Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Warner Bros Issues Takedown For Own Website (bbc.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on from the carelessness dept.

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.

10 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. What about perjury? by itsme1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:What about perjury? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Informative

      Isn't there some penalty .. for trying to take down what shouldn't be taken down?

      Nope. There isn't. That's one of peoples' objections to how DCMA works: it wasn't realized back in 1997 that millions of bogus, negligent, bad-faith or frivolous DMCA notices could simply be spammed without any consequences for the attackers.

      You might be thinking of the part of DMCA which says it's perjury to misrepresent your ownership of a copyrighted work.

      Let's say I don't hold the copyright on Hogan's Heroes, and I send a DMCA notice about your Cowboy Bebop fan page, claiming you are infringing my [fake] Hogan's Heroes copyright. That's perjury, per DMCA.

      But nobody does that. As long as you hold the copyright to something, and claim that is what is infringed, you're safe.

      Let's say I do hold the copyright on Hogan's Heroes and I send a DMCA notice about your Cowboy Bebop fanpage (and your Ride the Lightning lyrics page) (and your game walk-through) (and your Scientology OT III tuition invoice) (and a poem you wrote when you were 12 years old), claiming you are infringing my Hogan's Heroes copyright. Consequences: none. I can be as wrong as I want about whether or not you're infringing, but as long I have the copyright on the work I'm incorrectly claiming to be infringed (Hogan's Heroes), there's no perjury.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re: What about perjury? by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

      They did abuse it, against themselves, and I hear they agreed to a settlement with the wronged parties to make them whole, and that appropriate steps will be taken to avoid inflicting further damages against themselves. Considering that corporations are people, attempted self harm is taken very seriously. Thankfully they already have an on-site Looney Bin.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    3. Re:What about perjury? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, they are not legally required to. DMCA does not require that.

      By failing to take down, they merely become potentially liable for whatever infringement may have occurred (which happens be none, in this case). Complying with the DMCA takedown notice procedure is a means of avoiding such potential liability.

      If they're sure there was no infringement, and also if they're sure that Warner Bros' isn't going to sue in spite of the lack of infringement (because even winning in court, can be expensive), then this is a reasonable safe decision.

      If they were less sure (e.g. if it were your video instead of Warner Bros') then they would take it down. Not because they're required to (they're not) but because they'd want to not be party for any resulting lawsuit between the other two parties (e.g. you and Warner Bros).

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  2. remove wb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:remove wb by mikeiver1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. That's not how it works. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. . . .
  4. Why did they "cut them a break"? by slacka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. NO by maugle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. BBC: "Warner Brothers has yet to comment." by tlambert · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.