German Anti-Piracy Group Issues Takedown Over Video It Had No Rights To

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Reader Drizzt sent over a whole stack of links about an ongoing story in Germany concerning an anti-piracy group in Germany — Gesellschaft zur Verfolgung von Urheberrechtsverletzungen (GVU) — who apparently issued some takedown notices on some videos that (a) it had no rights to and (b) which the filmmakers had put up under Creative Commons licenses (that link is the Google translation of the original German). I was going through all of the links to piece it together, but it looks like TorrentFreak has done an excellent job summarizing the situation. Basically, GVU contracted out to a technology “partner,” called OpSec Security, and that company screwed up. GVU and OpEc are apologizing for the situation. One of the filmmakers, Mario Sixtus, sent GVU a cease-and-desist for falsely claiming rights over his film, noting that this was nothing less than “digital vandalism,” and direct interference of his publication rights. Sixtus also noted that if GVU had found a Hollywood film on his hard drive, would a simple “oops, our bad” have been accepted in response, as GVU and OpSec seem to believe is fine in this situation?

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: gvu

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “German Anti-Piracy Group Issues Takedown Over Video It Had No Rights To”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Drizzt says:

Re: Re: How the name is spoken in German (was: Sigh....)

I haven’t found a complete recording of the name of the GVU, but you can piece it together:
Urheberrecht: [Sorry didn’t find a recording either.]

In the hope it helps,

AdamBv1 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yes, this is why a notice and notice system would be MUCH better than the current notice and takedown system we currently have in the US as it would give everyone much greater protection against abuses and attempts at censorship like this.

As it stands right now almost anyone can submit a DMCA takedown and the service provider will pull the content without checking for fear of losing their safe harbors, even if its obvious fair use or does not even belong to whoever sent the DMCA takedown.

Mike has noted in the past where a news channel was sending takedowns to youtube about a group that was using news clips for commentary on the news cast itself. In this case by the time they were able to petition to get the content back up it was days later and the videos were almost useless at that point due to the nature of the content being breaking news and needing the quick exposure. While a false DMCA takedown can be reversed sometimes by the time you can get the content back up its is not worth near as much at that point and they have succeeded in censoring you.

nauer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The notice and takedown system would work just fine if end users were given some protection against abuses of the system by rights holders. One of the sole subsections of the DMCA that deals with redress for such abuses is § 512(f), which creates a cause of action against anyone who knowingly misrepresents the infringing nature of a use. Unfortunately, however, judicial interpretation of the subsection (which is sparse) has resulted in § 512(f) being rendered virtually useless.

I’ve written an article that is pending publication (read the abstract here) that outlines the abusive practices that people are seeing in the DMCA system. In it, I argue that correct interpretation of § 512(f) would provide proper incentive for rights holders to refrain from sending abusive notices, and to take reasonable steps to ensure that care is used in the process. It is my hope that the adoption of this interpretation would create liability in those who do not conduct due diligence before sending takedown notices (e.g., making sure they own the copyright) and from acting with improper motive (e.g., to silence free speech). The full text of the article in pdf version if you care to read it.

Anonymous Coward says:

I think most people don’t see what is happening, people should produce 10 second videos to be embedded with their normal uploads to vimeo or youtube explaining bits and pieces of copycrap and how governments are trying to screw people.

I think a lot of people would care enough to put those videos at the beginning of their own videos about things they care about.

The guy had a good idea is just his videos are too long to other people to put them on their on videos to spread the word.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...