5 ms·

Google Play keeps banning the same web browser due to vague DMCA notices

172 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

pindab0ter 3y ago
Is there any reason for Google to treat this app differently than any other browser? The only difference I can think of is that this is run on televisions.
- Galanwe 3y ago
  I don't think Google treat this app any differently than any other. The problem isn't Google per se, it's the inadequacy between a mass distribution platform, and an inadequate legal framework. There is probably, at any time, thousands of apps being wrongly shutdown, and thousands infringing copyrights. The whole concept of these distribution platforms (Play Store, App Store, YouTube, you name it) is to scale beyond the capabilities of what even an industrialized manual system could do. Yet the laws (especially related to IP) are intrinsically interpretation based. There is no intersection of such two systems that wouldn't massively tip the scale for one or the other party. The only possible solutions are to - scale down these massive distribution platforms (unlikely) - accept their drawbacks and the business risk to depend on them (most likely) - find an other way of defining IP, such as some forms of resistant watermarks (unlikely) - move all distribution platforms to some form of DRM such that extracting content is impossible (most likely) The future is not bright.
userbinator 3y ago
I guess someone was "triggered" by the name being "Downloader".
- jaimex2 3y ago
  you mean something.
- ajross 3y ago
  I mean, maybe? Presumably there's some level of human review on counter-claims, and not everyone has the deep expertise of a rando HN commenter. It probably went something like "Claim says that the app downloads DMCA content ... Yup, it's a downloader." I mean, sure, you want everyone to get everything right. But if you're an app vendor, maybe try to help out the reviewers at least a little by not naming your app for a TV device "Downloader"? Think of it like defensive driving.
- nilsherzig 3y ago
  To be fair I used this downloader to get a modified version of the YouTube app onto my TV. Most guides / reddit posts recommend the download feature to side load apps. Not saying that the lawsuit is justified, but I guess that's how they found the app.
zlg_codes 3y ago
There's an interesting part of this DMCA process that expects the claimant to issue a good faith report, under penalty of perjury. The thing is, with full access to the source code, they can't make any credible claim to Warner Bros. copyright being infringed. The punishment for lying to the government about this appears to be perjury. I would level an accusation of perjury at Warner Bros Group for deliberately engaging in anti-competitive and anti-social behavior by attempting to curtail the efforts of an innocent third party. IANAL but this looks illegal and the company should be forced to answer for its lying, at minimum.
- buildbot 3y ago
  Right, I don’t understand how this isn’t dealt with more harshly. It’s perjury.
  - 14 3y ago
    Something something money something something more money
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the Law."
  - nadermx 3y ago
    The only lawsuit I know of dealing with an issue similar as such is Yout v RIAA, which Yout lost in district court level and is now on appeals in US 2nd circut. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-recording-industry-association-of-america-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-rec...
  - sgift 3y ago
    Cause the law is highly staked in the direction of the claimant with DMCA. First, only the real copyright owner can go to court against them (so, you cannot take look, find out they aren't the copyright holder and then sue them), then you need to see the case through and if there's anything these big companies have it's dozens and dozens of lawyers on the clock, while the other side will probably have to pay per hour. And even if you make it to the end they'll probably get off on some technicality, cause "oh, we really, really thought we had the copyright, we are so sorry" and even if not any damages will be laughable compared to the upside of them filing claims left and right. It's just a shitty system all around. Exactly as intended by the companies that pushed for it. (IANAL. All based on reading up on the topic once when I had the same thought)
buildbot 3y ago
Issuing a false DMCA should absolutely be lethal to whatever lawyers career signed it. It’s just perjury/fraud/bullshit and the system could be adapted to fix existing issues just by enforcing some of the legal professions typical standards.
- tacon 3y ago
  That is a fascinating approach. Who signed this DMCA take down notice? Ladies and gentlemen, start your word processors to complain to his/her bar association and state attorney general. Start the DMCA Black List to name and shame.
  - buildbot 3y ago
    This seems like a mildly snarky response, but really - some lawyer signed this, knowing they were submitting a DMCA for showing a website in a browser. It should be dealt with extremely harshly.
ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
If loading the Warner Bros home page isn't allowed, Chrome might be on the chopping block next. I hope the Google Chrome team has some internal contacts at Google to prevent Chrome from being removed from the play store due to DMCA abuse.
ratsmack 3y ago
>Google is clearly aware that its system for handling DMCA complaints is routinely abused. They do, but they just don't care about the little guy, because that would cost them money.
schappim 3y ago
> I don’t understand how this isn’t dealt with more harshly. It’s perjury. It is simply that Google is indifferent to the DMCA requests. Other companies such as Shopify, take action. They've recently filed a lawsuit over "illegal" DMCA take down notices [1] (credit where credit is due). [1] https://torrentfreak.com/shopify-files-lawsuit-over-illegal-dmca-takedown-abuse-231020/ https://torrentfreak.com/shopify-files-lawsuit-over-illegal-...
- srj 3y ago
  This was only a week ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/google-sues-people-who-weaponized-dmca-to-remove-rivals-search-results/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/google-sues-peop... There are also many instances where DMCA takedowns are denied (not including the counter notice process). There's a bunch of public data on this here: https://transparencyreport.google.com/copyright/overview https://transparencyreport.google.com/copyright/overview
indymike 3y ago
I'd like to see DMCA updated with a simple addition: Anyone who fails to file a legal claim within 10 days after receiving a counter-notice shall be liable for $10,000 to the company or person the DMCA claim was made against and $2,000 to the internet service that was sent the DMCA claim. The liability for failing to file legal action is levied jointly against the agent filing the DMCA claim and the claimant. I think this would quickly force some integrity, and would especially help content creators. It strikes at the heart of the injustice in the DMCA claim system: the agent always tries to claim "oopsie", and after that the claimant will try to blame the agent. In all reality, if you are the claimant, you need a very competent agent or you need to be doing it yourself. It is enough money to be worth going after. Just as copyright law provides for mind-boggling damages, the penalty for filing a fake, frivolous or fraudulent DMCA notice should have some serious teeth. Every DMCA notice I've dealt with was fraudulent (not really representing the copyright holder) or simple frivolous (i.e. a DMCA take-down for using a trademark).
- RockRobotRock 3y ago
  I’m trying to get a startup going that’s essentially a DMCA agent service. Any advice?
  - sillysaurusx 3y ago
    It’d have to be a non profit to work. There’s no profit to be had here.
  - greyface- 3y ago
    For services subject to DMCA, it's often existentially risky to try to filter valid vs invalid notices, due to the potential loss of safe harbor, and much easier to just indiscriminately act on them all to the detriment of users. As an agent, you could offer filtering services, and work with an insurer to establish filtering standards and insure your clients against damages caused by loss of safe harbor due to incorrect filtering decisions.
  - indymike 3y ago
    Takedowns or counterclaims?
throwaway892238 3y ago
Can someone remind me why we still use the Google Play store? Why are we letting corporations dictate how we use our own computing devices?
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  You are free to use alternate Android app stores, like Samsung's or F-Droid, or to sideload any app downloaded from any website.
- xigoi 3y ago
  Because most people are too technically illiterate to use an app store that isn't pre-installed.
- realusername 3y ago
  They made sure that it's too complicated to install apps without it
  - xigoi 3y ago
    And anti-monopoly regulators are doing fuck all about that.
    - realusername 3y ago
      Yeah I'm also a bit disappointed of the level of inaction from the regulators, it's been 10 years that the duopoly controls everything without any competition. I have high hopes about the new EU legislation but even then I'm not sure they will make it work.
- RunSet 3y ago
  The poets (fools one and all) would have you believe that love makes the world go 'round when it is plain that inertia is to blame.
realusername 3y ago
I would have probably done some malicious compliance and hard redirect the warner bros website they don't want to display to some blog post about abolishing copyright.
mission_failed 3y ago
How is this not an abuse of market power where the Google controlled app store allows other browsers to be banned for reasons that their own browser would never be automatically banned for? If Windows automatically started blocking access to Chrome for up to 2 weeks at time while Google appealed false take downs everyone would be flipping their shit, including governments and justice departments

172 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

Is there any reason for Google to treat this app differently than any other browser? The only difference I can think of is that this is run on televisions.

Galanwe 3y ago
I don't think Google treat this app any differently than any other. The problem isn't Google per se, it's the inadequacy between a mass distribution platform, and an inadequate legal framework. There is probably, at any time, thousands of apps being wrongly shutdown, and thousands infringing copyrights. The whole concept of these distribution platforms (Play Store, App Store, YouTube, you name it) is to scale beyond the capabilities of what even an industrialized manual system could do. Yet the laws (especially related to IP) are intrinsically interpretation based. There is no intersection of such two systems that wouldn't massively tip the scale for one or the other party. The only possible solutions are to - scale down these massive distribution platforms (unlikely) - accept their drawbacks and the business risk to depend on them (most likely) - find an other way of defining IP, such as some forms of resistant watermarks (unlikely) - move all distribution platforms to some form of DRM such that extracting content is impossible (most likely) The future is not bright.

userbinator 3y ago

I guess someone was "triggered" by the name being "Downloader".

jaimex2 3y ago
you mean something.
ajross 3y ago
I mean, maybe? Presumably there's some level of human review on counter-claims, and not everyone has the deep expertise of a rando HN commenter. It probably went something like "Claim says that the app downloads DMCA content ... Yup, it's a downloader." I mean, sure, you want everyone to get everything right. But if you're an app vendor, maybe try to help out the reviewers at least a little by not naming your app for a TV device "Downloader"? Think of it like defensive driving.
nilsherzig 3y ago
To be fair I used this downloader to get a modified version of the YouTube app onto my TV. Most guides / reddit posts recommend the download feature to side load apps. Not saying that the lawsuit is justified, but I guess that's how they found the app.

zlg_codes 3y ago

There's an interesting part of this DMCA process that expects the claimant to issue a good faith report, under penalty of perjury. The thing is, with full access to the source code, they can't make any credible claim to Warner Bros. copyright being infringed. The punishment for lying to the government about this appears to be perjury. I would level an accusation of perjury at Warner Bros Group for deliberately engaging in anti-competitive and anti-social behavior by attempting to curtail the efforts of an innocent third party. IANAL but this looks illegal and the company should be forced to answer for its lying, at minimum.

buildbot 3y ago
Right, I don’t understand how this isn’t dealt with more harshly. It’s perjury.
- 14 3y ago
  Something something money something something more money
- EA-3167 3y ago
  "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the Law."
- nadermx 3y ago
  The only lawsuit I know of dealing with an issue similar as such is Yout v RIAA, which Yout lost in district court level and is now on appeals in US 2nd circut. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-recording-industry-association-of-america-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-rec...
- sgift 3y ago
  Cause the law is highly staked in the direction of the claimant with DMCA. First, only the real copyright owner can go to court against them (so, you cannot take look, find out they aren't the copyright holder and then sue them), then you need to see the case through and if there's anything these big companies have it's dozens and dozens of lawyers on the clock, while the other side will probably have to pay per hour. And even if you make it to the end they'll probably get off on some technicality, cause "oh, we really, really thought we had the copyright, we are so sorry" and even if not any damages will be laughable compared to the upside of them filing claims left and right. It's just a shitty system all around. Exactly as intended by the companies that pushed for it. (IANAL. All based on reading up on the topic once when I had the same thought)

buildbot 3y ago

Issuing a false DMCA should absolutely be lethal to whatever lawyers career signed it. It’s just perjury/fraud/bullshit and the system could be adapted to fix existing issues just by enforcing some of the legal professions typical standards.

tacon 3y ago
That is a fascinating approach. Who signed this DMCA take down notice? Ladies and gentlemen, start your word processors to complain to his/her bar association and state attorney general. Start the DMCA Black List to name and shame.
- buildbot 3y ago
  This seems like a mildly snarky response, but really - some lawyer signed this, knowing they were submitting a DMCA for showing a website in a browser. It should be dealt with extremely harshly.

ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago

If loading the Warner Bros home page isn't allowed, Chrome might be on the chopping block next. I hope the Google Chrome team has some internal contacts at Google to prevent Chrome from being removed from the play store due to DMCA abuse.

ratsmack 3y ago

>Google is clearly aware that its system for handling DMCA complaints is routinely abused. They do, but they just don't care about the little guy, because that would cost them money.

schappim 3y ago

> I don’t understand how this isn’t dealt with more harshly. It’s perjury. It is simply that Google is indifferent to the DMCA requests. Other companies such as Shopify, take action. They've recently filed a lawsuit over "illegal" DMCA take down notices [1] (credit where credit is due). [1] https://torrentfreak.com/shopify-files-lawsuit-over-illegal-dmca-takedown-abuse-231020/ https://torrentfreak.com/shopify-files-lawsuit-over-illegal-...

srj 3y ago
This was only a week ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/google-sues-people-who-weaponized-dmca-to-remove-rivals-search-results/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/google-sues-peop... There are also many instances where DMCA takedowns are denied (not including the counter notice process). There's a bunch of public data on this here: https://transparencyreport.google.com/copyright/overview https://transparencyreport.google.com/copyright/overview

indymike 3y ago

I'd like to see DMCA updated with a simple addition: Anyone who fails to file a legal claim within 10 days after receiving a counter-notice shall be liable for $10,000 to the company or person the DMCA claim was made against and $2,000 to the internet service that was sent the DMCA claim. The liability for failing to file legal action is levied jointly against the agent filing the DMCA claim and the claimant. I think this would quickly force some integrity, and would especially help content creators. It strikes at the heart of the injustice in the DMCA claim system: the agent always tries to claim "oopsie", and after that the claimant will try to blame the agent. In all reality, if you are the claimant, you need a very competent agent or you need to be doing it yourself. It is enough money to be worth going after. Just as copyright law provides for mind-boggling damages, the penalty for filing a fake, frivolous or fraudulent DMCA notice should have some serious teeth. Every DMCA notice I've dealt with was fraudulent (not really representing the copyright holder) or simple frivolous (i.e. a DMCA take-down for using a trademark).

RockRobotRock 3y ago
I’m trying to get a startup going that’s essentially a DMCA agent service. Any advice?
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  It’d have to be a non profit to work. There’s no profit to be had here.
- greyface- 3y ago
  For services subject to DMCA, it's often existentially risky to try to filter valid vs invalid notices, due to the potential loss of safe harbor, and much easier to just indiscriminately act on them all to the detriment of users. As an agent, you could offer filtering services, and work with an insurer to establish filtering standards and insure your clients against damages caused by loss of safe harbor due to incorrect filtering decisions.
- indymike 3y ago
  Takedowns or counterclaims?

throwaway892238 3y ago

Can someone remind me why we still use the Google Play store? Why are we letting corporations dictate how we use our own computing devices?

warkdarrior 3y ago
You are free to use alternate Android app stores, like Samsung's or F-Droid, or to sideload any app downloaded from any website.
xigoi 3y ago
Because most people are too technically illiterate to use an app store that isn't pre-installed.
realusername 3y ago
They made sure that it's too complicated to install apps without it
- xigoi 3y ago
  And anti-monopoly regulators are doing fuck all about that.
  - realusername 3y ago
    Yeah I'm also a bit disappointed of the level of inaction from the regulators, it's been 10 years that the duopoly controls everything without any competition. I have high hopes about the new EU legislation but even then I'm not sure they will make it work.
RunSet 3y ago
The poets (fools one and all) would have you believe that love makes the world go 'round when it is plain that inertia is to blame.

realusername 3y ago

I would have probably done some malicious compliance and hard redirect the warner bros website they don't want to display to some blog post about abolishing copyright.

mission_failed 3y ago

How is this not an abuse of market power where the Google controlled app store allows other browsers to be banned for reasons that their own browser would never be automatically banned for? If Windows automatically started blocking access to Chrome for up to 2 weeks at time while Google appealed false take downs everyone would be flipping their shit, including governments and justice departments