More DMCA Abuse: Company Issues DMCA Takedown On Comment Spam, Claiming 'URL Copyright'

from the whazzat? dept

We've seen all kinds of DMCA abuse to take down content people didn't like, but this one might be the strangest. Thanks to an anonymous reader who sent over a post on Google+ by Jared Smith talking about a DMCA notice he received for a piece of comment spam. Yes, a piece of comment spam. His assumption is that the company stupidly hired someone to try to help them boost their Google rankings, and that company went about comment spamming, not realizing that would actually hurt their Google rankings. Then, in trying to clean up the mess, they realized they needed those comments (which were just a URL) to disappear. Enter the remote censors' favorite all-purpose tool: the DMCA notice. According to Smith, the notice claimed that it was over their "URL copyright" which, you know, isn't actually a thing. It sounds like he still took the comment down (and, as someone who deals with tons of comment spam, I can understand why), but is annoyed that someone is abusing the DMCA this way. Of course, this is a bogus takedown, but that's the nature of the DMCA takedown process these days...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:27pm

    And we wonder why no one cares about the DMCA.

    It has become a punchline to a really bad joke to many times.
    It is abused, misused, and is a weapon with no drawback to its improper use.

    I'm starting to think any law involving the word copyright is meant to be a joke.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mesonoxian Eve (profile), Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:31pm

    Just think: if there was a dollar bill placed into a pot for every bogus takedown, the national debt would have been wiped out 2 years ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:45pm

      Re:

      Not to mention the killing you could make selling tickets for people to watch all the companies filing bogus DMCA claims fighting over who 'gets' the pot of cash, all trying to claim it's theirs due to their abuses of the laws creating it.

      "It's mine, my company filed over 1000 claims last month, of which only 10% were found to be legal, therefor my company contributed the most to it's creation!"
      "No, it's mine, my company filed over 2000, none of which were found to be legal, so we contributed the most to it's creation!"
      "What, do you have a gang of monkeys getting drunk and smashing the keyboards or something?!"
      "How did you- I mean, of course not! It's all due to our foolproof DMCA claim issuing system, called... um... 'Chim-tech'."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 3:29pm

      Re:

      Imagine what the national debt would look like if a dollar bill went in the pot for every infringing song or film downloaded. It would've been wiped out 5 years ago.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mesonoxian Eve (profile), Dec 10th, 2012 @ 4:45pm

        Re: Re:

        Okay... imagining... damn, we're now 5 trillion worse off than we were.

        Haven't you been paying attention? Let Hollywood count those dollars and no matter how much was added to the pot, their books will show a loss.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2012 @ 4:38pm

      Response to: Mesonoxian Eve on Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:31pm

      jw.org

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:38pm

    infringing URL copyright for dummies

    1) select URL
    2) CTRL-C
    3) click address bar
    4) CTRL-V
    5) ?????
    6) PROFIT

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:39pm

    Hmmmm, maybe I should claim copyright on my phone number and email address. That way I can start suing all the telemarketers and spammers for copyright infringement for using my phone number/email address to get a hold of me!



    *I know copyright doesn't cover that, but figured if everyone else gets to decide it covers whatever they want to suit their agenda then why shouldn't I. =P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:54pm

      Re:

      Why do you say copyright doesn't cover that?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), Dec 10th, 2012 @ 2:20pm

        Re: Re:

        For the simple reason that copyright law says that for you to have a copyright over something, there must be a creative element of some sort to it. There is nothing creative about a phone number or email address - its simply a direction, a sign-post telling a machine where to forward information, whether a voice call or a message.

        Plus...think about it. Imagine if they were covered by copyright. You wouldn't legally be allowed to write down the phone number or email address. So how would you communicate them, barring snail mail or face to face?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 2:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Snail mail would also be out, it uses a copy of the address.:-(

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Mr. Applegate, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 3:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Um, an email address CAN have a creative element.

          CPRT4ME@xxxxxxx

          I could even make that argument for a phone number, just make it spell something on the phones keypad.

          Yes, they are used as a 'signpost' but certainly there can be a creative element in the former and I could argue for one in the later.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 4:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            U.S. Copyright Office regulations are clear that “short phrases” may not be registered.

            37 CFR § 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.
            The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

            (a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans . . .


            The Copyright Office explains this regulation in Circular 34 as following from the requirement of “originality”.
            Subject Matter of Copyright

            Under section 102 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the U. S. Code), copyright protection extends only to “original works of authorship.” The statute states clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:46pm

    False DMCA notices will continue to be sent by people etc. who know that they are false becasue they know that they can get away with it because nothing is done about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:52pm

    Copyright loophole? :-)

    http://It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only./

    (Yeah, it's in the public domain. I know.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

    What's next, if you display a comment I make on your site, I can then sue you for copyright infringement since you copied what I typed and displayed it to other users? Copyright requires no registration after all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

    The key is there needs to be punishment for companies who abuse DMCA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    KnownHuman (profile), Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:56pm

    I wonder if it's a certain medical device company. They've recently been emailing me asking me to remove comment spam that they created years ago and offering the princely sum of $1 per link.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 1:59pm

    It says "insightful funny report" over your comment. You caused it to be there by posting a comment. The comment is your responsibility, not Techdirt's. So they can sue you for patent infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    kenichi tanaka, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 2:11pm

    There's no way I would ever take down such a comment. I would leave it up just to piss the company off and then turn around and file a lawsuit against that company by filing a small claims court lawsuit for the maximum for abusing the DMCA.

    I wish someone would try to do that by posting crap on my site ... I have members who love to post comment spam and I don't have a problem with it as long as it doesn't crossover into commercial spam. But, if someone ever "demanded" for it to be removed, I'd simply tell them to "kiss my ass" and I'll sue that person/company/individual for wasting my time with such a bullshit request.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 2:23pm

      Re:

      That attitude is everything that's wrong with the US... As much as i can understand the sentiment in this case

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 4:59pm

    Too many lawyers

    Dear Sir/Madame,

    I'm sorry, but I seem to have entered the following comment to your blog that I wish to remove:
    [insert URL here]
    I'm sure you'll agree that it's disruptive to your readership. If you have not already done so, would you kindly remove it?

    Thank you,
    [d-bag's name here]

    -- Problem solved. No lawyers, no animosity. This isn't rocket science, folks. It's manners.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 7:26pm

    Why is DMCA able to take down URL's anyway? Has this been tested in court or is everyone just laying down for copyright holders?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Dec 11th, 2012 @ 12:57am

      Re:

      That's the point of the article, actually. No, the DMCA should not be covering things like URLs, but since these things are rarely tested in a court due to expense (and thus the perjury penalty rarely if ever applied), most providers will just roll over based on a claim even if it's not valid.

      In this case, it looks like the guy removed the spam comment with the URL anyway since, of course, it's a spam comment and thus not a valuable thing for him to refute the DMCA notice to protect. But until it's made uneconomical to spam sites with DMCA takedowns, or they're forced to defend the notice in court with real penalties for lying, this stuff will keep happening.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DUMBASS POLITICIANS, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 9:56pm

    i like #4's idea

    no really im copyrighting everything about me and if you so much as breath stupid except this statement ill DMCA you right into next 1000 years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 11th, 2012 @ 2:33am

    and because none of the powers that be have the balls to hit those that abuse DMCA where it hurts, in the pocket, nothing will ever change! how moronic is that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Dec 11th, 2012 @ 6:28am

    Does this mean I can file a countersuit against porn trolls for using my copyright IP address?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This