Slashdot Mirror
Universal Pictures Wants To Remove Localhost and IMDB Pages From Google Results
Artem Tashkinov writes: We've all known for a very long time that DCMA takedown requests are often dubious and even more often outright wrong but in a new turn of events a Universal Pictures contractor which does web censorship has requested a takedown of an IMDB page and the 127.0.0.1 address. I myself has seen numerous times that pages which barely include the title of an infringing work of art get removed from search engines.
That 127.0.0.1 site is nothing but trouble. That's why I redirect it in my HOSTS file to localhost.
It's not the "DCMA"; it's the "DMCA", also known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
There should be a comma before the word "but" in the first (run-on) sentence.
And it's not "I myself has seen"; it should be "I myself have seen".
Even blogs need editors.
from INSIDE THE HOUSE!
Best Slashdot Co
I checked out that site, and it's clearly infringing on Universal Pictures' recent film "You Have Successfully Installed Apache".
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
This is what happens when you let industry write your damned laws.
The DMCA was written in such a way as to basically leave a wide trail for companies to totally abuse and misuse it. Because this was the law they bought and paid for to ensure they could do anything they wanted without penalty.
All of these issues were pointed out at the time, and the law got passed anyway, because these days the lawmakers are all beholden to industry and don't give a damn how badly the law has been written.
But nobody at all should be surprised at this crap. Because it is pretty much by design -- they can do almost anything they want with no real accountability. All they have to do is claim incompetence and they're magically forgiven.
It's a broken, lop-sided law which gave the copyright lobby the ability to threaten and intimidate as they see fit.
But don't think for a minute this was by accident. The DMCA is one of the most industry friendly laws in existence, and completely failed to hold them to any standard of accountability.
This is what happens when your legal system becomes co-opted to favor corporate interests above all else.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Does you yourself has cheezburger?
What this implies is that the contractor that Universal employs to send takedown notices has an illegal copy of Jurassic World on their own system!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
We all agree that it's a bot being used to detect references to Universal Picture's works... but the purpose? Not to stop piracy, but to eliminate search results from competing with United's own marketing. While the IMDB link is obviously unintentional, it is also most likely the top result.
Basically, they're knocking out anything that competes in searches, regardless of actual pirated content.
Actually, who's hurt if Google delists the movie's IMDB page? Heck, Google should just delist every page about every Universal Pictures title in current release. See how fast Universal finds the problems with their automated takedown notices when all their titles—all their theater listings—disgoogle at once.
I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
I recently read an excellent piece that addressed this subject. The proposed two-pronged solution was quite modest and yet could fix most of the DMCA problems in one fell swoop.
1) Apply penalty of perjury to the entirety of the takedown notice, just as it is currently applied to counternotices.
2) Take away safe harbor status not only for failing to abide by the notice process, but also for failing to abide by the counternotice process.
Neither is earthshatteringly new, but it would take all of two lines of ink and a bit of political will. User-generated content companies like Google and Facebook could even provide that will. #1 is unambiguously good for them because it will lead to fewer DMCA notices they have to deal with. And even though #2 looks bad for them, it actually makes their lives much easier in that it legally mandates they do what they want to anyway (but which studios try to prevent): keep content up with minimal hassle.
Note the bullshit Universal that was pulling back in 2007--issuing blanket (i.e. not in good faith) takedown notices for Prince's music to everyone on the internet (including the mom who posted video of her kids dancing)--is still being litigated.
Nothing posted to
About 10 months ago, I found my high school graduation video cassette from 1987, so I picked up a used VCR and ripped it and put it up on youtube for family to view. Last month, I uploading another video and noticed that a DMCA claim had been placed on my graduation video, but the "copyright holder" would allow the video to remain, they were just going to monetize it. My graduation video was shot by my brother and had our high school band playing Pomp and Circumstance, which is in the public domain. There is no way this is under copyright, so I looked them up and the "song" that I was allegedly violating the copyright of. It turns out that the "copyright holder" was a crappy English DJ duo who had appropriated Pomp and Circumstance in one of their soccer fight songs. The funny part is that my video is 28 years old, their song is about a year old.
I countered their claim with all the info above and the claim was removed.
I realize this was probably a simple signature match, but it only goes to show how broken this system is. I didn't actually received an email about the DMCA claim. There are only 2 emails in my inbox containing the video title, one was when I published it and the other was when the copyright claim was removed, so they don't appear to even be notifying people when a claim is made, at least in the case where the "copyright holder" decides to monetize rather than take the video down, and that is even more nefarious in my opinion. I wasn't monetizing my video, and it has less than 50 views, but if I had been monetizing it and had a larger audience, they would have been stealing from me without my even knowing it. I only noticed the original claim when I uploaded another video to youtube.