Don’t use the word ‘did’ or dumb anti-piracy company will delete you from Google

https://torrentfreak.com/dont-use-the-word-did-or-a-dumb-anti-piracy-company-will-delete-you-from-google-200216/

by TiredOfLife • 6 years ago

270 115 6 years ago

moomin• 6 years ago

The DMCA was very carefully drafted to make the perjury but only apply to your claim of ownership, not to the claim of infringement.

In other words, this idiocy is the intended behaviour of the law.

jagged-chisel• 6 years ago

Only the owner (or an authorized agent of the owner) can claim infringement. I suppose the claim of being an authorized agent is also free of perjury penalty.

vageli• 6 years ago

Only the owner (or an authorized agent of the owner) can claim infringement. I suppose the claim of being an authorized agent is also free of perjury penalty.

Forget perjury, why isn't this outright fraud?

matheusmoreira11• 6 years ago

The word DID isn't just a verb, apparently it also stands for Dance India Dance and this is sufficient grounds for censorship.

The allegedly infringing URLs include:

  1. Government websites
  2. Dictionaries, including wiktionary
  3. An article published in Nature
  4. Some random blog posts

Mind-boggling. This sort of abuse should lead to substantial fines and the cancellation of their DMCA complaint privileges at the very least. Censoring websites should not be this easy and consequence-free.

dmix3• 6 years ago

The fact it removed 4 dictionary entries for the word "did" including Merriam Webster is really the worst part.

DMCA is completely broken and the accounts abuses are endless. We had an entire subreddit with 25k subscribers taken down by a person using fake DMCA requests. For months we had random completely innocuous posts with zero copyrightable content taken down do to "copyright infringement" by an off-kilter person who people on the subreddit pissed off at some point. Then eventually the entire subreddit went down due to "repeat copyright infringement".

Remember kids, if you see something you don't like on the internet (or even more relevant to this era of intolerance towards free speech: anything that "offends" you) just spam DMCA requests. Almost all sites like Reddit, Youtube, and Google don't actually care if it's legitimate or not, and they always automatically take the side of the person who filed it. And if they do push back there will be 10 more waiting by the time the system figures one out.

andrewprock• 6 years ago

It's not DMCA that's broken, it's the people that run those companies implementing the policies that are broken.

matheusmoreira11• 6 years ago

Copyright itself is broken. It's the 21st century. Copying data is not only trivial, it's a fundamental computer operation. We should not be imposing any limits on this activity. If these rich 20th century industries can't adapt and end up bankrupt, so be it. We should not be protecting them from irrelevance by sacrificing free computing and the free internet for the sake of their decaying business model.

rstupek• 6 years ago

A provider like reddit, youtube, google, etc can't "push back" and not then themselves become party to the infringement. Don't blame them blame the law as written. Providers don't get to choose a side. Counter DMCA exists though so legitimate content can be restored pretty quickly with a counter claim

wolco• 6 years ago

How does one file a DMCA takedown request?

Is it just an open form on the internet or is there a charge per request?

duxup• 6 years ago

What they pick seems so bizarrely random.

How is it those sites were chosen and the bazillion other sites with the word did... weren't?

And if someone was talking about the show DID... what is wrong with that?

code_sloth• 6 years ago

DMCA was a reaction to the digitization of media. People were sharing pirated media faster than companies could take them down. Some of these people hid behind websites that provided varying degrees of anonymity.

How the tables have turned. Companies are now the ones hiding behind anonymized parties that use bots to scan and take down everything that might be related. In this case it's not even remotely related.

falcor842• 6 years ago

How the tables have turned.

Well, people are also still clearly sharing pirated media, so I guess the only people who consistently benefit are the lawyers.

wolfgke2• 6 years ago

I often write here on HN:

Make the laws so that companies who claim false copyright infringements receive the same punishments and (financial) penalties as you would as if you infringed the copyright.

Also the entity falsely accused of copyright infringement should receive the same compensation as it would be sued for if it had infringend copyright.

lern_too_spel2• 6 years ago

The copyright owners usually have better lawyers than the alleged infringers, but they can be sued. https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/intellectual-property/con...

matheusmoreira11• 6 years ago

They'll just lobby the government and say such a thing would make it "too risky" or "too hard" to enforce copyright. Actually making sure a DMCA complaint is valid is too much work and they shouldn't have to do it. What they want is a magic button that deletes from the internet everything that matches their content but doesn't come from them directly. They don't care about false positives or fair use either, it's just collateral damage.

wolfgke2• 6 years ago

They'll just lobby the government and say such a thing would make it "too risky" or "too hard" to enforce copyright.

Any sensible person should counter that argument with the argument that it is currently "too hard" to defend oneself against false copyright claims.

Semaphor• 6 years ago

Or my recent suggestion here:

3 strikes and you are out. Take down 3 obviously (probably decided by a judge) non-infringing things and you lose the ability to send takedowns.

Of course neither of those are going to happen, those companies donate way too much money.

ajmurmann• 6 years ago

Even if "DID" was indeed, unambiguously referring to the dance show, what would need infringed on? It's not a copyright violation, since the article would just be talking about the show and not reproducing the copyrighted content. If anything the name would fall under trademark, but even that wouldn't be violated here.

In short: why would just mentioning something covered by copyright ever make for a legitimate takedown?

rdiddly• 6 years ago

If anything, a mention (a real one) should be thought of as free publicity for their shitty who-cares show! Like if you had a mind to firmly put an end to any possibility of a viral word-of-mouth campaign (which is the fondest wish of most producers of attention-based product e.g. entertainment, but let's say you were a dangerously stupid one), this is how you would do it.

olodus• 6 years ago

Let's hope the people behind the dance show maybe get word of how this copyrights defender company used the money they gave them to protect their brand, realized how bad this publicity is and fire the Rights Hero team.

forgotmypw77• 6 years ago

is this part of seo strategy?

if you are result #11 on google, but you dmca the first ten...

blurbleblurble• 6 years ago

You joke, but just wait...

mkagenius• 6 years ago

Another ad company to take down the biggest ad company?

nitrogen• 6 years ago

This happens to YouTubers who made a video on a subject that someone else also has a video on that they want to promote. Or just randomly.

phendrenad2• 6 years ago

We need a paid search engine. Google is willing to lose entire subsets of the possible results because they don't want to pay humans to handle DMCA complaints.

dontblink• 6 years ago

Payment would not help. We need reformed copyright laws. Google is simply complying as would any search company, paid or not.

jhauris• 6 years ago

Google or any alternative free or otherwise has no choice if they want to maintain their safe harbor under the DMCA. It's not up to them to referee the issue, or they become culpable for any infringement on their platform.

My understanding is they also must restore the content when a counter notice is filed by the alleged infringer (but I'm not a lawyer).

keyme2• 6 years ago

Sounds like we should make a bot that makes a counter notice for every notice. Is there a page on Google that discloses all the recently issued DMCA notices?

0xcde4c3db• 6 years ago

The big catch is that to file a proper counter-notification you have to reveal your name, address and phone number to the claimant (whereas the claimant is only required to provide "reasonably sufficient" contact information). This is ostensibly to allow for service of process if they decide to sue you, but it's also been abused to harass and intimidate people in various ways.

Also, there's allegedly a loophole where the claimant can notify the provider's DMCA agent they're suing you, at which point the provider is obligated to keep the claimed material inaccessible, but then not actually sue you. I'm not sure this has actually been done, though.

chapium• 6 years ago

Yellow Pages?

unnouinceput• 6 years ago

Hmmm, let's weaponize then DMCA claims to the point they no longer will blindly be followed by drones. So, please start file DMCA for everything they publish that's used to track/infringe our privacy. Unfortunately I do not have required SEO (?) skills, so someone please give specific advice for this - but you folks understand what I'm saying.

tzs2• 6 years ago

“Got a cheery confirmation email from Google saying, ‘Thanks for contacting us!’ and that it might be a while until the issue is resolved. I assume that’s because this is the point where finally a decision has to be made by a human being. It is annoying indeed.”

It should be nearly automatic. The procedure given by DMCA is:

1. Someone claiming their copyright is being infringed (CLAIMANT) by material hosted at a particular service files a DMCA notice with the service.

2. Service checks the notice to make sure that it contains all the required information. Let's assume that it does.

3. Service takes down the allegedly infringing work and notifies the alleged infringer (ACCUSED).

If the content was infringing, it probably ends here. If the accused believes the work was not infringing, we continue...

4. Accused files a counter-notice with the service provider, saying that the work is not infringing.

5. Service provider notifies the claimant of the counter-notice.

6. Service provider is required to restore the material from 10 to 14 business days after receiving the counter-notice, unless the service provider receives notice from claimant that claimant has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the accused from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's systems.

jkaplowitz• 6 years ago

Nearly automatic, yes. But step 6 requires a statutory minimum waiting period of 10 business days, to allow the claimant time to file a lawsuit and notify Google of it. Google probably has the lawsuit notification handling sufficiently automated as not to add any additional delay, but if counter-notices are rare enough, this may be manual involving a check with Google legal.

aSplash0fDerp• 6 years ago

There could be a link between DID numbers and India... Would removing these results provide any ancillary value?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_inward_dial

kimi• 6 years ago

In VoIP, a DID is a Direct Inbound Dial, that is a phone # you can buy. There are a lot of websites offering DIDs - like say https://www.didx.net/ - I wonder if they'll kick them all off Google....

matheusmoreira11• 6 years ago

Searching for DID also gives me dissociative identity disorder. I wonder if they'll DMCA all the scientific journals hosting articles about that.

xerox13ster• 6 years ago

Moderator of the Dissociative Identity Disorder subreddit here. This was my first thought upon reading the article.

8jef2• 6 years ago

The only idiotic thing in all of this is the enduring reliance on single go to sources by so-called individuals making this army of unconscious drones called humanity, and which I'm giddily part of. Then, switching point of view, one can see how incredible this Internet experiment is for a semiconscious bystander actor and observer like me. All evolution flaws common to our species are now totally exposed to anybody daring to look at. Then, probably too many seek to profit from such perspectives, poisoning the well in the process. What a great time and place to be living in.

smallcharleston• 6 years ago

What the hell are you talking about dude

8jef2• 6 years ago

It was not for you

superkuh• 6 years ago

He's saying the google monopoly on search is bad.

fenomas• 6 years ago

Rest of the story: the article was restored about two days later.

https://twitter.com/TwoBitHistory/status/1228332876099473409

himinlomax2• 6 years ago

That's one URL, the article implies there's many.

gentleman11• 6 years ago

This sounds like a trademark claim, not copyright. You can’t copyright 3 letters, can you? Even as a trademark claim it’s bonkers

himinlomax2• 6 years ago

That's a result of the contributory infringement nonsense that has been used to prosecute people who posted links to works, not works themselves.

everfree• 6 years ago

It was a copyright claim under the DMCA. You're right in thinking that it's bonkers, regardless of whether under copyright or trademark.

ginko• 6 years ago

1. Create some organization with a name that can be abbreviated to some basic copular verb in the language of your choice

2. Claim copyright for the name and the abbreviation

3. Use DMCA to censor pretty much any article you may have issues with for whatever reason

imtringued• 6 years ago

MrStonedOne3• 6 years ago

Can we not remove words from titles? This title should read "Don’t Use the Word ‘Did’ or a Dumb Anti-Piracy Company Will Delete You from Google"

I get that some people think a is useless here, but its really not.

dredmorbius• 6 years ago

There's an 80-character limit. The title you quote is 89 characters. Something's got to give.

MrStonedOne3• 6 years ago

I added one letter (and one space). Somethings not adding up with your logic

happytoexplain• 6 years ago

I appreciate the sentiment, but don't see the issue in this case. Omitting articles is standard headlinese for a good reason - I can't see how it could be interpreted differently without the 'a'.

MrStonedOne3• 6 years ago

It makes it harder to read without it. It sounds like broken english that I keep tripping up over myself trying to read it thinking that I misread a word

michaelmrose10• 6 years ago

Deliberately false or recklessly false claims ought to be punished.

Make any claimant or their lawyer put up a bond of 100 usd before making any claims. Publish the claims on a site. Allow anyone, not just the damaged party, to claim the bounty for the fraudulent claims by submitting proof.

Increase the bond exponentially as it is paid out making it eventually hideously expensive if you keep breaking the law.

Make the increases eventually expire allowing people to reform their behavior.

praptak• 6 years ago

DMCA is one part of the problem, the second is the centralised internet of now.

"Distributed global" network my ass - one stupid US law and content becomes inaccessible.

Abimelex• 6 years ago

DID is getting to be fun :) https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/

Don’t use the word ‘did’ or dumb anti-piracy company will delete you from Google

Related Stories