Techdirt post about SOPA censored from Google results due to bogus DMCA complaint

Discuss

35 Responses to “Techdirt post about SOPA censored from Google results due to bogus DMCA complaint”

  1. vruz says:

    That Techdirt post has been updated since, Google have reinstated the missing link.

    • EH says:

      Much to their detriment.

      I see DMCA takedowns as a customer service issue, and coupled with long-standing customer complaints about service regarding myriad Google facets, I really think that Google’s no-customer service is their hamartia.

  2. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Is there an army of people in Shanghai and Lahore getting ten cents an hour to generate bogus takedown notices?

    • EH says:

      It worked for the mortgage industry.

    • Graham Whittaker says:

      The inference is somewhat offensive. This is NOT a Chinese/Indian phenomenon. It might just as well be Grand Rapids or Humpty Doo (yes that IS a real place.) Please think about WHAT you say before you say it.

      • Dree says:

         What is offensive about it?  Places where the living wage is low (and I don’t mean 8.50/hour) are great for projects like this.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Why wouldn’t it be outsourced like spam?  The obvious inability of the people making the claims to determine whether or not they’re legitimate certainly squares with the idea that it’s being done by people with a marginal grasp of English and a financial incentive to make shit up.

        It might just as well be Grand Rapids or Humpty Doo

        Ten dollars an hour versus fifty cents an hour?  Why do you think outsourcing happens?

        Please think about WHAT you say before you say it.

        You should definitely do that.

      • Cowicide says:

        The inference is somewhat offensive.

        Let us know once it gets completely offensive.

    • Pino Carafa says:

       The problem is that there isn’t even an army of people getting ten cents an hour to *deal* with them. So every take-down notice is simply accepted at face value, even if the name of the claimant is “Donald Duck” or other information on the claim shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the claim is bogus.

  3. Marja Erwin says:

    I think the copymight maximalists really believe they have the ‘right’ to own ideas in perpetuity.  I suppose they look at limited copymight terms, fair use, and the public domain as encroachments on their divine right to control other people’s thoughts. I suppose they look at advocacy for free speech, the public domain, and limiting or abolishing copymight as, well, sedition, and an attack on their property. But I might be wrong – I can’t wrap my mind around something quite so absurd.

    • EH says:

      If you think about it as a land grab, maximalists don’t really care about ideas per se, just that sequestered domain knowledge can be a profit center.

      • Sagodjur says:

         Yeah, it seems to be a part of the “I did it because I could” ethics-less opportunism that is rampant today, and probably has been for much of human civilization unless specifically curtailed by organized opposition.

    • bluest_one says:

       Copyright is a poison.

      In the right (minimal) dose it can have a beneficial effect, but the LD50 is quite low.

      Those with power have been both over-prescribing, over-dosing and cutting it with all kinds of other toxic crap for some time now.

  4. yalisanswer says:

    The Government is looking at every reason to regulate the Government and use excuses to enslave us.  Now they’re saying porn is the excuse.  Senator Hatch suggests the Government just start destroying computers without due process to discourage online piracy.   http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/

  5. jerwin says:

    Number 250 points to an Independent article on the Costa Concordia
    The plot thickens: Was woman drinking with captain – or an innocent aboard?
    Ordinarily, I would assume that this is the result of a poorly programmed search for a porn site called “Innocent High”– an innocent mistake, so to speak, But the “under penalty of perjury” clause leads me to believe that this was intentional, and therefore malicious,

    • BDiamond says:

       I’m scratching my head trying to figure out what your comment has to do with the subject at hand. I’m puzzled.

      • ialreadyexist says:

        If you go to the takedown notice at http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=189468 you’ll see a list of URLs that they are claiming are infringing their work.  The Techdirt article is entry #253.  The post above is commenting on a different article that got caught up in the sweep, one from the British Independent.  Also, if you look at a lot of other URLs in the list, many of them have some form of “innocent high”.  The post above is speculating that a poorly formed search query caught up a number of links in its results and no one bothered to run that list through a common sense filter.

        Another possibility: Someone added the techdirt article to the list of porn site URLs to confuse the situation and for deniability by claiming it was an innocent mistake, no harm, no foul.

        It would seem like a notice of takedown should be required to be sent to anyone accused of infringing content. Otherwise, one might go for years and years writing away only to have their content never appear in search results. I can’t imagine that any organization – government or otherwise – would EVER want to do that though.

        • jerwin says:

          If you go to the takedown notice at http://www.chillingeffects.org…you’ll see a list of URLs that they are claiming are infringing their work.  The Techdirt article is entry #25

          Exactly.

  6. SoItBegins says:

    Someone tried to give them the soft-SOPA!

  7. That_Anonymous_Coward says:

    Someone claiming to be from the company behind the 500+ item DMCA notice claims they made a boo boo.  That they just went wild with basic keyword matching and submitted everything they found.
    They are now reviewing everything they bogusly submitted  and “fixing it”.
    They decided maybe they need to limit their little keyword matcher some, and we should totally trust them because they donated to Tor Exit nodes and some SSL stuff.

    This is what happens when you don’t actually do beta testing.  It was nice to see articles on Torrentfreak targeted as well.

    And this is why there needs to be automatic punishment of bogus DMCA claims, once they have to pay when they screw up they might actually try and do a much better job.

    • Cowicide says:

      I hope Techdirt sues them for lost advertising revenue and wins.  There needs to be repercussions for this crap.

      • That_Anonymous_Coward says:

        Unsure what Mike’s plans are. 
        I did enjoy seeing someone complaining that Mike wasn’t nice enough about accepting the apology. *boggle*
        Between this stunt and the whole songbird thing there has been some high entertainment in the comments.

        The spin from the company behind it was awesome entertainment, and there are some questions if they had any standing in the first place for their entire takedown spree.

  8. Martijn Vos says:

    How many people have actually been convicted for perjury due for DMCA abuse?

    I mean, that was the one great part of the DMCA: if you abuse it, you go to prison. And personally I would love to see all those copyright lawyers in prison.

  9. lord_sutan says:

    The post above is speculating that a poorly formed search query caught up a number of links in its results and no one bothered to run that list through a common sense filter.

    Another possibility: Someone added the techdirt article to the list of porn site URLs to confuse the situation and for deniability by claiming it was an innocent mistake, no harm, no foul.

    Someone claiming to be from the company behind the 500+ item DMCA notice claims they made a boo boo.  

  10. Lane Yarbrough says:

    TEST:

    Many people use their real names or life like names as user names. 
    There’s a specific equation behind porn names. 

    Let us  see if boingboing gets a notice. Yes, I went through the entire list of both sites names. I didn’t have to enter the porn site to view names, they are on the front page. All these names/words  match up with the user (commenter) names on Tech Dirt.

    Full names: Ashley Jamie Charlotte Allen Ryan Russell Mimi Asia Allen King Casey Chris Olivia Smith Olson Jordan (5)Ryder (3)James (8)

    Unique partials with multiple hits:Jay (+11) BlazeRoxx (x) Rox (7) Chris (3) Jen (+12) Hristo (5)  Michael (5) Lee (12)

  11. angusm says:

    I’d like to see a “Three strikes and you’re out” rule applied to submitting DMCA takedown notices – three bogus DMCA notices, and you lose the right to submit any more. To anyone.

    The problem is that people who like to submit bogus infringement claims would just switch to using ‘disposable’ shell companies to file their takedown notices, and as soon as one company got shut down for submitting bogus requests, they’d shift to another one.

    • Peter says:

      1) You have to state exactly which copyrighted work is being infringed.  If your company does not actually own that copyrighted work, the penalty for even 1 false infringement accusation is criminal charges.  You can assign the right to issue such a notice to another company, but only if you explicitly give them the right to act on your behalf and to be held liable to number 2.

      2) Three bogus DMCA notices claiming that something infringes on a copyrighted work you own/have the right to submit on behalf of, and the work in question officially becomes public domain.

      I know it’ll never happen, but that would be my ideal solution.

  12. jwkrk says:

    “Well isn’t that CONVENIENT?” — The Church Lady

Leave a Reply