Spotted over at Popehat, an article on the bizarre "recursive DMCA" strategy being pursued by Spanish firm Ares Rights.
When we encountered Ares they were trying to scrub discussions of Ecuador's spying practices through bogus DMCA notices. More recently Ares Rights abused the DMCA to suppress reporting on Ecuadoran corruption.
Now — because the internet is all about shoving everything up its own ass, as Jeff Winger would say — Ares Rights is sending out frivolous DMCA demands trying to silence discussion of its use of frivolous DMCA demands. Ares Rights responded to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's blog post about their abuse with, as Adam Steinbaugh reports, sending a DMCA notice demanding removal of the blog post. If that's not meta enough for you, now Ares Rights has issued a DMCA notice seeking to take down Adam Steinbaugh's blog post discussing their DMCA notice targeting the EFF's blog post discussing their prior DMCA notices..
Of course, this assumes the Popehat article hasn't been taken down with a DMCA notice to stop the discussion of the DMCA notice, about the DMCA notice, on the DMCA notice...
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday September 05 2014, @02:56AM
even this acronym
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @05:29PM
the EFF should issue a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP hosting Ares Rights website and email saying that Ares Rights is violating copyright
what copyrights exactly, well who cares... its for the courts to work out
as long as Ares Rights is taken offline for the duration
fuckers
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Friday September 05 2014, @02:57AM
No, its not enough; I want to see a "ARES stack overflow coredump".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday September 05 2014, @05:08AM
in regards to Ares Rights, it is turtles^wDMCA notices all the way down.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2, Interesting) by novak on Friday September 05 2014, @03:11AM
Let's face it, this is a bunch of people with power trying to make the world a more totalitarian place. This has nothing to do with the totally legit business of protecting the patents and copyrights of people who died decades ago. It's to the point where you can't even pry it from cold dead hands...
novak
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday September 05 2014, @03:51AM
Until there is some serious legal and financial penalty for bogus take downs the situation is going to get worse over time.
To my way of thinking, $10,000 for the first bogus take down, 100,000 for the second (because your lawyer did't learn his lesson the first time), and you loose there right to issue takedowns from there on out (because you clearly will never learn).
The no takedown list. I could get use to that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @04:19AM
There are hundreds of thousands of bogus take downs filed every month with google alone.
I'm totally good with your penalties but that will never pass the mafiaa's representatives in congress.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Friday September 05 2014, @07:38AM
Yet, there are heavy penalties for filing frivolous tax returns...
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @04:37AM
You said what I came to say.
I saw an item just today that MAFIAA is demanding that Kim Dotcom take down his own album from his own site.
Not unlike a SLAPP. [wikipedia.org]
Shakespeare had it right: First we kill all the lawyers.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Friday September 05 2014, @05:10AM
I think there actually are serious teeth for wrongful use of the DMCA but for whatever reason (cost, I imagine) it's never enforced.
The only time I can remember it actually happening was when a judge forced Michael Crook to apologise to the internet [youtube.com] as a part of his settlement.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @05:42AM
> I think there actually are serious teeth for wrongful use of the DMCA but for whatever reason (cost, I imagine) it's never enforced.
That only kicks in after a counter-claim. As long as the initial claim is made "in good faith" which is an absurdly low bar there are no penalties. But the counter-claim must be filed under oath so there is a threat of perjury for any defense. And then, and only then, if the original filer responds to the counter-claim do they risk perjury too.
So the deck is stacked in favor of the mafiaa.
(Score: 2) by hankwang on Friday September 05 2014, @06:53AM
"To my way of thinking, $10,000 for the first bogus take down, 100,000 for the second"
I think this would invite for undesired side effects as well: people setting up DMCA boobytraps, upload content that looks like infringement but isn't according to law. Wait for the DMCA notice, file a complaint, and drive the mistaken rights holder into massive expenses.
I did once file a DMCA complaint when a blogger had copy-pasted a big chunk of a web page that I authored. I wouldn't dare to do so if I had to know exactly how fair-use is interpreted in practice, with a $10 k penalty if I'm wrong.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by lhsi on Friday September 05 2014, @07:40AM
Surely in a civilised society, people would discuss without lawyers on whether they think what they are doing falls within fair use or not and why.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @05:24PM
When you find a civilized society, let me know. That ship sailed when people found out they could do their 2 favorite things together: fuck people over and make money from it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @08:59AM
Here's what I'll say to that: fuck 'em. If the lawyers they hired are dumb enough to fall for such a trap, then they deserve the fines. As it is, no one is careful about filing these things since there is no real penalty for fraudulent DMCA notices, and as such we get shotgun use of the law the way we have today.
And perhaps that's exactly what you should have been forced to do. The exercise of copyrights is an abridgement of the right to freedom of speech, and the United States used to be known for valuing that freedom very highly. Abridging such a civil right should not be done lightly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deathlyslow on Friday September 05 2014, @01:13PM
And perhaps that's exactly what you should have been forced to do. The exercise of copyrights is an abridgement of the right to freedom of speech, and the United States used to be known for valuing that freedom very highly. Abridging such a civil right should not be done lightly.
Oh we still do value it highly. We just don't have the balls to claim it back from the scum who have been allowed to take it from us. Among other rights that have been allowed to be given away. I don't know of a single right that has been taken, you can't take what is freely given. We've turned into a bunch of pansies that won't stand up to any purported authority. I think it's time for an uprising, armed if me must but an uprising none the less.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 05 2014, @05:12PM
The exercise of copyrights is an abridgement of the right to freedom of speech, and the United States used to be known for valuing that freedom
As it applies in the United States:
Copyright is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.
Freedom of speech is but a mere afterthought, tacked onto the constitution.
You have the cart before the horse.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Friday September 05 2014, @10:16AM
There's a simple solution: draw a distinction between bad-faith takedown notices, and good-faith-but-wrong takedown notices. This sort of thinking already happens in law. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 05 2014, @11:47AM
I would suggest a finer grained penalty. The 10G would be for cases where the work isn't yours at all (like when professor Usher was threatened over Usher.mp3, a recording of his lectures). A lesser penalty and points towards the 'no file list' for works that ARE yours but obviously within fair use. No fine and fewer (but not zero) points where there is some legal ambiguity about fair use. Double penalty and immediate lposting to the 'no file list' if you file a takedown against something you posted yourself (yes, it has happened).
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday September 05 2014, @02:08PM
I suggest abolishing copyright. Then all this DMCA takedown nonsense would no longer have anything to stand on.
See how hard it is to figure out infringement, and appropriate penalties? What I'm trying to say is that the entire idea of punishment for supposed infringement is the wrong approach. Encourage copying, don't punish it. Pay artists by other means such as patronage. Move the fighting to that point, after the work is finished and released. Where the fighting is now is too early. Ideas get strangled before they can be expressed and published, which hurts us all. And why? Because that might hurt someone else's chances to make a profit in the future. We have no idea how much of a profit, so it forces us to extrapolate and just guess. That has lead to completely wild claims that are disconnected from all reality, such as the RIAA lawsuit against Limewire in which they figured $75 _trillion_ was about the amount they were supposedly damaged, and their lawsuit against Jammie Thomas in which penalty amounts were all over the place, ranging from the completely absurd $1.92 million to the still nutty $54,000, all while people noted that a single audio CD could hold the 24 songs she was accused of "making available", and the penalty for shoplifting a CD would be only a few hundred dollars.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 05 2014, @04:47PM
Just once, I'd like to see a business case (by someone who has actually run a business) for the use of patronage.
Patronage never did work to any significant extent, it guaranteed art and music and literature only to the rich. it made paupers of those it employed, it can't possibly scale, and it is the principal reason we have such a dearth of art an music from certain periods of history.
The same people who rail against corporations fail to realize that only an Exxon or a Google could afford even one high paid artist on their payroll who didn't produce anything of value. And when said artist disagreed with said corporation: they disappear faster than the one hit wonders of the 60s.
Patronage is a fundamentally broken system, one that never worked well, it was a form of enslavement.
But maybe you can write an treatise that will stand up to review by economic experts. Maybe we can go back to indentured servitude while we are at it. Ten years as an unpaid apprentice aught to set you up for life.
And before you dump on me, remember I'm the one that started this thread. I firmly believe people should be paid for their works and have ownership rights. I believe that takedown demands for actual copyright violations should be honored, and fair use is reasonable, but shotgun take down's and bogus takedowns are a a crime.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @05:53PM
patronage[...]only an Exxon or a Google could afford
First, that isn't the only model that would exist--or did exist in antiquity.
An example from back then: Trobadours [wikipedia.org]
...and there have always been significant creative hobbyists in the arts.
.
never worked well
Welcome to the 21st Century, Mr. van Winkle. How was your nap?
Crowdfunding [wikipedia.org]
Kickstarter [wikipedia.org]
It works just fine. [wikipedia.org]
.
I firmly believe people should be paid for their works and have ownership rights
Most people get paid ONCE for doing a task.
The original term of copyright in the USA was 14 years.
It is now -easier than ever- to create and distribute creative works.
Logically, the term should be SHORTER now; instead, it has gotten to be ridiculous.
When the system reflects -reality- there is a chance of people respecting it.
Systems like DMCA (that was specifically crafted to be abusively one-sided) and life-plus copyrights are the opposite of the direction that gets respect and compliance.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by hankwang on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:52PM
The alleged purpose of the DMCA is to ensure that content can be uploaded to websites and taken down in case of alleged copyright infringement with a minimum of legal hassle. I agree that the "penalty of perjury" phrase is a legal wart that should be dealt with. However, your proposal has way too many complications to be practically useful:
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday September 06 2014, @03:45PM
I see no reason in the world why we shouldn't expect someone using DMCA as a bludgeon to at LEAST make sure they own the thing they're demanding a takedown on. They can cost others a great deal while suffering no consequences themselves that way. I'm looking for a minimal hassle way that people can keep their own works from being taken down by any clown willing to yell DMCA.
I would imagine points would 'decay' much like points on a driver's license. I would like to see fair use better defined, but there are obvious cases of it that any decent copyright lawyer should be able to spot (but don't because there is no consequence to sending a takedown anyway). We can't have takedowns flying over a coincidental 2 or 3 word phrase, or even their deliberate use. Copyright was not meant to do that.
Some points should accrue to the more ambiguous cases as well for the simple reason that the rights holder SHOULD be learning something from failed attempts. If they are not, they should just stop filing for a while.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @12:38PM
Insufficient, although the "lose your rights" might just be, but it shouldn't be "lose rights to issue takedowns" it should be "the copyright you have is canceled, and the material about which you complain enters the public domain".
However, an alternative, and likely much more effective method would be:
DMCA takedowns must be signed by a licensed attorney.
First bogus take down request - the lawyer who signs it is disbarred for 3 months.
Second bogus take down request from the same lawyer - the lawyer is disbarred for life.
The lawyers signing the things are supposed to be verifying they are true and accurate. So put the penalty where it is supposed to be. Get rid of the lawyers who don't do the jobs they are supposed to do.
This would also have a secondary effect (if the lawyers continued issuing bogus take downs), of significantly reducing the population of lawyers, which can only be a good thing long term.
With the above penalties, there would be zero robo-takedowns. And each individual one would be sufficiently costly enough (because the lawyers will bill for the extra two hours to carefully vet the request) that only proper takedowns ever get issued.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 05 2014, @04:55PM
Wouldn't that mean that Joe Artist would have no intellectual property rights unless he could afford a full time lawyer?
I like the bit about the work entering the public domain, but only after a couple bogus takedowns, because you have to allow a learning curve since not everyone who can aim a camera or strum a guitar spring full fledged from the womb with a law degree.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rune of Doom on Friday September 05 2014, @07:28PM
The DMCA is just one small sample (at least here in the US) - the powers that be are so fixed on holding onto power, that they're eventually going to force the violent disintegration of American society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:45AM
look out Canada and Mexico... when shit goes down guess where the refugees are gunna end up?
(Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:50AM
I'm guess that Mexico will be invaded (by the US) under some pretext or other within the next 20 years. Canada's probably less likely to see the US military, although it can probably look forward to being sued into oblivion by the multinational corporations under the TPP once it finally gets forced down everyone's throat. Failing that, it'll have a good chance of breakup or collapse when the US does. Good luck, Canadians!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2014, @03:22AM
Sounds like running this story could cause Soylent to get their first DCMA takedown notice.
Are ya'll prepared for that?
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Friday September 05 2014, @06:46AM
(Score: 1) by esperto123 on Friday September 05 2014, @10:27AM
https://xkcd.com/1416/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday September 05 2014, @04:50PM
Wow it's like Solar 2! That reminds me, I haven't actually beaten that game...
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by EvilJim on Friday September 12 2014, @05:31AM
Up to your arsehole in turtles.