If prizes were being issued for bogus DMCA take-down notices, then Sony would be in with a good chance. Sony have filed a DMCA notice on a creative commons movie created in Blender that is on YouTube, claiming copyright reasons.
If prizes were being handed out for the "best" wrongful DMCA takedown likely to annoy the greatest numbers of people, Sony would be taking Olympic gold here.
- Free and open source software - check.
- Multiple instances of community funding via donation - check.
- Creative Commons content censorship - check.
- Blatantly claiming copyright on someone else's content - check.
- Shoot first, ask questions later mentality - check.
The only good thing to come out of this as far as Blender is concerned is all the free publicity they're going to get in the next 48 hours. Bad publicity aside, *nothing* will happen to Sony - people aren't going to like that either.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Sony File DMCA On Creative Commons Film
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 36 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tnt118 on Monday April 07 2014, @12:25AM
The only way this "takedown" system really works if there's accountability and repercussions for when someone falsely files a claim. I've read more stories about folks who have a claim filed against them with virtually no recourse and it is grossly unfair.
I think I like it here.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bugamn on Monday April 07 2014, @12:35AM
Exactly this. There are libel and slander for relation between men, there should be an equivalent for misuse of those takedowns. And the consequences for a false accusation need to be harsh, such as loss of the falsely defended copyright, or they will simply measure the cost of false accusations against what they believe it to be worth.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday April 07 2014, @03:32AM
Now that you mention it, how is a wrongful accusation of criminal behavior not libel??
Maybe those grossly inflated 'statutory damages' should apply to wrongful accusations under the DMCA, too. But that would require that the bought-and-paid-for DMCA be altered by the very people who passed it in the first place... not bloody likely. :(
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by bugamn on Tuesday April 08 2014, @03:32AM
It looks like a rigged game and plays like one. Maybe it quacks like one too.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday April 07 2014, @02:27PM
I think the film's creators should sue Sony and ask for huge penalties in punitive damages. But then, Sony has always gotten away with evil and faced no consequences for their actions. Breaking into computers with trojans is a felony, why was no one from Sony put in prison for XCP?
The takedown procedures the law states are flawed, Issuing a false takedown notice should be a felony with prison time.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 07 2014, @03:28PM
Especially since they keep insisting corporations are people!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @12:52AM
There should be. One is supposed to be liable for perjury if one falsely files a takedown. However, I've never heard of a conviction or even a trial to come out of this yet.
(Score: 4, Informative) by BsAtHome on Monday April 07 2014, @01:11AM
The problem is that you need to prove "bad faith". That is a huge hurdle that, for all practical purposes and intents, is impossible.
It /might/ be possible to use a different angle, based on (business) interference, but it is a very long and very expensive battle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @10:06AM
If they claim copyright on something they don't own the copyright of and act on that claim, isn't that ... wait for it ... copyright violation?
(Score: 1) by dj245 on Monday April 07 2014, @12:40PM
I am not a lawyer but my understanding for cases of business interference is that you have to prove 4 things:
1. that there was a contract between the 2 parties and
2. that the 3rd (interfering) party knew about the contract and
3. That the 3rd party broke the contract or made performance of the contract impossible and
4. That there was injury to the plaintiff
Is there a "contract" between Google and posters of videos? For accounts which recieve a cut of ad dollars, there likely is. For accounts and videos which have no advertising, that point might be debatable.
Also you would need to prove injury, which for ad-free videos would be quite difficult.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Monday April 07 2014, @06:26PM
> The problem is that you need to prove "bad faith".
IANAL but this is crazy.
What if I saw you inappropriately touching a female, and I were wrong, while in good faith?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @06:38PM
That hurdle is what should be removed. The mere fact that a false claim was made should be punishable. Starting small, with a fine, but progressively severe for every consecutive violation.
There is no reason "bad faith" (aka "intent") should be required. After all, that is also not how it works when I torrent a file and it turns out to be an 'illegal' file. I am innocent, I thought I was torrenting a creative commons Blender movie... Obviously I can only find out the truth when the download has finished.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @01:52AM
The solution is simple.
But the bought&purchased ass-holes in congress would never write it into law.
The solution:
All DMCA notices must be signed by an attorney (I think this is already there).
Signing of any DMCA notice which is later found to contain any false statement (whether the attorney knew at the time of signing that the statement was false or not) results in instant and immediate disbarment of the attorney.
Suddenly, all the DMCA notices would be carefully checked, double checked, triple checked, and only those that are actually true and proper would ever be filed.
There would be no "robo-filers". That would just be too dangerous.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @10:08AM
Given that genuine mistakes happen, I'd be a bit more forgiving:
Make it a three-strikes rule.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by everdred on Monday April 07 2014, @02:40PM
But then only people who have lawyers get to file notices. That's not good for the little guy.
(Score: 2) by xlefay on Monday April 07 2014, @12:35AM
where are the numbers to back up they're the worst?
I'm more interested in knowing if they're liable in someway for wrong DMCA takedowns (besides bad PR; YouTube must have some sort of rating system for these kinda things, right?). And do they have to provide (publicly available?) proof as to why the content was suspect?
I'm guessing they use an automated system that automatically send outs DMCA's without human verification (I would at least hope, it'd score content and pass it off to humans if there's more than enough doubt) to keep costs low and they'd rather pay a fine (if there even is one) then pay people to do it - with the possible exception of dealing with those flagged. After all, humans do make mistakes too; and I wouldn't be surprised at all if a human would have flagged this one as a possible copyright infringement, of course.. in a "better" world, this wouldn't happen. Heck, everything would be open source.
I get it; it's not right that someone else his/her/their content is being removed but where are the real numbers, how often does this really happen? What's the ratio between DMCA's that are (probably) valid and those that aren't? Where's the real information? This article lacked so much information. All I know at this point is that Blender's movie on YouTube got removed for a wrong reason and that someone obviously dislikes Sony. (I don't have a personal opinion about Sony except that they really know how to screw up!)
To the author of the article: In the future, please include more useful information.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Blackmoore on Monday April 07 2014, @03:18AM
Google's own documentation on the notices is pretty damning of the industry as a whole, with MOST of the DMCA takedown notices being sent out for material that they dont own. And then the process gets involved. see, they can basically stick a robot to send these out, and the subsequent follow up - as the real copyright holder typically doesnt have a lawyer or capital to pursue them in court.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by xlefay on Monday April 07 2014, @04:05AM
So essentially, from what I'm gathering here (previously, I just ignored these kind of articles), it's all just bullying the little guy and giving in when one stands it's ground.. what a great world we live in eh ;-)
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Monday April 07 2014, @12:54PM
yup. with out a tool in the law itself to punish companies (or individuals) who make continuous false flags - you have a law which punishes creators, at the expense of big media. and big media loves it this way - after all if anyone could make entertainment, it would decrease shareholder value, and they might have to find new directors or actually film stuff that doesnt fit the (worn out) formula.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday April 07 2014, @12:49AM
These media companies need to be painfully fined. Filing a takedown should be a very serious matter, akin to filing criminal charges against someone (that is what they want copyright law to be like).
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Monday April 07 2014, @01:05AM
I totally agree.
The DMCA in it's entirety is a complete bypass of due process. It literally hands over the entirety of the due process into private and corporate hands.
If it's proven that a corporation abused that due process, that they are responsible for, then the fines should be incredible. Something like 1% of gross corporate revenue per infraction, or one million dollars, whichever is more.
Something that serious would instantly take it off automatic and require that it be literally signed off by legal before the DMCA was filed with the offending party. The tools to locate it could still be automatic, fingerprint based, whatever. That much liability would cause the corporation to physically review all possible claims on their merits.
Additionally, absolute full and total disclosure of all claims must be made to any third parties if the receiving party of the DMCA is merely a host. Such full disclosures protect the claimant and well as the defendant. It will show just how much of an abuse there really was. A claimant that is just wrong and disputing fair use would not be fined, but instances like this would result in multi-million dollar fines per infraction for Sony.
As it stands now there is not nearly enough transparency in the process.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @08:32AM
I suggest the following fine:
If you file a wrong DMCA with Google, Google censors you for one day.
That's a win, win. We get less abusive DMCA takedowns for youtube etc..., and Google will have less cleaning up to do and less trying to amend things with affected users.
Also, the likes of Sony et al would see their online presence drop rapidly.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Fry on Monday April 07 2014, @01:02AM
IIRC, the only way to get in (legal) trouble with a DMCA notice is to falsely declare who you represent, i.e. "I represent Sony" when in fact I dont.
Claiming copyright over something that isn't yours is merely an "Oops, sorry, our bad!" event.
It's that way because that's exactly how the U.S. entertainment industry wants it.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday April 07 2014, @01:23AM
So if this is true, what happens if several thousand (or million) people suddenly discover that Sony has violated their copyrights and/or patents and started issuing take-down notices (in good faith of course) on Sony content and tools?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday April 07 2014, @01:28AM
Sony has a lot of stuff on YouTube.p roductions [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Sony+
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 07 2014, @02:25AM
Then they will invoke the golden rule and quietly pretend nothing happened.
Optionally they will bend logic until it taps out to find a way to prosecute the individuals for something.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday April 07 2014, @10:59AM
Then, for the first time in computer history, we'd have wild virus that actually did something good in the world.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by computersareevil on Monday April 07 2014, @01:24AM
So what would happen if an actual person (versus a corporate "person") wrote a script to send a DMCA request to Youtube for every single Sony video and then said ""Oops, sorry, my bad!"?
Jail time.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @03:46AM
It doesn't need to be covered by DMCA, it's already covered by common tort:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_of_title [wikipedia.org]
The claim literally is that you, the video owner, stole Sony's content (assuming copyright and its assumptions are legitimate since the courts do). If that claim is outrageous slander, then sue them and probably figure out a reasonable settlement to compensate you for the loss to your reputation and the time and cost you spent dealing with the slander.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @10:12AM
Really? Well, then maybe people should start sending mass-takedown notices for Sony material everywhere.
(Score: 1) by HiThere on Monday April 07 2014, @07:06PM
It's a bit more complicated. You need to be able to claim good faith. But, IIUC, an attorney is allowed to have a good faith belief that his client is telling the truth, no matter how blatantly false it is. So you'll need to hire a lawyer to file the requests. You are off the hook, because you aren't filing the request, and he is off the hook because as your attorney, he's allowed to have a "good faith" belief in what you (purportedly) told him.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by francois.barbier on Monday April 07 2014, @01:13PM
According to http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/en/copyright-c omplaint.html [youtube.com]
Still waiting to see Sony's account suspended...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @06:59AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony_rootkit [wikipedia.org]
never forget, never forgive
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by wonkey_monkey on Monday April 07 2014, @08:37AM
never eat yellow snow
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by weeds on Monday April 07 2014, @02:02PM
According to the Blender website this AM, the video has been restored. [blendernation.com]
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 1) by _NSAKEY on Monday April 07 2014, @10:38PM
as the time Universal used a take-down as a negotiation tactic to license a song. http://boingboing.net/2011/07/20/universal-music-a ccu.html [boingboing.net]
They're all scumbags.