Automated DMCA Takedown Notices Request Censorship of Legitimate Sites 192
Techmeology writes "Microsoft has sent automated DMCA notices to Google demanding the removal of several legitimate URLs from its search results that Microsoft claims were facilitating the distribution of illegal copies of Windows 8, including links to BBC news articles, Wikipedia pages, U.S. government websites, and even Bing! The erroneous DMCA notices are being sent automatically by rights holders, who are increasingly using such techniques."
Keep it rolling boys (Score:3)
If the rules were balanced (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft would now face a $200 trillion fine for violating the law (When you scale up from what single persons are liable for under this law, to the income and wealth of microsoft)
If the law was balanced, I would imagine we would get fewer cases of false notices, as it is now, all they get is a bit of bad press, it is probably not even mentioned in the press for non-nerds and there so why should they not send out takedown notices for everything?
Re: (Score:3)
DMCA, looking better with every passing day.
Re: (Score:2)
Automated law enforcement? Don't we have dozens of examples from popular fiction showing why that's a bad idea?
"No one escapes the Manhunters"?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope lots of companies pile onto the automated takedown notices Process and flood the Internet with them until the whole thing collapses under its own absurdities.
Re:Keep it rolling boys (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps you haven't put the line through all the dots yet... that is the plan. Crush the internet as we know it, and replace it with something that resembles phone service. You pay for their service, they give you what they feel like, you pay what they demand, and you shut your mouth and enjoy it, or do without. This wild anything goes hippy-fest, communist plot that we currently call the internet is an unending pain in their collective sides and they must do anything they can to kill it, so when you say you hope it dies, you're in fact serving their interest.
It is time for Americans, to build a completely free and unregulated internet. One not subject to government control, and for the luv-o-jebus utterly inaccessible to large corporate interests. It should be free, open and paid for by donations from users who want to circumvent the increasingly pay-per-screw models being inflicted on the users by the monolithic service providers of the world. Most important, it should route around existing systems of control and manipulation. There is no sane argument against having a free and unrestricted system of communications among people. We've been fed lies and hyperbole by people whose interest is that we keep the masses in line. This isn't about stopping a handful of predators, and it never has been. You don't destroy a $50,000 vehicle to get at a 10 cent fuse. Our entire society has become a means by which wealthy powers have concentrated wealth and power to give them control and authority over the groveling masses. Its about time for the masses to tell the powers to kiss their collective asses, we'll take care of ourselves thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
It is time for Americans, to build a completely free and unregulated internet. One not subject to government control, and for the luv-o-jebus utterly inaccessible to large corporate interests. It should be free, open and paid for by donations from users who want to circumvent the increasingly pay-per-screw models being inflicted on the users by the monolithic service providers of the world. Most important, it should route around existing systems of control and manipulation. There is no sane argument against having a free and unrestricted system of communications among people.
So... Who owns the copper and fiber lines necessary for such a network to exist? Who is arranging for them to be buried in public and/or private lands? Copper and Fiber sometimes run through parks and residential areas, so you would have to make arrangements with whichever government (state, local, federal, whatever) that owns it, potentially millions of private home-owners, and/or corporations that own large plots of land. That Copper and Fiber costs money to lay down and maintain (sometimes things break a
Re:Keep it rolling boys (Score:5, Insightful)
You should create a corporation and sign your computer over to it. Then if it does get sued just have the corp sell you the computer for 1$, then let it go bankrupt in the suit. Isn't capitalism great?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
that's not a bad idea create a corporation and sign your computer and internet connection over to it.
That way nothing you do or say online can be used againist you as it is a corporate computer and immune.
Re: (Score:2)
Well not really. Since during a bankruptcy proceeding, the court can actually essentially roll back payments and asset transfers made over a period of time prior to the proceedings to prevent exactly what you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
And what is that period? You should be able to drag out a trial by at least a few years. And if you transfer back the computer at the 'settlement offer' stage, you can probably drag that out for a few months at least.
Noticed this earlier today (Score:4, Interesting)
Takedown the election (Score:5, Funny)
Someone please send DMCA takedown notices to all sites currently covering the US presidential election. That might get the problem fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Takedown the election (Score:5, Funny)
Hahaha, yeah nothing would fix the election like an uniformed population. Removing news coverage would just let the candidates escape the dumb things they say.
And that would differ..... how?
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Does anyone actually know anyone else who is swayed by the various debates / speeches?
Re:Takedown the election (Score:5, Funny)
I'd guess that some decide to not vote after hearing the candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
DCMA notice expected from B Dylan and any associated record company.
Re:Takedown the election (Score:4, Funny)
And that would differ..... how?
Since the recent debate Romney's popularity sharply dropped in the ages 3-8 demographic.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the wikipedia blackout was to raise awareness.
A blown lightbulb may well get your attention better than a boring billboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what is a "lamar smith"?
Re: (Score:2)
what is a "lamar smith"?
It's kinda like a cross between a "Llama" and a "Smith & Weston"
That's the best I can describe, without resorting to cuss words
Re: (Score:3)
what is a "lamar smith"?
One who forges lamers out of noobs.
That sounds like a course I went on once "Introductory line management for technical specialists".
Knock out the spammers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
No no no no no. It's the perfect excuse for Google to remove anything related to Bing from their index.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not hit back with the whole false DMCA claims bit?
Re:Knock out the spammers (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Vicarious liability.
Re:Knock out the spammers (Score:4, Insightful)
Pinning responsability for the bot on someone would be difficult
No it wouldn't. If you can't find a manager, director, CEO, etc. who can be held responsible, then just hold the Company as a whole responsible. If the Company is allowed to contribute money to an election, then it's only fair that the Company can be held liable in general for perjury, libel, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a shell game... piercing the corporate veil? You're trying to nail jello to the wall, nothing will stick.
Re:Knock out the spammers (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's ever been done, and to make things worse how do you get a bot to face penalties of perjury? Pinning responsability for the bot on someone would be difficult and would most likely get put on the most junior coder or somebody that's left MS.
Well if that's the case, what legal standing does a bot have to make a DCMA claim? I would argue - none.
Re: (Score:2)
The decision to let the bot run wild without any human supervision was made by management at some point, so they are responsible.
They should stop automatically processing requests from any company that sends bulk bogus requestions, and instead assign them to a queue where they can be processed by a human. They only need one part time human to do it. The whole point of the DMCA system is that the burden is on the person making the requests to do verification, but if they are trying to shift that burden on to
Re: (Score:2)
Having only one person doing that for automated takedown notices would solve a number of problems with the system.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a modern American management style that is effectively cowardice and refusing to take responsibility. It's almost the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because Microsoft could just drop it at that point and shoot in another batch of automated DMCA requests.
Lying in DMCA requests has no legal reprocussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Lying in DMCA requests has no legal reprocussions.
It's not perjury, however intentionally sending massive amounts of takedown requests with no human oversight is gross negligence and defamation.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not perjury, however intentionally sending massive amounts of takedown requests with no human oversight is gross negligence and defamation.
...and, unless the general population starts caring, without consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
If general population caring or not caring was of any consequence, all lawsuits would be between celebrities.
Re:Knock out the spammers (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, AIUI, the part of the DMCA takedown request that is backed under penalty of perjury is that Microsoft owns the copyright to Windows 8. There's nothing in the takedown certifying that the site is in fact infringing on that copyright. Since no one disputes that Microsoft owns the copyright to Windows, there's no perjury. Just annoyance.
Of course, IANAL, etc, etc.
Re:Knock out the spammers (Score:4, Interesting)
They seem to be making claims to XBox games they don't publish as well, e.g.,
Copyright claim #3 SpecOps The Line (XBox360)
Published by 2K Games, developed by Yaegar Development,
Risen 2 Dark Waters (XBOX360)
Published by Deep Silver, developed by Piranha Bytes
Mass Effect 3
Published by EA Games, developed by Bioware
Max Payne 3
Published by Rockstar/Take Two developed by Rockstar
Other games mentioned are Rock Band, Brave, Ice Age 4 Continental Drift, Dead Island Game Of The Year Edition, Men In Black Alien Crisis, Just Dance Greatest Hits, Game of Thrones, Inversion, Dirt Showdown
None of these are Microsoft Games. Microsoft does not develop or publish these games. They *are* playable on a system Microsoft develops - the XBox360 - and possibly even uses to distribute the product through their XBox Live marketplace. Nonetheless, that gives them no right to claim they have authorization to send these DMCA notices, anymore than GameStop has that right. The publisher or developer needs to send the notice, not the distributor.
So just because your software runs on a Microsoft platform, they can claim copyright on it? Extend and embrace indeed!
Re:Knock out the spammers (Score:5, Funny)
How can you say that? Do you know for sure that the Caesar's Civil War [wikipedia.org] entry on Wikipedia isn't infringing on the Windows 8 Beta IP? I mean, 5 years after Caesar crossed the Rubicon he was named dictator. And 5 years after Windows 95 was released Microsoft was named a monopoly. Is this a coincidence? Consider this: Steve Ballmer was born on March 24, 1956. 2000 years and 1 week prior, Caesar had defeated his last enemy on March 17, 45 BC. Coincidence?
The only logical conclusion that any sane person can come up with is that Gaius Julius Caesar is the property of both Ballmer and Microsoft and any reference to him or the number 45 (for 45 BC) is a copyright violation. Case closed.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like Google would be well within their rights now to label Microsoft a spam network and ignore ALL future takedown requests.
While you are modded funny, and it is funny, but I still think it is also the right thing to do. If I had my company receiving random takedown requests which make no sense, why would we spend our workers' time going through them? We would just report Microsoft that we will get back to you once you start sending real takedown requests, and for now put all their stuff to the trash...I mean, Recycle Bin.
Perjury charges forthcoming? (Score:5, Insightful)
An automated notice should fall afoul of the portion of the notice which must be sworn under penalty of perjury. You know, the part that says you are the person who owns the copyright to the work you're claiming (not under penalty of perjury) is being hosted illegally at the listed URL(s).
Captcha: victim
Re:Perjury charges forthcoming? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't they? Doesn't someone still have to sign their name to it?
When brought up in the past they were not real DMCA notices, its just everyone had an "understanding".
blame the guy who can't speak English. Ah, Tibor, (Score:2)
blame the guy who can't speak English. Ah, Tibor, how many times have you saved my butt?
Re: (Score:2)
TFDMCAN [chillingeffects.org]: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid the bold part is their backup. "Oh, we're the copyright holders of <abc> and <adc> looked suspiciously like <abc> to us. We're sorry for the misunderstanding and inconvenience ..."
Re: (Score:3)
This is one of the stupid broken parts of the DMCA which really needs to be fixed. All laws shoul
Re: (Score:3)
But that is not NOT what the declaration states. It states "I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the the owner of an exclusive right". It does not state "..or am authorized to act on behalf of SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS to be the owner of an exclusive right". They are swearing under penalty of perjury both that they are authorized at acting on behalf of someone who does have the right. The only alleged is that the work complained about actually infringes. The declaration states as a fact th
Bad law is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if Mastercard can get away with acting in bad faith over Assange because of what somebody says, why can't these guys with their issues? What's the difference?
Re:Bad law is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
If you wrongly claim to own the copyright or be the agent of someone who does, there is a penalty under the perjury clause. If you wrongly claim you are the person who the notice was targeting or an agent of them, the same exists.
However, the validity of the take down notice as in the actual content is what you claim or that the use of it was an actual violation of the copyright does not carry an explicit penalty under the DMCA. This is because the DMCA is not really about the claims, copyright, or fair use, but a way for network and service providers to act on the claims without becoming liable themselves.
Practically speaking, anyone who is the victim of a fraudulent claim can sue the person who made the claim for damages. If they pretend they are in collusion with the service provider and it wasn't a DMCA take , then the service or network provider that disabled access to the service is not shielded from liability either. Unfortunately, often the damages are far less then the cost of suing or the resources someone might have available to push the buttons.
Re:Bad law is bad (Score:4, Informative)
If you wrongly claim to own the copyright or be the agent of someone who does, there is a penalty under the perjury clause.
Which is what has happened here. Microsoft does not possess any copyright regarding the Wikipedia article on Glock pistols [wikipedia.org]. This is very different from the usual case where overreaching DMCA notices are sent against actual usage of copyrighted material, but where the usage is allowed by law (e.g., under fair use). Here, however, we have the interesting case of a Microsoft representative making a false claim under the penalty of perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
Right usually the cost of doing anything other than complying or ignoring (if you are absolutely certain you are in the right) and DMCA take down request will be far lower than the cost of legally challenging it less the damages you *might* recover. Generally speaking the mercenary thing to do is roll over.
Google though is a different matter. They already have a legal department with salaried IP attorneys. They have business that is highly dependent on eyeballs and the ability to show how content brings
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up some well thought out and accurate in theory points. I don't neccesarily disagree with them but want to add some things.
For Google, while you are correct, is also entwined with copyrights and will rely on the grace of others with copyrights as part of their business model. To this point, I doubt they will be willing to act on the false take down claims unless it's a seriously egregious act that damages their business or business model more then keeping other copyright holders happy helps it. In
Re: (Score:2)
The penalty of perjury applies only to "you are who you say you are" and that you are the owner of the copyright or an agent of the owner. If you are Joe Bloe or Tommy Two-Fingers, and try to pass yourself off as Joe Blow in order to get something taken down, you fall within the scope. However, if you actually are Joe Blow,
Now I can see where needing to be the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder could create a problem when the material in question is not the copyrighted materials it is thou
Well, that will teach Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The bad news is, they're rewriting it in Visual FoxPro.
If it's not already legal to disregard automated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This highlights the point of having a due process for legal claims - bring your claims to court first and when there's a court order on it then it's time to take down the content.
Re: (Score:2)
Due process is so last century...
Re: (Score:2)
But the entire point of the DMCA is to bypass due process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
last paragraph sums it up (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now rightsholders and the anti-piracy outfits they employ have absolutely no incentive to improve the accuracy of their automated takedown systems, so perhaps it’s time for them to be punished?
That is the problem--they have nothing to lose. If automated detection can't differentiate between illegal, fair use, and completely unrelated content (as in this case), then someone needs to be held liable for that junk.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about Fair Use is it's always been a matter for the courts.
Someone may think it's fair use while the rights holder does not, they take it to a judge and let him decide.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The law should be changed such that all DMCA requests must now be signed by a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of the DMCA is to bypass the courts (and due process). If you want to change it so that they must be signed by a judge, then you might as well just get rid of the DMCA entirely (which, personally, I think would be a great idea).
A DMCA takedown notice is theft. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I called a towing company claimed that the car you had parked in your driveway was mine and that I wanted it towed to my house, that would be theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A DMCA takedown notice is theft. (Score:4, Insightful)
A DMCA takedown notice for something that doesn't belong to you is simply theft, and should be treated as such. If the whole purpose of DMCA is to protect the owner of some property, it needs to work both ways.
If I called a towing company claimed that the car you had parked in your driveway was mine and that I wanted it towed to my house, that would be theft.
huh?
This is more like your neighbor called and got your car towed from the front of your house (or driveway). Why they are doing it is because they don't bother to check that the car is yours, and belongs there. And since it's not against the law to call up and get someone else car towed, they are doing it to every car they see.
Now, if I was Google, I'd just start charging for bogus requests. Wouldn't charge for legitimate requests, but charge like $1 or so for every bogus request that comes in. If a place has an outstanding balance of too much, then do not process any more requests from them until they pay up.
Since this is about money, make them pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that if they don't process the requests, they are liable if, in fact, the material is infringing.
Far better still to counter sue for the full extent of costs for taking the content offline, including anticipated ad revenue as well as legal costs (including the $100 2 martini lunches) for suing for any and all claims that are bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more like your neighbor called and got your car towed from the front of your house (or driveway). Why they are doing it is because they don't bother to check that the car is yours, and belongs there. And since it's not against the law to call up and get someone else car towed, they are doing it to every car they see.
OK, if the DMCA situation is more like your analogy than the parent poster's, then it doesn't count as theft - but where do you come up with the claim that it's not against the law to ca
Re: (Score:2)
To infinity and beyond?
Nothing to lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has nothing to lose from this. Removing legitimate sites from Google's index only helps Bing.
Removing Bing from Google's index hurts Mircrosoft. After all, Microsoft's average user needs to use google to find bing...
I did my part and emailed my Senator (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So what did your action gain you? Did your Senator introduce legislation aimed at stopping DMCA abuse or not?
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Subject has made usage of his / her 'Constitutional Rights'...it's obviously a prelude to a new terrorist attack on...*throws dart at board*...Wisconsin.
Hmmm. Fake DMCA takedowns......... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think the RIAA wrote the law in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:at the sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that you should not be automating something that claims to be 100% accurate under penalty of perjury at identifying content on the internet when we know that it's simply not possible to write such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA consequences (Score:3)
After enough strikes the copyright holder should lose their copyright all together and the item should go into the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a nice idea, but the DMCA was written by the copyright holders. The fact that it's full of loopholes which work in their favor is not an accident. The best way to "fix" the DMCA, is to get rid of it entirely. The only reason for it in the first place is to bypass due process.
Free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
At one time, media companies in the US relied on the Free Speech protections like the guarantee in the Constitution to ensure their livelihood. That motivated them to defend free speech rights for everyone.
Media in the US is now mostly controlled by 5 large corporations, and they no longer rely on free speech for their livelihood. In fact in some quarters they now view it as more of a threat.
Title 18 Section 1001 (Score:4, Informative)
From the Law
‘‘ 1312. Oaths and acknowledgments
(a) IN GENERAL.—Oaths and acknowledgments required by this chapter—
(1) may be made—
(A) before any person in the United States authorized by law to administer oaths; or
(B) when made in a foreign country, before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths, or before any official authorized to administer oaths in the foreign country concerned, whose authority shall be proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States; and
(2) shall be valid if they comply with the laws of theState or country where made.
(b) WRITTEN DECLARATION IN LIEU OF OATH.—
(1) The Administrator may by rule prescribe that any document which is to be filed under this chapter in the Office of the Administrator and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath, may be subscribed to by a written declaration in such form
as the Administrator may prescribe, and such declaration shall be in lieu of the oath otherwise required.
(2) Whenever a written declaration under paragraph (1) is used, the document containing the declaration shall state that willful false statements are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, pursuant to section 1001 of title 18, and may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or a registration resulting therefrom.
Title 18 Section 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
It seems that there is law behind throwing someone in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Has a complaint been made? This might be something for the EFF.
The Real News (Score:4, Funny)
The real news here is that somebody would be willing to download Windows 8, pirated or otherwise.
automatic fines for automatic mistakes... (Score:2)
Talk to the lawyers... (Score:3)
Aha! A Private Sector solution! (Score:2)
There are three questions to consider:
Are false accusations of infringement libelous?
Besides The US and the UK, can these false accusations be viewed in any other countries anywhere else in the world?
Does Microsoft have any money?
Actually, I'm surprised this hasn't been tried before.
One way to stop this (Score:2)
Would be to allow a bill back process for every false claim ( and perhaps a fine too ). If the accusers have to pay for mistakes they will be a bit more careful before they start carpet bombing.
Filing a false report (Score:2)
It's fairly obvious at this point that there needs to be a penalty associated with filing false DMCA takedown notices. It could be a financial penalty, or suspension of the right to file for a certain time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations are psychopaths. And what kind of monsters scare psychopaths? Shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
the department/contractor is being paid by the amount of notices.
so I wouldn't be surprised they were eyeballed. but cash is cash.