10 ms·

All DMCA notices filed against TorrentFreak in 2019 were bogus

349 points by MikusR 7y ago

sarcasmatwork 7y ago
First ty TF for your work. Is Torrentfreak getting their legal fee's back for these baseless claims? The courts dont seem to like FRCP rule 11 against lawyers as it makes the whole system bad. Perjury is a slap on the write imho. These claims just clog the legal system with more shenanigans. There needs to be some accountability for this baseless claims.
- gruez 7y ago
  AFAIK DMCA notices don't go through the courts. They're just sent to the site owner, who must comply or file a counter notice. Also, AFAIK there haven't been any prosecutions for people abusing DMCA notices.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > AFAIK DMCA notices don't go through the courts. They're just sent to the site owner, who must comply or file a counter notice. I think you're mixing two things: * if a site owner receives a DMCA notice and believes the content is not infringing they can just do nothing and / or tell whoever sent it to get bent, sender may escalate to the courts * service providers which want to be protected under safe harbour must "act expeditiously to remove purported infringing content" regardless of counter-notices, this is not an either/or situation Content should be restored 10 to 14 days after the counter-notice is sent to the original claimant unless they engage in legal action, but it must be taken down either way: > 17 U.S. Code § 512 (c)(1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider— > […] > 17 U.S. Code § 512 (c)(1)(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. > […] > 17 U.S. Code § 512 (g)(2)(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and > 17 U.S. Code § 512 (g)(2)(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.
    - komali2 7y ago
      Lack of punishment for bad requests make me wonder if a valid business strategy is DMCAing competition at every turn. Also makes me wonder if people could DDOS an entire company with DMCA takedown requests.
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        > Also makes me wonder if people could DDOS an entire company with DMCA takedown requests. Fastest way to make change will probably be using their own game against them and have them lobby on your behalf
        twobat 7y ago
        I'm sure that if normal people try to do this they will be charged with something generic as fraud.
        dbuder 7y ago
        I'd file a motion for summary judgement immediately on the basis that there has been no prosecution of the "victim" and similar for their identical behaviour.
        quaquaqua1 7y ago
        russian VPN or similar solves this
      - reaperducer 7y ago
        Also makes me wonder if people could DDOS an entire company with DMCA takedown requests. Someone should DDOS the web pages of all the American congresscritters and their campaigns and campaign contractors with DMCA notices. That's probably the only way this will get fixed.
        jachee 7y ago
        Also the sites of their biggest corporate donors.
csande17 7y ago
> this time from Japanese company ‘유니콘미디어” That does not look like a Japanese company name to me.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  No idea if it's a Japanese company, but I'm pretty sure that's Hangul (Korean) script.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    The script is Korean. Judging by Google Translate, the name of the company is actually in English. For reference, the famous Korean MMO MapleStory (and the Korean company that operates it, Nexon) are actually, technically, headquartered in Japan. There's no particular reason to expect a Japanese company to operate in Japan or target Japanese customers. Is Uber a Delawarian company or a Californian company?
    - jellicle 7y ago
      I'd say it's a Dutch company. https://fortune.com/2019/09/09/uber-tax-breaks-losses/ https://fortune.com/2019/09/09/uber-tax-breaks-losses/
- neltnerb 7y ago
  If it is, they decided to make their name unintelligible to Japanese speakers for some reason. Maybe it's trendy.
ChrisMarshallNY 7y ago
> Japanese company "유니콘미디어" That looks like Korean, to me (Unicorn Media). DMCA seems to have been one of those things that we say "It seemed like such a good idea, at the time" after the fact. I'm certainly waiting to hear positive stories about it.
- trevyn 7y ago
  The positive story is that it safe harbored service providers.
- bawolff 7y ago
  Perhaps not a "positive" story, but legit dmcas do happen from time to time and seem reasonable enough to me (or at least reasonable enough in a world with copyrights). For example look at this list of dmca notices against wikipedia that wmf actually thought were valid https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DM... most of them seem reasonable enough to me. (IANAL) The problem is no effective oversight. Laws without oversight are going to be obviously abused. The DMCA is like if police were responsible to ensure their own warrents are valid.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > The problem is no effective oversight. Laws without oversight are going to be obviously abused. Lots of laws are privately enforced. DMCA doesn't have to be different. If you file a false DMCA claim, even if unknowingly, you should be liable for damages. To the platform, for their cost in dealing with your B.S. An to the content owner, for their costs (including time and attorneys fees) and any lost or interrupted revenue. I'd also make such judgements eligible for summary judgment, provided the damages are less than e.g. $25,000.
    - aaronax 7y ago
      I believe similar ramifications should apply to the uploader in the case of a valid DMCA complaint to make this fair. There are some logistical issues with enforcing that. I admit that upfront as I don't think those are a fruitful topic if you wish to discuss my initial "belief."
jimbob45 7y ago
It seems to me that companies are now (and will be) relying on the long tail of their entertainment investments to justify the cost. Perhaps before it was easier to recoup the investment up front? What are the chances that these companies genuinely need this sort of draconian copyright law to remain profitable?
- zamadatix 7y ago
  Keep in mind "all of" is less than 1 per month, for a site that reports on torrent news and statistics. 2019 was as big a year as any for box office returns and streaming subscription revenue. The only reason you see so many is it costs nothing to send and plenty of companies (as seen by this article) exist to cheaply blast them out via bot.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
DMCA itself is bogus. It was deliberately designed to let companies censor: claims are valid by default and nobody has the desire to dispute invalid claims in court. The potential for abuse is a feature.

349 points by MikusR 7y ago

First ty TF for your work. Is Torrentfreak getting their legal fee's back for these baseless claims? The courts dont seem to like FRCP rule 11 against lawyers as it makes the whole system bad. Perjury is a slap on the write imho. These claims just clog the legal system with more shenanigans. There needs to be some accountability for this baseless claims.

gruez 7y ago
AFAIK DMCA notices don't go through the courts. They're just sent to the site owner, who must comply or file a counter notice. Also, AFAIK there haven't been any prosecutions for people abusing DMCA notices.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > AFAIK DMCA notices don't go through the courts. They're just sent to the site owner, who must comply or file a counter notice. I think you're mixing two things: * if a site owner receives a DMCA notice and believes the content is not infringing they can just do nothing and / or tell whoever sent it to get bent, sender may escalate to the courts * service providers which want to be protected under safe harbour must "act expeditiously to remove purported infringing content" regardless of counter-notices, this is not an either/or situation Content should be restored 10 to 14 days after the counter-notice is sent to the original claimant unless they engage in legal action, but it must be taken down either way: > 17 U.S. Code § 512 (c)(1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider— > […] > 17 U.S. Code § 512 (c)(1)(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. > […] > 17 U.S. Code § 512 (g)(2)(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and > 17 U.S. Code § 512 (g)(2)(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.
  - komali2 7y ago
    Lack of punishment for bad requests make me wonder if a valid business strategy is DMCAing competition at every turn. Also makes me wonder if people could DDOS an entire company with DMCA takedown requests.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      > Also makes me wonder if people could DDOS an entire company with DMCA takedown requests. Fastest way to make change will probably be using their own game against them and have them lobby on your behalf
      - twobat 7y ago
        I'm sure that if normal people try to do this they will be charged with something generic as fraud.
        dbuder 7y ago
        I'd file a motion for summary judgement immediately on the basis that there has been no prosecution of the "victim" and similar for their identical behaviour.
        quaquaqua1 7y ago
        russian VPN or similar solves this
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      Also makes me wonder if people could DDOS an entire company with DMCA takedown requests. Someone should DDOS the web pages of all the American congresscritters and their campaigns and campaign contractors with DMCA notices. That's probably the only way this will get fixed.
      - jachee 7y ago
        Also the sites of their biggest corporate donors.

csande17 7y ago

> this time from Japanese company ‘유니콘미디어” That does not look like a Japanese company name to me.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
No idea if it's a Japanese company, but I'm pretty sure that's Hangul (Korean) script.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  The script is Korean. Judging by Google Translate, the name of the company is actually in English. For reference, the famous Korean MMO MapleStory (and the Korean company that operates it, Nexon) are actually, technically, headquartered in Japan. There's no particular reason to expect a Japanese company to operate in Japan or target Japanese customers. Is Uber a Delawarian company or a Californian company?
  - jellicle 7y ago
    I'd say it's a Dutch company. https://fortune.com/2019/09/09/uber-tax-breaks-losses/ https://fortune.com/2019/09/09/uber-tax-breaks-losses/
neltnerb 7y ago
If it is, they decided to make their name unintelligible to Japanese speakers for some reason. Maybe it's trendy.

ChrisMarshallNY 7y ago

> Japanese company "유니콘미디어" That looks like Korean, to me (Unicorn Media). DMCA seems to have been one of those things that we say "It seemed like such a good idea, at the time" after the fact. I'm certainly waiting to hear positive stories about it.

trevyn 7y ago
The positive story is that it safe harbored service providers.
bawolff 7y ago
Perhaps not a "positive" story, but legit dmcas do happen from time to time and seem reasonable enough to me (or at least reasonable enough in a world with copyrights). For example look at this list of dmca notices against wikipedia that wmf actually thought were valid https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DM... most of them seem reasonable enough to me. (IANAL) The problem is no effective oversight. Laws without oversight are going to be obviously abused. The DMCA is like if police were responsible to ensure their own warrents are valid.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > The problem is no effective oversight. Laws without oversight are going to be obviously abused. Lots of laws are privately enforced. DMCA doesn't have to be different. If you file a false DMCA claim, even if unknowingly, you should be liable for damages. To the platform, for their cost in dealing with your B.S. An to the content owner, for their costs (including time and attorneys fees) and any lost or interrupted revenue. I'd also make such judgements eligible for summary judgment, provided the damages are less than e.g. $25,000.
  - aaronax 7y ago
    I believe similar ramifications should apply to the uploader in the case of a valid DMCA complaint to make this fair. There are some logistical issues with enforcing that. I admit that upfront as I don't think those are a fruitful topic if you wish to discuss my initial "belief."

jimbob45 7y ago

It seems to me that companies are now (and will be) relying on the long tail of their entertainment investments to justify the cost. Perhaps before it was easier to recoup the investment up front? What are the chances that these companies genuinely need this sort of draconian copyright law to remain profitable?

zamadatix 7y ago
Keep in mind "all of" is less than 1 per month, for a site that reports on torrent news and statistics. 2019 was as big a year as any for box office returns and streaming subscription revenue. The only reason you see so many is it costs nothing to send and plenty of companies (as seen by this article) exist to cheaply blast them out via bot.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

DMCA itself is bogus. It was deliberately designed to let companies censor: claims are valid by default and nobody has the desire to dispute invalid claims in court. The potential for abuse is a feature.