Criticisms of EU plans for copyright censorship machines removed from Google | Hacker News Reader

Criticisms of EU plans for copyright censorship machines removed from Google

juliareda.eu

146 pointsdgtlmoon33 comments

https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/16954705 err, how is this even legal, doesn't DMCA have provisions for punishing false claims?

Thanks for the link

BS companies making completely BS claims (the other links also make no sense)

But big copyright doesn't care

Among the press articles and misc pages lies https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/useful-links/eu-l..., a page from the European Commission web site that sports tiny logos from the companies they link to. Isn't that considered fair use?

"Fair use" isn't a thing in most jurisdictions.

The DMCA is a US law, and fair use is a thing in the US. There are AFAIK specific provisions in that law regarding fair use, actually.

But the EU isn't the US and in the EU there isn't a fair use law (though depending on EU jurisdiction you get something sorta similar but way stricter)

Right, if we use this particular DMCA request as the context. But this appears to be alleging that the EU road safety page contains a copyright infringement of "Gamble Breaux-This Time (feat. Jason Singh)", which it plainly does not.

The problem is with the incentives: if the recipient of a DMCA request doesn't immediately take down the target, they become liable for any copyright infringement.

While Google would probably win if it came down to a lawsuit, the two options they have are to take it down and let the site operator dispute it, or go to court to defend the actions of a group they're unaffiliated with. The obvious choice for pretty much any group is to take it down.

Also, apparently "Gamble Breaux" is an Australian reality TV actress. Why is a US-only law involved when neither the site or the complainer are US based?

What did the Qatar Airways have to do with it? Wow.

So from a quick look that list includes, among the other things:

- A page about Europe from Qatar Airways

- One news article about pollution in India

- An opinion piece on a German newspaper

- A link to an article about upload filters on a lawyer website

- A page about road safety from the EU commission

- An article from a NY law university about a speaker about "Labor Recruitment and its Regulation in the US-Mexico-Central America Corridor"

And several other unrelated links about copyright reform, which adds up to more than half of the links on that DCMA request.

And it was approved?

> doesn't DMCA have provisions for punishing false claims?

Not really effective ones. That's part of the problem. I believe the perjury penalty only applies if the request was made intentionally in bad faith, not for negligence.

Its worse than that, the only part of a DMCA notice that is made under penalty of perjury is that the filer is authorized to represent the holder of the copyright being claimed (so really it just protects big owners of copyright from people impersonating them). The only real recourse for false claims is to sue for damages, and even then the bar is high. You need to prove damages and that the claim was made in bad faith, not merely negligently.

The claim has to be wilfully and knowingly false.

It's essentially toothless because it's near impossible to prove, and it takes all responsibility off the filer.

Yeah, I'm sure it was "just an accident"

Aren't DMCA requests done under penalty of perjury if incorrect? Might be interesting to subpoena some records.

It wouldn't be the first dirty trick of "big-copyright", they had/have some fake twitter profiles engaging in pro-reform conversation.

Wikipedia says there's a "lack of consequences for perjury in claims" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca).

Those aren't DMCA requests.

This is sad state of matters that I have to fallback more often to DuckDuckGo and Russian Yandex to discover public information which is censored by Google and big Co-s. Forbidden bits?

(I know Yandex may be in the other side of censorship spectrum too).

Isn't it a high time for a decentralized federated search-engine?

Yes. How?

Have you tried SearX?

https://searx.me

> Isn't it a high time for a decentralized federated search-engine?

Check out YaCy: https://yacy.net/en/index.html

The article doesn't mention anything about filing a counter-notice [1] to get her content relisted, which the law requires be processed just as blindly as the takedown. While I'm all for shedding light on abuses of the current system, the implication that she has no recourse is simply false.

In fact, I'm surprised that the widespread DMCA claim abuse hasn't spawned some quick-and-easy counter-notice services to help people get their content reinstated.

[1] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-not...

The problem with takedowns (at least on) YouTube (for example) is that ContentID is not DMCA

In a lot of cases the problem is that they aren't actual DMCA claims, so you lose the protections.

If they kindly ask a company to take it down, you have no recourse, and they have no risk.

She does refer to this here:

> Each individual author must actively put up a fight to restore the findability of their free speech.

That's still an unacceptable system. Apart from shifting the burden of proof, you're not even notified when your pages are de-listed, so how are you supposed to know when to send such a notice?

Also, from your link:

> sending a counter-notice makes non-U.S. residents give up a powerful argument they would otherwise have -- namely, that a U.S. court does not have the authority to render a judgment against them. For these reasons, non-U.S. residents may not want to send a counter-notice

Well, this is a very effective strategy for blacklisting links in Google via DMCA requests. Truly remarkable.

FALSE ALARM!!!! The Blog post is live, indexed and searchable - see below.

Tested on http://Google.com / .de / .co.uk

E.g: https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&ei=qpN4W_vLDcPgkgXe_... … No need to #SaveYourInternet it's a Red Herring, with no #censorshipmachines here or #uploadfilters either.

From TFA:

>After the EFF uncovered further fraudulent removals by Topple Track and TorrentFreak covered the story, Google reportedly terminated its trusted partnership with the company. But still, as of this writing, my blog post remains unlisted on Google Search. Incredibly, not even when a company is exposed for issuing abusive takedowns are the websites they’ve previously ordered removed reinstated. Each individual author must actively put up a fight to restore the findability of their free speech. (Update: The page seems to be back in the Google index now.)

>(Update: The page seems to be back in the Google index now.)

So, no, not "FALSE ALARM", but you, ironically, did in fact just cry wolf, and you in fact insinuated this as a "Red Herring", this, combined with your strangely inappropriate use of hashtags and your suspiciously monotonous submission & comment history makes me suspect that you have an undisclosed agenda.

Are you Per Strömbäck, or in any other way associated with netopia.eu?

If (n)either [doesn't really matter, after all], please stop making false claims, it seems rather ironic.

Oh and, perhaps we should mention who funds Netopia.eu:

* European Publishers Council

* Federation of European Publishers / Fédération des Éditeurs européens

* International Federation of Film Producers Associations

* International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

* International Union of Cinemas

* International Video Federation

* ISFE – Representing the European Videogame Industry

* Motion Picture Association

* Premier League

* UNI MEI

Can this work the other way, too, with individuals making the complaints?

Or are DMCA complaints reserved for companies only?

Individuals can file DMCA takedown requests.

Correct link to the article: https://juliareda.eu/2018/08/censorship-machines-gonna-censo...

> on whether to force internet platforms to install upload filters.

Then stop using "internet platforms". Put a web server on your router and get sharing. And only share stuff you make.

> Check SaveYourInternet.today

That's not my Internet you're saving, it's a centralised corpnet. If you only use corporate platforms then of course you're at their whim.

I'm feeling bloody-minded enough to hope that these laws are passed. A shock to the system seems to be the only way to stop the Internet coalescing around FANGAM or whomever.

Maybe the FidoNet guys had the right idea all along.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com