Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Movie Studios Ask Google To Censor Links To Legal Copies of Their Own Films

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the don't-you-dare-point-at-my-stuff dept.

Google 196

An anonymous reader writes "Several large movie studios have asked Google to take down legitimate pages related to their own films, including sites legally hosting, promoting, or discussing them. Victims of the takedown requests include sites where the content is hosted legally (Amazon, CBS, iTunes, Blockbuster, Verizon on demand, and Xfinity), newspapers discussing the content in question (the BBC, CNET, Forbes, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, The Mirror, The Daily Mail, and Wired) as well as official Facebook Pages for the movies and TV shows and even their Wikipedia entries. There are also a number of legitimate links that appear to be completely unrelated to the content that is supposedly being protected. The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."

cancel ×

196 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hm... (5, Insightful)

sidthegeek (626567) | about 2 years ago | (#42185003)

I'm thinking Google should just remove any and all links to anything that even just has the movie studios' name on it. Including their own websites.

Re:Hm... (4, Insightful)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 2 years ago | (#42185033)

Perfect time to show them what Google really does for them: any page that includes the name of the studio, or any of the movies that the studio has ever made will no longer appear in search results. See how long it takes them to realise their folly.

Re:Hm... (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42185099)

Perfect time to show them what Google really does for them: any page that includes the name of the studio, or any of the movies that the studio has ever made will no longer appear in search results. See how long it takes them to realise their folly.

And then people use Bing because they can't get to RottenTomatoes or IMDB through Google? And everyone says "Google is broken" and they show just how flippant they are when it comes to searching?

Re:Hm... (1)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#42185177)

Bing just gloms off Google anyway.

Re:Hm... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185367)

Concidering it's been proven time and time again that Bing results are just copies of Google results, none of those searches will return anything from Bing either.

You'd need to go to a completely independent search engine, likely one that has not been threatened by the RIAA/MPAA before as well (of which none exist)

Re:Hm... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185377)

Why purge it from the system entirely?

Leave the results there, but poison the link itself to take to a Google landing page of "Sorry, but we were told we cannot link to this {movie studio, movie, whatever} by {MPAA, others}. If you have a problem with this, please talk to them. Fuck you MPAA, Google."

Re:Hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185925)

Why purge it from the system entirely?

Because it's the only way to be sure.

Re:Hm... (5, Funny)

organgtool (966989) | about 2 years ago | (#42185489)

And then people use Bing because they can't get to RottenTomatoes or IMDB through Google? And everyone says "Google is broken" and they show just how flippant they are when it comes to searching?

What's a Bing? Sorry, I'm just too lazy to Google it.

Bing It On! (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42185595)

What's a Bing? Sorry, I'm just too lazy to Google it.

Oh, that's easy! I saw this hip new original television show called Hawaii Five-0 where the characters say "Bing it!" [youtube.com] and the dialog flows so naturally in this scene you just have to see it. And when she looks up Clifton Bowles, she just has to push in "C" and then "L" and Clifton Bowles autocompletes because, let's face it, everyone's searching for Clifton Bowles and "CL" is more than enough to complete that search!

Oh yeah, as a viewer that product placement was natural and unforced and subconsciously I find myself saying "Bing it!" more and more in everyday conversations. I've also found myself buying a lot of Bing Crosby CDs, planning my trip to Bing, Iran and drinking a lot of British Bing Cola ...

Re:Bing It On! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185753)

Wow...that was just a pathetic product placement. Who says Bing it?

Re:Bing It On! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42185909)

Lazy! [lmgtfy.com]

Re:Bing It On! (2)

MrDoh! (71235) | about 2 years ago | (#42186173)

Could that BE anymore silly.

Re:Hm... (1)

Keith111 (1862190) | about 2 years ago | (#42185639)

I'm pretty sure the idiots just copy paste it to bing, google, altavista, yahoo, tripod, and pretty much all the web sites those hipster pirates use these days

Re:Hm... (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#42186009)

And then people use Bing because they can't get to RottenTomatoes or IMDB through Google? And everyone says "Google is broken" and they show just how flippant they are when it comes to searching?

Bing has the same problem handling automated takedowns.

If all the big search companies put the studios on notice that misuse of take downs (automated or not) will result in their interests being also taken down, this nonsense would stop.

... and delist the movie companies from the web (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#42185175)

take down their domain names because they are promoting valuable content! don't publish advertising related to these products! and Mr. Governor Brown, TAKE DOWN THOSE BUILDINGS!

Re:Hm... (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | about 2 years ago | (#42185307)

I agree, but let's go one further....If they just went all the way and removed all links to everything, that'd shure 'nuff shut down that innernet thingy. Then when you went to google for something, maybe it would just lead you to Bing. Binging something would just take you to duck duck, which would lead you back to google....

PROBLEM SOLVED, and the RIAA, movie execs, etc etc etc etc will be so happy, they'd do the macarena. Or they would, but they can't find a legitimate copy in the store anywhere. "Hey, I know, let's just google a torrent of it!"

Smiling inside at the stupidity of those who know better than you and I. Some day, they'll just leave things alone, and they'll find they're better off. :)

Re:Hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185331)

PLEASE, please Google, just do it, do it, fuck the studios.

If they want to play this game, WIN IT!

Besides, nobody uses Bing anyway. (besides those people who use Xbox360 as a computer)

Remove everything. Every single mention of any of the studios and their content. Let's see how they like their damn precious content then.
One month and they will come crying back.
And you know what you can do then? Tell them to get the fuck out and come back with money if they want back on.
You aren't a common carrier, you already censor things anyway, so you might as well censor them.
And if they remove crap from Youtube, who cares? Everyone will just upload things to "darknet" profiles with funky filters to hide the content from your algorithms, it already happens now but on a lesser scale and these things have been up since 2010.

In the end, they are the ones who will lose.
It will be a bit messy for a year, but in the end, worth it. Make them suffer for the decades of suffering they have caused.

Re:Hm... (5, Insightful)

jcoy42 (412359) | about 2 years ago | (#42185393)

I think Google should impose a fee to said studios for making bogus takedown requests. After all it's not free for Google to comply with these requests, and if the studios aren't even willing to validate them perhaps they should be billed for the time it takes to do so.

Re:Hm... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#42185447)

I'm thinking Google should just remove any and all links to anything that even just has the movie studios' name on it. Including their own websites.

So it would serve the studios right if you could no longer even find the stuff using Google .. no TV shows, no movies, nuthin.

Google [The Hobbitt]

only links to the book are found, no references to the upcoming films.

Yeah, that'd fix em.

Huh (3, Insightful)

Cinder6 (894572) | about 2 years ago | (#42185005)

So, Hollywood is actively trying to push itself into obscurity?

Re:Huh (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#42185417)

Works for me. I'd much rather read a book than watch a movie, then again the last time I went to go see a movie was Lord of the Rings. I have a feeling that I'll be suckered into seeing the new Hobbit movie though.

Re:Huh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185509)

Works for me. I'd much rather read a book than watch a movie, then again the last time I went to go see a movie was Lord of the Rings. I have a feeling that I'll be suckered into seeing the new Hobbit movie though.

Fascinating.

Re:Huh (4, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42185947)

Hobbit movie, suckered in?

I don't know whether to mod your Hobbit post -1 Troll or +1 Troll.

Re:Huh (3, Interesting)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#42185529)

So, Hollywood is actively trying to push itself into obscurity?

There's nothing new here. First DRM, then DMCA, and now they want to censor themselves. Their own sheer stupidity truly is amazing. Maybe they'll make a movie off of it one day...

Re:Huh (3, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#42185775)

Their own sheer stupidity truly is amazing. Maybe they'll make a movie off of it one day...

If someone makes a movie, for a censored industry. Does it turn a profit?

Re:Huh (5, Interesting)

Deadstick (535032) | about 2 years ago | (#42185865)

Eons ago there was a magazine called Softside that published games written in BASIC for the Apple II, Atari and TRS-80. It soon got a visit from a Radio Shack lawyer asserting that only Tandy had the right to publish software for their computers, and demanding that they cease and desist from saying "Radio Shack" or "TRS-80" in their articles unless they paid Tandy a royalty.

The magazine complied by saying "S-80 Bus" which was not within the scope of Tandy's trademarks. Tandy got its wish: nobody ever writes about Radio Shack computers today.

Re:Huh (3, Funny)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about 2 years ago | (#42186155)

"Tandy got its wish: nobody ever writes about Radio Shack computers today."

Except you, so it would appear :D

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42186447)

So, Hollywood is actively trying to push itself into obscurity?

Nope. They'll sue to get themselves removed. Then sue due to discrimination and not having stuff searchable. Only a small part of MPAA is involved in actually making garbage movies.

Why?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185009)

Is this policy or is it one idiot (or even an algorithm) gone beserk?

Re:Why?? (5, Informative)

Tx (96709) | about 2 years ago | (#42185197)

First paragraph of TFA says "We’ve written about the ridiculousness of automated Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requests before, including Microsoft asking Google to censor BBC, CBS, CNN, Wikipedia, the US government, and even its own Bing links, but this latest episode takes the cake." That would seem to imply it's an automated process in play, although there really isn't much information in the article, and it could conceivably be read another way.

Re:Why?? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42186027)

While I see the difficulties with thousands of links, nevertheless this should just be a tool, and at some point a human has to double-check things. This should be on the claimant as they are the one under penalty of perjury. Where's the penalties anyway? It should be less than for deliberate perjury, but lesser the same way running over someone accidentally is less of a penalty than deliberately. The slap should cause taking notice, otherwise it's not slappy enouh.

Re:Why?? (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 2 years ago | (#42185207)

Or perhaps just the movie studios clearly mis-understanding what the internet is all about.

Re:Why?? (4, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#42185537)

Or perhaps just the movie studios clearly mis-understanding what the internet is all about.

Perhaps? It's been a while. They've clearly demonstrated it beyond any shred of doubt.

Re:Why?? (2)

runeghost (2509522) | about 2 years ago | (#42185635)

The corporations have gone rampant.

Google should comply (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#42185053)

Take them all down, plus any link relating to the studio, all studio movies, show times, or anything similar.

Make the bastards pay for promotion like they did in the days of newspaper advertising. Charge them 10 million dollars per movie studio, 1 million per movie, and 100k per site to get back into Google's index.

Re:Google should comply (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 2 years ago | (#42186143)

Make the bastards pay for promotion like they did in the days of newspaper advertising. Charge them 10 million dollars per movie studio, 1 million per movie, and 100k per site to get back into Google's index.

Google could justify that fee as an increased cost of doing business due to all of the personnel they need on hand to deal with DMCA requests for the studios' products.

Just do it (2)

Morpf (2683099) | about 2 years ago | (#42185059)

I hope Google delists these webpages (only the specific pages that correlate to the films) and any other (free?) advertisements. Maybe then the film studios get to feel, how it is not having ads in the internet. Just let them shoot in their own feet.

Gee (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42185061)

Why don't they just ask Google to shut down?

Many of the links (5, Insightful)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 2 years ago | (#42185063)

The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.

No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.

Re:Many of the links (4, Interesting)

niado (1650369) | about 2 years ago | (#42185123)

The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.

No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.

Well, the reporter possibly checked some of the links in questions, found they were still up, and used "many" as opposed to "all" since they couldn't verify "all".

Re:Many of the links (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | about 2 years ago | (#42185547)

The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.

No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.

Well, the reporter possibly checked some of the links in questions, found they were still up, and used "many" as opposed to "all" since they couldn't verify "all".

If only there were some sort of machine for automating such drudgery.

Re:Many of the links (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42186389)

Verifying the OCR of a scanned notification letter still has to be done by hand.

Re:Many of the links (1)

AtomicJake (795218) | about 2 years ago | (#42186297)

The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.

No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.

No, good news would be that Google (and probably all other search engine, who do not show the DCMA requests) had completely followed all requests. There is no better way to show how stupid this whole DCMA business is.

It's BULLSHIT. (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42185077)

There has to be some sort of fine for this automated bullshit. The price for bullshit "take-downs" should be enough to discurage this automated take-down crap.

In fact, automated requests should not be allowed.

Re:It's BULLSHIT. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185343)

It may just be regular bullshit.

yesitis.org is now just a parked domain. So whomever sent it on behalf of the studios no longer exists.

Re:It's BULLSHIT. (5, Funny)

organgtool (966989) | about 2 years ago | (#42185543)

I would recommend something like $150,000 per false request, but I think that most legislators, judges, and lawyers would surely find that figure to be absurd for a minor civil offense.

Re:It's BULLSHIT. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42185665)

I would recommend something like $150,000 per false request, but I think that most legislators, judges, and lawyers would surely find that figure to be absurd for a minor civil offense.

Hahhaaaaa. I get it!

Re:It's BULLSHIT. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185955)

It should be x% of the studio's revenue, where x is big enough to make them think twice but not enough to ruin them for a mistake or two.

Re:It's BULLSHIT. (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 years ago | (#42185825)

Exactly. Why cant the site owners sue the sender of the takedown for loss of revenues and mis-use of the law? IANAL but there should be some thing that they can do top stop this.

Re:It's BULLSHIT. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185895)

THE LAW: "(3) Elements of notification.—
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement
must be a written communication provided to the designated
agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on
behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

Automated system is not a person, so the notification is invalid. Problem solved.

good guy google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185105)

as always

Google should honor the most stupid requests first (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185111)

Victims of the takedown requests include sites where the content is hosted legally (Amazon, CBS, iTunes, Blockbuster, Verizon on demand, and Xfinity), newspapers discussing the content in question (the BBC, CNET, Forbes, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, The Mirror, The Daily Mail, and Wired) as well as official Facebook...The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."

I'm thinking the net would be a much better place if Google just obeyed these requests, no questions asked. And did it very fast.

Re:Google should honor the most stupid requests fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185273)

The studios want to become the sole source for their material. The studios need to get the content removed from each of those websites then it won't be on google. Then they will grant permission to friendly, authorized sources for their movie reviews, ratings, etc.

Re:Google should honor the most stupid requests fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185373)

Only if you didn't want Google to index anything. Someone out there will request links be removed to websites just for shits and giggles.

Don't read too much into it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185133)

Google didn't avoid taking action against "offenders" because of any moral stance -- these requests are obviously the result of some faulty logic on the part of some reporting system, automated or otherwise, and they are simply stalling until there is confirmation of this to avoid duplication of effort. Same thing any other business in their shoes would do.

Onion? Is that you? (4, Insightful)

yotto (590067) | about 2 years ago | (#42185155)

Seriously this sounds like an Onion article that someone copied and put on their site.

"The good news"? (5, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | about 2 years ago | (#42185173)

"The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."

How is that good news? If the studio wants a link to their own Facebook page for a movie removed from search results, DO IT. Google should comply with the idiotic requests. I would imagine the response would be similar to those newspaper sites that have requested their stuff be removed from Google News: traffic dives and they change their tune rather quickly. IMO, the best way to show the stupidity of the DMCA is to plainly demonstrate it to the content creators.

Re:"The good news"? (2)

Tx (96709) | about 2 years ago | (#42185347)

Yes; organisations like Google are in the unenviable position of having to either a) devote a great deal of resources to looking into all these takedown requests to see if they are valid, or b) accept the takedown requests at face value, and wait to see if the person on the receiving end protest. Neither choice is good, but it might make a point to the studios if Google chose to take the latter course as far as these particular requests are concerned. And perhaps not be in too much of a hurry to restore the pages when the time comes either.

Re:"The good news"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185651)

Unless that resulted in a refined set of protocols, this would just be ping pong.

Google can't deal with analyzing the requests, so they start being automated.
Automated requests pass through bad requests or malicious ones
Persons and companies protest
Google returns to analyzing requests.

A person with a lot of time could cause pain for a LOT of persons/organizations.

Example - a recent trend seems to be calling the police, impersonating someone, telling the police you just shot someone or are holding various persons hostage (something critical that the police has to respond to immediately) and tell them you're at "your" home address. The police then respond Code 3 to the unaware person's home, say just as a family is sitting down to dinner. Not pleasant. This is called "SWATing" someone.

Re:"The good news"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185749)

How can you SWAT someone in the age of caller ID?

Re:"The good news"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42186069)

Throw-away cell phone? Clip onto the phone wires?

YouTube accepts notifications at face value (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42186405)

organisations like Google are in the unenviable position of having to either a) devote a great deal of resources to looking into all these takedown requests to see if they are valid, or b) accept the takedown requests at face value, and wait to see if the person on the receiving end protest.

B appears to be standard operating procedure for YouTube.

Re:"The good news"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185437)

Fine for links to the studio's own content, but links to news sites too? The BBC shouldn't find itself getting removed from search listings because of a bad DMCA request by another company.

Or just ask for the internet to be taken down (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | about 2 years ago | (#42185289)

Another way the studios could have asked this was to change the entire nature of the internet, since that is the whole purpose of links.

I can only hope Google's response was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185303)

Fuck off and die. Especially the die part.

Maybe just a random troll. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185305)

>In early November, a few dozen DMCA notices were sent by a company called “Yes It Is – No Piracy!” on behalf of several major movie studios, including Lionsgate, 20th Century Fox, BBC Films, Summit Entertainment, Sony Pictures, and Walt Disney Pictures.

If you go to the website in question (http://yesitis.org/), it is now a goDaddy parked domain.

Some have inferred that this means it isn't exactly a legitimate request from the studios.

Re:Maybe just a random troll. (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#42185745)

The Wayback Machine never indexed it, but Google cached it [googleusercontent.com] . Here's the "Services" [googleusercontent.com] page. Apparently with piracy, "more than one area of expertise is required" so this group also provides Adoption, Medical Malpractice, DWI, Bankruptcy and Divorce services as well.

The domain was registered in 2005 and updated yesterday, so that's probably when it was parked.

Re:Maybe just a random troll. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42186121)

Their resources page reads like a Who's Who of, well, sites anyone can link to?

We’re proud to provide you with the following resources:

Professional Organizations and Governmental Agencies

American Bar Association [americanbar.org]
Library of Congress [loc.gov]
American Association of Justice [justice.org]
Association of Trial Lawyers of America [nndb.com]

News and Information

The Wall Street Journal [wsj.com]
CNN Legal News [cnn.com]
The National Law Journal [law.com]
Law.com [law.com]

Legal Resources

United States Federal Law [rutgers.edu]
U.S. Code Search [house.gov]

And the footer text of their pages:

Content copyright 2012. Yes It Is No Piracy - DMCA Remover. All rights reserved.

Clearly they were in the DCMA removal business.

Re:Maybe just a random troll. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42186407)

The website has been taken down after unsuccessfully attempting to remove the DMCA, obviously.

Crying wolf penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185335)

Would be neat if when a content provider asks for valid stuff to be taken down too many times,
      then the provider has no consequence for ignoring all the content provider's requests for a while

Sort of like DCMA take down timeout.

queue and charge for invalid takedown notices (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#42185355)

a) all takedown notices from a rights holder will be sequentially queued
b) right holder must provide complete history of ownership and demonstrate right to assert takedown
b) if item (N) is found to be an invalid take down request a fee of $ZZ,ZZZ must be paid
c) regardless of the validity of request (N+1) it will not be acted on until any fees requried for invalid requests (MN+1) have been paid

As long as the rights holders are making valid requests they get serviced. Mess around and they have to pay for the work done.

Re:queue and charge for invalid takedown notices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185513)

this needs to be patented.

Re:queue and charge for invalid takedown notices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185795)

Sounds like a quick to lose 'safe harbor' protection. I wish the DMCA was not so fubar.

Re:queue and charge for invalid takedown notices (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 2 years ago | (#42186171)

Or an alternate - if any claim in the request is found to be false, the entire request is thrown out. If they want to list 100 URLs that supposedly infringe, and one of them doesn't, then the request is thrown out and they get to figure out which URL wasn't correct.

Fake....? (1)

RdeCourtney (2034578) | about 2 years ago | (#42185375)

The website they give: http://yesitis.org/ [yesitis.org] is simply a parked domain on GoDaddy, their WHOIS is hidden.

My belief is that someone setup the domain - sent some faked requests to Google to try and stir something up.

Self destructive no doubt... (1)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#42185383)

Perhaps they should also censor themselves from print media including movie posters and lets not for get radio..

This should help productions that do not follow such self defeating mentality

Oh WOW, it just occurred to me.... (1)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#42185427)

They didn't use the word illegitimate.... Does this mean they are running out of who to sue and need Google to help filter their search for who to sue?

FALSE ALARM (3, Informative)

fwice (841569) | about 2 years ago | (#42185443)

It may have been some randoms doing DMCA illegally:

FTFA:

Update: Yesitis.org now points to a parked page. Yet another sign that these notices may be fraudulent, and not authorized by the copyright holders at all. If that’s indeed the case it remains unclear what the purpose of these notices is. It would show how easily these DMCA notices can be abused.

Re:FALSE ALARM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185503)

Or we slashdotted the site and they reverted to a static parked domain page.

Holsters are dangerous! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185565)

In Hollywood they have a tendency to cause foot injury especially in Westerns like this one made by MPAA lawyers.

Perhaps the best way to prevent such foolishness (1)

goffster (1104287) | about 2 years ago | (#42185567)

Is simply to take it down as requested. Allow "Big Content" to face the real consequences of their actions.

Perjury? (4, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42185645)

So what does the "under penalty of perjury" part of a DMCA takedown notice mean?

AFAIK, a takedown notice has to include something like this:

Under penalty of perjury I certify that the information contained in the notification is both true and accurate, and I have the authority to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright(s) involved.

Doesn't that mean that someone can be held legally liable for fraudulent takedown notices? Who would have to sue to enforce it? Google? The legitimate site that was taken down because of the notice? The Department of Homeland Security since they are supposed to be keeping us safe?

To protect copyright holders, hide everything (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#42185689)

The best way to protect copyright holders is to not watch, discuss or promote any of their products. Make it illegal to even announce the availability of a copyrighted work because that would lead directly to infringement. Information Sequestration! If they don't know about it, they can't steal it!

Re:To protect copyright holders, hide everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42186445)

Better yet: If they don't know about it, they might eventually come up with the same idea themselves, thereby giving you an opportunity to sue them!

I recently saw this first hand (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185693)

I'm responsible for maintaining a marketing site owned by a sister-company of big Hollywoood movie studio. We market the DVD/BluRay/Online releases of major blockbuster movies. As part of a limitation of our CMS, we couldn't host trailers ourselves, so the marketing team was using a YouTube account.

The YouTube trailer for the DVD/BluRay release of a major summer blockbuster was taken down via a DMCA request. As a result, the trailer was broken on our marketing page for that release. Luckily, this was right around the time that we got our own video hosting resolved so we were able to solve it. But it was beautiful that for a couple days, the page running on OurCompanySite.com displayed a video with the message, "This content removed from YouTube at the request of Our Company"

Good news??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185709)

"The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."

No. That's the bad news. Much better if Google had taken them all down (so this shit hit the fan and got spread all over, and then was proactive about anticipated future demands, - removed every URL that contained any mention of the referenced intellectual properties or the media companies. Assign the bastards to oblivion!

Do it (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#42185727)

1. Take down link as requested.
2. Take down all other links to targeted material.
3. Take down all links to domain originating request.
4. Take down all links to owner of targeted material.
5. Keep links down for at least 30 days.

Profit!!!!

Meh, let's do it. (0)

SeaFox (739806) | about 2 years ago | (#42185779)

I think Google should comply, just to make it apparent to the studios how dumb they're being.

Imagine when the marketing arm of the studio inquires as to why the legitimate sites are not appearing and Google tells them they're gone because they told Google to take it down.

The title is wrong (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42185803)

Should read something like "Movie studios using legal loop holes to manipulate search engine results to direct searches for movies to their official websites and nowhere else."

They should do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42185857)

And replace the links with links to copies of the take down notices and see how things turn out.

"Good faith" takedowns deserve good faith response (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#42185891)

If the studios are going to send Google thousands of automatically generated URLs without checking them and claim it was a "good faith" attempt, Google should just stop processing the list at the first invalid URL requested as an "exception case, resubmission required" and claim it was an automated "good faith response".

Otherwise, it's just absurd that they can spam Google with automated DCMA scanning tools which Google then has to take seriously and respond to individually...

gun meet foot (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#42186039)

Ouch.

Many? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#42186221)

Tell you what, come back with a court order and the takedown will proceed. Until such time, welcome to the rule of law.

Bots? or it is a left hand / right hand thing (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42186355)

Bots? or it is a left hand / right hand thing where people who deal with the blocking don't know about the places that are legally in place?

Do It - No More Studio Links (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42186391)

No more www.sony.com. No more www.timewarner.com. Remove them from search results. Come on Google, do it.

I can't believe I am saying this. (1)

atomicxblue (1077017) | about 2 years ago | (#42186435)

I think Google should fill these removal requests. The movies studios were the authors of most, if not all, of DMCA, so why not show them how awful the law truly is? I've never seen CBS' “How I Met Your Mother,” because most television shows made today are pedantic, except for Adventure Time, but it's been out for awhile, right? Something like the main page for the show no longer able to be found seems like it would be painful for the studio. After the eventual request for reinstatement of the URL, Google should drag it's feet, or better yet, have the studio bring it up in court.

According to the DMCA, Google is protected by the safe harbor amendment as long as they comply with all lawful requests. Google, I assume, would not put itself anywhere near being in breech of the law and ignore the request just because they were asked nicely. Do it! Take the pages down. Let's see how they feel when the shoe is on the other foot.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?