Anti-Piracy Firm Sends Out Wave of Takedown Notices For Using the Word 'Pixels'

An anonymous reader writes: Columbia Pictures recently released a movie called Pixels to widespread ambivalence. As part of the movie industry's standard intellectual property defense strategy, it hired anti-piracy firm Entura International to try to police infringing downloads. The firm went at the task with vigor, hitting Vimeo with DMCA takedown notices for anything with the word "Pixels" in it. As you might expect, this disrupted a number of independent filmmakers and organizations who did nothing wrong, and in most cases picked a name for their video long before the new movie came out. Even worse, it's incumbent upon the owners of the targeted videos to prove that their content does not infringe upon Columbia's. Even if they get it restored, simply being targeted counts against them in Vimeo's eyes. And of course, Entura is unwilling to help.

Comments

Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest a DMCA takedown notice against Columbia pictures filed by anyone using the name previously. Or must one be rich to use government enforcement agencies as one's lapdog?

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Opportunist]

You have to be a corporation or at least something else that we may reasonably expect a campaign contribution from. Where have you been that you don't know that?

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA takedown won't cut it. Instead, go on the offensive and accuse Columbia Pictures for standard copyright violation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual artâ"
(1) shall have the rightâ"
(A) to claim authorship of that work,

While these aren't necessarily exclusive rights, I'm pretty sure it's meant to prevent plagiarism by someone putting their name on someone else's work. I'd love to see this tested on someone who makes false takedown claims.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, jail time for Columbia pictures employees and their agents. You must sign under penalty of perjury that you know the infringement to be true. Time to get them in jail where they belong.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[grahammm]

Columbia claim that the works for which they send takedown notices violate the copyright in their new movie. As the works concerned were created and put online before the movie was created, then one of two things can be true. 1) The works do not violate the claimed copyright, or 2) If copyright has been violated, then it is the Columbia movie which violates the copyrights in the earlier work(s). In either case the takedown notices are invalid and abuse of process.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

so given that, just create a little 10 minute youtube video on the country of Columbia, call it "Columbia", and then file a DMCA request asking to take down the Columbia pictures website and any online movies that 'infringe' on your use of the name.

Except that the country's name is 'Colombia'. Details matter.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anne Thwacks]

Please see a doctor. Even with ear plugs, you ought to hear that wooshing sound.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

Not saying this is the case but, there's a third option: leak. Used to be, publication was a requisite for copyright. Now if you're being kind, you can even DMCA whistleblowers instead of jailing or killing them.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[cpt kangarooski]

Sorry, but that won't work.

You're citing 17 USC 106A. That only applies to the author of "a work of visual art." That term is specially defined in the Copyright Act, in the definitions section at 17 USC 101. The relevant parts of the definition are:

A "work of visual art" is--

(1) a painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or

(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.

It really isn't possible for anything online to qualify, due to the requirement of there being only a single copy (a copy is defined in the Copyright Act as being a tangible object containing the work; a computer file isn't a copy, but a hard drive can be, which means that if other people can download it, they're necessarily making a new copy), or no more than 200 copies if each copy is signed and numbered and which are a limited edition.

What this is actually meant for is fine art, like a painting, art prints, etc. Not art posted online. It was a nice try, but you've got to check the statute more thoroughly if you want to cite it correctly.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

We would like to make clear on behalf of our client, Anonymous Coward, that the mistranscription of "Colombia" as "Columbia" was purely an inadvertent administrative error, which was subsequently acted upon by computer without further human interaction. Therefore as Anonymous Coward is in fact the copyright holder of the work "first ten word draft of script for documentary 'Colombia'", the perjury penalties under the DMCA do not apply. Have a nice day.

With best regards,
The Lawyers

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[elvesrus]

So make it about the river instead.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[znrt]

In either case the takedown notices are invalid and abuse of process.

in either case columbia will get away with it and anyone affected will have to struggle to get their content back online. the price of being (irrelevant) part of the media crap fest, i guess.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Travis Mansbridge]

There's no government agency involved. A team of lawyers sent an overly-broad takedown notice to Vimeo and Vimeo complied. The lawyers are just doing their job (poorly). It's Vimeo's responsibility to stand up for the authenticity of user-posted content that is clearly not infringing (or their prerogative to remove it for no good reason).

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[God of Lemmings]

How about this particular XKCD comic, available as a signed print from the author? https://xkcd.com/1416/

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Skapare]

you need to be rich ... at 6:45 in the video.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[rickb928]

Do you suppose I need to create a video of anything more than four pixels, magnified, blinking randomly to illustrate nothing in particular?

Or should I go whole hog and recreate (in hardware or software, so many questions) a jam counter/ pseudo-random generator with a 7486 and 74194 like the old days, and drive LEDs for blinky effect? Those were fun... Capture the output and call them 'pixels', name it a 'random pixel movie', and wait for heads to explode.

They won't try to take this post down, will they?

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[rickb928]

A river named Columbia could be an alternative subject?

Let's hope

[Anonymous Coward]

The The don't hire the same outfit...

Standard shite

[wbr1]

When are we collectively going to stand up and say that the real pirates are the ones who steal our culture from us piece by piece? People who then have the audacity to push out drivel like 'pixels' and call it culture?

Re:Standard shite

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes dipshit, I make music for free. Why? Because I can. There's no law in the world that says I MUST make people pay for my content. Creating content for free is irrelevant of working for free. They're *only* one and the same when ones income relies on content creation. Key word there? ONLY.

Re:Standard shite

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind us when they coined the word "pixels".

Re:Standard shite

[wxxy___]

The people who decided that any video labeled pixels belongs to them and is to be removed from the internet. Thats who.

The entire intellectual property debate is backwards.
The so called creators aren't the ones who are doing the plebs a favor when ip enters the public domain. It is the public who are doing the creators a favor by pretending that thoughts are equatable to actual property. Once a thought leaves somebodys fruity little mind its no longer theirs. You can think up a unique set of words or a cartoon mouse, but once it is out of your head, I can say those words or draw that mouse. The only reason you can stop me, is because society decided it is worth pretending that those ideas are the same as actual property so that creators will be able to both eat and create.

The problem is that this idea has gotten twisted beyond the breaking point. To the point that people believe ownership of ideas is the same as owning a rock, and people who are sick of literally paying forever to protect the ideas of dead men from being used freely, are the parasites.

Re:Standard shite

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure you know the law in the country.
In the Netherlands for example Buma/Stemra by default (this is written into law) will manage the copyright of every song made.

This means if you sing your own song live in front of an audience you will have to pay Buma/Sterma for performing your own song. After they take a cut you can be payed back that money at a later time, if you register the song with Buma/Stemra, otherwise the money will just go into their pockets.

It is possible to opt-out by adding a specific notice next to your copyright statement that you will personally manage the copyright.

Re:Standard shite

[konohitowa]

Let's all follow ACs lead! Baa!

Re:Standard shite

[MightyMartian]

In some cases that may be true, but in most cases even modern stories are heavily derivative, invoking cultural motifs that go back millennia. That's not to say the works aren't creative, perhaps artistic, and that some level of protection is merited. But when you have commercial interests just making blanket legal demands to remove any video or film with the word "pixel" in the title, you very much have large corporate interests attempting to co-opt, or to put it more bluntly, steal surrounding cultural creations.

In this case, it appears that yet another legal firm is using the the DMCA and online content providers' flawed approach to copyright enforcement in an overly-broad fashion. There should be mechanisms in place to punish Entura for this, because essentially they are committing an act of fraud, and doing exactly what they're claiming the innocent non-copy right violating content producers who happen to use the word "pixels" in a title are doing; namely asserting unlawful ownership.

Re:Standard shite

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The real culprit here is Vimeo for being too cheap and short sighted to actually review the DMCAs.

Why are there not penalties for improper takedown notices? A few, ok. But blanket computer takedowns with no human review -- no engineer designed this process, it must be lazy lawyers.

Or brilliant ones who know there is no penalty.

Re:Standard shite

[radarskiy]

The safe harbor provisions specifically prohibit the hoster from evaluating DMCA claims. They must take the claim at face value and the counterclaim at face value.

Re:Standard shite

[SvnLyrBrto]

What really needs to happen is for the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA to be re-written to have some teeth in the case of false claims.

If a good-sized assortment of executives, lawyers, and clerks at Columbia and Entura were to find themselves locked away for a year at San Quentin, Folsom State, or Pelican Bay over this; I bet they'd not pull the stunt again.

Re:Standard shite

[camperdave]

The moment a work is presented to the public, it belongs to the public domain and is an element of public culture. The government restricts "for a limited time" who has the right to copy such works. Copyrights are, by their nature, a removal of rights from the general public.

Re:Standard shite

[HiThere]

Yeah, and Walt Disney studios wrote Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast.

They did an excellent derivative work, but that shouldn't give them any rights over the original, its name, its storyline, or anything else that they didn't explicitly create. Even then 20 years is excessive...and it's been a long time since it was 20 years.

Re:Standard shite

[HiThere]

I don't purchase anything with either the MPAA or the RIAA mark on it, but you know what? That doesn't stop them from bribing congress, because SOME people don't care, and others can't refuse their kids. Boycott isn't sufficient in this case.

Matter of fact, in this case I'd hardly oppose burning them at the stake. (By "them" I mean the boards of directors of the MPAA & RIAA member companies and all their C-level executives. And the folk in congress that took their bribes.)

Re:Standard shite

[konohitowa]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

DMCA reform

[Lord Bitman]

I don't like most of the DMCA in principle, but I expect I wouldn't even care about it, if it just had some clear built-in penalty for making a false claim (eg: 200% of the maximum damages were the claim valid)

Re:DMCA reform

[SuricouRaven]

It does, but it only applies if the false claim is false in the sense that it wasn't filed by the copyright holder or someone they appointed to represent them. There is no penalty for a claim made in error, so long as it was authorized by the copyright holder of the allegedly infringed work.

Re:DMCA reform

[Pembers]

There are penalties, but only for things that aren't usually in dispute. When you send a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube or Vimeo or wherever, you're essentially saying, "I own the copyright in work X (or am the authorised representative of the owner of X). You are hosting work Y, which infringes the copyright of work X, and I demand that you remove Y." If you're not the owner of X or his authorised representative, that's perjury. But if Y doesn't actually infringe the copyright of X, that's just, "Oh well, c'est la vie." I suppose the thinking is that the question of whether you own the copyright in X is a matter of public record (look it up at the Copyright Office), but the question of whether Y infringes on X's copyright (if X and Y aren't the same thing) is a matter for a court to decide.

So other than the overhead of doing the paperwork (very small if you program your computer to file the notices) and possible bad publicity (which probably comes out of some other department's budget), there's no disincentive to filing millions of bogus notices. Of course, since Vimeo don't seem to be doing any checking of the notices Columbia are sending, that suggests it wouldn't be too difficult for disgruntled independent filmmakers to disrupt the online publicity for Columbia's next big release...

Re:DMCA reform

[Khyber]

"It does, but it only applies if the false claim is false in the sense that it wasn't filed by the copyright holder or someone they appointed to represent them."

Incorrect. You must sign under penalty of perjury that ALL CLAIMS MADE are accurate and made in good faith.

I file DMCAs quite often, so I know the whole rote already.

The claim made by the corporate representative is neither made in good faith (likely done automated) nor accurate.

Re:DMCA reform

[SuricouRaven]

From section three:

---
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

'(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.
---

The perjury part applies only to (vi) - that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder and that the contents of the claim are accurate. The actual infringement needs only a good faith belief. It's arguable if an automated enforcement system can really be called that, as the use of fully automated takedown bots was not envisioned when the legislation was created, but I have never heard of any prosecution for that, and I can't find any with a bit of googling

The DMCA makes it clearly illegal to knowingly submit a false DMCA claim, but there is no offense committed for submitting false complaints due to incompetence, haste or cost-cutting. This is not just my own uneducated reading: It's the defense used by some major copyright holders who have committed exactly the same overzealous errors in the past: https://torrentfreak.com/warne...
The judge in that case never decided if that defense was valid, as the parties reached a settlement.

Re:DMCA reform

[Pembers]

I haven't looked into the counter-notice procedure much, but it's apparently not as effective as it might be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:DMCA reform

[TheReaperD]

Apparently, part of the problem is that Vimeo has a DMCA copyright 'strikes' system where a certain number of 'strikes' gets your account deleted and you're banned from the site. It seems that the main issue here, other than the hassle of filing a DMCA counter-claim, is that when you get the DMCA claim pulled, Vimeo will put your video back on their site but, they do not remove the 'strike' from your record. The short version is that if you get enough bogus DMCA claims against your account they will delete your account and ban you from their service even though you did nothing wrong beyond happening to name something you created too close to a name a major studio chooses to use in the future.

Re:DMCA reform

[PPH]

filing millions of bogus notices

I wonder if there is some way that this runs afoul of the CAN SPAM law.

Re:DMCA reform

[ACDChook]

Then I think the correct procedure now would be for everyone to file DMCA claims against the Vimeo accounts of the movie studios. Get their accounts deleted and banned for a change.

Re:DMCA reform

[Pembers]

I'd be surprised if it was against anti-spam laws. CAN-SPAM applies specifically to messages advertising a commercial service or product, though I suppose this tactic could fall foul of other countries' laws. I'm curious as to how you'd get around them if it did. Claim you have an existing business relationship with Vimeo because you watched a video that someone posted there?

Re:DMCA reform

[michelcolman]

You can't seriously qualify a blanket grep for "pixels" as "good faith belief". It's reckless at the very least, and I can't see a judge actually agreeing with the "good faith belief" defense. Hey, I'll just start killing all americans because I have good faith belief one of them is going to try and kill me!

Re:DMCA reform

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The actual infringement needs only a good faith belief.

Or it doesn't, if there is no actionable penalty for issuing a takedown notice without such belief.

That seems to be the fundamental problem here. Legislating that no-one can make an honest mistake in this kind of field seems unconstructive, given the inherent uncertainty of fair use and the like. However, legislating that someone can maliciously or negligently make a claim that they should reasonably have known to be false is a different thing entirely, and that seems closer to what actually happened.

Re:DMCA reform

[Calydor]

I am personally just waiting for the day someone releases a movie consisting of just a single letter; perhaps a movie about drugs and night clubs named E.

Then a takedown request on EVERYTHING that has an E in it.

The internet will get really, really empty when all orphaned works of any kind vanish without a trace.

Re:DMCA reform

[Overzeetop]

IANAL, but it would seem that if the paperwork is submitted falsely or without some standard of due diligence, the submitter (and it requires a legal entity to submit such a claim) would potentially perjuring themselves (claiming copyright on another's work). However perjury is a criminal act and would require a state appointed prosecutor to pursue.

While I suspect that they could be sued in civil court for damages arising from the false accusation, nobody so accused has the money to fight such a battle, especially considering that they still might not win.

Re:DMCA reform

[swillden]

That seems to be the fundamental problem here. Legislating that no-one can make an honest mistake in this kind of field seems unconstructive, given the inherent uncertainty of fair use and the like. However, legislating that someone can maliciously or negligently make a claim that they should reasonably have known to be false is a different thing entirely, and that seems closer to what actually happened.

Correcting this deficiency seems pretty easy -- at least with respect to the text of the law. All we need is another part that specifies that the issuer of the notice makes a statement under penalty of perjury that they have performed due diligence in ascertaining the correctness of their good faith belief. The courts would have to work out what "due diligence" means in this case, but it's obvious that it would have to mean at least verifying that the allegedly infringing work at least references the allegedly infringed work. So, for example, anyone claiming infringement by a work that was uploaded years before the allegedly infringed work clearly did not do their due diligence.

Re:DMCA reform

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Class action lawsuit for defamation? Claiming someone who holds copyright in their own work actually infringed another's copyright may taint their reputation as a content creator?

Re:DMCA reform

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

According to the US code, perjury is a felony, isn't it? Would the person who committed perjury on a DMCA form be able to be placed under citizen's arrest?

Re:DMCA reform

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

All we need is another part that specifies that the issuer of the notice makes a statement under penalty of perjury that they have performed due diligence in ascertaining the correctness of their good faith belief.

Yes, something along those lines seems quite reasonable to me, though in this context I'm not sure the perjury aspect adds anything other than complexity to simply requiring a claimant to perform due diligence or face a proportionate penalty. Something to compensate both the hosting service and the original provider of the hosted material that was taken down seems in order. Depending on the circumstances, that might reasonably vary from a modest fee to cover their time and trouble (negligent takedown but no real harm down) to more serious compensation (hosting service decides to cancel the original uploader's account, which had attracted a substantial and potentially valuable following the uploader then loses) to business-crippling compensation (maliciously execute takedowns on competing products, effectively secure market/niche while competitor is off-line for substantial commercial gain).

Re:DMCA reform

[elvesrus]

Someone has to make and start the automatic system.

Re:DMCA reform

[swillden]

Sure, some penalty other than perjury could work. Perjury is nice because it's well-defined and already in use in the statute, but it's possible something more targeted would be better.

Re:DMCA reform

[Boronx]

We should be able to get a ruling that the claim was frivolous and get awarded damages due to it.

Re:DMCA reform

[elvesrus]

One of the videos taken down was their own trailer for the film, so the process has already started.

Re:DMCA reform

[Pembers]

That would probably require a lawsuit, or at least the threat of one, which would probably involve spending more on lawyers than you're ever likely to see in damages...

Re: DMCA reform

[qwerty shrdlu]

Are false claims considered libel _anywhere in the world_ ? I' ll bet Columbia and Vimeo have bank accounts in Great Britain for example.

Re:DMCA reform

[TheRaven64]

Given that these are obviously not valid DMCA take-down notices, I wonder if you could convincingly argue that they're advertising for the film...

Re:DMCA reform

[AmiMoJo]

How about suing for time wasted? Lawyers and responding to bogus DMCA takedowns costs time and money.

Re:DMCA reform

[Khyber]

"The perjury part applies only to (vi) - that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder and that the contents of the claim are accurate."

Incorrect. Perjury is perjury, stated or not. I know of two former landlords of mine with perjury charges.

Perjury is lying to the officiating authorities (police are not an officiating authority, they have no legal right to judgement) under oath or sworn testimony.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Writing "Under Penalty of Perjury" is done as a reminder of the overall general Perjury statute, which can be enforced AT ANY TIME for ANY LIE.

Re:DMCA reform

[KGIII]

That would be what judges do and, really? Probably not.

Re:DMCA reform

[dlingman]

While it's not E, O seems close enough...

https://www.cirquedusoleil.com...

Re:DMCA reform

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm just very wary of bringing criminal law and (I'm assuming) the need for public prosecutors to become involved into a field that I think is usually best left to civil action between the parties involved originally. Perhaps it makes more sense in the US, if the law would otherwise have no weight because within the legal framework there it's impractical for a small-time victim to sue a Big Media organisation and win a meaningful victory given the overheads.

Re:DMCA reform

[david_thornley]

Perjury is not just lying. It's lying under oath, or when conducting certain legal actions. When filling out a DMCA notice, I can only commit perjury by specifying a copyrighted work that I don't in fact hold the copyright of and don't represent the copyright holder. If I filled out a notice claiming to represent the copyright holders of Avengers: Age of Ultron, I'd be committing perjury. If I were to fill out a notice saying that a video of a drum solo infringes on the copyright of the novel I wrote for National Novel Writing Month, I'd be lying, of course, but it wouldn't be perjury. If I were in a courtroom, under oath, and were asked if the drum solo infringed, and I said it did, that would be perjury.

Re:DMCA reform

[Lord Bitman]

"under penalty of perjury" is enough to deter Superman. "under penalty of 200% of the maximum damages were the claim valid" is potentially enough to attract lawyers on a no-win-no-pay basis, which is the only way these things are ever going to stop.

Another example

[Roodvlees]

Of how broken this system is. Wish I had mod point to upp some of the responses here.

Re:Another example

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the best system money can buy. Too bad the money's interests and the public's interests are usually at odds.

Re:Another example

[david_thornley]

It's actually not the best system money can buy. The MAFIAA does not like the fact that infringing content can be put up in the first place, and has been trying various means to get web hosts to police the stuff uploaded themselves.

Solution

[Andy Smith]

Have a significant penalty for an invalid complaint.

Re:Solution

[Dog-Cow]

Better solution: hunt down the employees of Entura and torture them to death. Paying out money is a cost of doing business. Risking one's life is a whole 'nother game.

Re:Solution

[trout007]

Sorry but expecting lawyers to implant a loser pays system goes against their ethics.

Re:Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be daft. No solution is needed because there's nothing wrong with the DMCA. It is a legal device implemented at the behest of the oligarchs that own the main content, and it operates precisely how it is intended to. Examples like this don't matter, they only affect the plebs. I guarantee there will never be an amendment to stop this kind of abuse. Get used to it.

Re:Solution

[The New Guy 2.0]

Yep... it's called "punitive damages" in law. Use a movie title to take down something you can't and you should forfeit the movie's copyright to the people you sued.

Re:Solution

[The New Guy 2.0]

Loser pays is a typical court strategy in other places to convince losing plaintiffs to not waste the judge's time. It's common elsewhere, and occasionally happens here.

Re:Solution

[Lumpy]

I prefer corporate death penalty. The company is instantly dissolved Loses it's corporation status and opens up all Board and executive members to be 100% liable and suable.

Government agents then dismantle the company and sell it off for it's assets within 30 days of the ruling.

That right there will overnight make all corporations stop acting like assholes.

Re:Solution

[TheReaperD]

I've been a big supporter of the corporate death penalty for a long time. It would only be used against the worst offenders, either in severity or repetitiveness, but, it would quickly convince the other companies to shape up or be destroyed themselves.

Re:Solution

[PPH]

And Carly Fiorina is busy running for president.

Re:Solution

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

*in the United States.

Plenty of other jurisdictions have some variation of loser-pays-by-default system. Would you like to guess how many of those jurisdictions have the same problems with dubious threats and offers to settle as the US?

Re:Solution

[Overzeetop]

No, the sociopath would hunt down and torture the family members of the employees. What we found was the vigilante.

Re:Solution

[currently_awake]

When making suggestions on how to fix a problem, remember your enemies will want to use it against you. Holding the board/executives legally liable for all criminal corporate activity should suffice. A corporate death penalty would effectively prevent non-profits from fighting the good fight (ex. EFF).

Re:Solution

[david_thornley]

Um, none of them?

How many of those other jurisdictions have problems with people not daring to sue to enforce their rights, on the basis that if they happen to lose they'll have to pay corporate legal bills?

Re:Solution

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Very few, because usually there are two significant safeguards against that kind of imbalance. Firstly, there is usually some sort of small claims procedure, perhaps heard in a less formal environment and without either side bringing a lawyer (or expecting to get their legal fees covered if they do). Secondly, judges often have discretion in awarding costs, particularly where the situation is obviously imbalanced, so if a private individual brings a reasonable action against a large corporation but ultimately loses after the corporation spent ten times that individual's annual salary paying lawyers to drag out the case unnecessarily, the court is not compelled to award the corporation its full legal costs even though it won the case in the end.

What was the penalty for a false DMCA notice?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Probably not enough to actually matter to such a massive corporation...

Re:What was the penalty for a false DMCA notice?

[Calydor]

There isn't any. That's the problem.

At least they didn't hire these guys for "It"

[trout007]

Can we get rid of this nonsense intellectual monopoly concept already?

Re:At least they didn't hire these guys for "It"

[currently_awake]

Property taxes. If copying a 30 year old movie is worth inflicing massive financial penalties then it must be very valuable, and hence worth taxing to balance our budget.

Re: Sue them

[Jason Levine]

Except step 2 would be "get tied up in court for years while Columbia's lawyers bleed you dry." And step 3 would be bankruptcy, not profit.

Re:Sue them

[Opportunist]

I'm pretty sure the DMCA has a provision that you can't sue someone for wrongfully accusing you of infringing their copyright. At least if I bought myself a law I'd make sure as fuck that it can't be used against me.

Obviously

[hcs_$reboot]

And of course, Entura is unwilling to help

Why would they? 1. It annoys Download sites 2. Creates a stir, everyone remembers 'pixels' now

Re:Obviously

[cbhacking]

There is such a thing as negative publicity. Every single review I've seen of Pixels has been negative. They haven't even been negative for the same reasons; I don't know who this movie is supposed to appeal to but if its creators do, they messed up all that is reason enough to avoid choosing to support the movie (for example, by paying to see it). Now I learn they're also copyright-abusing asshats (not that I am surprised, but I didn't *know* this before). That moves them into the category of "actively oppose people giving them money", such as telling other people not to see it and avoiding supporting things which support the movie.

Even if in the end I forget why I'm so opposed to the movie, news like this reminds me and reinforces all the negative associations I had with it in my head.

This is, sadly, nothing new.

[Anonymous Coward]

In a past life, I ran some Forums on CompuServe. Paramount once sent us similar broad, misinformed takedown demands, pre-DMCA, seemingly regarding anything with TREK in it. This included photos of Trek brand bicycles, and news photos from 1976 of the Shuttle debut which happened to include Star Trek actors.

This garbage won't go away until there's a reasonable barrier to filing these, and an actual penalty for false claims. Perhaps an escrow of sweet delicious cash upon submission, released to the victim.

Re:This is, sadly, nothing new.

[Anonymous Coward]

The penalties also need to be leveled against actual people in the corporations as well, not just insignificant fines to the company as a whole. Only then will these scumbags start contemplating their actions a little more.

Ingenious!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's a way to get rid of a unit.

Let's put copyright claims on mile, pound, hogshead, barrel, ounze, grain, dram, gallon and the whole imperial shit and finally get them pushed out of the U.S., whether Apothecary's weight, Troy weight, Avoirdupois weight or whatever other perversions the Royalty Lovers have come up with.

Use a crud unit, get a takedown notice. Get banned from spreading your shit. Only "The Imperium strikes Back Half a Baker's Dozen" is allowed the use of imperial units.

Re: Ingenious!

[ixuzus]

We flee in terror before your devastating attack. However will we survive without the ability to express the rough equivalent of twenty-five thousandths of inches in the most convenient metric unit?

Wow.

[zingnin_]

This just goes to show that corporations such as Columbia just don't give a shit about anything.

5-year old video

[Sigma 7]

I recall seeing a Youtube video where someone did the exact same pixel-invasion scenario. It starts with someone dumping an old TV, which then releases it's angry pixel payload, followed by space invaders who hit various cars, pac man who eats the subway stations (converting the staircases into just a few pixels), tertis blocks that remove floors of buildings, arkanoid paddles that remove bricks from a bridge, and finally ends with a bomb that turns the planet into one black pixel.

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm sure Columbia has their claim, but some indie beat them by five years As usual, it's a big publisher doing a keyword search without thinking about the consequences.

Re:5-year old video

[p.g.king]

The Columbia picture is acknowledge as being based on that film (and based on French director Patrick Jean's 2010 short film of the same name)

Re:5-year old video

[lavaboy]

Um... fact check. The indie short was shot by Patrick Jean, who then sold the rights to Sandler and Columbia. He was slated to direct, but turned the job over to Chris Columbus as the budget grew. http://uk.businessinsider.com/pixels-filmmaker-patrick-jean-not-happy-with-adam-sandler-version-2015-7?r=US&IR=T

Re:5-year old video

[artfulshrapnel]

That's the ultimate irony: That short film was licensed by Columbia, and was the original inspiration for the Columbia Pixels film. So not only is it not infringing on their movie, it is their movie's goddamn genesis.

Then again, the studio took down their own trailer. I suppose getting the short film they originally licensed is just part of being thorough.

Re:5-year old video

[elvesrus]

Or you could go back another 8 years to a Futurama episode titled Anthology of Interest II and specifically the segment titled Raiders of the Lost Arcade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:5-year old video

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And Futurama did it in "Tales of Interest", 1 or 2.

Re: 5-year old video

[vux984]

I hope the creator is able to successfully sue Columbia.

Probably not. He literally sold them the rights to remake that short as a feature film.

In other news

[Ol Olsoc]

The country of Columbia has brought suit against Columbia Pictures for infringement upon the rights and name of a sovereign nation.

Re:In other news

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The country is called "Colombia", not "Columbia".

Re:In other news

[Ol Olsoc]

The country is called "Colombia", not "Columbia".

Looks like the Asperger's crowd i chiing in.

That makes it even worse - Columbia not only infringes upon the name of a sovereign nation, but spells it wrong to boot!

Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[NimbleSquirrel]

I wonder if it is possible to bring a Class action lawsuit against Entura (and Columbia Pictures)? IANAL but there seems to be a class here. By filing DMCA claims, Entura have committed themselves to a legal document (even if that is an electronic document). Surely, if the claims in the document are clearly false, then Entura have committed multiple acts of perjury (as each claim is a legal statement invoking the DMCA). As Vimeo counts the DMCA claim against the user, even if that claim is proved invalid, then the users can show that they have suffered harm to their reputations.

Re:Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they could be charged with racketeering. Massive amounts of fake, false, and spurious claims is criminal. It is a protection racket, and it is lying in legal documents

Re:Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[Dwedit]

In a DMCA claim, the only part that is possibly under perjury is the part where you claim you are acting on behalf of the copyright holder. It doesn't matter what you make your claim against.

Re:Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[Khyber]

"I'm not sure it counts as perjury under the DMCA as you'd have to prove they were intentionally lying and not just making mistakes through carelessness."

Incorrect. You have to claim that all statements made are accurate and made in good faith.

Re:Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[Khyber]

Wrong

http://www.anti-abuse.org/how-...

Re:Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[NimbleSquirrel]

From Vimeo's website, amongst other things the notice must contain:

"A statement by you UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf."

Good faith shouldn't be had to disprove in this instance: as a company who specialises in anti-piracy they should know the law and should be held to a higher standard than a member of the general public. An automated search for anything containing the word 'Pixels' is going to contain a high number of false hits. Using those as a basis alone for a DMCA claim is negligent at the least. They have stated UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information is accurate, when they cannot reasonably believe that every claim is accurate. They should have had someone verify the automated claims, but instead they are relying on the DMCA system to do that for them. That is bad faith.

Re:Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[Khyber]

No, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Learn what perjury means.

Re:Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[Khyber]

Wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Perjury applies to ANY FALSE STATEMENT MADE UNDER OATH.

If any statement made in a DMCA is false, you are guilty of perjury.

You cannot make a good faith statement KNOWING you or your client don't have rights to that property you claim is infringing. That is perjury as well.

Pixel Perfect?

[The New Guy 2.0]

Does this movie happen to be based on the made-for TV movie Pixel Perfect from 1999?... it was about a guy who created a computer character girlfriend and then had to write the program that kept himself in love as real women rejected him.

Some people thought I was in that situation... see AIM was huge as we were mostly using modems to communicate, and it turns out a real ex-girlfriend of mine was posing for videos to become a dynamic script-able virtual character. That hasn't been released yet... and scares me greatly. It's weird seeing the girl you know outside the bezels walking around and affecting your Word document. Office 2000's Microsoft Agent/Office Assistant was cartoon characters based on the same concept.

Oh, my lead question returns a "NO!"... never-mind.

sign only that you represent author, not infringem

[raymorris]

> You must sign under penalty of perjury that you know the infringement to be true.

The statement under penalty of perjury is that the person filing the complaint represents the author or their assigns.

Whether or not a work is infringing, vs whether it's fair use, coincidentally similar, etc is a judgement call. It isn't a knowable fact anyone could witness to anyway. You could find a song that sounds just like an Emininem song and reasonably believe that they copied from Emininem, then later find out that the "copy" was in fact made 30 years earlier, before Emininem was born. So you realize the Aerosmith song is the original. Until you find out that Someone else did it fifty years before Aerosmith. Infringement is a JUDGEMENT that can only be said to be true after it's litigated. "I represent Emininem " is a factual statement someone can swear to.

This Really Needs to Stop

[organgtool]

This is absolutely outrageous and the fact that it happens so often is even more maddening. This is way worse than piracy. When a pirate makes an infringing copy of a video, they still leave the original copies behind so that other people can consume them legally. However, in cases like this, companies are having works removed from distribution channels when those companies know that they have absolutely no claim of ownership over that material. Could you imagine the damages the studios would claim if one of their movies was pulled from theaters during the opening weekend because someone made a bogus claim that the movie infringed on their content? There needs to be severe fines for this behavior. Given that this behavior prevents rightsholders from distributing their material over claims that are made in completely bad faith, the penalties should be hundreds of times worse than the penalties for a single case of copyright infringement. And the penalties should scale considerably for repeat offenders on top of that.

Can't copyright titles

[Mybrid]

Can't copyright titles and 'pixel' as a word is too generic to trademark. Ignore the take down.

http://www.writersdigest.com/e...

Q: Iâ(TM)ve been working on a book and the title is very importantâ"I use it as the URL for my blog, for a weekly column I write, etc., and I want people to identify it with me. Can I copyright a title so others canâ(TM)t use it? â"Anonymous

A: Copyrights cover works fixed in a tangible format, but because titles are typically short, they donâ(TM)t fall under copyright protection. So no, you canâ(TM)t copyright a title to a book, song or movie. But you can trademark a title, which may give you the protection you seek.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office states that a trademark protects words, phrases, symbols or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others. Brand names like Pepsi, Xerox and Band-Aid are all protected. So is the Nike âoeswoosh.â But more relevant to us, book titles such as The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter and the Sorcererâ(TM)s Stone are trademarked.

Unlike copyright protection, which is granted the minute your work is written down, trademarks arenâ(TM)t handed out so freely. In fact, if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office doesnâ(TM)t consider your title (or brand) a distinctive mark that is indisputably distinguishable from others, you will not be granted trademark protection. This is why you see so many books with the sameâ"or very similarâ"titles. Many of the terms are considered too generic or arbitrary to warrant protection.

Trademarks are not only intended to protect the creator, but also the consumer. Trademarks keep others from confusing a well-known work on the bookstore shelves with others. For example, Harry Potter is such a popular, distinguishable character by J.K. Rowling that youâ(TM)d expect any title with his name in it to be written by her (or, at least, a book approved by her). Itâ(TM)s not only her work, but itâ(TM)s become her brand.

So if you use the title of your book as the title of your blog, column, etc., it could be considered your brand identifier. And if you find success, you could qualify for trademark protection.

Re:Can't copyright titles

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, you cannot trademark the mere title to a work.

In order to just function as a trademark, a mark must indicate that all goods bearing a particular mark originate from the same source; merely identifying the good is insufficient.

The title to a work merely identifies the work. That's not enough to be a trademark. Only if there are multiple works, forming a series, and the mark is a shared part of the title indicating that all the works are part of that series, and that anything in that series shares a common source, can there be a real trademark.

So in 1991, the book DOS for Dummies was released. If that had been the end of it, it wouldn't be trademarkable. But it was followed up by Windows for Dummies and about a million others, and so FOR DUMMIES became a protectable mark. (And apparently there had been a single book by a different author back in the 70's called Auto Repair for Dummies, but since it was a standalone, it didn't have prior rights to the mark)

This is why the Harry Potter books are all titled Harry Potter and the Something Something. Otherwise they'd probably indicate somewhere on them that they were part of the Harry Potter series (as the Lord of the Rings books, among others, do).

Re:sign only that you represent author, not infrin

[TheReaperD]

IANAL but, it seems reasonable that the courts could impose some penalty for robo-signing the DMCA take-down notices as they are legal documents. Even the big banks had to pay huge penalties and redo mountains of legal paperwork for doing the same thing (robo-signing legal documents).

If only ...

[houghi]

If only there was a way to have an objective party decide who is right and who is wrong. You could even extend it to other situations where there is a dispute between people . And even (I am just fanasizing now) when people who did something that the majority didn't lieke.

e.g. if you take something that does not belong to you, instead of having the townspeople go after you, have an independent person listen to you and listen to the other party and then decide what needs to be done IF you are guilty. (A bit opposite of what Tumblr does.)

So, and this would be an enourmous strech of your imagination, have people be innocent untill they are proven guilty. (OK, perhaps only the common people. It would be ridiculous to not believe the Gentlemen on their word of honor.)

We could even write what is allowed and what not. I have a nice idea or 10 already.

Laziness or malice?

[jeti]

At one point you have to wonder whether laziness or incompetence can explain those frivolous takedowns anymore. Maybe the actual goal is to get rid of anything that competes with your IP for search results.

Sue them for Libel

[AnotherBlackHat]

Hasn't Entura committed libel, and can't they be held accountable for that?

Re:Sue them for Libel

[Gunstick]

see my other post.
Every wrongly DMCA should cost $1
and the next one double the previous.
How many URLs are in this list?
2^n can be quickly very large.

Pixels!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pixels, pixels, we got pixels here! Go F* yourself.

Re:Sue them

[mrbester]

Wrongful accusation is surely dealt with in other legislation, such as slander, libel and defamation of character to name but three. Does DMCA nullify that legislation?

I think they have a case that it was in good faith

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the wikipedia entry on take down notices one of the requirements of the complaining party is that:

"(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."

Given that all uploaded videos **have** a time stamp as to when they were uploaded, then the complaining party knew or should have known that alleged infringing acts **years** prior to the movie were not in violation. I think the parties affected by the take down notices should contact some lawyers as they might have a good case for suing Columbia Pictures.

Re: Sue them

[AnotherBlackHat]

It's not like you have to hire a team of lawyers to prove libel, and the lawyer's costs would be recoverable if you won the suit.
Plus if they've sent out hundreds of these take down notices, that would be a pretty big class - I bet you could find a lawyer who would work on that kind of class action suit on a contingency basis.
They might try and drag the suit out for years, but they have to pay their lawyers too, it's going to cost them a lot more than it would cost you.

Right or wrong vimeo.com took them down

[Trax3001BBS]

DMCA take down notice https://www.chillingeffects.or...

Link I tried https://vimeo.com/135046490

Re:Right or wrong vimeo.com took them down

[Trax3001BBS]

Checking (an ah damn moment) I do have them blocked twice t.vimeo.com and utmtrk.vimeo.com

Yet show ocsp.digicert.com (Gateway) to b.global-ssl.fastly.net that sends me to safebrowsing.cache.l.google.com

Re:Sue them

[Opportunist]

Would it really surprise you?

But what actually transpires is pretty much the course of a interim injunction. What the DMCA pretty much requires anyone involved is to treat a takedown notice as if it was an i.i. Should you stand up against it, they'll just go "whoopsie, my bad" and that's it.

No, you don't have any recourse against it. The idea is that the immediate takedown protects the potential rights owner from having his rights infringed. Funny enough, that's neither slander, nor libel, no defamation. Because he doesn't even accuse you of anything.

And that bullshit law will stand until some of those that bought it are actually careless enough to use it against a campaigning politician. Only then they might notice that such a takedown notice without any chance to appeal against it can hurt the wrong party.

Using the DMCA for good...

[vanye]

1) Make a series of movies titled "PowerPoint", "Flash", "SilverLight"

2) file DMCA take down notices.

3) all the crappy presentations and horrendous web sites disappear.

I could also do evil ( or more good depending on your point of view). My final movie will be called Stallman....

Re:Using the DMCA for good...

[Anonymous Coward]

An "Adobe Acrobat" movie would be better.

Pixels

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Pixels pixels PIXELS Pixels pixels PIXELS Pixels pixels PIXELS Pixels pixels PIXELS

Now sue me. I'll wait.

Re:Pixels

[ZorglubZ]

When I saw this post, I thought it was by that Moo guy...

Re:Pixels

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I wish someone would hunt the "Moo" guy down and put a bullet in his stupid ass.

Tell them what you think

[dristoph]

Here's their website, with a contact email address posted conveniently on the front page:
http://entura.co.uk/

Prior-Use

[DERoss]

Columbia Pictures' claim of some form of intellectual property rights to the term "Pixels" must be invalid on the basis of prior use. Over 10 years ago, one of my copyrighted Web pages used the term "pixels". The Internet Archive contains a copy of that page dated 10 February 2005; that copy contains the notice "Copyright © 2003-2004 by David E. Ross".

The current page is http://www.rossde.com/internet....

Is a false DMCA claim an act of LIBEL?

[Fencepost]

I don't think asking whether it's an act of Perjury is going to get you anywhere - is there a civil action you can bring for perjury?

On the other hand, in submitting a false DMCA notice against your videos the studio (or someone acting on its behalf) has claimed in writing that you have effectively stolen something of worth from them, and in so claiming they have cause you harm - your time in dealing with the false claim, possibly financial losses due to video removal, loss of reputation due to the claim, and (apparently) long-term damage even if their claim is proven unfounded in that just having a history of false claims against you can result in you losing the ability to work with a vendor (Vimeo).

I'd say that could absolutely be actionable.

Counter sue for negligence, lack of "good faith"

[raymorris]

Yes, you can counter sue for damages if they act negligently, like these people apparently did. Another relevant term is "good faith". Those apply. Perjury doesn't, by statute.

Addressable Pixel LED strings

[Technician]

This may be a problem when the people posting videos of their animated Christmas light shows with addressable pixels get taken down. The would be akin to Microsoft taking down cleaning services because they advertise washing windows and glass shops for selling Windows. This could backfire. Even flatscreen manufactures could get hit by advertising the warranty based on the number of dead Pixels. The term Pixel is not copyrightable by itself no more than Windows is and for the same reason.

Re: Sue them

[Jason Levine]

They only need to do it to one or two people to make a public example of what happens when you don't roll over and do what they tell you to do. Look at all of the copyright infringement settlement letters sent by record companies. If everyone tried fighting those, there is no way that the record companies could win them all. However, a few that fought back wound up losing high-publicity cases. It helps make the case that "if you settle, you only pay $3,000, but if you try to fight, you might be out millions of dollars." This, in turn, helps scare people into submission whether they were guilty of infringement or not.*

* I've got to admit that I'm not positive that I wouldn't take the settlement if I were (falsely) accused of pirating/sharing music. I have a job, bills, kids to take care of, and a life to live. A huge lawsuit would involve time and money that I would be hard pressed to spend. It's a shame that the RIAA knows this, purposefully exploits it to get "anti-piracy wins", and don't get called on it much.

That does it...

[bizitch]

I had no interest in this stupid movie, but now I will check TPB and torrent the damn thing just on principle

Make every wrong DMCA cost double

[Gunstick]

I reiterate my demand that for every company every wrongly created DMCA notice should cost the double of the previous one. Starting at $1
And cost is down half by every day passed without screw up.

As this DMCA contains a lot of videos, for the same day the cost will be:
$1+$2+$4+$8+$16+$32+$64.... we quickly get into the billions....
That would force such companies to first check what they do before doing a DMCA for "THE" or "BOOK"

They still can create one bad takedown per day. That is 365 idiot claims per year per company without it costing them more than $1

Based upon the reviews...

[osswmi]

I had planned on seeing the movie but after reading the reviews I'd probably have to save the being illegally downloaded is the best thing for its viewer count right now! lol