Not that Homeland: Fox sends bogus takedowns for copyright reformer’s book

DMCA takedowns hit a surprising target: writer & activist Cory Doctorow.

Read the whole story

 

[Jokotai]

Talk about poking the dragon. I'm sure Doctorow isn't going to let the internet forget about this one for a long, long while.

 

[[S]Replicant]

"The system" they use? Without doubt, the DMCA needs reform -- but one of those reforms should be that you can't use "a system" to issue DMCA complaints. That just leads to absurd abuse like this.

It should be required that human eyes found the supposed infringement, wrote an email (no form letters) and sent it to the involved parties. There should be as much human labor required as possible to act as an automatic balance against abuse.

 

[rockforbrains]

Just wondering if some other charges could be made against makers of false DMCA notices such as RICOH or other civil actions that carry potentially nastier penalties.

 

[Dyskresiac]

Replicant[/url]":16owu2un]It should be required that human eyes found the supposed infringement, wrote an email (no form letters) and sent it to the involved parties. There should be as much human labor required as possible to act as an automatic balance against abuse.

But that would infringe on their rights to effectively pursue the legitimate infringements. How are they supposed to make a PROFIT off suing the pants off everybody and their mother?

Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if soon the litigation will bring in more revenue than the content itself.

 

[Viking ZX]

I just tweeted this at my congressman, lets see if I can elicit a response.

UPDATE: One hour and no response. Not surprised, I'll give him a day.

FURTHER UPDATE: No response, can't say I'm surprised, only disappointed.

 

[Edac Leinad]

Props to "Ready Fire Aim".

 

[T3hN00bSux0rs]

Is it possible that this author can sue Fox for repressing his First Amendment rights? I didn't look into whether or not the author is from the US, but regardless, it would be nice to see some retribution for this exploitation of power.

Edit: Cory Doctorow is a Canadian. Well there goes that plan...

 

[duncansil]

False copyright infringement mulligans are OK for the media industry, just not ordinary citizens.

 

[drouu]

Dyskresiac[/url]":3m80yx82]Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if soon the litigation will bring in more revenue than the content itself.

please refer to, "Prenda Law, business model of"

 

[stabs]

Another example how broken our justice system is. Someone abuses the law to wrongfully punish someone and you have absolutely no recourse thanks to the expensive legal system we have. What happened to the scales of justice being there to bring a level playing field to everyone?

 

[Viking ZX]

stabs[/url]":1nk7yt93]Another example how broken our justice system is. Someone abuses the law to wrongfully punish someone and you have absolutely no recourse thanks to the expensive legal system we have. What happened to the scales of justice being there to bring a level playing field to everyone?

So raise the voice of warning there. Tweet or e-mail your congressman about it, let them know you don't like it. they're supposed to be reps, let them know what you want them to talk about.

 

[Sarge Misfit]

Viking ZX[/url]":3iu11lg1]

stabs[/url]":3iu11lg1]Another example how broken our justice system is. Someone abuses the law to wrongfully punish someone and you have absolutely no recourse thanks to the expensive legal system we have. What happened to the scales of justice being there to bring a level playing field to everyone?

So raise the voice of warning there. Tweet or e-mail your congressman about it, let them know you don't like it. they're supposed to be reps, let them know what you want them to talk about.

That would be the same Congress that just passed CISPA, right?

 

[Viking ZX]

Sarge Misfit[/url]":31fj3pj2]

Viking ZX[/url]":31fj3pj2]

stabs[/url]":31fj3pj2]Another example how broken our justice system is. Someone abuses the law to wrongfully punish someone and you have absolutely no recourse thanks to the expensive legal system we have. What happened to the scales of justice being there to bring a level playing field to everyone?

So raise the voice of warning there. Tweet or e-mail your congressman about it, let them know you don't like it. they're supposed to be reps, let them know what you want them to talk about.

That would be the same Congress that just passed CISPA, right?

Which the majority of people ignored until after the fact. Don't forget what the blackout day did last year.

 

[Tempor]

T3hN00bSux0rs[/url]":14mt35x1]Is it possible that this author can sue Fox for repressing his First Amendment rights? I didn't look into whether or not the author is from the US, but regardless, it would be nice to see some retribution for this exploitation of power.

Edit: Cory Doctorow is a Canadian. Well there goes that plan...

There are far bigger issues with your "plan" than that he's Canadian...

 

[jfgilbert]

The best legislation money can buy.
As long as the 99% will continue to vote for either of the two parties that have been abusing them, the elected representatives will continue to do so. Why wouldn't they?

 

[hecate.]

"http://hotfile.com/contacts.html and give them the details of where the link was posted and the link and they will deal with the @sshole who posted the fake."

I'm still trying to make sense of what this could mean.

 

[stabs]

Viking ZX[/url]":2mhbysrw]

stabs[/url]":2mhbysrw]Another example how broken our justice system is. Someone abuses the law to wrongfully punish someone and you have absolutely no recourse thanks to the expensive legal system we have. What happened to the scales of justice being there to bring a level playing field to everyone?

So raise the voice of warning there. Tweet or e-mail your congressman about it, let them know you don't like it. they're supposed to be reps, let them know what you want them to talk about.

I actually do send them letters about topics I feel strongly about, I vote in all the elections in my area and I vote based on who represents my concerns best regardless of their party affiliation. I am 99% sure they don't really care anyways and I doubt they would pass any reform that would result in their fellow lawyers earning less money.

 

[jdale]

I propose a 6 strikes plan. After each erroneous or fraudulent take-down request, they are barred from issuing take-down requests for an increasing amount of time (a week, a month, a year...). After 6, take-downs are no longer permitted at all.

 

[foxyshadis]

Espeon[/url]":1eudbpgo]

"http://hotfile.com/contacts.html and give them the details of where the link was posted and the link and they will deal with the @sshole who posted the fake."

I'm still trying to make sense of what this could mean.

It appears to be an excerpt of a post following a link to a fake or virus movie upload. The name probably came right before the quote, and they somehow grabbed the wrong context. Commas would have helped a lot.

 

[CrookedKnight]

Replicant[/url]":33yx6lr1]"The system" they use? Without doubt, the DMCA needs reform -- but one of those reforms should be that you can't use "a system" to issue DMCA complaints. That just leads to absurd abuse like this.

It should be required that human eyes found the supposed infringement, wrote an email (no form letters) and sent it to the involved parties. There should be as much human labor required as possible to act as an automatic balance against abuse.

Indeed. In an ideal system, as soon as you admit that the takedown notice was generated by a computer with no human confirmation, that would be the end of it. Nice try, come back again with an actual person's testimony.

 

[paean]

On the flip side, is anyone really worried about these obviously pointless DMCA notices? If I got one of these I would throw it in the trash. It costs content companies to hire lawyers too, and they would never move forward on these cases. Maybe if everyone knew how the copyright system was supposed to work this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Shavano]

Dyskresiac[/url]":1v0u88a1]

Replicant[/url]":1v0u88a1]It should be required that human eyes found the supposed infringement, wrote an email (no form letters) and sent it to the involved parties. There should be as much human labor required as possible to act as an automatic balance against abuse.

But that would infringe on their rights to effectively pursue the legitimate infringements. How are they supposed to make a PROFIT off suing the pants off everybody and their mother?

Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if soon the litigation will bring in more revenue than the content itself.

So you're saying Fox and Sony will soon be following the Prenda model?

 

[Garst]

One word: defamation. It probably won't be something Cory Doctorow could charge someone with, but a site that has been wrongfully accused of violating copyright law (probably multiple times) probably could go after Fox for wrongfully labeling them as a criminal. I realize that some people are charged under civil law, but between the stigma of being found liable under civil law and the gray area between civil and criminal copyright infringement, you're viewed (and treated) as a criminal regardless of which statute you're charged under. The threat of defamation charges if you abuse the DMCA might be enough to reign in its power some.

 

[Shavano]

stabs[/url]":2hpb9qga]

I actually do send them letters about topics I feel strongly about, I vote in all the elections in my area and I vote based on who represents my concerns best regardless of their party affiliation. I am 99% sure they don't really care anyways and I doubt they would pass any reform that would result in their fellow lawyers earning less money.

That's because they know for every voter like you there are a hundred who vote on party affiliation or other non-issues.

 

[paean]

Garst[/url]":2ge6gfr5]One word: defamation. It probably won't be something Cory Doctorow could charge someone with, but a site that has been wrongfully accused of violating copyright law (probably multiple times) probably could go after Fox for wrongfully labeling them as a criminal. I realize that some people are charged under civil law, but between the stigma of being found liable under civil law and the gray area between civil and criminal copyright infringement, you're viewed (and treated) as a criminal regardless of which statute you're charged under. The threat of defamation charges if you abuse the DMCA might be enough to reign in its power some.

This is a great idea but yeah... courts are not going to impose defamation liability for sending a demand letter. There are legitimate DMCA plaintiffs too, and if they have to worry about a defamation counterclaim every time they to enforce a copyright, then copyrights get a lot more pointless.

Which is not to say there shouldn't be penalties for the assertion of frivolous claims; Congress simply hasn't put enough teeth on this one. If you ever sue someone for a copyright you don't own, you're in the court system and the court will hand you your ass in sanctions.

But we should also consider copyright owners, those much-maligned purchasers of content: without a system, how are they supposed to deal with millions of infringements every day? There is too much YouTube content uploaded every second to individually review, which is why the DMCA safe harbor exception exists. Does that mean that copyrights should be valueless? Maybe... but a court won't agree until Congress says so.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Well, that's still not as bad as the cases we've seen, where take-down notices are issued on copyright notices, even on take-down notices...

... but somehow, I don't seem to find a lot of comfort in that.

 

[pierrebuz]

He should turn the table and issue takedown notices for anything "Homeland" insisting they infringe on his copyrighted work.

 

[Garst]

paean[/url]":2whcr7sh]

Garst[/url]":2whcr7sh]One word: defamation. It probably won't be something Cory Doctorow could charge someone with, but a site that has been wrongfully accused of violating copyright law (probably multiple times) probably could go after Fox for wrongfully labeling them as a criminal. I realize that some people are charged under civil law, but between the stigma of being found liable under civil law and the gray area between civil and criminal copyright infringement, you're viewed (and treated) as a criminal regardless of which statute you're charged under. The threat of defamation charges if you abuse the DMCA might be enough to reign in its power some.

This is a great idea but yeah... courts are not going to impose defamation liability for sending a demand letter. There are legitimate DMCA plaintiffs too, and if they have to worry about a defamation counterclaim every time they to enforce a copyright, then copyrights get a lot more pointless.

Which is not to say there shouldn't be penalties for the assertion of frivolous claims; Congress simply hasn't put enough teeth on this one. If you ever sue someone for a copyright you don't own, you're in the court system and the court will hand you your ass in sanctions.

But we should also consider copyright owners, those much-maligned purchasers of content: without a system, how are they supposed to deal with millions of infringements every day? There is too much YouTube content uploaded every second to individually review, which is why the DMCA safe harbor exception exists. Does that mean that copyrights should be valueless? Maybe... but a court won't agree until Congress says so.

While I know judges probably wouldn't it in cases where there is at least a possibility that infringement occurred, but in cases where it's obvious infringement didn't occur, a judge just might. After all, there should be some grounds of recourse when someone abuses a law. Besides, crazier things have happened such as the passing and upholding of overreaching laws such as the DMCA.

 

[Akemi]

Replicant[/url]":152lx0nz]"The system" they use? Without doubt, the DMCA needs reform -- but one of those reforms should be that you can't use "a system" to issue DMCA complaints. That just leads to absurd abuse like this.

It should be required that human eyes found the supposed infringement, wrote an email (no form letters) and sent it to the involved parties. There should be as much human labor required as possible to act as an automatic balance against abuse.

Forget all that. Do it the easy and American way - kick 'em in the pocketbook. If every takedown request carried a nominal fee of $100, I guarantee we wouldn't see so much, if any, collateral damage with generically named content like Homeland (or another past incident, The Box).

The sad part is the DMCA already makes it clear that the person filing a DMCA takedown must sign the request to certify that they own (or represent the owner of the copyright) under penalty of perjury. So when WB admitted they know they'd sent takedown requests for content they didn't own (like a piece of software called The Box - clearly not the film The Box), there should have been immediate and severe fines and judicial oversight. Instead DMCA takedowns increase in number every day and nobody is being held to any standard with regard to accuracy of the claims.

 

[BMR-777]

What he could do is create a new book, something like "Fox's Journey" and then send a DMCA notice to Fox's domain registrar saying that he believes the site or domain is infringing. It would be funny to see Fox's domain suspended for a few days due to the takedown request.

 

[xXxSqueakxXx]

" The copyright holder is supposed to declare, under oath, a "good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner." "

Seems to me that using an automated system for requesting takedowns does not fulfill that requirement.

 

[H2O Rip]

So what would prevent him from using a similar system as FOX and sending take-down requests to you know....anything related to the TV show?
While it might be tough to do in this case, to get that section reformed unfortunately it's going to take that type of scenario to happen (though likely between two bigger companies with legal teams that can fight it out).

On that note though, are there services that will send takedown notices for you at all - or does every company handle it internally on their own?

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

Probably a stupid question but here goes: Since we in the U.S. apparently need federal statutes to rectify such apparently egregious abuses of copyrighted materials, is it really too much to ask that the statute include a provision mandating that an honest to gosh human being actually review & certify the legitimacy of each take-down request? You know, someone with a real name that is affixed to the notice. Or maybe one of those little pre-printed pocket tags that read "Take-Down Notice Reviewed & Validity Confirmed By Inspector 7191.

I am assuming no such requirement exists since it seems pretty obvious that no one bothers to read take-down notices until the content host receives them.

 

[SolidSquid]

The problem is, the law as written (saying that they need to be intentionally misrepresenting the link to be in violation) pretty much guarantees that they will use automated scripts with the loosest requirements possible. That way they'll catch almost everything, but can't be in violation because it was automated, not individual locations being targeted specifically

 

[Eddie Wilson]

Would really like to know who the idiot is that always gives a down vote on the comments at the start of the comment section. The problem with the voting system is you can vote and not have to debate the issue at all. It seems rather pointless. What seems even worse is that your comment can be hidden if enough people don't agree with you. A way to quiet down the rebels?

 

[dbmarketing]

IANAL but why can't they go after Fox for fraud? The DCMA clearly states that the copyright holders have to act in good faith. This means that Fox authorized a legal document on false pretenses, since any review would show that it wasn't their work. Fox is headquartered in California, so right off the bat the person who signed the request is probably looking at a felony charge under the California Penal Code 470, with up to 3 years in prison. Since this is federal, additional penalties might apply. If it was a lawyer, censure should be considered as well - it is a strict no no to sign your name to a fraudulent document.

 

[ardent]

T3hN00bSux0rs[/url]":c5q9aeu5]Is it possible that this author can sue Fox for repressing his First Amendment rights? I didn't look into whether or not the author is from the US, but regardless, it would be nice to see some retribution for this exploitation of power.

Edit: Cory Doctorow is a Canadian. Well there goes that plan...

This isn't a First Amendment issue.

There's pretty much nothing Doctorow can do here except issue a strongly-worded letter to Fox telling them to fix their shit, continue to collect incidences of his work being DCMA'd by Fox and present the information to the FTC and FCC as evidence of takedown malfeasance on Fox' part.

I doubt either group would want anything to do with prohibiting Fox from sending takedown notices, of course.

 

[dsigned]

I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking that Doctorow is salivating over this. Nothing helps your case for copyright reform more than being sent takedown requests for your own freely available book.

 

[AnthonyInVA]

In a reverse, Cory Doctorow should have Fox DMCA takedown their own content. F those guys. I hope Aereo does push them to switch to paid programming so they can wither.