Anti-Piracy Outfit Wipes ACE's 'Watch Legally' Page From Google

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: ACE, the world's leading anti-piracy coalition, is facing an unexpected setback after Google removed a page that advises 'pirates' where they can watch content legally. The removal is the result of an erroneous takedown notice from a competing anti-piracy organization and was likely triggered by an ACE domain name seizure. [...] After the "Watch Legally" page was removed from Google search, visitors see the following note [here] at the bottom of the results.

In response to a recent takedown notice, Google removed ACE's "Watch Legally" page for alleged copyright infringement. This action was taken at the behest of Indian anti-piracy outfit AiPlex. The ACE page was repeatedly flagged by AiPlex in recent weeks. In this notice, for example, it's accused of distributing a pirated copy of the film 'Virgin Bhanupriya,' together with sites such as foumovies.pw, afilmyhit.cafe, and yomovies.bid. Why AiPlex flagged a page that's designed to drive traffic to legal services is unclear.

"Let them Fight"

[locater16]

To quote a great man...

Because?

[RitchCraft]

"Why AiPlex flagged a page that's designed to drive traffic to legal services is unclear." - Because AiPlex is not listed as one of (or the only) legal service? I agree with the first poster, let them duke it out. These nutters have been around since "Don't copy that floppy".

Re:cudgel

[Opportunist]

Is there a human involved in ANY step of this process?

No, only lawyers.

Why?

[EvilSS]

Why AiPlex flagged a page that's designed to drive traffic to legal services is unclear.

Gee, I wonder...

The removal is the result of an erroneous takedown notice from a competing anti-piracy organization

I certainly don't want to watch illegally

[CmdrPorno]

So, can they provide me with a list of sites I should NEVER visit so that I can be sure to avoid watching the pirated material they host?

Can we impose consequences?

[rpnx]

Can we PLEASE impose penalties and consequences for people who send takedown notices without performing basic due diligence? Something that can be enforced easily when the notice is clearly frivolous. E.g. statutory penalty of $1k per notice where due diligence wasn't performed and the request was meritless. Automated scanning for infringing websites is fine, but a human needs to check and verify each one.

Re: Can we impose consequences?

[BKX]

We already have that. The problem is that it involves a federal lawsuit to get the payout. Lawyers should be willing to take the cases, given that copyright cases allow for attorney's fees to be shifted to the victor, and there's a statutory minimum damage award of $10000 per false DMCA takedown filed. But people still don't use this provision very often, unfortunately. I know I would, if it were me.

It's like a reverse Alien vs Predator

[Opportunist]

Whoever loses.
We win.

Re:

[alvinrod]

I'll sleep soundly knowing that both organizations will enjoy the experience of trying to talk to a goddamn human being at Google and then finding one that can actually do anything that some automated system won't immediately reverse again.

The point is that it's an anti-piracy organization

[zephvark]

If everyone has access to legal sources, piracy will drop, and they'll lose funding. It's in their best interest to encourage pirating.

AI Sites

[bill_mcgonigle]

Whatever you do, don't create a thousand ML-generated anti-piracy sites and have them constantly file takedown requests against the others.
Don't fight fire with fire when you can fight it with air.