Slashdot Mirror
How Copyright Law Is Being Misused To Remove Material From the Internet (theguardian.com)
London-based resident Annabelle Narey posted a negative review of a building firm on Mumsnet. She noted in her review that her ceiling fell down in an upstairs bedroom. The Guardian reports about what happened to her in the aftermath of posting that review. Building firm BuildTeam sent a letter to Mumsnet, which the site passed on to Narey. According to Narey, BuildTeam found Narey's comment defamatory and untrue, and asked for the removal of the comment from the website. The original comment saw several other users also post similar grievances, though many of these users pulled their comments in response to the legal threats from BuildTeam. Narey wanted to keep hers up. Then things got even weirder, reports the Guardian. Narey says BuiltTeam staff visited her apartment, and instead of offering any apology, asked her to remove the comment. Mumsnet received a warning from Google: a takedown request under DMCA, alleging copyright infringement. This led Google to de-list the entire thread. From the report: No copyright infringement had occurred at all. At some point after Narey posted her comments on Mumsnet, someone had copied the entire text of one of her posts and pasted it, verbatim, to a spammy blog titled "Home Improvement Tips and Tricks". The post, headlined "Buildteam interior designers" was backdated to September 14 2015, three months before Narey had written it. BuildTeam says it has no idea why Narey's review was reposted, but that it had nothing to do with it.The Guardian deep dives into what is wrong with the copyright system, the issues Google faces in dealing with them, and the consequences many users are facing because of this.
Rather than borrow someone else's copyrighted content, make your own copyrighted content and sue the heck out of everyone.
It really is that simple. Where power exists, abuse exists. The more power, the more abuse. The only way to reduce the level of abuse is to reduce the level of power. This is the libertarian viewpoint in a nutshell, but I'm not bringing it up to promote libertarianism. I'm bringing it up to promote common sense.
Could you use the wayback machine to go back to that date to show the post was never there? This kind of stuff is very scarry. I hope the Streisand effect kicks in and burns them big time.
A company using bogus copyright claims to silence dissent and complaint? Nooooo, that's unpossible. Unheard of. Cannot happen!
Someone lying on the internet? And a company to boot? Stop being ridiculous.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But then there are those that dare to say, pirates are ignoring copyright and putting EVERYTHING on the internet.
There is a reason why there is a legal process and this is exactly the reason.
If there is a dispute between people (in this case the posting) and one party feels wronged, they should take it up with the legal system, not with a third party.
The legal system wil then not only decide if something illegal went on, but also what the consequences will be.
Otherwise you will get an 'guilty untill proven inocent' or worse 'guilty by having less money as the other party'.
People must understand not only WHAT due process is, but more important WHY.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Yeah Mumsnet, the site she posted on, should have simply sent back a counter-notice. I sure wish more people knew about DMCA counter-notice. Basically you just send back a signed note saying "I don't believe there is any copyright infringement in this case". Forms are available online.
Legal assaults have always been done against those who are not able to [usually cannot afford to] mount a defense. What is different nowadays is that the Internet allows the news of such tactics to be broadcast widely to a larger audience.
They issued a felonious request for takedown. I am sort of surprised there isn't a prosecutor looking for an easy win here.
In the spirit of Murphy's Law and Godwin's Law, I present Dave's Law: If a law can be abused, someone will figure out how and do it.
In this case I feel both the abusers and the legislators share blame since these consequences were easily foreseeable, and they listened to their financial supporters over the best interests of their constituents. The company which "had nothing to do with it", is a lying piece of merde, but if the perpetrator(s) has in IQ of at least 80, they probably covered their tracks making it almost impossible to prove they were behind it.
This is yet another example of what happens when we allow corporations to write the law. Their lawyers don't think past their clients' own self-interest and leave gaping legal loopholes that allow other lawyers to exploit ordinary citizens (or in the case of the UK, the Queen's subjects: The UK isn't a democracy).
Now they're going to pass TPP and next TTIP: Two massive bundles of laws written almost exclusively by hundreds of corporate lawyers. What's not to like about that?
The problem here is that the attorney's fees and court costs associated with due process are often cost-prohibitive.
Why is the DMCA effecting an issue that has nothing to do with the US?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Of course they had something to do with it. They caused it to be there, to facilitate a DMCA takedown. The only real question is, do they have plausible deniability, or are they directly guilty?
... to scrap the DMCA and copyright law and start from scratch, but this time let's foucs on the "for the public good" rather than corporate interests.
Checking Google reviews... Most telling is that Build Team is removing negative posts and people that say they did a bad job are routinely labeled as fakes or malcontents. Build Team states that they "hunt" people down on Google. Build Team seems surprised when projects take much longer than promised, when sub-contractors aren't working well, or when Build Team violates local ordinances. This is the worst kind of passive-aggressive PR management that I have seen. Now the real question is what other reviews and information is Google hiding from the public?
Please Build Team, don't sic your legal team on me. The comments above are entirely my own, until you backdate it and post it elsewhere. Knowing your PR strategy, you will probably report me for terrorism...
From Google reviews... (until they remove them)
(All one star reviews)
Martin Martin
Martin Martin
5 months ago-
Previous review disappeared.
Shoddy company - AVOID AVOID AVOID
Response from the ownerin the last week
This is a fake review by an individual purporting to have been a client of Build Team. We will report this to Google.
James Mcmillan
in the last week
Warning: DO NOT USE BUILDTEAM. I had one of the worst experiences with them. Very awful standard of customer service and of building. The company has many shoddy practices, and they're trying very hard to hide this from reviews. Please use someone else!
Response from the ownerin the last week
This is a fake review by an individual purporting to have been a client of Build Team. We will report this to Google.
David Murray-Thwaites
David Murray-Thwaites
a year ago
AVOID! We had a very bad experience. Build Team are well marketed but frankly awful group to deal with. Extortion is not too strong a word
Response from the ownera year ago
Build Team have not worked for this client, and having undertaken a Google search we cannot trace the individual. We have contacted Google to report the review as spam.
Great, now American law applies to foreign countries too.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
I hope they didn't put that text a file sharing network, otherwise a lot of someones owe Annabelle Narey a trillion dollars in damages.
I think that new lady Ghostbusters movie will bomb hard will they go as low as that to get rid of bad reviews? right now we have people saying not going to see it.
Well Anton Vickerman didn't even commit copyright infringement, he simply made a website that LINKED to torrents (and official sites and official URLs too) in the UK.
How did legal process work with him? Well the Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute since it didn't appear to be illegal to build a links website (yep that makes sense). So FACT, did a private prosecution, together with the Trading Standards Body it raided his home, took him to court, and prosecuted him... for 'Fraud'. He got 4 years for building a links website to content some of which was copyright infringement... aka 'Conspiracy to Commit Fraud'.
You might want to read Vickermans side of this, he was forced to censor his views, but the comments live on:
http://pastebin.com/KDaXSZRa
Mega Download of course, it wasn't legal for the New Zealand spooks to spy on Kim Dotcom. they did it anyway, and the case continues despite the unusable evidence (which will no doubt be used anyway).
And now we have Baroness Neville Rolfe (unelected Cameron lovey, who was an exec of Tescos during the time its books were more fiction than accounting), calling for 10 years in jail for copyright infringement. This might actually become law since Cameron put it in the Queens speech.
I'm sorry but this is the UK, its p0wnd by lobbyists and due process won't help.
This is how it was designed. You need to remember that the sole purpose of copyright was to protect established interests from new technology that would destroy their existing business model, and to restrict public speech. It is a law by luddites, for luddites, nothing else. "Promoting the arts and sciences" is pure propaganda. Restricting the passage of knowledge does no such thing.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There is a reason why there is a legal process and this is exactly the reason.
If there is a dispute between people (in this case the posting) and one party feels wronged, they should take it up with the legal system, not with a third party. The legal system wil then not only decide if something illegal went on, but also what the consequences will be.
This sounds like a perfectly American answer to me. You might not know this, but in the UK they have this little thing called "loser pays" in their legal system. That's why it's not going to court. BuildTeam knows that they'll probably lose. On the other side, the lady in the article simply may not have the money to pay should things not go her way in court. I can't speak for UK courts, but here in the USA every case is a toss up depending on a variety of factors such as the judge (particularly in cases without juries), the jury and how stupid or smart the people are who are on it, the competency of the lawyers involved, and so on.
To me the core issue is that EU countries don't have a freedom of speech law at all. While a case like this could certainly end up in the US legal system if it happened here, eventually at some level a court would likely find it to be a freedom of speech issue, rule in favor of the lady who made the review, and it would be done. I personally find it pretty bizarre that for a group of nations with an overly sympathetic bent towards making sure that criminals have more rights than their victims, they also find free speech simply a bridge too far and happily lock up people for saying stupid things that in reality harm nobody.
Freedom of speech should trump* profits, but because of big-ass lobbying, it's the other way around. Gray areas default toward commercial and big-org interests in our current setup, and it should be reversed.
Perhaps the penalties for misusing copyrights to crush opinion and dissent should be made large enough to scare the big-orgs. Larger penalties would then make it worth it for lawyers to take on small cases.
As much as we dislike lawyers, they are often the only practical avenue for the little guy to fight back. Most regular folks don't have the time or knowledge to compete with big-org legal departments on their own. But big penalties will encourage lawyers to take their case.
* No candidate reference intended.
Table-ized A.I.
and my browser was redirected to a copyright take-down notice...
CAP === 'connoted'
The DMCA doesn't apply. All of this occurred in the UK, and all involved parties are in the UK.
The fine article explains that mumsnet refused to take the material down under the UK law. The builder then notified Google (a US company) per US law, law. Quoting the article for you:
----
Mumsnet received a warning from Google: a takedown request had been made under the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), alleging that copyrighted material was posted without a licence on the thread.
As soon as the DMCA takedown request had been filed, Google de-listed the entire thread. All 126 posts are now not discoverable when a user searches Google for BuildTeam â" or any other terms. The search company told Mumsnet it could make a counterclaim, if it was certain no infringement had taken place
---
the dmca doesn't exist in england so why is google doing anything?
they're dragging their own name through the mud by this. more experienced unethical builders and housing authorities simply change their business name to escape their bad reviews online.
there's an apartment complex nearby that is expensive (located across the street from a university) but looks kind of like crap. the siding is all dirty, and you can see horrible mold infestations growing in the wood under the walk-out patios on the 2nd and 3rd stories. this is in a town where every single place i've lived there has been mold infestations, even right next to campus. the town ... the entire state of michigan, really ... is just a drained swamp and wooden, dutch-style homes simply don't stand up to it very well.
well this nearby apartment complex has changed its name every year. from "Campus Hills" (with an umlaut over the u for some reason) to "Varsity" to now "Soho 700". The sign out front of "Soho 700" promises fast internet and other things among "newly renovated".
Well, I've lived here for two years and I walk by the place every night and day. There have been no trucks, no workers, no sign of any renovation occurring at all whatsoever.
Sadly here in Michigan there's no legal recourse for the students who get sucked into moving into that place and spending oodles of money on it. The Consumer Protection Agency actually makes things worse on people who complain about unethical business practices, by sending a copy of the complaint along with the complete identity, address, and phone number of the complainer to the company they're complaining about -- and then proceeding to sit on their own hands and do nothing. I've had a pretty scary experience due to the Consumer Protection Agency doxing me to a shady store.
You can't really rely on the Better Business Bureau, either. It turns out that the BBB is just a money-mill here in Michigan. You either apply to receive an endorsement from the BBB (which costs money) or you don't. There's no recourse for consumers who turn to the BBB to get things done. The BBB isn't actually in authority.
At any rate, in many U.S. states any business owner can get away with just about anything if they're willing to pay the fees and legal costs of incorporation on top of the fees and costs of obtaining a tax code, DBA and so on (which even for an LLC is several thousand dollars). Once you're incorporated, you get to enjoy a different set of laws and many of them don't even mention anything about jail or anything scary like that, just various monetary fines all in the thousands of dollars and upwards. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK's system is even worse, considering that heinous acts are kind of part and parcel with the British Empire, and power has a way of ensuring its own legacy.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
(Let's pretend this happened in US, where there's DMCA.) User knowing about counter-notice isn't enough.
Do you run any websites where the public adds content? Imagine what's involved.
You need think of every incoming DMCA notice as an ongoing project, rather than a thing that can Get Done by deleting a record. That means you are opting into something more pain-in-the-assy and expensive (both in terms of your time and technical complexity) than doing the cheapest and easiest thing.
First, you need to have content temporarily suppressed (rather than deleted) upon receiving notice. So there's a new status bit and everything that reads content needs to know to use that. Not a big deal, but it's something. (If it's a large legacy codebase, then I guess you've got an initial mini-project right here.) So I guess there's a presumption that you have the source code; you're not using some canned thing.
You need to have a way to forward DMCA notices to users, so you have to know who they are. Ok, you probably have an email address. Let's say your forward-bot doesn't get blocked by spamfilters. Fine.
The user has to provide a lot more than email address. They are going to be assuming copyright liability risk instead of you, so they have to be motivated enough to supply the required information. There is a lot more giving-a-fuck in a counter-notice than merely replying by email "hey, that comment was MINE!" You need their identity, and since most people still don't use PGP yet, email alone probably isn't going to cut it.
Let's assume the user has a fighting crusader attitude and sends back what you need, with proof of who they are (so that you're sure your ass is covered). Now you're spending time again, to forward the counter-notice to the original fraudster, and then you unset the suppressed bit on the content.
Do this right, and you've got a good system. But you just spent at least twice as much time, have a slightly more complex system, and then 99% of the time, the user never gives a counter-notice so your new process doesn't really get used often and your people are always rusty.
Are you sure you wouldn't just cut corners by having "DMCA notice means we immediately delete this stuff"? If you're sure you wouldn't cut that corner, then you're awesome. Kick ass, dude. We all love you.
But also: you're small-time and one-in-a-million.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
You can read the DMCA notice requirements rather than guessing at what they say. I'll clear up a few misconceptions for you. First, though, since you didn't read the article or apparently even the summary, I'll quote it for you:
> (Let's pretend this happened in US, where there's DMCA.)
----
Mumsnet received a warning from Google: a takedown request had been made under the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), alleging that copyrighted material was posted without a licence on the thread.
As soon as the DMCA takedown request had been filed, Google de-listed the entire thread. All 126 posts are now not discoverable when a user searches Google for BuildTeam or any other terms. The search company told Mumsnet it could make a counterclaim, if it was certain no infringement had taken place
---
The above was the builder's strategy after their libel claim under UK law was refused.
> You need to have a way to forward DMCA notices to users, so you have to know who they are.
The law requires no such thing.
> You need their identity, and since most people still don't use PGP yet, email alone probably isn't going to cut it.
The primary information int eh counter-notice which under signed under penalty of perjury is their name contact information. The recipient doesn't have to prove the identity of the sender via PGP or any other means. They receive a sworn statement of your identity; that's what DMCA requires.
> Are you sure you wouldn't just cut corners by having "DMCA notice means we immediately delete this stuff"?
I like the protection from liability, so yes I, and over 90% of US web hosting companies follow the DMCA. If you DELETE a company's web site or other content whenever you receive a complaint, you're (rightfully) wide open to a huge liability. Think about it. Suppose you earn your living from a web site. Maybe you make your living from a web site similar to groklaw (but written by non-lawyers who haven't bothered to read the laws they are writing about). The site earns you $25,000 / month. I'm your web host. Someone sends me an email claiming you copy pasted from their site. So I delete your business, your web site. You'd probably file suit against me right away, wouldn't you. By following the DMCA process, the "host" (whoever is storing the content) is protected from liability to either side.
I find it interesting that a business doesn't like something said about it online can, with relative ease, get it taken down. But some kid who had a lapse of discretion needs an army of attorneys to get the content removed. That just doesn't seem right.
While a case like this could certainly end up in the US legal system if it happened here, eventually at some level a court would likely find it to be a freedom of speech issue, rule in favor of the lady who made the review, and it would be done.
In addition, making this sort of false claim of authorship in the United States is likely a tort and/or crime. A rider to the DMCA (17 USC 1202) made it illegal to conceal or falsify a copyrighted work's attribution. Such "copyright management information" definitely includes the author's name, and depending on the judge, "other information identifying the work" may include the date of publication.
why the fuck do both links in the summary go to the same place?
are you trying to artificially increase the guardian's pageviews?
are you trying to artificially "slashdot" the guardian?