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!

Hollywood Studios Use DMCA To Censor Pirate Bay Documentary

timothy posted about a year ago | from the we-don't-like-your-bits dept.

Movies 139

First time accepted submitter Aaron B Lingwood writes "As reported by TorrentFreak, Viacom, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate have all asked Google to take down links pointing to the Pirate Bay documentary 'TPB-AFK.' The film, created by Simon Klose, is available for no cost and has already been watched by millions of people. The public response to this free release model has been overwhelmingly positive, but it's now meeting resistance from Hollywood, TPB's arch rival. Pirate Party Australia opines 'Hollywood is using takedown notices to censor Pirate Bay doco, is it incompetence or malice? Always hard to tell.' Whichever the answer, the system is definitely broken."

cancel ×

139 comments

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

Its a Shame (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782399)

That the studios won't get sued for it.

Re:Its a Shame (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#43782881)

That the studios won't get sued for it.

It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.

Re:Its a Shame (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43782955)

Why does this never happen?

Heck, can I sue for defamation if they use a DMCA take down against me for posting this movie?

Re:Its a Shame (3, Informative)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#43783241)

In the US, you can generally sue for anything you can find a lawyer willing to file the paperwork on.

Winning the case might be a bit more difficult however.

Re:Its a Shame (4, Insightful)

suutar (1860506) | about a year ago | (#43783507)

It doesn't happen because it requires proving bad intent, which (barring finding an email that says "hey, file a DMCA request. It doesn't really qualify but it'll slow them down.") is nigh impossible to distinguish from (even unlikely levels of) natural stupidity and ignorance.

Because of the weasle wording. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43784221)

They say "I am the copyright holder of X, Y infringes my rights, shut it down" and the thing that is perjury is lying about the "I am the copyright holder of X". NOT "Y infringes my rights".

They don't even claim they have copyrights in Y, just that they have rights in X.

Re:Its a Shame (5, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43782989)

It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.

Because all you have to do is claim incompetence and get off without penalty ... even if they did it on purpose, you'd probably never be able to prove that.

Which is why there needs to be penalties for simply being wrong, otherwise it's free and they can do it all they like and later claim it was in error. They're certainly willing to destroy people's lives with their claims, they should have a lot more accountability for it.

Re:Its a Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43783837)

That's why you subpoena e-mails relating to the issue. Laziness will get you every time on things you should have said directly with no trail.

Re:Its a Shame (1)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year ago | (#43784059)

That's why you subpoena e-mails relating to the issue. Laziness will get you every time on things you should have said directly with no trail.

Do you really think that the defendant will provide you with *all* of the emails? It would be just as hard to prove one was missing as it would be to demonstrate mal-intent in the first place.

Re:Its a Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785599)

subpoenas for depositions under oath have a way of "concentrating the mind" of those questioned.

Re:Its a Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785515)

do the research and screw them for abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

Re:Its a Shame (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year ago | (#43783023)

What is even the point of this? Has Hollywood finally just lost their last brain cell?

Hollywood: This Pirate Bay Documentary is ruining our business!
Executives: We'll censor it!
Hollywood: Hell Yeah
Movie-Goer: ...it's already been seen by milions
Hollywood: Sorry, can't hear you over the sounds of the billions that we'll rake in once we take down those scoundrels!

Re:Its a Shame (2)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year ago | (#43783207)

It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.

As far as I understand the DMCA, it's only perjury if you claim to be or claim to represent the copyrightholder of a work, while in fact you are not. I can't issue any DMCA takedown requests on a outdoors videoclip with birds chirping claiming copyright infringement on the movie "Star Wars" since I am not (representing the) Star Wars copyright owner. But I could do it based on my own movie, even though it is obvious the videoclip isn't infringing.

This is what is the problem with Kim Dotcom's MEGA; it has -purposefully and intentionally- built in the same flaw: you HAVE TO BE who you claim to be re the work you are "defending", but it doesn't matter one bit what you are taking down.

Re:Its a Shame (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43783331)

I don't see an answer to whether or not Google is actually taking down these requests.

But if they respect known false DCMA takedown notices, they're complicit.

Re:Its a Shame (3, Interesting)

suutar (1860506) | about a year ago | (#43783721)

complicit they may be, but shielded from any effect they most certainly are; that's the entire point of the DMCA safe harbor provision.

Re:Its a Shame (2)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about a year ago | (#43785351)

complicit they may be, but shielded from any effect they most certainly are; that's the entire point of the DMCA safe harbor provision.

Exactly.

I've always seen the "Safe Harbor" provisions as more of a threat than a protection. If ISPs and Hosts don't respond to the take downs, then they become complicit and liable for damages.

Re:Its a Shame (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about a year ago | (#43783479)

nope, it's worse than that.

Scumsucker and Weasel LLC ("Scumsucker") swears under penalty of perjury that Sleazebag Studios, Inc. ("Sleazebag") has authorized Scumsucker to act as its agent for copyright infringement notification. Scumsucker's search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of Sleazebag's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the attached report.

Scumsucker has reasonable good faith belief that use for the material in the manner complained of in the attached report is not authorized by Sleazebag, its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification under provisions of section 512(a) of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the attached report. The attached documentation specifies the exact location of the infringement. The Notice ID identifies the copyrighted works by file identification number.

We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the user refrains from using or sharing with others Sleazebag's materials in the future.

Please send us a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter. Please reference the Notice ID number above in your response.

Notice how the only thing that is sworn to is that Scumsucker is the agent of Sleazebag.

They do not have to swear that they own the copyright. They can believe it on the basis that the magic 8 ball told them so and are not committing perjury.

On the other hand a counter notice legally requires you to swear a lot of things under penalty of perjury, far more than the initial notice.

the law is an ass.

Re:Its a Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43784021)

You can simply notice them back demanding proof of claim that the copywrite act is even a law upon the land and can therefore apply to men.

You can go on to demand proof of claim that they have evidence to make the accusation and that if they cannot do so and prove that the law exists as above that they cease and desist immediately or pay up for harassing you.

They can't prove any of this of course.

Include a copy of your fee schedule with a note that any further communications that do not include substantive proof of claim will be charged for.

If they continue to mess you around at that point, start to invoice them, put them in default when they don't pay and then lien their property. Then head to their offices with a truck and ask the local sheriff to assist you in pursuit of the lawful lien.

Take stuff that you can auction for the amount they now owe you, hand back any extra money made on the auction and there is then no dispute.

No lawyers necessary. Ever. Know who you are and what your standing is!

Re:Its a Shame (3, Funny)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#43785207)

Know who you are and what your standing is!

Easy for you to say, Anonymous Coward...

Re:Its a Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785303)

Know who you are and what your standing is!

Easy for you to say, Anonymous Coward...

Yes; Areyoukiddingme is no doubt your real name

Possible remedy (2)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about a year ago | (#43784165)

I think the DMCA should contain statutory damages for each false DMCA takedown notice. It would not really matter if Sleazebag Studios or Scumsucker and Weasel LLC has to pay, the important point is that "mistaken" takedown notices would become expensive.

Re:Its a Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782921)

If the DMCA is easily abused, it is time to disregard it (like police have done with cell phones).

Re:Its a Shame (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43783403)

It's ashamed that their lawyers won't get disbarred for it.

Why? (5, Insightful)

HalAtWork (926717) | about a year ago | (#43782423)

Do they have any rights to any copyrighted content that has been misappropriated for use in this film? The article does not clarify how the DMCA is being used and what "Hollywood" is claiming as a violation.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782493)

Oh, this is a non-story I guess. Apparently "Hollywood" is doing what they always have done, firing blindly at anything that moves. TPB-AFK was not specifically targeted.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782513)

They aren't claiming anything specific. They are just sending generic take down notices pointed at links saying that they own the content.

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43782561)

The article does not clarify how the DMCA is being used and what "Hollywood" is claiming as a violation.

Really?

Fox, with help from six-strikes monitoring company Dtecnet, asked Google to remove a link to TPB-AFK on Mechodownload. Paramount did the same with a link on the Warez.ag forums.

Viacom sent at least two takedown requests targeting links to the Pirate Bay documentary on Mrworldpremiere and Rapidmoviez. Finally, Lionsgate jumped in by asking Google to remove a copy of TPB-AFK from a popular Pirate Bay proxy.

Each of Fox, Viacom, and Lionsgate issued take down notices. They're essentially using false claims to issue DMCA take downs.

Since they don't have to support or justify their claims, and there is no penalty for making false claims, they can suppress this by just telling people it's violating their copyright.

Re:Why? (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about a year ago | (#43782663)

Yes.

but their targeting of a Creative Commons Pirate Bay documentary is something new.

That's misleading. The only thing that's new about it is that Pirate Bay has never released this documentary before, I guess. I've heard this story before; author releases original content for free, big media censors by DMCA take-down notice. Sorry no penalty is available for them by law... but if you ignore their request, or if you read and allow someone's appeal to result in bringing the link back up, you subject yourself to expensive legal fees and big penalties if it turns out that it was indeed a valid take-down request.

Better to just let Big Media do what they want.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43782735)

Sorry no penalty is available for them by law

There's supposed to be a penalty of perjury, but to date they mostly file anything they like and nobody has held them to account.

The problem is the whole thing is skewed in their favor, and everyone else can either blindly comply even when it's bullshit, or spend a lot of their own money fighting it.

Someone needs to start applying meaningful, and significant penalties when they do this falsely. Otherwise they can just keep taking down anything they want to with no consequences.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43783221)

They get around the purported penalty by using the following format for the filing:

1) Take down X at URL Y, because I own the copyrights.
2) I swear under penalty of perjury that I am me.

Re:Why? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year ago | (#43785611)

How about filing a DMCA claim against their movies?

Re:Why? (2)

jonwil (467024) | about a year ago | (#43783303)

Actually, legally, if the person who posted the original content submits a valid DMCA counter-notice then the content host (the one originally sent the DMCA take-down notice) can put it back and be legally protected. Its then up to whoever sent the original notice to to file a lawsuit against the uploader if they still believe they have a legitimate case.

IANAL but this is my understanding of the DMCA. Any experts out there feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Re:Why? (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about a year ago | (#43783857)

I am not so sure about the part where you are legally protected under safe-harbor, or entirely sure of what makes a counter-notice valid, but I would suggest that if the legality of re-posting the link depends on your pointing the finger at the uploader and allowing them to be ruined by lawyers with deep-pocketed big media clients, your users as a whole are better off if you have a blanket policy of honoring DMCA take-down and ignoring valid, or any other, counter-notices.

They'd (users) better find somewhere suitably protected and anonymous, and re-post it there, instead.

Re:Why? (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about a year ago | (#43783879)

* Which of course only works in the slightest degree, if either anonymous Bitcoins, or if free Creative Commons.

Re:Why? (1)

jafiwam (310805) | about a year ago | (#43785299)

The point of the counter notice is two fold;

- it lets the owner (if the claim is not valid) put the content back up and protects the host
- it passes the contact information between the two claimants, which sets the stage for "see you in court"

Since the host has followed the law, they can wait for the court order if it comes.

Re:Why? (2)

Vektuz (886618) | about a year ago | (#43782673)

There actually IS a penalty for knowingly making false claims, its a federal crime. But its one of those "must fight in court, full of loopholes" crimes that's not meant for Fox and friends, its meant for "ordinary people". You know, people. Not... The People.

Re:Why? (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#43782675)

Which brings the question: when will some clueful legislator (I know, contradiction in terms. . . ) make a provably false DMCA takedown request either a criminal act or allow civil suit to be brought for violation of free speech. Currently, a false DMCA claim is, in effect, a SLAPP manuever [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43782837)

Actually, it already is. DMCA requests are issued under penalty of perjury. This doesn't actually matter because:
1. It has to be a knowingly false takedown. Takedowns sent unintentionally (ie, by over-zealous bot) don't count.
2. Most DMCA takedowns aren't actually formal DMCA notices, but rather 'polite requests' issued to hosts or service providers on the understanding that a full takedown will follow soon enough if the request isn't obeyed.
3. No prosecutor has the slightest interest in enforcing this provision.

Re:Why? (2)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#43783101)

Which was my point. The level of evidence needed to prosecute for perjury on a DMCA takedown is monumental, while the evidence required to FILE a takedown is Zero. Hence, my pining for a legislator to rebalance it to something approaching equity. . . .

Re:Why? (1)

spasm (79260) | about a year ago | (#43783409)

So why aren't we all writing 'over zealous' bots designed to identify misuse of that one video we shot as part of a GE requirement in college, said bots which just happens to constantly misidentify content which large studios are selling online, so that the studios are constantly battling nonsensical DMCA takedowns too?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43783459)

Because they have better lawyers and political allies than you.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#43782721)

>> Fox, with help from six-strikes monitoring company Dtecnet, asked Google to remove a link

> They're essentially using false claims to issue DMCA take downs.

No they are not. They are not invoking the DMCA. They are asking their friend Google to suppress the information without filing a formal DMCA complaint, and Google is choosing to comply of their own free will. Google does not require the majors to file formal DMCA complaints, which is why there is no penalty for them under law, and why it is so hard to get false accusations cleared.

This is not the law being abused, this is Google siding with their fellow oligarchs in Hollywood, against the public interest.

Re:Why? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43782875)

I don't disagree, but it's all the more depressing because of that.

The companies get to do anything they want, and the rest of us gets screwed in the process.

Re:Why? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#43782927)

I hear you, my friend. It hurts me to see how many people here still give Google a free pass on this stuff because they were once an ethical company.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782899)

Your weird anti-Google paranoia is charming, but wrong. The media companies are sending DMCA take down notices and Google are legally obliged to honor them. From the article, which I'm sure you've read:

Over the past weeks several movie studios have been trying to suppress the availability of TPB-AFK by asking Google to remove links to the documentary from its search engine. The links are carefully hidden in standard DMCA takedown notices for popular movies and TV-shows.

Anything else you'd like to incorrectly blame Google for? World hunger, cancer, tornadoes in Oklahoma?

Re:Why? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#43783589)

Thanks for the correction -- retraction here. [slashdot.org]

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about a year ago | (#43783045)

Hm. According to this, it IS a DCMA notice [chillingeffects.org] from DtecNet (for LionsGate) to Google. It's nominally for the movie "The Last Stand" but in there, they sneak in a link for TPB:AFK documentary. Care to elaborate where you get your info from?

Sent via: online form
Re: Websearch Infringement Notification via Online Form Complaint

Google DMCA Form: Infringement Notification for Web Search

Contact Information
Name: [redacted]
Company Name: DtecNet
Copyright holder: Lionsgate
Country/Region: US

Re:Why? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#43783607)

Thanks for the correction, and for the link to the DMCA claim -- retraction here. [slashdot.org]

Re:Why? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#43783421)

My apologies for the false accusation. I was conflating what I believe to be YouTube's over-aggressive takedown process with parent company Google's general practices.

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

faffod (905810) | about a year ago | (#43782745)

Speaking of "six strikes" how do we successfully petition for a new six strikes law: If you issue 6 invalid DMCA takedown notices you lose the right to issue takedown notices for the next 12 months.

Re:Why? (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#43782919)

If you issue 1 invalid DMCA takedown notice you lose the right to issue takedown notices for the next 12 decades.

Some small improvements.

Re:Why? (0)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#43783143)

How about if you issue ONE invalid DMCA takedown, you get 12 years at hard labor. Multiple false takedowns at the same time ?? Roomie in the slammer is a 350-pound Axe Murderer named Bubba. . .(evil grin)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43784207)

Yours is still inadequate:

If you issue 1 DMCA takedown notice all C-level executives and board members get tortured for the rest of their natural lives.

Some more small improvements.

Re:Why? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43783187)

If we had enough support to do something like that, we may as well just get rid of most of the DMCA.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782709)

Indeed, this seems so brazenly stupid that I wonder if it's a false-flag operation, because surely the Hollywood companies involved have lawyers that would know better, and if not...we all need to file complaints to the bar association about the incompetency of every firm involved.

Because seriously, if this is legitimate, they are not representing their clients well at all. It is our moral imperative to ensure they get proper discipline.

They've lost. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782425)

Actions that ridiculous and desperate are a sure sign of someone who's already dead and just hasn't realised it yet.

Thank you (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782443)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had not heard of this documentary yet. I will definitely watch it.

Re:Thank you (4, Interesting)

zmaragdus (1686342) | about a year ago | (#43782589)

I hope the Barbara Streisand effect [wikipedia.org] snowballs this from here.

Re:Thank you (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#43783361)

I admit I went to go watch it after I saw this here.

However, the movie is in subtitles, no red-blooded American will sit through 30 seconds of it :)

Also I'm not sure that any of the claims in the film are very earth shattering or new -- very few people get their movies from TPB, almost none rely on it, everybody knows that it exists in this legal grey area and the protagonists seem to revel in this. It preaches to the converted.

Re:Thank you (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about a year ago | (#43783005)

Me too... Time to fire up ktorrent...

Three words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782453)

Slander of Title.

Re:Three words (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782641)

I suppose I should clarify:

It can be defined as “a false and malicious statement, oral or written, made in disparagement of a person's title to real or personal property, or of some right of his, causing him special damage." [Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., 68 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 1953)]

They are claiming ownership of something which they disagree with to prevent it from being seen. The right is his copyright, the damage is to his first amendment rights.

Re:Three words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785727)

then also screw them for attempted prior restraint.

"Prior restraint prevents the censored material from being heard OR DISTRIBUTED AT ALL"

The system is NOT broken! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43782479)

This is its design, to maintain the gatekeepers' authority..

Not surprising ... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43782481)

Since the DMCA allows these guys to basically do anything and later claim it was a mistake, I'm not surprised to see these guys abusing it.

I'd really like to see some harsh penalties applied against false DMCA claims -- like paying the falsely accused the same statutory fines they got put into law.

When they trot out the DMCA against stuff they don't own, it should be treated as perjury. Right now, it's "oh, silly us, did we do that?"

Under penalty of perjury (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43782567)

I'd really like to see some harsh penalties applied against false DMCA claims

Someone filing a notice of claimed infringement under OCILLA already has to affirm under penalty of perjury that he represents the owner of copyright in a particular work. If this turns out to be a shotgun claim, the next step is to press perjury charges against everyone involved in these notices. And I agree with you that I'd like to see perjury charges pressed where needed.

Re:Under penalty of perjury (2)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#43782749)

Someone filing a notice of claimed infringement under OCILLA already has to affirm under penalty of perjury that he represents the owner of copyright in a particular work

Correct. But they aren't affirming that they represent the owner of the work being taken down, just the one they're claiming they own.

"I affirm that I am the copyright owner on X. Take down Y."

They are not affirming that X is Y, merely that they own X.

Re:Under penalty of perjury (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43782873)

Correct. But they aren't affirming that they represent the owner of the work being taken down, just the one they're claiming they own.

"I affirm that I am the copyright owner on X. Take down Y."

They are not affirming that X is Y, merely that they own X.

Yes, the claim that Y is actually X is only covered by a small section on misrepresentation. Unless it's in bad faith there's no penalty at all and worse case they're only liable for costs incurred, no penalties or restitution. It's as if the copyright lobby wrote it, oh wait they did....

Re:Not surprising ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782609)

Claiming copyright on something you don't own carries criminal penalties of a minimum of 5 years in prison plus quite a big fine.

Re:Not surprising ... (1)

surmak (1238244) | about a year ago | (#43782817)

Claiming copyright on something you don't own carries criminal penalties of a minimum of 5 years in prison plus quite a big fine.

Unfortunately, you need to convince an overworked federal prosecutor with other fish to fry to take the case.

Re:Not surprising ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43783683)

Claiming copyright on something you don't own carries criminal penalties of a minimum of 5 years in prison plus quite a big fine.

Unfortunately, you need to convince an overworked federal prosecutor with other fish to fry to take the case.

Or, one could file a private prosecution in Virginia, which still recognizes it under its common law.

Re:Not surprising ... (1)

zmaragdus (1686342) | about a year ago | (#43782669)

Would you then have to apply such penalties to wide-sweeping automated systems that monitor for piracy and other violations? (Kind of like "If an automated car commits a traffic violation, who do you send the ticket to?")

If a piece of software flags & sends notices about 300 items a minute and even 10% of them are false, that's 4320 false claims a day. If it is a $500 fine per false claim that's on the order of 2 million dollars lost a day. Hmmm...this is sounding better and better all the time...

Re:Not surprising ... (1)

zmaragdus (1686342) | about a year ago | (#43782691)

Oops, bad math. 30 a minute

Re:Not surprising ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43782799)

If it is a $500 fine per false claim that's on the order of 2 million dollars lost a day

Way too low. If they can have statutory damages of $250K/title for infringement, they should pay at least the same for false claims.

Otherwise, there's nothing to keep them from cranking out false claims endlessly, and it's such an imbalanced system as to be pathetic -- which it currently is.

Re:Not surprising ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782679)

So... someone needs to man-up and make them claim it was a mistake, and they need to be legally obligated to not do it again.

Once that line has been crossed, they have a lot less "legal sympathy" to exploit in the courts. And then their next victim can eat their lunch.

is it incompetence or malice'? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782549)

Hanlon's law doesn't apply here. Never assume incompetence when greedy self-interest explains it.
-mcgrew

Re:is it incompetence or malice'? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43783615)

Wow... (head asplodes)

Yes, I have said that before but never expected to be quoted. I'd thank you if I thought you'd see the response, AC.

You misunderstood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782617)

Hollywood knows about the streisand effect by now. They knew that attempting to take the video down would eventually fail once the public got a hold of the news. They took down this video because they wanted to bring more attention to it and it worked. See, don't be so quick to judge them.

Heck, I was even completely unaware of this documentary before this. So it worked. See, give them some credit people.

"Arch rival"? (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43782643)

Rivaly implies entirely the wrong kind of relationship between the two, a competitive one. You don't have a rivalry with a squirrel that's lifting biscuits from your picnic, you have an irrational obsession with destroying it while it carries on with a kind of benign codependence.

I may have stretched that metaphor.

Re:"Arch rival"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782861)

Wasn't that a movie with Bill Murray and Chevy Chase?

If not, it definitly should have been... Dan Aynkroid, or however you spell it, could have a cameo.

And John Candy was in it too, one can only hope.

Re:"Arch rival"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43783517)

Dan Aynkroid, or however you spell it, could have a cameo.

LOL! I read that as Dan Android. I guess it's time for me to go to bed.

(It's Aykroyd.)

Re:"Arch rival"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43783239)

squirrels are never benign.

Better yet.. (2)

dgr73 (1055610) | about a year ago | (#43782697)

I wish I could issue a DMCA takedown notice on Phantom Menace.

Wouldn't work. (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#43782879)

DMCA takedown notice is not brain bleach.

That's what ECT [wikipedia.org] is for.

Re:Better yet.. (2)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about a year ago | (#43783215)

I wish I could issue a DMCA takedown notice on Phantom Menace.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step, Mr. Lucas.

UR DOING IT WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782787)

If the documentary is about vilifying Hollywood and such*, is it really wise to retaliate with what you just got accused of? For example, a government trying to censor a documentary about censorship is shooting itself in the foot and making things worse.

*Did not RTFA, did not watch documentary.

Torrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782967)

Let's see them take down a torrent copy.

Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43782983)

Thanks Viacom, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate. I really wasn't interested in watching this. Thanks to your generous efforts to advertise TPB-AFK, I will now take the time to watch it.

Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#43783057)

Nice job, Hollywood. You just elevated TPB in the eyes of the general public and made yourselves look like even bigger villians than you already did.

Re:Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43783339)

Exactly. It has passed the point that even if they lowered the prices to more or less zero, I would rather pirate stuff because I hate these guys.

Re:Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#43783405)

Agreed. Until just now I hadn't heard about this movie. Or maybe I did but it didn't register. Now it has.

Re:Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43783655)

I hadn't heard about it either. Need to get a download started before I go back to work...

Re:Streisand Effect in 3.. 2.. 1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43783557)

Yep. I knew about the movie, but just assumed it was an umimportant self-promotion. Now I know it has something interesting to say.

vote with your wallet. (1)

mevets (322601) | about a year ago | (#43783125)

Make the documentary a success; and maybe help the poor buggers with Citizen Koch while you are at it.

Yeah, that'll work (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#43783289)

It's not like I could go to any one of a several hundred torrent sites or alternative search engines.

Never watched it.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43783811)

The one time I downloaded a documentary that was released for free by the owners on pirate bay (while evidently also being released as a for-pay downloadable movie), a running subtitle not far into the film started going by, and chastised me for downloading it off of pirate bay instead of buying it.

I didn't even watch the rest of the film, and I no longer even remember what it was supposed to be about, but the experience kinda soured me against trusting people who willingly put their content onto pirate bay. If they are going to suggest that I'm a criminal for doing something they evidently were explicitly going to actively permit, I have no interest in what they have to say.

Re:Never watched it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43784431)

What ? So basically the free documentary said in a subtitle that you could download it for free ? Wow, I understand how hard this feeling was.

Re:Never watched it.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43784613)

Actually, the documentary said in a subtitle that I was supposedly a pirate for downloading it for free.

TPB now accepting Bitcoin (1)

cellurl (906920) | about a year ago | (#43784049)

I noticed their site (as well as all others in this universe) is now accepting bitcoin donations..
Touche.

Help rage against the rage. [wikispeedia.org]

Automation (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#43785641)

This is exactly why it should not be legal to send out automated DMCA notifications. Far too much stuff is caught in the crossfire when the traditional response from the industry to a counterclaim is to reassert their initial automated claim regardless if it's accurate or not.

There should be a large fine you don't need to sue to make stick for all "mistaken" claims. This is beyond ridiculous at this point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>