SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A link provided by an Anonymous Coward has provided a story that we have heard several times recently - hyperlinks being removed after being claimed as a DMCA violation when it is patently clear to everyone that the claim is simply not true.
The takedown request seeks to remove links to a number of torrent URLS that are alleged to infringe on Paramount movie 'Transformers: Age of Extinction'. The link is actually to an Ubuntu 12.04 iso disk image. I am amazed that anyone with even a modicum of reading skills can imagine a link between the Ubuntu software and the film in question.
Cited in a DMCA takedown request filed against Google on behalf of Paramount Pictures, and spotted by TorrentFreak (and tipped to us by reader ~nonanonymous) is an innocuous link to a 32-bit alternate install image Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS.
The takedown request seeks to remove links to a number of torrent URLS that are alleged to infringe on Paramount movie 'Transformers: Age of Extinction'.
Ubuntu clearly doesn't. All it takes is a quick glance at the URL in question to see that. It's very much a stock iso of an old Ubuntu release.
And yet Google has complied with the request and scrubbed the link to the page in question from its search index.
But don't hate on Google for this. The sheer volume of DMCA requests Google is made to process by copyright holders is gargantuan: over three million 'pirate' URLs per day, say TorrentFreak.
Being a European, I am also amazed that there is little or no penalty for making incorrect claims, which probably explains why Google are receiving over 300 million claims a day. Why should anyone stop? There is simply no cost to those who make the claims regardless as to whether they are accurate or not. Why aren't US businesses, indeed any business worldwide, up in arms about this practice which could adversely affect their own ability to trade and ultimately, reduce their profits? I realise that this doesn't necessarily apply to Ubuntu, but with such a large number of DMCA claims I imagine that there must have been many false claims that have affected legitimate businesses.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:36PM
There is no push back because this doesn't hurt the mega corporations, Google, movie and recording industry included. It hurts mom and pop (main street) websites and businesses. Anyone with lawyers on staff can push back.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:55PM
Ubuntu 12.04 will stop being supported in less than one year, so obviously it entered the age of extinction. And upgrading will transform your Linux system into a Poetterix system (all later Ubuntu versions use systemd).
(Score: 4, Funny) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:47PM
And upgrading will transform your Linux system into a Poetterix system (all later Ubuntu versions use systemd).
So this is actually a pro-systemd attack using copyright law to force the last non-systemd version of Ubuntu down the memory hole?
Well-played, systemd. Well played.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:20AM
The removed link was to this page - https://extratorrent.cc/torrent/3046796/Ubuntu-12.04.2-alternate-i386.iso.html [extratorrent.cc] - and those words don't actually appear on the page.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:11PM
This is part of why DMCA takedown notices shouldn't exist (though websites still should have safe harbor) and the copyright thugs should have to go through the court system from the beginning. Censor-first-ask-questions-later policies are unjust; the trial doesn't happen from the beginning, and the concept of innocent unless proven guilty goes out the window. It's not enough to simply create higher penalties for filing frivolous notices, as the ethical problems with a censor-first policy would not disappear.
It's not our job to make it easier for copyright thugs to enforce their monopolies, so no amount of whining about the difficulty of doing so makes the idea of DMCA notices valid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:22PM
Cue this troll: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=15484&cid=401125#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:35PM
Did you have a constructive rebuttal you wanted to make?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:09PM
> Why aren't US businesses, indeed any business worldwide, up in arms about this practice which could adversely affect their own ability to trade and ultimately, reduce their profits?
More to the point, why aren't US businesses, indeed any business worldwide, massively abusing this system to harass their competitors? Want to knock your competitors off the front page of google search? No problem! Want to block downloads of your competitors' printer driver or phone sync software? We have a poorly-designed bit of reactionary legislation for that! I can appreciate that most half-sane companies might not want to open that particular can of thermonuclear worms, but you'd think there would be a few nutters out there willing to push the button.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:24PM
Fix the problem: send Google and microsoft auto-takedowns for google.com and bing.com
Nah... They'll just add a whitelist.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:26PM
Remember to set the Evil Bit [wikipedia.org]
And yet Google has complied with the request and scrubbed the link to the page in question from its search index.
Of course they have. Yet when Warner Bros was claimed to be an infringing site google didn't remove it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37275603 [bbc.com]
In one request, Google was asked to remove links to the official websites for films such as Batman: The Dark Knight and The Matrix.
That's fine, however
After reviewing the Warner Brothers report, Google decided not to remove links to Amazon, IMDB and Sky Cinema from its results.
And it's that decision should make google liable for every unfair removal.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:16PM
Agreed. They have clearly shown that they are mainly concerned with not antagonizing major corporations, so they cannot be considered safe, trustworthy, reliable, or honorable.
If they had taken down Warner's site after its request, one could accept that they were just following the law. Since they didn't they are clearly exercising editorial control. It may be automated, but it's still editorial control, so it's still Google's responsibility. They are the ones that decided upon the method of enforcement.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:46PM
The DCMA makes everyone mad, but right now it's an uneasy-but-sort-of-workable truce.
Copyright holders hate the DCMA because it doesn't give them the ability to hold YouTube or Facebook or other platforms accountable for hosting pirated content. And make no mistake, there IS pirated content out there. They're pissed that Google gets to "roll its own" copyright policing mechanism with their three strikes policy. They're pissed that pirates can just sign up for a new account with a new e-mail address and repost something that's already been taken down. All they can do is try their best to index the incredibly massive haystack of content on sites like YouTube, try to find the stuff that's theirs, and file notices one infraction at a time. The process kind of has to be automated for that to work, which makes it imperfect (parsing content, recognizing "sufficient similarity" under the law and being able to properly exclude cases that are covered by parody, commentary, or other fair use claims is a Turing Test-level problem).
People with legitimate content hate the DCMA. The DCMA puts the initial burden of identification on the rightsholder, not the platform, which is nice. However, once an item has been flagged, the DCMA requires it to be taken down for as long as it's in dispute, which can be a long time. It's also a "presumed infringing" approach - the content comes down immediately, and will only be restored after a good-faith review (as opposed to being left up until an adverse determination is made). Because the system is "it comes down first," before the review, the system allows for a lot of collateral damage (for example, identifying copyrighted materials used within the fair use doctrine). It also allows abuse - companies claiming DCMA violations for using their copyrighted name in a negative review or in news coverage. There's no mechanism for anyone to be sanctioned for abuse within the DCMA - the only fig leaf is that the claimaint has to swear they own or represent the owner of the claimed work (but do NOT need to provide any assertion the claim is valid or the use isn't justified).
Platforms hate the DCMA because they have to process this deluge of takedown notices, and provide a mechanism for appeal to be taken and reviewed, with the goal toward resolving disputes where both sides aren't entirely trustworthy - the notice-givers have no reason to ever rescind their claims because there's no skin in the game if they're unreasonable, the notice-receivers potentially include actual pirates who would have every reason to falsely assert "fair use" defenses even if they're not applicable. Google at least has taken the (not-DCMA-required) step of trying to "pre-filter" content to avoid the takedown notice cycle, which ALSO makes both sides unhappy (content gets incorrectly flagged, "you're not doing enough!" claims).
So, this compromise makes pretty much everyone unhappy (except those who actually do post pirate content, who seem to mostly be OK with it).
However, changing this balance will likely make things worse (possibly a lot worse) for at least one group, possibly all the groups.
Doing away with the "safe harbor" and making platforms liable will have massively chilling effects on speech. It will also shift the entire burden for copyright policing from copyright owners to third parties, meaning the third parties will likely be even more restrictive in "pre-filtering." Removing the "take down first, only restore on successful appeal" is good for content posters and will remove abuse, but will also leave actual pirated content up longer. Penalizing content owners who file incorrect notices will create a means to punish the abusive, but will put an unfeasibly large burden on real content owners who want to do the right thing (for example, if a human has to review every last one of 100,000 takedown notices a day), and would likely lead to content owners pushing to blow up the whole system and replace it with something worse.
I do not like the DMCA. But I strongly suspect I like it better than whatever will likely come along to replace it.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:59PM
However, once an item has been flagged, the DCMA(sic) requires it to be taken down for as long as it's in dispute, which can be a long time.
Citation needed. I was under the impression that as soon as a counter claim or affidavit has been submitted the content can be restored by the hosting company without issue if they so choose.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:12PM
Sure. How about YouTube's FAQ on the subject? [google.com]
You're correct that under the DCMA content in theory CAN be restored once a counter-notice is received. In practice, it is frequently not.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:53PM
(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.
emphasis mine.
As part of the safe harbor provision, the OSP/ISP must restore the content no later than 14 days after receiving a counter-claim unless they receive notice of a formal lawsuit filed by the claimant.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday September 14 2016, @02:36AM
So... this seems like a loophole for an easy solution against the MAFIAA.. someone please write a bot to auto-generate counter claims for that gazillion a day notice Google and like gets.
Are those claims that Google and like receive open for public?
For added fun, the bot can also generate new claims against any known MAFIAA content, sites, resources, etc.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:48PM
Nice. You blockquote it, so we know it was copied, but you go the extra mile and throw in the sic for good measure.
You must be a joy to sit next to at a dinner party.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:25PM
Removing the "take down first, only restore on successful appeal" is good for content posters and will remove abuse, but will also leave actual pirated content up longer.
Oh, no! Unauthorized copies of some data might stay up longer; that is truly terrifying!
It's not our job to force companies to take a censor-first-ask-questions-later approach just to make it easier to enforce copyright. What you've said is about as absurd as saying that the fourth amendment is bad because it makes the job of law enforcement more difficult in some cases; maybe so, but it's perfectly justified, as our rights are far more important than catching some 'bad guys'. Our rights shouldn't vanish just to make it easier for some to stop 'evil' things (and of course, it's highly debatable that unauthorized copying is truly bad).
We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, and we shouldn't negotiate with copyright thugs that despise the concepts of freedom of speech, due process, and innocent unless proven guilty. You're essentially trying to 'compromise' with morally reprehensible thugs by sacrificing freedoms, and that is why you fail.
The real way to do this, if we're going to censor at all (and I wish we wouldn't), is to keep the notion of safe harbor and discard the takedown notices. Force the copyright thugs to go to court and have a judge order the removal of specific data. Maybe this would make it harder for them to enforce their precious monopolies, but that is far better than allowing them to violate our freedoms.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:01PM
In other words, FORCE EVERYONE TO FUCKING RESPECT DUE PROCESS.
It's not just the DMCA. Debt collections are a practice that has been removed from the courts largely and placed into arbitration farms in which the arbitration panel is hired by the claimant (corporation).
We have a method of resolving disputes called CIVIL COURT. Corporations refuse to it the moment it becomes disadvantageous to them, and they believe the Constitution of the United States is something to wipe their asses with.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by jman on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:19PM
If the goal is to reduce the number of false takedown requests, charging a refundable fee to remove the links would be a good start.
Any time a takedown is submitted a nominal deposit is charged (but not *too* nominal, say something less than five dollars). The link would be removed. If within a certain time, shenanigans were called by another party and the link were to be restored, Google keeps the deposit. If not, the deposit is returned to the submitter.
In practice, let's say I as an individual submit a takedown. I pay my five bucks, G goes to work and scrubs the affected link(s). I'm out five bucks, but the links are gone for good.
Now let's say Warner Brothers auto-submits 5,000 takedowns. Turns out 4,992 of them are called on as being bogus. Warner has just spent nearly twenty five grand, for nothing.
(Score: 1) by jman on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:21PM
Ooops, preview vs submit!
If no one calls shenanigans on the takedown, the five bucks is returned so I'm not anything in the end...