TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Should Bogus Copyright Takedown Senders Be Punished?

Every week copyright holders send out millions of takedown notices to websites all across the Internet. While the majority of these claims are legitimate, a healthy percentage are not. These “errors” can cause serious harm to the public, but the senders are never held responsible for their mistakes. Perhaps it’s time to punish repeat senders of bogus takedown notices?

copyrightYes, copyright holders are entitled to protect their content from being pirated, but whether they should be able to do this at all costs is up for debate.

In recent months the number of takedown requests sent out by copyright holders has increased dramatically, and we’re now at a point where it’s starting to turn the Internet into a big mess.

Just to give an idea of the scope of the issue, Google previously noted 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 sites of infringements. They claim to have a good faith belief that their notices are correct, but we question that this is always the case.

Since most websites simply don’t have the resources to check the validity of these bogus notices, content is then censored in error.

The effects of these “errors” are often without any real harm, and in many cases the public doesn’t even notice. Actually, they can be quite entertaining when they lead to self-censorship. When Microsoft asks Google to censor Bing for example, or when Warner wants to takedown the IMDb page of their own movie.

In other instances bogus takedowns are becoming at the very least somewhat of an annoyance.

Tens of thousands of YouTube videos are pulled every week by mistake, live streaming events such as that the Hugo awards are killed because of false claims, websites such as TorrentFreak are censored in error and even Presidential campaigns are interrupted by bogus claims.

And when the responsible copyright holders are asked to explain their false claims they always seem to shrug them off as insignificant incidents.

Unfortunately, these ‘incidents’ sometimes cause serious damage. Earlier this week a Mediafire user lost access to her files because of a bogus notice. Or what about the Dajaz1 and Rojadirecta websites that lost their domain names because of copyright infringement claims that didn’t stand up?

We can go on, and on, and on, and on…..

We’re not exaggerating when we say that things are spiraling out of control. Rightsholders are censoring large parts of the Internet, often completely unfounded, and there is absolutely no one to hold them responsible.

Websites can’t possibly verify every DMCA claim and the problem will only increase as more takedown notices are sent week after week.

Right now rightsholders and the anti-piracy outfits they employ have absolutely no incentive to improve the accuracy of their automated takedown systems, so perhaps it’s time for them to be held responsible.

A three-strikes system might be appropriate here, where repeat offenders are forbidden from sending any notices for at least a month.

Something has to be done to stop this madness.

Update: Thanks DZ for improving the article

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Pingback: Should Bogus Copyright Takedown Senders Be Punished?

  • Anyone

    just charge a $25 fee for each takedown, that will fix it as can be seen in Australia

    • Monster

       agreed

      • http://7-books.net/ SleepyJohn

        Says it all, doesn’t it? If any rightsholder considers their rights to be worth more than $25 then it is worth them paying $25 to have them enforced, is it not?

        I like the earlier post about setting up a ‘honeypot’ to attract greedy rightsholders. Could be a nice little earner – like the recent proposal for electronically intercepting inter-continental ballistic missiles and ‘returning them to sender’.

        • Topher

          While I have no sympathy for those who issue incorrect takedown notices, this isn’t a solution.  It would provide a tool to drive anyone into bankruptcy simply by repeatedly posting violating material (at no cost to the poster), and forcing the rights holder to pay $25 each time.

          What would make more sense would be a serious fine for *incorrect* takedown notices — an increasing scale, starting at maybe $100 and stepping up each time.  When it hit $10,000 or so per incorrect notice, the rate of incorrect notices would surely decline.

        • Anyone

          @b20faef6f1f149de32716e62c23fd5f9:disqus
          noone is forcing the rights holder to pay, we’re simply suggesting charging an appropriate amount for the extra work those takedowns generate
          if they don’t want to pay, they should simply send no takedown notices

          if their numbers of the losses they suffer through piracy were accurate, $25 would be a bargain

        • FinalApokylypse

           @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus
          However you missed the point of Topher’s reasoning. Because a poster can just re-upload (and they do) setting a $25 fee would not in-fact be considered a bargain at all.. I agree with him, you could use money for a punishment for incorrect or targeted take-downs but it would not be suitable for just a fee for each take-down request as it is almost the same as saying that DMCA take-downs aren’t practical at all anymore.

        • Guest321

          Agreed with @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus . The rightsholders claim millions in lost sales because of the infringement. So if they can spend $25 to stop the infringement, they can earn those million bucks right? So its a win-win for all.

        • Info4ken

          I have found 13 different web sites offering my written words for sale. I don’t receive any royalties from them, so why should they profit from my work. I could not afford to pay $25 to each of the 13 web sites to remove my work. My royalties are very small but they are my only source of income.

        • Fredrika

          > “I have found 13 different web sites offering my written words for sale.”

          You seem confused or ignorant. Words can not be sold, goods or services can be sold, but your written words constitutes neither.

          > “I don’t receive any royalties from them, so why should they profit from my work.”

          The question is illogical and backwards. The only parties you should receive royalties from are those which you have signed a deal with regarding royalties. These 13 sites are obviously not those parties, so obviously no royalty should be paid to you from them. That’s how the free market works, but you do seem to have a problem with the free market.

          > “I could not afford to pay $25 to each of the 13 web sites to remove my work. My royalties are very small but they are my only source of income.”

          If your current source of income isn’t enough for you, you have to look for another job or seek social welfare. You can not chose where you want to get your income from, that’s how society works for everyone, including you. Your economical situation is never the responsibility of other entrepreneurs or persons, which you have signed no contract with. Welcome to reality.

        • Jonas Cole

          A fee to take down copyrighted materials wouldn’t be fair. Sure there are a lot of megacorps that could easily afford it, but there are far more folks whom are indie artists and couldn’t. If the extra work to take down materials on your site is such a hassle, don’t allow it to be posted in the first place and punish users who do it anyways, especially those who are defiant and do it repeatedly after being warned. The primary problem with charging a fee in this manner is that it gives site owners incentive to put copyrighted material on their website. For that reason alone it wouldn’t work. Even if you’re the honest type (and I’m some of you are), the entertainment industry would never believe you.

          A fine for false takedowns makes much more sense. There absolutely must be some balances/checks to all laws, not just the DMCA, to keep them from being abused. On this we’re all agreed I’m sure. A fine is actually in the copyright holders best interest too, even though they’ll very likely disagree. Part of the problem is that people don’t take copyright law seriously, right? Well how can they respect it when they see big business abusing copyright law so badly? The mentality becomes, “If they won’t play fair, I won’t play fair.” If you, the copyright holder, can prove to the world you’re very responsible with how you handle your copyrights, you’ll have take a big step towards solving a problem you’ve been complaining about for a long time now, and it will be fines for false take downs that helps to accomplish that.

          An incrementally rising fine instead of a static one makes the most sense to me as well, with a set maximum limit that if violated too many times (three strikes anyone?), earns that copyright holder a time out from being allowed to send ANY take down notices. Again copyright holders will likely complain and disagree, but regardless of how they feel it IS completely fair. It provides strong incentive to do their due diligence before sending a potentially damaging take down notice, something they should have been doing from day one but irresponsibly haven’t (meaning you only have yourselves to blame for this). If they decide they don’t care about the monetary costs and keep doing it anyways, there is the temporary loss of being able to send any notices at all to fall back on, the cost of which would literally be immeasurable (especially when using their math lol).

          I’m certain copyright holders will say it’s unfair and too costly, but really it shouldn’t cost them anything at all so long as they start being careful about whether they actually own the rights to something or not. It’s such a simple thing to do too, right? That is what they keep telling the world after all, when they expect technology companies to preemptively filter against copyright infringements (see Google/Youtube for instance). We can even go one step farther regarding punishment if we find the need to because they still won’t cooperate after all of above. Make copyright holders liable for very big lawsuits IF it can be proven in court they knew they were sending false take down notices, didn’t care, and kept on doing it anyways. This would be the most damaging punishment of all to irresponsible copyright holders, but should be balanced by the fact that it would also be the hardest to prove in court. We could also add in a requirement that the false take down was severely damaging to someones legitimate business too (which does indeed happen from time to time).

          Your thoughts and opinions?

    • guest

      A sender of a DMCA request should also include a deposit of say $25, if it transpires that the requester is the genuine copyright holder and that the request turns out genuine then the deposit of $25 is returned back. If however it transpires that the requester is not the genuine copyright holder and that the DMCA request turns out false then the deposit is relinquished.

      • Jimbo

         in a lot of cases, the issuer would gladly forgo $25 in return for not having a file available for a week or more. the deposit should be a sensible amount of money say $500. that is still nothing to the industries but would make them think about issuing the number that they do now as the cost would soon accumulate

        • Anyone

          experience shows even $25 is enough to completely stop all takedown requests

        • Death

          But if I have at least ten files that they assume are infringing that I created, then I would make at least an extra 12 grand that year! All right! :D

        • betazed

           True, but, since a rights-holder can mean anyone (or -thing) from Warner Bros. with billions of dollars to the guy strumming his guitar on the street corner, a sensible fee of between $25 and $100 is probably more than sufficient and within reach of all those with serious concerns.

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          Anyone is correct. 25 dollars (some say even as little as 10) is enough to keep these companies from sending takedown notices entirely.

          However, I am of the opinion that might not be such a bad thing.

        • Anonymous

          It should be based on the income of the company sending the DMCAs

          If it is a mega corporation then it should be $10000 (Four zeros) but if it’s a single person on the street it should be as little as $10

        • Guest

           25$ deposit is enough, the file shouldn’t be taken down until reviewed. Automatic software should require the rights holder to download/stream the file in its entirety before sending a take down request. Only one file should be can be review at a time per computer.

          If it is a legit take down then money is returned. Of course there should be a counter claim that can be made by the party being accused of copyright infringement.

        • Jimbo

           in reply to betazed’s post no one has ever worried about the fees being sensible or ‘probably more than sufficient and within reach of all those with serious concerns.’all those who raise DMCA notices, real or bogus, whether they go to court or not, is getting as much money as possible from the ‘infringer’, which i believe is about $140,000 per ‘infringement’. i hardly call that sensible and is definitely ‘more than sufficient’ for all those with serious concerns.

        • Guest

          People don’t seem to realize how many takedown notices you have to issue. When an independent artist puts out a new release, it appears immediately on, e.g., Grooveshark. And when you take it down, it appears again an hour later. You have to take it down dozens or even hundreds of times in the first few weeks. If you had to pay $25 hundreds of times, nobody but major labels could afford to do it.

          From my own experiments, it seems pretty clear that keeping my albums off sites like Grooveshark for the first 3 weeks after release dramatically increases sales. (Beyond that, on the other hand, Grooveshark might actually increase sales… I’m experimenting with that right now, and so far it looks promising.) Of course the details are probably different for different artists. But the point is that the person who holds the rights should be allowed to make the decision. That’s what holding the rights means. If I want to use widespread piracy as a sales tool, I can; if I want to make it difficult to pirate my music for the first few weeks, or forever, I should be able to. It’s my decision, not Grooveshark’s or my fans’ or the RIAA’s or some random loudmouth on the internet. And making me pay thousands of dollars for that is not reasonable.

          As for the “stealing” argument, I agree 100% that piracy is not the same thing as theft, and I wish the RIAA would stop trying to equate them. But that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong, either ethically or legally. Lots of things are wrong that aren’t theft.

      • Guest

         There should be a minimum processing fee to investigate weather or not the claim is legit. If the claim is legit then and only then the link is removed.

        • UnNews

          How about if it is legit then the person that illegally stole and put up the item pay?

          You have no idea what artists and writers have to go through just to not have their hard work stolen and spread through the internet.  Then, after their hard work to find what was stolen and request it to be taken down, it just pops up in other places over and over and it has to start again.

          Think of it like this, you have a store where you sell your hand crafted items.  Every day some are stolen and distributed via other stores.  YOU have to go find out who stole them, then go to the police, prove to them that you own it and that they stole them then all that happens is the police tell them not to do it.  And while this is happening your items are being stolen by 50 other people.

        • Fredrika

          > “You have no idea what artists and writers have to go through just to not have their hard work stolen and spread through the internet.”

          Have to? They have to get a safe and not publish it in the first place, that’s the only thing they have to do to not get it stolen. However, if they of their own free will chose to publish it, it can no longer be stolen, it can be copied.

          Some copying and distribution can possibly constitute a copyright infringement, as in an intrusion into a legislative monopoly, but that is never ever stealing, neither according to the law nor a dictionary, two items you might need to read up on, to get the terminology correct and factual.

          > “Then, after their hard work to find what was stolen and request it to be taken down, it just pops up in other places over and over and it has to start again.”

          Idiots have always chosen to waste their time on meaningless efforts that they don’t actually have to, that’s nothing new.

        • marxmarv

          “How about if it is legit then the person that illegally stole and put up the item pay?”

          I see no reason whatsoever that a defendant who is found by a court of law to have infringed should not be responsible for costs related to serving a takedown notice on their content.  Are you quite through with the “sauce for the 800-pound gorilla is sauce for the goose” tack yet?  Not only is it unimaginative but it’s irrelevant, absurd, and unjust.

      • flubalubaful

         I Wonder if this is what Google is going to go after when they end up demanding a change to the DMCA. If they are having to spend millions on verifying every claim and such a big percentage are false surely any court would agree that either the false claim means Google gets $1000 or that any false claim leads to a refusal to take down any content from that person or organisation ever again. Google is in fact not responsible to police the internet or the content in there search results they are only doing what they are doing for a reason(making statistics available to everyone) and I for one cannot wait to see what happens in the future when they come out fighting for the huge losses they are making while the people sending DMCA requests are just using obviously faulty software programs.
        But my demand is still the same as last week, when are we going to see someone , anyone take these people to court for a false take-down request, lets see how the court reacts to the fact that people are knowingly signing a document that puts themselves knowingly in contempt of court.

      • UnNews

        Ok, then how about charging people to post videos then when it is found out they did not steal content they get their money back?  Works both ways.

        If you were an artist you would appreciate how your work is stolen many many times a day, then you have to fight to get it taken down then, in the end, there are no penalties, all that happens is the video/song/writing gets taken down.  But in that timeframe it was stolen 100 times again and the process starts all over.

        • Nom

           Yes, let’s throw freedom of speech out for your beloved copyright.

          Please die, seriously.

        • Anyone

          if you don’t want your work copied, don’t release it
          if you can’t make a living selling copies of your work, find another way to make money

          let’s face it, digital copies are so cheap to make, they are practically worthless
          if you then go on and insult your fans as thieves, of course noone is going to buy your stuff

        • compton67

           why don’t you shut up about artists? You’re not one and you don’t care about them, you’re just using the image of an impoverished artist to push your lousy corporate agenda.

          In this internet age, there are plenty of ways for artists to make a good living without selling their souls to record companies.

          I don’t think you want to find a way forward, I think you’re just a capitalist pig and you can’t wait to stuff your face in the trough.

        • marxmarv

          A real artist would actually make sure their “oath under penalty of perjury” meant something before firing scattershot takedown notices to every google search result that happens to contain the name of their work in it.

          Begone, paid industry shill.

        • HappyArtist

           I’m an artist.

          You think it’s OK for someone to demand that my work gets taken offline and there is no penalty for them making the false claim that they own it?

          There should absolutely be a charge for false takedown requests. If you want to tell someone to remove a link, you should have to be sure you have the right to do so.

          How do you think [insert riaa affiliated label here] would react if I were to send takedown requests to google for every link I find to every page they own? Would they accept it when I said “Oops, sorry for removing all your links, I thought they might have been mine” or would I hear from their lawyers? Not much I can do if they remove my work because they have a billion dollars and I don’t.

          It seems fair to me that if someone sends google a takedown request, the site should be notified and if the claim is false the sender should pay google, the site owner, and the artist whose work was unreasonably censored.

          You’re right though. I do appreciate that my work is downloaded every day. I love my fans. Good thing there’s no reason to fight them.

      • Spike

         No you are using up the companies time and man power. They need to charge you per request period. No returns just a flat fee.

    • Guest

      Filing false DMCA claims is a felony offense under perjury in accordance with United States Federal Laws.

      Charge them $25? Fuck no, if it’s a bogus claim send them to prison for 10 years.

      • Whatever

        So, why is half the MAFIAA not already in jail ? They have already sent in the thousands to millions of false claims.

        Another issue is that MAFIAA related corporations cannot be jailed so nobody would go to jail. No matter how many times the employees commited perjury.
        (Yes, they might be fined a token value)

        As for Obama, he is completely happy with DMCA so it doesn’t matter if his propaganda is taken down. If supporters of those 2 presidential candidates keep taking down each others sites and content the more clear it becomes how it works. The battle for the presidency might be the first censorship battle.

        • Anon

           The best part is that they can’t be held accountable.. but the supreme court says they’re people.

          So they’re people who can’t be held accountable for their crimes. Sounds like the perfect system.

        • marxmarv

          What battle?  The elites, aside from those who may have some personal or moral axe to grind, don’t much care whether Coke or Pepsi wins as long as they’re still in charge of the corn syrup.

      • UnNews

        So, if the DMCA claim is true, should the person that stole and distributed the material also face 10 years in prison?

        • Anyone

          the MAFIAA already tries to punish people sharing their passion with draconian fines, see Joel Tennenbaum

          but making copies doesn’t harm anyone, censoring the web however does
          so who should be punished in that scenario?

        • Legowork

           DMCA claim about what? A copy?

          I bought the damn cd, I share with anyone I want. Go fuck yourself and your MAFIAA bosses.

        • FinalApokylypse

          From a legal and common sense angle there is no way that would be the case. Perjury and Copyright Infringement are two completely different offenses. Just because the case’s may be linked via causality does not mean the offenses are of exactly the same degree.

        • HappyArtist

           Copying and listening to an artists music does no harm to the artist.

          Removing an artists music from the web, or even just removing links to their music, does hurt the artist.

          Pretend for a minute that you are an artist. Would you rather someone listened to your music, or would you rather they demand that google remove your links to it?

          Censoring someone’s music is not at all comparable to copying it.

        • lattari

           Why don’t you tell us what you feel.

        • BJonesTF

          DMCA claims have nothing to do with stealing or theft. Completely different and unrelated sections of law.

    • Oplease !

       More like a $100 !

    • warcaster

      Start at $250 – just in case they want to “negotiate” it. But they really need much harsher punishments. Censoring the Hugo Awards or the Democrat Convention SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. It’s completely absurd that the system allows for this to happen right now.

    • Dan

       $25 fee per DMCA takedown notice, then a $1000 fee for each false DMCA notice filed on top……. would see this problem sorted out almost overnight

      • Anonymous

        make it 10000 not 1000 than they may listen, there’s always the chance that $150.000 would work but for the average joe it should be only $10 so based on income really.

        • Popehat/FakeElections

          Take away rights-holders ability to remove search engine links FULL STOP, its nobody’s job to censor the internet. If someones hosting an “infringing” file then its fair that the file be removed i guess. But fuck removing links to files.. That’s just censorship :(

        • hohoho

          Make it $10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

        • pnaveil

          @hohoho:disqus
          How much is that? Anyone know?

    • Confuscan

      That’s a lot of administrative overhead and potentially, the cost to them would be simply written off as a business expense or cost of doing business.

      How about you simply apply a similar concept as the “three strikes law” (I love irony) and after a certain number of false positive take downs, the organization loses the right, for some period of time to issue take downs? Essentially, take away their toys and give them a timeout.

    • Tax_Em_All

      If you want the government behind it, have the companies receiving the takedowns promote the idea that the fees would be taxable income.

    • JordanKratz

       Agreed ! Takes a human to respond to MAFIAA Bullshit and you have to pay that human so yes charge them money.
      And I also like the 3 Strikes thingie since the MAFIAA wants us US Citizens on some kind of Strikes Program.
      MAFIAA Lick a dirty dog’s Asshole clean.

    • Anonymous

       When they write a DMCA request, they are swearing UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. That’s a felony. Repeat offenders should be taken to court and thrown in jail.

    • Ole Juul

      Charging a fee would legitimize something which is against the law. Note what the article says: “They swear under penalty of perjury that their notices are correct, but this is often an outright lie.” I think it is a bad idea to charge a “fee” for perjury. Instead they should be charged and prosecuted under the existing laws. I know, it’s an uphill climb, but it’s in the right direction.

      • Guest

        Why would charging them a fee legitimize what they’re doing? They can still be prosecuted for perjury. And anyone who’s harmed by their negligence who has standing to sue and enough resources to take on the RIAA or a major label can still do so (and may even be able to use the fact of the fines as evidence in their case). And meanwhile, until one of those things happens, there will be a major deterrence.

    • Lancero

      Yes, and no.

      25$ fee is good, however, the fee’s for proper reports should be refunded. Fee’s for bogus/fake reports will be kept. (This applies to reports sent, but sender is not the owner or a representive of the owner of a copyright, general reports ment to silence something only because they don’t support it, or reports asking for the removal of dead links (Ie, no longer working links)

      This solves the issues with the copyright takedowns. It funds the people doing the takedowns (*insert search engine here*, money used to fund groups of people who will confirm and remove links, and various related services), it gives a punishment to those that send fake reports (The fee isn’t refunded. In the mass amounts that are sent in, this money can add up.), and gives the companies a reason to ensure all reports sent by them, or their representives, are real reports instead of general bullshit.

      • Lancero

        Actually, bump the sending fee to $50, and for companies that continue to send in large amounts of fake reports, increase their fee’s to $100, $250, $500, and $1000 per report until they stop sending in fake reports. Fee’s will be set per company/group weekly, and if a company/group is bumped to a higher fee then they will have to have a week with no fake reports to get bumped back down to the lower fee. If they continue to send fake reports in that week, they are bumped up again. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

       A fee refundable if the claim is valid will I guarentee give rise to one unintended (but well desrved) consequence.

      You can guarentee that site owners and more likely uploaders will intentionally set up honeypots to trap MAFIAA bots with mislabelled files or names that contain keywords expected to trigger a takedown.

      Previously infringing uploaders would find entrapment of MAFIAA bots more profitable that revenue shares on infringing files.

      So Everyone Wins. Uploaders make more money. Fewer  infinging files publicly posted in cloud storage while everyone else gets a warm fuzzy feeling, when the MAFIAA actually has a real quantifiable loss to bleat about. 

      The warm fuzzy feeling, I think I should have written ‘wets themselves laughing’.

    • Anyone Else

      That’s like charging $25 every time you call the police. Sure it would solve the problem of bogus reports, but only at the expense of the rights of every single small small content creator in existence. Not to mention giving large companies a HUGE monopoly over content creation, as they could still afford to use DMCA as a weapon against individual creators, and their complaints would be granted instant validity due to the expense.
      What you’re proposing is that we sell the internet, and give all the proceeds to the people we’ve been fighting this whole time over its freedom.
       

      • Anyone

        you get arrested for false 911 calls
        nothing happens if you file thousands or millions false DMCA takedowns

      • HappyArtist

         A penalty that increases with every false report would solve the problem too.

        Do you really want to compare it to calling the police? linking to a copyrighted file is not a crime, but calling the police with false accusations surely is.

        • Guest

          I agree with HappyArtist, but I think comparing it to calling the police is actually a perfect way to look at it.

          You are allowed to make as many legitimate complaints to the police as you want. You are not allowed to make illegitimate complaints. If you accidentally report something falsely, there’s generally no penalty, but if you persistently and intentionally make false police reports you will face a cost—at best, they’ll start ignoring your legitimate complaints; at worst they’ll prosecute you. And if your false complaint harms someone else, and it was negligent or malicious, you’ll be sued for it.

          False DMCA takedowns are both legally and ethically wrong in exactly the same way as false police reports. The difference is that Google doesn’t have police power (which is a good thing…), and the people who are harmed by false complaints generally don’t have the resources to take major record labels to court. Which means the major labels get away with it. And that’s the problem in a nutshell.

        • Rachel Ramey

           I don’t think anyone is claiming that linking to a copyrighted file is comparable to calling the police.  They’re saying that REPORTING SOMEONE for linking to a copyrighted file is comparable to calling the police.

    • Troden

      New Zeland not Australia

    • Guest

       No, Up that fee to $50 or $100 and then charge a $2,000 fine and press charges against who sent the false notice. We shouldn’t just charge money, but we need to hold these people responsible for their actions.

    • AcID

      um some people( the less popular youtube channels) dont want to pay 25$? the 25$ should be a fine for a invaild copyright claim. keep in mind it is your right to protect intellectual property 

      • Anyone

        it’s not your right, especially not when it compromises other people’s rights (like free speech)

        the only right you have is to be recognized as author

        • http://draketo.de Arne Babenhauserheide

           And even the right to be recognized did not exist in old-world china. Authors put the names of famous older authors on text they wrote to get more people to read them.

        • Info4ken

          it is always interesting how those who do not or cannot create anything want to receive other people’s work for free, and then claim it is the freedom of the internet. I’m happy for anyone to view my work online, but if they wish to download it, then they should expect to pay for it.

        • Fredrika

          > “..but if they wish to download it, then they should expect to pay for it.”

          You pay when you purchase something, that a seller sells Purchase and sell being the key words. When the seller doesn’t sell anything, and no sale takes place, there’s nothing to pay for, regardless of what anyone expects or believes others should expect. That’s how the free market works. Or do you have a problem with the free market? Are you advocating communism or a planned economy?

    • Andrew Lee

       Well I guess but it seems a little fucked up if it’s actually a legit claim. They should have to pay if their claim is false and a lot more than 25$ and that should go to the innocent person/s that was in the line of fire.

      Sill most copyright claims only seem to beneficent the companies that’s being paid to email them by the bulk and lawyers that’s filing class action lawsuits in the bulk as well and of course the devil. “Don’t even ask you know who rofl”

    • Neil

       As long as it’s kept at $25 for each request not multiples of the same.  In New Zealand the Rights Holders tried to get our government to change the rules – so far they’ve failed….

    • http://twitter.com/dartigen Dartigen

       I agree with the idea of fining people for incorrect notices. Hey, if you bring a frivolous lawsuit you can be fined quite a bit and made to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs. And in some countries you can be fined for lying to police or calling out emergency services on false pretenses.
      An incremental fine would be appropriate because it would limit abuse, and orders to pay court costs of whoever they sent the notice to would also give many companies a good reason to reconsider just sending DMCA takedowns willy-nilly. (And the ban on repeat abusers is also a very good idea; fines mean nothing to companies that rake in millions of dollars a day, but the prospect of losing the ability to send takedowns would make them think twice about abusing the DMCA.)

      Not everyone can afford fees for sending notices. While yes, a lot of takedowns do come from big corporations, some do come from indie game developers, authors and musicians who do not have the money for a lawyer or a lawsuit and hope that a takedown notice will be enough to get someone stealing their work or using it without permission to stop that. It’s often really all they can do if they cannot afford a lawsuit to force an infringing site or group to stop.

  • Anonymous

    “We handle DMCA notices during 10.00-11.00am Central Time & we verify each case. Cases are handled by one named employee. To make things fair, notices are sorted so that after handling oldest notice from company, rest of their notices are sent to the back of the queue meaning one case for each company is handled before moving to next one. If the notice is bogus, company is sent back by 3 slots to discourage excessive amount of bogus reports. Including even one bogus link will mark the whole case as bogus.”

    As far as I know, there are no requirements regarding the time limit.

    • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

       The MAFIAA are a proven bunch of lying, cheating, money-grabbing selfish thieves who will con your Grandmother out of her treasured jewellery if you give them ANY chance whatsoever.

      What’s really needed here is to ban these fucktards from sending any DMCA’s whatsoever until they can prove beyond ALL reasonable doubt that their actions and claims are 100% accurate and l100% legitimate.

      There’s simply no room for so-called ‘errors’, mistakes or any inefficiency.  The DMCA system should be respected and used properly and lawfully or scrapped – with the MAFIAA left to fend for themselves with no such legislative back-up.

      We’ve had enough of their abusive shit, and we’ll tolerate no more.

      • Anon

        “We’ve had enough of their abusive shit, and we’ll tolerate no more.”

        Right. Big internet talker Rob. lol
        A fee charged for an erroneous DMCA accusation makes sense in the context of ALL unprovable accusations filed in all forms of law enforcement. When it costs you to file a complaint with your local Police department if it fails to secure a conviction, that’s justice. Until then, your heads are up your collective you-know what’s. :-D

        Are pirates EVER going to address this intelligently and evenhandedly? NO. lmao

        • Guest

          I read your comment 5 times and I still can’t figure out what the fuck you’re saying. Anybody who files an unprovable accusation with law enforcement should be charged for making an erroneous DMCA complaint? 

          Motherfucker, do not comment when you are this high.

        • FinalApokylypse

          @ac772b48d6728242138b1df18c9716e5:disqus
          He’s saying that a fee for a DMCA take-down request is not fair to ask for when its the equivalent of reporting a crime as a citizen to a cop. There are a few major faults in this comparison such as the fact that normal citizens do not make automated accusations of a crime but I do agree that the fee like $25 is unreasonable.

          Even looking at half the comments which basically state that $25 would be enough to stop DMCA requests invalidates the whole argument of having it in the first place. You can’t kill a law by sidestepping it like that and making it irrelevant. Lawmakers would have a fit. I can argue that substantial fines for false claims (with automated submitting tools being subject to the same requirements) because that doesn’t invalidate DMCA.

        • HappyArtist

           So would you agree that there should be severe penalties for repeatedly making false clams?

          The penalty would be pretty severe if I made a habit of having innocent people arrested because I thought they might be guilty of something but I didn’t care to check.

          However it isn’t reasonable to compare having someone arrested with taking down links to their music.

          Look at it this way. If you were a musician, and you were trying to make a living from your music, should I (or anyone else) be able to tell google to remove links to your music? Should there be no penalty for doing that?

          How hard is it to not send takedown requests for links to content that has nothing to do with you? If it’s worth having links removed then it’s worth checking to see if you are in some way connected to those links.

  • Boxxy

    How is it any different from a DDoS attack? It’s a huge amount of time wasting information that is costing a company time and money for no reason, but to be a nuisance. 

    The people that send these false claims deserve the same punishment as a person who prank calls the police claiming theres a bank robbery.

  • ken147

    Treat them like they treat pirates, give them a taste if their own medicine.

    • Anonymous

      Pirates? I call myself a cloner, I “clone” data, I don’t “steal” or “pirate”.

      • Oplease !

         Every thing in life is cloned !!!! look around you,yes different forms, shapes, sizes cloning is life ! think about it ..well said Anonymous ! WOW !

      • Baragge

        Well, if it helps you feel better about yourself…

        • Gupta

          FUCK OFF Grandma.

  • Anonymous

    Of course.

  • http://twitter.com/helix_tw @helix_tw

     Simple answer? Yes!

  • http://twitter.com/helix_tw @helix_tw

    Simple answer? Yes, if they want the process to be really effective.

    • Dupe

       and seen to be fair!

  • chronoss chiron

    should people that launch civil lawsuits get penalized for suing when they have no case

    yes cause its tax fucking paying money they fuck with regarding judges and messin with us tax payers thats including the innocent is gonna get you serious bitch slappin.

    • Glib

      In Canada you do; loser pays.

  • Colin Carr

    The MAFIAA rely on dumping their file sharing problem on other people like ISPs. As we saw in New Zealand, a NZ$25 handling charge from the ISP to the rightsholder pretty much kills the whole scam stone dead.
    So yes, $25 service charge for starters, and publication by the ISPs of all false takedown requests so whoever’s daughter’s birthday party video is claimed to be infringing because of what’s on TV in the background can kick up a fuss if they want. In practice, that wouldn’t happen because, as per the NZ experience, there just wouldn’t be any takedown requests.

  • V Am I

    I thought the heading was gonna say COMPENSATED!

  • Strawbear

    Clearly they should be punished.

    I’d use a rising scale of fines, where say the first hundred are not penalised then the 100 are fined at $10 each, the next 150 are at $50 and then every 250 extra takedown requests the amount per bogus claim is doubled, so once you hit a few thousand bullshit takedowns you’re looking at fines into the millions.

    This kind of scale wouldn’t affect small time people who just make errors or are kind of dumb, say with regards to automatically generated ads (as has happened in the past) and it would severely penalise large corporations who try to blanket ban everything in sight just in case they’re affected.

    Also if the false takedown request number hits say 5000 within a year then there’s an automatic ban on that company issuing any more requests for the subsequent month.

  • Anon

    Like I said in another thread, I think every DMCA notice should be filed using fax or mail, not the internet, since it’s being abused by everyone. 
    Once I tested this system by filing a bogus notice and Google took down the allegedly infringing link. I wasn’t even the owner of the intelectual property. They don’t check such requests, they just comply with them. And most people don’t even know they can file a DMCA counter-notice to get their things back. That’s why there’s no need to charge companies for that work, just make their lives a lot harder and prevent these kinds of abuses. Why they can’t send those notices without using the internet?Why Google needs to comply with all those requests so easily?

  • Anonymous

    without any shadow of doubt and without hesitation! they should be punished in the same way the industries punish everyone else. the only way to get some balance to the situation is for those on both sides of the fence to be treated the same. after all, the reason most takedowns are issued is to do exactly that, take down a file or site and is done in a lot of cases even though the one ordering the takedown knows full well there is no infringement taking place or valid copyright claim. by the time the site or file has been reinstated, it is too late so the effect required has been achieved. as there is no punishment atm, it happens on an increasingly regular basis. imagine what would be said if it were to be happening to the industries. they would be kicking up fuck every second and demanding compensation for the time their files weren’t available!

  • pcGnome

    Google recently presented me with its own version of Capcha to prove I was human, so I know they can do it.

    Make the DMCA requests pass a Capcha and I’ll bet they slow down REAL fast.

    • Whatever

      Great idea.

      That’s would be the best punishment yet without involving lawsuits. It might bring their whole machine down. Mostly because those Capcha’s are very annoying.

      This is probably the reason the file hosters use Capcha and the follow up reason that the file content isn’t actually checked.

    • ScrewEwe2

      This has happened to me too, with a warning that reads: ”Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network.” Automated queries are against our Terms of Service.” It’s usually a VPN related thang because all VPN’s have a finite number of proxy IP addresses and when Google recieves search request’s from the same IP’s over and over, you get redirected to the error page.

      http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=86640

    • HappyArtist

       Capchas can be scripted.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

    In short, yes they should be fined and the fine should be significant.
    Better still the DMCA should be ammended such that a rightsholder is bonded via a neutral 3rd party or pay a per link processing fee (to ebble low volume rights holders to participate)

    If a DMCA notice is sent in error, the procesing fee would be forfeit and sent to the site concerned and if applicable nominal compensation to the uploader who had to fight to get the matter corrected

    A number of articles here recently not to mention comments from a convicted streaming site admin has shown that rights holders are doing little more than doing key word searchesof google (and other search engines) and scraping the links from the results with no attempt to verify the link is active and infringing.

    The other problem is major rights holders abusing takedown facilities granted to them by site owners. Hopefully these’takedown’ tools merely disable access rather than delete files and the tools keep logs of what is disabled and by who.  Access to such tools should be limited to rightsholders who have deposited a bond proportionate to the volume of links they disable.

    Hopefully a 3rd party bond (and resultant arbitration) would also stop major abuses where media companies take down items they dont (or no longer) hold rights to.  A prime example is Edwyn Collins, the singer/writer formerly with 80s band Orange juice (prob best known track ‘A girl like you’ currently used in the UK Marks and Spencer advert). Being the writer, the rights to his songs were always retained by him and the rights to his recordings have since reverted back to him. He has a loyal following of both fans and well wishers (he is recovering from a brain tumor) and has posted recordings and videos of his material both studio and live for his fans to enjoy yet has had no end of problems with his old record company abusing youtube takedown tools and DMCA notices to his site host and google not to mention unlawfully using his material unlicensed on compilations without payment or permission.

    The way this is all going, arguing over fines and processing fees will become a moot point. The question that should be being discussed is how close are we getting to the point where the number of Customers and Artists alienated, cheated and bullied by the MAFIAA reaches critical mass causing them to experience death by a 1000 cuts.

    Roll on Megabox

  • Pingback: Torrent News » Should Bogus Copyright Takedown Senders Be Punished?

  • http://www.peoplesnote.org Don Reba

    “A three-strikes system might be appropriate here, where repeat offenders
    are forbidden from sending any notices for at least a month.”

    How about charging some reasonable fee, like $100,000 for an allegation of a false notice?

    • Zyphex

       How about $150,000? That’s the maximum fine per work for copyright infringement, so it should be the cost of filing a bogus take down notice

  • Pingback: In the News.. | TorGuard.net Blog - Anonymous VPN Services

  • Masau Fuku

    While punishing repeat violators/misusers of the DMCA would definitely be great, I’d much rather see the DMCA be fixed – namely, the burden of proof needs to be shifted from the accused infringer to the company/person making the accusation.

    Perhaps worse, in order for an individual to fight a false claim (even one made under a false name) they have to reveal all sorts of personal information to the person who made the claim – this can and has been used by many people to get/drop docs on people who, for one reason or another, want or need to stay anonymous. If we want to fix DMCA properly, it needs to be by shifting the burden of proof to the accuser.

    Failing that however…a fee system and/or blocking system might work as well. A fee per claim system could cause undue harm to individuals or small companies who have legitimate claims. However, a fee per claim over a certain amount (say 10 in a week) in a given period + a fine for false claims (that grows exponentially with every false claim in 30 days – maybe longer). I also like the idea of a three-strike system for false claims XD . This would certainly make large companies who send out thousands of claims at a time improve their systems – though it would have no effect on individual making a claim here or there as an intentional form of censorship.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jamewood James Wood

    As a temporary fix, Google needs to make all submissions go through a form, and put a good hard captcha on the form.
    Fuck automated takedowns.

    • David

      They already do that you idiot.

      • http://www.copyrightinfringementadvisor.com/ John Whitaker

         No they don’t.

  • OccamsKatana

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Make them pay a nominal fee ($25.00) for each VALID request. Fine them $150,000.00 for each infringement or false takedown notice. Let’s call it the Tenenbaum rule. For Joel.

  • Erich Albert

    They try to sue for over $10,000 per song pirated. So we should hit them for $100,000 for ever false claim. Come back at them with fucking like-minded penalties is the only way I see this appropriately resolved.

  • Mr. T

    Rather than the idea of charging them webmasters should make “dmca user accounts” which require verification before they can submit dmca takedowns under that account. Make a little bit of script to detect if they are abusing the system with bots then suspend their account.

    Using online forms rather than dmca via email would save a lot of fake/automatic dmca takedowns (could use captchas, ask for them to upload an image of passport etc).

  • Guest

    It is also important to be fair to the rights holders and companies generating media and the DMCA notices to protect it. Keep in mind they
    have to deal with the internet, the most easily used, prolific, and
    abusable copy-making “device” ever invented. Within an hour, the
    internet can spawn 100,00 copies worldwide of something.

    Many
    pirates fly under the radar, and so should bogus DMCA acts. There’s no
    easy way to police false notices. Just as pirates use automated software
    (bit torrent) to assemble a swarm, DMCA senders have every right to use
    automation on their side to send these notices. Unfortunately automated
    software is just that, automated. The “decisions” it makes will not
    always be 100% spot-on.

    Just as MAFIAA has to deal with their
    content being posted all over, so must we deal with extraneous takedown
    notices. This is the “internet equivalent” of maintaining an early
    mechanical VCR and tape libraries with all the head and mechanism cleanings and
    adjustments, tape purchases, library agreements, acquisitions.. And so on and so forth.

    • marxmarv

      Last I checked, joining a swarm didn’t require any sworn statements.  Which one of those organizations do you work for, and how many false notices have *you* filed under perjury? 

      • Guest

         I ain’t working for nobody. Just sayin.. ahh well soon enough this shit will either make the internet unusable for some stuff or it will blow over.

        I do believe fees should be involved in filing the take downs though.

        • marxmarv

          Fair enough.  I recant that jab — just can’t think of why anyone would just accept flagrant, widespread abuse of the legal system as a normal part of life unless they were personally receiving benefit from it somehow. 

          As to the future, I figure those in the know are already conducting most of their business and political communication via darknets.

          I think I agree as to fees.  I’d even agree that the fee should be
          considered part of attorney’s fees and costs in the event the case goes
          to court and the “rightsholder” prevails.  I’m just concerned that
          counter-notices might likewise be subject to those fees, which could make some information harder for concerned citizens to disseminate.

    • Guest

      Give me one coherent reason why bogus DMCA compaints should be overlooked.

    • HappyArtist

       >>Just as MAFIAA has to deal with their
      content being posted all over, so must we deal with extraneous takedown
      notices.

      So you believe that small artists should have to accept that MAFIAA can make our music disappear?

      Maybe it’s no problem for you to deal with false takedown notices, but when it’s your music being censored it is a problem.

      How is having your music removed from a search engine the equivalent of cleaning the heads of a VCR? It’s more like removing my music from the view of those who may want to buy it.

      • xpmule

         tell it to anyone that recorded something with a vcr or cassette deck..
        i don’t remeber hearing one complaint in the 80′s and 90′s LOL
        nothing has changed but technology and now what people have been allowed to do for decades now gets them cease and desist letters etc ?
        can you blame people for thinking the way they do ?
        C O P Y I N G is not STEALING !
        in other words you can’t lose something then
        and then that means ALL the law suits are pure bullshit.
        Projected loses ? 1,000 downloads means 1,000 lost sales ?
        uhh ya if your a fucking retard lol

        • HappyArtist

           I’ll assume you didn’t read what I said. You just read the the first line right? The one I was responding to, right?

          You don’t think that it’s OK for small artists to have their music removed at the request of a corporation that has nothing to do with them do you?

        • Kevin Grech

          Technically yes. They’re indirectly stealing. Because they’re acquiring content from someone else for free while the original producer gets nothing.

          Imagine BMW makes a car, the i8. A person buys it. Many other people manage to get an i8 from this owner as they’re ‘copying’ them. BMW and the first person that bought it get nothing in return while other people get an i8 for free (of course you have to know where to go to get one for free)

          That’s how piracy compares to the real world.

          EDIT: This comment does not cover DMCA bogus takedown issues.

    • chronoss chiron

      your a crackhead aren’t ya
      its not easy to police false DMCA notices? REALLY
      prove you own the rights first you fucking moron….and quit trying to automate it so you screw everyone and sit there laughing like a faggy lil lawyer

  • An0nYm0u5

    In my opinion,  if bogus copyright take downs are not punished then I say we all mass report bogus copyright claims against the anti piracy groups.

    I mean… if you can’t beat them… spam them.

    • meowmix

      i liked the guys idea in another thread where hackers have bots to create links to keep the copyright whores buisy playing takedown wackamole.

  • Gordons

    google wil never charge for anything as long as people are attending their site, for whatever reason.

    • Vincent Giannell

      I’m afraid Google will have to charge if things get out of hand.

  • Esn

    IMPORTANT:

    What you didn’t mention is that in many cases, these bogus copyright notices are DELIBERATE. Not only do they get occasionally used for outright censorship (as in the case of Kim Dotcom’s music video getting taken down, for example), but there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of companies who abuse Youtube’s system and lay claim to thousands of videos whose content they DO NOT OWN in order to place ads on them and make illegitimate profit.  Examples of companies like this: QuizGroupMovies, MyVideoRights (MVR).
    The Youtube users who placed the videos the are rarely going to fight it, because the system is so heavily tilted in favour of those who claim copyright, rather than those who claim LACK of copyright.

    This is a problem of huge scope which hasn’t really been reported on.

    • Athox

      One solution could be to put a fee on every copyright claim filed. Preferably quite large, like $50.

      • Esn

         I don’t think $50 is reasonable, and it would be very easy for the copyright companies to reject that as it would effectively force them to stop sending out notices altogether.

        What I propose is a bit more clever: Make a push to have the cost be tied to their projected LOSSES from having that one link stay up. Let’s say, 10% of those losses (we’re being generous!).

        Then we win either way! Either they’ll stop sending so many notices OR they’ll be forced to put down in writing a very low “damages” figure, so that anyone they actually take to court won’t need to pay that much, OR they’ll name such a high damages figure that they bankrupt themselves with sending many unaffordable notices.

        This is an intellectually sound position that they won’t easily be able to BS their way out of. After all, if there are such big gains to be made from taking down the infringing links, they would gladly pay a small proportion of that to make it happen, wouldn’t they?

        • Athox

          Which is exactly the same as my suggestion, except more complicated. The main point is that filing a notice isn’t free. And it’s not up to the copyright companies to agree or disagree to the fee either, so their opinion is irrelevant.

  • eoswins

    I don’t agree with your premise that ‘copyright holders have a right to protect their content.’ If you house your content on machines that replicate bits as their main function, prepare to be copied. Besides, the entertainment industry has been churning out a culture of talentless anti-intellectualism and could use a good wake up call to their pocketbooks. Do not let them continue to prop up their old business model. Let the machines have their reckoning.

    • Kevin Grech

       Of course, if the copyright holder doesn’t want their content copied, he should prepare the means to do so. Look at Grooveshark and modern TVs. They have encryption algorithms that impede these courses of action.

  • meowmix

    if there is no punishment for bogus copyright takedowns there is no policing and it is, as we have seen, wide open to abuse.

    some kind of code of practice, with sanctions against abuse, should be implimented.

  • Tripps

    As some have said, $25 to $50 dollar fee per take down notice, and $150,000 fine for each false claim.

    Files should not be taken down, until a human has actually looked at it and confirmed it as a legit take down.

  • Trapper5

    I agree with the 3 strikes idea.  You can’t ban them without risking losing your immunity, but i would think after the 3rd strike, any further requests would have to be reviewed by a human (lawyer?) at a cost of x dollars.  The dollar figure should not be putative, but just a reflection of the cost of confirming the facts. 

    I don’t like the fee to file idea. That just sounds like building a cash cow bureaucracy. 

    • Trapper5

      Follow up – the whole ‘notice and takedown’ system invites abuse. moving to a ‘notice and notice’ system where the person getting the complaint has a chance to contest it would do a lot of remove the abuses. 

    • ScrewEwe2

       I would say give them 6 strikes and then take away their internet privileges.

    • flubalubaful

       I like the idea of a fee for a lawyer to authenticate every DMCA request after a three strike warning system, this should firstly stop companies from sending false claims and making sure that what they do take down is not in any way fair use. Wonderful idea and it should be at the top of the list of things to demand when google eventually decides they are losing too much money dealing with false DMCA takedown requests, but I also would add a fine of either $250 000 or 10% of annual profits for every instance where content is taken down to stifle competition, or that looks like it is to stifle competition like the megaupload song.

  • Robert

    The cause of the automated take downs is likely related lazy ass greedy lawyers who found a “system” they can abuse. They’ll charge flat fees to large corps to ‘protect’ the corps’ IP online, however the corps have little knowledge that all they’re doing is sending out BS blanket form letters.

    There is a protection against this written into the DMCA, the Counter-Notice. You can counter a DMCA notice and take the complaining party to court and collect statutory damages of 150,000 per false claim, all you have to do is provide a copy of the original well worded DMCA (easily obtained) and verification you own the copyright in question.

    While the lawyers may try to weasel out of the liability, the best they can hope for is to loose their licence to practice law (as a DMCA is signed under penalty of perjury), and pay your out of pocket in a settlement (which, you can gather approximately how much that’s worth to them)

  • fawntee

    Heck yeah dude, I say off with their heads!
    Anon-Real.tk

  • Kiwi

    Here in NZ its $25 per letter sure but after 3 you get hauled up in front of a copyright tribunal and HAVE to pay $15000. No court case, no defence. Unless you can magically prove that all three letters were false. Its up to you to prove innocence. Sounds rather…scammy doesn’t it.

    • Anyone

      don’t worry, the $25 fee has stopped them from sending any letters at all (there was a recent article here on TF on that matter)

      and if they do send you a letter get a VPN and carry on

  • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

    Yes, they should be punished. At least with stiff fines when they knowingly or because of exceeding contempt for process and accuracy send these copyright notices.

    If they do it more than say…. 5 times in a year, they should then be looking at criminal charges as well for perjury.

    Do I see either of those things happening? Nope, these people have too many connections in the current governments to have that happen.

    • SluttyMary

       If corporations are people, they should be sentenced to jail as well… everyone in the company.

  • Mrzen

    Imagine what would happen if some spambots were set up to generate zillions of believable takedown notices across the board.  The only response would be to create a system resistant to automated takedown notices. :) 

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      I was laughing at that. That would be the nightmare of most ‘copyright protection’ companies because they would then have to sign every notice with a pgp signature so companies could be sure that they were actually legitimate.

  • Cujo

    The DMCA take down thingy etc etc hasn’t made any difference what so ever to stop sharing and never will  ,, a big waste off time for everyone concerned  ,,  Well ok  ,, maybe a little difference  ,, it now takes one minute instead of 30 seconds to find what you’re looking for.

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Actually, I don’t even think it has increased the time period necessary to find something that you are looking for.

  • Email

    You are a fucking joke. You pulled copyright bullshit on Mila Parkours research she was sharing on malware she had shared on mediafire.

  • Heisenberg7

    I have a fun way to get back at these trolls, and if I had the means I would totally do it:

    -Start a fake cyberlocker service  and put bogus video and music files on it, such as the names you would expect to see of a movie download. These wouldn’t be the actual movies or music files, just the right amount of random data.
    -Charge a $50 fee per takedown notice. For each takedown notice research will be done as to the actual legitimacy of the rights-holder. If it turns out they are legitimately the rights-holder, they will receive a $25 refund for each notice.
    -A log will be kept of each rights-holder that sends out a bogus notice,and once enough data is collected, they will be taken to court and shown to have committed perjury. 
    -If the cyberlocker is attacked by the MAFIAA and taken to court it can be shown and proven that the files stored on the cyberlocker were not actually infringing, but only appeared to be (hopefully). In theory, this should hold up if a judge has his head screwed on straight.
    -Watch the MAFIAA’s shit get pushed in for committing perjury for bogus notices
    -????
    -Profit

  • http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

    of course. fuckers should be punished

  • ScrewEwe2

    The MAFIAA’s credo with these bogus DMCA takedown notices seems to be: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

  • Lol

    absolutely. it’s fraud and it costs the recipient of the fake notice money. i don’t understand why they aren’t already being punished.

  • Psylent1

    Last week the Hugo Awards were being streamed live but right after the award for TV writing, the stream was blocked due to a copyright bot claiming infringement for the clip of Dr Who (which BTW won).

    They will rebroadcast it tonight, but the damage is done. We are just one step away from pre-crime, punishment before you break the law.

    http://io9.com/5941428/after-copyright-takedown-debacle-ustream-to-rebroadcast-the-hugo-awards-on-sunday-night

    • meowmix

      ok. i’m obviously dence here, but where did you get to (not) see this streamed live?

      • Anyone

        Ustream was streaming it, until the bot took it down
        and their system is so fucked up that once a stream got a takedown not even the admins could restart it

        • meowmix

          thanks for the info. i will check it out.

  • ScrewEwe2

    O.T. This is a great hack in Windows 7 which I ran across a few day’s ago, that was new to me, so I thought I would share it:

    Windows 8, Windows 7, Server 2008, and flavors of Windows Vista provide an unpublished ability to create a control panel called GodMode that allows you to have easy access to almost all administrative tasks that you would like to use in Windows. This new window is called GodMode because it puts all aspects of the management of Windows at your fingertips in one location.To create the GodMode control panel on your desktop:

    1. Create a “New Folder” on your desktop.

    2. Rename the new folder as follows: GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}

    That’s all there is to it. It will look like the normal “Control Panel” icon with the name “GodMode”.

    • Gupta

      Do I delete sys32 as well? 

      • ScrewEwe2

        I imagine you’re joking, but just in case. You don’t delete anything. Create a new folder on the desktop and rename it from “New Folder” to:

        GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}

        Windows wouldn’t allow you to delete the System 32 folder anyways.

        • foff

          Pretty fucking cool thanks

        • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

           That is so fecken good, it not only works, but I’ve came in my pants too (first time in >20yrs, so THANKS).

          I’m looking forward to having some fun with this whilst the ads are on during my fave TV episodes ;)

    • meowmix

      i saw this on tomshardware page and it works:

      http://www.tomshardware.com/news/GodMode-Windows-7-How-to,9345.html

      • ScrewEwe2

        I got the info from the Bleeping Computer forum, but yeah, it’s the same procedure.

  • Fake

    Is it a crime to falsely pull a fire alarm?  Yes.

    Is it a crime to repeatedly call the police for civil matters?  Yes.

    In most US states, it is already a felony to make false legal claims without due diligence.  So yes.

  • Violated0

    We can debate forever the specifics of resolving this problem but it is true to say that the situation is out of control and there can never be a valid excuse for doing false censorship. Rights holders have been granted a tool to protect their media but if they abuse this tool than either DMCA take-down notices should be removed from their use or restrictions imposed to enforce proper use.

    If a fines system was introduced then I would predict great improvement in their accuracy when to just carry on with a 57% error rate would be like losing money like water from a tap. There is no better motive to have them improve their accuracy than to put their financial balls on the chopping block.

    I can only say where is a good politician when you need one? Until someone does change this situation then day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year will countless thousands more items be falsely censored. And no one is immune from this when even the President of the United States has been falsely censored and deleted from the Internet. These are dark days for the Internet indeed so I do much welcome the light of improvement.

    • Heisenberg7

      You words are always so profound, Violated0 :)

  • Guest

    So basically MAFIAA wants to punish for sharing their product but they don’t to be responsible for false DMCA requests. WOW Justice is for sale…

    • Vincent Giannell

       Not for long if someone accuses them for false claims.

  • Live performances

    New business model…

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelstabile/how-live-sex-is-saving-the-porn-industry

    [...] The key to cams’ success is the interaction with the star — so unlike traditional porn, there’s little incentive to pirate. A taped cam show is like a taxidermied pet: It might look the same, but it’s a little lifeless. So while the rest of the porn industry fights to keep its content off torrent sites, cams are exploding. They may share a lineage with filmed porn, but it’s a Darwinian offshoot that has suddenly found itself immune to the virus that’s killing off its competitors. [...]

  • Zagam

    If its perjury one strike and go direct to gaol.

  • Dave

    Nothing short of armed revolution is going to stop this kind of abuse of power, I fear.

    • ScrewEwe2

      “Nothing short of armed revolution is going to stop this kind of abuse of power, I fear.”

      That would discriminate against people who have had both arms amputated at the shoulder :-(

  • Boblenton3

    I give it 4years where the internet will just lose its purpose in life we may aswell go back to tele-text at this rate. Way I always see it. We pay for our broadband (£35 $45) monthly. WE can do whatever we want without no reason to spy, hack, track, delete, CENSORED.  MPAA and the rest can just Die

  • Mykeyfinn

    If you really want to “combat” piracy trying to censor the internet will never work.  You will just send the pirates further underground using less and less detectable and findable means to share and copy files.  These erroneous DMCA notices and frivolous lawsuits are just bogging down the system and creating havoc and censorship in a place where it should not exist.  As already demonstrated in Australia a minimal fee for  DMCA notices would cause a sharp decline in automated notices, even $5 would do the trick.  These notices are being sent in the thousands each day.  If you want something filed in the real world you must pay a processing and filing fee at the court house regardless of winning or loosing.  If we want DMCA to be law then it should be treated as such along with its benefits should come the fees.  Any corporation will be forced to improve its software at the thought of loosing even $50 a day, and would clean up their filing systems.  The big issue here is the automation on both sides, with the industry sending out vast amounts of these requests a day, the workload is just too high to handle on a human level.  What is occurring is basically burying a defendant in paperwork, but automatically complying is the wrong answer here.  If the industry continues to flood the system with notices then as a whole we should just stop paying attention because clearly they are abusing it and not really paying attention themselves.  Luckily this has not been the case as it would bog down the legal system of the world because if we start pressing charges of our own then retaliation is the only response the Corporations understand.  While we can be charged as individuals and can have our freedoms removed, the Corporations are now “People” but can only be fined as a whole.  Wrapping up the only real solution here is to make it financially unfeasible for a large corporation to flood the system and to cut out automation of legal matters, s this leads to mistakes and loss of revenue all around.  Oh and to those who are saying that pirates are driving private artists out of business need to rethink that.  A music artist or author who signs with a record label may get an advance but will only make possibly 2-3 cents out of very $100 he/she generates in sales as royalties.  On the other hand a person who puts their music or book out to iTunes privately will make considerably more as they get a good chunk of the sales to them.  Also market research has shown that people who’s music is pirated actually will experience a genuine and long lasting jump in sales not a decline.  And the real pirates who only take and won’t ever actually buy don’t really count as that sale was never gonna happen anyway.  But said pirate may play that song at a party and someone who was never exposed to the artist may like it and buy it.  Marketing 101 ~ The sample.  Please commence the trolling as these are only my opinions and should not be taken as gospel.

    • Heisenberg7

      Cool story bro. Paragraphs, ever heard of ‘em?

      • Techanon

        disqus usually fucks up the paragraphs.
        protip: use <p></p> tags to format the paragraphs.
        example: <p>write paragraph here</p>

  • Pingback: Kalex's Tome &raquo Yes, they should be. | Kalex's Tome

  • tiqiann

     http://lnk.co/I2VI9

  • foff

    What really bugs me about this shit is the complete lack of due process.  Is copyright so fucking important that it trumps all due process and deserves no accountability.  Who in gods hell do the people sending these notices think they are?  Our worthless lawmakers need to put an end to this nonsense.  Not one fucking person is stopped from getting the content they want because of these takedowns.  Whatever you want is all over the net.  This is a totally useless as fuck exercise.  I can’t believe how incredibly stupid humans are due to a little a greed. For gods sake is there any content creator that is not adequate paid for content?  There are probably more millionaires in the media business then any other business.  So fuck all you who send these notices.

  • copyrightuk

    I think that a
    small amount of money something like $5 or $15 should be required in escrow to
    make the takedown request. If the request proves to be valid then
    there should be no consent and the content should be taken and money should be
    returned. On the other case if the request proves to be false then the money should
    be split between the hosting service and the poster of the content you tried to
    have removed.

  • http://twitter.com/Vonster Von Glitschka

    Copyright isn’t just for multi-national content creators. It’s also for small business owners like myself who get infringed. And in any given year I’m having to follow up with around 85 cases per year. Why should I have to pay $25 every time someone is an AssHat and steals from me? So unless the fee is tax deductible I’m not interested in paying $2,000+ a year just to stop those who rip me off.

    • Guest

      Why should anyone else pay to do your policing?

      The funny thing about you “content creators” is that you usually never post any credentials, aside from accusing everyone from being pirates because some of your content found their way to filesharing sites. Tell you what – those of us who don’t rip anyone off, much less you, are getting pretty damn pissed about paying for laws you overstep or bribe your way into, and having you call us pirates for enjoying content we legally procure.

      Any interest we might have had in your works is now moot as a result of your advocate of reckless copyright takedowns. Congratulations.

    • Guest

      Why should any company take losses on your behalf?
      Why should the consumer pay more for services on your behalf?
      It cost more than $25 to handle each of your 85 notices.
      There’s a reason you have an asshat problem.
      Probably the same reason your work is not worth $2,000 a year to protect
      The system designed to deter pointless takedown requests works.

      In this world nothing is free“ except your content HAHAHAHAHA

    • HappyArtist

       You could save a lot of time and effort if you thought of it as free publicity instead of calling people thieves.

      Maybe that doesn’t work for small business owners? I don’t know what kind of business you have so I can’t say much about that. It sure works well for artists. How ridiculous is it to spend time, effort and money trying to stop people from hearing your music?

      In my experience:
      1. Those who like your music a lot are happy to give you money and tell their friends about you.
      2. Those who like your music a little will tell their friends, and maybe give you some money if they have some extra.
      3. Those who don’t like your music won’t give you money. Which is good. I never liked buying music only to find out that I hate it.

      You know what those three groups have in common? They all heard your music and it didn’t cost you a cent.

      In the end, everyone is happy. Everybody wins. Everybody except the lawyers and the middlemen.

    • Anyone

      you want the content removed, you should pay for the work that has to be done for that, why should someone else pay for that?

      and noone is stealing from you, copying is not stealing

    • Violated0

      There are two separate lines of thought here.

      The first is a charge to pay for using their take-down service. It is a job and people have to do it but currently they lose money because you don’t pay a fair fee to cover their services and equipment.

      Second would be fines for abusing the DMCA take-down process in false requests where money would be taken from your DMCA balance. Should your take-down requests all be accurate then you would lose no money at all. So why would you ever oppose this?

      As pointed out above you expect everything for free just because you create media and why should people who make mistakes not be fined for their mistakes when their damage to the Internet is currently out of control.

    • foff

      Would you care to explain what you are talking about.  Give us a specific example of just how you imagine you are being ripped off.  If you can’t prove your will claims you are just making up bs.

  • xpmule

    i say we start a petition to get everyone that supports file sharing on the net
    to ALL share one file considered copyrighted and un-shareable.
    When the volume of sites gets far larger than it is now they will have to rethink their business model. Encroaching on my freedom is unacceptable regardless of whatever made up moral agenda these ant-piracy terrorists want to push.
    They are extortionists, thieves, vandals, bullies, hackers and possibly the most corrupt hypocritical pieces of shit in the world. Their business model involves retard court fines for pirates as the focus not making and selling products or services.
    Really the underhanded sneaky manipulative and often deceitful behavior of anti-piracy advocates can’t be ignored. “Taking the word” of scum is not an option and their take down requests should be held under scrutiny considering their track record.

    the anti-piracy terrorists need to be stopped !
    and THEY need to be held accountable..

  • Cheesy Peteza

    The solution seems simple to me and requires no change in the law.

    If a company sends repeated false claim reports then ignore any future requests from that company. Perhaps give them a reasonable time to sort out their mess before accepting requests from them.

    If they want to take you to court for not following up their claims then so be it. They can explain to the judge that they were knowingly making false claims under oath. I don’t think the judge will take kindly to that.

    • Violated0

      You make a good point but there is a problem in this.

      For example we know from history that UMG has falsely taken down videos from YouTube on several occasions. So what would happen if YouTube did ban UMG from using their take-down service? Like UMG could pull out all the media they let YouTube use. Or they could have fun dragging YouTube through court for years.

      My point is these people are control freaks and they would not respond well to companies taking away their control. So a fines system is more simple when under set rules they clearly see they messed up and was punished fairly but they don’t lose their control. Still if you did have suspension as well then sure a 3 strikes with known resumption should be tolerable.

    • YoHoFiddleDeeDee

      The law currently does no allow for such simple solutions – if you ignore takedown notices you lose your “safe harbor” status.

  • Pingback: Los infinitos abusos del copyright (y la escasa voluntad para ponerles coto) » El Blog de Enrique Dans

  • Pingback: Los infinitos abusos del copyright (y la escasa voluntad para ponerles coto) | Tecnología mulera

  • chronoss chiron

    yes lets shoot and kill every last one of the bastards….
    cut em up in small parts and leave them on the lawn of there residence a week.
    should send the right message

    • Violated0

      We used to do things like that back in the 17th century so lets just leave that were it belongs in history.

      • xpmule

         Yeah and a Jumbo jet would be more effective anyway ;)

  • Pingback: New Kindle Fire Tablets Will Track User Behavior Too

  • Pingback: Los infinitos abusos del copyright (y la escasa voluntad para ponerles coto) | Blog PeruW

  • Guest

    Was it not mentioned on here Torrent Freak a few weeks back about a filesharing? website getting so fed up with the increase amounts of DMCA requests that they told the senders that due to the time and effort etc. that it takes to deal with such requests that they will now charge the senders of DMCA requests to cover their time and effort costs with dealing with the DMCA requests. Hollywood and the MAFFIA quickly slammed the website in stating that the website was profiteering from piracy for charging a price to deal with the DMCA requests.

    I can see Hollywood and the MAFFIA coming out with a load of bull crap and lies accusing anyone who charges to deal with DMCA requests of profiteering from piracy!

  • Pingback: Weekend tech reading: Kindle Fire HD 8.9" versus the iPad 3 | Ipad HD review

  • Thricebedamned

    Takedown notification should be subject to perjury laws.

  • David

    Should pirates be punished for copyright violations? Oh wait..

    • xpmule

      No only the people who index the piracy lol
      i guess there is no distinction is there ;)

  • Muddro

    they should be given three strikes, and then have their internet revoked.

  • http://www.copyrightinfringementadvisor.com/ John Whitaker

    This is a very serious problem.  I already called out takedownpiracy.com for this very problem.  Basically a one-man show is the number one DMCA takedown notice issuer in the world.  He can’t possibly be investigating any of those! Some one needs to bring an action under 17 usc 512(f) for false takedown notices. See my post on takedownpiracy.com below.

    http://www.copyrightinfringementadvisor.com/2012/07/19/dmca-takedown-notices-being-abused/

  • Pingback: The Problem with Battling Bad DMCA Notices | Plagiarism Today

  • Pingback: Weekend tech reading: Kindle Fire HD 8.9" versus the iPad 3 - TechSpot |

  • Pingback: incentives to prevent bogus takedown requests — Lucas Gonze's blog

  • John Mellor

    I wonder if this will work?

  • John Mellor

     Yes, it did work. All my posts as SleepyJohn keep disappearing, so here is the last one:

     It seems to me that this whole sordid, racketeering mess could be resolved very simply thus:

    1    Artists should rise above the gross, materialistic, entitlement mentality of the half-witted middlemen and see the internet for what it really is – the most incredible, free distribution and publicity machine ever dreamed up by man. They should learn to use this unbelievably powerful tool and thank God every day that it was not invented by those middlemen or they would be charged hundreds of dollars every time they opened a browser!

    2    Greedy middlemen should be treated just as they treat others on the internet. If $150,000 is seen as a reasonable fine for putting another’s work on the internet, then $150,000 should be a reasonable fine for taking another’s work off the internet. That, I suspect, would reduce the number of false DMCA takedowns that ISPs and search engines have to deal with.

    Artists should be siding with the people, not the criminals. They should be viewing free downloads as free publicity, and milk it for all it is worth – which, with the right skill and determination, is clearly a hell of a lot more than the mythical ‘lost sales’. Ask an advertising agency to cost it out for you. And look at the increasing numbers of creators who deliberately put their work on torrent sites etc for the publicity and exposure. Are they pleased that Google is now banning their ‘adverts’ from its search listings?

    The internet is rapidly evolving into a worldwide gestalt human brain, with each of us an integral part of it, and standing to benefit enormously from it. Do we really want it controlled by huge corporations that dictate the law, acting like 1930s gangsters?

  • Pingback: Weekend tech reading: Kindle Fire HD 8.9" versus the iPad 3 | iPadHD.name

  • joexxx

    Punishment should be symmetric to the punishment of real copyright infringement.

  • Isp-slave

    hey I don’t care about artists or copyright infringers.. 
    but if I have to take down videos or whatnot.. I better get paid..
    If I were to dig a hole all day.. I would get paid..
    So .. 25$ or I don’t process any take-downs KK?

    I can’t live of good feeling that some fatcats get another golden chain for my work..

  • VZ

    On the bright side, recent reports suggest the US economy will completely collapse by 2016 if not sooner.

    By then the studios and record labels will be babkrupt and out of business. As a bons, there won’t be any money left in US government coffers to waste on anti piracy measures.

  • austinhamman

    maybe this is something the EFF should take up. if the person making the claim is saying the claim is valid under threat of perjury, why not take some of those perjury cases to trial. EFF of someone else could set up a service where they will take incorrect copyright notices to court. EFF has the legal force and have generally shown to be a source for good on the internet, on top of disliking aggressive DMCA takedown notices this seems like just the thing for them.
    when these people know that actions have consequences and when it hurt their bottom line maybe they will cut back(or more likely they will change the law so they arent liable for false accusations)

  • Guest

    As an actual published artist who issues actual takedown notices for
    my own music on
    a regular basis, having to pay $25 for each one would be
    unacceptable. It would add thousands of dollars to the cost of making
    and releasing an album, or even a single, which would be prohibitive for basically everyone but the major labels.

    A
    $25 deposit would be reasonable as long as it’s refunded promptly. Or
    better still, if I could roll over one deposit to the next takedown as
    long as they’re all legit, so we’re not sending each other $25 back and
    forth all day. But I don’t think it would help anything. The major labels would consider it a minuscule cost of doing business.

    The
    best idea I’ve heard so far to fix the scattershot problem is the
    exponentially escalating fees for false takedowns that others have
    suggested. If a legit artist accidentally issues a false takedown, he
    pays $25. If WEA negligently issues 300 of them, they pay $25,
    then $50, then $100, and so on until it caps out at $150K each after
    the first 12. They’d find a way to stop making those mistakes very
    quickly.

    A couple people have suggested that these fees would
    legitimize what the RIAA is doing. I don’t think that’s true. They’re
    already committing perjury, and negligently harming other people, and as
    long as they never hurt anyone with standing to sue and the deep
    pockets to take on someone like Sony, they will continue to get away
    with it. The fines would not change any of that. They’d still be
    committing perjury and negligence, and the fact that they’d had to pay
    fines to the government would not affect their liability to the injured
    parties in any way. (In fact, the presence of those fines could be used
    as evidence in a case against them.)

    So there’s really no
    downside to the idea. Of course there’s no lobby to push for it (unless
    Google suddenly decides that reducing the cost of processing scattershot
    takedowns is a very high priority), so it probably won’t happen—but
    it’s exactly what _should_ happen.
     

  • Pingback: wrightitdown.com » Two Copywrongs Don’t Make A Right, But We Still Need A Way To Combat False Takedown Notices

  • Anonymous

    ‘ A three-strikes system might be appropriate here, where repeat offenders
    are forbidden from sending any notices for at least a month’

    why would this be appropriate? if a member of the public is accused of copyright infringement, he doesn’t get banned from the internet for a month. he gets a fine of $150,000 per infringement and a probable prison term. on top of that, the chances are he would lose his ISP and have a hell of a time getting another one. all of these punishments, remember, would be based on nothing more than an IP address!

  • Rachel Ramey

    I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that the best solution is to make legitimate copyright holders PAY to tell someone to stop using their work. That’s pretty similar to saying that if my neighbor steals my car, I should have to PAY to tell him to give it back.  In what world does that make sense? 

    People filing legitimate claims are not the problem here, and should not be punished by any viable solution.  It’s the people filing BOGUS claims that are a problem, and any reasonable solution should address THEM and not legitimate filers.

    I think a fine for filing a bogus claim is perfectly reasonable, as is an enforced delay in the ability to file a claim for repeat offenders.

    • flubalubaful

      The problem as has been outlined rather well with this article is that those with the right to copyright material don’t care who gets hurt in there process of keeping there content out of reach of people.

      In fact they are supposedly inadvertently destroying there competition by removing other peoples copyrighted or not copyrighted creations, by removing there product from view. In all honesty I doubt this is a mistake it is too convenient.

      That said if everyone who uses the DMCA knows they will receive large fines for taking down non infringing materiel they will most definitely make sure they are taking down only there copyrighted works.

      I think a gradual response is called for , the first time they take down any ones content with a dmca illegally they pay for any loss to income and a fine of say $1000.00 the second time they pay a fine of $10 000 and the third time a fine of $100 000 and also lose the ability to take down any content for 6 months. If they have such a lack of respect for others works then they should not expect any for there’s.

      The DMCA already has a protection against being used like it is , for some reason people are not using that aspect of the dmca to go after the big copyright holders. They should, and not only to receive a payment for losses but to stop them taking content down that is not there’s.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Simeon-Beresford/1642490035 Simeon Beresford

      to further your analogy this article is about people who say their car was stolen and seize their innocent neighbours.

  • Wormlore

    As others stated above:
    - I don’t agree with a fixed fee for each notice. If they’re right, they should be able to enforce this without having to bear the cost themselves.
    - A fine for [i]wrong[/i] notices is fair. But not a fixed fine: that would still make it negligible for big players. An incremental fine, possibly culminating with a ban from notifying, that would set them on the path of responsibility. Start low (mistakes happen, let’s suppose [i]some[/i] people actually act in good faith), but rise high (so as to give a real incentive to check notices before sending them).

    And they would complain for sure, but that’s fair balance compared to what they asked (and sometimes obtained) in the last decades. Trials aiming for millions of dollars on the basis of a few dozens files; laws banning websites on [i]suspicion[/i] of infringement; website take-down without notice, putting an abrupt stop to several lawful uses in addition to unlawful infringements…

  • Pingback: » Fake Copyright Takedown Requests and Us TVWriter.Com

  • Pingback: Torrent News » Prominent Anti-Piracy Chief Suspected of Drug Crime

  • Gdgdf

    Rico Management is bogus

  • Pingback: A Better Definition Of “Non-Commercial” - Falkvinge on Infopolicy

  • Pingback: Weekend tech reading: Kindle Fire HD 8.9" versus the iPad 3 | iPad Press

  • Pingback: YouTube mejora tímidamente su política de contenidos » El Blog de Enrique Dans

  • Pingback: Noticia: YouTube mejora tímidamente su política de contenidos

  • Pingback: Microsoft DMCA Notice ‘Mistakenly’ Targets BBC, Techcrunch, Wikipedia and U.S. Govt | TorrentFreak

  • Pingback: Microsoft DMCA Notice ‘Mistakenly’ Targets BBC, Techcrunch, Wikipedia and U.S. Govt | Best Seedbox

  • Pingback: Microsoft DMCA Notice ‘Mistakenly’ Targets BBC, Techcrunch, Wikipedia and U.S. Govt | We R Pirates

  • John Shutter

    The fundamental flaw here, Team, is with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) itself. As a result of threat, coercion, and the proverbial crying of “Wolf,” the entertainment industry collectively succeeded in convincing lawmakers that Google, Inc. should be required to execute all takedowns free of charge. This is a significant flaw to the DMCA, and one that I am shortly to begin work to correct. It is a flaw that Google had to allow because the industry, and the government, threatened the Corporation with the loss of its Safe Harbor protection status if it objected.

    Much has been written of the catastrophic effect that piracy is having on the entertainment industry. However, outside of TorrentFreak, nothing has been written of the equally catastrophic financial, and physical, effect that piracy has had on Google itself. As a direct result of a flawed legislative ruling, Google is now required to provide, free of all financial charge, a service designed to clean up messes that not only did Google not make, the Corporation took actual steps to prevent. This is the primary error incorporated into the DMCA.

    Most of us here read Google’s transparency report for Calendar Year 2011. The statistics were not only compelling, they were – depending on your view – devastating. In 2011, Google received an average of 11,000,000 takedown notices per month, for an averaged annual total of 132,000,000. Each takedown required a minimum of ten physical actions, from cutting-and-pasting, to mouse clicks, to keystrokes. Thus, for Calendar Year 2011, Google employees performed over 1 billion separate acts to remain compliant with Federal ruling. Free of charge.

    Further, a measurable portion of these takedown notices involve files that – in fact – had already been taken down. There are multiple individuals monitoring piracy for The Walt Disney Company. Source 1 discovers that Down and Out in Beverly Hills has been uploaded to YouTube at the same approximate time that Source 2 discovers the same file. The problem here is that Source 2 generated, and delivered, the DMCA takedown five hours before Source 1. As a result, by the time Google received, and took physical action, on the second notice, the file in question was already removed.

    We have now identified the second significant flaw with this process. In addition to carrying a per-notice fee, DMCA notices should NOT be sent to Google directly; they need to be sent to the presumed copyright holders. It should be the responsibility of the holder of the copyright to ensure that duplicates are not delivered to Google. Each of you here know how deliciously simple this removal of duplicates can be accomplished. There are any number of programs, up to and including Microsoft Access, that can identify and isolate repeats, preserving only the unique value.

    The entertainment industry has created quite the comfortable bed for themselves, a position of comfort which they are collectively loathe to abandon. They have prevailed upon the government to require that Google provide policing services free of charge. Further, they have successfully transferred their own administrative costs with respect to piracy to Google. This is damningly unfair, and it has become damningly costly to a Corporation who played no active role in the upload. (The fact that Google created the platform is not legislatively defined as an “active role.” The Olive Garden supplies an all-you-can-eat salad bar; they cannot reasonably control what you put on your plate from that salad bar.)

    When I walked into the anti-piracy fray I was fully prepared to do battle for the studios. In relatively short order, I learned what each of you has known for years: piracy is not one-tenth of the problem the industry states it to be. The problem here, in addition to what we’ve discussed above, is that the Internal Revenue Service allows studios to claim pirated material as a tax write-off. This is here relevant when we consider the fact that Google, “on more than one occasion,” has caught a major motion picture studio uploading its own content to YouTube, just to generate the views, which are then claimed to the IRS as a “product loss” due to “theft or destruction.”

    In relatively short order, I executed a sharp 180 degree turn. It is not that the industry needs to be protected from Google: Ladies and gentlemen, Google largely needs to be protected from the entertainment industry. In response to an query posed by a Friend of mine, I robustly stated that “I have NOTHING but sympathy for Google, Inc.” Nothing but sympathy. The studios have enjoyed an extraordinary free ride at Google’s financial expense. Further, and here Team it now affects each and every one of you, this ride has come at the expense of the American taxpayer. The ride needs to be terminated.

    So. To (finally) answer the question “Should repeat offenders be punished?” I can only authoritatively answer “Yes.” To that I add that the DMCA needs to be substantially altered, simply because the DMCA is substantially flawed. It has assigned the weight of responsibility to the wrong party, and it engenders a degree of complacency that not only contributes to piracy, but denies the Nation from taxable income. it needs to be immediately corrected.

    John Shutter
    http://www.veritas281.com
    jshutter@veritas281.com
    @johnshutter

    • http://7-books.net/ JohnM

      - Google, “on more than one occasion,” has caught a major motion picture studio uploading its own content to YouTube, just to generate the views, which are then claimed to the IRS as a “product loss” due to “theft or destruction.” -

      Dear God, the further we reach into the Entertainment Industry’s barrel the more rotten the apples become. This ‘industry’ really is a festering sore on the arsehole of humanity. I checked your website and could hardly believe the about face you have made. No-one could accuse you of being a ranting ‘freetard’. Well done, sir.

      • John Shutter

        John:

        Thank You for the courtesy of your response.

        On three separate occasions, Google has caught representatives of three major motion picture studios uploading their own content to YouTube. In each of those three, the films in question failed to cover their production costs during theatrical release. It can only be surmised that these films were “pirated” to YouTube for the purpose of generating views which, as we now know, is synonymous – at the Internal Revenue Service – with “product loss.” If this is, in fact, what happened, the write-off doubtless provided a degree of financial largesse that ultimately rendered the three profitable.

        I have nothing but sympathy for Google, John. In a moment of significant weakness, they allowed the inclusion in the Digital Copyright Millennium Act of the clause which requires that Google shoulder sole financial responsibility for the removal of offending links, and files. The Industry, working in concert with Senator Chris Dodd (MPAA) and – it must be said – the government itself, collectively threatened Google with the loss of their Safe Harbour status. Caught off guard and in a weakened position, Google simply, unwisely, capitulated.

        Now. Here’s the problem. The studios have the right to claim piracy as a taxable write-off. The production companies, the financiers, the television networks: they, too, have this same legal right. For not only does the IRS allow it, the Internal Revenue Service actually requires it. Product loss to a manufacturer, due to either theft or destruction, is a statistic critical to the correct calculation of the Gross Domestic Product.

        However, the actors and actresses who made these films, the actors and/or actresses whom we have interest in – an interest that triggered our decision to watch the film in the first place – THEY DO NOT have the right to claim piracy as a write-off. They are denied that financial benefit, even though they are the reason for the film’s profitability. (Neither of us, John, has ever known anyone to see a film simply because it was released by Twentieth-Century Fox. We see the Fox film because it stars Meryl Streep. Thus: why does the studio get an advantage denied to Streep?) Quite the festering sore, yes?

        My website is shortly to undergo a major overhaul. I can keep you posted if you’re interested.

        Thank You again, John, for your kind interest in my Comment.

        A Not-Quite-Ranting Freetard,

        John Shutter
        @johnshutter

      • John Shutter

        Incidentally, John, this is what YouTube and corporate Parent Google should be dedicating more of their time, and resources, to. From The Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/youtube-expands-original-content-abroad-more-than-60-channels-launch-377013. This, not suffocating under a shower of frivolous, ultimately pointless, DMCA Takedown Notices.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Simeon-Beresford/1642490035 Simeon Beresford

    I have seen graphic designers in businesses forced to close by false malicious take dow notices.

    • John Shutter

      It’s outrageous, Simeon. And, it’s common practice. One image, one thread of text, one simple link can trigger the takedown notice. Here, evidently “something” on their respective pages triggered the DMCA complaint: I would have fought it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bovski Dmitri Bovski

    Why not create an app like LOIC to spam google with TakeDown notices to content owners sites IE Microsoft, Universal, Even IMDB Pages to the latest movies & official Youtube releases to stop them monetising their content with youtube.

    And those that think its a good idea to charge them false take downs the figure is simple $150,000 per infringement.

  • 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.