×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Automated DMCA Takedown Notices Request Censorship of Legitimate Sites

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the totally-unpredictable-outcome dept.

AI 192

Techmeology writes "Microsoft has sent automated DMCA notices to Google demanding the removal of several legitimate URLs from its search results that Microsoft claims were facilitating the distribution of illegal copies of Windows 8, including links to BBC news articles, Wikipedia pages, U.S. government websites, and even Bing! The erroneous DMCA notices are being sent automatically by rights holders, who are increasingly using such techniques."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Keep it rolling boys (2)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41580973)

You're obviously doing something right!

Noticed this earlier today (5, Interesting)

zenlessyank (748553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41580989)

Was looking for some info on QAM tuning for my tv tuner card and google search had a warning about blocked content at the bottom of each search results page.

Re:Noticed this earlier today (0)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581053)

zenlessyank why is your comment at -1?

What search term were you using exactly?

Re:Noticed this earlier today (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581203)

Cool story.

Takedown the election (5, Funny)

jonsmirl (114798) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581007)

Someone please send DMCA takedown notices to all sites currently covering the US presidential election. That might get the problem fixed.

Re:Takedown the election (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581029)

Hahaha, yeah nothing would fix the election like an uniformed population. Removing news coverage would just let the candidates escape the dumb things they say.

Re:Takedown the election (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581331)

Hahaha, yeah nothing would fix the election like an uniformed population. Removing news coverage would just let the candidates escape the dumb things they say.

And that would differ..... how?

Re:Takedown the election (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581413)

Indeed. Does anyone actually know anyone else who is swayed by the various debates / speeches?

Re:Takedown the election (4, Funny)

dryeo (100693) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581767)

I'd guess that some decide to not vote after hearing the candidates.

Re:Takedown the election (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581519)

And that would differ..... how?

Since the recent debate Romney's popularity sharply dropped in the ages 3-8 demographic.

Re:Takedown the election (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581813)

that's the demographic age group you are in, isn't it Mr. Butt Licker?

Re:Takedown the election (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581849)

Ha ha ha, ho ho ho, hee hee hee! Oh, hey, Bio Dome is on. Cya!

Re:Takedown the election (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581755)

Are you saying that even a single site of those contains actual information?

You're so naive, it breaks my heart.

Re:Takedown the election (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581117)

Wrong. Send DMCA takedown notices to all sites favoring one particular side - don't matter which one. In fact, let's send DMCA takedown on anything related to Lamar Smith - that would be a good start.

captcha: culture

Re:Takedown the election (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581311)

what is a "lamar smith"?

Re:Takedown the election (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581423)

what is a "lamar smith"?

One who forges lamers out of noobs.

Re:Takedown the election (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581693)

what is a "lamar smith"?

It's kinda like a cross between a "Llama" and a "Smith & Weston"

That's the best I can describe, without resorting to cuss words

Knock out the spammers (5, Funny)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581019)

Sounds like Google would be well within their rights now to label Microsoft a spam network and ignore ALL future takedown requests.

Re:Knock out the spammers (1, Redundant)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581041)

No no no no no. It's the perfect excuse for Google to remove anything related to Bing from their index.

Re:Knock out the spammers (2)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581147)

Why not hit back with the whole false DMCA claims bit?

Re:Knock out the spammers (3, Funny)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581385)

I don't think that's ever been done, and to make things worse how do you get a bot to face penalties of perjury? Pinning responsability for the bot on someone would be difficult and would most likely get put on the most junior coder or somebody that's left MS.

Re:Knock out the spammers (2)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581427)

Vicarious liability.

Re:Knock out the spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581495)

Corporate personhood?

Re:Knock out the spammers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581593)

The bot works for a company and the company bears responsibility, unless the damage the bot is intentional, or resulting from gross negligence.

Re:Knock out the spammers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581781)

Pinning responsability for the bot on someone would be difficult

No it wouldn't. If you can't find a manager, director, CEO, etc. who can be held responsible, then just hold the Company as a whole responsible. If the Company is allowed to contribute money to an election, then it's only fair that the Company can be held liable in general for perjury, libel, etc.

Re:Knock out the spammers (5, Insightful)

dcollins117 (1267462) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581831)

I don't think that's ever been done, and to make things worse how do you get a bot to face penalties of perjury? Pinning responsability for the bot on someone would be difficult and would most likely get put on the most junior coder or somebody that's left MS.

Well if that's the case, what legal standing does a bot have to make a DCMA claim? I would argue - none.

Re:Knock out the spammers (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581687)

Because Microsoft could just drop it at that point and shoot in another batch of automated DMCA requests.
Lying in DMCA requests has no legal reprocussions.

Re:Knock out the spammers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581275)

How can you say that? Do you know for sure that the Caesar's Civil War [wikipedia.org] entry on Wikipedia isn't infringing on the Windows 8 Beta IP? I mean, 5 years after Caesar crossed the Rubicon he was named dictator. And 5 years after Windows 95 was released Microsoft was named a monopoly. Is this a coincidence? Consider this: Steve Ballmer was born on March 24, 1956. 2000 years and 1 week prior, Caesar had defeated his last enemy on March 17, 45 BC. Coincidence?

The only logical conclusion that any sane person can come up with is that Gaius Julius Caesar is the property of both Ballmer and Microsoft and any reference to him or the number 45 (for 45 BC) is a copyright violation. Case closed.

Perjury charges forthcoming? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581031)

An automated notice should fall afoul of the portion of the notice which must be sworn under penalty of perjury. You know, the part that says you are the person who owns the copyright to the work you're claiming (not under penalty of perjury) is being hosted illegally at the listed URL(s).

Captcha: victim

Re:Perjury charges forthcoming? (3, Interesting)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581153)

Wouldn't they? Doesn't someone still have to sign their name to it?

When brought up in the past they were not real DMCA notices, its just everyone had an "understanding".

blame the guy who can't speak English. Ah, Tibor, (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581189)

blame the guy who can't speak English. Ah, Tibor, how many times have you saved my butt?

Re:Perjury charges forthcoming? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581439)

That phrase only applies to the lawyers, that they are truly representing the party that is claiming to be the copyright holder. In terms of the person claiming to be the copyright holder, there are no requirements that they actually be the copyright holder, nor any penalties for "mistakenly" hiring a law firm to send out DMCA notices. Please read and understand the laws you speak about.

Re:Perjury charges forthcoming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581597)

From previous articles here on slash dot, you can notify google(youtube actually) of inorrect DMCA, they will restore video in former glory, and will ignore DMCA requests, not untill court decision is handled to them.

Re:Perjury charges forthcoming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581789)

That phrase only applies to the lawyers, that they are truly representing the party that is claiming to be the copyright holder. In terms of the person claiming to be the copyright holder, there are no requirements that they actually be the copyright holder, nor any penalties for "mistakenly" hiring a law firm to send out DMCA notices. Please read and understand the laws you speak about.

That still doesn't exclude the possibility of considering it libel, either intentional or through negligence. Just because there are no direct penalties written into this law does not mean that there are no other laws which could apply. And Civil suits are also a possibility.

Re:Perjury charges forthcoming? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581555)

Including a random word generated captcha in the body of your post is one of the most retarded things you can do in a forum.

Until you figure that out, you're too stupid to post anything again.

Re:Perjury charges forthcoming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581759)

Wow, you are incredibly smart.

Captcha: slights

God is just. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581035)

Turn the other cheek.

Hey guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581039)

With no penaltys for false claims...

Why are we not spamming google to delist all sorts of media mafia related sites?

Oh right... we're not scumbags... shit.

Well anyone wanna take one for the team and be a scumbag? Start demanding google delist all sorts of media sites? I bet we could find something in their pages they don't own.

Re:Hey guys... (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581139)

Somebody already did. [techdirt.com]

Bad law is bad (5, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581045)

With zero penalty for bad takedown notices, even those sent in bad faith, I'm amazed this hasn't happened sooner and on a much larger scale.

Re:Bad law is bad (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581211)

Hey, if Mastercard can get away with acting in bad faith over Assange because of what somebody says, why can't these guys with their issues? What's the difference?

Re:Bad law is bad (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581219)

I thought there was a penalty for improper notices. You know, to stop abuse and attempts to silence people?

It would have to be a fraction of percent of erroneous notices (large careful organizations might generate a lot even if it's just a small fraction of their total) but accounting for that it should be penalized.

Re:Bad law is bad (4, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581419)

If you wrongly claim to own the copyright or be the agent of someone who does, there is a penalty under the perjury clause. If you wrongly claim you are the person who the notice was targeting or an agent of them, the same exists.

However, the validity of the take down notice as in the actual content is what you claim or that the use of it was an actual violation of the copyright does not carry an explicit penalty under the DMCA. This is because the DMCA is not really about the claims, copyright, or fair use, but a way for network and service providers to act on the claims without becoming liable themselves.

Practically speaking, anyone who is the victim of a fraudulent claim can sue the person who made the claim for damages. If they pretend they are in collusion with the service provider and it wasn't a DMCA take , then the service or network provider that disabled access to the service is not shielded from liability either. Unfortunately, often the damages are far less then the cost of suing or the resources someone might have available to push the buttons.

Re:Bad law is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581341)

Does it matter? All of this should happen in court to begin with!

Re:Bad law is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581397)

There IS a penalty, but no one has ever bother taking someone to court over a bad faith takedown notice to warrant a penalty.

Anyone big enough to do so simply settles out of court and writes it off.
Everyone else is simply too small to do so.

Well, that will teach Microsoft (5, Funny)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581049)

With all the embarrassment from a snafu like this, Microsoft is sure to reform their ways. Starting with a complete rewrite of the DMCA-auto tool in something other than VB.net.

Re:Well, that will teach Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581131)

Fuck me, when did they do that? I thought it was VB6!

Re:Well, that will teach Microsoft (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581229)

The bad news is, they're rewriting it in Visual FoxPro.

Re:Well, that will teach Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581233)

Starting with a complete rewrite of the DMCA-auto tool in something other than VB.net.

Like MS-BASIC?

Re:Well, that will teach Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581679)

I still have my VB 1.0 floppies hidden in some locker. Perhaps MS would want that back for writing that better DMCA-notice bot.

If it's not already legal to disregard automated (4, Insightful)

doug141 (863552) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581055)

dcma takedowns, it should be.

Re:If it's not already legal to disregard automate (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581531)

This highlights the point of having a due process for legal claims - bring your claims to court first and when there's a court order on it then it's time to take down the content.

Re:If it's not already legal to disregard automate (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581581)

Due process is so last century...

last paragraph sums it up (4, Insightful)

chowdahhead (1618447) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581063)

Right now rightsholders and the anti-piracy outfits they employ have absolutely no incentive to improve the accuracy of their automated takedown systems, so perhaps it’s time for them to be punished?

That is the problem--they have nothing to lose. If automated detection can't differentiate between illegal, fair use, and completely unrelated content (as in this case), then someone needs to be held liable for that junk.

Re:last paragraph sums it up (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581165)

The thing about Fair Use is it's always been a matter for the courts.

Someone may think it's fair use while the rights holder does not, they take it to a judge and let him decide.

Re:last paragraph sums it up (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581431)

Indeed. The law should be changed such that all DMCA requests must now be signed by a judge.

microsoft should be fined for this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581091)

microsoft should be fined for this.

Otherwise it would be ok to accuse everyone with false claims in hope some of them will get frightened and remove their content even if they do not break the law. This means censorship.

Companies should be *afraid* of making false claims!

Trust a company to do the right thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581109)

There is an increasing trend to allow companies to act and do without oversight on the premise that they will do what is ethical. Companies, regardless of colour or stripe will always toe the line and often face plant on the wrong side of it. You simply cannot trust companies to be ethical.

Re:Trust a company to do the right thing... (2)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581259)

Corporations are psychopaths. And what kind of monsters scare psychopaths? Shareholders.

A DMCA takedown notice is theft. (5, Insightful)

cwills (200262) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581135)

A DMCA takedown notice for something that doesn't belong to you is simply theft, and should be treated as such. If the whole purpose of DMCA is to protect the owner of some property, it needs to work both ways.

If I called a towing company claimed that the car you had parked in your driveway was mine and that I wanted it towed to my house, that would be theft.

Re:A DMCA takedown notice is theft. (1)

lannocc (568669) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581205)

This. If I had points today I'd mod parent up.

Re:A DMCA takedown notice is theft. (3, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581247)

A DMCA takedown notice for something that doesn't belong to you is simply theft, and should be treated as such. If the whole purpose of DMCA is to protect the owner of some property, it needs to work both ways.

If I called a towing company claimed that the car you had parked in your driveway was mine and that I wanted it towed to my house, that would be theft.

huh?

This is more like your neighbor called and got your car towed from the front of your house (or driveway). Why they are doing it is because they don't bother to check that the car is yours, and belongs there. And since it's not against the law to call up and get someone else car towed, they are doing it to every car they see.

Now, if I was Google, I'd just start charging for bogus requests. Wouldn't charge for legitimate requests, but charge like $1 or so for every bogus request that comes in. If a place has an outstanding balance of too much, then do not process any more requests from them until they pay up.

Since this is about money, make them pay.

Power of doubling... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581287)

Now, if I was Google, I'd just start charging for bogus requests. Wouldn't charge for legitimate requests, but charge like $1 or so for every bogus request that comes in.

$1 for the first one. $2 for the next. Then $4, $8, $16... I think you see where I am going with this.

Re:Power of doubling... (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581367)

To infinity and beyond?

Re:Power of doubling... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581539)

You should work for AT&T in their data-plan department.

Re:A DMCA takedown notice is theft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581473)

You got the wrong context. Google is the towing company, the poster was speaking as Microsoft, the 'neighbor.' If the neighbor was caught calling false/fraudulent towing notices, they would be in some kind of trouble. The poster was pointing out that it could be argued that the 'neighbor' was calling in the tows, claiming some form of ownership of the cars.

Re:A DMCA takedown notice is theft. (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581479)

Except that if they don't process the requests, they are liable if, in fact, the material is infringing.

Far better still to counter sue for the full extent of costs for taking the content offline, including anticipated ad revenue as well as legal costs (including the $100 2 martini lunches) for suing for any and all claims that are bogus.

Re:A DMCA takedown notice is theft. (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581573)

This is more like your neighbor called and got your car towed from the front of your house (or driveway). Why they are doing it is because they don't bother to check that the car is yours, and belongs there. And since it's not against the law to call up and get someone else car towed, they are doing it to every car they see.
OK, if the DMCA situation is more like your analogy than the parent poster's, then it doesn't count as theft - but where do you come up with the claim that it's not against the law to call up and get someone else's car towed under false pretenses? To do this, somebody would have to represent themselves to the police as the owner of property they did not own, by claiming they had standing to bring the complaint. Do you really think anyone could just do that repeatedly to every car they see and the police dealing with it wouldn't be able to find anything to charge them with? About the fourth or fifth time your hypothetical merry prankster left the cops dealing with another irate car owner, they'd bust him for felony false utterance to an investigating officer, impersonating a victim and probably theft of that victim's identity, and various other crimes, and possibly anything else they could stretch a little to make sure the perp's fines covered the lawsuits that city was about to face. So, maybe the DMCA abuses are NOT like your analogy, even though it had cars in in and everything slashdot requires. Or maybe your analogy is reasonable, in which case, there's something that can be done to rein in abuses.

NO. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581511)

Bad.

Stop with the examples that equate data to physical property. That's why we get stupid ads that say "You wouldn't steal a handbag, would you?"
Also, to then criticize your example, it would be theft because you would end up with something that isn't yours. The way I understand it, if I get a DMCA takedown, I don't have to hand over the "data," I just have to...well...take it down.

Nothing to lose (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581155)

Microsoft has nothing to lose from this. Removing legitimate sites from Google's index only helps Bing.

Re:Nothing to lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581251)

ha

They did it to themselves though!

You make it sound like there are legitimate DMCAs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581173)

There's no such thing. It's all organized crime, down to the last asshole.

Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581227)

While it'd be quite weird for someone to Google for Bing, I cannot help but imagine some Google employee reading the takedown notice a couple times, shrugging, and saying "OK". Ethics aside, the notice gives Google an excuse to de-list their biggest competitor.

Re:Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581899)

Wow - you can turn that around you know...

Just imagine Micosoft wants to let look Google less reliable by taking down portions of their searches.

Now - by just taking down links to their own sites makes it look like it was a "accident", because nobody will do something to hurt themselves -right? Strange enough - that "accident" did not happen to Bing, and so giving people the impression Bing is more reliable than Google. By taking down the search results to their own sites they avoid being investigated for false claims.

End result - Google is pined down as being less reliable and Microsoft as a poor victim..
And so - Microsoft scored a few points in the war against Google..

obligatory auto-post from MyBot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581253)

Microsoft's bot also sent automated DMCA notices to Bing to take down any page related to Microsoft.

Slightly offtopic but on the subject of censorship (-1, Offtopic)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581277)

This [slashdot.org] comment was at a +5 Funny until this [imgur.com] happened a day later. What do you think slashdot? Did I piss off a moderator, or did a bunch of people come along later that legitimately thought it was flamebait? I know that it was a bit vulgar and all, but I thought slashdot was about letting the moderation system sort these things out.

Re:Slightly offtopic but on the subject of censors (-1, Offtopic)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581443)

Did I piss off a moderator, or did a bunch of people come along later that legitimately thought it was flamebait? I know that it was a bit vulgar and all, but ...

Not sure. I don't know if /. applies an weighted average or ONLY the latest moderation type to the label. The latter would be unfair but it seems to be what happens here happened. If so, mods had a herd-mentality-type chain reaction to a single adverse mod "changing" Funny to "Flamebait" for your comment. After all, highly rated comments tend to bring more eyeballs and weird whiplash than just +2 mods I tend to get.

While we are on topic, have you ever done a double take when you see the moderation label AFTER reading a comment that felt tasteless? a lot of WHOOSHing comments happen before anyone has mod-HINTED that the comments are supposed to be funny. Knowing the "intended" funny mod totally changes the tone of the poster as if by magic :)

Re:Slightly offtopic but on the subject of censors (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581535)

Knowing the "intended" funny mod totally changes the tone of the poster as if by magic :)

I've seen some posts that were meant as serious but were actually ridiculous that were then modded funny which changed the meaning completely. That they then were humorous as unintended by the original poster made them that much more comical.

While we are on topic, have you ever done a double take when you see the moderation label AFTER reading a comment that felt tasteless? a lot of WHOOSHing comments happen before anyone has mod-HINTED that the comments are supposed to be funny.

I'm a sarcastic bastard, and think that everyone is using sarcasm even when they aren't, so I get the sarcasm most of the time, in fact when I find out that some posts weren't sarcastic I am usually severely disappointed.

Re:Slightly offtopic but on the subject of censors (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581737)

Maybe it only means that South Koreans are reading Slashdot too?

I did my part and emailed my Senator (3, Interesting)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581279)

You should write your Senator if you are civilly minded and regularly do this. Tell them,"DMCA is being abused, and it should be repealed or give penalties for abusing it." Also explain how DMCA is similar to SOPA/PIPA. Explain just as SOPA/PIPA are against free speech, so is DMCA Maybe explain companies are using it to be anti-competitive for example, Microsoft's goal is to issue as many takedown notices as it can just to make Google jump through hoops. It is part of Microsoft's attack policy, just like Apple's policy is suing people. Oh yeah, writing about software patents being beyond useless is good too.

Re:I did my part and emailed my Senator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581369)

I did my part and emailed my Senator

Congratulations!

You're now on one of the DHS's various suspected-terrorist/illegal-combatant/domestic-terrorist lists!

Re:I did my part and emailed my Senator (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581441)

Indeed. Subject has made usage of his / her 'Constitutional Rights'...it's obviously a prelude to a new terrorist attack on...*throws dart at board*...Wisconsin.

Re:I did my part and emailed my Senator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581589)

The DMCA Safe Harbor is crucial, repealing it would be very bad idea. Actually charging people with perjury when they commit it would be good but prosecutors are too busy chasing pot smokers and people that make their kids walk to school..

WTF is the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581313)

My understanding is that DMCA notices require multiple components...and thieving part of a quick post from john.random.lawyer on the interwebs, it requires:

* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner.

* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright that is allegedly infringed.

So...I mean, what's the problem.

Is it not vacuously obvious that they had neither a good faith belief, nor a belief that the notifcation was accurate, and was it not made under penalty of perjury?

File a counter claim and make a fucking profit off of it already. Hell, someone should start a business whereby they buy the rights to sue for false DMCA claims and damages... and then eat their kid's lunch for good measure.

While you're at it, attack the very accrediation of the issuing attorney and request that their license to practice be revoked in the jurisdiction to which they sent and originated their blatantly negligent claims.

Problem solved.

For those who care (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581355)

http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=479210

Go down to Copyright claim #2, microsoft windows 8. The first 25 urls have nothing to do with Win 8. There's a few after that. The rest seem legit though.

I hope they complied with the DMCA on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581381)

Lol Microsoft accidentally notified Google to delist Bing, after spending millions paying to advertise Bing on Google. I hope Google complied and delisted Bing as requested, for as long as possible. Maybe put a hold on their adsense account for promoting sites challenged under the DMCA notice too.

Why not make an alternative to Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581433)

You could have an HONEST and TRUE search engine that ignores DMCA takedown requests.

Hmmm. Fake DMCA takedowns......... (2)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581457)

I wonder how long it will take till someone decides to use that tool to take a specific artist off the net everywhere?

at the sentence (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581545)

microsoft sent automated DMCA notices

i quit considering this newsworthy. Automated systems from three mile island to the traffic control devices at the end of the freeway routinely fail as well. Often times these have far more cataclysmic repercussions. Im no evangelical for Microsoft, but this seems like pinata bashing. we've all written at least one script thats failed pretty spectacularly in our careers.

Re:at the sentence (5, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581603)

The point is that you should not be automating something that claims to be 100% accurate under penalty of perjury at identifying content on the internet when we know that it's simply not possible to write such a thing.

Re:at the sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581639)

The DMCA is a terrible law and it shouldn't even have these provisions on the first place.

DMCA consequences (2)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581599)

There need to be serious consequences for claims that turn out to have no merit. The best consequence would not be just a huge fine but after 3rd strike you go to jail. This should be coupled with a lawyers must sign the DMCA notice so that they would not be able to claim ignorance in any way.

After enough strikes the copyright holder should lose their copyright all together and the item should go into the public domain.

One would hope... (1)

LMahesa (1582059) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581607)

... that this eventually leads the the banning of such legal automation.

I doubt it will, though.

Free speech (3, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581645)

At one time, media companies in the US relied on the Free Speech protections like the guarantee in the Constitution to ensure their livelihood. That motivated them to defend free speech rights for everyone.

Media in the US is now mostly controlled by 5 large corporations, and they no longer rely on free speech for their livelihood. In fact in some quarters they now view it as more of a threat.

Google really should just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581729)

Comply. Google should comply with all DMCA takedowns issued by an entity against itself. Should help motivate them to get rid of false positives.

Title 18 Section 1001 (3, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581739)

From the Law

‘‘ 1312. Oaths and acknowledgments
(a) IN GENERAL.—Oaths and acknowledgments required by this chapter—
      (1) may be made—
          (A) before any person in the United States authorized by law to administer oaths; or
          (B) when made in a foreign country, before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths, or before any official authorized to administer oaths in the foreign country concerned, whose authority shall be proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States; and
    (2) shall be valid if they comply with the laws of theState or country where made.
(b) WRITTEN DECLARATION IN LIEU OF OATH.—
      (1) The Administrator may by rule prescribe that any document which is to be filed under this chapter in the Office of the Administrator and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath, may be subscribed to by a written declaration in such form
as the Administrator may prescribe, and such declaration shall be in lieu of the oath otherwise required.
    (2) Whenever a written declaration under paragraph (1) is used, the document containing the declaration shall state that willful false statements are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, pursuant to section 1001 of title 18, and may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or a registration resulting therefrom.

Title 18 Section 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

It seems that there is law behind throwing someone in jail.

The Real News (3, Funny)

Daimaou (97573) | more than 2 years ago | (#41581897)

The real news here is that somebody would be willing to download Windows 8, pirated or otherwise.

No whitelisted URLs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41581907)

I wonder why the tool does not even string match known good URLs out of this such as wikipedia. I mean come on, even I could see this coming. On the other hand maybe the programmer of this tool didn't like his work and this was his way to make the whole idea look bad.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?