HBO's Latest DMCA Abuse: Issues Takedown To Google Over Popular VLC Media Player
from the take-it-all-down! dept
I was at a copyright conference recently, where a Congressional representative, who couldn’t attend in person, had sent a recorded video message, which was played over the event’s screens via a computer using the popular open source media player VLC. One of the copyright lawyers in attendance pointed out — only half-jokingly — that since VLC actually gets around some forms of DRM, some could define it as an anti-circumvention device, and thus illegal under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Of course, it seems crazy that anyone would actually make such a claim — but we live in crazy times.
I doubt that’s what HBO intended when, as Torrentfreak discovered, it sent a DMCA takedown notice to Google with a bunch of links for supposedly infringing content, including various HBO shows. However, mixed in with everything else was a link to a copy of VLC. The notice claims that VLC is actually a copy of Game of Thrones, suggesting that this is yet another case where an overeager copyright holder isn’t being very careful with the power given to it via the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedures.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca takedown, vlc
Companies: hbo
Comments on “HBO's Latest DMCA Abuse: Issues Takedown To Google Over Popular VLC Media Player”
Unintended ANOMALY. Man, you think this PROVES anything?
It’s clearly a file on “torrentportal.com”, not the home site of VLC.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE LINKS TO ACTUAL PIRATED CONTENT? Never a mention here, ONLY anomalies.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike “supports copyright” but always overlooks or excuses piracy.
Re: Unintended ANOMALY. Man, you think this PROVES anything?
So what? It doesn’t matter where it’s hosted, dumbass.
Re: Unintended ANOMALY. Man, you think this PROVES anything?
If we followed what the United States is suppose to be about, one “anomaly” is one too many. Using a shotgun approach in an attempt to get those filthy pirates is a violation of due process.
Even if there’s only one out of thousands, that’s not an anomaly, it’s a miscarriage of justice.
Re: Unintended ANOMALY. Man, you think this PROVES anything?
Your mother gave birth to an unintended anomaly, and she gave it your name.
Re: Unintended ANOMALY. Man, you think this PROVES anything?
If past history is any indication, the fact you called this an anomaly means it’s 56% or more of all cases.
Amusingly enough you using the word to refer to actual anomalies is in itself an anomaly.
Re: Unintended ANOMALY. Man, you think this PROVES anything?
“Unintended ANOMALY.”
There sure are a LOT of these anomalies aren’t there? Almost as if there’s a trend, even if it’s not the majority… How many anomalies are needed before they become routine? Because this seems pretty damn routine to me at this point.
“It’s clearly a file on “torrentportal.com”, not the home site of VLC.”
So f**king what? Are you honestly trying to say that software can only be distributed on the site of the developer? As ever, your objection is idiotic, but then you are one of those who tries to pretend that torrents can’t be used for legal activity. Like it or not, VLC has every right to be on that site, has every permission to be distributed like that by its owner, and a 3rd party with no copyright claim to it is trying to take it down. Sorry, not acceptable.
“WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE LINKS TO ACTUAL PIRATED CONTENT? Never a mention here, ONLY anomalies.”
The pirated content is listed in the same damn article you’re complaining about, moron. Nobody’s defending that, but HBO’s profits should not be protected by damaging VLC’s distribution. Got it? All of these “anomalies” negatively affect people who are OBEYING THE LAW. Sorry, if your corporate gods can’t make money without killing some independent innocent people, but that’s not acceptable in any way.
Re: Re: Unintended ANOMALY. Man, you think this PROVES anything?
Yeah, Even if it was on a page of pirated content the VLC devs themselves gave blanket permission for anyone to share ot under (L)GPL.
Therefor it should not have been DMCA’d
Re: Unintended ANOMALY. Man, you think this PROVES anything?
Nappa: Mr Vegeta, how much is Kakarot’s battle power?
Vegeta: It is over 8000!
Ootb: Higher than 8000? That is something wrong! It’s an anomaly!
These pesky anomalies…
They bitch the system isn’t working how they want, but there is nothing forcing them to make it better.
Maybe if they faced punishments for invalid requests, they would get motivated to make the system work better.
It really is time to move the bar up from , well we think it might be infringing, and make it hurt when they are wrong.
If you accidentally download something copyrighted you can face $150K, if your on the other side of the table and screw up you face public ridicule. Somethings off here, I just can’t put my finger on it.
Re: Re:
“If you accidentally download something copyrighted you can face $150K”
To be fair, $150K is only for willful infringement.
Re: Re:
Might I suggest a ‘6-strikes system’, named so just for pure amusement factor?
Copyrights holders get 6 ‘false alarms’ per year per copyrighted item, because anyone can make mistakes. Once they’ve used up that allotment, then they start getting hit with penalties, hard.
-First of all make it so that only the person who owns the copyright, or a personal legally designated as holding the rights to sue can issue takedown requests(this is important for a later point). Don’t have those legal rights, the ones issuing the false claims get hit with the same penalty as though they had willfully infringed on the copyright in question, paid to the person/group that got the takedown.
-False takedown requests would be subject to a fine, as well as requiring those that issue them to pay any related legal fees incurred by the ones being issued the takedown. Fines would start relatively small, but would grow quickly. Say $500, to $1K, to $2K, to $5K for the first five bogus takedown requests.
-If a sixth bogus takedown request is issued, the copyright in question immediately and irrevocably enters the public domain, and is no longer able to be sued over. Misuse something and it’s only right that it be taken away after all.
And for anyone worried about the harshness of the penalties, given the usual defense of the insane penalties applied to those that pirate tend to be ‘well they should have just not broken the law!’, I’ll just respond with ‘All the copyright owners have to do to avoid those penalties is follow the law‘, surely that’s not such a hard thing to ask of them?.
Re: Re: Re:
I’d add onto this, since a criminal law would never be enforced, that the recipient of a bogus takedown has the right to sue the takedown issuer for compensation, including legal fees.
Re: Re: Re:
“Copyrights holders”
The point isn’t to punish the copy’right’ holder, it’s to punish someone claiming to be the copy’right’ holder who really isn’t.
They’ll try to wiggle their way around it.
A: A person doesn’t hold the copy privilege, a company does.
B: It will be a shell company.
C: When the shell company has exhausted its limit it will simply be closed and another shell company will open, claiming more ‘rights’ that it doesn’t have.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should have clarified I guess, but the first point, where only the copyright holder is able to sue, would apply before the ‘6-strikes’ would kick in, so even a single claim by a person/group/company that doesn’t actually own the copyright would get them hit by a $150K fine per violation.
Re: Re:
“Maybe if they faced punishments for invalid requests”
yeah, not gonna happen
Mention any of the millions and millions of DMCA takedown notices that actually point to infringing content? Nope. Not Mikey’s style. But, yeah, he’s not a pirate apologist. Not at all. He *really really* thinks piracy is not OK. Just don’t ask him to discuss his beliefs. He doesn’t do that. And, yeah, that’s because he’s a totally honest, straightshooting man. Of course! What else could it mean?
Re: Re:
stay on topic broski, This one is about false unchecked DMCA takedowns. You wanna talk about the copyright monopoly and their fight against file sharing go make your own site. You can the shills can get together and circle jerk.
PS I am pretty sure if you were the guy who made VLC that you would have a valid lawsuit if .torrent was your main distribution channel. Or be pissed off at the very least that these things are not being checked at all.
Re: Re:
This is like saying “millions and millions of guilty people go to jail, but Mikey only ever mentions the innocents that suffer the same fate”. The point is that just as we should do everything possible to prevent innocent people going to jail (yes, even if that means that some of the guilty go free), so it shouldn’t be possible to get uninfringing first-amendment-protected speech taken down and not suffer any consequences for doing so,
Re: Re:
Still haven’t found a job?
Re: Re:
Can you point me to hundreds of valid takedown notices let alone millions upon millions? Can you show proof or are you pulling numbers from your ass again?
AJ really hates Due Process, the American Constitution and the Bill of rights.
AJ is a traitor to America and the countries core values.
Re: Re:
“Mention any of the millions and millions of DMCA takedown notices that actually point to infringing content? Nope.”
Actually, yes he does. He notes that the Game Of Thrones is targeted in the above article, for example, and doesn’t question their right to target links claiming to be their TV show. But, whatever masturbatory fantasy you’ve cooked up about your corporate masters, the fact is that they tried pulling down legal content because they or their algorithm is too stupid to realise that the legally distributed application VLC is not an episode of Game Of Thrones. I know you love to worship the major studios while pouring scorn on talented independent creators, but you don’t get to attack innocent people without criticism.
But, you’re too single-mindedly stupid to understand that.
“Just don’t ask him to discuss his beliefs”
Repeatedly, after he’s already answered the question, but whiny asshole ACs keep repeating the same question ad nauseum because the answer isn’t what they had as a fantasy in their head? No, because that would be stupid. Ask him honestly, he’ll probably just point you to the hundreds of articles where he’s already discussed it in public.
Re: Re: Re:
whatever masturbatory fantasy you’ve cooked up about your corporate masters
If any of us masturbated that much we’d be dickless by now =/
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or have one buff arm a la glenn quagmire
Re: Re:
If even the copyright holders can’t tell the difference between infringing links and legit content then how can we be sure that all those millions takedown notices are right? What if the accuracy is less than 70%? I assume you have data to back your claims?
One of the copyright lawyers in attendance pointed out — only half-jokingly — that since VLC actually gets around some forms of DRM, some could define it as an anti-circumvention device, and thus illegal under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Of course, it seems crazy that anyone would actually make such a claim — but we live in crazy times.
If the program actually circumvents things in violation of the DMCA, then why does it “seem[] crazy that anyone would actually make such a claim,” Mike? Are you saying that you support things that violate the DMCA?
Don’t worry, we all know that you won’t actually address any criticisms on the merits. You don’t do that. You just censor critics.
Re: Re:
Wow this is so easy to refute, so easy that you must know this already and if you don’t you should stop posting here because your intelligence output is not high enough, but here goes.
lets see things that get around DRM.
CD/DVD burners
Any program that can re-record an audio/video stream or pass that video audio output to another program which then records it.
That covers about a bajillion things. Were these programs developed to specifically get around DRM? (no) which is why nothing has happened. Were they designed and later used to get around DRM (yes)
Should you hold a car manufacturer responsible if a guy he sells a car to eggs your house. (no because its silly and it makes no sense)
Its a sad state of affairs that this had to be explained to you. Please look your self in the mirror and really think about going back to school.
Re: Re:
Nope, that’s the rest of us, and even then it’s not censorship, it’s basically nothing more than putting up a sign saying ‘AJ is a child, a hypocrite, and a liar, and you’re better off not having to deal with the personal attacks and insults he tries to pass of as ‘discussions’.
As for why…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml#c1210
Re: Re: Re:
Way to change the subject. Clearly Mike is supportive of software that violates the DMCA. He’s just too chicken to admit so directly.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Clearly Mike is supportive of software that violates the DMCA”
Citation needed.
He may support the free and legal distribution of VLC – a program developed in country outside of the DMCA’s jurisdiction that has not been found guilty of violating any laws in a US court. He may support the due process and right to a defence and presumption of innocence that would be afforded VLC before it’s punished for any such violation. He certainly would support the right for 3rd parties to distribute a tool within that tool’s licence without fear of prosecution because some 3rd party decides they don’t like it.
But, please, cite whatever you’re trying to claim is “clearly” his opinion. Or, are you too chicken to back up your own words with facts?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of ‘being to chicken to admit so directly’, when are you going to admit that you see no problem with companies committing perjury, repeatedly, in filing DMCA notices over content they don’t own?
Re: Re:
Because the DMCA Takedown notice is for infringeing content, not tools capable of infringement. The takedown is not being used properly.
Now, Address the criticism that a DMCA takedown notice, which can only be applied to CONTENT which infringes copyright, is being inappropriately used to takedown a legitimate video player because it is actually an infringing copy of Game of Thrones on its merits, rather then use it as a basis of an ad hominim attaxk.
Re: Re:
Don’t worry, we all know that you’re full of shit as always.
Re: Re:
Are you saying that you support things in the DMCA and that anyone who issues a false takedown notice should be charged with Perjury and face 2 years in jail?
Don’t worry, we all know that you won’t actually address any criticisms on the merits. You don’t do that. You just spam websites with adhominems and vitriol.
Re: Re:
“If the program actually circumvents things in violation of the DMCA, then why does it “seem[] crazy that anyone would actually make such a claim”
If the program is actually in violation of the DMCA, why is the developer videolan.org not targeted under the clause that prevents the creation and distribution of circumvention tools? Why, instead, is an innocent 3rd party being targeted for distributing a program under complete adherence to the program’s licence, a program that’s never been found infringing in any court?
“Are you saying that you support things that violate the DMCA?”
Are you saying you support the violation of the perjury clause in the DMCA? Are you saying that it’s OK for HBO to perjure themselves and take down innocent, non-infringing content on a whim? Why do you support breaking the law?
“You just censor critics.”
No, members of the community vote to hide comments from obnoxious morons who troll anonymously with same tired lies. Mike has no direct involvement, it’s the rest of us telling you that you’re an idiot. But you know this. Why do you constantly lie about everything?
Re: Re: Re:
The VLC project is based in France, where different laws apply.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to a whois search, torrentportal.com is in Canada, where I believe the DMCA also doesn’t apply, although I can’t get a decent definite location for the IP assignment at the moment.
Besides, doesn’t that highlight how stupid the whole thing is? They can get the tool removed from somewhere that’s redistributing the tool legally, but they can’t address the actual source for the tool? How much of a waste of time is it to be targeting 3rd parties for distributing something that’s legally available from sites outside of the US? That’s even if the tool has been found as infringing under the DMCA in the first place, which AFAIK it has not.
Re: Re:
If the program actually circumvents things in violation of the DMCA, then why does it “seem[] crazy that anyone would actually make such a claim,” Mike?
VLC doesn’t actually remove any DRM, it simply plays DRM-protected content.
Technically, any device that can play DRM-protected content could be said to violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention laws.
Of course, under that theory, nearly all media players are illegal. Which is why a purely technical reading of the law is a bad idea.
Are you saying that you support things that violate the DMCA?
I can’t speak for Mike, but I certainly support some of those things. Things like jailbreaking a cell phone, modding an XBox. You know, things that don’t infringe upon a consumer’s inalienable property rights. Plus, of course, the aforementioned VLC, if anyone ever does seriously claim that it violates the DMCA.
Re: Re: Re:
I can’t speak for Mike, but I certainly support some of those things.
Actually, here’s an example: eBook DRM.
I like to have all of my eBooks in one program’s library. (Because I know your plan is to be a lawyer who specializes in unnecessary copyright litigation, I won’t reveal the name of this particular program.)
But that poses a problem. I have bought several eBooks from multiple vendors: Amazon (which works only with Kindle), or Barnes & Noble (which works only with NOOK Study). Each has their own format with their own DRM, and you can’t open one book in the other vendor’s program. Much less a program from a third party.
And never mind the mess trying to get them to play on my Android device. Amazon has a program for this, but B&N doesn’t – in fact, their books won’t even work with their own NOOK devices.
The whole thing is a mess. In order to get around this, I use plug-ins to my third-party program (written by users) to strip the DRM and save the books in a non-proprietary format (either ePub or DRM-free PDF). Now, I have no problem including those books in my third-party program, nor do I have any issue with reading them on my Android device.
Note that I am doing this for eBooks that I bought, not that I pirated. It’s almost certain that my use would be fair use under copyright law.
Under the letter of the law, the third-party eBook library program could be violating the DMCA anti-circumvention laws, and the people who own and distribute the program could face criminal charges and jail time.
That seems, not only monumentally unfair, but actually detrimental to everyone involved – including Amazon and B&N. It certainly goes against the primary purpose of copyright law: to benefit the public, and promote the widespread distribution of content.
Frankly, because DMCA anti-circumvention laws are primarily used in situations like this, I think it would be better if Congress scrapped those laws altogether. The detriment to the public far, far outweighs whatever benefits the public gets from those laws being there in the first place.
I once studied a url takedown list which included some non-infringing software, along with a lot of infringing videos. I eventually determined that someone had a process automatically compiling lists of files on public file locker sites. Someone had made a list of those lists, and one of the lists on that meta-list page contained a link to a video that I figured might have been one protected by the firm in question, based on various sketchy evidence. When I emailed the IP protection firm about my findings, I never received a reply.
They dont give a damn. Theyre pissing in our well and they dont care. Everything they do is in bad faith on grounds of massive negligence and disconcern.
They probably think theyre heroes, and theyre being forced into a mercenary position by a take-down notice regime which is badly stacked against their favor.
Re: Re:
Waaaaaay back in the day, before TSR got swallowed up by Wizards of the Coast, TSR became aware that people were using the ruleset (not patented, not copyrightable, and using game trademarks to play the game) and posting game stats for their own creations online.
TSR FREAKED. They started issuing hundreds of cease and desist letters, making (baseless) legal threats, etc, to the extent people were wondering if their legal department had grown by an order of magnitude, or more.
I saw several of their legal nastygrams, and they typically listed the entire contents of an FTP site, down to the file list file, the welcome message and other metadata contents of the site. Usually including all directories on the site, regardless of owner or content, claiming the entire thing to be a violation of their copyrights.
Most site operators caved, although 99.99% of TSR’s ownership claims would have been laughed out of court.
History repeats itself. Over and over and over.
Since hbo.com has received one or more DMCA notices, best practices dictate that hbo.com no longer receive ad revenue or search results, right?
Wow, touchy issue for the trolls.
Well, just a nit . . .
. . . but it would be a “circumvention” device, not an “anti-circumvention” device.
The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA prohibit circumvention devices.
HM
Wait, if that’s the Game of Thrones takedown list, why is the item immediately above VLC clearly a copy of Evil Dead? (Other than the obvious fact that these people are idiots, that is.)
Re: Re:
As ever, the list is a mess if you look at it properly. Several of the results are search pages – i.e. they’re asking for the search page returned to be removed, not the results themselves. Which is… odd, especially considering that some of the results could conceivably be legal. Some are shortened URLs, meaning that it’s impossible to determine after the fact whether the content was infringing or not. Then, there’s a group of 3 things that couldn’t possible have met the search for Game Of Thrones, and even if two of them seem likely to be infringing, of course the VLC one is not.
So, most of the links are either impossible to determine, or merely take down a search result and not the actual infringing content itself (which would easily be found by other means). Whether you agree that VLC’s legally distributed software is acceptable collateral damage or not, it’s hard to see how delisting a site’s internet search result from Google, for example, would do anything to reduce piracy.
I remember following a link from Forbes to a video of an HBO bigwig explaining his company’s stance on copyright. He basically said that the walled garden his company was building, which denied fans an internet-only option, was more profitable than having that AND an internet-only option because he sees value in exclusivity.
When asked about the untapped market of internet-only users, many of whom resort to piracy, he replied, “We are addressing those markets.”
Yeah, with nastygrams.
Not good business practice, and in the long run, not profitable.
Next: replace torrentfreakz.com with torrentfreak.com
🙂
Sensationalism
“The notice claims that VLC is actually a copy of Game of Thrones”. The DCMA Notice make no such claim you moron. Just saying.
Re: Sensationalism
Actually it does. Look at the copyright claim. This is the section header under which VLC appears:
“Copyright claim #4:
Game of Thrones (Original TV Show)
Original work URL(s):
http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html
Allegedly infringing URLs:”
So, they’re claiming that the URL
“407. http://www.torrentportal.com/details/6093721/VLC-Media-Player-2.0.7-Final-(32-64-bit)-Official.html“
Is a copy of Game Of Thrones or otherwise infringes on that copyright. So, sadly, you’re the moron here.
As a quick note, I’ve has a quick scroll down that list, and of 872 URLs, there’s at least 200 I can see that are not Game Of Thrones, or are just search page results (so even if they point to GoT, they are not copies of said work). If only that perjury clause meant something…