TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Anti-Piracy Failure Takes Down Creative Commons Videos

An anti-piracy group has caused a storm of controversy by taking down movies it has no rights to. GVU successfully ordered video hosting site Vimeo to take down several Creative Commons videos created by a freelance journalist and an independent filmmaker. The anti-piracy tracking company hired by GVU claims that its technology failed.

An anti-piracy group working in Germany has stirred controversy by wrongfully taking down videos that neither it nor its clients hold the copyrights to.

GVU served notice and takedown demands on hosting site Vimeo for four works created by freelance journalist Mario Sixtus and another by filmmaker Alexander Lehmann.

The material by Sixtus, who focuses his reporting on Internet issues and network culture, was four episodes of Electric Reporter, all of which were released under a Creative Commons license.

Nominated for the ViralVideoAward in 2009, the video you see below – “You are a Terrorist” by independent filmmaker Alexander Lehmann – was also targeted.

However, while you can enjoy this video now, that wasn’t the case on Monday and Tuesday. Following unfounded copyright complaints by GVU, this video and four others were taken down. So how did this ridiculous situation occur?

In order to identify infringing material on the Internet, GVU hires a company called OpSec Security. The outfit says it uses automated software to identify unauthorized material and then reports violations to hosts in order to have it removed.

The errors with the Creative Commons videos occurred while OpSec Security was scanning the MonsterStream site. While it successfully detected some infringing files, it also erroneously identified non-infringing videos to which its clients do not hold the rights. Wrongful copyright complaints were sent to the host, Vimeo, who took down the videos.

While GVU acknowledged that they and OpSec got it wrong and have officially apologized, this chain of events raises some pretty serious questions.

According to OpSec technical director Petur Agustsson, there was “a bug in the calibration module” which caused the erroneous detection. What’s this? Anti-piracy technology with errors in it? Surely not?

A source familiar with recognition technology told TorrentFreak that the notion that a false positive occurred due to bad automated content recognition simply isn’t a credible explanation. Either the content scanned matches copyright works or it doesn’t. Not scanning content, however, could lead to these type of errors.

Whatever the reason, Mario Sixtus is not happy. Describing the wrongful takedowns as a massacre, Sixtus said the actions of GVU and their hired “mercenaries” amounted to “nothing less than digital vandalism”. He is seeking assurances that these errors won’t happen again.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • legacyABQ

    Obviously, they are lying, and they attacked the video specifically for what it says politically

    This kind of attack on free speech will continue and get worse

    REDESIGN the internet for privacy from the ground up

    PGP token exchange anyone? Crypt that net baby

  • P2P43V3R

    HAHAH STUPID ASSHOLES! ANTI-PIRACY F-U-C-K-S! HURRY UP AND D-I-E!

  • Rob

    Bastards are getting out of control!

  • lol

    pretty ironic it happens to this video of all videos..

    point.. well.. made.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Anti-Piracy Failure Takes Down Creative Commons Videos | TorrentFreak -- Topsy.com

  • Scanner

    systems like this work by comparing known infringing material with any material available online. in this case they probably were not actually comparing the material otherwise something like this is not possible.

  • Horst

    At the very beginning GVU spokeperson Ehlers was telling the real owners of the content that it is doubtful to find them embedded on sites commiting copyright infringements…:

    (german)
    http://www.netzpolitik.org/2010/gvu-vs-elrep-erste-ergebnisse/

  • Duplolas

    Bug – my ass

  • @Scanner

    True.

    YouTube, Dailymotion, even Vimeo and all other video hosting sites where the video was also uploaded to use similar, the same or industry leading systems to filter and recognize copyrighted content.

    The content was not blocked by YouTube, nor any other site, so this type of systems work pretty well.

    I think they have simply not used any matching system. Furthermore they should have a human review which prevents doing this type of mistakes. No human review too here.

    Scary…

  • Spind

    It is clear it was targeted because of the content of the videos.

    After seen the one provided here is more that evident because is the truth, and the SOBs don’t want it out.

    Anti-Piracy bastards

  • iR

    So, then sender of the DMCA needs to be punished for falsely claiming rights, better yet, banned from using DMCA at all. If people started counter suing for false DMCAs it could be amusing.
    –iR

  • AxxO

    @2 u r so smart and so matur3!!!

    A+++ wud read again

  • the sweatshop union

    even better watch zeitgeist

  • codingninja

    How can a ‘bug’ make only five mistakes and seek out vids of this nature?

    This must have happened all over the place.

    Vimeo should check out the other notices.

  • lulz

    I would LOVE to see a lawsuit based on this. Where send donations for lawyers to do it?

  • @lulz
  • Johnny

    Unlike copying an illegal takedown notice IS actually THEFT.

    It meets the most important criteria of theft, an instance of the material has been removed from the someone’s rightful possession.

    The victim of this crime no longer has it (or was missing it until it was returned to him), just as would be the case if someone stole their car.

  • Anonymous

    Illuminati wants my mind soul and my body.

  • Lothor The Evil

    This reminds me of cameras on traffic lights that take pictures of people who run a red light then automatically send them a fine in the mail. The police did not catch the person themselves, just like GVU doesn’t catch copyright infringers. It is the electronic equipment that catches people, and they need to have a human verify the crime before sending out a notice so mistakes aren’t made.

  • Jay

    Cool video. German sounds way better when it’s spoken slowly.

  • lol

    Wonder what bug crawled up his big ass and died.

  • Ali

    Why is no one angry with Vimeo?

    Ok, so some idiot files a takedown notice. Surely it’s now up to the host to figure out if that takedown is legit?
    Clearly Vimeo just take videos down without checking if the video is in fact infringing. Disgraceful.

  • Caliburn

    I’d sue them. I would.

  • Rychuss

    There should be penalties for these kinds of fuck-ups as stiff as the penalties the ones they are targeting receive.

  • What huh

    anti-piracy has to be right 100%… pirates always in wrong 100%. nice

  • wtfgov?

    thats complete bullshit

    but who is really surprised? how long until mafiaa starts going after material not owned by labels they represent? my guess, they get caught doing it within the year… and dont get punished for another 5…

  • Flying Dutchman

    This is nothing new, Youtube has false DMCA claims every frigin day! they don’t even check videos or go trough the report, they just remove it without any research. People use this advantage to kill of videos “just for fun” or because they don’t like the person uploading them…

  • Anonymous

    “He is seeking assurances that these errors won’t happen again.”

    haha! good luck wid dat.

  • Caliburn

    @26: If somebody were to sue these rope suckers for crap like this, it wouldn’t happen anymore.

  • Jeff

    The proper procedure, of course, under the DMCA, is to file a counter-claim to get the videos put back up again. Then you sue the anti-piracy company for false accusation of infringement.

    Though the latter part might not ever see a courtroom.

  • Anti-Scientology

    The extremely-one-sided Copyright laws can easily be abused, with no penalty for making false claims.

    The Scientology Cult routinely claims copyright on many videos made by its critics, and sites like YouTube reflexively take them down and close the poster’s account. It can take several weeks to get a revoked account reversed, and by that time the media news on the story has long since died down.

    Making bogus copyright claims is a useful weapon against free speech, and one which the Scientology cult freely wields.

  • Pingback: Vid-Biz: Knocking Live Video, Flash on Macs, Sevenload on Bravia

  • jojo

    that should result in a substantial fine

  • qw

    There’s a bug in the calibration module. I unknowingly torrent your mp3/movies to my PC. Please don’t sue me. It’s a bug, a mistake don’t you see?

  • C-U-T–T-H-R-O-A-T

    @11
    SUCK MY D-I-C-K! A-S-S-H-O-L-E!

  • Cujo

    is it accually possible to remove something from the our internet? lol

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20100806/wikileaks-sweden-100806/

  • Dia

    The calibration module in my utorrent is very buggy.

  • Mona Street

    Well three out of the four DMCA takedown notices at my blog
    http://www.exileonmoanstreet.blogspot.com
    have been for legal downloads. Two were links to The Archive and another recently to a mix that the record company in question alerted us to themselves.
    Go figure!
    Regards/

  • Anonymous
  • Neo-Minded Shill

    Creative Commons is a tool of the devil. Everything should have a copyright including the air you breathe, and a third party to extort 99% of whatever profit may be generated. Our business model can’t fail. We need a strong MAFIAA and supportive cartels to defend our cherished monopoly.

    To hell with progress – long live the stone age!

    Long Live GVU! <3

  • Neolitic Neostyle

    “To hell with progress – long live the stone age!”

    Yyyaaaaaaa!

  • Buggy

    Dear Corporate parasite,

    I am sorry if I punched an Asshole into your head.

    You see they were a bug in my gun that caused the software to identify you as a terrorist.

    Was it a bug?

  • Anonymous
  • m3

    The anti-piracy tracking company hired by GVU claims that its technology failed. Great, if u ever get a letter, just say your vpn was not working correctly (technology failed) @26 yes i have see that info posted on the blackhat boards, flag the videos so yours moves up the ranks, happens every day @29 you can sue & win because you have to sigh a swear thing that says under perjury, your work is there so if they lied their fked

  • huh? wait… waht?

    so this is the current state of affairs?? two things:

    1) these things should be screened by humans on the sending side of DMCA takedown requests.

    2) these things should be screened on teh receiving end as well.

    the end.. anything else is pure laziness..

    wah wah but we dont have that kind of time/its not practical!

    guess what? then you dont get to do it, especially if you arent going to do it properly.. sucks for you!

  • ^__^ Gay

    I miss neo-mind. Are they on a date again?

  • Dresandreal Sprinklehorn

    Sounds like the level of stupidity one might expect from BP these days.

  • Yarick

    So what they have basically attempted, at least in my mind, is just about piracy. They tried to say they owned something which they didn’t have the rights to. Hypocrisy coming from the entertainment industry? Why I never….

    Is anyone else reminded about that group of artists that sued the record labels for copyright infringement because they have basically been releasing albums full of work they don’t have the rights to? Anyone know what happened to that?

  • Another Aussie

    They should sue for 160million euros in lost revenu due to the down time… hey if the Anti Piracy outfits can….

  • Tim Kuik

    My rectal cavity aches when my sweet Werner Müller is absent.

  • Pingback: Quand un groupe anti-piratage se plante | Geekattitude

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Failure Takes Down Creative Commons Videos | Systema

  • Great Illusioner

    It gets even better!

    Sixtus then contacted lawyer Udo Vetter with whomes help he filed a reminder with a request for a declaration to cease and desist, that GVU should have signed.

    In one word, they filed a complaint about copyright infringement by GVU by using the same measures as they do towards citicens.

    Of course the GVU wound itself out of this by apologising but claiming not being responsible nor accountable and therefor not signing anything. They blamed it on OpSec. Well, unfortunately there the story ends, due to lag of proof for pulleing off that scapegoat knack.

  • Whatever

    (No time to read all the comments, will do that much later so it might be twice the same thing)

    There never seem to be any consequences for these false accusations, pirating (or ‘stealing’) by claiming ownership, damage for lost business or fame because of missed views and so on…

    (no neocons here?)

  • Anonymous

    @ 49

    if that’s seriously the end of the story, we’re all fucked. Seriously. I can’t believe they can’t be held liable. They sent out the letter. They are liable for it. Sue OpSec AND GVU. Get the ball rolling.

    If these notices are being sent out unsigned, they should not be honoured. And if there is currently no requirement to have them signed, let’s FUCKING ABUSE THAT.

    How many letters do you think we could send out anonymously? Let’s start raising flags all over the place if there is no accountability on the accuser’s side. Let’s accuse everyone and cause a HUGE mess.

    Hell I bet you could send out notices “on behalf” of NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, Viacom, etc

    Throw up enough false positives and they will need to change how the takedown notices work.

  • Great Illusioner 2

    OpSec accepted to be responsibel (sincve it’s a samll contractor that can easily be destroyed and rebuild under a different name), accapted the reminder and signed the declaration to cease and desist along with paying the lawyers fee.

    The End. :( As I said, it’s a scapegoat knack.

    @lawsuits: unfortunately or FORTUNATELY German law is sane enough to not allow for rediculously high compensasion payments. So you can’t sue McDonalds for 16Mio because you were so stupid to burn your tongue on a hot beverage nor could the Copyright Industry sue you for 4Mio of lost revenue for 100 downloads when the logical damage is more around a few thousand (and the total revenue per year for this product is not even near the claims). You can’t completely ruin someone EASILY. Not that way.

  • JD

    @2 Get off the Internet, or go to another corner of it.
    Immature retards like you aren’t wanted around here.

  • harry krishna

    i have trouble siding with vimeo on anything. this dog needs to be put out of its misery.

  • Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today

  • dbmuse

    the owner deserves compensation… cash… not words like ‘sorry’.

  • DarkFallz

    @55 I second that, If it was us infringing music or movies we would be forced to pay 100x what the movie/music is worth for disrupting their profet margen, how do they know that what they did, did not offect the profets this independed artist due to their ignorance. He should sue the fuck out of these guys and demand real actions not just a “sorry”

  • Gaz

    If there’s no human review and the software is completely automated, who exactly states under penalty of perjury that the work is a copyright violation?

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Failure Takes Down Creative Commons Videos

  • Pingback: Creative Commons content unjustly removed in anti-piracy sweep | MyCE – My Consumer Electronics

  • war59312

    I’d sue all three companies.

  • Felix

    You have to sign a DMCA notice under penalty of perjury, but are we going to see anyone prosecuted? No.

  • Mack the Clack

    OF COURSE the errors will happen again. The uncorrected error is our historically new concept of “intellectual property.” In reality there is no such thing.

  • greylion

    The filmmakers should be demanding legislation to punish wrongful takedown notices with heavy fines.
    That should take care of that.

    #60/Mack: I agree. It’s more like ‘imaginary property’.

  • Whatever

    Sending a DMCA is implying that you have the copyright and ownership of it. At the moment the MAFIAA say its theirs they actually do STEAL the credit for it.

    @25 wtfgov?
    They already do, there was an article on TF long time ago. It was about how the MAFIAA have taken down an artists track from his own page (facebook or something like that) for which the MAFIAA has no rights. And it wasn’t restored at all. MAFIAA even SELL copies of the track on compilations while not having any rights to it at all.

    (you would need to find the article for all the details)

  • Bob11

    Well they just made the video more popular, well done to them

  • Ninja

    @ 10 Aug 12, 2010 at 22:00 by iR: it’s about time ppl receiving threatening letters with copyright claims started throwing back a lawsuit at those idiots.

    Copyright the way it is today is a threat to the creative works, not a protection. And while MAFIAA advocates pro-copyright and goes after file sharers as if they were criminals, the outfit itself or the companies associated are engaged in activities that constitute direct or indirect infringements of copyright or even other unrelated laws in the witch hunting process.

    I tell you, I’ve seen irony but this copyright world breaks records often in that field.

  • Pingback: Weekly Links (2010-08-14) | Passion Task

  • Filmeast

    Watch http://www.cleanternet.org/

    By independent filmmaker Alexander Lehmann. I Recomend the others too, but they are in German.
    Have fun.

  • Pingback: renaissance chambara | Ged Carroll - Links of the day

  • hmm

    i think it was all just a marketing strategy to promote the videos, i might be wrong, but still, it worked.

  • Pingback: 3 Count: Time Warp (Again) | PlagiarismToday

  • Pingback: S2 Aout 2010 – GrossoMerdo – zizag's blog

  • boy

    Yeah, but there’s a lot of content that’s taken down a day or two for no valid reason due to “mistakes”. There’s supposed to be a reasonable expectation that the copyright own has really verified they own the copyright before they issue the DCMA notice. They aren’t always doing the due diligence they should be doing. Hence the only way to stop abusive, excessive, and negligent use of DCMA takedown notices is to enable the real copyright holders to sue for statutory damages for false claims. That or better enforce the “perjury” aspect of filing a takedown notice.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.