software, especially since my custom script to download the latest version of Ubuntu (Wascally Wabbit) accidentally downloaded a torrent of the entire WB catalog.
Yep. I haven't been to the movies in several years and I don't plan to go anytime soon. I'm watching for free at home instead. It doesn't matter what they do anymore. I won't go to the movies even if they give me tickets for free. They have lost me as a customer for ever.
In fighting these overreaches in the courts, would it be possible for a party whose legally owned video was "accidentally" taken down by someone like Warner Bros. to bring a suit for libel? Warner Bros. or some computer they have empowered to act for them has made a false claim that they (the legal video poster) committed a crime.
If I were to tell the grocery store down the street in writing that my neighbor Joe stole bubblegum, and the store took action against Joe, based on my known false statement; Joe could sue me for libel with a good prospect of success.
Is this case much different? Even if the DMCA says that someone can claim works they don't own, it doesn't it definitely does not say they can testify in a legal document that someone broke the law without the accused having recourse in the courts.
I would love to see them held in contempt and found guilt of perjury, but it appears that isn't going to happen. However when actual damages have occurred such as loss of YoutTube accounts or damage to reputation it seems to me that someone should at least talk to a lawyer about the possibility of a libel suit.
It would really be fun to see a class action libel suit brought by a group of victims of false take downs.
"Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
Section 1:
If corporations are people, then all corporations and individuals have a Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
In short, if the corporations can do it, so can individual citizens; just cite the court case and the 14th Amendment as precedent.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Kill Michael Jackson: 5 years Pirate Michael Jackson music: 15 years
PERJURY, with a computer!
You should get a patent on that.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The issue isn't whether the employee (or computer) is an agent and therefore authorized to file any DMCA claim. The issue is whether the authorized agent sent the notice "in good faith." The conundrum is that fair use does not have a bright line test. WB will claim it has no means of knowing whether a use is fair, so all DMCA claims are in good faith. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't work in pre-internet copyright terms. Early dismissal and summary judgment and counter-damages were common where the plaintiff should have known the use was fair. Basically, the problem is that no one can categorize, legally, whether a use is fair except for a judge, and by then you're eyeballs deep in legal fees.
Movie studios are run by dicks.
I enjoy movies, but screw "going to" the movies. The movie theaters are full of:
Why anyone is actually willing to pay money for this "experience" is beyond me. I'd rather sit at home with my latest Redbox rental, drinking a cocktail, and enjoy myself.
We could only dream that the government comes down on them the same way they did on Aaron Swartz for what his computer was set to automatically do.
Yes, filing false DMCA is explicitly defined by the law as perjury and the EFF is currently pursuing a number of these cases.
No it doesn't. Read your article. Those people didn't just file false DMCA claims, they falsely calmed to be the copyright owner of something they weren't. WB didn't do that. They falsely claimed something online was a copy of something they legally owned the copyright to. There's a difference and it's very significant, because one thing is illegal and the other isn't. Now, if WB did that in bad faith, it is illegal, but that's a different standard.
what's to stop hosters and service providers from offering its users free and automatic takedown notice counters? a set period of time after material is taken down, a counter is generated on behalf of the user and 'received' by the service provider and access to the content is immediately restored. -- then, isn't it up to the filer of the takedown to legitimize their claim (to the satisfaction of the service provider)? -- and to do so before actual legal action of any sort?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querulant
"
A querulant (from the Latin querulus - "complaining") is a person who obsessively feels wronged, particularly about minor causes of action. In particular the term is used for those who repeatedly petition authorities or pursue legal actions based on manifestly unfounded grounds. These applications include in particular complaints about petty offenses.
"
I will license that, and patent a derivative with a mobile phone, then a tablet, then a earring, then...
And we both get rich!
Let me guess - nothing will come of this. Because large corporations are above the law. Do something similar as a private individual, and you'll be bancrupted by legal proceedings.
Nice world we're living in. Wouldn't really be much of a shame if something happened to it, not anymore.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Oh, don't worry. You are equally assumed to be pirating after you hand over that $12 too.
100 million per file or what ever the going crazy rate is.
(from TFA) It turned out that some things have been removed manually, including some Open Source software and people involved did this knowing that WB has absolutely no copyrights. So they lied to court that "it was done by computer" and now they argue they have right to censor works they don't have copyright rights without penalties. I don't have to stress how bad it would be if they set such precedent and defend it in courts. It's pretty much like going back to feudal times.
The computer algorithm which they claim is the one making these notices, therefore they are not perjury, cannot claim to represent anything, let alone a copyright holder.
And it becomes less loopholed.
"An" is indefinite, "the" defines it as the one being claimed in the notice. If the right in the notice does not belong to the claimant or the one the claimant is acting for, then "the right" does not belong to them, where as "an right" of copyright does belong to them.
Too late, I already hold the patent, have copyrighted the manual for it, and hold a half dozen trademarks relating to it.
[Warner Brothers]...said it was no big deal because it was all done by a computer.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't a lot of people receiving extra harsh punishments lately, because it was done with a computer???