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: 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.