Google sues two men who weaponized DMCA notices to crush competition

https://torrentfreak.com/google-sues-men-who-weaponized-dmca-notices-to-crush-competition-231114/

390 181 3 years ago

I believe this is what everyone has been suggesting someone do about fake DMCA for a while so, although it pains me to say it, thank you Google!

hnbad2• 3 years ago

False DMCA claims are technically considered perjury I think. The problem is that most so-called DMCA claims are actually not using the DMCA mechanism at all: filing a bogus copyright claim on YouTube for example doesn't have to involve the DMCA at any point.

sumtechguy• 3 years ago

I have heard that perjury thing before. However, what is the actual consequence of doing that? Also in this particular type of thing? Is it a 'liar liar pants on fire' designation, or some sort of fine, or time in jail? What do the actual statutes say, and what is the case law here?

tanaros• 3 years ago

False DMCA claims are technically considered perjury I think. The problem is that most so-called DMCA claims are actually not using the DMCA mechanism at all […]

The other issue is that, if I recall correctly, the perjury penalty is not about whether the claim is accurate. It’s about whether you actually represent the rights holder of the content you claim is being infringed.

That is, if I make a DMCA claim that says this video infringes on Frozen, it’s perjury only if I’m not the rights holder (or representative thereof) for Frozen.

Suppafly3• 3 years ago

Whenever you see some small content creator complaining about people stealing their videos and such, they never actually file a DMCA to get relief, they just use youtube's bogus form and then complain when nothing happens.

jasode• 3 years ago

I believe _this_ is what everyone has been suggesting someone do about fake DMCA for a while so,

The problem is the "_this_" in this thread's example is a full-blown lawsuit by Google. Yes, this is a change from just blindingly obeying DMCA notices but filing lawsuits is not scalable to apply to all the other frivolous and illegitimate takedown requests. These 2 men just did it in high enough volume to attract the attention of Google's lawyers.

An example of all the other illegitimate DMCA takedowns "flying under the radar"...

A few years ago, I was selling some Total Training DVD tutorials of Adobe products on ebay like these: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=total+training+adobe+cr...

Ebay then mysteriously cancelled my listing after a few days. Why? Because Ebay has a VeRO (Verified Rights Owners) program and Total Training sent a DMCA takedown request to remove my legitimate listing. I then sent a harsh email with my invoice to Total Training that proved I bought the DVDs directly from them so they are not counterfeit pirate copies and warned them not to interfere when I re-listed it. They didn't takedown my listing so I was finally able to sell it. Total Training wasn't really trying to stop piracy; their real intention was to prevent lower-priced used DVDs from competing with the sales of their new DVDs by intimidating sellers on ebay.

That's the type of small-scale DMCA abuse that happens constantly on Ebay, Youtube, Google search results page, etc. Abuse the DMCA to their advantage but not enough to attract lawsuits.

anonzzzies2• 3 years ago

Nice and finally. People have been saying this for a long time already.

Shame Google doesn't the same with people crushing the competition by adwords/adsense and SEO abuse.

SoftTalker• 3 years ago

Google started to care when it started costing them money.

bitshiftfaced• 3 years ago

What was their angle? Did they try to funnel people to their own pirating site or something?

hnbad2• 3 years ago

Based on TFA it reads like they used them for SEO by filing illegitimate notices against higher-ranking competitors.

anonzzzies2• 3 years ago

This happens a lot. It's all pretty rotten.

tommica• 3 years ago

Great job!

boomboomsubban3• 3 years ago

Elon Musk, Taylor Swift, LeVar Burton, and Kanye West.

LeVar Burton? That's a bizarre inclusion on that list. Some Google lawyer is probably a Trekkie.

Eisenstein2• 3 years ago

They were using DMCA to shut down competitors websites, and they were in the business of selling printed T-shirts, so anyone with a face or brand that would be printed on a shirt could be used as the claimant on the DMCA notice.

boomboomsubban3• 3 years ago

The four listed in the complaint were mentioned as examples of who they imitated. They could have stopped at three examples, the sports teams had three examples while the bands had one. The inclusion of Burton was almost certainly because the lawyer is a fan.

Eisenstein2• 3 years ago

How do they plan on enforcing US law in Vietnam? Since the defendants live in Vietnam won't they have to either extradite them to the USA or place a judgement against them which will never be paid, as long as they don't have any assets in the states? I have wondered for a while how this works, so anyone who knows specifics is welcome to respond.

Kye• 3 years ago

Might be relevant:

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

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/wct/treaty_wc...

slashdev• 3 years ago

Maybe through their credit card payment provider?

I’m guessing that’s the weak point, but I don’t know how that would work exactly.

papercrane• 3 years ago

It depends on how the Vietnam legal system works, but in theory you can enforce a civil judgment across borders.

After winning a judgment, Google would have to go to court in Vietnam and ask for the judgment be enforced. The court would look at wether proper notice was given, the jurisdiction was proper and that the underlying conduct was something you could sue for. They may also look at the award to determine it isn't excessive. If they're satisfied the court can then issue an order to enforce it.

This all depends heavily on how the Vietnam legal system works, which I have no idea. Obviously every country has their own quirks and processes.

ViSpace• 3 years ago

Considering the gov's antique about copyright there, and the state of US-VN relations, Google will get what they want.

freitzkriesler2• 3 years ago

Didn't Google used to have a service where they would publish dmca take down notices? Chilling effects or something like that?

darrenf• 3 years ago

Google contribute to Chilling Effects, which got renamed to Lumen https://www.lumendatabase.org/

[edited to remove “used to”]

ajsnigrutin3• 3 years ago

Holding Defendants Accountable
Those who knowingly make false statements in a DMCA notice can be held liable for damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In this matter the defendants’ conduct is said to have caused Google to suffer economic harm due to lost advertising revenue, damage to business relations, and the allocation of significant resources to investigate their wrongdoing.

Does this apply only to "two vietnamese men" or also companies like sony, nintendo etc., when they happen to forget about the fair uses clauses?

chii• 3 years ago

when they happen to forget about the fair uses clauses?

oh those are just innocent omissions and no malice nor intent is implied!

ajsnigrutin3• 3 years ago

I mean.. who could expect highly paid copyright lawyers in their massive legal teams to know such obscure rules such as fair use :)

singron• 3 years ago

You just have to consider fair use to make a dmca claim. It takes 1 second in your head. The bar is very low.

kmfrk• 3 years ago

The "DMCA abuse" rule feels a lot like perjury where it's technically illegal but a legal and prosecutorial mess that means it never rarely punished and makes headlines when it finally does.

Andrex• 3 years ago

It's there to prevent the most obvious potential abuses.

Very little in the copyright sphere is "obvious" though. Is this riff original or was it stolen? Etc.

tyingq3• 3 years ago

Urgh, yeah. If you're trying to set an example, suing two individuals in a US court... individuals that don't even reside in the US, that's an odd choice.

Suing an actual company and recovering some of the judgement would surely send a stronger message.

Edit: maybe a more cynical view is that racking up default judgements is used as low-effort proof of "we're policing the system...see all of our lawsuits" if government or public pressure rises.

AwaAwa• 3 years ago

Might they be trying to set a precedent and receive a quick 'no show' judgement?

jfoutz2• 3 years ago

That's how it works though. You go after the weakest , least sympathetic, least able to respond, and set the precedent.

Sorta like weev. There are plenty of reasons to not like the guy. But that's the case that made changing the numbers in a URL a possible felony.

Anyway, once they get that first win, they pick on a slightly larger target, and cite the first win as precident.

manicennui2• 3 years ago

DMCA is a US law.

gumby• 3 years ago

Does this apply only to "two vietnamese men" or also companies like sony, nintendo etc., when they happen to forget about the fair uses clauses?

Who advertises on Google: "two vietnamese men" or “companies like sony, nintendo etc”? Both cost Google money through bogus DMCA filings, but one cohort also brings in a lot of cash.

xinayder• 3 years ago

Everyone knows that rules don't apply to big corpos because they have the monies and lawyers.

kozinc• 3 years ago

Well, they do, technically, the issue is that they aren't enforced... because they have the monies and lawyers. :(

eli• 3 years ago

Nope. The part of a DMCA notice that is under penalty of perjury is that you own the copyright in question. That's what the defendants here lied about.

You can't get sued if you believe something is infringement but the person using the copyrighted material believes it's fair use. Honestly I'm not even sure how that could work.

Kalium• 3 years ago

Counter-notice and it goes to court, I believe.

gnopgnip• 3 years ago

In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp the courts found that rights holders do need to consider fair use when submitting a DMCA takedown, and they are liable for damages if they fail to do so

pulse7• 3 years ago

"GOOGLE LLC, Plaintiff, v. NGUYEN VAN DUC, PHAM VAN THIEN, and DOES 1-20, Defendants."

What are those "Does 1-20"? Are they 20 no-name individuals?

iudqnolq• 3 years ago

For boring reasons sometimes people tack on placeholders in case more defendants are identified later.

TheCleric• 3 years ago

Pre-allocating memory so you can use it later instead of doing it in the render (justice) loop and slowing that down. Good call.

boomboomsubban3• 3 years ago

"John/Jane Doe" is a common placeholder name, it's twenty people they couldn't identify.

fusslo• 3 years ago

Ah! I read it as "DOES" as in 'do', not "more than one DOE"

Thanks for clearing that up

sowbug• 3 years ago

Roe is less common, but not unusual. Most memorably, "Roe" in Roe v. Wade was a pseudonym for the plaintiff who was called "Jane Roe" to protect her privacy. I don't know the mechanism, but I assume the judge in such cases has the real identity of a pseudonymous plaintiff to make sure a real party has brought the case.

Dwedit• 3 years ago

This is one of the few cases where the "perjury rule" actually matters. The "perjury rule" says that it is considered perjury to falsely claim that your are authorized by the rights holder to make the DMCA takedown request. Contrary to popular belief, the perjury rule does not say that it's perjury to falsely identify something as the copyrighted work.

abtinf• 3 years ago

That’s an interesting distinction. And, I would think, a much broader rule. It is inclusive of the “popular belief”: if you falsely identify a work as copyrighted, but it’s not, then you are misrepresenting your authorization because there is no way for you to have obtained it.

gmiller123456• 3 years ago

Sadly, that's not how it works. The claimant just has to have authorization on behalf of the work they are claiming is being infringed upon. Essentially making this part of the law useless. IMHO, it was just added to make the layman think there is some protection or responsibility on behalf of the people making the claim.

thomastjeffery7• 3 years ago

Unfortunately, perjury only applies in court. DMCA is extrajudicial.

RecycledEle2• 3 years ago

Great, now do Kay Bailey Hutchison who took down my political web sites by filing fony DMCA notices with DirectNic.

justinclift• 3 years ago

Why would Google have anything to do with this?

If you pointed out their bogus YouTube copyright strikes problem, that'd be relevant.

But DirectNic doesn't seem like it has anything to do with Google. (?)

Suppafly3• 3 years ago

Did you file the counter notices that force them to put the content back up?

indymike2• 3 years ago

Often the damage from fraudulent takedowns is relative to timing.

For example (and this is just an example): Let's say I put up an expose of bad behavior by a politician two days before an election. Something awful that will get coverage in the media and social media, too. The campaign fake DMCAs it, the content is gone, and the election is won before the content is re-posted after the reply is processed.

There are situations where the notice/counter notice does not work and causes almost irreparable harm.

pugworthy• 3 years ago

Then the headline could be, "Google Sues Woman Who Weaponized DCMA Notices..." It definitely makes the headline's genderfication a bit more ridiculous looking.

RecycledEle2• 3 years ago

Great, now do the Dallas and DeSoto, TX police departments who took down my videos of police brutality and violent home invasions with phony take-down notices to YouTube in addition to destroying my computers and cameras and stealing computer discs with video of their misconduct from the US Mail with the help of (then DeSoto post master Linda H. Norwood.

rc_mob• 3 years ago

Have you written about this story anywhere? I feel like multiple subreddits would be very interested in this story.

galangalalgol• 3 years ago

Yeah, that went federal. Very interesting.

kolanos• 3 years ago

Not to mention prominent channels on YouTube that cover police matters like this. [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/@LackLusterMedia

csomar2• 3 years ago

I think we have this reoccurring on a frequent basis that it is now part and parcel of living in the US.

smoldesu• 3 years ago

You probably want to host that sort of content yourself. If your only backup is on Google's server, you have to prepare for a reality where they get rid of it.

binarymax• 3 years ago

Sounds like they did, and it was destroyed/stolen?

gamblor9563• 3 years ago

If true, that story would make national news...

In additional to the state-level crimes committed by local law enforcement, your claim suggests a number of federal crimes as well.

qingcharles8• 3 years ago

I know prosecutors, police officers who have committed multiple state and federal crimes. I've tried contact dozens of media outlets and they are all like "Mmkay".

manicennui2• 3 years ago

Only companies like Google are allowed to use the weapon that is DMCA.

nhubbard• 3 years ago

Wow, this is probably the most brazen misuse of the DMCA process I've seen in a while. Actively advertising on YouTube how merchants can file fake DMCA claims with Google to improve their business is insane.

jrockway• 3 years ago

This is kind of a tragedy of the commons situation that works for everyone. Because DMCA abuse is so rampant, it encourages lawmakers to come up with another system.

kevingadd2• 3 years ago

Part of why this works is that Google refuses to provide you information on claimants if you want to sue them, presumably because it's more work for their customer service staff to respond to requests like that

dragonwriter6• 3 years ago

So, file a vs. John Doe lawsuit and then subpoena Google for the idebtifying information they have.

That's what copyright owners do, in reverse, when providers don't give customer information (which they generally don't.)

tlogan• 3 years ago

  the defendants can be found in 
  Vietnam from where they proudly  
  advertise their ‘SEO’ scheme to  
  others, including via YouTube.

Nothing to see here: the business of sending of fake DMCA notices is booming and I do not know how this lawsuit will change a bit. They will just open a new company and continue doing this.

infamouscow• 3 years ago

People forget this goes both ways. Legal systems completely break down across international borders except for the most esteemed international criminals.

The number of hoops someone has to jump through to launch international investigations is incredibly expensive, both in time and money. It's also a lot of luck and playing hyper-political games like throwing a party for an ambassador. Ask how I know :)

In short, one could hire locals to dish out vigilante justice with virtual impunity.

withinboredom2• 3 years ago

Ask how I know

Oh, I know. There was a guy working remotely in a country that doesn't extradite and embezzled millions. They invited him (and the rest of the company) to a "company party" in the US just to arrest him while giving everyone else in the company free booze for a week.

Coreleen• 3 years ago

I very rarely feel like I take the side of Google, but in this case, feel like this is a win for everyone and not just the big guy

phpisthebest• 3 years ago

Dont give them too much credit, Notice they did not go after any of the big media companies that are just as abusive.

They picked a small time organization to target, they would not want to upset advertisers, hell I bet they got the blessing of the big media companies to even go after these guys..

If they really wanted side with creators they would push back against their RIAA and MPAA abusers, but of-course they will not

NPC82• 3 years ago

My understanding is if Google wins it would still set a legal precedent, which would help future lawsuits with this sort of thing. Of course not many criminals make a YouTube video on how they execute their own crimes... that would certainly help.

viknesh• 3 years ago

I think a meta point that is interesting here is that nobody could be more motivated to lobby for DMCA changes than large platforms like Google. Wrongfully targeted victims take out their anger on the platform, who thus far wrings their hands and says "sorry, it's the law, file a counterclaim if you want."

If it's enough of a problem for the platform (and not the victims), they can just pay off their congresspeople to write a law allowing DMCA abuse detection systems.

mqus• 3 years ago

only in this case it mostly google which makes matters worse. They don't or badly check DMCA claims, don't monitor or publish the filers that are most frequently counterfiled against and to top it off: mostly use their own contentid system anyway which heavily favors ip holders.

rsingel• 3 years ago

Also the DMCA doesn't require Google to takedown sites based on obviously fraudulent DMCA notices.

It's just that Google would lose its liability shield if the claim turned out to be real.

withinboredom2• 3 years ago

Yeah, and what is funny, is that it totally misses content on smaller artists while incorrectly IP on older, open-domain, classical music performed by smaller artists (think high-school bands performing Beethoven).

mjevans• 3 years ago

Google, nor any other corp, should be a Judge on a legal matter. That's why a Judge should be involved.

The entire idea of of the DCMA is just massively flawed and biased towards a world where only big publishers and big criminal enterprises exist.

advisedwang• 3 years ago

The DMCA does not give service providers leeway to check DMCA claims. Ignoring a correctly filed notification, even if it is garbage, prevents a service provider getting the relief from liability.

Source: 17 USC 512(c)

thomastjeffery7• 3 years ago

Google has another set of motivation: rights-holders are its primary customers.

It's pretty clear at this point which motivator has won Google's favor.

sonicanatidae• 3 years ago

Part of that is due to how the platform plays games with appeals.

Who wouldn't be pissed off when legitimate content gets taken down, and the platform's response to evidence to the contrary is dumb looks and blank stares?

tomohawk• 3 years ago

Why is 'Men' featured in the title? It's like the title goes out of the way to call attention to gender here. It's distracting and adds nothing.

jfax• 3 years ago

I agree, it's a bit disorienting.

elzbardico• 3 years ago

Because they are men. And yes, it adds context, as it makes easier for you to picture concrete people with your imagination. Having a gender is part of the concrete reality of the human species, so having this information provides a clue of concreteness.

arbuge2• 3 years ago

How exactly does a lawsuit filed in California reach two defendants located in Vietnam?

Wouldn't suing them in Vietnam be appropriate here?

andylynch2• 3 years ago

The claim is under US law. Enforcement is a different matter!- incidentally there are also 20 Does whose locations aren’t mentioned.

arbuge2• 3 years ago

I guess my question remains then. How does this stop their behavior exactly?

prmoustache2• 3 years ago

Why are they suing them in California and not in Vietnam?

notimetorelax• 3 years ago

Probably because this is where ToS set the jurisdiction.

prmoustache2• 3 years ago

So presumably the defendants will just shrugs their shoulders and not even appear to the court.

andylynch2• 3 years ago

The complaint is claiming that this group should be held liable under the section of the DMVA relating to misrepresentation. California since that’s where Google principal place of venue is and also that given in the TOS allegedly breached.

chris_wot• 3 years ago

You know, I'd feel a lot safer if Google would fix the mountain of malware in their Chrome app store.

arlattimore• 3 years ago

Our lawsuit targets bad actors who set up dozens of Google accounts and used them to submit thousands of bogus copyright claims against their competitors. These fraudulent claims resulted in removal of over 100,000 businesses’ websites, costing them millions of dollars and thousands of hours in lost employee time.

So Google needs to remove the sites first, likely to be legally compliant themselves, hurt the businesses in question, then sue to be able to re-instate the websites that they knew shouldn't have been taken down in the first place?

Zigurd• 3 years ago

It would be fair to say google should put more work into vetting DMCA takedowns, but DMCA is a bad law, and it is enforced badly. A long term coordinated effort at fraudulent takedowns should be criminal in several ways: The false report should be criminal. It should be a sworn statement. There should be a statutory penalty against the reporting party. Reporting parties should be bonded on a sliding scale. The criminality should not be able to hide behind the corporate veil.

gunapologist99• 3 years ago

Google is suing, and it's not even the harmed party. Obligatory IANAL disclaimer applies, but surely a strong first-party case could be made for, at least, tortious interference?

Twirrim• 3 years ago

It would be fair to say google should put more work into vetting DMCA takedowns

They're effectively not allowed to, by the law, that forces them to assume every take down is good, or they end up at legal risk of being liable for the content. DMCA is just fundamentally broken.

resolutebat• 3 years ago

Yes, but blame the DMCA, because this is literally what it requires content providers like Google to do:

OSP must accommodate and not interfere with "standard technical measures." "Standard technical measures" are defined as measures that copyright owners use to identify or protect copyrighted works, that have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers

Basically, if somebody claiming to be a copyright owner (even if they aren't) files a claim saying they have copyright over someting (even if they don't) using "standard technical measures", Google "must accommodate and not interfere", meaning they need to take down first and ask questions later.

prox2• 3 years ago

What a shitty law, how did that get passed? Or is there something I missing from all this?

kccqzy• 3 years ago

I'm not an expert in DMCA but yes I believe that to be the case. The only recourse for the victims is to file a counter-notice, which obligates the service provider to start a waiting period. Then the victim has to wait out that period before having the content reinstated.

dragonwriter6• 3 years ago

If they are following DMCA procedures and notifying the targets, they can (even if there would be actual copyright liability otherwise) restore without risk 10 days after getting and notifying the complainant about a counternotice, at which point the copyright claimant needs to sue the end user.

(Some hosts are lax about the end-user side of DMCA safe harbor process, because they have no user-side liability that they feel the need to avoid, and there's no other benefit to them, besides PR, for taking any action after a takedown.)

PedroBatista• 3 years ago

Does that include YouTube too?

If that's the case Google will be suing half the lawyers in the US, many very powerful.

Either way, decades later looks like they want to put an end to it, when figured out they are spending millions with this BS, not because it was wrong in the first place and was ruining people's business and lives.

reaperman• 3 years ago

No, its a select few relatively non-powerful entities. They will not be taking on the RIAA or MPAA, for example.

ecommerceguy• 3 years ago

Be nice if Amazon did this on the merch platform.

ykonstant• 3 years ago

(those fake DMCA takedown submitters that do not have enough money to fight back)

qingcharles8• 3 years ago

Literally none of them are going to fight this. In a case like this you're going to be found bogus enough to have to pay Google's legal fees on top of your own. You'll be half a million in the hole before you blink.

99% of them either won't accept service on the Complaint or will fail to attend court. Google will win by default judgment on most of the Complaints.

qingcharles8• 3 years ago

Anyone have the case nos./captions (+ court) for the DMCA suits? Would like to read the Complaints and see who the defendants are.

dgudkov• 3 years ago

Can't stop but think that somehow public justice has been delegated to Google.

qingcharles8• 3 years ago

Anyone have the case nos./captions (+ court) for the DMCA suits? Would like to read the Complaints and see who the defendants are.

thomastjeffery7• 3 years ago

Two men who allegedly used 65 Google accounts to bombard Google with fraudulent DMCA takedown notices

Here, the problem has revealed itself: Google is the weapon here, not just DMCA.

How does your own medicine taste, Alphabet?

doublerabbit• 3 years ago

How does your own medicine taste, Alphabet?

Tastes like money and lawsuit.

Cherry flavour.

thomastjeffery7• 3 years ago

One of these days we will start treating fraud as seriously as we do copyright.

Google sues two men who weaponized DMCA notices to crush competition

Related Stories