Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

chillingeffects.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 168 posts

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#41

Post by usbreply »

markbao wrote: post #31
mcantelon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So one could file a bogus takedown for a competitor's website, etc. Ugh.

It's very unlikely that Google would follow through on an obviously wrong takedown unless if the competitor was actually infringing copyright. EDIT: Well, yes, they did do that here. My bad. My original point was that Competitor A submitting a wanton DMCA takedown against Competitor B wouldn't fly past Google's radar.

Google cannot afford the legal liability of taking decisions on whether a DMCA notice is valid or invalid.

They will take down everything specified in every DMCA notice even if it is obviously bogus, because not doing so opens them up to a lawsuit. (a lawsuit alleging malafide intentions or a lawsuit for harm if they should make a mistake in deciding which part of the DMCA notice to honor and which to ignore.)

It is up to the harmed party (the owner of whatever was taken down) to challenge the DMCA takedown in a court. Once you win in court, Google will restore whatever was removed.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#42

Post by dpifke »

ubernostrum wrote: post #20
Karunamon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal question - If you send a bad DMCA and can't be proven to have sent it in bad faith (so the penalties under that law don't apply), could you still be sued for negligence, loss of business, etc etc? I.e. you didn't break the federal law, but you still damaged me.

(I am not a lawyer, but did read coverage of the SCO lawsuit extensively) Falsely claiming to hold copyright in a work to which you do not hold copyright may open the possibility for slander of title (which was one of the claims in the SCO lawsuit). I would be interested to see some sufficiently-deep-pocketed entity try to use that to turn an automated-DMCA-complaint house into a smoking hole in the ground, pour enco…

Slander of Title (as seen in the SCO case) is generally codified in state law (e.g. Nevada; see http://www.trucounsel.com/index.php/slander-of-title).

Arguably there may be other causes of action, but for a lone a DMCA takedown notice sans any accompanying threats, I believe Federal law would preempt and you're stuck try to meet the bar of intentional malice or negligence.

(IAANAL, but I listen to a lot of Jay-Z songs so I know a little bit.)

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#43

Post by jkrems »

markbao wrote: post #31
mcantelon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So one could file a bogus takedown for a competitor's website, etc. Ugh.

It's very unlikely that Google would follow through on an obviously wrong takedown unless if the competitor was actually infringing copyright. EDIT: Well, yes, they did do that here. My bad. My original point was that Competitor A submitting a wanton DMCA takedown against Competitor B wouldn't fly past Google's radar.

Well, they just took down rust's package manager on Github. That's an obviously wrong takedown. If I understand the system correctly, it actually is designed for "shoot first, ask questions later".

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#44

Post by dangrossman »

chii wrote: post #29
userbinator wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like everything with "wicked", "pushover", "knockout", "lipstick", and other keywords are being targeted. Clearly the work of an automated process and not a human. One of the more amusing URLs that caught my attention is a link to a torrent search site with the query being a single, very generic keyword: "girl". Presumably the results of that search include content they want to remove, so it also got hit.

there really should be a penalty for issuing illegitimate dmca takedowns (beyond some reasonably number - so you don't get scared to do it).

    17 U.S. Code § 512(f)

    Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
    (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
    (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
    shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the
    alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, 
    or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of 
    the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling 
    access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the 
    removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
There probably exist civil law remedies outside the DMCA's protections as well. Tortious interference, slander of title, something that might stick given the specific circumstances and how good your lawyers are. IANAL.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#45

Post by [deleted] »

chii wrote: post #29
userbinator wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like everything with "wicked", "pushover", "knockout", "lipstick", and other keywords are being targeted. Clearly the work of an automated process and not a human. One of the more amusing URLs that caught my attention is a link to a torrent search site with the query being a single, very generic keyword: "girl". Presumably the results of that search include content they want to remove, so it also got hit.

there really should be a penalty for issuing illegitimate dmca takedowns (beyond some reasonably number - so you don't get scared to do it).

[deleted]

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#46

Post by Keysbey »

Animats wrote: post #36

The DMCA notice came from TAKEDOWN PIRACY LLC CA Entity Number: 201034110080 Date Filed: 10/13/2010 Address given to the California Secretary of State's office is: 8045 RETRIEVER AVE LAS VEGAS NV 89147 There is a house at that address. Clark County records ( http://clarkcountydata.com/property/id/iHcTS5Q5V ) show the owners as Clifft Jeremiah J 50% Allegrucci Stephanie L 50% The owners do business as a law firm, Clif…

This reminds me of an episode of This American Life discussing patent trolls and the influx of Texas based lawfirms (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...).

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#48

Post by intortus »

Buge wrote: post #26
lukesandberg wrote: post #11

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/... That page shows all the dmca requests to google that target github.com. Wicked pictures shows up in a number of requests but they are by no means the only copyright holder issuing requests. You can click through to the request pages and get links to chilling effects and it will also tell you which URLs were requested that were _not_ taken down. ChillingE…

So Google removed them all except 3? That seems pretty bad.

If companies didn't remove targets of takedown requests immediately and without scrutiny, then user content on the internet would not be able to exist.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#49

Post by DannyBee »

dangrossman wrote: post #44
chii wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there really should be a penalty for issuing illegitimate dmca takedowns (beyond some reasonably number - so you don't get scared to do it).

17 U.S. Code § 512(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or…

Nobody has successfully gotten anyone fined/real damages for this provision yet.

Partially because it requires knowing misrepresentation, not just negligent or even grossly negligent misrepresentation.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#50

Post by userbinator »

usbreply wrote: post #41
markbao wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very unlikely that Google would follow through on an obviously wrong takedown unless if the competitor was actually infringing copyright. EDIT: Well, yes, they did do that here. My bad. My original point was that Competitor A submitting a wanton DMCA takedown against Competitor B wouldn't fly past Google's radar.

Google cannot afford the legal liability of taking decisions on whether a DMCA notice is valid or invalid. They will take down everything specified in every DMCA notice even if it is obviously bogus, because not doing so opens them up to a lawsuit. (a lawsuit alleging malafide intentions or a lawsuit for harm if they should make a mistake in deciding which part of the DMCA notice to honor and which to ignore.) It is…

I just put a few of those "Adam" URLs into Google Search and they show up in the results. The usual "some results have been removed due to DMCA" notice is not there either, so I think they haven't removed them - or did, and then put them back.

It is up to the harmed party (the owner of whatever was taken down) to challenge the DMCA takedown in a court. Once you win in court, Google will restore whatever was removed.

I doubt anyone has gone to court over the Adam URLs either. Some of those are personal pages (ironically enough, including a law professor: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/levitin-adam-j.cfm ) and it doesn't seem like whoever is responsible for them would even know that they were listed in a DMCA notice.

Post reply on HN