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.

Comments

What about perjury?

[itsme1234]

Isn't there some penalty (preferably disproportionately large to discourage such behavior) for trying to take down what shouldn't be taken down?

Re:What about perjury?

[mark-t]

I thought it was established long ago that disproportionately large penalties don't actually discourage people from breaking the law. Isn't that the foundation of the argument against insanely high penalties for media piracy?

remove wb

[Anonymous Coward]

Google should have removed WarnerBros from all search results as requested.

Re:remove wb

[mikeiver1]

100% agreed. Furthermore they should have been required to provide proof and go through the very same BS that anyone else must endure to get their content back on line. Just like you or I would when they issue fraudulent take down notices and hose valid content that they have absolutely no rights to.

That's not how it works.

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

buhdeah buhdeah buhdeah

[Anonymous Coward]

that's all, folks!

Why did they "cut them a break"?

[slacka]

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.

Re:Why did they "cut them a break"?

[Voyager529]

You misunderstand my question.... I was asking why heavier penalties for false DMCA takedowns would make any difference when anytime high penalties for piracy are ever talked about around here, someone usually brings up the point that higher penalties for crimes is not an effective preventative.

Lemme break it down...

Suppose that I, Voyager529, were to download a copy of Fantastic Voyage, and that I was one of a million people to do so. Suppose I was stupid enough to leave a nobody-doubts-it evidence trail that I personally committed that specific act of copyright infringement. It goes to court, the judge decides to make an example out of me and give me a $150,000 fine for my misdoing. My current socioeconomic status is such that a $150,000 fine would basically be life ruining. Whether it was $150K or $150M, I'm screwed for life; the fact that there's a few orders of magnitude difference between those two numbers is inconsequential. I downloaded the film figuring that I wouldn't get caught, but since I did, I'm screwed. 20th Century Fox can try to file a few more lawsuits, but since I had the most clear paper trail available and the case was the easiest to win for them, even if they went down the line to the next 5-10 people who were similarly easy to successfully sue, any one person would have less than a 0.01% chance of being a target. Increasing the fines to "ruin the defendant's life even more" isn't going to be much more of a deterrent.

By contrast, 20th Century Fox sends a DMCA notice for Fantastic Voyage to one million random Youtube videos. that guy smoking a pipe? infringer. Pewpewdie? Infringer. Jenna Marbles? Infringer. Justin Bieber music video? Infringer. One guy who did, in fact, upload a ten second clip from the film? Infringer. Rinse and repeat a million more times, except that last one. 20th Century Fox has spent a few hundred dollars sending out those mostly-automated takedown notices. Google treats all million of those takedown notices equally, which takes weeks to sort out. The one guy with the ten second clip gets hit with an infringement suit. He loses and the judge says the defendant has to pay $10,000. 20th Century Fox says "oops" 999,999 times and made thousands of dollars on the one guy, meaning that there is incentive to basically treat DMCA takedowns like phishing e-mails - send 'em out, see who bites, and the cost of being wrong is $0.

Now, the GP says that $10 per invalid notice is a reasonable number. I'd personally make that $100 plus any expense incurred fighting the invalid notice (including down time, lost wages, etc.), but we'll keep the math simple and stick to ten bucks per 'oops'. Same scenario as above: one million takedowns sent, one technically-not-valid-but-judge-says-so $10,000 ruling. 20th Century Fox isn't making a few grand, they're paying $9,999,990. Even if they got ten times the maximum $150,000 penalty, it's still a losing proposition by millions of dollars.

tl;dr: The fines for infringement are extremely high, but the enforcement rate is very low. Increasing the fine without increasing enforcement isn't going to change things much for the unlucky person, but giving copyright holders a disincentive for sending out massive numbers of DMCA takedowns is clearly a requirement as a result of its abuse.

NO

[maugle]

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.

Re:Depends on what "should" means

[Anonymous Coward]

"should" == Obey the law.

Apparently you don't understand that this isn't about google deciding what is best for their search results. There are many examples of abusive takedown requests, among them some big media company issuing a takedown against an original works owner because the media company borrowed or licensed the work. Imagine a TV show with "look what we found on youtube" who then issues a takedown against the youtube video because it 'violates' the copyright of the TV show. And the hosting company takes down the video because that's the process, doesn't matter if it's unfair to the victims of false accusations.

And some hosting companies have a 'strike' system where the victim is locked out of the service after a certain number of accusations (like 3 or 10) even if those are counterclaimed or provably false. Imagine if anyone in town only had to send police 10 pictures of your car with an accusation that it's a stolen car (despite the car being provably yours) to have your drivers license revoked. Then imagine if this system didn't apply to the police chief's friends (even though they're the ones sending out the false claims) because gee we'd had to have wrong results, so as long as the friends don't complain it's good right?

The post you replied to is saying if Google is following the law in most cases, they should follow the law in this case also, even though the victim happens to basically be the false accuser in other cases.