The Inquisitr » DMCA

Time Inc’s New Scam: Abusing the DMCA

Duncan Riley — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:07:29 +0000

Times are tough for the media industry, and any way to raise funds and abuse copyright law seems to be fair game, at least if you’re Time Inc.

We received a DMCA takedown notice and a demand for $1500 today from Time Inc for running a shot of the cover of People Magazine.

The cover is fair use, and People Magazine was rightly credited. But what is confounding is that the SAME COVER is currently on just about EVERY MAJOR NEWS SITE on the planet (the screenshot is taken from my local paper The Age.) Indeed, People Magazine has in the past offered covers to news sites as part of their promotional efforts.

I’ve taken the picture down, and instead embedded video of a local news report from NBC Austin that shows THE EXACT SAME COVER.

Our delightful new host Rackspace has also threatened to suspend our account over the original image, despite the very clear fact that it was NEVER hosted on their servers: all images being uploaded to this site are hosted on Amazon S3/ Cloudfront.

Here’s the DMCA request and licensing demand in full. I won’t be paying the $1500: this is an abuse of the DMCA and clearly constitutes fair use.

The Inquisitr
PO Box 8164
Camberwell North VIC 3124 Australian

Re: Copyright Infringement – DMCA Takedown Notice

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have been instructed by the Law Department of Time Inc., the corporate publisher of People Magazine and People.com to put you on notice of a copyright infringement. It has come to our attention that you have posted without permission or compensation, People Magazine’s October 26, 2009 cover of Jaycee Dugard from People.com, (the “Unauthorized Work”) on your website, “www.inquisitr.com” at http://www.inquisitr.com/42524/pics-jaycee-dugard-does-first-interview-with-people-mag/ (the “Website”).

Your publication of the Unauthorized Work is an infringement of the copyright of Time Inc. Attached with this letter is a copy of the Time Inc. Work.

This letter is an official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We hereby demand that “www.inquisitr.com” immediately cease and desist from infringing the copyrighted material of Time Inc. and confirm in writhing that it will do so and that it will not republish the Unauthorized Work.

In addition, we hereby demand that “www.inquisitr.com” reimburse Time Inc. in the amount of U.S. $1,500 (U.S. $1,500.00 per image) for its unlawful act. We reserve all rights to take legal action.

I have a good faith belief that use of such copyrighted material would not be authorized by of Time Inc., its licensing representatives, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I hereby swear under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of Time Inc. for matters pertaining to notification of infringement of its exclusive rights in its copyrighted material.

Sincerely,

Dhiraj Merchant
Mindcrest Inc.
One East Wacker Drive, Ste. 2900
Chicago, IL 60601

Google removes Pirate Bay from search results

Kim LaCapria — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:52:46 +0000

Googling for “The Pirate Bay” returns a different set of results today, as Google has responded to a DMCA complaint requesting the change.

Instead of the results you may have come to expect, pages have been removed with this disclaimer at the bottom of search results:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 8 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org. ee

Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde addressed the action in a series of tweets this morning (edited to remove usernames):

Ok, someone from Google can please reply: why is “thepiratebay.org” (the frontpage) removed from your index?

Well, the frontpage of TPB certainly does not infringe on any copyright, in any way or form. It’s a competitor to Google though.

can you check how it came that Google decided to filter out “thepiratebay.org” frontpage from it’s index?

only the frontpage is gone. thepiratebay.org has no filetype:torrent really, only torrents.tpb has that.

Google has not addressed the decision directly, and results using Bing have not been altered. Aside from the homepage and seven other pages on the site, other Pirate Bay pages are still accessible via Google.

UPDATE: Google says it was a mistake:

“Google received a (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown request that erroneously listed thepiratebay.org, and as a result, this URL was accidentally removed from the Google search index,” Google said in a statement. “We are now correcting the removal, and you can expect to see thepiratebay.org back in Google search results this afternoon.”

Dustin Lance Black lawyers threaten to sue us despite not running the XXX pics

Duncan Riley — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:10:31 +0000

Lawyers representing Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black have today threatened to sue The Inquisitr for a screenshot of perezhilton.com we included in a post.

The shot we ran included one picture from the set of pictures published by Perez Hilton that showed Black having sex with another man. The picture, which constituted approx one third of the screenshot, showed Blacks head, but certainly nothing more or less.

Ironically in the post we discussed the issues surrounding the publication of the pictures, and why we weren’t interested in running them.

Black’s lawyers claimed copyright over the screenshot, claiming that Black owned ultimate copyright over the partial image. We objected on two grounds: the picture was clearly taken by a third party, and the lawyers provided no supporting evidence that copyright was held by Black. Second, as a screen grab from another site, the image as a whole constitute fair use under US copyright law, and fair dealing under Australian copyright law.

Despite filing a counter claim noting the valid objections and asking for a valid response, the lawyers continue to threaten this site and our host Media Temple without providing the evidence requested (and required under the DMCA), using terms such as “You act at your own peril” and “govern yourself accordingly.” I’m not going to play martyr over one image, so we’ve censored the shot by blacking out the bit they were upset about.

I will however this week consider lodging a complaint under Australian law for the coercive and threatening nature of their correspondence. I’ve dealt with DMCA claims in the past, both lodging them and receiving them, and this would have to be the most unprofessional, bullying correspondence I’ve seen yet.

One last thing: when we wrote about Dustin Lance Black I actually felt a bit sorry for the guy given what had been published elsewhere. That is no longer the case. Dustin Lance Black: not that you’ll probably ever read this, but if you do, we’re having a party the day you get hit by a bus. Your legal tactics only prove that you got your just desserts.

PS: Image above is used under CC license from Wikipedia: see here.

Here’s only one part of nearly a dozen emails.

Re: D. Lance Black / Copyright Violations – DMCA Notice

Dear Website Operator:

We are representatives/attorneys for D. Lance Black, and we are writing with respect to our client’s claims arising from violations of his intellectual property rights with regard to copyright infringement, as well as violations of his right of privacy and publicity. Mr. Black holds all rights, title, interest and copyright to the photographic materials, portions of which are posted on your website.

Included herewith is a DMCA Notice of Infringement for the post that appears on your website, which posts, displays and disseminates without authorization a photos (the “Unauthorized Photos”) which violates our client’s copyright. Our client has not authorized nor licensed the use of his copyright in conjunction with the creation, posting, dissemination or exploitation of infringed materials on your website. Accordingly, we request that you immediately remove the unauthorized posting and dissemination of the Unauthorized Photos pursuant to the following DMCA notice.

NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT

I, the undersigned, CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that I am the owner or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of certain intellectual property rights, said owner being named Dustin Lance Black (”IP Owner”). I have a good faith belief that the materials identified hereto are not authorized by the above IP Owner, its agent, or the law and therefore infringe the IP Owner’s rights according to state, federal and/or US law. Please act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the listed material or items claimed to be infringing.

Infringed Work or Right: Copyright Violations
Item/Material – Website/URL Location(s):
http://www.inquisitr.com/26037/dustin-lance-black-photos/
http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/dustin-lance-black-photos.jpg

Thank you for your anticipated immediate cooperation and immediate compliance with US Copyright Law.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, I may be contacted at via reply to the listed address or at the above listed address and phone number.

If you fail to comply with this notice and expeditiously remove the infringing content, you will be held liable.

You act at your own peril.

Govern yourself accordingly.

This letter does not constitute a complete or exhaustive statement of all of my client’s rights, claims, contentions or legal theories regarding this matter. Nothing stated herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my client’s rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved. This is a confidential legal notice and may not be published, in whole or in part.

Truthfully,

BARRY DALE JOHNSON
8409 Santa Monica Blvd. West Hollywood, CA 90069
p: 323.822.4813 | f: 323.822.4880 | c: 213.944.8303
bjohnson@id-pr.com

Yet another really dumb move by Warner Brothers

Steven Hodson — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:32:19 +0000

No this isn’t another story about Warner Brothers sending their RIAA or MPAA storm troopers after a single mom or an ailing grandmother. Those they would probably succeed into forking over a pound of flesh for some perceived crime against humanity. Their latest victim of a DMCA takedown notice on YouTube is a horse of a different color.

Yup folks, they have pulled the ultimate boner by going after none other than the King of Fair Use himself – Larry Lessig. I shit you not as you can see from Larry’s tweet to the world when it happened

When asked on Twitter if he would be fighting the takedown notice Larry’s reply was

Way to go Warner Brothers. you couldn’t have picked a better way to show the world just how stupid you are and how little you understand how things work anymore.

Google provides some slapdown on who really serves DMCA notices

Steven Hodson — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:13:03 +0000

Copyright laws around the world are in the process of being re-written and in many cases they are a draconian move into the the past with us – the users – being made out to be the worst criminals in the world. With secret meetings being held by world governments in order to get the entertainment backed ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) passed there is an increasing push to increase Internet censorship and people’s access to the Internet being removed by accusations alone.

The newest country to fall in line with this is New Zealand whose new copyright law would see supposed file shares kicked offline based on accusations rather than court convictions. As part of the hearings around this new copyright law entertainment lawyers have been making the rounds telling everyone in the government that the backbone of the ability to take down illegal things on the Internet – otherwise known as the DMCA – isn’t that bad since bogus take downs are in fact very rare.

Enter Google who in written submissions and the numbers to back it up say that the exact opposite is the case (emphasis mine)

In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.

As such, Google says "Section 92A puts users’ procedural and fundamental rights at risk, by threatening to terminate users’ internet access based on mere allegations and reverse the burden of proof onto a user to establish there was no infringement."

It goes on to say, "Section 92A undermines the incredible social and economic benefits of the open and universally accessible internet, by providing for a remedy of account termination or disconnection that is disproportionate to the harm of copyright infringement online."

The submission also takes issue with the claim that user education is stated as a “primary purpose” of the draft code, "but there is little reference to education about users’ rights, including limitations and exceptions enabling lawful use of copyright protected works, in addition to their obligations."

Source: PC World Magazine – New Zealand

I may not be the biggest fan of Google but in this case I throw them the high five.

YouTube Now Blocks Copyright Material First, Asks Questions Later

Duncan Riley — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:28:29 +0000

We’ve had some interesting run-ins with YouTube before over copyright. In December USA Today claimed copyright of a Digg demonstration video we uploaded, and given YouTube seemingly ignores complaints, USA Today to the best of our knowledge is still gaining revenue from a video that had nothing to do with them.

But usually copyright claims happen after a video is already on the site, with YouTube following the DMCA safe harbor provisions to take videos down that are subject to claims. But not any more.

We regularly receive pitches from various people, including reps for movie companies. On January 23 we received an email from one of our regular PR contacts (and we’re always grateful for the emails, even if we don’t always run them) for the upcoming film Sunshine Cleaning. The email included links to private downloads for the movie, including a trailer and poster. I downloaded the trailer this morning, ran it through iMovie for processing, then uploaded it to YouTube so we could run it on The Inquisitr. Note that the trailer had been sent so we could run it on the site, so we had permission to do so from an authorized representative of the copyright owner.

Imagine then my surprise that after the clip had finished prcoessing, YouTube immediately identified it as being in breach of copyright and didn’t allow it to go up.

I was then redirected to an option where by I could lodge a dispute to the claim; the end result in the picture above.

To YouTube’s credit the movie was quickly included again, but the process still begs the question: why has YouTube seemingly abandoned the DMCA process in favor of blocking material upfront, and automatically presuming that the uploader isn’t authorized to share the material?

No doubt the MPAA and RIAA will be happy with YouTube’s now authoritarian stance on copyright, but as a user it completely stinks, and offers no fair and due process in these matters. Once upon a time we would have expected better from Google/ YouTube, that’s obviously no longer case.

McCain Campaign asks YouTube to ignore the DMCA

Duncan Riley — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:24:00 +0000

The McCain campaign has written to YouTube, asking that the site ignore a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and provide special resources to give expedited consideration to copyright claims against campaign videos.

The legalities leading to the current situation aren’t always clear. Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have been hit with DMCA claims for using songs and video without permission. Some videos included nothing more than a mixture of clips from news services, where as others used extracts only; the latter in particular would constitute fair use, but that would be a matter for the courts on a case by case basis.

The McCain campaign objects to YouTube’s DMCA policies on two fronts: the takedown of McCain campaign videos, and the time the counter-notice procedure takes to be processed by YouTube, around 10-14 days. The processing side is understandable: the campaigns want their videos up on the site, they are embedded on other sites (and they can’t replace the same embeds with alternative video once taken down), and 14 days later isn’t quick enough when the videos are often topical to that day, let alone the week, or the broader campaign. That YouTube should offer expedited processing to political campaigns is a matter of choice for YouTube: they aren’t obliged to do so, even if it might win them a little support from both campaigns. However, it’s also a pandora’s box, because once YouTube starts giving exceptions for some, others will be lining up to demand the same treatment.

The interesting part is the McCain campaign’s request that YouTube ignore the DMCA in terms of take downs, a law that McCain himself voted for in the Senate. The campaign argues in a letter (full copy below) that immediate takedown of material following a DMCA notification is “unnecessary” under the DMCA:

“nothing in the DMCA complies a host like YouTube to comply automatically with takedown notices, while blinding itself to the legal merit (or as here, their lackoff). The DMCA provides hosts with a safe harbor from liability for infringement, but there is no need for a safe harbor where, as here, there is no infringement in the first place”

The problem with that statement is two fold: one, the DMCA calls on content to be taken down first, second, the act doesn’t dictate that hosts should make the call on copyright.

There is some ambiguity on the speed at which the takedown should take place. From § 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online (c)(1)(C)

upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

(c)(1)(A)(iii) also deals with the need to take down material following notification.

upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

The key word here is “expeditiously.” The industry has always taken that to be as soon as possible, with the notice coming afterwards. McCain’s campaign are arguing that this isn’t the case, and that YouTube can consider the validity of each claim prior to takedown. The whole idea of safe harbor is one that excludes the host from the copyright claim altogether. For YouTube to start making the call on the validity or other wise on a DMCA notice deals YouTube into every claim it makes that call on…and that’s an army of lawyers salivating for inclusion. That they would keep content up to consider the validity of each claim, would seemingly go against the need to act expeditiously dictated in the act itself.

If there’s one good thing to come out of this letter, it’s that at least one campaign now understands the problems of the DMCA. Maybe, just maybe after the election, someone might look at reviewing the laws as they stand, and to make them more friendly to fair use, and stronger against those who seek to use the laws unjustly.

(in part via NewTeeVee)

McCain Campaign Letter To YouTube on Fair Use – Upload a Document to Scribd

In a polarized society, will moderate viewpoints die?

Duncan Riley — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:41:10 +0000

The term red states, blue states introduced America and the world to the notion of a polarized society, one that rallies around what makes us different over the common ground. Polarization in politics isn’t new, but today the middle ground appears weak, a notion of the greater good replaced by one of a blind ideological viewpoint of us and them.

Sadly the new media and technology sector are moving in the same direction. Extremism on both sides is creating an us and them divide where moderate thought is drowned out by the fanaticism on either side.

Copyright

I’d consider myself a moderate on copyright. The notion of allowing inventors and creators to profit from their work is enshrined in the US Constitution, and copyright law itself dates back to England before that. I believe that copyright as it was originally intended is a noble cause that encourages development and creativity. And yet today that original notion of copyright has been poisoned by the greed of big media and music, geared not to offering some just reward for creators, but in lining their own pockets for the rest of time. Copyright laws that once lasted 20 years have been replaced by the life of a creator + 70 years, a move that only benefits big business at the loss of the public domain. Worse still is the use of DRM and other artificial restraints, that seek to take copyright to new levels of stupidity, where those who buy the rights to use copyright protected items are limited in how they privately use them. It’s the ultimate greed tax imposed by law makers beholden to the next campaign contribution from those with an interest in profiting from those laws.

But lets take the other side, one that calls for the complete abolition of copyright law with a notion that intellectual property is imaginary property. If find it very easy to sympathize with their call, and there is no argument that Creative Commons and the Public Domain give to the greater good. But in a world without copyright, where we would be free to take and use as we please without the need for some compensation, what incentives would there be for creators to create if they are unable to profit from their creations?

I’m not talking music, which is an interesting adjunct, as the music itself can be used as a promotion tool for things like concerts. I’m talking real inventions, world changing inventions. It is not unreasonable to state that those who create should have some path to reward. That I believe was the intention of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution.

Every time I mention my anti-DRM stance or mention the latest BitTorrent tracker, I’m howled down by some as being an extremist against copyright. Likewise for even arguing here briefly in favor of some copyright and patent protection, I’ll be labeled an extremist in the other direction. In a polarized world, there is scant room for moderation.

I’d note also that I understand why those calling for the abolition of copyright take their position: the corporate greed of copyright holders has driven an extreme reaction in itself (and not unjustly), but the harder path is to take a moderate line and not simply become a reactionary.

Mainstream Media

I don’t believe that mainstream media will completely die out. I believe that broadcast television as a distribution medium is dead because the television companies are the least prepared for the changes the internet is quickly delivering, and that secondly the notion of a one size fits all broadcast medium is an antique concept that logically will be replaced when an alternative of custom choice on demand or custom mixed content when the technology is cheaply and widely available. I believe that newspapers are in deep trouble, and that within 10-20 years 5-10% will be left in the Western world, but I don’t believe they’ll die out completely, even if the notion of media on print itself will cease to be in a digital age. There will always be a place for quality journalism, and the smart print publications are switching online now in a big way, looking at ways of keeping their business going well into the future when print newspapers themselves are dead. The New York Times will be available in 2030, but it will be a website only.

The old media is still today struggling to come to terms with this change, and love nothing more than to lash out at the new media creators that are offering their first serious competition. I attend conferences to be told by media hacks that bloggers are nothing but conflicted amateurs, incapable of creating quality media, and that the only way to define premium content is by how much is charged for it. It would be unfair of me to say that it is all in the space, and there are many fine and smart people in media who understand the changing face of journalism and their need to adopt to the times, but the extreme hates the bloggers, hates the YouTubers and Facebookers, and anyone else who dares share their opinion in a space that until 10 years ago was the elitist domain of the mainstream media.

The flip side are those who say that mainstream media is dead, that they will all cease to exist, and the quicker the better. That their number will thin is a given, but to suggest that they will die out is another matter. I touched on newspapers, but the companies behind television and radio aren’t completely stupid either. Hulu may be georetarded and DRM infested, but it is the first considerable step away from the broadcast television model into a new age of media on demand. The Disney’s of this word may have vested interests in television, but they are production companies first and foremost and they will follow the crowd where ever it goes. Comcast offers shows on demand today via the cable box.

Again I sympathize with the mainstream media is dead meme, and when I’m attacked by the fanatics on the other side it is far easier to switch towards the us and them model than try to argue some common ground and a moderate view, and quite honestly I wouldn’t be greatly displeased if a lot of those walls came tumbling down tomorrow, after all this false idea that journalism isn’t biased compared to a biased blogosphere does need to die, because it is a grand delusion by those in the media who believe they are beyond contempt. However, the moderate view sees a major restructure in the media landscape, but not a complete wipeout, based on trends and numbers we are already seeing.

Likewise, there is really not a lot of difference between the top of blogging and old media. Many blogs I’ve dealt with would have stricter editorial standards than large chunks of print. Newspapers themselves are embracing blogging in a big way, further blurring the lines. I’d argue that “blog” as a term in itself is probably growing towards redundancy; there are news sites and those which indulge in editorial and opinion. That they are owned by News Corp or a blog network should not be the first criteria upon which to judge either of them.

Conclusion

I feel that I’m probably barking up the wrong tree, because many reading this simply won’t understand that there is a common ground, a middle ground in many of these debates, like they are unable to see it in politics. I saw someone on FriendFeed the other day (apologies but I don’t recall who it was) say that he was unfollowing and possibly blocking McCain supporters because they were McCain supporters. There was some suggestion that some had been annoying him, but he’d decided none the less to block them all because he believed them to be stupid, and not worthy of a place in his feed. This extreme need to block others with differing opinions, to look to the negatives over the positives, to ignore the common ground and instead focus of the extremities would appear to be more and more the norm. Moderates are the dying breed, and we will be all worse off for the polarity we are left with.

Muxtape jammed?

Duncan Riley — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:56:29 +0000

Online music sharing service Muxtape is offline, with a notice on the site saying only that “Muxtape will be unavailable for a brief period while we sort out a problem with the RIAA.” The Muxtape blog doesn’t shed any more light on the matter, with a post stating that “No artists or labels have complained. The site is not closed indefinitely. Stay tuned.” They also go on to note that “Beta users of Muxtape For Bands: you are unaffected by this outage.”

Muxtape is a cool little service that allows user to upload songs and share those songs in a traditional mix-tape format. The problem though legally lies with the fact that Muxtape hosts the music and as far as I know doesn’t pay any royalties on songs played on the site. CNet’s Geek Gastalt noted in April that the defense Muxtape was hiding behind was the DMCA provision of “‘hosting on behalf of users’ safe harbor” in a similar fashion to YouTube. However, unlike other services that rely on the search provisions (such as Seeqpod and MyPlaylist.biz), the problem with Muxtape is the hosting, and unlike YouTube who can mount some sort of argument that it doesn’t rely on pirated content alone, Muxtape was open season for any music uploads, and that’s always going to gain the attention of the record labels or their proxies such as a RIAA. Owen Thomas notes that the service also made it easy to users to download songs hosted on the site, a double copyright red flag if there ever was one.

I like this service, and it fills a need that once again isn’t being met by the heads in the sand music industry, but unless they pack their bags and move to Sweden, you’d have to think that they’d have to be completely screwed here, presuming that the RIAA has come a knocking.

(via Webware)

Muxtape