Slashdot Mirror
Warner Bros Issues Takedown For Own Website (bbc.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes: In a case of sloppy automation run amok, Warner Bros' copyright enforcement contractor -- Vobile -- issued takedown notices for legitimate distributors and Warner Bros' own website, according to the BBC. It also asked the search giant to remove links to legitimate movie streaming websites run by Amazon and Sky, as well as Amazon-owned film database IMDB. Fortunately for them, Google chose to cut them a break and ignore those requests.
This shows how much rigor is being used in applying the "law" justly.
Isn't there some penalty (preferably disproportionately large to discourage such behavior) for trying to take down what shouldn't be taken down?
Google should have removed WarnerBros from all search results as requested.
Boss: "Take down those damned thieves now!"
Grunt: "But sir, they are..."
Boss: "Don't give me flack, takem down!"
Grunt: "Yes, sir."
Table-ized A.I.
It's too bad the only thing they sign under penalty of perjury is the fact that they own the claimed work. They should really have to assert some good-faith belief of actual infringement by the site under some penalty, such as being unable to sign off on further notices.
Because this is just silly, and it's neither the first nor the last ridiculous automatic notice to go out.
Fortunately for them, Google chose to cut them a break and ignore those requests.
Pretty sure Google doesn't get to pick and choose. They should have complied and make WB follow the process to get things restored -- like the rest of us would have had to do. No pain, no gain.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
... is that for once, Google choose to follow the non-douchebag path.
that's all, folks!
I don't know how much valid information has been wrongfully censored, but when I was doing school research for a movie, I noticed that some of my results had been blocked. So I followed the 'Chilling Effects' link and there was relevant, non-infringing content that had been blocked there. I was angry enough to start to file a counter complaint only to get stonewalled because I wasn't the original copyright holder.
The system is broken. The only fix is higher penalties and lower bar for enforcement on invalid DMCA requests.
Google should absolutely not "choose to cut them a break".
This is one of the biggest problems of the takedown system: the big boys get their own special set of rules and are insulated from the fallout of the horrible systems they put into use, while everyone else has to deal with the massive collateral damage of these out-of-control takedown bots. The only way it will stop is if Google stops shielding these companies from their own stupid decisions.
Thou art a heartless bitch!
maybe it should be taken down? those guys are obviously so bad they shouldn't be on the internet
Google should absolutely not "choose to cut them a break".
I don't know the context of the word "should" here.
When Google doesn't show legitimate links to content people search for, some fraction of these people will go elsewhere for their search engine. Google is winning the search-engine wars precisely because when people search using Google, they expect Google to have what they search for.
From Google's point of view, since it's pretty clear that WB is not going to go after them for not removing their own links to their own material, they absolutely should not remove those search results.
In some societal context, where "should" means "ought to teach them a lesson,' possibly they should. But Google has no reason to do that, it pisses off users, pisses off advertisers (I assume WB advertises), and doesn't help them
World Reacts To The Worst Mass Shooting In U.S. History
The Case Against a Universal Basic Income
Mass Shooting In San Bernardino Kills At Least 14
PayPal Pulls North Carolina Plan After Transgender Bathroom Law
Terrorist Attack In Brussels Airport and Metro Station: At Least 34 Dead
I didn't know DMCA takedowns were that violent.
Why didn't they comply and removed their website from the search? I wish they had.
Asking to take down something they dont own.
If you do this and it is taken down you must be heal libel for all damages and expenses.
Else it is laws for one group and another set for others.
#youtubisoverparty woohoo!
We have computers trying to be lawyers now. Law is one part of society with so much nuance that it is very difficult to write it into any set code. This is why we have a court system, because legal code is something we must interpret with intention.
I am reminded of automated speeding tickets being issued and how they've gone wrong. In nearly every case the city responsible (because it's almost always a city that does this) will swear in a court of law that every ticket was reviewed but a sworn officer before being issued. When challenged it becomes obvious they weren't.
So now we have automated DCMA notices going out and obviously no one bothered to verify them before going out, or the person doing the review was not suited for doing the review. Here is a case of one large corporate entity going to battle with another large corporate entity and the problem seems to disappear, right?
When elephants battle it's always the grass that loses.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
DRM! What could possibly go wrong? :-)
Typical - the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Back in the day when I worked for a web hosting provider, ebay once put in a take-down request with us for one of their own subsidiaries (co-op advertising program, their own on-site documentation had countless links to the site in question).
The best part of that was that in their take-down demand letter they claimed that they had already reported them(selves) to the FBI for being scammers.
...sufferin succotash.
BBC: "Warner Brothers has yet to comment."
Are you blind?!?
It's right there, in the press release on their website!
Oh. Wait. Never mind.
The problem with cutting Warner a break is that no lessons were learned.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
Freakin' meat sacks.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
If you're that brain dead that you take down your client's properties, you're not that bright. I'm thinking of the muscle in the God Father. Where the fuck is the Godfather in these Takedown outfits who can at least point the muscle at the right website and veto bad decisions. No guys, not that one, they cut the checks.
No? Company spokesperson simply muttered to members of the press, "You're DisPICable!" while company official said, "I did! I did! I did 'taw a 'DMCA wiolation!" :)
Th-th-th-th-that's All, Folks!