Total Wipes Decides The Word 'Download' Means Infringement, Issues DMCA Takedown Loaded With Non-Infringing URLs

from the and-the-answer-is-'none.'-none-more-stupid. dept

Germany-based Total Wipes — infringement cop to the stars (who don’t care how idiotic their representation makes them appear) — is still pursuing its unstated motto of “Quantität über Qualität.” Why send targeted requests when you can just dump a bunch of unrelated URLs into a DMCA takedown request and let Google sort it all out?

TorrentFreak reports that Total Wipes is at it again, actively pursuing a lifetime achievement award in asinine takedown requests. It starts out by mistakenly effing with the EFF, generally not considered to be a good idea when you can’t be bothered to uphold your end of the DMCA’s sworn statement.

‘Protecting’ an album called “Cigarettes” on Mona Records, Total Wipes sent Google a notice containing not a single infringing link. Unbelievably one of the URLs targeted an article on how to use PGP on the Mac. It was published by none other than the EFF.

You’ll notice that ‘protecting’ is surrounded by scare quotes, as should be anything Total Wipes “pursues” with its misfiring shotgun of a “business model.” This particular takedown request appears to have achieved maximum stupidity with its 55 swings of the URL, none of which make contact. But it gets so much worse.

Going after alleged pirates of the album “In To The Wild – Vol.7″ on Aborigeno Music, Total Wipes offer their pièce de résistance, the veritable jewel in their crown. The notice, which covers 95 URLs, targets no music whatsoever. Instead it tries to ruin the Internet by targeting the download pages of some of the most famous online companies around.

We’ve seen various rights holders’ self-appointed spokesmen attempt to portray the word “free” as synonymous with “infringement.” Here, Total Wipes does the same, only with the word “download.” Here are but a few of the 95 URLs “targeted” by Total Wipes’ anti-piracy “software.”

http://www.oovoo.com/download
http://www.icq.com/download/
https://access.redhat.com/downloads
http://nmap.org/download.html
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/
http://calibre-ebook.com/download
http://www.pdfforge.org/pdfcreator/download
http://www.getpaint.net/download.html
http://www.skype.com/en/download-skype/skype-for-computer/
https://java.com/download
http://www.openoffice.org/download/
http://www.gimp.org/downloads/
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop
https://www.python.org/downloads/
http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/
http://notepad-plus-plus.org/download/
http://www.joomla.org/download.html
http://www.7-zip.org/download.html
http://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads/
http://unity3d.com/unity/download
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
https://www.malwarebytes.org/mwb-download/
http://www.libreoffice.org/download
http://nodejs.org/download/
https://www.whatsapp.com/download/
https://evernote.com/download/
http://free.avg.com/free-antivirus-download
https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en
https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/download.html
http://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1
http://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/
https://www.gnupg.org/download/
https://filezilla-project.org/download.php?type=client
https://www.dropbox.com/downloading
http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm
http://www.opera.com/download

A look at Total Wipes’ “profile” at Google’s Transparency Report shows the company has an appalling hit rate. It may actually have paying clients, but they’re barely being served. If Google wasn’t compelled to treat every incoming request as legitimate, in order to avoid further condemnation and/or potential Congressional action, it would have booted this farcical “music group” long ago.

Pretty much everything Total Wipes says about its anti-piracy “service” is either laughable or provably false.

Our carefully own created script uses the info you provide to deeply scan a vast range of IP networks, search engines, social sites, and other infringing locations for illegal instances of your content. Following a large group of data, our internal spider’s scripts identify all links as valid or not, beginning the removal process. A consistently action of removing illegal instances of your content from all platforms drives higher sales.

If you manage to work your way past the broken, secondhand English, you’re left with things like these:

“carefully… created script”

Really?

“internal spider’s scripts identify all links as valid or not”

Well, obviously not. Unless “valid” simply means “live,” rather than “infringing.”

“removing illegal instances of your content… drives higher sales”

If someone could just introduce a little bit of evidence to back up this frequent assertion, that would be great. Providing legal alternatives that are reasonably priced and easy to use drives sales better than stumbling around the internet on your “own created spider,” asking Google to remove multiple instances of non-infringement. Artists who have willingly associated with Total Wipes’ inadvertent argument for harsher bogus takedown sanctions aren’t doing themselves any favors. In their names, Total Wipes is repeatedly driving its anti-piracy clown car up to Google’s door and unloading takedown after takedown loaded with more misses than hits.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: total wipes

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 “Total Wipes Decides The Word 'Download' Means Infringement, Issues DMCA Takedown Loaded With Non-Infringing URLs”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
108 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Natural result of a one-sided law

When a system or law has absolutely no penalty for abuse, it will be abused, and to expect anything less is foolish. Companies who file clearly bogus DMCA claims face no penalty whatsoever for doing so, even if the claims are blatantly false, yet the ones receiving them are still forced to treat them all as valid, unless they want to face harsh legal penalties.

If the DMCA was intended to be even remotely balanced, then there would be hard penalties for sending such obviously false claims, but as it stands, it’s working exactly as it was intended to, completely favoring one side, at the cost of the other.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Natural result of a one-sided law

“When a system or law has absolutely no penalty for abuse, it will be abused, and to expect anything less is foolish.”

Actually, it means that those in power actually WANT the abuse to happen. Things being abused will happen regardless of a penalty being applied.

The absence of a penalty is to directly facilitate abuse. Our elected officials are so corrupt they don’t even hide it, or at best hide behind the emperors new clothes.

We are lost as hell and this law is proof of it.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Natural result of a one-sided law

And the crazy thing is, we called it. Everything that’s been done to abuse the DMCA, technically savvy users warned was going to happen back before the law was passed. Like Cassandra of old, the warnings were laughed off or handwaved away with “oh, that’ll never happen…” and then it happened.

The DMCA should never have been passed, and now it needs to be repealed.

David says:

Re: Re: Re: Natural result of a one-sided law

The DMCA needs to be repealed? What are you? A pirate child terrorist? The DMCA is the one thing that has kept shampoo bottles from exploding in midflight into “I got you babe” in honor of the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Attack.

Where would we be if airplanes stopped honoring take-down requests?

David says:

Re: Re: Natural result of a one-sided law

The DMCA does not provide for a way to charge for bogus requests. Nor could you use purportive unpaid debts as an excuse not to process DMCA requests. There are no penalties, financial or legal, for abusing the system. The very best Google can hope for in a court case is breaking even be getting the case dismissed, and they got that bottom line already by honoring all remotely plausible requests.

The DMCA is designed to be abused extensively without repercussions. There is nothing Google can hope to do apart from lobbying for changing the law. But as it stands, they have to bend over every time.

David says:

Re: Re: Natural result of a one-sided law

Oh come on. Clapper and Holder have lied “under penalty of perjury” right to Congress and got a playful tap on their cheek for it.

The Department of “Justice” which would be responsible for going after perjury has no interest at all in giving this law any more exposure than laws that prohibit, say, members of the same sex from holding hands in public or walking a donkey on a road after sundown or whatever laws of similar importance exist in the U.S.A.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Name them.

Provide the name, the general price range, where they are available(‘Service X has everything you want to watch’ doesn’t mean squat if the potential customer is in a location that it’s not available in), and what restrictions are placed upon those that use them and the content on the services.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“(‘Service X has everything you want to watch’ doesn’t mean squat if the potential customer is in a location that it’s not available in)”

Yep, I doubt he thought that far ahead. As long as he can visit a few sites, everyone must be able to, forgetting that “piracy” is a worldwide thing, not contained by artificial borders and restrictions. That’s even before we get into the attempts to attack legal services for daring to service the needs of their customers when they are available (the regular attacks of Spotify, for example). Not to mention the differing definitions of “affordable” (no, forcing people to buy an album so they can access some “album only” tracks is not “affordable”). Plus, I’m just thinking of music there – it gets a lot more expensive and fragmented once you start looking at other media.

Oh well, at least they’re pushing this kind of misdirection rather than the “if you dare criticise the broken methods and business models you must be a thief” that’s so beloved of the small minded. It won’t even cross his mind to address the actual problem being discussed, but at least he’s choosing a different lie.

lars626 says:

A question

Would it be possible for Google to sue them for harassment? Total Wipes is generating completely bogus DMCA requests. This requires Google to waste resources responding since the law does not allow them to ignore the request. That costs money. Google could attempt to recover the cost off the bogus requests or better get a court order barring Total Wipes from issuing any more since Google is not the actual ‘infringer’.

Just wondering.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: A question

“Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section… that material or activity is infringing… shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred… by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.”

The problem here is the “knowingly”. If it was all bot-generated, was it done knowingly?

If Google was really brave they’d start ignoring companies that do this, and rely on non-DMCA arguments in those cases. But that would be a huge risk to take. I think your injunction idea is better. The one sending the notification is required to state that the information is accurate. Even if that part is not covered by the penalty of perjury, it’s still there, and I think a court might take notice of it if it was repeatedly abused by the same people.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: A question

The problem here is the “knowingly”. If it was all bot-generated, was it done knowingly?

If it’s bot-generated, is it even a valid DMCA takedown notice? Those have to have an attestation that there is a good faith belief that the material is copyrighted and the copyright is held by the complainant, etc etc, and a bot cannot hold a belief.

David says:

Re: Re: Re: A question

This might be the thing that Google can use to argue against taking action on their notices. They are not attested to or reviewed by an actual person capable of validating the link.

That or the link holders should have cause of action against Total Wipes. Someone had to send it. Even the most minor due diligence would have caught this. There isn’t even the remote possibility that this is “good faith belief” of infringement. It may not be perjury, but it should be actionable for false representations, unjust enrichment, torturous interference, and possible some other things some EFF lawyer could make stick. We need a good precedent on the side of innocent users.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A question

Someone had to send it. Even the most minor due diligence would have caught this.

You are assuming that somebody capable of spotting the mistakes actually looked at the list. Even printed matter can be sent sight unseen, with the first human to see the envelope being the postman at the sorting office. With email, the first person to actually see the contents was probably someone at Google, as all steps after entry of the search term can be automated.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A question

It may not be perjury, but it should be actionable for false representations, unjust enrichment, torturous interference, and possible some other things some EFF lawyer could make stick.

Tortuous interference wouldn’t apply unless there was an actual interference. The link holders can’t do a thing until Google actually takes their sites down from their search. Google, however, should be able to do something here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: A question

The German company used a US law to send a notice to a US company regarding websites located in the US. A US court would certainly claim they had jurisdiction because the company voluntarily chose to do this. However, I don’t know if German/EU law would respect a judgement issued by a US court in this matter, so it might be difficult to collect even if they won. (US law, for example, won’t enforce a foreign judgement if it would conflict with the First Amendment.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A question

German/EU law would decide that, in fact, Google should have to pay a fee to Total Wipes for every valid DMCA request, and double the fee for every bad one. Also? A fee for every possible DMCA request Total Wipes doesn’t send.

Finally, of course, Google should pay a fee for providing services at any time that happens to coincide with a day of the week.

Anonymous Coward says:

Sorry, but now there’s no excuse that the pro-copyright people can make on here.

The DMCA must be amended so that anyone making a takedown swears under penalty of perjury that they hold copyright or represent the holders of *all* sites or links they demand takedowns for.

For far too long, we’ve seen abuse after abuse reported here. Those responsible for this abuse literally *need* to be punished, to show that corrupt practices will no longer be tolerated.

The people involved in this, along with Prenda and their supporters belong in jail. It’s time the maximalists dropped their unreasonable objections to justice.

antidirt says:

Re: Re:

Sorry, but now there’s no excuse that the pro-copyright people can make on here.

The DMCA must be amended so that anyone making a takedown swears under penalty of perjury that they hold copyright or represent the holders of all sites or links they demand takedowns for.

There’s no excuse for them. Google should sue under 512(f). They’ve got the war chest. Sic the dogs on ’em.

For far too long, we’ve seen abuse after abuse reported here. Those responsible for this abuse literally need to be punished, to show that corrupt practices will no longer be tolerated.

The people involved in this, along with Prenda and their supporters belong in jail. It’s time the maximalists dropped their unreasonable objections to justice.

There are millions upon millions of notices sent, and you guys always focus on a handful of questionable ones. What about the legitimate ones? Why should the infringement they represent go unpunished? Those people engage in “abuse after abuse,” yet Techdirt never calls for their heads. Why the double standard?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

There’s no excuse for them. Google should sue under 512(f). They’ve got the war chest. Sic the dogs on ’em.

Which would be pointless; as multiple people have pointed out, the text is worded such that it’s all but impossible to actually punish someone for sending a bogus DMCA claim, and court after court always seem to bend over backwards as soon as the ones sending the claims utter the magic words ‘My mistake’, even if the ‘mistake’ is this glaring.

Now, would it be nice if Google spent some of that obscene amounts of money they have trying to change the law such that they, and everyone else wouldn’t have to deal with insane abuses of it like this? Absolutely, but being a business, they’d likely only do that if they thought the costs would be outweighed by the benefits of doing so, and at this point it’s easier for them to just wade through the crap that gets thrown their way rather than go legal over it.

There are millions upon millions of notices sent, and you guys always focus on a handful of questionable ones.

If a system is working, then there’s no need to comment on it, it’s only the parts that aren’t that need attention. Why exactly do people throw such fits over TD and others pointing out when the system is being abused like this, with clearly bogus claims being made via the system? Most people who listen to music/watch movies pay for their music/movies I’d guess, yet somehow I doubt you’d think it acceptable if those that don’t were ignored as the ‘minority’.

What about the legitimate ones?

What about them? If they’re legitimate, there’s no need to comment on them.

Why should the infringement they represent go unpunished?

If the ones sending the DMCA claims want to ‘punish infringement’, then they’d be better off going after the actual infringing sites and/or posters, not sending claims to search engines.

Those people engage in “abuse after abuse,” yet Techdirt never calls for their heads. Why the double standard?

Probably because TD is more focused on making piracy and or copyright infringement redundant or useless by offering better options, rather than playing a completely pointless and futile game of whack-a-pirate.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

He’s an idiot really. By his logic we should let all police abuse go because, really, it’s just a few thousand people and deaths in 300 million (or whatever the US population is now). See, moron’s logic.

Probably because TD is more focused on making piracy and or copyright infringement redundant or useless by offering better options, rather than playing a completely pointless and futile game of whack-a-pirate.

Brilliant!

antidirt says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If a system is working, then there’s no need to comment on it, it’s only the parts that aren’t that need attention. Why exactly do people throw such fits over TD and others pointing out when the system is being abused like this, with clearly bogus claims being made via the system?

If there’s millions and millions of infringements happening, then the system is NOT working. Those infringers are abusing the system. That’s my point. There’s abuse on both sides. TD only cares about one side, but not the other. You’ll never condemnation of those who intentionally violate the rights of others. But if a rightholder carelessly makes a mistake in fighting back against a sea of those who intentionally violate his rights, look out. TD is on the case. It’s a bullshit double standard.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“But if a rightholder carelessly makes a mistake in fighting back against a sea of those who intentionally violate his rights”

You do realise that someone violating his rights doesn’t give him the right to violate the rights of other innocent parties, yeah? that’s the point.

The owners of the IP in question here have every right to defend it – if and only if they don’t violate the rights of others while doing so. In this case, an agent of the IP holder (Total Wipes are not a rightsholder themselves) attempted to violate the legal operations of up to 95 other innocent parties. That’s unacceptable.

Sorry if this is too complicated for your tiny mind to comprehend – your rights do not trump everyone else’s just because you own some “IP”. You don’t get to disrupt everyone else’s business just because you’re throwing a mardy fit over yours losing some potential sales.

But, in between pointing out how horrifically bad your heroes are acting and pointing out ways to reduce piracy without raping the rights of everyone else, your simple mind can’t comprehend that this is not a defence of piracy.

Want us to criticise pirates? Fine, consider them criticised. That doesn’t absolve the assholes you defend of their massive guilt and misdeeds. To use the usual flawed physical analogy – if people are shoplifting from your store, you’re free to go after the shoplifters. That doesn’t give you the right to lock up random innocent shoppers or rob the bank next door to make back your losses.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If a system is working, then there’s no need to comment on it, it’s only the parts that aren’t that need attention. Why exactly do people throw such fits over TD and others pointing out when the system is being abused like this, with clearly bogus claims being made via the system?

If there’s millions and millions of infringements happening, then the system is NOT working. Those infringers are abusing the system. That’s my point. There’s abuse on both sides. TD only cares about one side, but not the other. You’ll never condemnation of those who intentionally violate the rights of others. But if a rightholder carelessly makes a mistake in fighting back against a sea of those who intentionally violate his rights, look out. TD is on the case. It’s a bullshit double standard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Not a double standard, just two different standards for two different things?

If you believe, as many here do, that protecting freedom of expression is fundamentally far, far more important than propping up obsolete business models with futile copyright enforcement, then yeah, you’re going to care about one side more than the other, and have different standards for what’s acceptable and what the law should permit.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

So I’m curious, was that an intentional, or accidental misread of what I wrote?

If there’s millions and millions of infringements happening, then the system is NOT working.

If the system is meant to reduce infringement, then you may be right, it would seem it’s not working.

Now, the question is, what should be done about it? Shall we continue to ratchet the penalties ever upward, based upon the idea that if they could only be raised high enough, that it would magically eliminate all, or a majority of infringement, and turn all, or a majority of former pirates into paying customers? A tactic that has failed spectacularly to date?

Or perhaps we should focus on why people pirate, completely ignore the ones that will never pay as a waste of time and money, and instead work to turn those that might pay, if only they were provided with a decent way to do so, into paying customers?

One of these has failed to date to work to reduce piracy, while the other has been shown to be quite effective at reducing piracy, which would you suggest should be pursued?

TD only cares about one side, but not the other.

Like, oh I dunno, how you apparently don’t care, and in fact object to the attention given to those sending clearly bogus claims? That kind of one-sided focus? Before accusing another of bias, you should probably check to make sure yours isn’t showing quite so much.

You’ll never condemnation of those who intentionally violate the rights of others.

On the contrary, this article and others like it are focused on just that, one party violating the rights of another by attempting to claim ownership of something that isn’t their’s. That it is supposedly ‘accidental’ is no excuse, they use tools that they know are flawed, and deserve to be called out when those tools fail and impact innocent people.

Oh, right, you only care about the other violation of rights, in which case you’re also wrong there too, as when it’s come up, Mike has stated multiple times that he thinks piracy is wrong and he doesn’t support it.

But if a rightholder carelessly makes a mistake in fighting back against a sea of those who intentionally violate his rights, look out.

Umm, yes, and again I fail to see why you are so opposed to this. If someone, even if they are completely well meaning and intend only to go after the guilty, ends up targetting and affecting innocent bystanders, why should they not be called out on it? Would you prefer it just be brushed under the rug and ignored because it’s so ‘rare’?

Before you rush to say ‘yes’, remember the point I brought up before, if the majority of people who listen to music and watch movies get them from legal sources, as is almost certainly the case, that would piracy the minority, so if ‘accidental’ collateral damage is okay for those ‘fighting the scourge of piracy’ because it’s so small compared to the ‘legitimate’ takedown claims, then piracy itself should also be ignored as well, as it’s minor in comparison to legal purchases.

Unless of course you yourself are exhibiting a double standard, where you only care about the violations of piracy, and don’t care about the violations of those attempting to combat it.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Not answering for Techdirt, of course, but here’s my opinions:

“Why should the infringement they represent go unpunished?”

What makes you think that it’s Techdirt’s position that they should? This isn’t a binary thing. To say that the DMCA process is being abused by those issuing takedowns doesn’t in any way imply that legitimate infringement should go unpunished.

“Those people engage in “abuse after abuse,” yet Techdirt never calls for their heads.”

Perhaps because it’s not necessary. There are already lots of very well financed voices that handle that. Techdirt is paying attention to the fact that these companies (unlike pirates, I would add) are harming a large part of society in general. It seems like the sort of thing that’s worth decrying.

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Re: An appalling double standard.

“Why should the infringement they represent go unpunished?”

They can’t manage to identify perpetrators without perjuring themselves. They can’t be trusted. So ALL of their take down privileges should be revoked. Their notices should be completely ignored without risk by any of the websites receiving them.

They should be on a DMCA takedown blacklist.

They shouldn’t get a free pass on abusing other people just because they are your pet corporation.

THEY shouldn’t get to benefit from a double standard.

Atkray (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ok I’ll bite,

“There are millions upon millions of notices sent, and you guys always focus on a handful of questionable ones. What about the legitimate ones? “

If millions upon millions of them are legit,
and sending these helps _____________(get rid of piracy, get artists what is owed them, etc….)

Then why is it still a problem?

By your own admission those it targets are unpunished.

The fact is DMCA does nothing to accomplish the stated purpose and needs to go away.

…. back on topic, Why doesn’t Google just process these requests and let the site owners go after these clowns?

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Actually no. It’s cleverly written to make it SOUND like it says that, but it doesn’t. Read the exact language again closely, and notice how it’s structured and where the commas and periods are placed — in reality, the penalty of perjury applies to ONE THING ONLY, and that’s that the person sending a notice is the copyright holder or representing the copyright holder of the work they are claiming is being infringed.

As for the links they target, those can be anything — the notice is worded such that you only sign your name to a “good faith belief” that the links are infringing, and you’re NOT explicitly under penalty of perjury on that part.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Which means no punishment whatsoever. Even if it’s glaring like this you only have to throw your arms in the air and claim honest mistake.

Maybe we should start issuing takedown notices on behalf of some copyright dork targeting the MAFIAA themselves and their services. If we say it’s good faith and that even if we don’t own the copyrights we feel it is our duty to help the copyright holders themselves…

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

DMCA is broken. It was born broken & unfair. They ignored all of the concerns it would be abused. Oh look it is being abused. (this applies to so much of US lawmaking now)

We will never agree in a short period on fixing the DMCA, we all have our own deeply held beliefs. A much more simple temporary patch that no one should object to is adding a fine for a bogus request.

Google spends a huge amount of time, money, effort doing something they should not have to. These notices are assumed to be correct and must be followed ASAP under draconian penalties for not meeting the senders demands. There is nothing that forces those sending the notices to make them better, despite the mounting evidence they are being sent by bots with no verification what so ever. The burden in the system is on the accused to prove innocence (‘Merika innocent until proven guilty was a thing).

We have sloppy notices like this on top of scammers abusing the system to make money by stealing cash by making claims and being awarded ad dollars and withdrawing them before anything bad might happen to them.

I think a small $5 a url fee for each incorrect url in a claim would improve things. These companies have “valuable” IP monopolies and $5 is not much compared to the value of the IP. But mounting piles of $5 bills might encourage them to target their notices better.
Nonpayment of the penalties should also allow recipients to ignore future notices until the penalties are paid.
It is a waste of someone elses time & money, and those sending bogus ones should bear those costs.

It is the system we are stuck with, like it or not. The LEAST that should be done is to force it to improve. This fine would result in a vast improvement in the notices, and lower the number of false claims protecting innocent 3rd parties who have done nothing wrong but have the word download in a url or on a page.

Given the sheer number of rejected claims submitted to Google on a daily basis (as the **AA’s like to tout the growing number of submissions and ignore the large pile of false claims) Google could afford to roll out Google Fiber and cover the entire US. Call it double motivation for them to improve the notices.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Calm Down Everyone

Yes. Just a bug. And as Total Wipes notes in their response: “The DMCA is a serious issue and it must be carefully managed.”

Now maybe this is just me, but I set the bar for carefully managed somewhere above a script that can run for an entire week sending (to quote them from the same broken-English* response) “hundreds DMCA to hundreds domains not related at all with any copyrights of our contents.”

* I realize that they are a German company. But, and again maybe this is just me, I’d think that responsibly identifying infringement of English-language material on English-language websites would require a more refined command of the English language.

Total Wipes Music Group says:

Statement

Here is our official Google statement that nobody asked us of course. Basically 98% of the wrong DMCA weren’t been delivered. We did a mistake but we didn’t damage.

Also it could be fine if someone takes a look at all wrong DMCA sent to Skype (available at chillingeffect) in the last 3 weeks. Unfortunately we are just #4 in that chart.

2.04% wrong delivered
0.68% never delivered by our system
0,68% right delivered
97,29% rejected (then never delivered)

http://www.audiomack.com/song/shootermuzik/hide-n-seek delivered
http://www.coreftp.com/download.html rejected
https://tails.boum.org/download/ rejected
http://ckeditor.com/download rejected
https://www.wireshark.org/download.html rejected
http://www.oscommerce.com/Products rejected
https://www.qgis.org/en/site/forusers/download.html rejected
http://www.activestate.com/activeperl/downloads rejected
http://www.irfanview.com/main_download_engl.htm rejected
https://lastpass.com/misc_download.php rejected
http://framework.zend.com/downloads/latest rejected
https://www.gnupg.org/download/ rejected
http://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/ rejected
http://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1 rejected
http://www.techsmith.com/download/jing/ rejected
https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/download.html rejected
http://filehippo.com/en/ rejected
https://www.djangoproject.com/download/ rejected
https://www.zotero.org/download/ rejected
https://www.vagrantup.com/downloads.html rejected
http://www.xmind.net/download/ rejected
https://www.kali.org/downloads/ rejected
https://www.phpbb.com/downloads/ rejected
https://plex.tv/downloads rejected
http://www.tinymce.com/download/download.php rejected
https://www.ffmpeg.org/download.html rejected
https://handbrake.fr/downloads.php rejected
https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/download/ rejected
http://nginx.org/en/download.html rejected
http://www.phpmyadmin.net/home_page/downloads.php rejected
https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en rejected
http://www.internetdownloadmanager.com/download.html rejected
https://www.origin.com/en-us/download rejected
http://www.mono-project.com/download/ rejected
http://free.avg.com/free-antivirus-download rejected
http://support.amd.com/en-us/download rejected
https://evernote.com/download/ rejected
https://inkscape.org/download/ rejected
http://keepass.info/download.html rejected
https://www.whatsapp.com/download/ rejected
http://winscp.net/eng/download.php rejected
http://www.utorrent.com/downloads/complete rejected
http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/ delivered
https://processing.org/download/ rejected
https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/downloads rejected
http://nodejs.org/download/ rejected
https://www.mongodb.org/downloads rejected
http://www.opera.com/download rejected
http://www.libreoffice.org/download rejected
http://www.postgresql.org/download/ rejected
https://www.pidgin.im/download/ rejected
http://www.sketchup.com/download rejected
http://git-scm.com/downloads rejected
https://www.malwarebytes.org/mwb-download/ rejected
http://unity3d.com/unity/download rejected
http://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads/ rejected
http://www.7-zip.org/download.html rejected
https://netbeans.org/downloads/ rejected
http://www.joomla.org/download.html rejected
http://notepad-plus-plus.org/download/ rejected
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html rejected
http://www.teamviewer.com/en/download/windows.aspx rejected
https://www.dropbox.com/downloading rejected
https://www.python.org/downloads/ rejected
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop rejected
https://filezilla-project.org/download.php?type=client rejected
http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ rejected
https://eclipse.org/downloads/ rejected
http://www.openoffice.org/download/ rejected
https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/download rejected
http://www.phoca.cz/phocadownload rejected
https://java.com/download rejected
http://www.skype.com/en/download-skype/skype-for-computer/ rejected
http://hide.en.softonic.com/download rejected
http://indiegames.com/2011/08/freeware_game_pick_hide_andrew.html rejected
http://www.hideallip.com/download.html rejected
http://www.easy-hide-ip.com/download rejected
http://downloads.tomsguide.com/Free-Hide-IP,0301-32567.html rejected
http://free-hide-folder.en.softonic.com/download rejected
http://hide-window-plus.en.softonic.com/download rejected
http://en.softonic.com/s/free-download-hide-my-ip-address-software rejected
http://hide-ip-easy.en.softonic.com/download rejected
http://gallery-plus-hide-pictures.en.uptodown.com/android rejected
http://en.kioskea.net/download/download-9341-platinum-hide-ip rejected
http://www.platinumhideip.com/download.html rejected
http://hide-your-ip-address.en.softonic.com/download rejected
http://hide-it-pro.en.softonic.com/android/download rejected
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Security/Encrypting/Free-Hide-Folder.shtml rejected
http://www.myplaycity.com/hide-and-secret/ rejected
http://www.gameshed.com/Scary-Games/Hide-And-Seek/ rejected
https://easydigitaldownloads.com/extensions/hide-download/ rejected
http://www.winmend.com/folder-hidden/ rejected
http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/22318/show-hide-invisible-files rejected
http://www.afterdawn.com/software/security/misc_security_tools/free_hide_ip.cfm rejected
http://hide-files-and-folders.en.softonic.com/download rejected
http://hide-my-ip.findmysoft.com/download/ rejected
http://hide-real-ip.en.softonic.com/download rejected
http://www.autohideip.com/download.html rejected
http://www.techspot.com/downloads/6307-free-hide-ip.html rejected
http://www.techradar.com/downloads/free-hide-ip rejected
http://www.easy-hideip.com/download.html rejected
http://www.iwin.com/categories/games/hidden rejected
http://www.superhideip.com/download.html rejected
http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/free_hide_ip.html rejected
http://www.r2.com.au/page/products/download/hide-outlook/ rejected
http://download.chip.eu/hu/Free-Hide-IP_16999024.html rejected
http://www.v7soft.net/download.htm rejected
http://hide-my-ip.software.informer.com/download/ delivered
http://www.tipsandtricks-hq.com/forum/topic/can-i-hide-the-url-of-downloads rejected
http://www.addictinggames.com/download-games/hide-and-secret-4-game.jsp rejected
http://themonroeapartments.com/download-c898f-bcde6-hide-ip-keygen rejected
http://www.hide-folder.com/download/ rejected
http://grandfromageproductions.com/download-hide-my-ip-full-08c6a-b9da1-versi-crack rejected
http://www.apk4fun.com/apk/24565/ rejected
http://orionfi.com/download-hide-11013-24c84-ip-privacy-2.5.9.2-full-crack rejected
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/download.html rejected
http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm rejected
https://poedit.net/download rejected
http://kodi.tv/download/ rejected
http://www.getpaint.net/download.html rejected
http://www.pdfforge.org/pdfcreator/download rejected
http://calibre-ebook.com/download rejected
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/ rejected
http://www.geogebra.org/download rejected
https://www.winehq.org/download/ rejected
http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php rejected
http://www.vuze.com/download.php rejected
http://www.sqlite.org/download.html rejected
http://typo3.org/download rejected
http://nmap.org/download.html rejected
http://hide-it2.software.informer.com/download/ delivered
http://www.abisource.com/download/ rejected
https://access.redhat.com/downloads rejected
http://www.yiiframework.com/download/ rejected
https://www.archlinux.org/download/ rejected
http://www.icq.com/download/ rejected
http://www.shockwave.com/download/hidden-object-games.jsp rejected
https://torrentfreak.com/5-ways-to-download-torrents-anonymously/ rejected
https://tuts4you.com/download.php?view.57 rejected
http://www.ghacks.net/2012/10/04/automatically-hide-chromes-download-bar/ rejected
http://www.r2.com.au/page/products/download/hide-outlook-express/ rejected
http://randfight.com/files1/download-hide-jrock.html rejected
http://www.appsapk.com/photo-locker-hide-pictures/ rejected
http://www.hideipprivacy.com/download.html rejected
http://www.pogo.com/hidden-object-games rejected
http://www.opencart.com/?route=download/download not delivered
http://gabeanderson.com/2008/04/07/how-to-hide-the-firefox-downloads-status-window/ not delivered

That doesn’t make our anti piracy system a better tool but almost 100% of involved websites won’t have any trouble because us at least. As said we have taken down the service and adding all filters needed for avoiding any further trouble.

Cheers

+_+

TW Team

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...
Loading...