Ah, bogus DMCA notices that you just can't make up. TorrentFreak has a good article highlighting a completely bogus DMCA notice from Microsoft (sent by one of its partners on its behalf) that tries to take a bunch of legitimate news sites out of Google's index, on the mistaken claim that they violated Windows 8 copyrights. But, even more ridiculous is an aside mentioned in the article, that some other DMCA notices appear to target Bing, Microsoft's own search engine. Indeed, they're not that hard to find. If you look up DMCA notices asking Google to remove links to Bing, Microsoft shows up quite a bit: If you dig down, you can find out the specifics, such as this DMCA notice sent on May 23 of this year, sent by Marketly on behalf of Microsoft, supposedly to stop the infringement of Office 2010. It lists out 997 URLs that it wants Google to take out of its search results, including a link to a Bing search. Given that Microsoft owns Bing... you'd think it would remove that search first. What's even more amusing is that if you go to the link in question on Bing... it's still there.

Yes, this is yet another silly move by an automated system, but it once again highlights some of the ridiculousness involved in DMCA takedowns for search results.

We recently covered how YouTube briefly pulled down the NASA-uploaded public domain video footage from the Curiosity rover's Mars landing. We were quite careful in the piece not to call it a DMCA takedown, because it was pretty clear that the DMCA was not involved. Unfortunately, many have been assuming that it was via the DMCA (and there are even lengthy comments discussing aspects of the DMCA). However, the DMCA had nothing to do with it. It appears that the whole thing was due to the way that YouTube's ContentID system works.

Tim Lee has a great post explaining how ContentID works in such situations, including the story of another video -- which involved commentary on the Curiosity landing done by Lon Seidman of the site CT Tech Junkie, which quickly received five claims from media organizations to copyright in the content. In response to all of this, the EFF has an important post highlighting the serious problems of an automated system like ContentID, which simply cannot understand algorithmically when content may be fair use or public domain. The EFF's fear is that the ContentID system doesn't have the (extremely limited, unfortunately) protections that the DMCA includes, and which were the focus of much discussion in our original post.

Content ID, by contrast, is an opaque and proprietary system where the accuser can serve as the judge, jury, and executioner. Worse, the person whose speech is being silenced has little recourse. The Content ID system tips whatever balance is present in the DMCA and allows even more pernicious forms of manipulation and abuse. In a Wired column earlier this year, Andy Baio enumerated some of the problems that YouTube users encounter:

But there has been a dramatic rise in Content ID abuse in the past couple of years, wielded in ways never intended. Scammers are using Content ID to steal ad revenue from YouTube video creators en masse, with some companies claiming content they don’t own deliberately or not. The inability to understand context and parody regularly leads to “fair use” videos getting blocked, muted or monetized.

But even without taking scammers into account, the premise behind Content ID is just incompatible with fair use and the public domain. It's impossibly complicated to define in a set of "business rules" for automated enforcement. Allowing Content ID robots to apply the rules leads to oversimplification that chills legitimate speech.

If anything, as Tim Lee's article explains, ContentID is actually demonstrating (quite clearly) why there are so many concerns about copyright takedowns. Copyright system supporters often insist that it's "easy" for sites to recognize and take down infringing content, and use any evidence of infringement as a damning sign of a site not doing enough. But, the reality on the ground is that making a determination on whether or not something is infringing is not nearly as easy as some people believe:

But in accommodating the demands of large copyright holders, YouTube has inadvertently reminded us all of the crucial point that flagging copyright infringement isn't nearly as simple as it is often portrayed by rightsholders. Even scanning videos for exact content matches that exceed certain thresholds (in order to preserve at least some fair uses) actually fails in all sorts of interesting ways.

Rather than acting as a neutral arbitrator between major content companies and independent organizations, YouTube's system favors the larger rightsholders that make use of its Content ID system over smaller creators. And because it's a private system that goes beyond the DMCA, the Content ID system is under no legal obligation to comply with the DMCA's safeguards and timelines.

ContentID certainly has some nice features -- including an innovative new revenue stream for content creators. But there are significant problems with it, concerning how it handles fair use and public domain material, which serve to highlight why the idea of a "silver bullet" solution for online infringement is so problematic.

Having just been victimized by a bogus DMCA takedown notice that censored our content, I'm certainly aware of ways in which the process needs to improve (a notice-and-notice provision, rather than a notice-and-takedown provision, would be a big, big start). However, as we have detailed here in the past, these automated takedowns are pretty typical—and they're becoming an issue in a particular lawsuit. Hollywood went after Hotfile pretty strongly, but as part of Hotfile's countersuit showed, Warner Bros. in particular seemed to have a habit of issuing takedown orders on content it had no rights to.

That's a pretty big concern, no matter what the "intentions" of those breaking the law. Warner Bros.' response takes a pretty cavalier attitude, more or less amounting to "hey, mistakes were made; no biggie" . The specific law on bogus takedowns -- 512(f) of the DMCA -- only says that there's punishment for those who "knowingly materially misrepresent." Warner Bros., of course, insists that just making a mistake does not trip that wire.

The EFF has now jumped in with an amicus brief that argues otherwise. The argument is pretty straightforward: if you're doing automated, or semi-automated takedown notices without reviewing them, the efforts are so careless and negligent that they clearly misrepresent the claims needed for a legitimate DMCA takedown. The filing notes that such automated takedowns are a real problem (even citing our recent experience), and that if such automated takedowns aren't liable for sanctions under 512(f) then that section is effectively meaningless.

Indeed, if Warner were correct, which it is not, Section 512(f) would become largely superfluous. Any company could sidestep accountability for improper takedowns by simply outsourcing the process to a computer. What is worse, copyright owners would have a perverse incentive to dumb-down the process, removing human review so as to avoid the possibility of any form of subjective belief. The tragic consequences for lawful uses are obvious: untold numbers of legal videos would be taken down, whether or not the uses were fair or even licensed.

Imagine the potential for mischief: Let’s say that Warner does not like competition from Universal. It could set a computer to search through Universal’s online presence, with the loosest possible settings, and issue takedown after takedown to Universal’s ISP for spurious claims. Nor is this scenario far-fetched: as noted above, supra at 4-5, anticompetitive uses of the DMCA takedown process are commonplace.

Among other things, the EFF filing highlights the Lentz v. Universal ruling that found that those filing takedowns have to take fair use into account -- and pointing out that you can't take fair use into account if you're automating takedowns.

Unfortunately, historically, 512(f) has been a pretty toothless part of the law in response to bogus takedowns. The bar has been way too high. This is partly why we thought the parallel "remedy" that was found in SOPA was also likely to be equally useless. Attempts to make it stronger were rejected because those behind the bill knew it was toothless. Having the court agree with the EFF's position on this would be a huge help in giving those who are victims of bogus takedowns a tool to fight back.

Despite the fact that there are still some serious legal questions about the methods of US Copyright Group (really, DC-based law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver), the firm is apparently about to file its next round of lawsuits, suing thousands more, with the hope that they'll just shut up and pay up, rather than actually wanting to go to court.. Update: As pointed out in the comments, this is actually an announcement of the second round of the initial lawsuits, actually filing suit against the named participants who failed to settle when sent the "pay up or we'll sue" notice. This makes it a bit more interesting, seeing as actually filing specific lawsuits would make this program a lot more expensive, which is why other, similar, organizations haven't done so....

The same article also notes (without much surprise) that despite orders from the judge for USCG to work with the EFF to craft a more informative letter to be sent to people who are targeted in the lawsuits, the two sides are having quite a bit of trouble agreeing on the language. Apparently, they're already going back to the judge to say that this isn't exactly working. Shocking.

Lots of folks have noted the similarities between the UK's ACS:Law and the US Copyright Group (or, perhaps, more accurately Dunlap, Weaver and Grubb, the law firm that appears to be behind USCG). We've pointed out multiple times that ACS:Law and its predecessor Davenport Lyons have been referred for disciplinary action and even UK politicians have called the whole thing a scam. Apparently, Andrew Crossley, who runs ACS:Law has also been sanctioned twice by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the UK.

But now Robin alerts us to the news that ACS:Law and Crossley are claiming that they're teaming up with US Copyright Group. Or, well, at least we think so. In the grammatically challenged blog post, ACS:Law's anonymous blogger calls it United Copyright Group, so we're assuming that it's a typo:

We are also working in cooperation with a newly-formed organisation, the United Copyright Group, that provides an holistic solution to illegal file sharing and provides a comprehensive set of tools designed to deter and prevent illegal file sharing. More will be written about this new phase of tackling illegal file sharing in due course.

Of course, nothing either firm does has anything whatsoever to do with preventing unauthorized file sharing. It's all about sending threatening letters and getting people to pay up. Either way, this "cooperation" may involve ACS:Law targeting folks in the US via US Copyright Group:

A new joint working relationship with US-based attorneys has opened up the North American region to our clients for identification and pursuit of illegal file sharing of their products.

With this and other operations looking to set up shop in the US, it looks like the courts may soon be flooded with questionable copyright lawsuits of this nature, almost none of which will actually go to court -- but which could freak lots of people into paying large sums of money when they probably don't need to do so. It would be nice if politicians did more than just calling this a scam and sanctioning the lawyers involved in such extortion-like practices. This sort of abuse of the court system for revenue generation should be stopped cold.