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

131–140 of 168 posts

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#131

Post by aptwebapps »

sarciszewski wrote: post #90
otterley wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard is one of actual knowledge -- so it's really difficult to enforce when a computer program is most likely generating the lists, and probably not being reviewed in detail.

Shouldn't automated takedowns be considered null and void? If so, is there a way to allow firms that are known to send bogus automated takedowns be blacklisted? (i.e. you can always ignore them, if they try to push anything, you just point to their history of automated processes) Something. Anything. To discourage this behavior. To hit them where it hurts. (The wallet.)

Whenever I hear about automated takedowns I think of the Gibson short story "Burning Chrome".

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#132

Post by TeMPOraL »

sarciszewski wrote: post #129
TeMPOraL wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should. But MAFIAA loves automated takedowns, and they don't care if they're valid either. So it's likely not going to happen.

Fuck the MAFIAA, they're not the only one who matters. This is a problem for any US company.

Well, "any US company" can't coordinate well enough with "any other US company" to bribe the Congress and fix it, therefore they fall prey to the ones that can coordinate to maintain the status quo.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#133

Post by sarciszewski »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #132
sarciszewski wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck the MAFIAA, they're not the only one who matters. This is a problem for any US company.

Well, "any US company" can't coordinate well enough with "any other US company" to bribe the Congress and fix it, therefore they fall prey to the ones that can coordinate to maintain the status quo.

True. I guess the only recourse is to revolt, roll out the guillotine, and solve the RIAA/MPAA problem the old fashioned way.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#134

Post by morganvachon »

dsl wrote: post #69
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…

Here is the owners Twitter... https://twitter.com/tdpnate They seem to be based out of Las Vegas and almost exclusively cater to the adult and amateur wrestling industries.

I noticed he posted a Jackie Chan meme in his feed. Maybe Jackie Chan should sue him for using his image without his permission.

(Yes, I know we all use those memes and it's more or less accepted by the subjects, even embraced by some. Just making a point.)

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#135

Post by TeMPOraL »

sarciszewski wrote: post #133
TeMPOraL wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "any US company" can't coordinate well enough with "any other US company" to bribe the Congress and fix it, therefore they fall prey to the ones that can coordinate to maintain the status quo.

True. I guess the only recourse is to revolt, roll out the guillotine, and solve the RIAA/MPAA problem the old fashioned way.

If you can organize a revolt, it means you can coordinate enough to at least try and fix the problem without (much) bloodshed.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#136

Post by jrochkind1 »

Doji wrote: post #34
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.

Unfortunately not every company has Google's ability to manually sift through every bogus takedown request thrown their way.

> Unfortunately not every company has Google's ability to manually sift through every bogus takedown request thrown their way.

Is there any evidence at all that Google actually manually sifts through every takedown (or even any takedown), or is everyone just speculating that they must because they Google?

I have no idea, but if we actually have evidence or public statement from Google to that effect, I'd be interested. And I definitely wouldn't assume it without that. But lots of people in these comment threads seem to be doing so (unless there's some widely known reports or evidence I don't know about?)

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#137

Post by userbinator »

Natsu wrote: post #17
dbaupp wrote: post #4

This removes a variety of projects from Google search results, including ones from Mozilla (specifically, Rust), Facebook, Yahoo, Netflix, openSUSE, as well as github documentation, e.g. - https://github.com/yahoo/pure - https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo - https://github.com/openSUSE/wicked - https://github.com/Netflix/Lipstick - https://github.com/facebook/rebound - https://help.github.com/articles/dealing-with-non…

Actually, this was sent by "Takedown Piracy LLC" working on behalf of Wickedpictures. They file DMCA notices by the truckload according to the results I get in Chilling Effect's search, so you can safely assume they're a DMCA notice spammer. Unfortunately, it does not list the individual lawyer who signed off on this complaint, or I would be tempted to draft a letter to their local bar association pointing out how ca…

Wicked might be paying them to do it, and if they're charging "per infringing URL removed", it makes a lot of sense that they're trying to get as many removed as possible. Wicked might also be a victim in this case.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#139

Post by johnlbevan2 »

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…

Tried to find out what IANAL meant, but Google had no results as all records with certain substrings had been removed at Wicked's request.

Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

#140

Post by johnlbevan2 »

otterley wrote: post #73
dangrossman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The standard is one of actual knowledge -- so it's really difficult to enforce when a computer program is most likely generating the lists, and probably not being reviewed in detail.

Send one communication saying "your bot is clearly throwing up false positives; take action to investigate & remediate, ceasing all bot usage until implemented". Now they're aware / can't claim lack of knowledge. Give them a week or two to read the mail & turn the bot off, then any subsequent requests charge them for. If the fine's based on damages, charge them for all employees time taken to trawl through removing all spammy requests / for the cost of the team on your side who have to develop the automated filters.
Post reply on HN