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!

HBO Asks Google To Take Down "Infringing" VLC Media Player

timothy posted about a year ago | from the trial-balloon-and-a-harpoon dept.

Media 364

another random user writes with an excerpt from TorrentFreak: "It's no secret that copyright holders are trying to take down as much pirated content as they can, but their targeting of open source software is something new. In an attempt to remove pirated copies of Game of Thrones from the Internet, HBO sent a DMCA takedown to Google, listing a copy of the popular media player VLC as a copyright infringement. An honest mistake, perhaps, but a worrying one. ... Usually these notices ask Google to get rid of links to pirate sites, but for some reason the cable network also wants Google to remove a link to the highly popular open source video player VLC. ... The same DMCA notice also lists various other links that don't appear to link to HBO content, including a lot of porn related material, Ben Harper's album Give Till It's Gone, Naruto, free Java applets and Prince of Persia 5."

cancel ×

364 comments

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

looks like copy paste fail (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296903)

Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296969)

Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.

When it comes to these large media companies you should never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (3, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#44297167)

Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.

When it comes to these large media companies you should never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.

And don't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by "better return to stockholders".

Re:looks like copy paste fail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297273)

That is still an example of malice.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (4, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#44297687)

No it is not. Malice is done for the evil it does. "Better return for stockholders" is done for the benefit of certain people. This can at times cause bad shit to happen to others, but this is a side effect.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (1)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year ago | (#44297817)

I get the feeling that whoever is actually responsible for sending out the notices has a fair level of malice in their heart, it is the board who hires them that is more interested in returns.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (2)

chemosh6969 (632048) | about a year ago | (#44297281)

Except this can't be explained as "better return to stockholders" because it's stupid for one. Stockholders aren't wasting their times in meetings with "and then here are all the links we went after".

Re: looks like copy paste fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297777)

But they might not put up with the cost of more accurate methods/staff/processes either.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297707)

And don't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by "better return to stockholders".

The only reason to make a distinction is if you intend to punish anyone with imprisonment.

When an entity acts in a way that is undesirable by society it has to be corrected. The method to use generally goes as following:

Incompetence - Inform and educate the subject.
Greed - Fine the subject until it is more economical for it to behave properly.
Malice - Fine the subject until it thinks better of it or use imprisonment if fines aren't adequate.

For companies there is not really any need to make the distinction. Fine it until the behavior no longer occurs. Either the company learns or it goes bankrupt. Either result works.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year ago | (#44297771)

Better get all the codec download links while you're at it.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (5, Insightful)

Alranor (472986) | about a year ago | (#44297297)

Pay attention to the bottom of the takedown request:

The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Fuck that "it was an accident" argument, and prosecute them for perjury.

three strikes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297347)

There should be a three strikes rule on this -- submit invalid requests three times, you get ignored as a troll from there on out.

Re:three strikes (5, Interesting)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#44297529)

No the three strikes rule should be you lose your IP to the public domain. If you cannot be trusted to not claim ownership of other peoples property, you should lose your right to claim copyright at all.

We take a felons right to vote (without a doubt a more important right) so why can't we take away their copy right.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (4, Insightful)

Artraze (600366) | about a year ago | (#44297615)

> I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

See the claim:

Copyright claim #4:
    Game of Thrones (Original TV Show)
Original work URL(s):
    http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html [hbo.com]

Allegedly infringing URLs:
    0. https://tpb.ipredator.se/torrent/8493409/Game_of_Thrones_S03E08_480p_HDTV_x264_-VYTO%5BP2PDL%5D [ipredator.se]
snip
    407. http://www.torrentportal.com/details/6093721/VLC-Media-Player-2.0.7-Final-(32-64-bit)-Official.html [torrentportal.com]

They are alleging that VLC is violating their copyright on Game of Thrones. They own the copyright on Game of Thrones so they are in the clear. The fact that their allegation is completely off base doesn't matter.

This is actually a necessary and very unfortunate consequence of our copyright law... Because there aren't clear boundaries for what constitutes fair use and an original work, there is no ability to assert with any certainty that a given work is not derivative. Suppose that maybe that an error message in VLC contains a couple words from the show: it's legitimate (albeit in bad faith) to claim that VLC is now violating your copyright. So unfortunately without a revision to copyright law the only way to hold these people accountable for their 'mistakes' would require them to sue and have the court declare the work non-infringing. Maybe that would be better than the current, but it would undermine the whole point of takedown requests in the first place.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (-1, Troll)

Moryath (553296) | about a year ago | (#44297803)

They cannot possibly be the owner of the copyright to VLC, shitwit.

Re:looks like copy paste fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297779)

Looks like they just copied a bunch of links without giving a crap about what was in them.

FTFY.

I own the rights to the letter E on line (4, Funny)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44296905)

I own the rights to the letter E on line

So Google better take down all links with an E in them.

Re:I own the rights to the letter E on line (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44296951)

That's Googl.

Re:I own the rights to the letter E on line (1)

Spudley (171066) | about a year ago | (#44297551)

That's Googl.

Nah, if you read what he said, he only claims to own the upper case letter. We're safe to keep using the lower case 'e'. (unless someone else owns that, of course, but that would be silly, wouldn't it)

Re: I own the rights to the letter E on line (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about a year ago | (#44297773)

Microsoft owns lowercase 'e'.

Re:I own the rights to the letter E on line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297675)

No, that is a googol.

Re:I own the rights to the letter E on line (1, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44297127)

Hey, Cookie Monster owns exclusive rights to the letter E! Everyone knows that.

Re:I own the rights to the letter E on line (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297137)

I own the rights to the letters N, O, P, R and the number 0. As we all know what the Internet is for [youtu.be] , we can effectively shut it down completely.

Re:I own the rights to thinking (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297757)

I'm going to get copyright on the process of thinking about watching anything from HBO and another copyright on the process of not thinking about it.. Dam, I already owe myself for not... opps .. for thinking.. darm... for not ... gee this could be a cash cow!

Penalties (5, Insightful)

Major Ralph (2711189) | about a year ago | (#44296909)

And this is precisely why there needs to be penalties in place for false DMCA takedown requests.

Re:Penalties (2)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#44297035)

There are penalties in the law, it's just that AFAIK nobody has ever convinced the government that a particular abuse was severe enough to implement them (yeah, it's a government for and by the corporations, why bother pretending otherwise)

Re:Penalties (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297117)

There aren't. The "perjury clause" only applies to falsely claiming to represent the person who claims to own the copyright, not to the claim of copyright itself.

Re:Penalties (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year ago | (#44297397)

So, did the person submitting this request own the copyright to the VLC media player?

Re:Penalties (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297441)

Not exactly true.

The requirement is for the claimant to swear under penalty of perjury that the contents of the notice are accurate AND that they represent the copyright owner.

The "hook" would be that the claimant committed perjury in the part of the notification where they indicated they had a "good faith belief" that the alleged content infringed the described copyrights.

That said, the legal standard for a takedown notice is "I have a good faith belief that the content described infringes," NOT "I have conclusive evidence that the content described infringes." Proving someone committed perjury on a "good faith" belief is pretty hard.

Re:Penalties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297275)

They should be automatic. We all know these complaints are generated by a largely automatic process, which contributes to the total volume and the volume of false positives. Fines should likewise be largely automatic -- it's the only incentive they have to increase the accuracy of their tools and shy away from the shotgun approach.

Re:Penalties (4, Interesting)

MacDork (560499) | about a year ago | (#44297269)

DMCA takedown requests are filed and sworn to be accurate under penalty of perjury. Perjury is a felony. Perjury penalties include fines and up to 5 years in prison. I doubt we will see any such thing applied to HBO for lying to the courts. There are two sets of laws in the US. Laws for the rich (HBO) and laws for the rest (file sharers).

Re:Penalties (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297343)

They aren't. The perjury clause only guards the representation claim, where the DMCA notice is sent by a lawyer. It does not guard the actual copyright claim, which is made "in good faith".

Re:Penalties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297399)

That only applies to the little guys. Haven't you noticed how big corps can regularly skirt penalties?

Abusing your copyright has a penalty of losing it. How many price fixing charges have they faced with no real penalty? Why change now?

Its a business case most of the time.

If i do this and earn $10MM I risk getting caught i can face a $2MM fine. Net they are up $8MM and no one ever goes to jail. More often then not they pay the fine "without admission of guilt" even.

Some Penalties are even tax deductible.

Re:Penalties (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44297425)

There are and rather severe ones.

Automated takedowns should be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296915)

The robosigning foreclosure scandal wasn't enough? Algorithms aren't lawyers.

Old News. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296923)

Reddit already covered this over the weekend. Just copy and past your comments from it.

Re:Old News. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297223)

Tried to. /. Says "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there."

Perjury. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296925)

Perjury.

Go to jail, do not pass GO.

Re:Perjury. (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44297455)

Annual prosecutions launched for DMCA related perjury is similar in number to prosecutions for regicide.

VLC is illegal in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296927)

While it is not "infringing content", VLC player IS illegal in the USA. It is a digital lock-breaking device. Linux distrobutions which include DVD playback capabilities are also illegal.

This is not surprising to me, but it hardly matters because it's not like VLC will cease to ever be easily available.

Re: VLC is illegal in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297063)

The tool is not illegal, the use of it for such purposes is.

Re:VLC is illegal in the USA (4, Interesting)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#44297123)

While it is not "infringing content", VLC player IS illegal in the USA. It is a digital lock-breaking device. Linux distrobutions which include DVD playback capabilities are also illegal.

This is not surprising to me, but it hardly matters because it's not like VLC will cease to ever be easily available.

Maybe my memory is faulty or not up-to-date, but VLC on Linux doesn't pay DVDs out of the box, does it? I seem to remember needing to specifically enable a non-default repository and explicitly install playback libraries for DRM'd DVDs before they would play.

Re:VLC is illegal in the USA (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44297261)

Depends on the distro. I think recent versions of Ubuntu are set up like this, they have the "controversial" stuff in a separate repo.

Re:VLC is illegal in the USA (5, Informative)

Urban Garlic (447282) | about a year ago | (#44297235)

As you hint at, it's the libdvdcss capability that's the main problem under anti-circumvention provisions of the US DMCA.

You can get versions of VLC which only use FOSS and patent-unencumbered codecs. Debian used to (maybe still does, I haven't looked in a while) make this distinction pretty clear, the "main" packaged VLC was unencumbered, and you had to go outside the main package tree to get the other stuff.

So, in most practical installations, you're right, but it's not literally true that "VLC is illegal in the US."

Why don't they just ask to take down the internet? (5, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#44296933)

Unless there is punishment for these types of blanket requests copyright holders will continue to abuse the DMCA takedown process.

Re:Why don't they just ask to take down the intern (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44297289)

Why don't they just ask to take down the internet?

Un-possible. Adult entertainment industry will recreate it back.

Re:Why don't they just ask to take down the intern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297457)

Between all off the free sites out there and the piracy, how precisely does anyone actually make any money on porn anymore? I've been surfing porn for more than a decade now, and I have yet to actually ever buy anything.

I guess there are people who don't know how to operate the internet or something, but I can't imagine that number of people is growing.

Re:Why don't they just ask to take down the intern (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297567)

Niche appeal. Porn is all about catering to very precise tastes. You may easily find very broad categories of porn, but once people determine what appeals to them, reliably scratching that itch can be a challenge. Porn is very much an industry that bends over backwards to cater to the precise needs of consumers precisely because they are competing with the very large quantity of free stuff out there.

Re:Why don't they just ask to take down the intern (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44297587)

I've been surfing porn for more than a decade now, and I have yet to actually ever buy anything.

My guess? For enough many it's more about the "intensity" (can't call it quality) rather than the easiness to find "appetizers".

Because blanket requests are necessary. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297583)

The DCMA is a decidedly imperfect piece of legislation, and can be blatantly abused, as we've seen time and again.

That said, a blanket request based on an automated scan really is in many cases the ONLY thing that could plausibly work. If I want to post infringing material, getting a new URL or domain is trivially (scriptably) easy. Fighting scripts by hand is impossibly time consuming. Fighting scripts with scripts is the only plausible approach that could work.

Scripts sometimes make mistakes. Criminalizing mistakes isn't "obviously correct" as an approach.

If you want to argue that the net should be a 100% copyright free zone, you're entitled to make that argument. If you're NOT arguing for that, please explain what you see as a "workable" alternative to not-100%-perfect mass takedown notices.

Deliberately ABUSIVE takedown notices (such as a company claiming all negative online reviews are DCMA violations) are something I'd like to see the DCMA address better. But the problem there is NOT that notices are made in bulk, but rather that they're made in bad faith - they deliberately and knowingly target non-infringing content. THOSE we should fight. (In this case, I'd argue the "under penalty of purjury" assertion of a good faith belief in infringement is violated, but I'd like to see the DCMA slightly stengthened around this).

Laziness is the culprit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296941)

I would guess their crawlers found advertisements or screenshots from GoT at some point. Their lawyers probably drafted the DMCAs from a list without checking.

I don't see any HBO properties on VLC's site though, so not sure about that.

Easy solution (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#44296957)

Each link to material they do not own 100'000 USD to the target of the takedown notice and the same to the actual copyright holder. Alternatively, 30 days in jail for the executive in charge.

Re:Easy solution (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297073)

Each link to material they do not own 100'000 USD to the target of the takedown notice and the same to the actual copyright holder. Alternatively, 30 days in jail for the executive in charge.

I'd be OK with that except that there is a URL for "Freddy Got Fingered" in there and I sure as hell don't want to encourage the copyright holder of that gem with $100,000 in free money...

Re:Easy solution (1)

Xenx (2211586) | about a year ago | (#44297725)

That movie was a masterpiece!!!

Re:Easy solution (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44297417)

Each link to material they do not own 100'000 USD to the target of the takedown notice and the same to the actual copyright holder. Alternatively, 30 days in jail for the executive in charge.

I don't have reason to like the dtecnet [torrentfreak.com] much, by my taste their executives can go to jail for longer.
(quote from the linked FA):

It is worth noting that the DMCA notice in question was sent by DtectNet. This is the anti-piracy division of MarkMonitor, the same company that is also responsible for tracking down BitTorrent pirates as part of the upcoming six-strikes anti-piracy scheme.

Paying attention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296963)

HBO was just trying to see if Google was paying attention...or would take down anything it asked it to! I guess the idea is that since VLC will play MKV, MP4 or TS files, or basically most of the file formats without DRM out there, it's violating copyright laws

"including a lot of porn related material" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296965)

Must've accidentally confused it with videos of themselves screwing us?

Re:"including a lot of porn related material" (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44297475)

Must've accidentally confused it with videos of themselves screwing us?

Sorry, them screwing us is a fetish well beyond [wikipedia.org] porn.

Idiots... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44296971)

A lot of people use torrent sites to quickly watch something they may have missed on cable tv and I personally know many folk who enjoyed a series so much that they went out and bought the box set to have at home. HBO are asking for too much.

Re:Idiots... (2)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about a year ago | (#44297749)

Alternately, those individuals could have patronized other content providers that are willing to provide entertainment on terms and at a price that is more agreeable. Rather than feeling entitled, that is.

Google vs HBO? Not even close (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#44297005)

Dear HBO,
GFY.
Love,
the Whole Internet

Re:Google vs HBO? Not even close (5, Informative)

FunkyLich (2533348) | about a year ago | (#44297195)

I certainly am going to be modded down, but it is about time I explained that "GFY" stands for "Go Fuck Yourself".

Always with love from the Whole Internet.

So how about: Over 2% of 'honest' mistakes and ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297007)

your right to submit takedowns is suspended for a month?
These things are supposed to be carefully considered requests, not 'if we hit 7 out of 10, we're happy'...

Re:So how about: Over 2% of 'honest' mistakes and (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44297505)

your right to submit takedowns is suspended for a month? These things are supposed to be carefully considered requests, not 'if we hit 7 out of 10, we're happy'...

Alternatively, some [torrentfreak.com] of the takedowns may be executed.

a possible "honest mistake"? (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44297011)

When have you ever seen IP lawyers overreach their position in any "honest" way? Their methods are ham-handed shotgun approaches. Shoot randomly and hope it hits something.

It is not VLC they are attacking directly (4, Insightful)

ZeroNullVoid (886675) | about a year ago | (#44297019)

What is not mentioned is that the site in question has links to other listings with the release names which may correlate to what their spider was searching, "Game of Thrones."  This is very bad practice of the DMCA notice senders as linking to something which links to something which does not even have infringing content itself but a "direction or guidebook" to the potential content.

So the VLC listing had another area that had other listings or popular links and because it had the name they listed it.

There needs to be fines for false DMCA notices like this.  They do not own the release name itself.

What would happen (2)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#44297067)

If I incorporated, and then had my "company" start spewing out DMCA notices algorithmically to every site that responded to a curl? "Does a.com exist? No. Does b.com exist? No... Does aa.com exist? Yes? Ok, they have infringing content, take them down please. Does ab.com exist?"

Re:What would happen (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297373)

Probably something like this....

if [ $CAMPAIGN_CONTRIBUTOR ]; then
      $PROFIT
else
      $JAIL
fi

Re:What would happen (1)

bmxeroh (1694004) | about a year ago | (#44297395)

Step 4. Profit!

Or maybe you'd get smacked down hard.

Jews... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297103)

Jews run most of the media. Jews don't do manual labour - who the hell do you think you are? You're their 'cattle', put on earth to do their manual labour for them!
Haven't you read the talmud?

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanises gentiles as not being descendants of Adam:

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honour the the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30

"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855

"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405

"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

Re:Jews... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297171)

Jews run most of the media. Jews don't do manual labour - who the hell do you think you are? You're their 'cattle', put on earth to do their manual labour for them! Haven't you read the talmud?

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanises gentiles as not being descendants of Adam:

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honour the the dog more than the non-Jew." Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30

"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form." Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855

"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." Coschen hamischpat 405

"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs." Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog." Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

At least they don't blow themselves and others up, or fly planes into tall buildings

Re:Jews... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297285)

At least they don't blow themselves and others up, or fly planes into tall buildings

No, instead they do charming things like crush unarmed peace protesters
to death beneath a bulldozer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

Re:Jews... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297371)

Actually they do. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Jews... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297477)

At least they don't blow themselves and others up, or fly planes into tall buildings

Of course not! They hire out.

Re:Jews... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297503)

Yes. They did. Jews did 9/11.

Isn't there a "I swear it's all true" requirement? (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#44297125)

And isn't there a punishment for lying on DMCA? Someone should enforce that.

Re:Isn't there a "I swear it's all true" requireme (2)

Dwedit (232252) | about a year ago | (#44297147)

The "I Swear It's All True" requirement is to say that you are authorized by the copyright holder to send out the notice, not that the item actually infringes.

Re:Isn't there a "I swear it's all true" requireme (2)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44297245)

Which covers false DMCA requests where they flag content that really belongs to someone else - such a VLC. You're right though that this perjury thing does nothing to solve the problem of DMCAs being sent for content that fits in to the "fair use" bucket.

Re:Isn't there a "I swear it's all true" requireme (4, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | about a year ago | (#44297247)

The "I Swear It's All True" requirement is to say that you are authorized by the copyright holder to send out the notice, not that the item actually infringes.

Which is all dandy until you demand the takedown of something that any lawyer doing the most basic due diligence would know was not theirs. Which has happened countless times, some of them reported on /. That's the kind of shit that should lead to the lawyer being disciplined. But don't. And if you want to look for things that are seriously screwed up with the USA today, you can start there since it's already on the table.

Re:Isn't there a "I swear it's all true" requireme (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44297497)

It shouldn't lead to the lawyer being disciplined. It should lead to the company being disciplined. HBO should be responsible for the content of the list.

Re:Isn't there a "I swear it's all true" requireme (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44297485)

Falsely claiming to have rights to something you don't, including copyright, is fraud. When HBO claimed to have rights to VLC they either were mistaken or fraudulent. If there is some other reason some DA were pissed at HBO this creates an opening.

all this is doing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297139)

is turning chillingeffects web site into the 'google' for good stuff.

Re:all this is doing (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44297305)

It sure is! The copyright holders figured this out about a year ago.

In fact maybe this was an attempt to make DMCA takedown lists less useful, by filling them with unrelated stuff, no longer making them a handy directory of the goodies you're looking for.

Re:all this is doing (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44297623)

It sure is! The copyright holders figured this out about a year ago.

In fact maybe this was an attempt to make DMCA takedown lists less useful, by filling them with unrelated stuff, no longer making them a handy directory of the goodies you're looking for.

Except everyone needs a copy of VLC (unless you're an mplayer fanboy). So what they've really done is come to the end of their popular content listings, and now they're adding the tools people need to watch the content they've so helpfully linked to. Next I expect takedown links to cheap projectors and multimedia PCs.

Next step; DCMA the Internet! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297155)

Dear Google;
I own copyright to "The Internet" since I am its inventor. Please take it down since it is infringing.

Sincerely;
Al Gore (manbearpig!)

AHAHA, what? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297185)

Who would get VLC from a torrent site instead of downloading it from the official site?

Scratch that. Who would download VLC at all? It's a shitty player.

Re:AHAHA, what? (4, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44297405)

VLC? Shitty!? You must be a mac user upset that it didn't have a minimalistic interface filled with silly skeumorphisms.

Re:AHAHA, what? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year ago | (#44297459)

I like it, it adds to my right-click menu (so I don't need to make it the default), and plays everything without hassle.

Re:AHAHA, what? (1, Interesting)

pipatron (966506) | about a year ago | (#44297483)

A surprising amount of (mostly windows) users have been brainwashed to believe that all software and culture is by illegal to share. Free software is just some unknown crap, likely communist propaganda. If you have to download software from a warez site, it must be good quality software.

what a ridiculous waste of time (2)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about a year ago | (#44297209)

arent these media companies smart enough to realize that piratebay doesnt have any control whatsoever of the names of the torrents? i mean really...if TPB took down all the Game of Throne links that HBO wanted them to, within 5 minutes they would all reappear with slightly different names and different links.

and yes, i know already the answer is no they aren't.

Re:what a ridiculous waste of time (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44297375)

TPB correctly doesn't respond to DMCA requests because they're not hosting the content in question. These requests are directed at Google. So if you search "game of thrones season 1 HD torrent" on Google you won't get a link to a magnet link that will lead to a torrent of that exact thing on TPB. But if you go to thepiratebay.sx or whatever their latest TLD is and search for that you'll get it right away.

Re:what a ridiculous waste of time (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about a year ago | (#44297619)

yes of course you are correct but who the hell searches google for torrents?

Re:what a ridiculous waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297705)

HBO and the NSA

So we can't actually watch anything ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297355)

So being able to watch random videos and DVDs you own violates copyright? So when you buy a DVD you can't actually ever watch it since you would be violating copyright laws...

Time to have fun (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#44297357)

Start asking sites to take down marketing and promotional HBO material on their behalf. No mass media content on Youtube. Internet killed TV - replace them.

Re:Time to have fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297731)

Oh, and thank you HBO for the list of sites I can pirate your content from. Streisand effect much?

Please take a flying f*** at a rolling doughnut (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44297427)

Really. This is idiocy.

Time to do what they ask (5, Insightful)

Serif (87265) | about a year ago | (#44297469)

I seen from TFA that HBO at one point requested their own website to be removed. If I was Google I'd be paying extra special attention to requests for Mega Corp A to take down Mega Corp B's website (or even better their own), and react quickly. Of course I might be a little slower in dealing with the subsequent undo requests whilst watching the ensuing entertainment.

Naruto link is to a search engine (1)

grimJester (890090) | about a year ago | (#44297527)

This link [torrentjo.com] is to a search engine, where "juegos de naruto" give some hits for "juegos de tronos" which is Game of Thrones. How on earth is this a valid takedown request? Why should Google remove links to a search engine, especially when the search is for something other than the infringing material?

Even now (5, Interesting)

Endo13 (1000782) | about a year ago | (#44297631)

I'd still pay HBO a reasonable amount of money to watch their shows online. But I can't. First, I have to buy cable TV ($60/mo), then I also have to buy a special package that includes HBO ($30/mo), and then I still have to pay extra for HBOGO. So over $100/mo to watch a couple good shows. Yeah, I'll just keep using torrents. Even though it's still a huge ripoff compared to other services like Netflix and Hulu, I'd pay $10-15 per month just for HBO online. Let me know when you're serious about wanting my money, HBO.

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>