Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the oi-you-can't-do-that dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by jman on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:19PM

    by jman (6085) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:19PM (#401745) Homepage

    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

    by jman (6085) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:21PM (#401746) Homepage

    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...