Copyright Takedown Requests to Google Doubled In 2013 117
Daniel_Stuckey writes "Last month, a company working on behalf of the publisher Random House, asked Google to remove links to a free copy of Stephen King's Carrie from search results. Google complied for three out of the four requested links, but didn't remove Kim Dotcom's new website Mega.co.nz as requested — for even if Mega is hosting pirated copies of Carrie, they sure aren't on the homepage. But leaving that link up was an exception to the rule. More and more, copyright owners and the organizations they employ are cutting off where the websites and the public meet — the search engine. Google's transparency reports show that requests to remove links to copyrighted material rose steadily in 2013. The search giant received 6.5 million requests during the week of November 18, 2013, which is over twice as many as the same week a year ago. Google said it complies with 97 percent of requests."
I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).
DMCA Counter-notice (Score:5, Informative)
Really? [lmgtfy.com]
Re:DMCA Counter-notice (Score:5, Informative)
Previous music distribution site owner here(www.hulkshare.com). Dealt with this kind of nonsense all the time. Hundreds of DMCA bots sending thousands of notices daily - and not just to us but our bandwidth providers as well. DMCA takedown bots are best countered with identical tactics.
Example: User signs up for you to host their files. Part of the EULA is that the owner in good faith asserts his or her content is theirs, or legally distributable by them. This allow you to automate responses to the DMCA bots, the moment the takedown notice comes in, your automation sends the appropriate rebuttal informing them that you also act in good faith that the content is legally able to be distributed via your site. This gives the original DMCA sender N days to challenge your own DMCA challenge. The act(and documentation of the act) of sending this response nullifies their request. You always CC your upstream bandwidth provider as well. Once you get these notices, you have 24 hours to react - and you can be reasonably sure they also received the same request you did. If they don't see you handling it, they will cut your access off(and presumably your entire site) to avoid legal action against them for not complying with the request.
When I ran things, we employed someone full time to sift through DMCA notices to find counter-notices to our original rebuttals. Those ones you actually had to act on, or you'll lose your ass in court - and they _will_ take you. Grandma and Grandpa may just get nasty letters and requests for money - but once they know they have a business with pockets (deep or not) on the hook, you can expect civil filings. If you ignore a 2nd notice in response to your rebuttal, you'll get a notice for obstructing their original notice by sending a false rebuttal - and a notice that a civil case is pending against John Doe. Shortly after expect a 1) summons 2) request for discovery of 'John Doe', and finally 3) a 'deal' you can settle for to avoid your sites' name ending up in civil court.
The only way to fail with DMCA takedowns is to ignore them. After 24 hours without either 1) removing content, or 2) sending appropriate challenge: they will have your upstream bandwidth provider cut you off(and be within their "legal rights" to do so, whatever passes for those these days).
Re:THE SOLUTION ! (Score:4, Informative)
If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.
You might want to seek legal advice before attempting this. Get a photo of the lawyer's face on hearing your plan.
But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)
Prosecution is pretty rare. Still, if you have a person acting on your behalf, claiming you can act in bad faith is like saying you can get away with burglary if you manage to convince some else to break in to a house under the pretence that it's your house and you forgot your keys. Again, suggest this to the lawyer and check their facial expressions. The consultation will cost money, but the resulting photos could form a new meme!