Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Torrent Removed From Google Due To DMCA Complaint (omgubuntu.co.uk)
Reader LichtSpektren shares a report from OMG Ubuntu: Cited in a DMCA takedown request filed against Google on behalf of Paramount Pictures is an innocuous link to a 32-bit alternate install image Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS. The takedown request seeks to remove links to a number of torrent URLS that are alleged to infringe on Paramount movie Transformers: Age of Extinction. Ubuntu clearly doesn't. All it takes is a quick glance at the URL in question to see that. It's very much a stock ISO of an old Ubuntu release. And yet Google has complied with the request and scrubbed the link to the page in question from its search index.
All it takes is a quick glance at the URL in question to see that.
To see what? That's it's not labeled as being infringing on something? Can Gawker publish http://gawker.com/definitely.n... and point a 'quick glance at the URL' to claim they didn't distribute it (leaving aside the question of, if they did, was it tortious).
Of course, I'm reasonably confident that the torrent in question was not actually infringing. But to conclude that, you'd have to take a quick glance at the content or compare the hash against one you know is Ubuntu or ....
Besides which, if memory serves, the DMCA requires that the host take down the content, and it's up to whoever posted the content to dispute it. But I am not a lawyer, so take with a grain of salt.
They've shown that they don't just blindly respond to DMCA requests, that somebody is vetting them first and deciding whether or not to take down the supposedly infringing material. In the linked case, Google decided not to honor the request to remove Warner Brothers websites from their search engine, as it was obviously erroneous. Yet they do not provide the same service globally, as evidenced by the request to take down a Ubuntu torrent despite this request being farcical.
I can see this issue being used by both sides of the DMCA argument to show that Google is not handling these requests correctly. The fact that they aren't handling all DMCA requests the same leaves them open to a possible lawsuit.
That is called, "Slander of Title."
Also, US law has something called "strict liability".
In strict liability situations, the actor is liable, period. That's regardless of negligence, fault, or intent. Using explosives and keeping dangerous animals are common examples that make the reasoning for sterict liability fairly clear. If you're using TNT, or you have tigers, you are -automatically- liable for any damage caused; it doesn't matter how careful you were being. Speeding is a more common, though perhaps less clear. If you are going faster than the speed limit, you owe the ticket. The state doesn't have to prove that you knew what the speed limit was, you knew how fast you were going, or that the intentionally drove faster than the limit. If you did in fact drive faster than the speed limit, it's case closed.
So you could have the following schedule of penalties:
Knowingly sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $10,000 penalty.
Recklessly sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $5,000 penalty.
Sending a materially inaccurate DMCA notice - $1,000 penalty.
If you send a bad notice, you owe at least $1,000.