DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool

Ernesto
March 4, 2012
141
Censorship,
DMCA
Print

The DMCA was once drafted to protect the interests of copyright holders, allowing them to take infringing content offline. Today, however, the system is systematically abused by rightsholders as an overbroad censorship tool. One third of the notices sent to Google are false, companies like Microsoft censor perfectly legal sites, and others use the DMCA to get back at competitors.

censorship Earlier this week one of TorrentFreak’s articles was censored by Google on behalf of a copyright holder.

The article in question was mysteriously flagged as being infringing by an automated DMCA takedown tool. An honest mistake according to the people who sent the notice, but one that doesn’t stand in isolation.

Google previously noted that that 37% of all DMCA notices they receive are not valid copyright claims.

One of the problems is that many rightsholders use completely automated systems to inform Google and other service providers of infringements. They swear under penalty of perjury that the notices are correct, but this is often an outright lie.

Microsoft, for example, has sent Google dozens of notices about the massive infringements that occur on the site Youhavedownloaded.com, a site that is completely non-infringing. As a result, many pages of the website have been de-listed from Google’s search results, directly damaging the site’s owners.

Other rightsholders make even stranger mistakes by massively taking down content that they don’t own. The adult content outfit AFS Media for example asked Google to remove links to the movies Braveheart, Monsters Inc, Green Lantern and many more titles that have nothing to do with the content they produce.

Similar mistakes are made at NBC Universal who got Google to censor the independent and free-to-share movie A Lonely Place for Dying.

Or again by Microsoft, who successfully requested Google to remove a link to a copy of the open source operating system Kubuntu.

And then there’s YouTube’s content-ID system. We previously outlined many mistakes that were made by the DMCA-style anti-piracy filter, resulting in tens of thousands of ridiculously inaccurate claims.

This week yet another example came up when YouTube labeled birds tweeting in the background of a video as copyrighted music. Again a mistake, but one that probably would have never been corrected if Reddit and Hacker News hadn’t picked it up.

Aside from the mistakes outlined above, there’s also a darker side to DMCA abuse. Google previously revealed that 57% of all the DMCA notices they receive come from companies targeting competitors.

The “competition” angle also ties into the row between Megaupload and Universal Music Group. The latter removed a promo video from the cyberlocker from YouTube on copyright grounds, without owning the rights to any of the material.

It’s safe to say that the DMCA is broadly abused. Thousands of automated notices with hundreds of links each are sent out on a daily basis, turning it into a broad censorship tool. Only the tip of the iceberg is visible to the public thanks to companies like Google who publish some of the notices online.

We can only wonder what’s happening behind the scenes at other sites, but it’s not going to be any better.

Just a few months ago the cyberlocker service Hotfile sued Warner Bros. for DMCA abuse. In the suit Hotfile accuses the movie studio of systematically abusing its anti-piracy tool by taking down hundreds of titles they don’t hold the copyrights to, including open source software.

Not good.

While we’re the first to admit that copyright holders need tools to protect their work from being infringed, mistakes and abuse as outlined above shouldn’t go unpunished. The DMCA was never intended to be an overbroad and automated piracy filter in the first place.

The above also illustrates why it’s dangerous to allow rightsholders to take entire websites offline, as the SOPA and PIPA bills would allow. The MPAA and RIAA have said many times that legitimate sites would never be affected, but didn’t they say exactly the same about the DMCA?

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

Anyone

time to kill that stupid law
- Anonymous
  
  Here in the UK DMCA is already set in stone.
  - Guest
    
    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Nothing is set in stone except you, right now.
    - people feel helpless
      
      Agree , but it’s understandable people view the UK gov as detached and untouchable. Students , workers , unions activists etc… are never heard ,are slandered , demeaned and ridiculed for stupid reasons by the BBC who basically just press release. ( gov said this… they never question it or point out the fact of lies , just press releases )
      
      It is hard to visualize the win or even hope , because the people are brainwashed sheeple.
      
      Conservative corporate robots are in power and they know all the tricks ( learnt from the US ) . especially when it comes to fooling people into believing their actions are for the good of the people.
      eg… just last week they introduce corporate police , under the branding of ….
      “privatisation plans that allow forces to cope with cuts and protect the public”
      They don’t mention giving billions of contracts to profiteers who have a vested interest in putting anyone in jail for any minor offense.
      
      TL;DR ?
      in short.
      Nice concept , you are 101% right. BUT
      It’s hard to tell the people who are brainwashed by the right wing corporate controlled media’s press releases.
      (inc bbc who should know better , but they are funded by the public the gov )
  - Rabid_wombat61
    
    yep i can see in bout 2 years the companys will control everything.
    and lots of isps will go out of buissness because people wont be able to see or do things.
    total control over everything
    welcome to big brother
    us style!!
    - Anonymous
      
      No, in a couple of years time i see people waking-up and running it like it was intended; Mesh Networks.
      
      They cant be censored, we wont need ISP’s and there will be wide free wifi coverage across the globe.
  - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
    
    Nothing is ‘set in stone’ when it comes to the law, skylonrow. Anything, even treaties, can be repealed by a country, contrary to the popular belief on those specifically mentioned things.
  - B1-66ER
    
    In this day and age, there is no room for apathy.
  - Duke
    
    Actually, the UK’s equivalent of the DMCA (the limitations on liability in the E-Commerce Directive) may have been given a bit of a knock last week, in a libel case. There is was found that a hosting provider (in that case, Google over Blogger) could still rely on the E-Commerce Directive defence even though the claimant had told them the relevant comments were defamatory. Just being told didn’t count as “actual knowledge of unlawful activity”, as Google wasn’t in a position to work out whether or not the claim was true.
    
    Applying that to copyright, unless it’s quite likely the stuff is infringing, website hosts might be able to delay taking down stuff simply just due to a notice; particularly given the stats above about 1 in 3 being invalid right from the start…
- Laticia
  
  “Google previously noted that that 37% of all DMCA notices they receive are not valid copyright claims. ”
  
  wow, what fraud is going on. I mean 37% of “I claim under perjury if lying that this is my work and the fine is 250,000 for falsifying but 37% are fake? Why are their not lawsuits flying left and right. I mean thats like a store that has a 37% theft rate and no one does anything about it wtf?
  - Laticia
    
    “”Microsoft, for example, has sent Google dozens of notices about the massive infringements that occur on the site Youhavedownloaded.com, a site that is completely non-infringing. As a result, many pages of the website have been de-listed from Google’s search results, directly damaging the site’s owners.
    
    wow what dumb asses, they dont’ even verify the stuff, just let it automate (set and forget), I mean how hard is it to go to a website and verify the stuff?
    - FinalApokylypse
      
      I believe doing that takes manpower and therefore money. But the amount of DMCA takedowns is amazing, you would probably need atleast full time person or two on it just to monitor it per company. Course.. they’d want companies who host a lot more content like MegaUpload to monitor all their content.. but you know…
    - Anonymous
      
      “I mean how hard is it to go to a website and verify the stuff?”
      
      Imagine hiring twice as many people in each company to go over websites and check for infringing content as what works in your customer service or creative sector.
      
      This is the problem of the pro-copyright stance. You cannot have takedown notices in practice and make the process abide by any form of due process other than a “guilty until proven innocent”-paradigm.
      
      Not even hollywood could even afford the necessary headcount.
- BenFranklin
  
  No wonder.
  
  The DMCA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
  
  Since the last twenty years the corruption of the 3 branches of government has intensified and as a result a flurry of unconstitutional laws has been passed.
  
  In addition to laws having as a sole purpose to disadvantage the other party most of the unconstitutional laws has been passed for the profit of a single corporation or a cartel of corporations. Never before in the history of this country so many unconstitutional illegal laws has been passed to the detriment of the US people. This make the second US revolution inevitable as the people have to reclaim their country.
  
  The citizen who use to vote democrats are currently joining those who use to vote republicans in the common goal in restoring the US constitution. The fake divide Democrats/republican is no longer working.
  
  Will it be a violent revolution? All depend on the corporatists currently assaulting our democracy. I have the feeling that these criminals are all going to end up at the end of a rope particularly in the banking, entertainment, and the energy industry.
  
  Time will tell but I am certain that these guys are going to hit some kind of wall as their current going is unsustainable.
  - Ron Paul 2012
    
    well said Ron Paul 2012
- Michael Carter
  
  I think we should go the other way. Get a SOPA style law to protect consumers.
  
  ie: if MS takes down an opensource software then they must automatically give one million to the opensource project… without court oversight. If they fail to comply then the board of directors will all face criminal charges with a minimum 10 years in jail. Same goes for the MPAA!
  
  Hey draconian laws can work both ways! :)
  - Anonymous
    
    “Hey draconian laws can work both ways!”
    
    They don’t when you’re bribing the law makers.
Tera

Second!
- Tera
  
  Loser >:)
- lol at u
  
  oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo second comment
  oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
  oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o o$ $$ o$
  o $ oo o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o $$ $$ $$o$
  oo $ $ “$ o$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$o $$$o$$o$
  “$$$$$$o$ o$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$o $$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ “”"$$$
  “$$$”"”"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ “$$$
  $$$ o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ “$$$o
  o$$” $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$o
  $$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$” “$$$$$$ooooo$$$$o
  o$$$oooo$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$”$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$”"”"”"”"
  “”"” $$$$ “$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$” o$$$
  “$$$o “”"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$”$$” $$$
  $$$o “$$”"$$$$$$”"”" o$$$
  $$$$o o$$$”
  “$$$$o o$$$$$$o”$$$$o o$$$$
  “$$$$$oo “”$$$$o$$$$$o o$$$$”"
  “”$$$$$oooo “$$$o$$$$$$$$$”"”
  “”$$$$$$$oo $$$$$$$$$$
  “”"”$$$$$$$$$$$ fail !
  $$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$$$”
  “$$$”"”"
http://web.ncf.ca/shawnhcorey/ Shawn H Corey

“The DMCA was once drafted to protect the interests of copyright holders, allowing them to take infringing content offline.”

No, it wasn’t. This was just the story the lobbyists told the politicians to get them to pass the law. What DMCA has always been about is controlling the internet. Why is everyone surprised when this law is used for its intended purpose: to eliminate competition and stifle criticism?

It’s time to get rid of copyright completely.
- http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes
  
  Due to the abuse of law by the CopyWrong Cartel I too am tending toward the idea that we just scrap copyright completely, or at least have it SEVERELY limited to very narrow and specific situations and productions.
  
  Copyright is an out-dated system of monopolistic control that has little to no effective use in the digital age of 21st century technology and societal expectations.
  - Anyone
    
    by now the collateral damage a few artists suffer from completely getting rid of copyright is better than what we have now.
    
    I don’t see this system as being able to be fixed, whatever inch we give the copyright holders will be abused.
    - Fu
      
      IMHO an artist (not all artists are corporate) should have means at his disposal to control how his creations are used.
      
      This is what makes creative commons meaningful and what prevents massive corporations abusing hard working people. These laws are good.
      
      The DMCA is a powerful and useful tool that I support, but if anyone can simply ignore the safeguards and get away with it (think how many DMCAs are filed each year and then calculate 57% !!!!) it’s well and truly fucked and needs burning quickly.
      
      This serves nobody well.
      
      And now they want SOPA/PIPA/ACTA to EXTEND their powers?
      
      If you give a man a knife and he runs about stabbing all your pets, what makes you think giving him a machine gun will make him see the error of his ways?
      
      Greedy cunts is ruining our world. When will common sense come back into fashion?
      
      10 year copyright terms. 20 tops. Job done, everybody wins.
    - Fu
      
      IMHO an artist (not all artists are corporate) should have means at his disposal to control how his creations are used.
      
      This is what makes creative commons meaningful and what prevents massive corporations abusing hard working people. These laws are good.
      
      The DMCA is a powerful and useful tool that I support, but if anyone can simply ignore the safeguards and get away with it (think how many DMCAs are filed each year and then calculate 57% !!!!) it’s well and truly fucked and needs burning quickly.
      
      This serves nobody well.
      
      And now they want SOPA/PIPA/ACTA to EXTEND their powers?
      
      If you give a man a knife and he runs about stabbing all your pets, what makes you think giving him a machine gun will make him see the error of his ways?
      
      Greedy cunts is ruining our world. When will common sense come back into fashion?
      
      10 year copyright terms. 20 tops. Job done, everybody wins.
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      Fu, I don’t agree. It’s time that artists lived in the REAL WORLD and realized that it is damned impossible to control how their creations are used and that it leans too far to allowing censorship to allow them to control that.
      
      They are going to have to put their stuff out into the ecosystem and just hope that most people are honest enough to pay them for their stuff when it is offered for a legitimate price.
      
      Guess what? In the real world, when that latter price thing is true, people make a lot of money.
    - Anyone
      
      @Fu
      you have to choose
      either get a free uncensored internet OR give artists control over their creations
      
      both is not possible anymore
      and in this case the need of the many outweigh the need of the few
    - http://twitter.com/toriverw Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
      
      If you want to give the ARTISTS control over their creations you need to get rid of the leeches like Warner et al that take that control away through their contracts. Copyright has been mutated into a beast that only serve the industry not the actual creators anymore.
  - MadocComadrin
    
    Not really. The current system needs to be heavily reworked or completely redone, but even today creators (not middlemen) do deserve the following rights:
    
    Sole profit from their work
    Credit for their work
    The ability (at least for some time) to control distribution
    Control of derivative works (within reason–fair use, etc.)
    
    To those saying that it’s not possible without censorship, you’re somewhat right (although, the old saying “anything’s possible” comes to mind), this is why we have due process.
    
    Saying that giving creators their rights will result in censorship–at least the way it’s been stated here–is a false dichotomy through conflating all the uses of “censorship.” Once again, censorship through due process (where some of the major problems currently exist) is fine.
  - Plop
    
    @Rob:
    
    Check out THIS image, currently being shared around FaceBook from an artist called Lester Chambers. He’s asking for it to be reshared and spread as widely as possible in attempt to go viral.
    
    Basically, he’s been on major labels for decades and has been systematically ripped off throughout his career.
    
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/426007_370087309681914_100000419446736_1180519_490664100_n.jpg
    - http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes
      
      Good one Plop, thank you :)
- http://7-books.net/ SleepyJohn
  
  Yes, Copyright in the digital 21st Century must rank as the most brutal, incompetent, corrupt and hideously stultifying business model outside of a gangster protection racket. It needs to be destroyed totally, and the media industry opened up to entirely new ways of rewarding artists.
  
  What we are currently enduring is nothing less than criminal extortion with a euphemistic name, aggressively protected by corrupt politicians and police. The only thing that will stop it is worldwide civil disobedience. The lawmakers have to be shown that the people are more to be feared than the big media racketeers.
  
  An outright refusal to vote for any politician who supports copyright would be a good start, and handing that vote to the local Pirate Party might be a good finish. Certainly drastic action is needed. Arguing over the technicalities of SOPA, PIPA, DMCA etc is just playing into the hands of these criminals, like discussing whether to pay dollars or euros to the thugs threatening to wreck your bar.
  
  The very concept of copyright itself must be the target; anything else is just rearranging the deckchairs in order to be slightly more comfortable when the iceberg arrives.
WysiWyg

So, are you taking any legal action, or are you going to do the same thing as everyone else and wait for someone else to take action?
- Anonymous
  
  The law as it stands was simply made to benefit the content industry in the very same rampant abuse you see now. This is nothing more than snatch and grab of whatever they want for whatever reason.
  
  Perjury is one thing but DMCA law makes clear that if you take them to court for invalid removal all you will get back is little more than your own lawyer costs. In other words there is no incentive for people to take action over the false censorship of their own media.
  
  Then we come to a very good question. When is the US Congress going to fix this rampant and false censorship of millions of links? Here we sit twiddling our thumbs, the abuse continues daily, then Congress is doing nothing because no one has paid them millions to fix the problem!
  
  It is easy enough to fix when anyone doing DMCA take-dowm notice just need to fund a “pot” where the size depends on their notice and accuracy level. Then every time they do a false take-down money is lost from that pot and automatically given to the victim. In any dispute the rights holder is than required to provide proof of ownership.
  
  We should also note with YouTube that a DMCA safe-harbour company should actually follow the DMCA procedure and NOT to make up their own. So get them back into line.
  
  What we have now is little more than a Wild West gun fight with many innocents being hurt as the bullets fly around. We are damned right that we wont allow them to have nuclear weapons under SOPA when that passing would only start a full scale Internet War. The same 57% would target a rival and 37% would be done falsely.
  
  Well it was nice for Ernesto to sum up this problem even if the VAST ongoing censorship we will never hear a word on. That is censorship for you.
Rukumouru

The DMCA needs due process before ANYTHING is taken down, unless it is voluntarily taken down by the uploader/host/whatever.
- WysiWyg
  
  Isn’t that how it works? You don’t HAVE to remove the content, but if you don’t you are on the hook for it?
  - Anyone
    
    “safe harbour” is ignored, even if you do remove the content they will still sue you.
    
    and the governments are more than happy to help, since they get a large cheque for it.
- O’lay Pirate
  
  My website works like this;
  
  They submit a DMCA notice, I remove links asap.
  Now I send an email asking for identity validation (such as emailing a picture of the drivers license) and if I don’t recieve it within 14 days the link goes back up.
  
  about 80% of the links I take down come back up after 14 days because of that ^__^
  - Guest
    
    14 days might be enough if, say, you’re trying to pass a new agreement and don’t want bad press the day it’s announced and people start searching the net to see what it is all about. After two weeks when things settle down a bit, claim it was a mistake.
- Anyone
  
  due process is badly needed
  of course that would completely overload the system, so better to get rid of the whole damn law.
  
  piracy is a service problem; offer a better service and piracy will not be a problem
  there is no need for stupid laws like this
MAFIAA = Digital al-Qaeda

If content was meant to be “consumed”, I see no reason why it must be “copyright protected.”
- Camilo
  
  Problem is, it was not “meant to be consumed”, it was meant to be sold. It’s like saying “fast food was meant to be eaten”. no, it was meant to be sold too.
  - MadocComadrin
    
    As much as I want to agree with your statement, fast food is meant to be eaten: how else are they going to addict you to it? X3
Cody

To hell with all government. This world needs the systematic destruction of all of the world governments. From the ashes of the failed and failing governments of the world a true utopia will arise.
- John Sanders
  
  Unlikely. The problem is a consequence of our nature. You will always have those that rise above others through the applied use of power. That’s the game! Sucks, but it’s true. If you want to beat them then use your own power to do so. If you don’t have enough power then do what it takes to get it. But soon enough you’ll see that you’re just the same.
www.d4m1r.com

DEATH TO DMCA!
- Anonymous
  
  It is hard to see a good reason to keep DMCA law alive.
  
  Beyond rampant take-down abuse then safe-harbour status has been totally disrespected to the point of being useless. They now aim to get beyond DMCA violations to turn this all into other crimes like criminal copyright abuse, money laundering and even racketeering.
  
  There is obviously a totally huge problem there if the same said company has never once been found guilty in court of a DMCA violation. Then let us not forget the Copyright Cartels totally bullying and abusing the established law to render it worthless.
  
  So I can only conclude… Fix the law or kill it.
Rollingtayownay

We actually need more dmca. People don’t deserve public domain. Bunch of child commies, this lot here.
- Trollinggayohsay
  
  You go troll somewhere else please.
  - http://www.facebook.com/orphicdragon Trisha Lynn Dragon
    
    That was obvious sarcasm, but thanks for playing.
    - Anonymous
      
      Nothing is obvious on the internet, not even cat photos.
    - Anonymous
      
      Sarcasm or not there are indeed people around who think that way.
      
      Lawyers for the Copyright Cartels have not only argued in Court that public domain is only an aspect of copyright but they do not even need to consider fair use when taking down other people’s media.
      
      Then the MPAA have long believed in eternal copyright or more correctly eternal copyright minus one day when true eternal would violate the US Constitution.
      
      SOPA tried to kill DMCA safe-harbour the very law that brings us many user generated sites like YouTube.
      
      There is no doubt that they are a huge enemy and threat to the Public Domain, Creative Commons and popular Internet Sites meaning that there is nothing here to laugh about.
  - t-roll the 3rd
    
    at least tell him where.
    
    Foxnation.com is a great place to troll.
    
    YOU WOULD PROBABLY ENJOY IT
- Guest
  
  Paid troll.
  
  Obviously.
  - Rtyrty
    
    fun troll Obviously.
    
    he is showing us , he is doing it with his name.
    So we can laugh at the people who respond angrily.
    
    ( read his name )
- trolling meca
  
  Derp … go over to Foxnation.com ( first story )
  
  Great trolling lulz to be had. Go LOOKSIE :
  
  prerequisites:
  DISPOSABLE Disqus , email verified account ( use disposable temp email )
  tor browser bundle for quick switches : https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en
  
  Check out the hatred of those racist right wing nutters on there.
  
  Foxnation.com where hatred is the norn
- d0dd pr0n t0rrentz
  
  “We actually need more dmca.”
  
  For what? Toilet paper?
  
  “People don’t deserve public domain.”
  
  You mean, without a good reason…? ;-)
  
  “Bunch of child commies, this lot here.”
  
  Unfortunately, this is quite true. Most can’t seem to understand the difference between FORCED “sharing” (Socialism) and VOLUNTARY sharing of anything we see fit – such as ones, zeros or Chris Dodd’s dirty pictures… <3
- bear
  
  Did you “Like” you comment yourself? Gotcha :D hahahah!!! Coz noone else would press that button!
Goosmoo

there really should be some kind of law that allows a company to ignore future takedown notices from a company that spams them willy-nilly. If a company can’t bother to set aside a minute to check whether a file/page is infringing before sending out a takedown notice, they shouldn’t be able to send out the requests in the first place.

they’re just like spammers.
Pingback: DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool | Best Seedbox
Pingback: DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool | We R Pirates
pisash

Lets make ourselves some copyrighted content too, then send our take downs to take down these bastard – mpaa, riaa, sopa, pipa, brien, and those assorted fucking fag sites etc
Anonymous

and instead of getting rid of this and similar laws or at least make sure they do what they were intended to do AND NOTHING ELSE, all the stupid politicians keep doing is nothing in the way of correcting the abuse, but more importantly just keep ramping up the same bad laws to make them even worse! this simply means that the big companies can keep their control over smaller (and sometimes better!) companies.
Disobey

But there’s no consequence to them acting in this way, BY DESIGN. Who wrote the rules? Not YOU, of course, them! Those in power/with power craft the rules to suit themselves of course – why wouldn’t they?. They draw up new laws constantly to be used as weapons against any challenges to their power.

It’s a completely rigged system.
Steve Smith

a few months back just after Megaupload released its music video they paid to have made, a News cast had a small clip of video and audio not at same time. UMG claimed copyright violation on that news program and had their news program pulled from Youtube for something that they had right to show under Fair use in the DMCA. Everyone knows its been used and abused since day 1.
FriendlyTroll

Hm.. 3 Strikes anyone?
3 wrong DMCA takedown notices and you are not allowed to send one for a year? ;)
And of course some $200k fine as another disincentive.
- Anyone
  
  $200k sounds far too low
  make that $200M and it is much more reasonable.
  
  $200M for every single wrong takedown, of course
  - MadAsASnake
    
    Agree – it should be commensurate with the ludicrous damages the the copyright industry claims. It wouldn’t take many successful challenges for them to bankrupt them. On the other hand, making a small fine (USD100 per incorrect takedown say) would arguably be more effective – show them how to tackle large scale problems with small charges that are not worth fighting individually.
- Rawkus
  
  Sure. Now let’s see you go enact it.
Anon

Why does it matter that TorrentFreak gets censored by DMCA-friendly companies like Google? US has a corrupt legal and political system beyond imagination, and if you depend on American companies to give to prominence, you are playing a bitter, losing game.
- O’lay Pirate
  
  Google is the source for pretty much all the internet in finding websites. If torrentfreak gets censored they’d loose all new traffic (and only get one or two new users from alternative search engines) … that’s why EVERYBODY depends on Google.
  - Guest
    
    yacy.net
    Ixquick.com
    startpage.com
    duckduckgo.com
    scroogle.org
    search.ipredator.se
    ….
  - Guest
    
    yacy.net
    Ixquick.com
    startpage.com
    duckduckgo.com
    scroogle.org
    search.ipredator.se
    ….
Pingback: DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads
tonyj

Is Comcast blocking video streaming?????
When I’m on internet no video feed from on selected videos of the Huffington Post, but when I use VPN, no problem, I can see all the videos.

Is this the master plan all along, to nickle and dime you for every little bit of content on the net.

DMCA is like the dog next door, taking a big dump in your yard and running away.
- Guest
  
  I don’t know if they do it yet but they are likely to try something like this in the future. Why? Because cable companies are threatened by video streaming and because the TV channel does not care how their broadcast reach the public as long as the advertisement is shown.
  - tonyj
    
    at first I thought it was back to that Comcast and Hulu tiff they had back in 2010, but the video messages are all the same, “copyright infringement.”
stopping by

The sad part is that criminal organizations and individuals force artists, musicians, writers etc. to waste valuable time every day sending thousands of takedowns.

Imagine the amount of great art, music and literature we could have if artists could spend their time making art instead of defending themselves against parasites.
- Prince
  
  I agree. A complete waste of time and money.
  
  https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal
- Anonymous
  
  The sad part is that’s a load of horse shit. It’s publishers, lawyers, and pattern matching robots wasting the valuable time of service providers having to cope with processing takedown request floods incoming from the former.
  
  Artists are still doing what they’ve always done best, laze around, drink booze, and snort cocaine until they have an album to do.
  - stopping by
    
    The NICE part however, is that parasites feel so guilty that they need to pretend they steal from Big Content, Nazi Labels etc..
    
    Truth is that the vast majority of their victims today are individuals: Musicians, poets, photographers, designers and writers.
    
    Ordinary people — just like you and me.
    - Anonymous
      
      Bare assertion. I challenge you to find any widespread pirated content (much less a majority of) which isn’t sold by a record label/hollywood/publishing houses.
    - stopping by
      
      You’re probably not aware that
      1) a lot of ‘record labels’ today are one man projects and
      2) the majority of all music today is released by individual artists through aggragators like CD Baby, Tunecore etc. Tunecore alone sold more than 61 million songs by self-distributing artists and bands in 2009. These artists and bands are hit and hurt really hard by theft as they don’t have label support.
      
      Perhaps I should add that I certainly didn’t mean to say it’s OK to steal from big labels — just that it’s a good sign that the parasites feel so lousy about stealing from people like you and me that they need to pretend individual artists are greedy corporations.
      
      Cause one day they’ll understand that world has changed and realize they are stealing from friends and neighbors.
    - Anyone
      
      noone is stealing
      we’re copying
    - stopping by
      
      Anyone,
      I also think it’s nice that guys like you feel the need to say *we*. You don’t want to say: “Um, *I* stole a few bucks from my friend/neighbor/gf.”
      
      Cause you know it’s not cool and you know it’s not accepted by anybody on this planet — except other thieves, obviously…
    - stopping by
      
      Anyone,
      I also think it’s nice that guys like you feel the need to say *we*. You don’t want to say: “Um, *I* stole a few bucks from my friend/neighbor/gf.”
      
      Cause you know it’s not cool and you know it’s not accepted by anybody on this planet — except other thieves, obviously…
    - Anyone
      
      I don’t steal
      I copy
      
      better?
    - Anonymous
      
      1) Copying is not stealing. Humans have copied information from one another since we climbed out of the trees. To claim we should not is akin to starting a debate on why communism “ought” to work. It just isn’t productive.
      
      2) Any artist who supports the current efforts by the pro-copyright crowd is in effect also supporting ISP-enforced DPI, abolishment of common practice of law and several civil liberties.
      
      We don’t steal, we copy, but as a comparison in my opinion, any artist standing up as a soldier for the MPAA/RIAA in this battle is fully deserving of a bullet between the eyes. When you do the equivalent of whining that we should accept a total wiretap on our private communication because we communicate copied files between one another you become worthy of no better treatment than that expected by a republican guardsman in service to Saddam.
      
      So, with all respect due, just drop dead. You’ve already launched an all-out attack on my civil liberties, so any muddled whining about what I might do to copies of your media is not even on the table for debate anymore.
    - stopping by
      
      Scary_Devil_Monastery,
      I’m afraid you lost me in your first sentence. If that’s what you intended, cool.
      
      But if you wish to communicate with people in the real world, outside your tribe, you need to understand that musicians sell songs in physical as well as digital stores.
      
      And it makes absolutely zero difference if you steal the physical or digital version.
      
      I think your problem is that you’re mistaking the container for the content. But musicians don’t make plastic boxes and discs — they make music.
      
      If you steal this music, the owners obviously need to do something else for a living.
      
      Contrary to the myths among parasites, it’s exactly as expensive to make a professional sounding recording as it was in the past.
      
      Only difference is that most musicians today buy their own gear, usually in the $100K range, and if that cash doesn’t return you’ll have to do with amateur music in the future.
      
      Let’s see if you like that…
    - stopping by
      
      Anyone,
      Again, your constant need for euphemisms is a nice thing cause it shows you really don’t like to steal.
      
      And that means you’re gonna stop as you grow up. If for no other reason then for the simple fact that women just don’t like thieves. :)
    - MadAsASnake
      
      And 37% false taketowns is reasonable? No, 0% false takedowns is reasonable.
    - stopping by
      
      MadAsASnake,
      Agree. I happen to dislike people who steal music, as you may have noticed, but I *hate* people who send fake takedowns and Cease & Desist letters.
      
      Now, I don’t like the idea of punishment, but that particular type of creeps do need to be sued. Many of them are not aware that sending fake crap like that — under penalty of perjury — is one of the fastest ways to lose $100K in court, and that’s a fact they have to learn asap.
      
      So, yes, sure it’s a problem — but why not look at it as a blessing in disguise?
      
      How often can you make $100K that easy?
    - MadocComadrin
      
      I’d like to clarify the whole copy v stealing thing here.
      
      Theft of a product usually implies loss of inventory: that means a loss of both profit and investment. For digital distribution, not only does the distributor have in essence an infinite inventory, but copying a file not only doesn’t reduce inventory, but adds another copy to the supply. All in all, the only thing lost is profit.
      
      Without using jargon, one could say that those who refer to it as stealing are simply referring to lost profit. Granted, it’s better to use the most clear terms, but sometimes jargon isn’t the most convenient method of communication.
    - stopping by
      
      MadocComadrin,
      Sorry, but you’re so living in the past.
      
      If you wish to communicate with normal people — i.e. non-criminals — then you need to understand the new reality we all live in.
      
      IP is the most valuable product today in that reality.
      
      If you steal it, then you’re a criminal by any law you can find anywhere in the world and no judge on the planet will care about your excuses.
    - MadAsASnake
      
      @stopping by
      
      And therefore the reason for IP / Copyright must be properly understood. It is not ownership. It is civil privelidge for cultural creators to have sufficient advantage to be worth creating in the first place. The intent is a net gain in culture. That advantage must expire. Soon. When IP / Copyright is used to deny and withhold then things are wrong. DMCA is a rotten law written by the content industry on the delusion that it can control people. It can’t. Sharing was limited pre-internet because of the economics of sharing. Copying a book cost more than the book in most cases. People share music, books, papers and so on, always have. The Internet just makes that easier.
    - Anonymous
      
      @stopping by: I see after an entire day you still have yet to produce a single example of a small time content artist having their content being pillaged by widespread piracy. So we can all agree that you’re full of shit, yes?
    - Anonymous
      
      If you, as an “ordinary person” feels it’s justified to support acts like SOPA, for instance, then you are no longer in my book, “ordinary”. You’re a foot soldier for the DDR.
      
      I don’t care what your arguments are. Certain types of legislation is unacceptable. In the same manner that sovjet information control was unacceptable. Support such laws and you’re suddenly no longer a person, nor worthy of respect. Just an enemy to be stepped on. Just another idiot to be ignored or circumvented.
      
      History has shown, time and time again, that IP doesn’t work. You think today IP is the most valuable “commodity”? You are wrong. IP is, in essence, legalized information control. In the very brief time it has been pushed we’ve already seen it starting to crack at the seams. Like the old ideas of planned economy and communism, IP is heading for history’s rubbish bin.
      
      Simply because “Intellectual Property” is only accepted by human society and human nature in very minor ways. Paternity right, brand names – things that correspond to and synergize well with what being “human” is all about.
      
      And you calling it “theft” when person A copies information from person B only underscores the point that you have detached yourself from the real world in a way you’d normally see only in severe autists or religious fanatics.
      
      Every attempt to restrict the sharing of information between individuals has caused the same effects – zip impact on filesharing, and collateral damage causing an ever-growing awareness and anger in the common citizenry. That is not changing – if anything, this process is speeding up.
      
      Einstein had a definition on insanity, that being that the person trying the same thing twice expecting different outcomes was a madman in his book. IP-enforcement has been trying the same models since the 50′s and if anything can only display bigger failures today than back then.
      
      Right now IP is big. It’s seen by shortsighted politicians as the one and only hope of countering the fact that China and India own the export market of physical goods. That, however, is also rapidly changing. Ten more years and China will start to hold the upper hand there as well – just as they promised they’d own the manufacturing market, they’ve bet on owning the IP portfolios. We already see asian companies successfully competing in the slurry of lawsuits and it’s a question of when, not if, they successfully trounce the west on that board also. Meaning if the current legislation stands, no western company will be able to innovate or create much of anything without first begging for a license from overseas.
      
      You will most likely live to see IP being torn out of any and all international treaties by the very actors who put them there, in wild desperation, once they notice they handed over complete dominance over those markets as well to the east. That’s fairly obvious by anyone who’s even considered what Intellectual Property in modern interpretation really means. It’s what many economists have warned about – including Milton Friedman, otherwise highly keen on property rights.
      
      IP, like communism, sounds good only as a theorethical abstract on paper. In the real world it’s a slow but inevitable disaster unable to coexist with a society made of human beings.
      
      Disagree as much as you like. But if I were you IP is the last thing i’d hang any longterm investments on.
- Anonymous
  
  Imagine the staggering amount of sheer crap we wouldn’t have to wade through just to find the one driven genius out of a thousand talentless hacks pushed as six-week wonders.
  
  Real talent doesn’t need to defend itself from anything. Geniuses like Trent Reznor can give away their stuff for free and still earn multiple millions in a single year selling copies of what they already gave away.
  
  Imagine if you made any sense at all and took a long hard look at reality instead of what you erronously believe to be the truth for once.
  
  Many are called. Few are chosen. It’s ridiculous to assume that anyone who calls themselves an “artist” should be guaranteed protections for their field when no other profession has that sort of protection. There are thousands of PhD’s flipping burgers in drivethroughs or driving taxi cabs simply because the job market doesn’t hold a niche for them.
  
  If Paulo Coelho, Trent Reznor, even Rebecca Black can profit from giving away music for free then you have no case. And they can.
  
  In fact, the existence of bottled water disproves your claims. Why buy an expensive bottle when in many places the tap water is just as good? Even asking the question would see you laughed out of any marketing meeting.
AgainstCensorship

This is the kind of stuff that happens when the government stops caring about what the people who pay their salaries actually want. But hey, why should we be treated with respect? We are only the ones who give the government power. What a surprise, you get guys who have the guts to stand up against the worst king the world has ever seen who try to limit their new government and the overzealous government jumps through legal hoops to do whatever they want. Again, what do we matter?

On a side note, I used that “The worst part of censorship” picture in a presentation against internet censorship earlier this week. Small world (wide web), huh?
- MadocComadrin
  
  We don’t actually pay their salaries. They’re either rich enough to not care about the meager salary they get for being a congressman/president/etc. or are getting their pockets lined by lobby groups.
Anonymous

Corrupt America strikes again.
- MadocComadrin
  
  Corrupt America? Sure why not. But frankly, I’d rather be the corrupt country than the country that doesn’t have the spine to not bend over and present to said corrupt country.
  
  Seriously folks: US citizens don’t like what’s going on, but cannot do things alone. The more you resist our government in matters such as these, the stronger the American people become.
http://twitter.com/rottedcockmeat rottedcockmeat

cuntfuckinganalwhorecumbubblesdrippingoutafaggotasshole
http://twitter.com/rottedcockmeat rottedcockmeat

cuntfuckinganalwhorecumbubblesdrippingoutafaggotasshole
Pingback: The Battle for Net Freedom | Pearltrees
http://www.facebook.com/chillinfart Arturo Julio Zevallos Córdova

DMCA as a content remover works good, but this shows the same problem than Google Content ID: lack of human sense. That is needed to correct.

Note: Talk spanish?, translation here.
http://bit.ly/wUwVTL
- Anyone
  
  it does not work, it cannot work
  outside of total control of the internet nothing will work
  - MadocComadrin
    
    That’s not true–or at least not verifiable. Due process needs to be fixed. Then we can decide.
- Anonymous
  
  It can’t work and it does not work.
  
  1) DMCA takedown notices only ever harm legal content being placed on venues easy to reach. It has no effect at all on illegal copies which can find dozens of ways around such a blunt tool.
  
  2) In order to correct the “lack of human sense” in automated tools you need to employ, full-time, literally tens of thousands of people going through every posted copy of every file in order to determine who holds the copyright at all.
  
  3) In any paradigm supported by basic principle of law the DMCA takedowns would carry a proportionate burden of proof from both sides. That again would require several man-hours worth of overhead for each suspected infringement.
  
  And then as much effort to disprove a false claim.
  
  There is, to be blunt, only one practical way to implement information control – and that is if you remove the medium through which that information spreads. In this case, the internet.
Guest

Funny how you can’t share free “information” with your “friends” because companies lose profit but yet it’s completely acceptable for the same corporations who are crying foul over “piracy” to claim copyright infringement on material they don’t own just to hinder other people from making money. Ironic much?
Phil Landry

DMCA….. a lot of crap…
http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

that’s not something new tbh, it’s well known fact. the thing is that no one doing a thing to stop it
Anonymous

Considering how abused, flawed and outright dumb the DMCA is, why does SOPA and PIPA and ACTA (which all are very similar) sound like such good ideas? Every scary acronym the entertainment industry comes up with is bad and should never be signed into law.
- Anonymous
  
  You fail to see how this works:
  
  Politician 1: Ok, According to you we lose hundreds of billions and more jobs than there are citizens in this country. That can’t be right?
  
  Lobby group starts smear campaign, politician 1′s campaign funding mysteriously vanishes and he never sees ofice again.
  
  Politician 2: Well, I don’t buy this BS anymore than my predecessor but I’d really like to remain in this office. Is there anything we can do in order to ensure i continue to get funded – i.e. please Chris Dodd enough?
  
  Lobby group places pre-written law on desk.
  
  Politician 2: …This is insane. I haven’t even read half of it but this is insane. If i don’t push it though i’m out of office.
  I’ve got it. I’ll push it and ensure the proposal and committee reviews leaks to the public. If they start protesting loudly enough I’ve got a way out, if not my ass is covered when I push the legislation through!
  
  And that’s more or less what happened when the shitstorm of anti-SOPA/PIPA sentiment hit a hundred offices in congress and senate.
Anonymous

I wish companies would all sign up to a system where they could only ask search engines to remove content if they also agreed to pay a fine for incorrect notices.
- MadAsASnake
  
  … they should be compelled to show that they are the copyright holder against a registered interest. If thhey have not performed this basic check they have no rights under DMCA (as they can have no possible valid beleif)
Quest

if 37% is fake otherwise wrong why dont google go to court challenge them since they sweared it under penalty of perjury. They could get millions dollars money from false reports. system should also have somesort checker that its not automatic tool that fills them. like for example write these letters or number from picture to text field that would be simple…
- http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
  
  Because it’s not worth the time and energy and is exceptionally hard to prove in a court of law that these companies actually perjured themselves by sending out those things with the way that the law is written at the moment.
- Anyone
  
  there are no real penalties for wrong notices
  
  the law was paid for by the MAFIAA and it was practically written by them.
  at the last minute the “safe harbor” addition was put into it, so it didn’t totally kill web 2.0
  
  it’s still very damaging to the internet and should be removed.
- Anonymous
  
  Because as the law is written although it is indeed perjury to file a false claim it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the false claim was filed with intent.
  
  This is nearly impossible to do, especially so when a takedown tool is automated.
  
  The discerning citizen may note that the reverse applies to the other end of this particular stick. If a takedown notice occurs, then the person/entity responsible for the site must prove the falsity of the claim.
  
  This law was custom-designed for the use of copyright holders. That it still doesn’t work only further illuminates the point that under a DMCA paradigm, only pirates prosper.
- MadAsASnake
  
  Google generally isn’t the rightsholder. It would be the rightsholder / content owner that would have to take action. A lot of the time this will be too difficult, and a lot of the time they won’t even be aware it’s happened.
  - techanon
    
    But google could contact the correct rightsholder and become a witness against these usurpers.
Pingback: DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool | Emmashare
Mwhahaha

“Microsoft, for example, has sent Google dozens of notices about the massive infringements that occur on the site Youhavedownloaded.com”

Can I send them a notice about it being a load of utter bullshit and get it taken down?
Today it’s saying I’ve downloaded an polish (I think) audiobook.

Can safely say no one in a 5 mile radius of me is polish or any Eastern European nationality.

Anyway, this story, a lot like one the other day. Bureaucracy fucks up often and on a large scale, this is why we shouldn’t trust it.
It’s not inherently evil being done, just pathetic half-assedness which has exactly the same look and feel as evil.
- MadAsASnake
  
  It’s not patheetic half-assedness. That is the excuse for dishonest behaviour.
Asdf

It’s fun to censor with the DMCA~
Anonymous

http://lnk.co/ILKGR
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PXX4S66KOUIGIKTTIMV3CBGO7Y Colin
  
  Spam off!
Pingback: DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool « Censorship in America
foff

This law is a joke. Google any link and you get tons of places to go and 2 dmca notices. Like these make a shit of difference. Apparently someone is paid to waste their time and efforts. Stupid fucking companies are accomplishing nothing with this weapon.
PRIVACY is priceless to me

I tend to repeat myself, but it’s worth repeating:
DMCA is a clear infringement of the 1st amendment, not that it’s the 1st time or the last time that the tyrannic anti-democratic worse than nazi U$A wipes its ass with the 1st amendment.

REFUSE, RESIST, REVOLUTION NOW!
- MadocComadrin
  
  Godwin’s law. Close the discussion.
MadAsASnake

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10788982
MadAsASnake

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10788982

Oops – Well Kim Dotcom says is companies analysis shows 10% of taketowns are false but they honour them anyway (I guess they need to to maintain DMCA). I don’t know the basis for that figure but we are seeing between 10 and 37% and these will be a mix of things. The collateral damage that this sort of thing can do is huge, and there is very little you can do to stop it in DMCA. SOPA even had a clause indemnifying the alleged copyright holders of any responsibility, you can see why. They are looking to take down anything they want (genuine infringement or otherwise) without risk or effort. Automated tools are great for finding this stuff but must be checked.

While the occasional mistake would be expected, this level of collateral damage should not be tolerated.
Guest

… DMCA SOPA PIPA ACTA TPP …
fuck you
Guest

… DMCA SOPA PIPA ACTA TPP …
fuck you
Wyrm

The problem presented here is not DMCA. It’s the lack of penalty for abusers, as well as some agreements between companies to remove content on DMCA-like basis… that are not DMCA itself. (See Megasong case, where Universal revealed that there was no problem since the content removal was done on a completely separate agreement, not on DMCA grounds.)

IF that law has to be kept, it can be kept as it is now. There has to be a way for victims of DMCA or DMCA-like agreements to retaliate. In any other law, there is a way for the defendant to counter-attack in case of clearly abusing accusations. Why wouldn’t there be a way to claim for damages? (A way that would prove as easy as it was to take content down for hours or days, of course.)

This way, automated takedown and other abuses would become costly. If it gets more costly than expected “gains”, which should be the point of any law, rights-holders might get a bit more cautious.
katapilla

Let them taste their own medicine. In the mean while, all the piraters come up with other ways to pirate without being sensored.
Pingback: Free and thinking» Blogg-arkiv » Upphovsrättsmissbruk utgör ett hinder för kreativitet & innovation IDG.se - Störst på IT, dagliga IT-nyheter, tester, forum, guider och nyhetsbrev mm
Pingback: DMCA: ????? ??????? « ??????????
http://www.focussem.com/ Advertising Eugene Oregon

The adult content outfit AFS Media for example asked Google to remove
links to the movies Braveheart, Monsters Inc, Green Lantern and many more titles that have nothing to do with the content they produce.

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

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

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed