Hollywood Studios Send DMCA Takedowns Over Kim Dotcom's Mega Service
from the they-really-don't-like-that-guy dept
Kim Dotcom launched his “Mega” service to great fanfare a few months back. Since then it hasn’t really gotten much press coverage, but it appears that the Hollywood studios are looking to change that, sending DMCA takedown notices to Google to remove the Mega.com front page. You could understand it if it was a particular link to an infringing file (and, Mega itself claims to be completely complaint with any such DMCA notices). But, in this case, we have NBC Universal — already known for being a bit overaggressive with these sorts of things — sending a takedown notice that includes the very front page of Mega.co.nz, despite the fact that the front page has no links at all. They’re claiming that the front page contains its film Mama. Meanwhile, Warner Bros. is claiming in a DMCA takedown that Mega.co.nz should be removed because it has its movie Gangster Squad.
Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt, and we chalk these sorts of things up to over aggressive automated takedowns , but at this point you have to wonder if the studios aren’t just attacking Mega because they can. They absolutely hate Dotcom with a passion well beyond any reason, and now that Google has told them it will hurt the search rankings of sites that receive too many DMCA notices, they have a direct incentive to look to weaken Mega, as it’s something they’re fearful of, in part because they don’t understand it. Once again, though, we see that the major Hollywood studios completely abusing the DMCA takedown process. Is it any wonder they’re so adamant that they shouldn’t get in any trouble for filing bogus DMCA takedown notices?
Filed Under: dmca, kim dotcom, takedowns
Companies: mega, nbc universal, warner bros.
Comments on “Hollywood Studios Send DMCA Takedowns Over Kim Dotcom's Mega Service”
Well but he is a bad guy, we said so… so the law should continue to not apply to us poor corporations who need special ways to hold onto our outdated business model.
This is going beyond mistakes, and gives Kim Dotcom even more grounds for fighting extradition. He can reasonably claim he is being set-up by Hollywood.
Re: Re:
I’m sure he’ll have a whole paragraph or two dedicated to it in the White Paper 2.0, Dipshit Punk Edition.
Re: Re:
At the very least it could be used to show there is little chance of a fair trial in the US.
And, of course, Pirate Mike has no trouble with the thousands of other links in the takedown notice that represent a willful infringer getting away with it. But those crazy rightholders just don’t understand your buddy Pirate Kim, right, Mikey? It’s just *so* hard to grasp what he and the rest of those sites dedicated to piracy are up to.
Re: Re:
I’m sure we can find entire city blocks to send to prison because they’re mostly bad guys – and who cares if a few innocents get thrown in as well.
Re: Re:
the thousands of other links in the takedown notice that represent a willful infringer getting away with it
What “thousands of other links?” The only listing in the DMCA notice was to the Mega home page. There was not one single link to any content stored on the Mega site.
Re: Re: Re:
Click on a link and read? You ask too much.
Re: Re:
Piracy? I use Mega to store photos & videos of my children. So, go fuck yerself and have a nice day 🙂 That goes for anyone coughU.S.GovernmentcoughHollywoodcough who even thinks about removing my stuff by seizing the new Mega. I will have you up on all sorts of unpleasant things for taking my photos of my babies without my express permission.*
*Yeah it won’t work, but it’s almost time to start trying their tactics.
Re: Re:
Do all of your friends sport the “I’m with stupid.” tee-shirts?
Re: Re:
I really don’t care about IP laws and I want them abolished. Any politician that doesn’t expressly declare that they want IP law abolished will not get my vote.
Re: Re: Re:
So I take it you won’t be voting?
Re: Re:
OOTB in another skin? Looks like his bllsht style of writing.
Re: Re:
“And, of course, Pirate Mike has no trouble with the thousands of other links in the takedown notice that represent a willful infringer getting away with it.”
I’ve read this article three times now trying to find where Mike stated he “has no trouble” but I can’t find it. Can you point it out for me please? Thanks!
Re: Re: Re:
It’s in the fictional article he responds to in his head. He can’t deal with the actual positions and opinions stated here, so he has to invent his own.
Who gets to post first
In case it hasn’t been done yet, who wants to post the Mega front page URL and propagate it to as many FB pages as possible? I’ll help! 🙂 Stupid pinheads in the MPAA and RIAA STILL don’t get it, do they?
Re: Who gets to post first
Ok. Here it is! https://mega.co.nz/
Now, to like it on my FB page, and all my relatives (on 4 continents)…
Re: Who gets to post first
Posting it right now then I am off to eat Supper.Fuck the MAFIAA !
considering the amount of money paid in ‘encouragement’ to the government and to politicians by the entertainment industries, is it any wonder why there is no penalty for abusing the DMCA? any wonder why there is so little respect for those industries, for politicians or for the government in general? when they do nothing to curb this sort of abuse but do everything and anything they can to lock people up, to ruin their lives, over sharing a file with a friend, is it any wonder at all?? the world is basically totally fucked up when the most important thing in that world is seen by governments as being a movie, and the worst crime in that world is sharing that movie, deserving the harshest punishment possible, more harsh than robbery, rape or beating someone to death (oh, sorry. forgot. that is a ‘crime’ you can get away with, especially if you are a police officer!)
Re: Re:
What they really want is to transform the internet into a corporate-regulated, government-monitored walled garden. Whatever the method of data storage/delivery, they want absolute control, whether it be search engines, video hosting, storage lockers, peer-to-peer networks, you name it.
Sue them
Thos studios are asserting copyright upon content to which they obviously do not hold copyright on. This is called plagiarism.
So they’re actually wide open to a lawsuit for illegal assertion of copyright, aka copyfraud.
Re: Sue them
Plagiarism is not the same copyright infringement. One can be guilty of copyright infringement even when giving credit, and one can be guilty of plagiarism even when the use is authorized by the copyright holder (like with those “college essays” sites). In fact, plagiarism isn’t unlawful at all (unless it is also copyright infringement).
Also, “copyfraud” usually means that rights holders are claiming rights over public domain works, or claiming rights over their own works that copyright doesn’t grant them. It wouldn’t apply in this case.
I think the words you’re looking for are “outright lying.” Legally speaking, that would be a fraudulent takedown notice, not a fraudulent copyright claim. They are (or should be) liable under 512(f), but not under 506(c).
Re: Re: Sue them
In fact, plagiarism isn’t unlawful at all (unless it is also copyright infringement).
It can also be illegal by being fraud.
Re: Sue them
Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt
Of all of the thousands of fantastic, slimy, and gratuitously deceitful lies you have ever told- this stands at the pinnacle. Wow, just wow.
Re: Re:
Do you honestly think that Mike complains about 51% of all DMCA claims by the MAFIAA?
Re: Re: Re:
Dunno about Mike, but apparently Mega complains, as they are “completely complaint” with any such DMCA notices. And I don’t blame them.
Re: Re:
Did you know that in the English languages sentences can continue on after a comma?
Re: Re: Re:
Yep. Sometimes they can move a finger or two. But be careful, because they can also hear every word you say.
Re: Re:
Of all of the thousands of fantastic, slimy, and gratuitously deceitful lies you have ever told- this stands at the pinnacle. Wow, just wow.
That one made me LOL. What a deranged person Masnick is that he posts such things.
Re: Re:
Really? I’m usually pretty clear that I think these kinds of DMCA takedowns are accidents due to over aggressive automated systems, rather than any purposeful attempt to censor.
A few examples:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11552823150/major-hollywood-studios-all-sent-bogus-dmca-takedowns-concerning-pirate-bay-documentary.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121026/17190420859/leakid-dmca-takedown-notice-farce.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130205/03124421884/how-much-does-hbo-pay-markmonitor-to-send-dmca-notices-removing-its-official-content-google.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091028/1808416709.shtml
I’m guessing you misunderstood my comment. I do certainly call out these bogus activities, but I give the benefit of the doubt on the question of whether the bogus takedowns are done on purpose to censor. But, in this case, it’s a lot more difficult to give that benefit of the doubt.
In the meantime, what’s with your sophomoric level of insults? You used to be better than that, but lately it seems like you’ve just been focused on spewing ad hominems. What’s wrong? Your buddies not paying you enough to make actual arguments any more? Next time you should side iwth the future, rather than the past.
Re: Re: Re:
@ Mike sez: “In the meantime, what’s with your sophomoric level of insults? You used to be better than that, but lately it seems like you’ve just been focused on spewing ad hominems. What’s wrong? Your buddies not paying you enough to make actual arguments any more? Next time you should side iwth the future, rather than the past.”
Heh, heh. Set aside the lofty ignoring for a while, eh?
I’ll presume to answer for “bob” — of late, you aren’t giving anyone enough to work with. Your defense of a quip here is as least as long as the text above.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignoring? If anything Mike pays too much attention to you trolls.
Besides, the other commenters can totally defeat your side’s terrible arguements without Mike himself needing to correct you. Crowdsourcing sanity FTW
Re: Re: Re:
Next time you should side iwth the future, rather than the past.
The future won’t be so different than the past. The wholly unregulated, Wild West of an internet utopia you and coterie of sycophants so desperately hope for is an illusion. Your allies in the tech world see the money is in content distribution and want in the game. They’re moving further, not closer to the lawless internet you so desperately want.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you show us on the doll where the straw man touched you?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think it would be NSFW.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny then how it’s the maximalists who are pushing for a ‘lawless’ internet by legalizing hacking, spyware, malware…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you keep extending copyright by 20 years? Yeah, by that definition you could say nothing will change. You keep making copyright as ridiculous as possible.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sound like a drunk poet projecting.
Then again, I thought you’d be smart enough to know these companies work towards their prerogatives, which is to make a profit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I want IP law abolished. This doesn’t mean I want no laws at all, just not IP laws. Not wanting IP laws does not equate to not wanting any laws and being lawless.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
oh, i want ‘no laws at all’, ’cause the fucktards in charge of them keep fucking them up… they can’t be trusted with them…
besides, the arc of his story is towards anarchy…
(just as old school soviet russia does NOT mean ‘communism’, so anarchy does NOT mean ‘chaos’…)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Wild West of an internet utopia”
No, what needs to happen is that the wild wild west of politician buying, law buying, govt established (broadcasting and cableco) media monopoly, IP extremist utopia days for those in power need to come to an end.
I’m sick and tired of bought laws. I’m sick and tired of a government established media cartel feeding us propaganda. The wild wild west of bought laws through corporate campaign contributions and revolving door favors need to end.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“not closer to the lawless internet “
and the purpose of laws shouldn’t be simply to prevent us from being ‘lawless’. Laws shouldn’t exist for the sake of existing. Laws should exist to serve the public interest.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why are people working on a better internet right now that won’t be subject to the laws of any one nation?
You’re living in the past with your sycophant masters.
Get with the times, man. Laws that are stupid and serve a minority of the population don’t get followed.
Re: Re: Re:
I think he’s run out of brain cells, Mike. He has lost the capacity to construct arguments, so he relies on ad homs in the hopes that we’ll pay some attention to him.
As far as I’m concerned, the DMCA is abused over and over again with zero consequences for the abusers and that is flat out wrong. I’ve seen it reported often enough on other tech blogs to know it’s a fact.
I’m not sure he’s a paid shill. Some people value opinion over facts, and will cling to them for dear life no matter what, often making huge fools of themselves in the process. They seem to believe that repeating lies over and over again makes them true. Let’s be honest, sometimes it works, but only on idiots and the easily led. In any case, the “opinion trumps fact” brigade have such an emotional investment in their cherished notions that no amount of factual information will persuade them to give them up.
The name-calling and trolling we experience here on TD is the result of their frustration at knowing they are wrong but being unwilling to admit it in case their egos get a boo boo.
It’s actually quite funny if you’re in the right mood.
Re: Re:
What lie?
Mike usually says that it’s legal, though troubling and questionable with how they do business.
Maybe you should wash your nose, it’s looking a bit brown there, maybe your masters can offer you some wet ones?
Ah Kim Dotcom, a grossly unlikable chap turned into an anti-Hollywood folk hero by the entertainment industries and the US DOJ over Megaupload.
The best thing? They are still doing it with his new service. I guess they will never learn.
Re: Re:
“Ah Kim Dotcom, a grossly unlikable chap…”
Can you actually explain why you feel this way? I really struggle to find any reason other than jealously for people to hold such extreme personal opinions of him.
Re: Re: Re:
Apparently douchebags have a difficult time recognizing other douchebags.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you have troubling conversing like an adult…
Reply in like
So if Kim Dotcom was to make say a 30 second video of him staring into the camera, could he then demand that the studio’s primary service provider cut off their domain with a DMCA?
Re: Reply in like
He just needs to put it online for free with a notice that says nobody is allowed to copy it. Since the studios own all the cable providers, this should work.
Maybe its time to give back...
Since there seems to be no penalty for bogus DMCA filing’s and Goggle will demote sites with lots of DMCA filled against it.
I see a perfectly reasonable (and apparently legal) solution; all of those sick and tired of these type of IP bully tactics to should issue DMCA’s again NBC Universal website. Each and every page. With enough people doing this to every page, assuming Google follows their own protocol, they should be buried so far down in the search that you could find the end of the internet before they ever appear on a person’s screen again.
Re: Maybe its time to give back...
Don’t you understand yet? You’re a peon. You’ll get 30 years under the CFAA for “hacking”.
Re: Re: Maybe its time to give back...
Your scenario is faulty.
It assumes you will live long enough to make it to trial.
Re: Maybe its time to give back...
they’ll just sue you for less than the cost of litigation, but more than you want to pay.
Re: Re: Maybe its time to give back...
I think you all missed the point.
I was not talking about a single person (say me) do this, but something on the magnitude of 10 or 20 thousand.
As much as they would like to, it would be hard to convict and/or sue that many.
Would they really have their site buried, I seriously doubt it, but it would do a couple of things:
a) help to point out the flaws in the current system
b) force Google to retract their policy (which was obviously just a poor attempt to shut the entertainment industry up). If Goggle decides not to retract this policy then they would seriously exposed as hypercritical, unless they apply it equally. Given that their strength lay with the masses and not the well funded (remember they make a lot of their money on advertising which means their products need to be used as much as possible). Since I don’t think that Google would take the reputation hit for this and I don’t think they want to up the fight with the industry, the only logical conclusion is to drop it.
Re: Maybe its time to give back...
Hmmm, we need a site encouraging it and teaching people how to.
Yep. Google certainly opened a can of worms with their announcement.
If they had just kept their mouth shut and lowered results, I doubt this would have been an issue.
Next up for the MPAA: having the DoJ block the site from US ISPs.
It’s coming. You know it is.
streisandstreisandstreisandstreisandstreisand
when will hollywood finally understand the streisand effect. way to put mega back in the news. hope kim slams them down in the megaupload case
"Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt" Really??
Since when have you ever given the studios the benefit of the doubt?
Re: "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt" Really??
He does, bob, as he said in a post above this one, he calls into question the automatic process.
And, as I pointed out, he generally just questions the validity of it, but nothing more.
You know, like how portions of the press are questioning the IRS’s actions taken against conservative political groups. There’s nothing illegal about it, however, you can still question the validity of it.
Re: "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt" Really??
I know reading is hard for you bob, but do try to finish the whole sentence before your tantrum.
LOL! "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt"
In this case that stands for “late on laugh”. Good one, Pirate Mike. You’ll definitely win best laugh of the week, already.
Those darn censors somehow got into your “free speech” zone though:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
And, of course, Pirate Mike has no trouble with the thousands of other links in the takedown notice that represent a willful infringer getting away with it. But those crazy rightholders just don’t understand your buddy Pirate Kim, right, Mikey? It’s just *so* hard to grasp what he and the rest of those sites dedicated to piracy are up to.
I’m sure he’ll have a whole paragraph or two dedicated to it in the White Paper 2.0, Dipshit Punk Edition.
C’mon, kids. Mild comments like THAT cause enough of you to click on it to hide? Either Pirate Mike has set the number required very low or Pirate Mike sees the IP and hides it himself.
Re: LOL! "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt"
Mild? I think everyone’s come to a consensus that you have nothing to add.
C’mon, Blue, you’re not changing anyone’s mind.
Re: LOL! "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt"
“Mild comments like THAT cause enough of you to click on it to hide?”
Yes. The definition of the use of the report button includes “trollish”, and you’re yet to post a comment that doesn’t meet that definition. Even if you did, the comment contained at least 2 outright lies, along with the clear indication that you (as ever) didn’t read the article properly, let alone the material it was linking to, before launching an attack. Half of the comment consists of childish namecalling with zero point ever being made. Thus, your comment was reported and hidden, “mild” or not.
If this offends you, stop lying. Stop basing your arguments on lies. Start reading the comments you’re responding to before launching into kindergarten namecalling. Then, your comments will magically stop being hidden. Otherwise, just accept that your infantile whining about your idiotic comments being hidden will also be hidden.
Re: Re: LOL! "Normally, we give the studios the benefit of the doubt"
“If this offends you, stop lying. Stop basing your arguments on lies. Start reading the comments you’re responding to before launching into kindergarten namecalling. Then, your comments will magically stop being hidden.”
They won’t need to be hidden – if they do what you suggest, they’ll have no “material” to post.
The front page does not even contain the words gangster, squad, or mama.
“”I’ll presume to answer for “bob” — of late, you aren’t giving anyone enough to work with. Your defense of a quip here is as least as long as the text above.””
That’s a compliment from someone who does exactly the same to Mike and other posters on this site.
Typo: complaint should be compliant
Seems to me...
The easy answer is the rest of the internet (aka us) should send DMCA take downs to Google for all the Hollywood Studios. After all, it isn’t like anything bad can happen to us.
Someone give me a link to instructions for filing DMCA take downs. We can play too and I bet there are more of us than Hollywood Studios (oh, and I don’t have a website I care about either).
Why give them the benefit of the doubt?
I see alot of discussion with the usual nimrods (ootb, joe, bob) all up in arms over giving Hollywood the “benefit of the doubt” when it comes to DMCA notices.
Doesn’t this incident (and The Pirate Bay film incident) perfectly illustarte that they ARE actually sending these out in clear abuse of the DMCA process? Or is this just another “anomaly?”
Question: how many “anomalies” does it take to get to the center of the issue – that issue being that Hollywood is up to the same level of douchebaggery that they’ve been up to since day one. Abusing the process doesn’t generate sympathy for their anti-piracy message – it does exactly the opposite.
A film they CLEARLY don’t own, and a landing page for a site they aren’t happy with? Not for nothing, but if you tards (ootb, joe, and bob…just to be clear) don’t see this for what it is, then you truly have managed to execute the impossible.
How much lube and practice did it take to be able to contort yourselves in such a way that you could fit your heads up your asses?
I’m not interested in trying.
I’m just curious as to the amount of effort.
Google could solve the bad takedown issues.
Google could easily solve this – they could rate the accuracy of DMCA takedown notices and negatively rank companies that send bogus ones as a penalty for wasting everybody’s time. Watch how fast the studios clean up their act when their own sites stop showing up on page on.
Re: Google could solve the bad takedown issues.
So does that mean that eventually their DMCA takedowns will not only not drop them but raise their search rankings?
Hold on a sec here...
As far as I can see, all files on Mega are accessed by adding an anchor to the end of the homepage URL, which is then processed by the site. It’s entirely possible that this was just an automated system thinking that chopping off the anchor was the right thing to do (even though in reality it just created this ludicrous situation).