Google Nixes ‘Downloader’ App From Store After DMCA Says Its Browser Can Get To Piracy Sites
from the bye-bye-browsers! dept
As anyone who reads this site regularly will know, DMCA abuse happens all the time. Typically you see this sort of thing resulting from clear attempts to hobble a competitor, or to silence content someone doesn’t want to see, or pure trolling for the purposes of producing mayhem. But we also see this kind of “abuse” stemming from entities, foreign and domestic, that simply don’t know the strictures under which DMCA and copyright law actually operate.
A potential example of this would be what just happened to an app called “Downloader,” which was bounced from the Google Play store after a DMCA notice from a law firm representing several Israeli television organizations. The app’s creator, Elias Saba, shared the details of the notice Google sent to him, as well as his confusion over why any of this is happening, given what his app actually is and does.
“You can see in the DMCA description portion that the only reason given is the app being able to load a website,” Saba told Ars. “My app is a utility app that combines a basic file manager and a basic web browser. There is no way to view content in the app other than to use the web browser to navigate to a website. The app also doesn’t present or direct users to any website, other than my blog at www.aftvnews.com, which loads as the default homepage in the web browser.”
Saba also detailed his frustrations with the takedown in a blog post and a series of tweets. “Any rational person would agree that you can’t possibly blame a web browser for the pirated content that exists on the Internet, but that is exactly what has happened to my app,” he wrote on his blog.
He follows up in a later comment with the exact question I would have: if “Downloader” is going to be nixed from the Play Store, then so should every other browser application in the store. Like, oh I don’t know, Google Chrome. After all, if Chrome can get to that site, and it can, then the same complaint can be lodged against Chrome.
And whether this is simple ignorance or true DMCA fraud, the fact is that none of this makes sense from a DMCA perspective. And, yet:
Saba said he filed appeals on Friday through the Google Play Console and Google’s DMCA counter notification form. Saba’s Google Play Console appeal was rejected within about an hour, but he’s still waiting for a response to the appeal filed via Google’s DMCA counter notification form, he told Ars today.
“We’ve reviewed your appeal request but we’re still unable to reinstate your app,” the Google Play appeal rejection notice said on Friday.
My wild guess is that once an actual conversation happens between Saba and Google so that he can explain what his app actually does, it will be reinstated. The app is still in a published state on other stores, such as for the Amazon FireTV. There is absolutely no reason it should have been delisted from the Play Store.
Filed Under: app store, copyright, dmca, downloader, elias saba, google play, play store
Companies: google
Comments on “Google Nixes ‘Downloader’ App From Store After DMCA Says Its Browser Can Get To Piracy Sites”
DMCA counter-notice
I’d also note that if he filed a legally-proper counter-notice to the DMCA complaint, Google doesn’t have the option of rejecting it. They must accept it, and they must restore the content. If they don’t, they can become liable for damages per 17 USC 512(g)(2). And their TOS can’t help them avoid liability, the law trumps the TOS.
Re:
That’s not completely true, Google (or the Hoster) can only re-instate the content 10 Business days after the counter-notice has been filed, and then only if the person filing the initial takedown doesn’t file a lawsuit. (17 USC 512(g)(2) (c))
Which is basically why his appeal was rejected and he hasn’t had a response to his counter-notice, as he is in the period where Google (The Host) cannot do anything if they want to keep their safe harbour protections – which is one of the reasons why the DMCA is so easily abused.
Re: Re:
I’m the developer this article is about. I filed the appeal (because that’s what the Google Play Store instructed me was my next step) and the DMCA counter notification (because that’s what the suspension email from Google instructed me was my next step) simultaneously on the same day the app was suspended. The appeal was rejected in an hour and Google replied to my DMCA counter notification 6 days later to inform me they would now wait 10 business days to see if the complainant will file a lawsuit before reinstating my app.
If Google isn’t going to dismiss a DMCA complaint as baseless as this, which is certainly frustrating on its own, then it should have at the very least immediately forwarded my counter notification upon submission instead of waiting 6 days to do so.
'Look at our raging hypocrisy' tends not to be good PR
My wild guess is that once an actual conversation happens between Saba and Google so that he can explain what his app actually does, it will be reinstated.
I suspect that if it is relisted the public attention highlighting what hypocrites Google are being by delisting an app over reasons that would see their own browser delisted will have a lot more impact that them simply having it explained to them.
Why doesn’t Google just ignore ridiculous DMCA requests like this? They’ve got enough money that I’ve no doubt they could sue most of these frauds unto bankruptcy within no time. If people actually stood up to these idiotic takedown requests, they’d happen less often. Granted, a significant improvement to the DMCA in general would be far better, but I doubt that’ll happen.
Re:
Most likely, the scale. Google might get too many take down requests a day to feasibly review each one by hand.
Re:
They don’t ignore them because, according to the language of the law, they aren’t allowed to ignore them. If the request is in the proper form (17 USC 512 states the requirements), they have to take the content down or face liability. It’s the same rule as with a counter-notice: the notice has to be taken at face value. If the notice is bogus, it’s up to the person who uploaded the content to go after whoever sent the bogus notice. The biggest problem is that the provisions regarding penalties for bogus notices aren’t enforced, so people sending the notices conclude there’s no risk in sending bogus ones. The one thing I’d change about 17 USC 512 is providing for statutory damages for bogus notices and change the standard for misrepresentation to “knowingly or negligently”.
Re: Re:
“or face liability” being the crux of the question. Google in fact does deny dmca claims as baseless or or on the basis of fair use – not often, but we see it in youtube on occation.
The answer is scale. not all claims can be reviewed, and so even baseless claims will not necessarily see human review.
Admittedly, I interpret the word “ignore” to include “deny the request”, since that seems to be what the op was actually suggesting.
Like, oh I don’t know, Google Chrome.
You mean the browser that is baked into every Android phone so as to be un-removeable? As well as various browsers by OEMs?
Yeah, that’s weird.
Also weird that the complainant has public-facing websites that can be accessed by, you know, browsers.
My brain hurts.
What would happen if someone sends a DMCA notice to Google to take down chrome or Firefox browser
This shows the DMCA law is badly written if an app can be removed just because it allows you to browse the web
But then the DMCA law is known to be open to abuse
YouTube long videos are taken down because they show a 10 seconds of a TV show
A bridge too far...
The wildness of the guess is pretty much to be found in the premise.