Why do we even waste time and effort for just porn...
DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
81–90 of 168 posts
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#82If 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, accurat…
> 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. Google removed all URLs except 3: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/... In other words, Google i…
[deleted]
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#83Presumably, Takedown Piracy LLC and their client would have to have signed the Sworn Statements on Google's DMCA page [0]: I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. The information in this notification is accurate and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I am the copyright owner or am aut…
Sure, you can take that tiny little shell holding company for all its worth...
If enough of those tiny little shell companies get wrung out to bankruptcy, there won't be any left to act as fronts for this kind of unethical, and illegal, behavior. And, if they are acting on behalf of other companies, that would likely come out in the court proceedings...which could allow taking the suit up the chain to the actual parties who instigated it. One would hope, anyway, though IP law in the US behaves in deeply irrational ways sometimes.
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#84I hear that https://help.github.com/articles/dealing-with-non-fast-forwa... is pretty hot.
[deleted]
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"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."
The wording actually results in "under penalty of purjury" to modify the succeeding part of the sentence, not the preceding part. As a result, the penalties only apply if you act on behalf of another party without authorization.
Penalties would apply for mislabelling content as copyright infringing as well as acting without authorization if the requirement was this along the lines of "a statement, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#86The 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…
I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm missing something. Why is it necessary to post the lawyer's address and point out that it appears to be their home too?
I disagree with you.
These people seem to be fine with taking out perfectly legit content from the internet because they haven't done their research properly. This impacts the hard work so many people have put in, but the complainant hasn't broken the law. The comment you were replying to hasn't broken any laws either.
The DMCA take down system is flawed, and invalid take downs should be penalized at $x.xx per blocked request.
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#87Wow, this is awesome, thank you! It would have taken a half hour to come up with such an extensive list of torrent sites, and here they've done all the hard work for me! Merry Christmas to me! Side note - I'm surprised they've included some pages which do not contain copyrighted work though, they may be exposing themselves on that one.
As I was scrolling through the list, that was my thought too... "Hey, check out all these porn sites I didn't know about!" Then I realized their master plan: they're protecting their business model by (1) making it harder for us to do our work since it's harder for us to find the software libraries/tools we need, and (2) by providing us with a list of porn sites they fill up the time we would've otherwise spent codin…
Some are pretty terrible though. At the bottom of the list there's a link to "the rocki whore picture show". Why would anyone want to create that in the first place? (apart from satisfying the "there's porn version of it on the internet" rule)
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Google removed all URLs except 3: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/... In other words, Google i…
Considering that they get requests for something like 8 million URLs to be removed every week, your ire seems a bit misdirected. Safe harbor has enabled the modern web in many ways, but the DMCA takedown process is still heavily, heavily weighted toward the claimants. It looks more like the URLs not taken down were mostly malformed or duplicates of earlier claims and they took action on the rest. Purposefully not act…
> your ire seems a bit misdirected.
Ire? You are misreading my comment. I merely sought to correct the parent poster’s view that Google would not remove anything partly because they have lawyers who used to work at the EFF. The fact is that Google did remove almost everything, and merely employing people who used to work for the EFF does not cause Google to be the EFF.
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#89This 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…
Rule 34.
Re: DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google
#90Earlier 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.
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.)