
DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google - paralelogram
https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10416081
======
xfs
Google's response: no action for 94 sites, mysql.com link is taken down:

[https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/1877373/)

~~~
wongarsu
Does that mean that Oracle could press charges and/or sue for damages?

~~~
dangrossman
Probably not. The DMCA provides remedies for notices filed in bad faith, but
it'd be hard to prove the music group was acting maliciously rather than
stupidly.

E.g. "Even if EFF could show that Universal Music acted recklessly or with
negligence—that wouldn't be enough."

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/10355320733/why-i...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/10355320733/why-
its-almost-impossible-to-get-punished-bogus-dmca-takedown.shtml)

~~~
pjscott
That sounds like an incentive for these companies to file deliberately
nonsensical DMCA complaints, so that they'll always be able to disguise malice
as incompetence.

------
click170
Kind of sounds like some script hashed a "download" icon that's commonly used,
and submitted a DMCA takedown claim. Or something along those lines.

It's time for some teeth to be added to the DMCA to prevent abuses like this,
at a minimum there should be penalties for obviously fraudulent claims like
this one.

edit: typo

~~~
300bps
Exactly. If I write a script to find and download open source files available
via BitTorrent and my script has a flaw in it that causes me to accidentally
download copyrighted material can I just say, "Oops! Faulty script."? Not a
chance. I'll still get sued and told that I am responsible for what my script
does even if it was unintentional. Why then do copyright holders get a pass
for their allegedly faulty scripts where they falsely claim under penalty of
perjury that they own something they don't actually own?

~~~
dangrossman
> Why then do copyright holders get a pass for their allegedly faulty scripts
> where they falsely claim under penalty of perjury that they own something
> they don't actually own

Among other reasons, because they don't make such a claim under penalty of
perjury. The only thing 17 USC 512 actually requires to be "under penalty of
perjury" is the statement that you are acting on behalf of a copyright holder.
Nothing else in the notice, including the list of alleged infringements, is
part of that statement.

~~~
300bps
You seem to be parroting the unproven legal arguments of one of the parties to
a DMCA lawsuit. The statute is fairly clear in what is required:

 _(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and
under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on
behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed._

So if I send a DMCA takedown notice, I am stating under penalty of perjury
that I have the right to submit the DMCA takedown for the property allegedly
being infringed. It is quite clear. So if you send a DMCA takedown notice for
something you don't have the right to - but claim you do - you have committed
perjury.

------
oliwarner
I'm sure it's been said before and I'm sure it'll be said again, but there
need to be punative measures. Automatic submissions like this that waste
service providers' and uploaders' time and while it might not be malicious, if
you file legally binding papers on somebody (like a DMCA) you should have your
costs covered if it turns out to be bull.

Even an automatic $100 fine per 10 URLs per domain would stop idiots crap like
this, and fairly remunerate Google for going through it.

------
plorg
If I'm reading this[1] correctly, these might be proxied DMCA submissions.
Total Wipes Music Group sells software:

    
    
        Total Wipes Anti Piracy is a complete anti-piracy system that allows to you
        complete control to view, automate and remove illegal contents across
        cyberlocker, torrents, vk.com, filestube.com and illegal streaming sites
        whilst searching for your content across over 5 Billion piracy webpages
        24/7. Our carefully own created script uses the info you provide to deeply
        scan a vast range of IP networks, search engines, social sites, and other
        infringing locations for illegal instances of your content. Following a
        large group of data, our internal spider's scripts identify all links
        as valid or not, beginning the removal process. A consistently action
        of removing illegal instances of your content from all platforms drives higher
        sales. Protecting your content from illegal and unauthorized use puts
        copyright control back into your hands.

[1]
[https://www.totalwipesmusicgroup.com/pages/antipiracy](https://www.totalwipesmusicgroup.com/pages/antipiracy)

------
mxfh
just look for high rejection rates in the transparency reports:

[https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/70463/Aborigeno-
Music/)

it's not a singular occasion

[https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10424698](https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10424698)

[https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10436220](https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10436220)

------
Beached
I must be reading this wrong, are they really saying that they have exclusive
linux mint, nmap, open office, and all these other products?

~~~
dublinben
They are claiming that those URLs violate their copyright interest in some
obscure music album. This is obviously an erroneous DMCA claim, filed either
maliciously or by mistake.

~~~
wongarsu
These kind of things are often due to overly broad or malfunctioning
algorithms. Maybe some algorithm just picked up a list of links ending in
"download"?

Even if that's a mistake, it looks like gross negligence. These URLs aren't
even tangentially related to music.

------
BoppreH
It reads like the software list from Ninite
([https://ninite.com/](https://ninite.com/)). Large, dev-oriented free (as in
beer) software.

And nothing music related as far as I can see.

One more point against automatic DMCA complaints.

------
vortico
The DMCA states it is criminal to send false takedown requests, excusing from
mistakes. However "Whoops, I sent a takedown for nothing but open source
software!" is not a mistake. It is negligence in writing scripts or a human
review process that avoids false takedown requests. If the city "mistakenly
forgets" to repair the brakes on its busses, injuring dozens of people, they
would of course be liable for the damages.

~~~
tzs
Minor correction. It wasn't nothing but open source software. A few non-open
things were in there too.

------
JeremyBanks
Who has grounds to sue them in response to this?

~~~
300bps
Sue schmue, they filed that form stating they owned the rights to the listed
items under penalty of perjury. This is no joke, they should be criminally
prosecuted.

~~~
andrewaylett
As I understand it, they claim "under penalty of perjury" only that they own
their original work; the claim that the links given actually infringe said
work has no such penalty.

My understanding of the logic: It should be relatively easy to tell whether
you hold the copyright in a work, unless weird things have happened (see also:
SCO). Working out whether a second work is derivative, and if so whether
that's fair use? Harder, and the job of a court. That's why it's also really
easy to get work re-instated under the DMCA -- at that point, the DMCA has
done its bit, failed, and the regular court system takes over.

------
bencollier49
Interesting. Is there any indication that any of the sites concerned were
delisted for any period of time whatsoever?

~~~
AimHere
dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/ seems to still be delisted.

------
imaginenore
Doesn't filing fake DMCA complaint result in criminal charges. Doesn't it also
expose you to a civil suit?

~~~
jlward4th
I'm also curious about this. If there is no downside of filing a false DMCA
complaint then what prevents someone from causing the receiver a ton of
unnecessary work?

------
dang
Arguably a dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8848544](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8848544).

------
Quanttek
So far no URL of this list seems blocked from here

------
zabcik
"Total Wipes Music Group"

This has to be a joke.

~~~
ErikBjare
Apparently it isn't.

First available request is from May 2014. URLs requested to be removed:
196953.

[https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/reporters/40594/Total-
Wipes-Music-Group/)

