Reckless DMCA Deindexing Pushes NASA's Artemis Towards Black Hole (torrentfreak.com) 83
Andy Maxwell reports via TorrentFreak: As the crew of Artemis 2 prepare to become the first humans to fly to the moon since 1972, the possibilities of space travel are once again igniting imaginations globally. More than 92% of internet users who want to learn more about this historic mission and the program in general are statistically likely to use Google search. Behind the scenes, however, the ability to find relevant content is under attack. Blundering DMCA takedown notices sent by a company calling itself DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc. claim to protect the rights of an OnlyFans/Instagram model working under the name 'Artemis'. Instead, keyword-based systems that fail to discriminate between copyright-infringing content and that referencing the word Artemis in any other context, are flooding towards Google. They contain demands to completely deindex non-infringing, unrelated content, produced by innocent third parties all over the world.
A recent deindexing demand dated December 13, 2022, lists DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc. of Canada as the sender. The name of the content owner is redacted but the notice itself states that the company represents a content creator performing under the name Artemis. The notice demands the removal of 3,617 URLs from Google search. If successful, those URLs would be completely unfindable by more than 92% of the world's population who use that search engine. [...] At least 9 of the first 20 URLs in the notice demand the removal of non-infringing articles and news reports referencing the Artemis space program. None have anything to do with the content the sender claims to protect. [...]
Theories as to who might own and/or operate DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc. aren't hard to find but the company does exist and is registered as a corporate entity in Canada. Registered at the same address is a company with remarkably similar details. BranditScan is a corporate entity operating in exactly the same market offering similar if not identical services. BranditScan has sent DMCA takedown notices to Google under three different notifier accounts.
A recent deindexing demand dated December 13, 2022, lists DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc. of Canada as the sender. The name of the content owner is redacted but the notice itself states that the company represents a content creator performing under the name Artemis. The notice demands the removal of 3,617 URLs from Google search. If successful, those URLs would be completely unfindable by more than 92% of the world's population who use that search engine. [...] At least 9 of the first 20 URLs in the notice demand the removal of non-infringing articles and news reports referencing the Artemis space program. None have anything to do with the content the sender claims to protect. [...]
Theories as to who might own and/or operate DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc. aren't hard to find but the company does exist and is registered as a corporate entity in Canada. Registered at the same address is a company with remarkably similar details. BranditScan is a corporate entity operating in exactly the same market offering similar if not identical services. BranditScan has sent DMCA takedown notices to Google under three different notifier accounts.
If only (Score:5, Insightful)
If only someone had warned that this would happen before the DMCA became active. :/
Re:If only (Score:4, Funny)
No, the lesson here is that NASA should really take a long look at OnlyFans before naming its next mission.
Re: (Score:2)
The Artemis mission was named in 2017 [britannica.com]. Even though OF was created in 2016, it is doubtful the Artemis on OF started before the NASA mission.
The lesson here is stupidity reigns supreme.
Re:If only (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the lesson here is that NASA should really take a long look at OnlyFans before naming its next mission. The Artemis mission was named in 2017 [britannica.com]. Even though OF was created in 2016, it is doubtful the Artemis on OF started before the NASA mission. The lesson here is stupidity reigns supreme.
Not to mention Artemis has been a name for so long it's woven into cultural references with Zues. Some moron grabbing that name as a personality enhancer shouldn't have the right to take down anything to do with the name anywhere, ever. If I start calling myself Loki and put something up on the web as Loki, that doesn't give me permanent rights to using that name and remove that right from everyone else. The DMCA bullshit is as well thought out as any other part of modern society. See a problem, create a solution that'll make everything ten times worse for no real gain. Perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I should have enclosed my comment in [joke] [/joke] tags?
No, you should call yourself google and then send Google a DCMA.
Re: If only (Score:3)
Then again the name Artemis exists in Greek mythology,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If only (Score:2)
I see that if enough improper DMCA takedowns for Artemis occurs then it could be how the DMCA is taken down.
Google should charge a fee for bad faith (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google should charge a fee for bad faith (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The recourse is for the victim to file a counter-notice and after a short period the content goes back up unless the original claimant decides to sue. That's if they even know about it - because Google and the URL are the two entities named in the complaint and a URL doesn't really have direct contact information.
It's a huge undue burden but so is making Google handle it. They would lose safe harbor status if they make a mistake. And it would also be very expensive to add human review.
Re: (Score:2)
this article has established these requests are NOT accurate, and there seems to be no recourse for the victims at all.
The victims can file a DMCA counter notice to get it undone.
The victims could also Sue the notice writer for copyright misrepresentation, But the problem is showing damages, And demonstrating that the person who filed the notices was acting in bad faith/ recklessly..
By suing someone for this you are generally Only able to recover money equal to the damages you suffered. Most of the tim
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would google care to screen DMCA requests? The law requires that they assume the requests are accurate and it's up to the supposedly infringing content to prove that it's not. https://www.copyright.gov/512/ [copyright.gov] for reference.
Companies likely cannot screen DMCA requests for liability reasons. However, if they find that someone is abusing DMCA requests, they absolutely do have a right to sue the abuser. Google has done this at least once [arstechnica.com], and rather recently, at that.
Google should use this as a revenue source. B-) (Score:2)
They should use it as a revenue source. Troll the bogus-DMCA trolls for $ome big buck$.
Maybe let the people hit by the bogus takedowns join the suits as co-plaintifs, boosting the bite by THEIR damages and giving THEM a cut of the swag. (Provide running and lawering the suit as a service, for a cut of the winnings-if-
Re: (Score:1)
Google does not, nor (sadly) does it have a legal obligation to check if a request is infringing. They don't filter this stuff. It would actively cost them money to go through them so they could charge a fee.
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone can submit such request against anybody? There must be some prevention from me submitting a DMCA notice against say Facebook? Or some other law (false pretenses?) that would make me a criminal in such case?
Re: (Score:2)
The party filing a notice of claimed infringement pursuant to section 512 affirms under penalty of perjury that they represent the owner of copyright. That's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
It really should be under penalty of perjury that they reviewed the content and that they believe it is infringing. Such a simple change to the law would wipe this out overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty hard to prove someone does NOT believe something. I wouldn't want to have to litigate that.
Re: (Score:2)
But then these 3rd parties would have to go to court. They would have to raise their fees significantly or improve their algorithms. Winning or not is unimportant - the ability to sue is.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. There should instead be a statutory penalty for an erroneous notice. Errors have a cost, and it ought to be the person who makes the mistake who is responsible for paying.
I would suggest they add to the law a statutory liability for wrongful notices of $1000 plus the damages suffered per Each count of a wrongful notice submitted due to a mistake or error, but filed in good faith, And $10000 or treble damages, whichever amount is greater per wrongful takedown notice submitted without in good f
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest they add to the law a statutory liability for wrongful notices of $1000 plus the damages suffered per Each count of a wrongful notice submitted due to a mistake or error, but filed in good faith, And $10000 or treble damages, whichever amount is greater per wrongful takedown notice submitted without in good faith reviewing the material identified in the notice and alleging it to be infringing only after considering fair use, etc.
That's unreasonable in two different ways. A $1,000 statutory liability far exceeds the statutory royalties owed for various copyright violations, so that's so high that it would discourage individual authors and content creators from defending their copyrights.
A $10,000 statutory liability for failing to do even a modicum of due diligence is way, way too low for what should be perjury, which is a felony.
An exponentially increasing fine (or something like that) is the only fair and just way to prevent abus
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone can submit such request against anybody? There must be some prevention from me submitting a DMCA notice against say Facebook?
Facebook would suffer millions of dollars of damages due to being removed from Google's search index. If someone hypothetically DMCA'd the front page. As the large data-driven company they are, They would actually be able to calculate those damages and demonstrate them in court. Which means that Facebook could actually file a Lawsuit against whoever submitted the fa
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone can submit such request against anybody?
Yes. This was the very widely discussed problem with the DMCA. There is zero obligation for Google to do anything other than take the video down. The onus is then on the original owner of the video to file a DMCA counter claim to have the video put back up. Then there's a notice period after which the the entire debacle ends up in court. You know the one party who doesn't go to court? The platform which hosted the data and processed the DMCA claims.
Yes it's bullshit. Yes it's poorly written. But unfortunate
Re: Google should charge a fee for bad faith (Score:2)
Just make every takedown request cost money.
$100 per takedown would cover some of the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Google probably could do that if they wanted... Take down the items alleged to be infringing, and then send an Invoice after the fact for civil compliance costs.
They can mention the compliance fee on their terms/guidelines page that explains where to send the notice
The DMCA does require the service provider to expeditiously remove material in order to maintain their safe harbor. They can't refuse to takedown material for failure to pay, But there is nothing in the text of the law that says this removal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or have all takedown notices to be filed through a page where each takedown notice request has to be paid for to get attention - pay with credit card or PayPal.
If you bill someone then those billing requests can just bounce, especially when it comes to copyright trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think everybody here would be jumping at the chance to:
1. Create an article, video, or link using the term "artemis"
2. Get it indexed by Google (you can submit your link)
3. Set up advertising so you're getting revenue for it (even pennies will do).
4. Wait for bot to find you and automatically tell Google to deindex you
5. Wait for Google to comply without contacting you
6. Sue for damages.
Re: (Score:1)
life's too short for some things
A few pennies worth. (Score:2)
Your plan is to sue for "damages" on "pennies" worth of income? I see you learning something very soon; why lawyers are both rich and despised.
Crap! (Score:2)
They de-listed my Artemis Gordon fansite!
Priorities (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
When when all mention of the money spent on Artemis, disappears, the US government will either declare war on the moon, or close NASA and funnel the money to their crony corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA wants to get the public engaged? Start naming rockets for dildo brands and do cross-promotion so they can avoid the DMCA take-downs. WIN-WIN!
What's this called? (Score:4, Informative)
A system of government that produces, at the behest of big corporations, despite obvious downsides, and in the face of strong popular opposition, laws to benefit said corporations?
Re: (Score:1)
"capitalism"
Re: (Score:1)
Corporate Socialism.
Re: (Score:1)
Socialism
I don't think you know what that term means.
Let's set up a company in the US (Score:4, Funny)
- Send Google takedown notices for anyone infringing on our name.
- Justice!
Artemis is a Greek goddess (Score:2)
She still exists, as gods are immortal, right?
Thus she does own the copyright on anything "artemis".
NASA will soon get a "cease and desist" letter from Olympus. Or maybe the Gods will send an army of cyclops and titans to maul Cape Canaveral, or to grab the offending vehicle from space.
Re: (Score:3)
But in this case, the claim has never been that the name "Artemis" itself was copyrighted. The DMCA notices were apparently sent out after searching for "Artemis" and then blindly assuming that all links coming up were copyright infringements on works of a person using Artemis as her nom de plume. As there is basically no penalty for false DMCA notices, this was a case of "Shot them all, let God sort them out".
Re: (Score:2)
You can't maul Cape Canaveral. Maul died in the prequels.
Not Based on Law (Score:5, Insightful)
DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It covers copyrights. Not trademarks and not patents.
It is impossible, as a matter of federal law, to copyright a single word, a proper name, or factual information in any combination. This is one among many reasons the titles of various creative works like book titles cannot obtain intellectual property protection except in rare circumstances and even then only as trademarks.
Copyrights do not protect ideas. Further, the name "Artemis" predates the DMCA, the space program and Instagram by some 2500 years, so the notion this name is a recent creative work is ludicrous.
Even if the word "Artemis" were a trademark (in any form), it would only protect its owner in a specific market and only then for the purpose of avoiding confusion among customers as to the origin of a product or service. It confers no power, legal or otherwise, on anyone to bar others from using the word as part of a common idiom.
You would be appalled at how many people (including an alarming number of attorneys) haven't the slightest clue what copyright is, what it is for or how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
I think lawyers are very clued-in to the idea that: DMCA complaint == $$$$. Of course someone (DMCA Piracy Prevention Inc.), is going to make a business out of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the fact that I'm not an IP attorney and I knew this means that the people sending these DMCA complaints likely know exactly what they're doing. They're probably comfortable doing something so blatantly against the law because no one has been significantly penalized for this behavior yet. I hope someone sues them to the moon to finally put
If there was only a way to stop this (Score:2)
These are all filed under penalty of perjury except that part doesn't matter as I don't think anyone has ever been brought up on that charge. What's it going to take to fix this mess?
Re: (Score:2)
These are all filed under penalty of perjury except that part doesn't matter as I don't think anyone has ever been brought up on that charge. What's it going to take to fix this mess?
Change the law to allow owners of non-infringing content to easily recover costs of reinstatement and damages caused by a false take down notice, and not allow "we thought it was infringing" as a defense. Or have hundreds of people file DCMA takedowns against serial violators to monkey wrench them.
Re: (Score:2)
Enforce the law that already exists that makes it a federal crime to file a fraudulent DMCA takedown. Call it perjury.
Re: (Score:3)
Enforce the law that already exists that makes it a federal crime to file a fraudulent DMCA takedown. Call it perjury.
Problem is there are other much more serious crimes that no Federal prosecutor will bother with this; there needs to be a financial penalty that can be enforced civil rather than criminally. Allow filing in the jurisdiction where the content owner who is the subject of teh takedown request resides, set a standard minimum amount and let local courts handle it if tehy don't pay up with a demand letter.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this then: Enough fraudulent takedowns and the copyright is revoked and becomes public domain.
"You can't be responsible with it so you're losing it".
Re: (Score:2)
How about this then: Enough fraudulent takedowns and the copyright is revoked and becomes public domain.
Unfortunately the trolls aren't always the owner of the copyright or acting with the owner's permission or in the way they told the owner they'd "protect" his/her interests.
Re: (Score:3)
The perjury part is only about whether you actually represent who you say you represent, not whether the take down is honest. So as long as this company has been hired by the only fans Artemis, no perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
Then make it so fraudulent takedowns lead to the mandatory revocation of the copyright after enough of them are made.
Re: (Score:2)
Any kind of meaningful punishment would be a huge improvement. Unluckily the writers of the law don't care.
Typo or old news 12/2022 ? (Score:2)
The article states recent request Dec 2022..
very 1990's (Score:2)
Artemis is a has been DnB artist that most have totally forgottern about.
If we start banning every name used by a has been tom dick and larry from being used again
we ain't done with the idiots for quite a long time.
This is a moon mission and noone has a right to butt in .. imagine .. no .. sorry .. due to copyright issues the lander will come right back until we find it another name."
" The eagle has landed
Bunch of morons and shame on Artemis for calling this shot.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bunch of morons and shame on Artemis for calling this shot."
Bunch of morons agreed, but I don't think Artemis the, um,,, artist? called this shot. DMCA Piracy Prevention, Inc is this century's version of patent trolls.
The Actual Problem. (Score:2)
"More than 92% of internet users who want to learn more about this historic mission and the program in general are statistically likely to use Google search."
Just your average everyday ordinary DCMA problem to bitch about. No monopoly to see here. Nope. Not at all. Not now, or ever.
Incredible how we'll just glean over the not-a-monopoly problem with such ease these days. Seems to me you could address the concern by breaking up the competition-crushing entity...
Reverse... (Score:2)
The Ancient Greeks ... (Score:2)
We need legal penalties (Score:2)
Right now there is nothing to restrict dmca takedown abuse. Law firms that are abusing the system should be held liable with severe penalties. Money is all they understand.
I totally expect... (Score:2)
Liable (Score:2)
Black hole ? (Score:2)
I keep telling people (Score:1)
DMCA has next to no actual teeth. Most DMCAs can be completely ignored, because they aren't actually based on any legal wrongdoings. And there is no protection or retribution against false DMCA claims.
Only 8% of people not using Google (Score:2)