Romance Author Adele Dubois Receives Takedown On Blog Post For Having The Same Name As Singer Adele

from the bogus-dmca dept

I heard about this story last week, but it took a while to sort through all of the details. There were reports out there that the romance author Adele Dubois had been sent a DMCA takedown. Most of the reports were a bit vague, and then the Washington Post had a very confused writeup that bounced back and forth between copyright and trademark, without bothering to mention that you cannot use a DMCA notice for trademark issues (and also pointing much more of a finger at Google than was warranted).

I've now been able to see the full DMCA notice (which is not yet up on ChillingEffects, but should be soon -- though I've included it below) and talk to a few people around this, and it appears that someone associated with Sony did, in fact, issue a DMCA takedown to Google, leading to a blog post by Adele Dubois being taken offline. Google has since reinstated the post, after reviewing the counternotice, so you can read it here, though depending on your workplace, it may be marginally not safe for work (think erotic romance novel graphics and prose).

The DMCA takedown notice details are extremely sparse. It notes that the "copyright owner" is "XL SONY" and that the "Copyright work description" is "ADELE + EXITOS." It then lists out two URLs. One for "Location of the copyrighted work" and one for "Location of infringing material." It's not clear what the difference is here, but the first one takes you to a sales page for a totally different (and unrelated) romance book, whose author runs the blog where the Adele Dubois post was. The author of that book, Marianne Stephens, notes that she holds all the copyright on that particular book, and isn't clear why it's in the DMCA notice. The second link (location of infringing material) is the link listed above. The only connection that seems to be made is the fact that the famous singer Adele is on Sony, and the author of the blog post (and the erotic romance novel it talks about) has the pen name Adele Dubois (a name she's used since well before the singer Adele became a professional singer). Either way, there's no copyright in just the name Adele. The word Exitos seems totally irrelevant to anything.

Google, as it does in these situations, reverted the blog post to "private," and then upon reviewing the counternotice turned the blog post back on. It's not entirely clear from the notice who actually sent the takedown. It's possible that it was an overaggressive representative of Sony. What does seem clear is that whoever sent it was just doing some sort of quick automated takedown effort without any real review -- even though the takedown notice says:
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
In the Washington Post article, the author suggests that Google should have gotten "to the bottom of this" before taking the content down. While that would be nice, the problem is not so much with Google as with the law itself, the DMCA. Because of the way the DMCA is structured, companies that don't take down content first and review the details later face significant liability if the content turns out to be infringing. The law basically says, if you want immunity from liability, you have to first pull the content offline. So Google followed that procedure. As we've noted, this part of the DMCA potentially violates the First Amendment, but has yet to be tested in court.

That said, you can see why it's so frustrating to the recipient. It's not at all clear from the notice that Google's Blogger passed on to the blog owners the information on who really issued the takedown, or even what, exactly, they were claiming. The bizarre link to the totally unrelated book doesn't help matters, but only serves to confuse them further. Combine that with the threat that this can lead to a "strike" against an account and you can see why some recipients of notices like this get pretty worried.

In the end, this looks like yet another of an all too common phenomenon (and one we've dealt with ourselves). Companies file automated or questionable (or insanely vague) DMCA notices all the time, and the structure of the law encourages companies who receive them to pull the content offline immediately and sort out the mess later.
Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to "draft" status. (A bit of background: if we did not do this, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement.)

The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message. This means your post - and any images, links or other content - is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the content in question and republish, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again.

If you believe you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-notification. For more information on our DMCA policy, please see http://www.google.com/dmca.html.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org. We do this in accordance with the DMCA. You can search for the DMCA notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page at http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi and entering the URL of the blog post that was removed.

If it is brought to our attention that you have republished the post without removing the content in question, then we will delete your post and count it as a violation on your account. Repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in further remedial action taken against your Blogger account including deleting your blog and/or terminating your account.

If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

Complainant Information:

05/11/2012

Recipient Information:

Google, Inc. (Blogger)
Mountain View, CA USA

Infringement Notification for Blogger:

Copyright Owner
XL SONY

Copyright work description
ADELE + EXITOS

Location of copyrighted work
http://tinyurl.com/4ydyl69

Location of infringing material
http://romancebooksrus.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-intimate-art-by-adele-dubois.html

Sworn Statements:

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [checked]

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [checked]

Signature
[private]

Signed on this date of:
05/11/2012


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 1:51pm

    Sir,

    I understand you have the same name as my client, Mike Myers. I must ask on his behalf that you must stop using this name.

    Sincerely,
    Moe Lawsuites

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 1:52pm

    One more day.

    One more DMCA takedown abuse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 1:56pm

    Yet another reason why

    This is yet another reason why there need to be serious penalties for bogus DMCA takedowns.

    The DMCA was to provide an expedited way for content owners to get content removes from the internet. The tradeoff for it was that they wouldn't abuse the privilege because of the collateral damage it could do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    STStone, May 18th, 2012 @ 1:56pm

    But, but…piracy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 1:58pm

    "Dude, I'm getting a dell! What do you mean you have to tape my mouth shut? Isn't that illegarphruphph . . ."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 1:58pm

    L vs E

    When lawyers get involved, the work of engineers' suffers.

    I miss the young, naive Google which was staffed by well-intentioned engineers and very short on legal counsel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    kyle clements (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 1:58pm

    "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate"

    So, when will Sony face those perjury charges?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 1:58pm

    TinyURL? WTF?!?!?!

    Location of copyrighted work
    http://tinyurl.com/4ydyl69


    Umm, TinyURL doesn't actually host any content at all. If you try going there with a client that doesn't follow 301 redirects, you get a blank page.

    Honestly - a location is supposed to tell you where something is, and this clearly doesn't. If a cop got a warrant for a building, and the building had a sign that listed another address across town, would the warrant magically cover the new address?

    Are they claiming that they own the HTTP headers that are served by TinyURL?

    Seriously - is whoever write this so clueless as to not understand *at all* what URL shorteners are, and how HTTP redirects work?

    Somebody's head should roll for this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:01pm

    Re: L vs E

    And conversely, the copyright cartels are staffed with nothing BUT lawyers.

    hmmm, I think I see the problem here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 2:06pm

    Re: TinyURL? WTF?!?!?!

    Seriously - is whoever write this so clueless as to not understand *at all* what URL shorteners are, and how HTTP redirects work?


    Yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 2:09pm

    Re:

    I understand you have the same name as my client, Mike Myers. I must ask on his behalf that you must stop using this name.

    Dear Mr. Lawsuites:

    Please advise whether your client is the entertainer Mike Myers, or the guy who kills people on Halloween. Your response will have a significant bearing on my decision.

    Sincerely,

    Mr. Myers

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:09pm

    I was gonna buy a Dell computer but their site seems to be down at the moment..hmm...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    PlagueSD (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 2:19pm

    "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner."


    This right here should be enough to stop all the false takedown notices. I guess the information is accurately incorrect. So that's how they get around the purjury bit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Mr. Myers,

    You appear to be infringing on my name. Please cease all usages of this name immediately or else I will do everything in my power to murder you, both as an entertainer and as a person.

    Sincerely,

    Mr. Myers, FBI.

    P.S. Hellboy doesn't exist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 2:21pm

    Re: Re: L vs E

    So if we follow Shakespeare's advice, then Occam's Razor dictates that the level of frivolous IP lawsuits will diminish spectacularly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:23pm

    To paraphrase The Immortal Bard:

    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Then we kill all the record company "executives".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: L vs E

    Pardon my ignorance... but which bit of Shakespeare's advice?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Yet another reason why

    What?!? That's crazy! Content owners already have to go through the trouble of sitting in their $5000 leather office chairs and telling the VP of IP Protection at their company to hire some tech firm to run basic keyword searches and fraudulently file DMCA takedown notices over anything that comes up regardless of the content because it obviously must be infringing if they're using the words that the content owners claim ownership of despite this concept being a violation of copyright law.

    What do you want them to do - actually look at the content and make an informed decision as to whether or not the content is in fact infringing? That would get in the way of their tee time after having lunch with their representatives in Congress...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:32pm

    Re:

    I just checked - dell.com is up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: L vs E

    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

    Shakespeare, Henry the Sixth Part 2

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:39pm

    Re:

    Perhaps a cry-wolf rule is in order.

    Not only should they face perjury charges, if a company or any representatives of said company commit two or more frivolous (or outright false) DMCA take down requests within a 10 year period, they lose the privilege of submitting any DMCA notices for the next 5 years. Any attempt to subvert the spirit of this rule (e.g. through shell companies), shall result in a bzillion dollar fine and being forced to wear a 'kick me, I'm a dork' sign for 5 years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 2:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: L vs E

    Ah, that seems like good advice to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 2:40pm

    Re: Re: Reddit "Rules"...!

    That is a brilliant idea, let's make it happen.

    Also, how many is in a brazilian?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:43pm

    I'm pretty sure it was a bot doing a keyword match. That's the only possible explanation. Any human would have noticed right away that there was no infringement. Nobody would do something this egregious and expect to keep their job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Re:

    Perhaps?

    Biggest understatement ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    matthias, May 18th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

    the difference...

    "It then lists out two URLs. One for 'Location of the copyrighted work' and one for 'Location of infringing material.' It's not clear what the difference is here,..."
    Well, it's quite obvious what the difference is, isn't it? "Location of the copyrighted work" should point to the original work, the work XL SONY claims to have the copyright of, whereas "Location of infringing material" points to the infringing material.
    Of course, this makes even less sense. It seems that "XL SONY" (what does the XL stand for? Is this really Sony, the music company?) claims to own the copyright on...
    ...either some tinyurl link
    ...or a page that tries to sell a novel (that absolutly doesn't fit to the this place)
    ...or that novel
    ...or...
    ...well, they said something about (the singer?) Adele? hm...

    I think someone simply confused two links and postet the correct link to the copyrighted material on his facebook page, saying "incredible novel, couldn't stop reading til late night yesterday. Man am I tired... But have to go back to work now. Taking down some Pirate-Sites."
    I mean, whoever sent this takedown notice even didn't seem to be sure about whether he is "copyright owner" or only "authorized to act on behalf of the owner". But swearing under penalty of perjury that everything he claims is correct. Yes...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Mr. Myers,

    It has come to our attention that your surname begins with the same letter as our trademark. This is unacceptable. Please respond to the enclosed settlement request with a SASE. We hope to resolve this without resorting to the courts.

    Sincerely,

    Monster Cable

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Pitabred (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 3:44pm

    Re: Re:

    *whoosh*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Mason Wheeler, May 18th, 2012 @ 3:58pm

    DMCA vs. Bill of Rights

    This may "potentially violate the First Amendment," but that's kind of a weak case to make when it does obviously and blatantly violate the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, both in the takedown provisions and in the DRM provisions. Why is no one talking about that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 4:07pm

    Re:

    I know it's all moot to debate the justification of punishments which have, since being codified, illustrated nothing but the reality that they will never be brought to bear on those who abuse the system.

    To think that the statement being "accurately incorrect" is plausible grounds for dismissal is fantastically ridiculous. Claiming that would be the same as saying "it's okay because i didn't just simply lie. Instead, i lied in such a complete and thorough fashion as to evidence my knowledge of the actual truth and my intent to conceal it".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    BeeAitch (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 4:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Reddit "Rules"...!

    +1 internets to you, sir! One of my favorite jokes!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 4:45pm

    im betting here is what happened:

    adelle- sony artist
    shakira former sony artist that released an album with a song titled grande exitos

    adelle + exitos = SonyIsAnAsshat

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 4:50pm

    Re: Yet another reason why

    You don't seem to think that with Sony's stellar record with malware that they're perfectly capable of writing a "piracyBot" to troll sites to make sure that absolutely none of their products are infringed on.

    After all, just because it can't tell one Adele from another is no reason to dump on the super piracyBot they undoubtedly paid some script kiddie tons of money for. There is something strangely inhuman about this as it it was all automated, complete with programmed in web site references and citations.

    From this comes the question. Do you charge Sony with perjury, the script kiddie or the bot? The way some US courts are acting these days they'd happily charge and convict the bot!


    Ahhh, the wonderful, fascinating other worldly and totally out of touch with reality world of IP law. And those who defend it.

    Kinda like reading bad sci-fi.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Alana (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 5:25pm

    Just for mentioning the name Adele, this blog will receive a DMCA takedown!

    ...That's the level of stupidity here, people. Be very afraid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 5:51pm

    Should I now be worried that French singer-songwriter could sue me based on me having the nickname MadJo on the internet (and have been using that nickname since around 2005)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 6:06pm

    Sign this petition

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 6:08pm

    Re: Sign this petition

    Here's the short link - http://wh.gov/sTc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 6:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: L vs E

    I happen to know and like several lawyers. What I'd prefer is if we stop electing lawyers and big businessmen almost exclusively to write our laws, such that they have to "call in the nerds" when they want to find out what their convoluted words mean.

    Instead, we should be electing a more representative sampling of various occupations and expertise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 6:31pm

    Re:

    And yet a human wrote the bot, and another human sanctioned its actions without understanding what it would do. And both humans likely plan to keep their jobs.

    It's just another day in bogus DMCA notice land.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 6:35pm

    Re: DMCA vs. Bill of Rights

    I'd also argue it violates the 4th, seeing as the material and the sites are property which is being unreasonably seized without warrant.

    The DMCA is similar to previous arbitration laws in that it's a loophole created specifically so that companies would not "burden" the court system with legal challenges to their authority and behavior, but would instead be able to buy separate and cheaper "justice", with basically the same outcome you'd get in most non-jury trials.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Miko, May 18th, 2012 @ 6:41pm

    So, where do we have to submit a complaint to in order to get a perjury inquiry started? Because I'm pretty sure we could easily get many thousand complaints sent there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 6:42pm

    As we've noted, this part of the DMCA potentially violates the First Amendment, but has yet to be tested in court.

    More than a decade of DMCA and the ACLU, EFF, CDT and PK (nor anyone else) have brought a First Amendment challenge? Maybe those experts and all of the other potential litigants have arrived at the opposite conclusion as you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 8:15pm

    Re:

    mike throws out big law words and accusations of constitutional violations, but then covers his ass so he can always walk away from what he says, thats the "potentially" bit and "but has yet to be tested in court"

    cause he is no expert, but always has to sound like one

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 18th, 2012 @ 8:34pm

    Re:

    Actually, they're busy offering amicus briefs in trials being brought against others. On account of the fact that most people don't bring lawsuits against big companies - it usually goes the other way around - most cases are ones where they collaborate with the defense.

    As someone who has been quoted in a brief on the law, I can tell you that a very large number of groups are actively trying to get the DMCA at least altered, if not overturned entirely (because that's harder).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    c0c0c0 (profile), May 18th, 2012 @ 8:53pm

    Well, you are always going to catch some dolfins when you are trolling for tuna. That is the risk of the fishing buisness.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), May 19th, 2012 @ 4:23am

    In case anybody's still wondering, the word "exitos" translates literally as "successes" or colloquially as "hits" in Spanish.

    So, basically, it looks like Sony was targeting anybody who talks about Adele and hits in the same blog post. Very, very strange...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), May 19th, 2012 @ 4:43am

    Re: Re: Yet another reason why

    This reminds me, funnily enough, of a case in 2000. The website World Of Spectrum were sent a cease and desist telling them to stop hosting a new game called Soldier Of Fortune. Of course, they weren't, they were quite legally hosting a mid-80s game for the ZX Spectrum of the same name. There was no way a human could confuse the games, not least because the new game was CD based and the hosted game was around 60Kb in size. But, their automated systems weren't that clever...

    It's depressing how little these fools have changed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), May 19th, 2012 @ 4:51am

    Re:

    "Any human would have noticed right away that there was no infringement."

    But they cost money... You don't expect RIAA members to put accuracy and fairness above profit, do you? Please...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Joe, May 19th, 2012 @ 7:04am

    Re: Re: DMCA vs. Bill of Rights

    So in essence, it's the old English High Courts?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Joe, May 19th, 2012 @ 7:06am

    Re:

    Maybe they're afraid that people will read anything mentioning their hits and get more sales! *zing*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Adele, May 19th, 2012 @ 7:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    /\/\/\ Guess what my new name online is /\/\/\

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), May 19th, 2012 @ 8:19am

    Re: Yet another reason why

    "I swear, under penalty of perjury, [...]"

    I was under the impression that perjury is a VERY serious felony. Isn't it the same as lying under oath in a court?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), May 19th, 2012 @ 8:22am

    Re: L vs E

    Actually, Google is doing an incredible job here! It's not THEIR fault that the system sucks, now is it?

    I love the fact that they don't bring out the "big guns" of violations and deletion unless you repeat the alleged infringement. How many service providers do you know that actually lets you keep the post, rather than just straight up delete it, while the issue is being resolved?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), May 19th, 2012 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re:

    Now now, we don't know what the bot-writer knows or did. Perhaps this writer-person actually pointed out how silly it is, and got a "want you money or not?" reply?

    Yes, I like to think that "us nerds" are a little bit better than the nutjobs that created this situation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Jonathan, May 19th, 2012 @ 9:05am

    Re: Sign this petition

    If history is any indication, their response will be "This Petition calls upon the Administration to take a specific law enforcement action. Therefore, screw you."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), May 19th, 2012 @ 9:55am

    Re: Re: Yet another reason why

    Absolutely, but perjury - in the USA anyway - is one of those crimes that seems to come with a rebuttable presumption if the defendant has lots of money and an irrebuttable presumption if the defendant is employed by a government authority.

    Or so it seems anyway.. Any US attorneys want to prove me wrong?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    ~ender, May 19th, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Perjury?

    In my state, that means whoever was in charge of checking that box is going to be doing 2 years in prison for perjury. Also, if they were an acting agent of the corporation (which by saying XL SONY owned, etc), that means the corporation is guilty of committing a felony, which has a fine starting at $1 million dollars.

    I suggest if either Google or "Adele Dubois" care about copyright, and related BS - and want to get this auto-DMCA stopped, that they start by filing criminal charges against XL SONY.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    ~ender, May 19th, 2012 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason why

    Here's the kicker. It's a criminal violation AND there's no civil liability for perjury, so the cops cannot ignore it, without breaking they themselves breaking the law (unlike cases where they can decline to investigate criminal matters and you must take care of it via civil suit) - if you bring charges. I'm not even sure that the prosecutors can even decline to prosecute the case, without opening themselves to civil liability. Of course, they probably do, and most people don't think to sue the attorney general. OTOH, I'd love to get this as a client, because when the AG doesn't take it up, the civil liability could be more than just the amount you were inconvenienced, it could be $1M.

    IANAL, however. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Prisoner 201, May 21st, 2012 @ 4:10am

    Re: Yet another reason why

    Since the cost of a wrongful takedown is next to zero, we will only see an incerease in automated takedowns, with increasingly broad algorithms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re: Yet another reason why

    But this is worse than perjury. This needs a penalty far worse. Like an extra double strong stern warning not to do it again.

    It should be like the UN threatening some bad acting country. If you don't stop that, we threaten we'll pass a resolution stating that we'll vote on another resolution condemning your actions!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, May 21st, 2012 @ 10:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: L vs E

    The problem is that the lawyers and businessmen who are writing our laws aren't the members of Congress we elected, but rather lobbyists and special interests.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Adele, May 21st, 2012 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ME too

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    What?, Feb 28th, 2013 @ 8:12am

    I got the same notification too.

    I got this notification too T3T. since you got this nightmare like me, then what should I do about this?

    - delete that post?

    or

    - delete all posts and delete my blog?

    thanks for your help…

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This