Innocence Of Muslims Actress Files Contempt Charges Against Google For Not Making Movie Completely Disappear Worldwide

from the well,-if-you've-already-fucked-up-copyright-law-in-one-way... dept

It would appear that actress Cindy Lee Garcia and her lawyer Chris Armenta are figuring that since they've already mucked up copyright law with their ridiculous victory in the 9th Circuit that they might as well go on pushing the boundaries of copyright law to further ridiculous extremes. If you don't recall, the 9th Circuit, via Judge Alex Kozinski found the actress had a magical "copyright interest" in the 5 seconds of Innocence of Muslims 13-minute trailer that she appeared in, allowing her to demand that Google takedown every copy of the video. Multiple copyright experts were flabbergasted at this ruling, and a variety of folks have been lining up to support future proceedings in the case (starting with a possible en banc review of whether or not the court should grant a stay on the ruling until even more review can occur).

In the midst of this, Garcia has filed a motion for contempt against YouTube and Google arguing that the company has failed to abide by the takedown order. However, as the details show, Garcia and Armenta are applying some rather questionable interpretations of copyright law yet again -- though they're interpretations helped along by a bunch of additional problems with Kozinski's order (problems that were mostly ignored given the immensity of the ridiculousness of the key parts of the original order). It seems that their main complaint is that Google only blocked the videos for people in the US. That is, if you visit a foreign version of YouTube, you can still see the clips. That may be true, but it's hard to see how that's contempt. US copyright law only applies in the US. The US court can't realistically order Google to remove the video in other countries, since US courts don't have jurisdiction there. Imagine the flip side: if a court in, say, China, ruled that Google had to block a certain video -- and then found Google in contempt for not blocking viewers in the US from accessing that content. Most people would flip out.

But Garcia and her lawyer seem to think that a single copyright ruling in the US is grounds for worldwide censorship. That's fairly incredible. Though, once again, Judge Kozinski is largely to blame here, as his order certainly could be read to suggest (clearly incorrectly) that he has the power to censor the content globally.
Google has failed to comply. As of this morning, at 7:55 a.m EST, a version of Innocence of Muslims that includes Ms. Garcia's performance is still available on Google's Worldwide Platform and also viewable in Egypt, the nation in which the fatwa was issued for Ms. Garcia's execution. All a viewer needs to do to view a copy of the video that contains the infringing material from any computer in the world and within in YouTube's global platforms--and therefore is governed by the takedown order--is to change his or her settings to any country platform, such as "Egypt."
That's not the only problem with the motion. It also seems to completely ignore existing rulings (such as in the Viacom case) that state that in issuing takedowns, you need to point to the specific instance of infringement, rather than just "make all of this disappear." That's quite reasonable, because content itself is not infringing absent context. There may be perfectly valid versions of the content that are fair use -- especially given the news interest in this particular ruling. But Garcia is insisting that Google has to proactively police all copies and block them -- again, thanks in part to Kozinski's overly broad language in his order that implies a duty to police this issue, despite the law not saying that at all.

Furthermore, the DMCA's 512(j) itself says that injunctions granted under it can only apply to "a particular online site," rather than some sort of global ban across every site in every locale. Kozinski, once again, seems to have gone beyond what the law allows in his weird quixotic quest to twist copyright law into something it is not.
For Google, it is a pedestrian, technical exercise to take down those URLs, to hire an intern to just search for "Innocence of Muslims," and their suggestion that Ms. Garcia should comb through YouTube again, and provide Google with the information again, belies Google's claim that it is in compliance.
While Kozinski seems to ignore this, the DMCA has never had a forward-looking duty to monitor and block all instances of a particular piece of content. It appears that Garcia and her lawyer are trying to simply make up new law here. As we noted just recently, there are some efforts underway to change the DMCA from a "notice and takedown" provision to "notice and staydown" but that's simply not the law today, no matter what Kozinski thinks it is.

The motion goes even further, insisting that the only way to comply with a takedown notice is to completely remove the file from the server, rather than just disable it from being viewable:
Additionally, as of the writing of this brief, Google has not "taken down" anything. Instead, it has merely disabled the various uploads displaying Innocence of Muslims in forms that contain infringing content, leaving the content up and viewable via thumbnails.
Of course, the actual law says that upon notification a company only needs to "remove, or disable access to, the material." Once again, it seems that this is another problem with Kozinski's overly broad order, which declared that Google had to "takedown" the content, rather than just disable it, even as the law has said disabling it should be sufficient.

Furthermore, the motion seems to suggest that Google has a further duty (not even discussed in Kozinski's order) to somehow block Google's search engine from ever pointing to the video anywhere else in the world.
Google has failed to remove full copies of the video from its platforms, has failed to prevent new uploads of the video to YouTube, and continues to publish on its Google search index platforms links to numerous sites and platforms where the video can either be directly viewed or where it can be easily downloaded and saved to viewers' computers.
So now they want to censor Google search results to other sites as well? Yikes.

Garcia also complains about the "snide" error message placed on copies of the video that were disabled.
Indeed, Google has not even made a pro forma attempt to comply with the order, choosing instead to temporarily disable only a few copies of the video that contain infringing content and putting in their place a snide message to the public that states:
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by an actress over her 5-second appearance in the video. A U.S. court has ordered Google to remove the video. We strongly disagree with this copyright ruling and will fight it."
As is clear from Google's near-total disregard of the order and its ridiculing of the Court's authority, Google is thumbing its nose at the Court and making a mockery of our judicial system in an apparent attempt to encourage the public to blame and harass Ms. Garcia and to continue to use infringing content to generate YouTube revenues from traffic directed through the 852 URLs that have illegally posted the content.
Of course, all of Google's responses so far do not seem like "contempt" or "thumbing its nose," but rather following through with the exactly what the law says is proper. Disabling access to the known videos in the US. This is the same way that Google responds to legal takedowns in other countries as well -- disabling it for those countries only. And, yes, Kozinski's order could be read to demand further actions, including fulling taking down all such videos, even those outside the US, but those are just additional problems with Kozinski's order, which go way beyond what the law says. Everyone has reasonably focused on the ridiculousness of the original claim of giving Garcia a copyright interest in the film, and to a lesser extent the First Amendment-defying gag order he placed on Google. But, the details of this contempt motion highlight that Kozinski got a lot of the little things completely wrong as well, such as ordering Google to go way beyond what copyright law requires.

This is a bad case on so many levels, but it could be even more ridiculous if these kinds of precedents by Kozinski's blatant misreading of the law are allowed to stand. The dangerous precedents go beyond just allowing an actor in a film to claim a copyright on the film, but further allowing bogus "worldwide" injunctions and a requirement to completely "take down" content, rather than just disable access to it (which creates a whole host of other problems). Once again, it seems abundantly clear that Kozinski simply went off the reservation with his ruling, ignoring what the law actually says to satisfy his own desire to censor this video.

Reader Comments (rss)

 
You are obviously greatly enamored with Google.

No, actually. I'm highly critical of Google when appropriate as well. What I am greatly enamored by is important free speech issues and avoiding bogus censorship through copyright law. Given your employer, I can see how you're not so interested in those issues, and prefer to brush them under the rug.

None of this is new law.

A huge number of amici filings in the case suggest you're completely wrong.

This case represents the rare convergence of a producer's failure to obtain a work-for-hire agreement or waiver and assignment of an actor's intellectual property rights - standard operating procedure in Hollywood for decades, and the producer's gross fraud in obtaining the actor's performance, invalidating the implied license in a joint creative work.

That is one aspect of the case, but as many others have noted -- *including* the US Copyright Office -- that still does not grant the actress a copyright interest in the film. Do you think the Copyright Office made its decision because it, too, is "greatly enamored with Google"?

This is not about freedom of speech.

Then you do not seem to understand the fundamental legal questions being asked.

It's about Google making a conscious decision to obtain the viral worldwide exposure and ad revenue from a video that went hugely viral overnight with hundreds of copies uploaded to hundreds of YouTube channels. That is YouTube's revenue model. It's about money and business.

Bullshit. The revenue from this particular video is nothing. As far as I know, the video itself wasn't even monetized. Furthermore, Google has a reputation of being *exceedingly* quick to pull down videos when it receives copyright claims on them. If what you claimed was true, it would not be doing so.

So, no, you're wrong. Very, very wrong.

You also might want to admit that you're actually the biased party here, seeing as you are the censorship company that Ms. Garcia hired to bitch about copies of the video that are not subject to US law in the first place. It's your name that's in the emails in the filing.
—Mike Masnick

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 6:46am

    Didn't even...

    The MPAA have problems with the ruling?

    Granted, they had different reasons, but still, when you have members of the Copyfraud Alliance saying it's a bad ruling and everyone ELSE saying it's a bad ruling...

    It's probably a bad ruling.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 7:55am

    Hope She Wins!

    If she wins, then tons of other malcontents can now start claiming copyright on their appearances in video. The ensuing hilarity should get some beneficial changes to copyright law... ah... who am I kidding, its only going to keep getting worse... this way at least the MafiAA's can have some stick in their eye in return.

    Can't beat'em, join'em!

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 7:59am

    For Google, it is a pedestrian, technical exercise to take down those URLs, to hire an intern to just search for "Innocence of Muslims,"

    She fails to understand the scale of Google, from her viewpoint there is only one complaint that Google has to deal with, From Google's viewpoint there are millions, and so it is no a pedestrian exercise to hire an interns to deal with complaints, that is why they rely on automation, and are not very responsive to counterclaims. They cannot afford to high enough people with the necessary expertise to deal with complaints about Youtube videos, never mind all their search results..

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Nate (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:14am

    "US copyright law only applies in the US. The US court can't realistically order Google to remove the video in other countries, since US courts don't have jurisdiction there."

    Someone needs to go tell ICE about this ...

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:14am

    You are obviously enamored with Google.

     

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

  6. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:15am

    You are obviously greatly enamored with Google. None of this is new law. This case represents the rare convergence of a producer's failure to obtain a work-for-hire agreement or waiver and assignment of an actor's intellectual property rights - standard operating procedure in Hollywood for decades, and the producer's gross fraud in obtaining the actor's performance, invalidating the implied license in a joint creative work.

    This is not about freedom of speech. It's about Google making a conscious decision to obtain the viral worldwide exposure and ad revenue from a video that went hugely viral overnight with hundreds of copies uploaded to hundreds of YouTube channels. That is YouTube's revenue model. It's about money and business.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    David Hardy, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:21am

    I tried to put my name and email with my comment posted under "Anonymous Coward" at 8:15 AM - but TechDirt seems to prefer it listed under "Anonymous Coward." David Hardy - david@dmcasolutions.com

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:21am

    Re:

    The "ad revenue" from this is a pimple on a gnat's ass. Only an imbecile would suggest that Google is delilberately doing this for the paltry and insignificant sum of money that they might make.

    Oh, wait: one just did.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    David Hardy, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:34am

    Viral pimples on rats' asses makes the world go round for Google & YouTube.

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:35am

    Re:

    "She fails to understand the scale of Google.."

    It doesn't matter. She has a lawyer, to whom we should all be grateful for the spectacle unfolding. Billable hours is what it's about.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re:

    Given the film involved, I doubt that her income from acting could pay more than a hour or two of legal expenses, so Who is paying that lawyer?

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Guardian, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:50am

    SOLUTION

    gouge the bitches eyes out....then she cant see it, and then cut out her ears, PROBLEM SOLVED...

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:54am

    What about the boost to her career?

    "[...] also viewable in Egypt, the nation in which the fatwa was issued for Ms. Garcia's execution [...]"

    I'd think that having a fatwa issued against you would be an excellent way of ascertaining that you've done something wonderful. I'm actually somewhat jealous that I haven't managed that yet. I suppose I'll have to work harder at desecration, sacrilege, and abomination. Dammit.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:01am

    Re:

    If you owned a video sharing service, how would you have handled it, knowing the US doesn't have jurisdiction over the whole world? You would take down the video for the whole world when the order is for USians?

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:04am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's what I'm wondering...

    It seems to much like a Hollywood ploy and they've run done crazy schemes in the past when it comes to changing the law for their own proposes...

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:08am

    Re:

    Quick question: if this was the 90s, would you be blaming Blockbuster for making money from providing a rental platform that was used to distribute a popular VHS tape that turned out to have some contract disputes? I do wonder, since this is "old law", but that would seem pretty ridiculous to me.

    "a producer's failure to obtain a work-for-hire agreement"

    Why is that Google's fault if the producer has supplied a product with contract issues they did not have any access to see? Are you saying that companies now have to vet every single product's contract history before they offer it?

    "Google making a conscious decision obtain the viral worldwide exposure and ad revenue from a video that went hugely viral"

    Even this fragment of a sentence is full of idiocy. Where to start... First of all, Google didn't make a "concious decision" to do anything. They provided a platform, available to anyone equally for both popular and unpopular content. The only people who made any concious decision here are the individuals who uploaded the video. You also seem to be implying that someone can deliberately make something go viral and thus make huge amounts of money. You might have to patent that method, as nobody else knows for sure what will go viral until after the fact. I do also have to giggle a little at the idea that YouTube needs "exposure" from a video like this, rather than them being the ones providing the exposure.

    "It's about money and business."

    Yes, it's about a producer who tried to make money with a controversial video and apparently didn't have his business in order when working out the contracts. Again, why is this Google's fault?

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:08am

    Re:

    Oh, yeah, google lives and dies by viral videos.

    Yeah, right.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:14am

    I believe we need to look at the issue from Ms Garcia point of view a bit.

    "Ms. Garcia's performance is still available on Google's Worldwide Platform and also viewable in Egypt, the nation in which the fatwa was issued for Ms. Garcia's execution."

    As one can see from the above quote her interest is staying alive, not in copy right law.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:17am

    Re:

    TD has been experiencing technical problems lately. Be patient; now that you've brought it to their attention, they'll resolve it soon enough.

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    radarmonkey (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:32am

    Aliases

    For Google, it is a pedestrian, technical exercise to take down those URLs, to hire an intern to just search for "Innocence of Muslims,"
    Shhhhh. Don't anybody tell this lawyer about "In no sents of Muzlums".

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:36am

    And, yes, Kozinski's order could be read to demand further actions, including fulling taking down all such videos, even those outside the US, but those are just additional problems with Kozinski's order, which go way beyond what the law says.

    Kozinski's order clearly is broader that Google's implementation. Whether or not anyone agrees; the judge's order is the judge's order.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:38am

    Re:

    The AC @ 8:21 covered everything pretty well, but I wanted to add my little pedantic comment to this:

    "This is not about freedom of speech. It's about Google making a conscious decision to obtain the viral worldwide exposure and ad revenue from a video that went hugely viral overnight with hundreds of copies uploaded to hundreds of YouTube channels."

    And how is that not a freedom of speech issue?

    Now, to be clear, I don't think that corporations should have freedom of speech that is on par with actual human beings, but in our current system, they do. And none of the points you bring up here counter the notion that this issue has freedom of speech implications.

    Also, there may be freedom of speech issues for the actual human beings that upload this video. If the video is being used for the purposes of politic commentary, for example, that is squarely fair use and permissible. To take down the video in that context would clearly be a freedom of speech issue.

    In order to accommodate that, YouTube could not just take down all instances of the video sight unseen. An analysis would have to be done, and a big part of the takedown process is intended to avoid having the third party (YouTube, in this case) be required to expend the considerable significant resources needed to proactively analyze each and every piece of content their users upload. That's the duty of the respective copyright holders.

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re:

    by "AC @ 8:21", I meant PaulT @ 9:08, of course.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:00am

    Re:

    You are obviously greatly enamored with Google.

    No, actually. I'm highly critical of Google when appropriate as well. What I am greatly enamored by is important free speech issues and avoiding bogus censorship through copyright law. Given your employer, I can see how you're not so interested in those issues, and prefer to brush them under the rug.

    None of this is new law.

    A huge number of amici filings in the case suggest you're completely wrong.

    This case represents the rare convergence of a producer's failure to obtain a work-for-hire agreement or waiver and assignment of an actor's intellectual property rights - standard operating procedure in Hollywood for decades, and the producer's gross fraud in obtaining the actor's performance, invalidating the implied license in a joint creative work.

    That is one aspect of the case, but as many others have noted -- *including* the US Copyright Office -- that still does not grant the actress a copyright interest in the film. Do you think the Copyright Office made its decision because it, too, is "greatly enamored with Google"?

    This is not about freedom of speech.

    Then you do not seem to understand the fundamental legal questions being asked.

    It's about Google making a conscious decision to obtain the viral worldwide exposure and ad revenue from a video that went hugely viral overnight with hundreds of copies uploaded to hundreds of YouTube channels. That is YouTube's revenue model. It's about money and business.

    Bullshit. The revenue from this particular video is nothing. As far as I know, the video itself wasn't even monetized. Furthermore, Google has a reputation of being *exceedingly* quick to pull down videos when it receives copyright claims on them. If what you claimed was true, it would not be doing so.

    So, no, you're wrong. Very, very wrong.

    You also might want to admit that you're actually the biased party here, seeing as you are the censorship company that Ms. Garcia hired to bitch about copies of the video that are not subject to US law in the first place. It's your name that's in the emails in the filing.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:01am

    But it's an order?

    That's not the only problem with the motion. It also seems to completely ignore existing rulings (such as in the Viacom case) that state that in issuing takedowns, you need to point to the specific instance of infringement, rather than just "make all of this disappear.


    Maybe I'm dumb, but isn't all of that irrelevant at this point? These are no longer normal DMCA takedowns; Google is under a court order. You can argue all day that the order should not have been issued, and I'll agree with you, but the order WAS issued.

     

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

  26.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:05am

    Re: But it's an order?

    Maybe I'm dumb, but isn't all of that irrelevant at this point? These are no longer normal DMCA takedowns; Google is under a court order. You can argue all day that the order should not have been issued, and I'll agree with you, but the order WAS issued.

    The DMCA has specific limitations 512(j) concerning injunctions issued under the act. It would appear that Kozinski ignored those limitations at almost every turn.

    It is reasonable to argue that perhaps Google should have just followed the extreme wording of Kozinski's order, while raising those issues on appeal (or in requesting en banc) but it appears that Google did what seems perfectly reasonable in following the standard takedown procedures as prescribed in the law.

    Really, the problem goes back to the extreme wackiness of Kozinski's order.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:11am

    Re:

    You know, people who take this "everything Google does is evil no matter what" stance actually make it very difficult for those of us who are critical of Google to get our points across. We just end up sounding like you and therefore having our opinions dismissed out of hand when people assume we're one of the lunatic fringe.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: But it's an order?

    Wow, you're right. I didn't realize how restrictive the law was. Now that I actually read what you previously linked:

    If the service provider qualifies for the limitation on remedies described in subsection (a), the court may only grant injunctive relief in one or both of the following forms:
    (i) An order restraining the service provider from providing access to a subscriber or account holder of the service providerís system or network who is using the providerís service to engage in infringing activity and is identified in the order, by terminating the accounts of the subscriber or account holder that are specified in the order.
    (ii) An order restraining the service provider from providing access, by taking reasonable steps specified in the order to block access, to a specific, identified, online location outside the United States.


    The order is clearly out of the bounds of these - (ii) states you need a specific online location AND that it be outside the United States, and (i) does not apply because it's not a specific subscriber or account that's being blocked. And the law clearly states that these are the ONLY remedies allowed. It's too bad the judge can't be cited for contempt of law.

    But... If Google is in contempt of an illegal order, is that something that can be overturned on appeal? Or is it like an unjustly convicted person escaping from prison - they're still guilty of the escape even if they never should have been there in the first place?

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:24am

    perhaps the best thing to have done was not appear in that or any other 'movie'? i am sure the world and that movie clip wouldn't have noticed if she wasn't there. she's only being noticed now because of the moaning she's doing. had she kept quiet, like so many other things/people, there would have been swift ignoring

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Paul Reid, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:33am

    Re:

    And most of the copies have removed her 5 seconds, so she no longer has any claims on it. And yet she and the judge appear to be too stupid to realize this.

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:38am

    Re:

    In fairness, she WAS getting death threats before the lawsuits. There may be some Streisand effect in that she's bringing more attention to it, but it already had a lot of attention (to the point of being blamed for a terrorist attack) and at least now everyone knows she doesn't support the film and didn't know what it was when she was in it. Which may help her. Even if she eventually loses this case, and I hope she does, those facts are now out there, which is actually a good thing.

    And it's rather dumb to say she shouldn't have appeared in "that or any other 'movie'". Are you saying no actress should ever appear in any movie ever? She was lied to about what the movie was.

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re:

    "Even if she eventually loses this case, and I hope she does, those facts are now out there, which is actually a good thing."

    But achieved at the cost of harming an innocent party.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Indeed, and potentially at the cost of harming a LOT of innocent parties, if it results in bad case law. I didn't say it was good overall. I only meant that at least some good will come out of it.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re:

    Microsoft et al are paying for most of them as part of an astroturf campaign.

    So people with legitimate anti-google points are just get mixed up with all the astroturf and ignored.

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Lots of innocent parties if she gets her way, the precedent she's fighting for would be a disaster if upheld.

    The limit on what a DMCA/copyright claim covers? Gone. With what she's fighting for, all someone has to do is claim that a specific file/song/video is infringing, and suddenly the hosting company has to find and delete all copies of it, on their own dime, and without being able to take into account the fact that other copies may be perfectly fine.

    US law stops at the US border? Gone, now even if something is perfectly fine in another country, if it's ruled illegal/infringing in the US it has to be pulled everywhere.

    Someone up above asked how exactly she was paying for her lawyer, suggesting someone else may be bankrolling her, and while at first that may seem somewhat tin-foil hat territory, considering she's fighting to basically destroy the few protections and limits available in the DMCA, I can think of a few interested parties that might be willing to throw money at that, if it meant they didn't have to do it themselves.

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 11:12am

    Serves google right, they decided to play ball with DMCA bs and this is the eventual result. It will only get worse until they stop taking it in the bum.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re:

    "she WAS getting death threats before the lawsuits"

    This wasn't a movie of one. Why aren't the other actors or members of crew asking to join the suit? Is she the only one who acted in it who has been threatened? Anyone know?

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    "Whether or not anyone agrees; the judge's order is the judge's order."

    And the law is the law? So, what is your point?

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    Zonker, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 11:56am

    Re: Hope She Wins!

    Yeah, Mickey Rooney alone could issue a takedown of 340 movies and TV shows based on his appearances if he wanted to based on this Judges ruling.

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:08pm

    Re:

    Yeah, so? As abdominal as it is to issue a death sentence to someone merely because you think they insulted your religion, the Muslims in Egypt have nothing at all to do with the producers of the video or Google. It is the Muslims there who are calling for her death, and no matter what happens to Google or the film's producers, that won't change. The fatwa won't go away if Google and/or the producers are punished in the US or the takedown order sticks.
    Claiming copyright on a video will not help Garcia stay alive if a radical Muslim tries to shoot her.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:36pm

    Re:

    Should she not have engaged legal representation in Egypt them to get it taken down in that country then?

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re:

    I'd be surprised if it's not already illegal in Egypt. But does Egypt have jurisdiction over Google to make them take it down?

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, they do. In fact, this is one of Google's primary defenses when they get caught helping repressive nations find dissidents or censor speech those nations dislike: they operate according to the laws of the nation they're in.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I have no idea, but if I had appeared in that movie, I would have just shut up about it and waited for the storm to pass. Even getting death threats -- well, nothing can be done to stop that now, but raising a big stink about it very likely would make that situation worse. Also, I wouldn't be suing an entity who had nothing to do with the movie in any case.

    Perhaps the rest of the actors that appeared in the movie are smarter or less crazed than this one.

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:27pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps she thinks her performance in the film is terrible, or that its the reason she is not getting work, and wanted an excuse to get it removed from the net.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Crazy Canuck, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm assuming it's some lawyer who is doing this for a large portion of the payout/settlement that they are expecting from Google.

    Chances are this is also your stereotypical ambulance chasing type lawyer, which are more about annoying people to the point they end up settling rather than on any real legal skill. You know, like Prenda or that guy that went after The Oatmeal.

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If a bad performance in a movie alone is enough to keep you from getting work, none of the actors who have become huge stars would have been able to achieve that position. As near as I can tell, having at least one inexcusably terrible movie in your history is part of "paying your dues."

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What someone thinks does not always correspond to reality.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 3:03pm

    Re:

    If it only took the hiring of an intern to identify all of the URLs, then why doesn't what's-her-name hire her own intern to search Google, and compile a list of URLs to send to Google for them to take down?

    This matches closer of having the one making a DMCA claim providing which specific works to remove, as it should be, rather than making Google do all the work.

    Mind you, since it's silly to think that the actress could make a copyright claim in the first place, even if she did do this, all the DMCA claims made would be invalid anyway.

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 3:35pm

    Blah Google blah...

    _Of course_ they were expected to help her along in the country were she was targeted. What did they expect ? And that part were 'Google follows the law exactly'.... Well... Looking at the cartel they formed to keep wages down doesn't make them look good either. Fuck Google in this matter. Personally, I had a number of occasions where I had to report a copyright infringement to them. And every time the things pops up elsewhere on _their_ servers. (blogspot), without any fucking penalty for them.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 4:02pm

    Section 512(j) -- why does it apply here?

    Section 512(j) of the DMCA limits the scope of injunctions only "against a service provider that is not subject to monetary remedies under this section." It is not at all clear that Google qualifies for this limitation: it received takedown notices and did not comply with them.

    Subsection (j) is referenced in subsection (c), the limit on monetary remedies:

    A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material . . . , if the service provideró
    (A)
    * * *
    (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material

    So as I see it, Google had better have a stronger argument that section 512(j).

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Blah Google blah...

    It may be what she wanted, but it's not what the law says.

    Here's the applicable piece of the article:
    'US copyright law only applies in the US. The US court can't realistically order Google to remove the video in other countries, since US courts don't have jurisdiction there. Imagine the flip side: if a court in, say, China, ruled that Google had to block a certain video -- and then found Google in contempt for not blocking viewers in the US from accessing that content. Most people would flip out.'

    And every time the things pops up elsewhere on _their_ servers. (blogspot), without any fucking penalty for them.

    Probably because that's how the law is written.

    A DMCA claim is applicable only to the specific file that it's pointing to, you cannot just claim 'File X on page Y is infringing, wipe every single instance of it off your servers and block them from being posted in the future', as that's just not how it works. The law in no way shape or form requires a company like google to proactively police what's posted, if you want other copies of a file pulled, it's your job to file claims(claims mind, note the plural there) to get them pulled.

     

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

  53.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 4:14pm

    Re: Section 512(j) -- why does it apply here?

    Honestly I'd say it's dicey whether or not any part of the DMCA would apply here, given the Copyright Office itself pretty clearly stated that she has no copyright over the film/trailer in question.

    The whole thing is really a mess from top to bottom, made all the worse by a judge who seems to be working off of his own interpretation of existing laws, an interpretation that is very much not aligned with other cases in the past and contrary to how pretty much every other court has handled it.

     

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

  54.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:15pm

    Re: SOLUTION

    gouge the bitches eyes out....then she cant see it, and then cut out her ears, PROBLEM SOLVED...

    So you're saying they should have a duel to the pain. No wait, that leaves the ears intact, never mind.

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 8:17pm

    Re: Re:

    As abdominal as it is to issue a death sentence to someone merely because you think they insulted your religion

    Could be abdominal, could be thoracic, or encephalatic... depends on how they try to kill her.

     

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

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:17pm

    Re: Section 512(j) -- why does it apply here?

    I hate to admit it, but as far as I can tell, you're right. They don't get the safe harbors because they did not initially take down the allegedly infringing video. Without that, there aren't really any restrictions on the injunctions - it may be on "such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright" - except that it DOES say they "shall be operative throughout the United States". Does that cover Google's actions on the available-in-Egypt videos?

    They apparently allege that Google has not even taken down all of the videos in the original complaint. If that's the case, I think Google's going to be in trouble. The injunction should not have been issued, but it was, and a stay was denied, so I'm pretty sure Google has to comply even if it's later overturned.

     

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

  57.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 10:48pm

    Re:

    Try free speech.

     

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

  58.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 1:25am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No problem :)

    I had meant to mention something about the free speech issue, but had to get back to work... But it's definitely something that's important to consider.

    One of the many problems with these fools is that they don't consider the long-term consequences of events - something this site's writers tend to have at the top of their agenda. You can certainly say that in this case, and this case alone, free speech is not directly being affected. It's a contract issue between supposed professionals, no more.

    But, that's not the real criticism. A legal precedent that says that anyone appearing in a few seconds of a video without specific contracted permission can have every copy of that video removed is absolutely terrifying for free speech. Placing the burden onto a third party who cannot possibly know the details of any contract, even more so. Only a complete idiot can fail to see that.

     

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

  59.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 2:48am

    "...went off the reservation..."

    Really? Did auto-correct change rails to reservation?

     

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

  60.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 7:22am

    Re:

    Did auto-correct change rails to reservation?

    Had you not heard the phrase "went off the reservation" before, or are you objecting to it?

     

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

  61.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 27th, 2014 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re:

    I believe he was making a joke. "Off the reservation" == beyond the prescribed limits. "Off the rails" == crazy/lost track of reality.

     

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

  62.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 28th, 2014 @ 7:07am

    Re: Re:

    Is it an objectionable phrase?

     

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

  63.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 28th, 2014 @ 7:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I don't know, but since it's referring to Indians (oops, Native Americans) wandering off of the reservations where the white man told them they were supposed to stay, I can see how someone could object.

     

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

  64.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 28th, 2014 @ 8:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    However, the phrase is not disparaging of native americans. It's disparaging of reservations. Going "off the reservation" is usually a good thing except to those who run the metaphorical reservation.

     

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

  65.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 5:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I don't know..."

    Then what is the question?

    "...I can see how someone could object."

    What do my thoughts matter then? If you can see it, you aren't going to attempt to change my mind are you?

     

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

  66.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 6:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Now hold on a cotton-picking minute.

    "This idiom originates from the years of US military colonization of western North America. It was used to distinguish between "good Indians" (those who stayed on the reservations, i.e. confined to the camps controlled by the military) and "bad Indians" (renegade Native Americans who refused to be interned in the camps and who did not subject themselves to the authority of US military rule).

    For that reason, this term may be considered offensive by/to Native Americans.
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:go_off_the_reservation

    P.S. I am a Native American. I was born and raised in Canada(as were my parents, their parents etc...), the biggest part of N. America. Or are we all just Native Africans?

     

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

  67.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 7:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What do my thoughts matter then? If you can see it, you aren't going to attempt to change my mind are you?

    Good grief, I was just curious. Can't a guy just ask a simple question?

     

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

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 29th, 2014 @ 11:45am

    There are dozens of sex scenes in Boardwalk Empire, where extras make noises of every kind imaginable. According to schmuck Kozinski, they all can shut down film.

     

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

  69.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 3:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't think you have ever asked a simple question. :)

     

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

  70.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 5:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't think you have ever asked a simple question. :)

    I don't know, I thought that one was pretty simple, was I wrong? (That's a yes or no question, surely that is a simple one. Right? Oops, another question. Should I stop?)

     

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

  71.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 6:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes.

    If there is a fork in the road, don't step on it. If you are at a crossroads, look carefully in all directions before proceeding. You are in control of your own destiny.*

    *From my Book of WOW: Words of Wisdom.

     

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

  72.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 8:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    From my Book of WOW: Words of Wisdom.

    No link where we can buy it on Amazon? ;-)

     

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

  73.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Mar 29th, 2014 @ 10:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I have previously mentioned it will be available 70 years after my death, or whenever I can be sure copyright has expired(provided I don't fail raising my daughter as I am leaving my books and my songs to her. My hope is that she values them enough to freely share with all).

    If you wish to keep laughing, search for "kickin' kickin' kickin', kickin' through the air" and tell me it isn't an original song. That is the only one available at this time as i am not allowing some publisher to profit off of my hard work. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to write songs. :) Tough life I tell you!

    "I'm so bloody rich
    and I only know three chords
    ...laugh it up funny boy."

    P.S. If she wishes to monetize it, I have a much better idea than the poon-tang clam group. They know their album sucks so bad that they will only get away with one sale.

    I have a million dollar idea and a million dollar plan of execution.

     

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

  74.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 30th, 2014 @ 8:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    All I got was the lyrics you posted here, and Disney's Kickin' It.

    You wouldn't believe how hard it is to write songs.

    I would very much believe it, I don't know how some people seem to do it so easily.

     

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


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
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.