Censor the Internet!



  • This is what happens when morons get to rule on technology:



  • Nothing new, DMCA is a joke.



  • And while we’re on the topic of self censorship, it’s worth noting that Universal Pictures also asked Google, in a separate notice, to remove http://127.0.0.1 from the search results.

    I just silently hope that one day, one dumb automated system meets another...



  • It's so bad that :facepalm: won't cut it, you need double faceplam.

    I'll add that by sending the C&D request to Techdirt too, they're making sure the news spread as far as it can reach.



  • If they want to censor themselves, who are we to argue?



  • @redwizard said:

    If they want to censor themselves, who are we to argue?

    I'll argue against banning localhost. They didn't even have the decency to use their public ip.



  • A related WTF:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    > And while we’re on the topic of self censorship, it’s worth noting that Universal Pictures also asked Google, in a separate notice, to remove http://127.0.0.1 from the search results.

    Already discovered:

    https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/the-quasi-official-stupid-ideas-that-have-actually-been-done-thread/4621/541?u=pjh



  • The search engine is still validating the validity of the claims...

    :rage:

    The author "chose a good choice" of image to describe the article.



  • I like the way that guy is facepalming his face with his palm.



  • Can anyone send a DMCA takedown notice on behalf of anyone to anyone?

    I'd love to see a company with no license to a copyright send a DMCA takedown notice of the actual copyrighted material in the correct place to a company that couldn't do anything about it even if there had actually been a problem.

    Example:
    Apple sends a takedown notice on behalf of Microsoft of the front page of google.com to Valve.



  • @ben_lubar said:

    Can anyone send a DMCA takedown notice on behalf of anyone to anyone?
    No.

    @ben_lubar said:

    Apple sends a takedown notice on behalf of Microsoft of the front page of google.com to Valve.
    The notice must be sent by a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the material, and must state under penalty of perjury that the sender is authorized to act on behalf of the owner. Apple could not validly send a notice on behalf of Microsoft unless Microsoft authorized them do so. The notice must be sent to the designated agent of the OSP that is hosting or linking to the (allegedly) infringing material. Sending a notice about infringing material on Google to Valve would be useless unless Valve was Google's designated agent.



  • And, as has been pointed out many times before, there is no penalty for not having a good faith belief that the materiel is, in fact, infringing.



  • There is the possibility of a lawsuit; 17 U.S. Code § 512(f) provides that "Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents ... that material or activity is infringing ... shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees..." However, only the statement that the person sending the notice is authorized to do so is under penalty of perjury. The "statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief..." part of the notice is not.

    Realistically, though, the threat of a lawsuit is not much of a deterence. The number of people whose YouTube videos are taken down because of a false accusation that have the resources to pursue a lawsuit in Federal court are approximately zero. If somebody did pursue and win a case, the likely outcome would be nothing more than a ruling that the material was not infringing and could remain online. There might be some circumstances where they might be able to recover damages — I suppose one might claim loss of income from a non-infringing parody or critical review — but in most cases, if you're making any money that you lost because of the take-down, it probably wasn't fair use, and you won't win the suit.

    Further, if someone whose material was removed did file suit against the person making the false allegation, they would have to show not only that the allegation was false, but that the allegation was made in bad faith. This would be difficult to prove, unless the alleger was so stupid as to leave a trail of documents showing that he knew the material was not infringing, but sent the notice despite knowing it was false.

    The other thing that struck me from reading about it is that there is no requirement for the OSP to investigate whether the claim of infringement is valid; in fact, there is a strong incentive to not do so. They can investigate whether the take-down notice itself is valid (filed properly, the thing that is identified as infringing actually exists under their control, and contains the allegedly infringing material), but trying to determine whether the allegation is valid opens them up to liability.

    If the OSP follows the procedure defined in the law, they are protected from liability from either the copyright owner or the alleged infringer. If they do not take down allegedly infringing material because they believe it is not infringing, they forfeit their protection under the law. An OSP might do this if the allegation is so obviously false that they feel certain of winning a suit if the sender of the notice files one, but they put would themselves at risk by doing so, so they're more likely to play it safe, follow the procedure, and take down the material.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    The number of people whose YouTube videos are taken down

    This does not happen under the DMCA, but under YouTubes ContentId. This means a user is essentially unable to escalate because of the YouTube TOS.



  • No, it actually happens under both schemes. They don't exactly like to tell you which one it is, but you can eventually deduce it from the messages you get, I think.





  • @HardwareGeek said:

    unless the alleger was so stupid as to leave a trail of documents showing that he knew the material was not infringing, but sent the notice despite knowing it was false

    What I don't get is how fully automated takedown requests don't instantly count as having been made in bad faith. Are there really people who don't understand that bots are just not up to the job?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.