5 ms·

> Looking more closely at the takedown notice, we see that it was sent by the “brand protection analyst” at Incopro, which is one of Adobe’s anti-piracy partner

> Looking more closely at the takedown notice, we see that it was sent by the “brand protection analyst” at Incopro, which is one of Adobe’s anti-piracy partners There's a whole secondary and very interesting story to be told here about the nasty relationship that has formed between copyright holders and these firms specializing in takedowns that cling to them like barnacles on a whale. It's obviously tempting to outsource a job like tracking down copyright violations which doesn't play in to any of your business's competencies, but it also seems quite likely that the companies who provide this "service" typically do so in a way that looks good on a paper report that a manager at the host company receives, but doesn't actually benefit them optimally for the money they spend on it. Takedown companies seem to go after violations that will net them the fastest and most reliable takedown rates. They want to run up the score so that they can say "last month, we took down 5482 violations of your copyright in Adobe Reader" or what have you. This means, largely, going after posts and uploads on sites that have "quick service" DMCA takedowns like Twitter and YouTube. You're not investing time on random websites that may or may not even respond. No human intelligence is required (indeed, even desirable) in this process. It's effectively humans being paid the lowest possible wage to do an automated job. In some cases I suppose it's probably fully automated.

optimiz3 6y ago
Diffusion of responsibility; the takedown firm takes a lot of the bad PR and legal liability when wrong. Adobe also shields their brand by not insourcing.
- alpaca128 6y ago
  The wording of this headline disagrees. And Adobe can try to shift the blame however they want, the final responsibility lies with them as the rights owner and as the ones who hired that takedown firm to act in their name.
tweetle_beetle 6y ago
I think you're right - just looks like monthly report padding. This is the problem with private security, it's hard to trust that the client sees the value in you, when part of your effectiveness comes from deterrence. No takedowns would be great news for Adobe if it meant that no one was pirating their software, but it doesn't make for a very compelling presentation at contract renewal time. Ultimately the damage here is relatively minor, but this behaviour could cause serious harm in future.
laurent123456 6y ago
I always wondered how it could be legal to automatically send DMCA takedown requests. A DMCA request on a site like Twitter means the post and account are immediately blocked until the situation is clarified, and that can be a big issue for the user, especially if their livelihood depends on access to this account (I guess a bigger problem if their Google account is blocked due to a DMCA on YouTube). Yet it seems ok to automate this, knowing full well that there will be false positives that could seriously affect people. Sometimes it feels like we eventually got a soft version of Skynet, ruled by robots, except they aren't trying to kill us yet.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  I believe that many major sites (e.g. Youtube) offer "DMCA-like" service where copyright holders send takedown requests that are not DMCA requests with all the associated requirements and legal consequences for the one who submits false claims. They don't have to honor DMCA-like-but-not-really requests, but they have chosen to do so.
- cies 6y ago
  The DMCA is against free expression. To ban some expression a court order used to be needed. Now a DMCA request is enough, as long as some party enabling the expression (Twitter in your example) is legally in the US, to effectively ban the expression. The burden of proof is shifted to the expressor. This makes banning expression so much easier. Funny enough the US tax money also paid for research to circumvent this issue, resulting in what we know as the dark web. > except they aren't trying to kill us yet. A lot of people have had their livelihood taken, or greatly reduced, by DMCA.
  - mavhc 6y ago
    Counter notice, wait 14 days, content goes back up. Not exactly banned, just delayed
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      In a highly competitive attention economy under merciless algorithmic control, a 14 day delay is a ban in all but name.
chmod775 6y ago
It's worse than that. These people (as will many lawyers, outsourced or not) will go out of their way to ruin the image of your company and brand in the eyes of customers, even when there is absolutely nothing to be gained. It just doesn't look great when a devoted fanbase starts getting takedown notices and legal threats over memes, supplementary content, etc. A legal department with agency is not a good idea. There should be very specific instructions as to what they can initiate on their own.
- shiftpgdn 6y ago
  Adobe holds a near monopoly in the creative world. Everyone /already/ hates them.
  - CharlesW 6y ago
    > Adobe holds a near monopoly in the creative world. I remember that being a real problem, but as I learned when I left the Adobe ecosystem last year, there's now a healthy ecosystem of competitive creative tools from ISVs like Affinity, Gravit, Figma, Procreate, Blackmagic Design, etc. The irony is that Adobe helped jump-start this ecosystem when they went subscription-only.
  - idrios 6y ago
    They have really excellent products, blocked behind subscription fees and extremely high product costs. The open source world is doing a really good job of creating free versions of the things that made their products great.
hellbannedguy 6y ago
It just makes Adobe look more greedy though. Adobe should do their own DCMA take down notices, and put some brains behind it? Getting customers used to using you software, just might make them cough up a monthly subscription rip-off at some point? There was a time when you bought the program, and got a reasonable amount of updates. (Sorry about the last line. I know you guys know that.) Adobe lost my wallet when they got greedy, and figured loyal customers wouldn’t take notice. (Yes—I know about their student discounts.)

optimiz3 6y ago

Diffusion of responsibility; the takedown firm takes a lot of the bad PR and legal liability when wrong. Adobe also shields their brand by not insourcing.

alpaca128 6y ago
The wording of this headline disagrees. And Adobe can try to shift the blame however they want, the final responsibility lies with them as the rights owner and as the ones who hired that takedown firm to act in their name.

tweetle_beetle 6y ago

I think you're right - just looks like monthly report padding. This is the problem with private security, it's hard to trust that the client sees the value in you, when part of your effectiveness comes from deterrence. No takedowns would be great news for Adobe if it meant that no one was pirating their software, but it doesn't make for a very compelling presentation at contract renewal time. Ultimately the damage here is relatively minor, but this behaviour could cause serious harm in future.

laurent123456 6y ago

I always wondered how it could be legal to automatically send DMCA takedown requests. A DMCA request on a site like Twitter means the post and account are immediately blocked until the situation is clarified, and that can be a big issue for the user, especially if their livelihood depends on access to this account (I guess a bigger problem if their Google account is blocked due to a DMCA on YouTube). Yet it seems ok to automate this, knowing full well that there will be false positives that could seriously affect people. Sometimes it feels like we eventually got a soft version of Skynet, ruled by robots, except they aren't trying to kill us yet.

PeterisP 6y ago
I believe that many major sites (e.g. Youtube) offer "DMCA-like" service where copyright holders send takedown requests that are not DMCA requests with all the associated requirements and legal consequences for the one who submits false claims. They don't have to honor DMCA-like-but-not-really requests, but they have chosen to do so.
cies 6y ago
The DMCA is against free expression. To ban some expression a court order used to be needed. Now a DMCA request is enough, as long as some party enabling the expression (Twitter in your example) is legally in the US, to effectively ban the expression. The burden of proof is shifted to the expressor. This makes banning expression so much easier. Funny enough the US tax money also paid for research to circumvent this issue, resulting in what we know as the dark web. > except they aren't trying to kill us yet. A lot of people have had their livelihood taken, or greatly reduced, by DMCA.
- mavhc 6y ago
  Counter notice, wait 14 days, content goes back up. Not exactly banned, just delayed
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    In a highly competitive attention economy under merciless algorithmic control, a 14 day delay is a ban in all but name.

chmod775 6y ago

It's worse than that. These people (as will many lawyers, outsourced or not) will go out of their way to ruin the image of your company and brand in the eyes of customers, even when there is absolutely nothing to be gained. It just doesn't look great when a devoted fanbase starts getting takedown notices and legal threats over memes, supplementary content, etc. A legal department with agency is not a good idea. There should be very specific instructions as to what they can initiate on their own.

shiftpgdn 6y ago
Adobe holds a near monopoly in the creative world. Everyone /already/ hates them.
- CharlesW 6y ago
  > Adobe holds a near monopoly in the creative world. I remember that being a real problem, but as I learned when I left the Adobe ecosystem last year, there's now a healthy ecosystem of competitive creative tools from ISVs like Affinity, Gravit, Figma, Procreate, Blackmagic Design, etc. The irony is that Adobe helped jump-start this ecosystem when they went subscription-only.
- idrios 6y ago
  They have really excellent products, blocked behind subscription fees and extremely high product costs. The open source world is doing a really good job of creating free versions of the things that made their products great.

hellbannedguy 6y ago

It just makes Adobe look more greedy though. Adobe should do their own DCMA take down notices, and put some brains behind it? Getting customers used to using you software, just might make them cough up a monthly subscription rip-off at some point? There was a time when you bought the program, and got a reasonable amount of updates. (Sorry about the last line. I know you guys know that.) Adobe lost my wallet when they got greedy, and figured loyal customers wouldn’t take notice. (Yes—I know about their student discounts.)