Sony Music Exec: The Internet Is Full Of... >>

<< Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On...

by Mike Masnick

Mon, Feb 27th 2012 10:30am

Filed Under:
censorship, copyright, dmca, pipa, search results, sopa, takedowns

Companies:
armovore, paper street cash, techdirt

Permalink.

Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice

from the dmca-abuse dept

We've talked a lot about how copyright law and the DMCA can be abused to take down legitimate, non-infringing content, interfering with one's free speech rights. And we're always brushed off by copyright maximalists, who insist that any complaints about taking down legitimate speech are overblown.

So isn't it interesting that we've just discovered that our own key anti-SOPA blog post and discussion... have been blocked thanks to a bogus DMCA takedown?

Last November, in the heat of the SOPA fight, I wrote a blog post, where I tried to pull together a bunch of the different reasons why SOPA and PIPA were really bad ideas. It was a very popular post for us, and I heard directly from many people that it was quite helpful in getting them to understand the real problems of these two bills.

Well, as I just discovered, that post cannot be found directly via Google any more.

I actually discovered this entirely by accident. I was looking for a totally different old Techdirt post, and was scrolling through Google results, when I saw a note at the bottom of the Google page saying that results had been removed due to a DMCA takedown:

You see that warning every so often, and I have to admit that I came really close to just ignoring it. But then I remembered that the search I was doing was using the site:techdirt.com parameter, so any such notice must mean that a Techdirt page had been blocked by a DMCA takedown. That seemed surprising. So I clicked through and found this DMCA takedown notice -- and there at entry 253 is the URL for our post. The takedown comes from a company named Armovore, who apparently is one of those "anti-piracy" firms that sends DMCA notices out on behalf of others. In this case, it sent out the DMCA notice on behalf of Paper Street Cash -- which is a porn company I've never heard of prior to this. They're claiming that the takedown is about content from a site called TeamSkeet.

If you're scratching your head, you're not the only one. There's clearly nothing infringing in our post. I just wasted too much time going through all 300+ comments on that post and I don't see anything that includes any porn or even links to any porn as far as I can tell. Instead, it seems that Armovore and Paper Street Cash sent a clearly bogus DMCA takedown notice, which served the purpose of censoring our key blog post in the SOPA fight. And they did it on January 20th... the day that SOPA was officially shelved.

There are some other oddities in that list as well, including TorrentFreak's article about how ICE took down 84,000 websites illegally by seizing the mooo.com domain and saying that all 84,000 of those sites were involved in child porn.

In other words, two separate articles that have been key to the discussion concerning abuses of copyright law... both taken out of Google's index due to a bogus DMCA takedown. Hmm....

While many of the other links do appear to go to sites that may offer up infringing content, just looking at the URLs alone make you wonder what most of them have to do with Paper Street Cash or TeamSkeet. Some of the links talk about top Christian albums. One is to some Dave Matthews songs. Another is to Wiz Khalifa music. There's another one that appears to be a link to downloads of the TV show Prison Break. Obviously those things may be infringing, but the notice itself only talks about TeamSkeet, and if Armovore doesn't represent those other artists, it may have broken the law in pretending to.

Then there's a really bizarre one. Entry 533 on the list is... TeamSkeet's own website. I don't know how much Armovore charges Paper Street Cash, but they deserve a refund.

Most importantly, though, our page clearly is not infringing. This is a 100% bogus DMCA takedown -- something we only discovered by complete accident over a month later -- hiding one of our key articles in an important fight about abusing copyright law to take down free speech. Seems like a perfect example of how copyright can be -- and is -- abused to suppress free speech.

In the meantime, we'll be exploring our options for responding to this obviously bogus takedown from both Armovore and Paper Street Cash.

Update: After "further review," Google has reinstated our story to its index....

106 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

usul_of_arakis (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:13am

First off I'd contact Armovore to ascertain if this was genuine. We may be seeing a new kind of scam?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
DMCA this!
:Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:36am

Abusive Copyright used to censor articles on Copyright Abuse!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Shadow, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:43am

Ridiculous! We need to get that post back up. This is EXACTLY why SOPA/PIPA are a bad idea.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: DMCA this!
weneedhelp (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:43am

Abusive Copyright used to censor articles on Copyright Abuse!

divide by zero!!!! oh nooosssss!!!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Dave M, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:43am

There's a 'Yo Dawg' joke in there somewhere
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:44am

Government bends over backwards to try to cater to hollywood so that together they can use the propaganda maching to brainwash the public and censor out any free speech which goes against the...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
deadzone (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:45am

I hope it's some sort of scam because the alternative is just outrageous and unbelievable.

They can't be that dumb right? Really? Censoring articles with DMCA take down requests?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
armovore
quickbrownfox, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:46am

Most of us know what is an herbivore and what is a carnivore, but what the hell is an armovore?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wait...
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:46am

...that post cannot be found directly via Google any more.

So what you're saying is that the page itself isn't censored, just that no one else can find it by searching through the regular mainstream search engines.

...Why do we need SOPA/PIPA/acronyms-for-internet-censorship-bills again?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Other interesting hits...
Duke (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:48am

There seem to be a few other odd entries in that list, such as this article from the Independent (one of the UK's major newspapers) - I wonder if they've simply done a search (presumably on Google) for certain terms (possibly including "torrent" and "innocent", both of which appear in the Independent article) and submitted that list to Google.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Sic 'Em
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:48am

Definitely grabbing the popcorn for this one. I've never seen the process for disputing a bogus claim from the beginning.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Sic 'Em
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:48am

Definitely grabbing the popcorn for this one. I've never seen the process for disputing a bogus claim from the beginning.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:48am

If there is no penalty for a bogus DMCA takedown notice, maybe some "anonymous hacker group" should set up an automated process to spider the web and send a takedown notice for every page! That could be a very significant political statement that would get a lot of attention.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:50am

512(f) does create liability for knowing misrepresentations

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Pre-emptive shill rant
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:51am

blah blah piracy blah blah techdirtbag blah blah freetard blah blah where's the data blah blah lies rambling i can't back up my argument blah blah
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Misrepresentation and DMCA Notices
connie mableson, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:52am

The DMCA and supporting case law will favor your situation because you actually responded by removing the posts. Had you not removed the posts, then you would not have a cause of action under DMCA for misrepresentation which is a violation of 17 USC s. 512(f)(1).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
MrWilson, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:54am

Yo, sup dawg, I herd you like censorship, so I censored your censorship article so you can [censored] while you...

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed this comment from Techdirt. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal at ChillingEffects.org.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How to see Google's DMCA notices for your site
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:54am

I actually discovered this entirely by accident.

Add your site to Google Webmaster Tools and go to "All Messages" on the left and you can see Google's DMCA notices as they come in (not sure about the historical ones). You should also go to "Preferences" and have them forward notices to an email account so you don't have to log into Webmaster Tools all the time to see them. IIRC they added this ability last year but not too many people know about it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A Most Awesome Case Study...
GMacGuffin (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:55am

This would be a great case study; see how the DMCA provisions for wrongful takedowns play out. Couldn't be better subject matter. (Damages may be problematic; but getting returned to the search index does require time and effort, and even attorney fees for donated lawyer time might be recovered - reasonable value.)

Too bad one of the *AAs didn't yank it ... what a watershed that would be.

17 USC �512(f)

(f) Misrepresentations.� Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section�

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or

(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys� fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner�s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:55am

Not really. They already proved numerous times they don't need SOPA to censor, arrest, threaten, detain, rape your dog, kill your kittens, and eat your children without any extension or rewriting of the law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:56am

But there is a penalty. Or at least there's supposed to be.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
section f

quote:
(f) Misrepresentations.� Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section�
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys� fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner�s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
/quote

If people would actually start suing these jerks then the number of false take-downs would probably drop substantially. I know it's intensely time consuming and expensive to do this but someone has got to start doing so or they (the great nebulous 'they'), are just going to keep filing those false take-downs.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:56am

And they're doing such a good job that any one that doesn't think like that is either a nut, a freetard or a conspiracy theorist.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: armovore
TheStupidOne, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 10:59am

Something that eats love
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Thricebedamned, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:00am

Makes you wonder why an amendment to add the words "... upon penalty of perjury..." to takedown notices was unilaterally rejected.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:00am

What I read between the lines: The MAFIAA is setting up porn companies in order to use them to discredit opponents through bogus DMCA take down notices. I wonder if the article from last week about being blacklisted in Germany is also related to some new strategy to silence critics.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Designerfx (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:00am

how about teaching them about the basics of security?

google for armovore shows the second result linking directly to their "DMCA login" page. Clearly a genius company.

MEC DMCA System - - Login
gcc.armovore.com

all it would take is a simple submittal to anonymous and I'm pretty sure this would escalate. How do people manage to be this stupid in the first place?

also, wow! they requested takedown for 500 links!

http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=189468
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
BentFranklin (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:00am

TechDirt would have to prove damages. The cost of calculating and proving those damages is probably well in excess of the actual damages. And, proving *knowing* misprepresentation is nearly impossible. Therefore, there is no practical consequence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting, but not complete
Brian (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:01am

You left out that this was just an index removal on Google only. Bing and Yahoo have your post on the top when "site:www.techdirt.com sopa" is entered. So, the complaint is only for Google?

I understand the complaint, but please be complete when explaining what is going on.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:02am

Awww man. I thought I was finally going to get an entry on my "Submitted Stories" list when I discovered this while searching for Techdirt articles on Google last Tuesday and sent it in to Techdirt via the "Submit a Story" page.

Oh well. C'est la vie. Always a bridesmaid or something to that effect.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
hothmonster, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:05am

"The MAFIAA is setting up porn companies in order to use them to discredit opponents through bogus DMCA take down notices and so they have more ways to fuck young artists."

ftfy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pre-emptive shill rant
Glen, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:06am

That is one of the better reasoned troll responses. Well played sir!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: armovore
Yakko Warner, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:08am

Or arms.

They're just trying to make the web 'armless for their clients.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting, but not complete
:Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:08am

Psh. Who care's about the other, little, search engines?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pre-emptive shill rant
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:11am

Thanks, I've been practicing in the shower. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:12am

Awww man. I thought I was finally going to get an entry on my "Submitted Stories" list when I discovered this while searching for Techdirt articles on Google last Tuesday and sent it in to Techdirt via the "Submit a Story" page.

Dah... we missed it. Been getting a ton of submissions lately, so haven't been able to review them all...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:12am

Don't settle. We need precedent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:12am

"TechDirt would have to prove damages." Easy. Ask Google how many times people searched for SOPA, then assume one in ten of those would've donated at least $5. This will range in the millions of dollars. That's how it works, right? :P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:12am

Here you go, Mike. Instead of whining about copyright abuse, you can actually do something about it. Are you considering filing suit? Hope so.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting, but not complete
Keii, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:14am

But Google is the Internet as viewed by RIAA/MPAA.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
takedownpingback
Nick, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:15am

Seems like there needs to be a pingback mechanism built into ChillingEffects.org -- so that you get an email whenever a domain you control is mentioned in a DMCA takedown request.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: DMCA this!
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:15am

Totally stole that line. Have an insightful as recompense.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Admit it...
John Doe, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:16am

This is just one more way to get another SOPA article out there. ;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
But on the other hand....
Baldaur Regis (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:20am

....perusing this DMCA Notice, it seems to be an excellent index for my torrenting needs in and of itself. No more digging through all that useless legal stuff, just pull up the DMCAs. Yay!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Article fodder
Zangetsu (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:22am

Please keep us up to date on what happens. Like one of your other posts mentions, I am grabbing a bucket of popcorn and watching what happens. What I think would be particularly interesting to know is how long it takes to get the page back into circulation. What impact does it have if people can get pages down faster than they can be restored? What happens if I type in "TeamSkeet porn torrent download"? Is this page now going to be the subject of a DMCA takedown notice? If it is then we've now discovered a way to take down any page on any site that allows comments. Denial of service via DMCA attack (DoS via DMCA (TM) )
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Misrepresentation and DMCA Notices
Rich, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:22am

What are you talking about? He didn't remove any posts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Gwiz (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:34am

Dah... we missed it.

No worries. Just glad you did a post on it. Be sure to keep us updated on the outcome. Should be interesting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Reinstated
Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:36am

I've just been informed that after "further review" the link has been reinstated to Google's index..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:40am

Using record label math, it'd be more like 100 out of every 10 would have donated $5.

There are no typos in the above sentence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another AC, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:40am

Hmmm, 1 lost download = 1 lost donation? Novel...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
saulgoode (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:45am

If you're scratching your head, you're not the only one. There's clearly nothing infringing in our post. I just wasted too much time going through all 300+ comments on that post and I don't see anything ...

While Techdirt may be responsible for the content of its articles, the comment section should definitely be covered by DMCA "safe harbor" provisions and any takedown notice should've been sent to Techdirt, not Google.

Furthermore, the have only been a couple of cases where linking to infringing has been found to be illegal (by way of contributory infringement) and both of these involved there having been an actual judgment -- not merely an accusation -- that had found the material being linked to infringing.

The fact that Google was notified, while Techdirt was not is extremely dubious in itself.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: DMCA this!
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:49am

church ain't the only one tucker
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reinstated
JamesF (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:50am

To use one of the MAFIAAs favorite "analogies", I wonder if they think returning your car a month later makes up for stealing it in the first place?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:51am

I wonder, do any politicians use the internet to raise donations?

If so, i can think of a few certain politicians that "anonymous" could take a look at!
If politicians want to destroy then mould the internet, then i say "anonymous" should kick them off the net(if they can), see how they like it, fucking plonkers, its not enough that you have what you have, now you gotta break something that aint broke, because you see a new avenenue to rip us off..........PLONKERS
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:52am

"512(f) does create liability for knowing misrepresentations"

Laws are meaningless without enforcement.
I found it odd that Google did not inform TechDirt that a DCMA had been filed against 2 of the posts - essentally that deprived TechDirt the ability to respond to the take down.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Chilling, indeed.
rosspruden (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:52am

Holy smokes, that list reads like a Who's Who on where to find infringing content. I mean, seriously -- why is everyone ganging up on Google for suggesting search terms like 'torrent' when all you need to do is read just one of these DMCA notices to find over 500 torrent sites to get stuff? Sheesh.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reinstated
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 11:55am

What a joke. "Further review" is just lip service. More like "inital review" because everyone knows this stuff just gets rubberstamped.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:00pm

Ha.. poor misguided greed monkeys. The people behind this BS really ought to have appreciated the fact that the *had a few companies they could lean on for Search related concerns.. like Google.

goodbye Google, hello P2p everything.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:04pm

Keep your investigation on the downlow mike, at least at first, no point bringing attention to yourself just yet, lest they start covering their bases, find out, if you can, just how far up the ladder this goes

As others have already said, i'd be interested to see where this goes
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reinstated
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:05pm

No lawsuit? That sucks. At least challenge them to a dual for the honor of your post or something.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reinstated
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:17pm

I'm betting it was this comment:

"Modplan (profile), Nov 23rd, 2011 @ 4:14am
I guess we should repeal it then.

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-blogger-law-student-raided-by-police-for-file-sharing-articl es-111121/"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
silverscarcat (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:30pm

Ron Paul does.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Chris-Mouse (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:31pm

Section 512(c)(3)(A)(vi) also requires that the complaint must include:
A statement 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.
Failing to check before complaining might get a handslap from a judge. Being called on it, and still claiming copyright in the work cannot be anything other than willful action, and that would leave the complainant open to a perjury charge.
Of course, the big question is, as always, "is nailing this company worth the expense of going to court?" Unless you're willing to put a lot of money on the line in an attempt to set a precedent, the answer is probably "no"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: armovore
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:42pm

It's funny because it's true.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Misrepresentation and DMCA Notices
Gwiz (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:43pm

....Had you not removed the posts,...

Techdirt didn't remove any posts. The DMCA notice was directed at Google to remove the Techdirt article from Google's search results.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
fairusefriendly (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

don't forget to log your time and change them your daily rate

http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=600

since all the time you waste restoring those links could have been sold at your available offering.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
fairusefriendly (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:46pm

don't forget to log your time and change them your daily rate

http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=600

since all the time you waste restoring those links could have been sold at your available offering.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reinstated
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:46pm

The VM instance that does the automated reviews is named "further". Thus, they were being completely truthful.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:53pm

That's a good point. Techdirt is selling the ability to shut Techdirt down for $100,000,000. With Google shutting them down without cause, they have deprived Techdirt of the ability or potential to sell that service.

It seems pretty clear to me that Techdirt is owed $100,000,000....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 12:58pm

I wouldn't contact anyone but a lawyer - sue them. If it's clearly not infringing take them to task on it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:04pm

Yeah, but the hourly rate of $100,000,000 divided by the end of time is really sucks...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
orbitalinsertion (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:07pm

Exactly. And the rules against abuse are never enforced.

Now, if the takedown process were more like calling the local police to complain about neighbors, the party lodging bad complaints can end up with a citation or in court. Regardless as to whether any neighbors made a complaint against the nuisance complainer.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
crazylilting (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:11pm

apparently someone has copyrighted a song birds call. I wonder if i can copyright a fart?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting, but not complete
orbitalinsertion (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:13pm

The evidence was on display. Google was the search engine mentioned. What confused you?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Devil's advocate
John Love, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:14pm

To defend the stupid, whatever stupid person they had searching logs or urls. The comments do mention ISOHunt and the word innocent. Since most of the infringing urls had the title "Innocent High" in it they assumed that the url was infringing.

I hate to defend the stupid, but sometimes you have to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
orbitalinsertion (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

gcc.armovore.com

I was looking for the GNU Compiler and this confused me. Someone should file a trademark suit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@ Mike Masnick & Team
Rob8urcakes, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

Go get 'em Mike.

This is EXACTLY the type of crap we're fighting against to keep the internet free from these CopyWrong Trolls and anti-freedom of speech fascists.

This shit is why censorship laws such as the existing DMCA, plus the proposed SOPA, OPEN, ACTA, TPP etc. are all worthy of being resisted and binned.

So sue their sorry asses.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yoshord, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:33pm

But the $100000000 is the price for shutting down for a year, not for eternity, so if my calculations are correct the hourly rate is about $11416.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive shill rant
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:36pm

They say that can cause blindness.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

the problem is that the penalty structure is entirely one sided. The standard to prove a bogus takedown request and get compensated is higher, one would practically have to prove intent, and the compensation is much lower than what one can get for infringement.

Not to mention that IP extremists generally get the high court treatment.

That needs to change. Those who make bogus takedown requests should be penalized much more severely than those who infringe and the government should not go after those who infringe, it should go after those who make bogus takedown requests. But, like usual, IP extremists get the high court treatment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:50pm

Also:

250. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-plot-thickens-was-woman-drinking-with-captain--or -an-innocent-aboard-6292246.html

251. http://www.piedmont-digital-graphics.com/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reinstated
Big C, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 1:59pm

no harm, no foul

the ends justify the means
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
fairusefriendly (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:01pm

Well it would be a bit difficult to associate the cost for the maximum joke offer.

The real offer of spend a day with tech dirt staff offer could be real economic loss.

As long as they assign one of those 4 people to the task of reversing the bogus take down.

add the cost of buying the traffic that was lost because the article was not find able during the key period when it was relevant. The long term link juice from all the blogs that would have found it and linked to it.

And the loss of authority status due to that lost link juice.
And you could get a "real" value of damages.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive shill rant
Ed C., Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:07pm

Well played!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
But it's not "abuse"
Stephan Kinsella (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:13pm

Great post, and only one quibble: you say that this is an example of how copyright is abused. But it's not abuse. This is a natural result of having state grants of monopoly privilege over ideas, and administered by various bureaucratic state agencies/procedures. It's not abuse at all. This is like SOPA: the problem is that that it goes "too far" in protecting copyright. The problem is copyright itself. SOPA, and DMCA takedowns, are just a symptom. Copyright is the disease.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Devil's advocate
BentFranklin (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:14pm

So all MAFIAA has to do is have a troll post an infringing comment on an article they don't like and then have someone else take it down?

Sock puppets FTW!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
crade (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:34pm

When it comes to estimating losses based on "potential woulda could shoulda", they are all jokes.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
fairusefriendly (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:45pm

not really follow the first link

one of the people who you get to have lunch with is a lawyer

his day rate would fall under the legal expense of getting this resolved.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting, but not complete
nasch (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

You left out that this was just an index removal on Google only.

No, he didn't. "Well, as I just discovered, that post cannot be found directly via Google any more. "
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: armovore
MiltonSnail, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 3:02pm

Someone who eats arms exclusively, obviously.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sic 'Em
ofb2632 (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 3:05pm

I feel the same way.

Can Techdirt sue? They bogus take down notice was clearly infringing on free speech.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
so you know
Jill, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 3:12pm

chillingeffects.com link isn't loading at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: so you know
The eejit (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 3:20pm

That's because it's chillingeffects.org.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Apology
Jeff from Armovore, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 3:36pm

Hello Mr. Masnick,

On behalf of Armovore, I would like to sincerely apologize for the error. It was not our intention to remove your url in addition to other false positives in the notice dated Jan 20, 2012. (Most if not all should be readded in Google's index as of now)

Simply put, we made a mistake which was corrected when it came to our attention during an audit this weekend. In reality we are all human, and humans make mistakes. In fact circumstances such as this help us learn from our mistakes. For instance, http://torrentfreak.com/google-removes-pirate-bay-frontpage-from-search-results-091002/ is another example of such error.

We have no intention of censoring Free Speech actually, we are all for it. We've donated Tor Exit Nodes to the Tor Project in addition to other items such as SSL's to other similar organizations who wish to protect just that.

Once again I apologize for the error, rather than a lengthy explanation I stick to my own principles of "NO BS".

Thank you
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
IP is a joke
CodenameV, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 3:39pm

Movie theaters create their own ticket booths to exclude non-payers so they can have value in their product. Why should the Government build ticket booths for industries that utilize the internet? If the free market can't provide adequate fences/ticket booths to exclude non-payers we SHOULD NOT ask the Government to do it- they always screw everything up. Senator Hatch says the Government should DESTROY computers without due process. http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting, but not complete
TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 3:57pm

But don't you know that Google is the big bad guy of the internet who has caused all these serious losses for the RIAA and MPAA ever since the Internet was invented and even before Google existed?

It's hard enough to sell shiny plastic disks these days as it is so why do they need BOTH Google and Techdirt around? ;-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:06pm

"""TechDirt would have to prove damages. The cost of calculating and proving those damages is probably well in excess of the actual damages."""

Now let's use some record label accounting: go ahead and tack on the cost of calculating those damages into the actual suit itself! Genius!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chilling, indeed.
TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:09pm

Hey, that list is a veritable guide for any budding pirate, freetard or fatty out there to clean up on the downloads they want.

Well, except for Techdirt and The Independent.

Just who needs SOPA/PIPA/ACTA when you've got THIS?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Jeff @armovore, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:31pm

Hi CC:

Hopefully my comment will get approved soon addressing the error. In regards to your statement, Google never disabled the URL you specified above.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Loki, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:35pm

Why would it be difficult?

Hell by applying RIAA/MPAA mathematics, you even get to apply a multiplier effect to the basic "unit cost".

Hell, by their own warped arguments, this could be a clear case of "reverse piracy". Every lost eyeball while the post was blocked, was clearly a lost advertising sale. If we take the average number of article views per days, multiple them by the number of days the article was blocked, and multiplying that by $150,000 per views we could be talking tens of millions of dollars here.

(Yes, it's a completely stupid argument, but if that's the kind of rules the content industry wants, then I am not the least bit shy about using their own methods right back at them).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Other interesting hits...
Jeff @armovore, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:38pm

Hi Duke:

In regards to your statement, Google never disabled the URL you specified above.

Our intention is not to "BS" or deny any facts. The initial tool was keyword based. However, we've made substantial improvements to only do site: in addition to numerous automated/humans checks to remove only torrent links with actual infringing content rather than a mention of a result to xyz content.

Once again we apologize
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Stupidlogin, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:40pm

...*knowingly materially*... no, I can't imagine how anyone could weasel themselves out of that one
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
JT, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:45pm

"Government bends over backwards to try to cater to hollywood"
I don't think they're bending over backwards somehow.
Probably the exact opposite...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Apology
Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 4:55pm

Wow, thanks for coming to apologize. It's certainly more than I was expecting to have happened.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Apology
Mike (profile), Feb 27th, 2012 @ 5:05pm

Jeff,

While this apology is wonderful, I would hope that Armovore is taking steps to prevent this happening EVER AGAIN.

We don't want to hear excuses about "the tech not being accurate enough" to be 100% accurate. We want to hear that this practice will STOP until the tech IS 100% accurate.

Anything else is false accusation and should not be part of modern society, online or offline.

Regards,

Mike.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Apology
John @armovore, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 5:11pm

Hi,

Thanks for the kind comments. To address a point made in the article, we have never charged anyone for our service since its inception in November.

Personally, I don't feel the need to charge anyone for an unfinished service that is constantly being improved and tweaked every few days. Obviously we had a big bug in our system that we somehow missed during clean ups. We've had Google reinstate numerous URLs in the past due to similar circumstances, I'm quite ashamed I've never heard of TechDirt before today. We started auditing all DMCAs to Google as of today and hope to correct any other errors we've made.

In conclusion, our intention was not to restrict free speech. Personally, I am an avid defender of free speech having donated tor exit nodes and ssl certificates to organizations that defend just that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Apology
John @armovore, Feb 27th, 2012 @ 5:17pm

Michael,

Understandable. We are actually auditing all of our previous DMCA's to Google today to ensure no one else is being DMCAed by mistake. This was never our intention.

As far as your question, we are taking steps to prevent such event from occurring again by incorporating steps we take in traditional takedowns (cyberlockers / site DMCA's) which is to manually anything that circumvents from our system. Beside this fact, we are only targeting known pirating locations rather than doing a SEO based search term.. Meaning anything from this point forward cannot be blamed on bad tech.

If anyone has any other questions I am more than happy to address them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Sony Music Exec: The Internet Is Full Of... >>

<< Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On...

A word from our Sponsors...

Follow Techdirt

From the Techdirt Archive...

A word from our Sponsors...

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Name
Email	Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
URL
Subject
Comment	this is for spambots, do not use this
Options	Save me a cookie

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Name
Email	Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
URL
Subject
Comment	this is for spambots, do not use this
Options	Save me a cookie

Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice

from the dmca-abuse dept

Reader Comments (rss)

DMCA this!

Re: DMCA this!

armovore

Wait...

Other interesting hits...

Sic 'Em

Sic 'Em

Re:

Pre-emptive shill rant

Misrepresentation and DMCA Notices

Re:

How to see Google's DMCA notices for your site

A Most Awesome Case Study...

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: armovore

Re:

Re: Re:

Interesting, but not complete

Re:

Re: Pre-emptive shill rant

Re: Re: armovore

Re: Interesting, but not complete

Re: Re: Pre-emptive shill rant

Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Interesting, but not complete

takedownpingback

Re: DMCA this!

Admit it...

But on the other hand....

Article fodder

Re: Misrepresentation and DMCA Notices

Re: Re:

Reinstated

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: DMCA this!

Re: Reinstated

Re:

Re: Re:

Chilling, indeed.

Re: Reinstated

Re: Reinstated

Re: Reinstated

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: armovore

Re: Misrepresentation and DMCA Notices

Re:

Re:

Re: Re: Reinstated

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Interesting, but not complete

Devil's advocate

Re: Re:

@ Mike Masnick & Team

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive shill rant

Re: Re:

Re: Reinstated

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pre-emptive shill rant

But it's not "abuse"

Re: Devil's advocate

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Interesting, but not complete

Re: armovore

Re: Sic 'Em

so you know

Re: so you know

Apology

IP is a joke