5 ms·

This chillingeffects site is quite fascinating. There seem to be a _lot_ of instances of completely mistaken and reckless DMCA takedowns. Here's a particularly

by Doji 12y ago

This chillingeffects site is quite fascinating. There seem to be a _lot_ of instances of completely mistaken and reckless DMCA takedowns. Here's a particularly absurd one: https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/1148744 https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/1148744 I'm not sure a single URL in that list is actually infringing. The only thing they seem to have in common is the name "Adam".

mcantelon 12y ago
So one could file a bogus takedown for a competitor's website, etc. Ugh.
- markbao 12y ago
  It's very unlikely that Google would follow through on an obviously wrong takedown unless if the competitor was actually infringing copyright. EDIT: Well, yes, they did do that here. My bad. My original point was that Competitor A submitting a wanton DMCA takedown against Competitor B wouldn't fly past Google's radar.
  - Doji 12y ago
    Unfortunately not every company has Google's ability to manually sift through every bogus takedown request thrown their way.
    - markbao 12y ago
      Very true. We probably have to have blind faith that the companies that are important (like Google) are the same ones that take the validity of DMCA takedown requests seriously.
    - jrochkind1 12y ago
      > Unfortunately not every company has Google's ability to manually sift through every bogus takedown request thrown their way. Is there any evidence at all that Google actually manually sifts through every takedown (or even any takedown), or is everyone just speculating that they must because they Google? I have no idea, but if we actually have evidence or public statement from Google to that effect, I'd be interested. And I definitely wouldn't assume it without that. But lots of people in these comment threads seem to be doing so (unless there's some widely known reports or evidence I don't know about?)
  - usbreply 12y ago
    Google cannot afford the legal liability of taking decisions on whether a DMCA notice is valid or invalid. They will take down everything specified in every DMCA notice even if it is obviously bogus, because not doing so opens them up to a lawsuit. (a lawsuit alleging malafide intentions or a lawsuit for harm if they should make a mistake in deciding which part of the DMCA notice to honor and which to ignore.) It is up to the harmed party (the owner of whatever was taken down) to challenge the DMCA takedown in a court. Once you win in court, Google will restore whatever was removed.
    - userbinator 12y ago
      I just put a few of those "Adam" URLs into Google Search and they show up in the results. The usual "some results have been removed due to DMCA" notice is not there either, so I think they haven't removed them - or did, and then put them back. It is up to the harmed party (the owner of whatever was taken down) to challenge the DMCA takedown in a court. Once you win in court, Google will restore whatever was removed. I doubt anyone has gone to court over the Adam URLs either. Some of those are personal pages (ironically enough, including a law professor: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/levitin-adam-j.cfm http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/levitin-adam-j.cfm ) and it doesn't seem like whoever is responsible for them would even know that they were listed in a DMCA notice.
    - dangrossman 12y ago
      You only have to send a counternotice and the content is restored after 10 business days. With most companies, you can just send a properly worded e-mail. Others, like Google, have a web form you fill in. The DMCA never forces content in dispute to remain offline indefinitely even if you have zero resources; the complaining party has to go to court to make that happen.
      - tacticus 12y ago
        Or they just send a takedown notice again (yes it's against the law but they won't have anything happen to them)
      - dspillett 12y ago
  - jkrems 12y ago
    Well, they just took down rust's package manager on Github. That's an obviously wrong takedown. If I understand the system correctly, it actually is designed for "shoot first, ask questions later".
    - Zancarius 12y ago
      > Well, they just took down rust's package manager on Github. Just in case anyone skims this far and panics by misreading jkrems' post, I should clarify that they took down the Google search results for Cargo, rather than the Github repo [1]. Unfortunately, for the average user, removing something from Google may as well be a complete takedown... This implications of this are troubling. [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo
      - jkrems 12y ago
        Yeah, sorry. I took a lazy shortcut there. What I meant was "they targeted the URL of rust's package manager and took a link to it down". It was less about the impact and more about how they couldn't claim that they honestly thought ("good faith") they had any claim on that page. But from all I can find that doesn't matter since there don't seem to be any repercussions for these kinds of takedowns.
        Zancarius 12y ago
        I figured. Even in spite of my checking, there was a kernel of panic in my stomach when I read your statement, so I had to double check. ;) I'd imagine anyone quickly perusing the comments might've had a similar thought! You're absolutely right, though. It really doesn't matter: The DMCA protects content owners to the detriment of innocent parties.

by Doji 12y ago

mcantelon 12y ago

So one could file a bogus takedown for a competitor's website, etc. Ugh.

markbao 12y ago
It's very unlikely that Google would follow through on an obviously wrong takedown unless if the competitor was actually infringing copyright. EDIT: Well, yes, they did do that here. My bad. My original point was that Competitor A submitting a wanton DMCA takedown against Competitor B wouldn't fly past Google's radar.
- Doji 12y ago
  Unfortunately not every company has Google's ability to manually sift through every bogus takedown request thrown their way.
  - markbao 12y ago
    Very true. We probably have to have blind faith that the companies that are important (like Google) are the same ones that take the validity of DMCA takedown requests seriously.
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    > Unfortunately not every company has Google's ability to manually sift through every bogus takedown request thrown their way. Is there any evidence at all that Google actually manually sifts through every takedown (or even any takedown), or is everyone just speculating that they must because they Google? I have no idea, but if we actually have evidence or public statement from Google to that effect, I'd be interested. And I definitely wouldn't assume it without that. But lots of people in these comment threads seem to be doing so (unless there's some widely known reports or evidence I don't know about?)
- usbreply 12y ago
  Google cannot afford the legal liability of taking decisions on whether a DMCA notice is valid or invalid. They will take down everything specified in every DMCA notice even if it is obviously bogus, because not doing so opens them up to a lawsuit. (a lawsuit alleging malafide intentions or a lawsuit for harm if they should make a mistake in deciding which part of the DMCA notice to honor and which to ignore.) It is up to the harmed party (the owner of whatever was taken down) to challenge the DMCA takedown in a court. Once you win in court, Google will restore whatever was removed.
  - userbinator 12y ago
    I just put a few of those "Adam" URLs into Google Search and they show up in the results. The usual "some results have been removed due to DMCA" notice is not there either, so I think they haven't removed them - or did, and then put them back. It is up to the harmed party (the owner of whatever was taken down) to challenge the DMCA takedown in a court. Once you win in court, Google will restore whatever was removed. I doubt anyone has gone to court over the Adam URLs either. Some of those are personal pages (ironically enough, including a law professor: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/levitin-adam-j.cfm http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/levitin-adam-j.cfm ) and it doesn't seem like whoever is responsible for them would even know that they were listed in a DMCA notice.
  - dangrossman 12y ago
    You only have to send a counternotice and the content is restored after 10 business days. With most companies, you can just send a properly worded e-mail. Others, like Google, have a web form you fill in. The DMCA never forces content in dispute to remain offline indefinitely even if you have zero resources; the complaining party has to go to court to make that happen.
    - tacticus 12y ago
      Or they just send a takedown notice again (yes it's against the law but they won't have anything happen to them)
    - dspillett 12y ago
- jkrems 12y ago
  Well, they just took down rust's package manager on Github. That's an obviously wrong takedown. If I understand the system correctly, it actually is designed for "shoot first, ask questions later".
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    > Well, they just took down rust's package manager on Github. Just in case anyone skims this far and panics by misreading jkrems' post, I should clarify that they took down the Google search results for Cargo, rather than the Github repo [1]. Unfortunately, for the average user, removing something from Google may as well be a complete takedown... This implications of this are troubling. [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo
    - jkrems 12y ago
      Yeah, sorry. I took a lazy shortcut there. What I meant was "they targeted the URL of rust's package manager and took a link to it down". It was less about the impact and more about how they couldn't claim that they honestly thought ("good faith") they had any claim on that page. But from all I can find that doesn't matter since there don't seem to be any repercussions for these kinds of takedowns.
      - Zancarius 12y ago
        I figured. Even in spite of my checking, there was a kernel of panic in my stomach when I read your statement, so I had to double check. ;) I'd imagine anyone quickly perusing the comments might've had a similar thought! You're absolutely right, though. It really doesn't matter: The DMCA protects content owners to the detriment of innocent parties.