8 ms·
Don’t use the word ‘did’ or dumb anti-piracy company will delete you from Google
- MrStonedOne 7y agoCan we not remove words from titles? This title should read "Don’t Use the Word ‘Did’ or a Dumb Anti-Piracy Company Will Delete You from Google" I get that some people think a is useless here, but its really not.
- dredmorbius 7y agoThere's an 80-character limit. The title you quote is 89 characters. Something's got to give.
- MrStonedOne 7y agoI added one letter (and one space). Somethings not adding up with your logic
- yesenadam 7y agoYour title's 82. ($ pbpaste | wc --> 0 15 82)
- happytoexplain 7y agoI appreciate the sentiment, but don't see the issue in this case. Omitting articles is standard headlinese for a good reason - I can't see how it could be interpreted differently without the 'a'.
- MrStonedOne 7y agoIt makes it harder to read without it. It sounds like broken english that I keep tripping up over myself trying to read it thinking that I misread a word
- ginko 7y ago1. Create some organization with a name that can be abbreviated to some basic copular verb in the language of your choice 2. Claim copyright for the name and the abbreviation 3. Use DMCA to censor pretty much any article you may have issues with for whatever reason
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- imtringued 7y agoRegister a trademark on every single english word and just take down everything.
- moomin 7y agoThe DMCA was very carefully drafted to make the perjury but only apply to your claim of ownership, not to the claim of infringement. In other words, this idiocy is the intended behaviour of the law.
- jagged-chisel 7y agoOnly the owner (or an authorized agent of the owner) can claim infringement. I suppose the claim of being an authorized agent is also free of perjury penalty.
- vageli 7y ago> Only the owner (or an authorized agent of the owner) can claim infringement. I suppose the claim of being an authorized agent is also free of perjury penalty. Forget perjury, why isn't this outright fraud?
- matheusmoreira 7y agoThe word DID isn't just a verb, apparently it also stands for Dance India Dance and this is sufficient grounds for censorship. The allegedly infringing URLs include: 1. Government websites 2. Dictionaries, including wiktionary 3. An article published in Nature 4. Some random blog posts Mind-boggling. This sort of abuse should lead to substantial fines and the cancellation of their DMCA complaint privileges at the very least. Censoring websites should not be this easy and consequence-free.
- dmix 7y agoThe fact it removed 4 dictionary entries for the word "did" including Merriam Webster is really the worst part. DMCA is completely broken and the accounts abuses are endless. We had an entire subreddit with 25k subscribers taken down by a person using fake DMCA requests. For months we had random completely innocuous posts with zero copyrightable content taken down do to "copyright infringement" by an off-kilter person who people on the subreddit pissed off at some point. Then eventually the entire subreddit went down due to "repeat copyright infringement". Remember kids, if you see something you don't like on the internet (or even more relevant to this era of intolerance towards free speech: anything that "offends" you) just spam DMCA requests. Almost all sites like Reddit, Youtube, and Google don't actually care if it's legitimate or not, and they always automatically take the side of the person who filed it. And if they do push back there will be 10 more waiting by the time the system figures one out.
- andrewprock 7y agoIt's not DMCA that's broken, it's the people that run those companies implementing the policies that are broken.
- dmix 7y agoIt was always economically impossible for Google or Youtube or Reddit or any major website with thousands of new user-generated posts a day (let alone millions) to review each of these cases. I'm not even blaming the companies like Reddit, it really is an unrealistic thing to ask of them. What is going to stop these professional "copyright companies" or people exploiting it from existing? Better laws against people who file "false" claims? Maybe... but even then only people with the funds and time and jurisdictional ability (a very important one for anyone who knows civil law) to file the suits will ever get justice. Still something needs to be done here obviously.
- wolfgke 7y agoI often write here on HN: Make the laws so that companies who claim false copyright infringements receive the same punishments and (financial) penalties as you would as if you infringed the copyright. Also the entity falsely accused of copyright infringement should receive the same compensation as it would be sued for if it had infringend copyright.
- lern_too_spel 7y agoThe copyright owners usually have better lawyers than the alleged infringers, but they can be sued. https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/intellectual-property/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request-10363/ https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/intellectual-property/con...
- matheusmoreira 7y agoThey'll just lobby the government and say such a thing would make it "too risky" or "too hard" to enforce copyright. Actually making sure a DMCA complaint is valid is too much work and they shouldn't have to do it. What they want is a magic button that deletes from the internet everything that matches their content but doesn't come from them directly. They don't care about false positives or fair use either, it's just collateral damage. Copyright laws exist to benefit corporations, not the public.
- wolfgke 7y ago> They'll just lobby the government and say such a thing would make it "too risky" or "too hard" to enforce copyright. Any sensible person should counter that argument with the argument that it is currently "too hard" to defend oneself against false copyright claims.
- matheusmoreira 7y agoThis assumes that sensible people can afford to pay lobbyists to influence law makers. Maybe the EFF could do that.
- 7y ago
- ajmurmann 7y agoEven if "DID" was indeed, unambiguously referring to the dance show, what would need infringed on? It's not a copyright violation, since the article would just be talking about the show and not reproducing the copyrighted content. If anything the name would fall under trademark, but even that wouldn't be violated here. In short: why would just mentioning something covered by copyright ever make for a legitimate takedown?
- rdiddly 7y agoIf anything, a mention (a real one) should be thought of as free publicity for their shitty who-cares show! Like if you had a mind to firmly put an end to any possibility of a viral word-of-mouth campaign (which is the fondest wish of most producers of attention-based product e.g. entertainment, but let's say you were a dangerously stupid one), this is how you would do it.
- olodus 7y agoLet's hope the people behind the dance show maybe get word of how this copyrights defender company used the money they gave them to protect their brand, realized how bad this publicity is and fire the Rights Hero team.
- forgotmypw77 7y agois this part of seo strategy? if you are result #11 on google, but you dmca the first ten...
- phendrenad2 7y agoWe need a paid search engine. Google is willing to lose entire subsets of the possible results because they don't want to pay humans to handle DMCA complaints.
- dontblink 7y agoPayment would not help. We need reformed copyright laws. Google is simply complying as would any search company, paid or not.
- jhauris 7y agoGoogle or any alternative free or otherwise has no choice if they want to maintain their safe harbor under the DMCA. It's not up to them to referee the issue, or they become culpable for any infringement on their platform. My understanding is they also must restore the content when a counter notice is filed by the alleged infringer (but I'm not a lawyer).
- keyme 7y agoSounds like we should make a bot that makes a counter notice for every notice. Is there a page on Google that discloses all the recently issued DMCA notices?
- jandrese 7y agoOn sites like YouTube this is what would happen: Abusive bot makes fraudulent DMCA requests against your account. Your bot automatically files disputes. Abusive bot automatically verifies with youtube that they are the owners of the content, because they say so. Your account is demonetized and/or shut down for multiple dispute violations. The entire system is rigged so the abusive bots have more or less free reign as long as they're backed up by some big media cartel. Google really doesn't want to anger said cartels who have been more than willing to sue individual people for trillions of dollars for sharing a single CD. Google has never been sued by creators for letting media cartels steal their works. They have no incentive to change policy at the moment.
- unnouinceput 7y agoHmmm, let's weaponize then DMCA claims to the point they no longer will blindly be followed by drones. So, please start file DMCA for everything they publish that's used to track/infringe our privacy. Unfortunately I do not have required SEO (?) skills, so someone please give specific advice for this - but you folks understand what I'm saying.
- tzs 7y ago> “Got a cheery confirmation email from Google saying, ‘Thanks for contacting us!’ and that it might be a while until the issue is resolved. I assume that’s because this is the point where finally a decision has to be made by a human being. It is annoying indeed.” It should be nearly automatic. The procedure given by DMCA is: 1. Someone claiming their copyright is being infringed (CLAIMANT) by material hosted at a particular service files a DMCA notice with the service. 2. Service checks the notice to make sure that it contains all the required information. Let's assume that it does. 3. Service takes down the allegedly infringing work and notifies the alleged infringer (ACCUSED). If the content was infringing, it probably ends here. If the accused believes the work was not infringing, we continue... 4. Accused files a counter-notice with the service provider, saying that the work is not infringing. 5. Service provider notifies the claimant of the counter-notice. 6. Service provider is required to restore the material from 10 to 14 business days after receiving the counter-notice, unless the service provider receives notice from claimant that claimant has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the accused from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's systems.
- jkaplowitz 7y agoNearly automatic, yes. But step 6 requires a statutory minimum waiting period of 10 business days, to allow the claimant time to file a lawsuit and notify Google of it. Google probably has the lawsuit notification handling sufficiently automated as not to add any additional delay, but if counter-notices are rare enough, this may be manual involving a check with Google legal.
- aSplash0fDerp 7y agoThere could be a link between DID numbers and India... Would removing these results provide any ancillary value? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_inward_dial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_inward_dial
- kimi 7y agoIn VoIP, a DID is a Direct Inbound Dial, that is a phone # you can buy. There are a lot of websites offering DIDs - like say https://www.didx.net/ https://www.didx.net/ - I wonder if they'll kick them all off Google....
- matheusmoreira 7y agoSearching for DID also gives me dissociative identity disorder. I wonder if they'll DMCA all the scientific journals hosting articles about that.
- xerox13ster 7y agoModerator of the Dissociative Identity Disorder subreddit here. This was my first thought upon reading the article.
- 8jef 7y agoThe only idiotic thing in all of this is the enduring reliance on single go to sources by so-called individuals making this army of unconscious drones called humanity, and which I'm giddily part of. Then, switching point of view, one can see how incredible this Internet experiment is for a semiconscious bystander actor and observer like me. All evolution flaws common to our species are now totally exposed to anybody daring to look at. Then, probably too many seek to profit from such perspectives, poisoning the well in the process. What a great time and place to be living in.
- smallcharleston 7y agoWhat the hell are you talking about dude
- fenomas 7y agoRest of the story: the article was restored about two days later. https://twitter.com/TwoBitHistory/status/1228332876099473409 https://twitter.com/TwoBitHistory/status/1228332876099473409
- himinlomax 7y agoThat's one URL, the article implies there's many.
- gentleman11 7y agoThis sounds like a trademark claim, not copyright. You can’t copyright 3 letters, can you? Even as a trademark claim it’s bonkers
- himinlomax 7y agoThat's a result of the contributory infringement nonsense that has been used to prosecute people who posted links to works, not works themselves.
- everfree 7y agoIt was a copyright claim under the DMCA. You're right in thinking that it's bonkers, regardless of whether under copyright or trademark.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- michaelmrose 7y agoDeliberately false or recklessly false claims ought to be punished. Make any claimant or their lawyer put up a bond of 100 usd before making any claims. Publish the claims on a site. Allow anyone, not just the damaged party, to claim the bounty for the fraudulent claims by submitting proof. Increase the bond exponentially as it is paid out making it eventually hideously expensive if you keep breaking the law. Make the increases eventually expire allowing people to reform their behavior.
- praptak 7y agoDMCA is one part of the problem, the second is the centralised internet of now. "Distributed global" network my ass - one stupid US law and content becomes inaccessible.
- Abimelex 7y agoDID is getting to be fun :) https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/
- bunchOfCucks 7y agoDon’t hate the player, hate the game