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

51–60 of 168 posts

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#51

Post by dangrossman »

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…

You only have to send a counternotice and the content is restored after 10 business days. With most companies, you can just send a properly worded e-mail. Others, like Google, have a web form you fill in. The DMCA never forces content in dispute to remain offline indefinitely even if you have zero resources; the complaining party has to go to court to make that happen.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#52

Post by Scaevolus »

lukesandberg wrote: post #15

This is most likely due to a script screwing up. A lot of these companies retain companies that specialize in filing these requests (see: www.google/com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/ for some more details. My limited understanding is that these companies just use google search apis to try to find search results matching keywords. Then they file requests for every matching url. This is how obviously wrong…

Proving bad faith or that someone "knowingly materially misrepresents... that material or activity is infringing" when it's completely automated sounds very difficult.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#53

Post by freehunter »

Natsu wrote: post #22
eli wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowingly filing a false takedown is a crime, but it's pretty hard to prove. This isn't really defamation.

It's supposed to be perjury if they pretend to represent a work they do not, in fact, own. So if I falsely claim that I own Harry Potter and go file DMCA notices, I should get busted. But if I claim that something I actually do own the copyright on is infringed by something that clearly isn't infringing... well, there's nothing in the DMCA penalizing that. In theory there might be some other claim against a person fi…

>But if I claim that something I actually do own the copyright on is infringed by something that clearly isn't infringing... well, there's nothing in the DMCA penalizing that.

Well that's not true. As posted by dangrossman above, the DMCA stipulates penalties if you misrepresent that the material is infringing. You will be liable for damages, including lawyer's fees.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#54

Post by [deleted] »

ghuntley wrote: post #6

Have submitted a counter-complaint (#2-4109000005746) for the following: # curl https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10275257 | grep github https://help.github.com/articles/dealing-with-non-fast-forward-errors/ https://github.com/Zizzamia/ng-tasty https://github.com/zen-kernel/zen-kernel https://github.com/yahoo/pure/releases/ https://github.com/yahoo/pure https://github.com/YabataDesign/afterglow-theme https://gi…

[deleted]

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#55

Post by declan »

If you send bogus DMCA takedown notices, and this qualifies as one, there can be legal consequences. The DMCA requires:

"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

Whoops! This particular list of "infringing" URLs wasn't actually, well, accurate. The problem for whoever sent this bogus takedown (Wicked Pictures or its agent) is that now they can be held liable.

In a case brought by EFF in response to an earlier bogus takedown from Diebold, a federal judge in California held that Diebold could be "liable for damages" -- even though Diebold had by that point withdrawn the takedown request and promised not to send another.

DMCA 512 section (f) says that someone sending bogus takedowns "shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees..." In the Diebold case, Diebold eventually paid EFF something like $125K in lawyer fees.

Note that this situation probably won't get that far. That's because the DMCA doesn't require Google or any other provider to comply with bogus takedown notices. And Google happens to have some smart attorneys (at least one ex-EFF lawyer, in fact) on its payroll who are well aware of that fact.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#56

Post by Zancarius »

Scaevolus wrote: post #52
lukesandberg wrote: post #15

This is most likely due to a script screwing up. A lot of these companies retain companies that specialize in filing these requests (see: www.google/com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/ for some more details. My limited understanding is that these companies just use google search apis to try to find search results matching keywords. Then they file requests for every matching url. This is how obviously wrong…

Proving bad faith or that someone "knowingly materially misrepresents... that material or activity is infringing" when it's completely automated sounds very difficult.

One has to wonder if that's part of the intent.

"Oh, haha, sorry about that. Our automated tool screwed the pooch on that one. We promise we'll do better next time."

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#57

Post by teddyh »

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…

Yes, that law also says that there should be a penalty. The parent poster is complaining about the fact that there isn’t any penalty. (In practice, that is.)
Post reply on HN