AfterDawn: Tech news

Warner Brothers blames faulty DMCA takedowns on their computers

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 14 Nov 2011 10:55 User comments (6)

Warner Brothers blames faulty DMCA takedowns on their computers After a revelation last week of their abusing the DMCA takedown process, Warner Brothers went into damage control mode on Friday.
Their improper DMCA takedowns, which involved files where Warner didn't own the copyrights, came to light in their case against cyberlocker service Hotfile. As part of the takedown process, the DMCA requires the sender to include:

A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed


If further stipulates the notice must include a statement promising:

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


Even as they defended their actions, Warner Brothers admitted to relying on automated software to identify infringing content without double checking the results for errors. That software made the kind of mistakes you would expect from amateur programmers:

Warner admits that its records indicate that URLs containing the phrases ?The Box That Changed Britain? and "Cancer Step Outsider of the Box" were requested for takedown.


As ridiculous as Warner Brothers' defense of their DMCA takedown process is, this is much bigger than the Hotfile case. Perhaps more than any other case before it, the Hotfile lawsuit highlights the problem with shifting the burdern for identifying copyright infringement on service providers.

In their filing on Friday, Warner argued their process was not flawed because it was not practical for them to examine every file they believed to be infringing. Yet this is only a fraction of the responsibility they claim is trivial for service providers.

Under the SOPA bill proposed in the US House of Representatives (formerly known as E-PARASITE), service providers would be expected to identify infringement themselves, despite not having the inside knowledge the copyright holder possesses about who owns a work or what uses they have authorized.

Even the copyright holders, with more information than anyone else, can't even figure out for sure which files those are. No wonder they want to pass the buck to somebody else.

Previous Next  

6 user comments

114.11.2011 12:32

Blame the computers and not on the people using their computers. I wonder, would this defense work for Jammie Thomas-Rasset?


When laws allow unlimited ownership of ideas, it is to a society as iron fusion is to the core of a star.

When verified realities lead us to anger, we must learn to reevaluate our beliefs.

214.11.2011 12:57

Oh, it's not 'practical' for them to check 'every' file for accuracy?

So now that we have the capability to DNA link a suspect to a crime, we shouldn't run the test because it's not practical? "You know judge, there's just too many steps to the test & we've got better things to do with our time..."

That aroma I just stepped in sure doesn't smell like love to me.


314.11.2011 13:25

On their computers...really,yeah right Warner

414.11.2011 23:02
llongtheD
Inactive

Isn't it amazing that the corporations voices, and our heads of governments voices ring at exactly the same tone? They've both developed a keen ability to lie to customers/citizens, and both have the money and power not to be affected.

I like how convenient they've made it to sue honest people though, well it was your IP address that infringed so... Even though the ip addresses are dynamic and sometimes re-assigned.

This whole thing boils down to if you owned the gun, even if someone else used it to kill without your knowledge, your convicted of murder. Its ludicrous. Too bad it doesn't work the same way for corporations like Warner bros.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 14 Nov 2011 @ 23:20

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

515.11.2011 5:17

Originally posted by llongtheD:
Too bad it doesn't work the same way for corporations like Warner bros.
The real shame is that corporations are considered "persons" and they get all the rights of any other person, but they are excluded from the punishments given to persons. If I were to kill someone by giving them toxic chemicals and telling them it was medicine, I would get a manslaughter or 2nd degree murder charge...Pfizer does this all the time and they get off without punishment. They are even allowed to market drugs known to cause brain damage to children...even when the drugs are meant to do nothing except treat acne or something.


63.3.2012 20:33

I find this richly funny! I would bet it's either the bit torrent client or the files they downloaded with those clients that are causing the problems.

Hehe yep, funny as hell...

Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest news

A bug in Chrome allows you to download Netflix movies A bug in Chrome allows you to download Netflix movies (25 Jun 2016 15:21)
A group of security researchers have found a vulnerability in Google's Chrome browser that allows downloading movies straight from Netflix. This is obviously not a feature especially the entertainment ....
7 user comments
Three out of four Netflix customers would rather cancel than watch ads Three out of four Netflix customers would rather cancel than watch ads (25 Jun 2016 14:05)
For a long time Netflix was adamant on its pricing. No changes were made for a long time and everything seemed to be good. The markets obviously reacted and more expensive deals and original ....
4 user comments
Apple Music left in the dust, Spotify at 100 million subscribers Apple Music left in the dust, Spotify at 100 million subscribers (25 Jun 2016 12:01)
Spotify has told The Telegraph that it has surpassed the 100 million mark in subscribers. Paying subscribers was earlier this year reported to have passed 30 million. Apple meanwhile is having ....
2 user comments
Rumor has it that Apple has cancelled iPhone's dual camera Rumor has it that Apple has cancelled iPhone's dual camera (18 Jun 2016 18:05)
The next iPhone will be a major upgrade to current iPhone 6s. This biyearly full upgrade cycle provides us with a bigger upgrade every two years. But how will Apple update its number one product, ....
6 user comments
OnePlus releases new flagship killer, smaller X discontinued OnePlus releases new "flagship killer", smaller X discontinued (18 Jun 2016 16:11)
The small Chinese smartphone maker OnePlus took the world by storm two years ago by releasing a super cheap flagship smartphone. They called it the flagship killer, and it indeed challenged ....
4 user comments

News archive