Revealed: How To Get The IFPI To Issue Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Just About Anything, With No Questions Asked And No Review
from the incredible dept
A few weeks ago, we wrote about how the IFPI (sort of the international RIAA) had bizarrely issued a DMCA takedown on Kim Dotcom’s own album off of his own website, Mega. Obviously, the IFPI holds no copyright on Dotcom’s album, and the takedown was obviously false. We noted that, while some might believe that this was a deliberate move by the IFPI in its anti-Kim Dotcom crusade, that seemed unlikely. It seemed like pure sloppiness. However, a recent post at TorrentFreak reveals more details about why and how the IFPI sent such a takedown — and why it happened again just weeks later.
The simple explanation? The IFPI is not even remotely careful in how it builds its list for takedowns. It’s scraping links from Pastebin and assuming they’re what people say they are, even if they’re totally unrelated. Yes, some pranksters have basically been posting links to Dotcom’s music on Pastebin, pretending that they’re some other songs, and the IFPI is sending takedowns based on that alone.
Eventually we stumbled upon a series of Pastebin pages where the URL of Dotcom?s album is linked to titles of other artists. Several of the artists mentioned in the pastes are the same as the one?s IFPI listed in their DMCA notices, so this would explain the mistakes.
Good investigative work by TorrentFreak. Horrible investigative work by the IFPI. Especially given the seriousness of demanding content be taken offline entirely based on bogus copyright claims.
But this is even more troubling in that it basically means any prankster can probably get the IFPI to start removing… just about anything. If there were real punishments for sending bogus DMCA takedowns, this sort of practice would stop, but since there isn’t, the IFPI can just keep doing this, and pranksters can “guide” the IFPI into taking down plenty of legitimate content. It’s yet another example of copyright as censorship, rather than having anything to do with legitimate copyright purposes.
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dmca, pastebin, takedowns
Companies: ifpi, mega
Comments on “Revealed: How To Get The IFPI To Issue Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Just About Anything, With No Questions Asked And No Review”
The bleeding obvious...
Perhaps someone with request the IFPI remove itself.
Re: The bleeding obvious...
IFPI on the connected tubes? Not even worth mentioning. The real piece de resistance would be to force the bot to disconnect itself. How else is it gonna learn?
Re: The bleeding obvious...
The smart thing? Get a list of all the IFPI’s clients, then list any and all web pages those clients use to promote their content, and claim they are infringing links.
So… Maybe if we Pastebin a bunch of songs with whitehouse.gov, the congress, the DoJ, the supreme court, UN, the English Royal Family, both houses of Parliament in the UK, the Chinese government, and of course ever copyright maximalist lobyist in Washington DCs web pages, people might start to wake up about how bad DMCA is, right?
If some prankster were to on purpose on Pastebin link to legitimate content and dress it up as copyright infringement then you can sure bet that the copyright holders will be screaming and shouting at the tops of their voices about DMCA abuse and be doing everything they can to sue the pranksters ass for everything they own. Yet when the copyright holder does the same with issuing a DMCA notice for something that they don’t own the copyright to there is more chance of snow falling in hell then the copyright holder being sued for DMCA abuse.
I hope some prankster on Pastebin does target legitimate content so that the punishment for DMCA abuse can be tried in court and should it be found guilty then it will set a precedent to be used against a copyright holder for their bogus DMCA takedowns.
Re: Re:
“I hope some prankster on Pastebin does target legitimate content…”
Read the article. That’s what they’re doing.
Re: Re: Re:
The legitimate content should be content that is AA’s copyright and give them a taste of their own medicine then they will start screaming about DMCA abuse and lets sue the ass of the guy that is doing it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it should link to the public filings of the member corporations… maybe to pages featuring their advertising campaigns too.
I’d guess that the IFPI probably has a whitelist though, so they’d have to go after other influential people who may be able to do something after getting upset — aren’t there some US senators who have written some music?
Re: Re:
I targeted my own non-infringing (by UK law) content. Check it: Pastebin.
“pranksters”
From a group that included members that have opted to demand more than the law allows and then abused that access?
Yeah couldn’t possibly have come from one of them.
There really needs to be a penalty for a bogus demands, they will not make it better without motivation. It costing them money or worse would result in the firehose being turned down.
The costs of them flooding requests are all born by everyone else. Someone has to pay to handle them, people have to “pay” by having access to material removed if the takendown is bogus, meanwhile the industries are still making vast amounts of money and still demanding government handouts to lower their costs even further.
Denial of Service attack
A brilliant new way of orchestrating a denial of service attack. Just post any link (the cnn.com home page, for instance, or the Apple Store) and claim it is the latest song by U2 – and have the IFPI send a DMCA takedown for you.
What are the odds they were smart enough to exclude their own url from their scrape-and-litigate bots? 🙂
Re: Re:
Low
Re: Re:
my theory
Globally, a list of excluded/acceptable sites maintained to prevent this, and then one ass politician to suggest, THIS should be the internet
Dear IFPI,
Great job taking down content you don’t own! It inspires so much confidence in your efforts, and really gives the copyright hawks on this site something to be proud of!
Keep up the marginally retarded standard of work! It’s characteristic of how well the DMCA is working, and without your efforts, someone might get the wrong idea that you’re abusing it, and not verifying that the works are actually yours.
Respectfully,
(/s – just in case…)
Who’s got a list of MPAA domains?
Trying to get them to send takedowns to their own site would be less than useful, they are likely to work that out in house without the public ever noticing. Now having them issue take downs on hordes of legitimately posted music on Youtube/Amazon/Itunes from the companies that pay their way? That has some potential of reaching the wider media.
Well, time to take down all the Justin Bieber songs on YouTube.
simple solution
The solution is simple: just require copyright enforcers to have a human verify the suspected infringement rather than the current system of setting up automated key-word search programs to spit out takedown notices by the thousands without any human oversight (and without any penalties whatsoever, no matter how sloppy and careless their actions and no matter how much “collateral damage” they do).
Re: simple solution
And then the very next comment says “it’s not possible to put the time and resources into each notice that you seem to think rightholders should”. So there you go. It’s not possible. Sorry.
But this is even more troubling in that it basically means any prankster can probably get the IFPI to start removing… just about anything. If there were real punishments for sending bogus DMCA takedowns, this sort of practice would stop, but since there isn’t, the IFPI can just keep doing this, and pranksters can “guide” the IFPI into taking down plenty of legitimate content. It’s yet another example of copyright as censorship, rather than having anything to do with legitimate copyright purposes.
And it’s yet another Techdirt post complaining about a handful of illegitimate notices in a sea of legitimate ones. I agree that these notices are unfortunate, but I think they need to be put into perspective: It’s only because piracy is so rampant that’s it’s not possible to put the time and resources into each notice that you seem to think rightholders should. Why no mention of that? And why is there NEVER any mention about “real punishment” for the infringers represented by the legitimate notices? Those infringers don’t even get a slap on the wrist, but, of course, Techdirt never complains about that. I’d ask you to explain why your posts are so lopsided, but we both know (1) why that’s so, and (2) that you won’t talk about it. But, yeah, you’re not anti-copyright. No, not at all. (I’m sure this comment will get “reported” because my views aren’t popular here, and I think that’s just sad. You guys should welcome dissenting views, not “report” them as “abusive” simply because you disagree with them.)
Re: Re:
Really? It’s “not possible” to check that what you’re demanding be taken down is actually yours?
Re: Re: Re:
Really? It’s “not possible” to check that what you’re demanding be taken down is actually yours?
Based on the conversations I’ve had with several rightholders, no, I don’t think it’s always possible, given the huge scale of piracy. Let me ask you this: Do you agree that every legitimate notice represents an infringer who is abusing the law, yet Techdirt never bothers to mention or condemn that? If so, why do you think that is?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Based on the conversations I’ve had with several rightholders, no, I don’t think it’s always possible, given the huge scale of piracy. Let me ask you this: Do you agree that every legitimate notice represents an infringer who is abusing the law,”
So as you say that it is not possible for the rightsholder to check to see if its infringement then when they report the url (without actually checking the file to see if its infringement or not) then what they report could well be something that they do not have the copyright on. Why do you think its acceptable for a copyright holder to take down a perfectly legitimate file that they do not have the copyright on?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Having the copyright enforcer download the file would certainly be nice, but it would be a huge improvement if they would even just have someone give a quick cursory glance to check the context of whether the content appears to match what they’re looking for. For instance, common sense should tell us that any HBO content on HBO.com is probably authorized and not infringing. But unless the bots are programmed to whitelist such sites, copyright claims will be filed against a company’s own home page, as has happened countless times before.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, you shouldn’t give them that “even just” scenario because they’ll nominally do that and pretend like the lack of human oversight over each and every under-penalty-of-perjury request is not an issue since they threw you a bone. Don’t demand less than what they demand of YouTube: have a human being with human eyeballs and a human mind review the content to determine if it’s a legitimate takedown request. Of course they’d probably have difficulty finding actual human beings to work for them.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So as you say that it is not possible for the rightsholder to check to see if its infringement then when they report the url (without actually checking the file to see if its infringement or not) then what they report could well be something that they do not have the copyright on. Why do you think its acceptable for a copyright holder to take down a perfectly legitimate file that they do not have the copyright on?
Acceptable? Not exactly. I think the problem is so rampant that some automation is needed, and mistakes will be made. Efforts should be made to minimize those mistakes. I don’t expect a perfect system, as many here presumably do. But the rest of my point is that it’s strange to me how incredibly upset Mike gets at the thought of one erroneous notice, yet he appears to have no problem whatsoever with the millions of legitimate notices and all of the purposeful infringement they represent. If a rightholder makes a MISTAKE, that’s criticized very, very heavily. But if an infringer INTENTIONALLY violates someone else’s rights, that’s not criticized at all. It’s the silly double-standard that I’m commenting on.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The actual copyright infringement that these automated takedowns may sometimes accurately target likely aren’t depriving a wealthy corporate copyright holder of any profits since the people who use such sites don’t magically decide to purchase the content instead, for a variety of possible reasons which may include, but aren’t limited to, unavailability in their country, lack of funds, disinclination to patronize the big music studios, disinclination to purchase music, etc. Not to mention the chilling effects notices list all the search engine-removed URLs, so they can just be used to find all the content that hasn’t actually been removed. Even if actual corporate profits are being diverted, that’s a civil issue and not a Constitutional offense.
On the other hand, even one incorrect takedown is a violation of free speech and thus of the first amendment of the Constitution and any violation of the Constitution contributes to a political climate in which people see that it’s okay to violate the Constitution (moreso than the government has already contributed to that climate in the last several decades). Allowing corporations to violate free speech because they’re too lazy to ensure that they’re not issuing a takedown on content they don’t own the copyrights to perpetuates the corporate mindset that laws are just rules you can break with impunity or enough apology money or rules you can purchase with enough lobbying and campaign contributions.
To assert otherwise is to contend that hypothetical money for faceless, unethical corporations is more important than basic human rights.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I think the problem is so rampant
Which means you certainly have any credible numbers to back that up, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Defending unlawful behavior – that’s why you look like such an asshole.
Not possible…the rest of us see that as “fucking lazy” (not that anyone who would defend committing an act of perjury would care).
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
How ironic it is for the copyright holders to moan saying that it is not possible for them to click on the link and to view the actual file to see if its infringement of their copyright or not for the amount that they send to Google but they shout from the rooftops that Google is not doing enough and quick enough to act despite the fact that Google process over 1 million url’s a day. What a joke!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Defending unlawful behavior – that’s why you look like such an asshole.
I’m NOT defending unlawful behavior. How is it unlawful? My understanding is that the standard is subjective bad faith. And I’m pointing out that Mike never, ever says anything critical whatsoever about the pirates who intentionally break the law which is what leads to the notices in the first place. One single mistake by a rightholder = new TD post condemning them. A million intentional violations by a bunch of greedy children who don’t want to pay a few bucks for a movie = total silence. So which one of us “defending unlawful behavior”? I think you have it backwards.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Please explain to me, oh legal expert, how it is possibly lawful for a human to allow a non-human piece of software to vouch for its basic text searching ability under penalty of perjury that it has a “good faith” belief that its human operator works for a corporation that owns the copyright on the media that may be at the other end of a URL that it was programmed to find? Software isn’t human and therefore can’t swear anything under penalty of perjury. If a human hasn’t reviewed the content then the takedown notice is inherently illegal. Believing software can always accurately discern content identity based on text searches and illegal use under copyright law when human beings often have trouble doing so themselves is inherently “bad faith.”
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How is it unlawful?
Simple – IT’S NOT THEIRS!
Do you have your head so far up the IFPI’s ass that you’re too ignorant to get it?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
How is it unlawful?
Simple – IT’S NOT THEIRS!
Do you have your head so far up the IFPI’s ass that you’re too ignorant to get it?
Oh, look, more abuse that won’t be “reported.” I’m referring to the actual legal standard. You know, the actual standard that actually determines whether these notices are actually unlawful. Try and keep up!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I see…so it doesn’t fit some legal standard? Which one?
Like I said before – they’re fucking lazy, and they’re breaking the law (see that “under penalty of perjury” part of the notice that you can’t seem to wrap your pointy head around).
Let me put it to you another way, simpleton. Is it fair that their bullshit takedown notices prevent access to someone else’s material? Is it fair that they can infringe on someone else’s intellectual property rights because they can’t be bothered to see if the work is something they actually own?
Try and keep up…yeah, take your own advice dipshit.
All the money they have, and they can’t be bothered?
That’s the biggest pile of horse shit I’ve ever heard. Perhaps if the job is “too hard” for them, then they need to find another line of work.
And BTW – yes, I reported your post – Ignorance like yours needs to be eradicated as much as possible, so the rest of us can continue to evolve.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
And if someone filed a DMCA notice taking down something that belonged to Antidirt you can sure bet a banana to a monkey that Antidirt will be on the phone to a solictior screaming that the person who filed the DMCA has committed DMCA abuse for taking down their work and be demanding that the person who filed the DMCA to be sued for DMCA abuse. I laugh if someone did to him the same as what these copyright holders abusers. All the person that filed the DMCA is to state that it was too hard for him to check the work to see if it was infringement and the case will be dismissed and tossed out of court.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
From That One Guy below:
From Wikipedia:
‘In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.’
But hey, no big deal…after all, it’s their “right” as you call it to file these requests, because doing it right is hard.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
now just one darn tootin’ minute, pardner…
IF it is ‘impossible’ (?really?) for the COPYRIGHT HOLDERS to recognize THEIR OWN WORK (or the converse, to recognize what ISN’T their work) as being infringed upon*, then how in dog’s name do you expect ‘average’ nobodies who have little knowledge/experience with copyright to do so ? ? ?
that is insane…
as per usual, you expect ‘normal’ people to do what ‘experts’ can not; and forgive the ‘experts’ for their MULTITUDES of failures, but will enforce draconian punishments on innocent traducers, no matter HOW minor the (so-called) ‘damage’ is…
you are not fair or symmetrical in your judgments in any way…
i do NOT believe for one second that 99.99% of the time it is ‘impossible’ (or even difficult) for a copyright holder to either recognize their own works, or recognize what ISN’T their own works… IF that is the case, that implies their ‘creation’ was so commonplace as to defy any recognition as their ‘own’ creative work…
i have created hundreds/thousands of graphics, and other physical objets d’art: i can not IMAGINE *NOT recognizing my own work… hell, i remember specific grain patterns from bowls and platters i turned years ago; i remember the little (generally unnoticeable) flaws that i didn’t quite sand all the way out (and, yes, it bothers me to death)… i remember -out of hundreds of pieces turned on a lathe- that i left a teeny, tiny smudge of a fingerprint on a finish on the bottom of a bowl, i remember ALL THAT SHIT after spending DOZENS of hours turning, sanding, finishing a bowl/platter/etc…
THEY ARE MY BABIES, and i love them all, even with the imperfections no one else sees…
NOT recognize my own work ? ? ? IMPOSSIBLE ! ! !
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Based on the conversations I’ve had with several rightholders…”
Oh, well that settles it then.
/s
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is a bit of a problem when someone is complaining about other people using their work illegally and demand those people cease, while they themself report others work as their own.
It may be worthwhile to have a person responsible for actually looking at what you claim is yours before you get caught lying to Google.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is it not possible?
As for your other question: being a useless troll is why all your comments get reported.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you agree that every legitimate notice represents an infringer who is abusing the law, yet Techdirt never bothers to mention or condemn that? If so, why do you think that is?
Because people break laws all the time. You can’t live in the United States without breaking laws. It isn’t possible. If I look closely I can guarantee I can find some law that you’ve broken within the last week, if not the last day.
Between copyright law, road law, business law, and just insane law, I will find something to charge you with. Heck, you’re probably breaking copyright law by using Techdirt’s “Insider” graphic without permission as a derivative work. Do you know the artist that created that particular ‘T’ logo graphic? Did you ask permission to modify it? Maybe Mike should DMCA all your posts and save us the trouble!
One of the legal requirements for a DMCA takedown notice is the “good faith belief” that the content in question is a copyright you hold or one you are authorized to speak for. Falsely issueing a DMCA notice is punishable as perjury under federal law.
So let me ask you this…is a computer capable of establishing a “good faith belief” that something is infringing? How, if no human is reviewing whether or not the content is infringing, can you legally state you have not commited perjury by a false takedown?
So why are you not bothering to mention or condemn this abuse of the law? It’s fine for companies to mass perjure themselves via automated takedown requests but it’s not OK for people to infringe on copyright?
How can you call someone else out for ignoring part of the law when you’re doing the same exact thing? Keep in mind that these companies are violating someone else’s copyright when they takedown legal material that they do not own the copyright to. When did “well, they started it!” become a legal or moral defense?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Between copyright law, road law, business law, and just insane law, I will find something to charge you with. Heck, you’re probably breaking copyright law by using Techdirt’s “Insider” graphic without permission as a derivative work. Do you know the artist that created that particular ‘T’ logo graphic? Did you ask permission to modify it? Maybe Mike should DMCA all your posts and save us the trouble!
I make it through the days without intentionally violating the property rights of others. It’s not hard to not download a movie. Give me a break. As far as my avatar goes, I don’t think it’s infringing. I welcome any legal challenges Mike or Floor 64 want to bring my way over it. Can you imagine the irony of that?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So as usual, it all boils down to what you think. You think you can rip off anyone’s avatar and get away with it. You think you’re entitled to bitch whenever someone might be infringing copyright in a way that gets your panties in a bundle. You think everyone else who doesn’t share the same twisted views on copyright is a sick, filthy pirate, and that includes being a little concerned if the IFPI is being a little dumb with the information they gather and how they handle it.
Gads, but you’re a self-centered, insufferable git.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
So as usual, it all boils down to what you think. You think you can rip off anyone’s avatar and get away with it. You think you’re entitled to bitch whenever someone might be infringing copyright in a way that gets your panties in a bundle. You think everyone else who doesn’t share the same twisted views on copyright is a sick, filthy pirate, and that includes being a little concerned if the IFPI is being a little dumb with the information they gather and how they handle it.
Gads, but you’re a self-centered, insufferable git.
Abusive much? (And, of course, your abuse isn’t “reported.”) It’s not infringing. I don’t need permission. Sorry, but you’re going to have to try harder than that. Maybe you could try discussing the issues on the merits. I know it’s TD, so the chances of that happening are quite slim, but I’m throwing it out anyway.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
So you want to be rewarded for being an asshole?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Can you imagine the irony of that?
I can, but only the irony of you as a copyright maximalist shill doing something that your rightsholder masters condemn all the time.
At least Mike is consistent in his views and will let you run with your pathetic Avatar.
Re: Re:
AJ, your posts are reported here because your history here is replete with example after example of your abusive, ad hominem laden, shove-it-up-your-ass attitude. In short, your posts are reported because you are a troll.
The other frequent critic here (Whatever), by comparison, has his posts reported infrequently at best. I don’t agree with him most of the time and think he frequently doesn’t communicate his views here well, but I don’t think he’s a troll.
You, on the other hand, go out of your way to be as abusive and obnoxious as possible. And, that is why I always click report on every single one of your posts. I will continue to do so because I don’t believe that you’ll ever change and your sole motivation for being here is to simply be a thorn in Mike’s and Techdirt’s side.
As long as Mike is willing to give you a vehicle by which you can be an abusive prick and as long as you continue to behave as such, the community here will continue to report your posts. Whine all you want about that, but change must come from you.
Re: Re:
“(I’m sure this comment will get “reported” because my views aren’t popular here, and I think that’s just sad. You guys should welcome dissenting views, not “report” them as “abusive” simply because you disagree with them.)”
Your posts don’t get reported because they present dissenting views and you know it. They get reported because they tend toward being abusive and spammy.
Re: Re: Re:
This is the sort of thing that Out Of The Blue posted and then when his comment got hidden would then actually copy and paste the same comment and post it again and again and again and then he stopped posting altogether and hasn’t been back since then.
Why do i get this feeling that these 2 people are one on the same.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They aren’t the same person. AJ here is actually quite articulate, except when he descends into barnyard animal noise behavior that is. Out-of-the-blue and some of the others wouldn’t know proper grammar and punctuation if it bit them on their writing hand.
Regardless, a troll is a troll, it doesn’t much matter how articulate they are or how well they grasp the English language.
I’ve seen some very insightful posts by people who obviously don’t know proper grammar and punctuation. It helps in reading the post if proper grammar and punctuation is used, but I don’t personally mind if it isn’t as long as I’m able to understand and decipher what they meant.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I actually love the fact that the report button is so hilariously abused here. It exposes people as the hypocritical zoo animals they are.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m not surprised you’re such a fan of Chicken Joe, spamming chucklefuck.
Re: Re:
And it’s yet another Techdirt post complaining about a handful of illegitimate notices in a sea of legitimate ones. I agree that these notices are unfortunate, but I think they need to be put into perspective: It’s only because piracy is so rampant that’s it’s not possible to put the time and resources into each notice that you seem to think rightholders should.
Maybe the fact that you have a relatively small percentage of companies fighting against millions of people worldwide should indicate that they’re doing something wrong.
Suppose a particular company was granted an exclusive, world-wide license as the only authorized producer of hats. You’d have police stopping people on the street to check their hat labels, SWAT raids on department stores for selling authorized hats, kids being arrested for wearing “balloon hats” on their heads, web sites being taken down and the owners arrested for linking to black-market hat sites, DIY hat videos being censored from YouTube…
Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it? Yet replace “hats” with “IP” and that’s pretty much the situation we have today.
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe the fact that you have a relatively small percentage of companies fighting against millions of people worldwide should indicate that they’re doing something wrong.
So if a million people decide to violate your rights, you should just shut up and take it? Oh, and it’s your fault, right? I’m not much for victim-blaming, so, no, I don’t agree. Can you seriously not admit that the millions of people who make the conscious decision to violate someone else’s rights are the ones “doing something wrong”? Amazing, if you can’t.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you stop calling a profitable, wealthy corporation’s corrupt-government-granted, bribery-purchased, infinitely-extended copy-privilege a “right,” as if it’s on par with such things as freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of religion, we might be able to start talking about that topic.
Where is the “right” of copyright on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs again?
Re: Re:
Of course it all depends on which you consider to be more important – freedom of expression for those who’s works are wrongly suppressed, or the copyrights of those who issue the notices.
The Constitution would imply the former, but the DMCA disagrees.
Re: Re:
1 – If piracy is so rampant that these companies can’t afford the time and effort to verify their own DMCA notices are legit, then perhaps they should stop wasting so much time and energy trying to stop piracy, and put more effort into offering better alternatives (examples of which have been proposed here and elsewhere for years, and some of which have been reluctantly/unwillingly adopted by the industry)
2 – These companies are free to take infringers to court anytime they want. In fact, for a number of years that’s exactly what they attempted to do. I wonder why they stopped? Maybe it was that exact same waste of time and effort trying to control everything that happens online.
3 – You seem to think if Techdirt reported things differently, that piracy or something will just magically go away. If you don’t like what Techdirt reports on or the way it reports, why bother reading it? Go find a website that informs you about all piracy and illegal activities. Or better yet, start your own while the internet is still open and free. Don’t waste your life hating things.
4 – You can make all the contrary statements you want (and that’s all you’re really doing – being contrary to anything written here), but if you make personal attacks on the writers or insult the readers, expect to be reported in short order. This includes the constant goading of Techdirt to admit to some secret agenda that their only real purpose is to encourage and promote piracy and abolish copyright.
Re: Re:
You just wrote a 100% truthful post. I’m sorry, but I must report you.
Re: Re: Re:
You just wrote a 100% truthful post. I’m sorry, but I must report you.
🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just wrote a 100% truthful post. I’m sorry, but I must report you.
🙂
Wow. Someone replies to my comment, I respond with a smiley face, and that comment gets “reported”? But, then, there isn’t a single one of you who can admit that the “report” button gets abused? Sigh. I’ve got news for you: If you’re “reporting” harmless comments like this, you’re the troll.
Re: Re: Re:
The circle-jerking is painful to watch.
Re: Re:
I’ve wondered this as well. Why don’t the media companies and rights holders litigate actual infringers? Why aren’t they holding individuals accountable for their actions?
Re: Re: Re:
They tried it. The problem is evidence. With a few exceptions, most of the time there isn’t enough evidence to actually convict an infringer, and the judicial system (so far) isn’t as friendly to copyright trolling as it is to patent trolling. The biggest issue is that they need to file a suit against each individual infringer, and they aren’t going to get nearly as much in settlement from an individual as patent trolls get from companies. They’ve still sued over 20,000 people in the U.S.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing
Re: Re:
“You guys should welcome dissenting views, not “report” them as “abusive” simply because you disagree with them.)”
It’s not your dissention, it’s your attitude and how you express your dissent.
You are reported because of your BEHAVIOR, not because you hold a differing viewpoint. This is not censorship, this is OUR expression of your approach.
Re: Re:
I’m sure this comment will get “reported” because my views aren’t popular here
Actually they are being reported cause you are an asshat.
You’re welcome.
Re: Re:
“And it’s yet another Techdirt post complaining about a handful of illegitimate notices in a sea of legitimate ones.”
Are you honestly incapable of seeing how this kind of abuse has the potential to turn a handful of illegitimate notices into a sea of them, making your sea of legitimate notices look like a tiny little mud puddle by comparison? Seriously? Good lord, everyone here has been right about you all along, antidirt.
vs
Which do you think would be more likely to get a thoughtful and reasoned answer?
I don’t click to report it as abusive because I disagree with you. I click to report it as trollish because that’s what it is.
You may have a legitimate point. The problem isn’t what you say, it’s how you say it.
Re: Re:
There are some posts of theirs appearing in an article yesterday: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140923/17250328610/judge-rules-against-sirius-xm-pre-1972-recordings.shtml#comments feel free to exercise your finger with the mouse button.
I always find it totally jaw dropping at the methods of these corporations who supposedly are to take the high moral road use in their efforts to control something they can not. These actions reported here at Techdirt underline just how out of line they are.
At any time the piracy problem could be eliminated almost over night. License those sites. No more hunting pirates, no more searching the web for infringements, no more worrying about it. It’s very odd you never hear anything about that isn’t it? Yet if piracy is so time consuming and such a pain to get right, there is the answer all wrapped up with a ribbon on it.
Any time I see a troll, identified by their abusive methods, I report them. Don’t always say something about it but that’s what I do. You wanna be heard, act like a real human instead of something that creeped out of 4chan. Otherwise, too bad, so sad.
There is one last thing I want to bring up here before ending this. Because of all the hypocrisy that these entertainment groups have managed to do, along with a total lack of morals (despite them claiming otherwise) I’ve gotten one distinct message. Don’t mess with major media content… period. I am no longer a customer nor a consumer of their content. It has quite literally driven me from that market and I doubt I will ever return. As someone else mentioned, I am not a pro all all this owned IP when it isn’t marked and fenced. Much of the time the entertainment industries go out of their way to disguise that it is. So the real answer is never to fool with any of it. So the industry has gotten exactly zero as they ruined the market.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
The sites don’t want to pay for a license, and most of them can’t anyways.
You’d never get the maximalists to believe that, as far as they are concerned piracy sites are raking in untold amounts of money(somehow).
Of course, were that actually true, the obvious question becomes: ‘So why aren’t the official companies doing the same? With a little time and money they could easily offer a better service, and be raking in the cash themselves.’
Re: Re:
At any time the piracy problem could be eliminated almost over night…by reducing copyright term length back to original.
Re: Re: Re:
This is the best answer. If it’s public domain, it’s not infringement, and nothing illegal is going on. Reduce copyright terms (retroactively!) and you instantly reduce piracy.
legality of false links?
is posting these false links illegal? I’d imagine they’d come up with something for it, especially if it became prevalent. Would be interesting to see what effect a large flood of these false links would have. (though I’m not advocating that… just curious.) I suppose they’d need a white list then, if they don’t already use such. Any thoughts?
Re: legality of false links?
Theoretically? Yes, it is illegal to file a DMCA claim on something you don’t own, and, again theoretically, it’s classified as perjury, not a minor crime.
In practice however? Not even close, I’m not aware offhand of anyone actually being found guilty of abusing the system in court, as various courts have raised the bar so incredibly high that it’s effectively impossible to reach short of the one making the claim admitting in court that they knew the file wasn’t theirs, and filed the claim anyway. Even then the odds of a judge handing out more than a slap on the wrist for their ‘mistake’ is likely zilch.
legality of false links?
I understand it’s illegal, though so-far unenforced, to file false dmca take downs- but I was referring to the posting of those false links, which trick the mindless dmca bots into filing the false dmca take downs.
for instance if a person where to make links to all sorts of industry and gov sites and post them such that they apeared to be links to files that where actively being searched for and dmca’d by the bots. (as someone above mentioned)
How would the law handle such a thing? It’s obviously harmful behaviour- but is it illegal, and if so what statutes would cover it? I’d think it’s something along the lines of inciting a criminal act, or some hacking statute. (the irony being that while the criminal act is never prosecuted, the incitement of it might be.)
I wonder how many illegitimate take downs are a result of people posting links like this?
The abuse of the DMCA and similar laws shows that the RIAA, IFPI, etc cannot be trusted with the use of said laws.
Let’s not forget that the purpose of the large penalties used in the DMCA was to go after commercial infringers. The RIAA immediately abused that law by going after non-commercial infringers and filesharers in attempts to terrorize the P2P networks into closing.
Now, it looks like the maximalists just spam takedown requests without bothering to check them. No apologies for accidental takedowns of legitimate material,
They need to be stopped. They *need* to be punished to set an example equivalent to what was intended with the filesharer lawsuits.
I think a fair outcome would be to strip all of these groups of DMCA powers, or at least require them to swear under penalty of perjury that the takedowns are only for content that they hold the rights to. No “good-faith” shield to hide their wrongdoings behind.
Of course, as pointed out above, reducing copyright back to more reasonable levels would eliminate a good portion of takedowns. Naturally, the maximalists won’t go for that…
Re: Re:
or at least require them to swear under penalty of perjury that the takedowns are only for content that they hold the rights to.
They do that already if they file a DMCA claim. You know what would get their attention though, and all but remove abuses of the system practically over night? If the perjury penalties were enforced. No new laws needed, no additions, all that would be required to solve most of the abuses of the system would be if the penalties already in the law were simply enforced.
From Wikipedia:
‘In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.’
Throw a few people in jail over bogus DMCA claims, and you can bet the rest of them would be a lot more careful with just what they are filing DMCA claims against.
GET CONGRESS INVOLVED
point some of those jacked-up links to websites and documents of congressional leaders….let them see just how “harmless” the DMCA take-down process truly is!
Calling all Pranksters, calling all pranksters!
It is time to start showing the bag guys buddies in public office and the some-law enforcement weenies just how nasty their bogus takedown system really is.
Lets start taking down everything all the DMCA abusing assholes put up everywhere they happen to be – over and over again.
Authority will not pay attention as long as its just the bad guys who are alone abusing the system, so how about the good guys start taking down all the legitimate protected dinosaur industry shit repeatedly until the authorities no longer have any choice but to start enforcing the rules.
—
Wait for another expendables 3/lionsgate retard moment, where the subject is still hot of the press, im thinking internet conformist will particurlarly be trigger happy to shut and ask questions after, imagine the message(volley) that would send………offcourse, they’ve probabably got something else nastier hidden behind their continous efforts
No idea if a comment from an article this old will get read, but this lovely passage comes from a DMCA notice sent by the IFPI to my company (emphasis added):
“Our top priority is to prevent the continued availability of the IFPI Represented Companies’ content on the internet. Unauthorized copies of sound recordings that are freely available, especially pre-release recordings, cause substantial damage to the IFPI Represented Companies every hour and day they remain available. In sending this notice we are seeking to ensure that infringing content is removed from the internet as quickly as possible through your cooperation. However, please note that we do not admit that we or the IFPI Represented Companies are responsible for detecting infringing material and notifying you of it.
Our use of a notice in this form, as required by you, is meant to facilitate your removal of the infringing material listed above and we neither admit nor accept that you are a ‘service provider’ for the purposes of the DMCA or that it is necessary to serve, or that you are entitled to be served, a notice in compliance with the DMCA. IFPI itself and on behalf of the IFPI Represented Companies expressly reserves all rights in this regard.”
IFPI filing false DMCA notices even on Twitter tweets
I have been exposed to many copyriight trolls via my entertainment news website but these idiots take the cake. They are not even good at it. Now they are sending false DMCA notices to Twitter on tweets and also claiming infringement in Youtube videos that the artist themselves make available to the public for shairing.
I hope that someone will sue these jerks to the maximum extent under the law for filing these ridiculous claims.