Google Asked to Hide TorrentFreak Article Reporting that 'The Mandalorian' Was Widely Pirated (torrentfreak.com) 72
The file-sharing blog TorrentFreak reports:
Google was asked to remove a TorrentFreak article from its search results this week. The article in question reported that "The Mandalorian" was the most pirated TV show of 2020.
This notice claims to identify several problematic URLs that allegedly infringe the copyrights of Disney's hit series The Mandalorian. This is not unexpected, as The Mandalorian was the most pirated TV show of last year, as we reported in late December. However, we didn't expect to see our article as one of the targeted links in the notice. Apparently, the news that The Mandalorian is widely pirated — which was repeated by dozens of other publications — is seen as copyright infringement?
Needless to say, we wholeheartedly disagree. This is not the way.
TorrentFreak specifies that the article in question "didn't host or link to any infringing content." (TorrentFreak's article was even linked to by major sites including CNET, Forbes, Variety, and even Slashdot.)
TorrentFreak also reports that it wasn't Disney who filed the takedown request, but GFM Films... At first, we thought that the German camera company GFM could have something to do with it, as they worked on The Mandalorian. However, earlier takedown notices from the same sender protected the film "The Last Witness," which is linked to the UK company GFM Film Sales. Since we obviously don't want to falsely accuse anyone, we're not pointing fingers.
So what happens next? We will certainly put up a fight if Google decides to remove the page. At the time of writing, this has yet to happen. The search engine currently lists the takedown request as 'pending,' which likely means that there will be a manual review. The good news is that Google is usually pretty good at catching overbroad takedown requests. This is also true for TorrentFreak articles that were targeted previously, including our coverage on the Green Book screener leak.
This notice claims to identify several problematic URLs that allegedly infringe the copyrights of Disney's hit series The Mandalorian. This is not unexpected, as The Mandalorian was the most pirated TV show of last year, as we reported in late December. However, we didn't expect to see our article as one of the targeted links in the notice. Apparently, the news that The Mandalorian is widely pirated — which was repeated by dozens of other publications — is seen as copyright infringement?
Needless to say, we wholeheartedly disagree. This is not the way.
TorrentFreak specifies that the article in question "didn't host or link to any infringing content." (TorrentFreak's article was even linked to by major sites including CNET, Forbes, Variety, and even Slashdot.)
TorrentFreak also reports that it wasn't Disney who filed the takedown request, but GFM Films... At first, we thought that the German camera company GFM could have something to do with it, as they worked on The Mandalorian. However, earlier takedown notices from the same sender protected the film "The Last Witness," which is linked to the UK company GFM Film Sales. Since we obviously don't want to falsely accuse anyone, we're not pointing fingers.
So what happens next? We will certainly put up a fight if Google decides to remove the page. At the time of writing, this has yet to happen. The search engine currently lists the takedown request as 'pending,' which likely means that there will be a manual review. The good news is that Google is usually pretty good at catching overbroad takedown requests. This is also true for TorrentFreak articles that were targeted previously, including our coverage on the Green Book screener leak.
Within their rights, but the name doesn't help (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Within their rights, but the name doesn't help (Score:5, Insightful)
For every takedown notice they will get more attention.
So there's a point in having the name "Torrentfreak".
Also - if a show is on the top list of being pirated maybe the content creator should consider two things:
1. The show is what the customers want.
2. Offer legal ways that aren't horribly convoluted to actually get the content. I don't want a Disney+ subscription with bloat, I'd prefer to get it on Blu-Ray or other means where I can watch at will, even more than once without being overloaded with bloat.
Re:Within their rights, but the name doesn't help (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't want a Disney+ subscription with bloat, I'd prefer to get it on Blu-Ray or other means where I can watch at will, even more than once without being overloaded with bloat.
I splurged on a Disney+ subscription this year in order to watch the Mandalorian, and have been surprised at how much additional content from them I have watched and overall I consider it value for money.
If by bloat you mean the ESPN and Hulu bundles, well they are easy to avoid. But of by bloat you mean content from demographics and/or franchises that you are not inclined to watch, IMHO that is something you won't be able to avoid on any streaming service as they all try to cast a wide net in appealing to as many different people as possible.
And while I understand your argument about owning vs renting, I personally find that I rarely (if ever) go back and rewatch movies - partly because there is so much good/entertaining content out there stretching back almost 100 years that there is no way I can ever exhaust watching it all . So buying doesn't make sense for me. And I say that as someone who has a collection of various DVDs that collecting dust, none of which I have opened up and watched in over last 5 to 10 years.
Re: (Score:3)
There's also the simple fact that the fracturing of the marketplace hasn't been good/functional for consumers. It's one thing to have healthy competition - Hulu vs Netflix vs Amazon Prime, plus a couple of more specialty networks (HBO, Starz). I
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but when you get done with the show you wanted, and want to cancel? They try to make it as painful and time-wasting as possible. The "streaming" market needs regulation, to require companies to make it simple and easy for people to cancel their subscription.
Where have you had issues with cancelling a streaming service? I signed up to Hulu and HBOMax+ at the start of the year solely to watch WW84. After watching that and then noting that there was not that much compelling content on them for me I cancelled. All it took was a couple of mouse clicks.
There's also the simple fact that the fracturing of the marketplace hasn't been good/functional for consumers. It's one thing to have healthy competition - Hulu vs Netflix vs Amazon Prime, plus a couple of more specialty networks (HBO, Starz). It's another to have the number of different streaming services flying up past a dozen, because a bunch of companies decided they all wanted their own personal piece of the pie, and every fucking one wanting $12-15 per month.
The Balkanization of the streaming services is a valid issue, and there are shows that I choose not to watch because I am not going to sign up for yet another service.
Consumers learned before what a ripoff cable and satellite were. This level of fracturing is just the "access packages" all over again, nobody wants to get hit for $12-15 a month just to watch one specific show to keep up with their social group who are watching it, just like nobody wanted to pay an extra $20-40 a month to go past the baseline cable/satellite packages and actually get channels like BBC America or Discovery.
I watch shows because I enjoy watching them. I
Re:Within their rights, but the name doesn't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Crappy service pushes people towards piracy. [escapistmagazine.com] Every time a customer is frustrated because the interface sucks? That's a customer pushed towards piracy. Every time a customer is pissed that a specific streaming service doesn't support their device? That's a customer pushed towards piracy. Every time a customer is already paying-level but then starts seeing ads every 2-3 minutes, and at random places in the middle of scenes rather than at obvious ad-break moments? (see also: Youtube and especially Hulu) That's a customer pushed towards piracy. Why? Because the pirate versions will be less frustrating.
To say nothing of all the PC gamers who have been pushed towards piracy over the years when DRM on games (or even fucking music CDs) literally either (a) didn't work or (b) turned out to be a giant rootkit [networkworld.com]...
Streaming companies are businesses, not charities. Their motive is not to provide content, but to maximize shareholder returns by providing content.
Which really makes you wonder... why would they not do the research? Understand what the forces are that push people out of their products? Understand that better customer service, and a better product, would keep people around longer?
Re: (Score:1)
This is the teardown of the industry, forced evolution similar to the CD biz you mentioned. Their model collapsed from $25 albums with 2 decent songs to $10/month Streaming service that has maybe 80% of the music you want to listen to and a whole crapload of other stuff (standup, podcasts) for you to discover thrown in for free.
I love the information-theory approach to this. The actual data people wanted on those old albums was very small. That's why the mp3 and piracy destroyed the old model. Pirated
Re: (Score:2)
They try to make it as painful and time-wasting as possible.
Stop paying the bill. I'm sure they'll get the message.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> I don't want a Disney+ subscription with bloat, I'd prefer to get it on Blu-Ray or other means where I can watch at will, even more than once without being overloaded with bloat.
What exactly do you mean by "bloat"? It's actually quicker to to fire up Disney+ and select a show than it is to piss around unwrapping a Bluray, opening it up, walking over to the drive, sticking it in the drive, switching to your Bluray player, jumping through annoying menus and "previews" and other such shit before finally p
Re: (Score:3)
I think really you're just clinging onto the past a bit too much if anything, because as "bloat" goes, Bluray discs have far more of it compared to ad free instant access services Disney+, and frankly Blurays are nearly always significantly more expensive too. About the only use case where the Bluray would be cheaper for a typical show like this is if you want to space it out watching maybe a couple of episodes every single month for many months on end - if you want to watch it multiple times, and you're going to get through it in a month when you do, which is probably fairly typical usage, then odds are it's just cheaper to resubscribe for a month each time you want it.
And all that ignores the fact you get about a billion other pieces of content, whether it's basically ever Star Wars film and TV series ever, every Marvel film and TV series, or the large and growing Fox back catalogue which will include all the Alien and Terminator stuff through to classic comedies like Office Space.
But sure, keep buying your Blurays, because DRM smothered Blurays riddled with ads and shitty menus are oh-so consumer friendly and "bloat" free.
Amazing despite massive distribution cost disparity of modern Internet based electronic distribution vs physical discs the physical media is actually way cheaper, of much higher quality and represent the largest available selection vs electronic purchases.
If you want to buy music CDs are still cheaper and more available than electronic downloads. The same goes for electronic movie purchases vs disc.
Streaming services go out of their way to advertise shit like 4k HDR yet what they actually push out is CBR e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, stop watching it. Even pirating it signals how popular it is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. (Score:5, Funny)
The Madalorian is not the most pirated thing. The most pirated thing is Barbara Streisand.
Re: I disagree. (Score:2)
Thanks for making me laugh. :D
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Funny)
Are you ok?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If it's a DMCA notice, they have a duty to obey it no matter how ridiculous it is. It's up to the publisher to dispute the notice to have the article restored. Should it be this way? Probably not - but it's not Google's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't a DMCA notice.
Re: (Score:3)
It absolutely was [lumendatabase.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh ok, I was wrong.
Stop saying "pirated"! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are contributing to crime.
Using that word for that meaning, was literally... and I mean *literally* thought up by the organized crime (content mafia) to make people think of stealing actual things, murdering and raping people ... when they think of the act of copying data or spreading information without paying protection money to the thugs that abuse creative peope and steal everybody's money without doing any other work for it, other than snorting cocaine and (ab)using "prostitutes".
And the last two things are based on personal observation in the "industry" that can be backed up in court. So do not mistake them for mere insults.
Don't be a criminal. Don't say "pirated".
Re:Stop saying "pirated"! (Score:5, Insightful)
They tried but modern day pirates claimed it for themselves, most famously with The Pirate Bay.
A lot like those "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR" ads. Maybe not but I'd damn well download one if I could.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Link to that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg [youtube.com]
Re:Stop saying "pirated"! (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot like those "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR" ads. Maybe not but I'd damn well download one if I could.
Yeah I used to joke about this before I bought a 3D printer. Man I need to be able to route a small gap out of a piece of wood, off to Amazon, $50 fucking dollars for a small plastic "router attachment" for a dremel... off to thingyverse, download a model, $0.78 cost for ABS and 2.5 hours print time is far better.
Re: (Score:3)
Then the plan failed. Pirates are cool.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using that word for that meaning, was literally... and I mean *literally* thought up by the organized crime (content mafia)
You don't help your case for proper and careful use of language by calling the entertainment industry "organized crime". If you say you believe that copyright, protections are overbroad and wrong, I agree with you, but enforcing your legal rights is explicitly not "crime", nor is using perfectly-legal lobbying to expand those rights.
And racist? (Score:1)
Using that word for that meaning, was literally... and I mean *literally* thought up by the [...]
What do you think about the word "racist"?
Or "conspiracy theorist"? Or "without evidence"? Or "homophobe"? Or "Nazi"?
Re: (Score:2)
You are contributing to crime.
Jesus fucking christ you've gone off the rails.
Re: (Score:2)
"And the last two things are based on personal observation in the 'industry' that can be backed up in court."
Oh great - an anecdote. Let me put that right on the stack of things with which it belongs. I'll make a trip to the curb later. Got any other huge groups you'd like to sum up based on next to nothing?
You know, all Native Americans walk in single file. The one I saw certainly did.
Re: Stop saying "pirated"! (Score:2)
Disney richly deserves copyright infringement (Score:5, Interesting)
As the people who helped bring us the mickey mouse protection act, and abuse copyright to the fullest extension of the laws they paid good money for,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Disney deserves every bit of the copyright infringement that happens.
As for Google, they will do what's most profitable. So the resolution depends on how much money they make from Disney.
Re:Disney richly deserves copyright infringement (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice going, shill.
Your UID is suspiciously high, and you're attempting to divert criticism of actually deeply harmful stuff Disney has done into pointless arguing about identity politics. You're clearly a paid shill.
Re: (Score:2)
News (Score:3)
It was actually too pirated for my taste. (Score:3)
Fuck this shit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just load up a hard drive with all the episodes you can, and then have people pass it around? You can destroy the whole economy in one fell swoop!
Re: (Score:2)
didn't we have an article about some guy's script-on-a-board that was just downloading a song to /null nonstop...
Watch out Slashdot (Score:1)
You are reporting on a report that was taken down.
This is all old news (Score:3)
Now let's talk about "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier"
Once again, never had Disney+.
Probably never will bother.
Unless I can get a one month free trial so I can watch what I want for free, and then cancel.
But there isn't enough content (that I want to see) there to justify even a month of membership (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all of The Muppet Show not enough? (I think a couple 'Problematic' episodes are excluded')
Re: (Score:3)
ah, just a message added: "This programme includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures, These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now." so not even really censored.
Re: (Score:2)
But there isn't enough content (that I want to see) there to justify even a month of membership (yet).
I see you don't have children.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the concept of subscriptions required to watch a single one-off show. However, there are currently two seasons available for a total of 16 episodes. A one-month subscription would be equal to a 50 cent rental price per episode, which does sound reasonable. There are three shows I like on Hulu. I pay for one month per year after all 3 have fully landed.
What I would like is an option to purchase 1 month without recurring billing.
Re: (Score:2)
But there isn't enough content (that I want to see) there to justify even a month of membership (yet).
Not even on Star (all the adult content rather than the kids stuff) which you get automatically with Disney+?
We recently cancelled our Netflix subscription in favour of Disney+.
Re: (Score:2)
Great (Score:5, Funny)
Disney are Pirating Star Wars Anyway (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/1... [sfwa.org]
So, sauce for the goose would be sauce for the gander.
All day every day? (Score:4, Informative)
Google must get a neverending stream of demands that they remove content that some people find inconvenient. They must be good at ignoring those by now.
At one point (maybe still?) they would even publish DMCA demands, which included the offending link, providing a strong disincentive to abuse their process.
Better than the law, which still doesn't haul attorneys before judges for filing false claims. The incentives are all structured to promote abuse (basically corporate welfare).
When they are regulated as utilities. This BS stop (Score:2)
When they are regulated as utilities. This BS stops and they may be an real judge to look over the request
Mandalorian still not on disc? (Score:2)
Curious to know how many Mandalorian DVDs (fake unauthorized rips off Disney streaming service) have been sold so far between Amazon and eBay?
Judging from impressive packaging quality, high pricing and ratings of these titles Disney must be losing millions in sales they could have made had they not intentionally withheld releases in order to maximize uptake of Disney streaming services.
This industry is sprinting toward a future of total vertical integration.
Don't be silly: dubloons (Score:2)
...are the most-pirated thing, obviously.
I can see that the "most pirated" thing is simply going to be the "most popular", nearly 100% of the time.
But the interesting statistics for me, which probably can't be had, would be whether Disney, Amazon, and (distant third?) Apple, get more piracy than the average for shows of the same popularity, because people hate those monopolistic companies for their non-streaming-departmental behaviour, going back decades.
Not so much that somebody would gratuitously download