Crazed Microsoft robot accuses BBC of piracy

[techs]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/08/microsoft_google_copyright/

Crazed Microsoft robot accuses BBC kids' channel of Win8 piracy

DMCA autocannon tries to blast HuffPo, CNN off Google

Microsoft falsely branded BBC CBeebies, CNN.com and other websites as Windows 8 piracy haunts - and ordered Google to remove them from search results.

Pages belonging to the Beeb's children’s telly service CBeebies, film reviews site Rottentomatoes and US cinema chain AMC Theaters - as well as web articles by the BBC's technology news department, CNN and The Huffington Post - were among 66 URLs Microsoft wanted to block. The Windows 8 giant wielded the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to censor the search results.


Some of the targeted pages, such as the BBC's, remain in Google's results as the search giant has whitelisted trusted domains against automatic take-downs - however the others weren't as fortunate.

The take-down request appears to have been issued by mistake and the URLs generated by software operating on behalf by Microsoft. The copyright-infringement-hunting bot coughed up roughly 800 URLs on 27 July, a list of which has just been made public on the law-watching website Chillingeffects.



The bolded part above is what concerns me. Apparently some companies (and people) are more equal than others. Google just dismissed a dmca takedown request because of who it was against?

What if my computer goes a little wonky and sends out a million dmca takedown requests for the sites of my business competitors?

Is Microsoft going to be prosecuted for making false accusations or will I be? Can a company continue to make false dmca takedown requests and not face a legal penalty?

Does a website have the legal right to honor a dmca request from a source that has falsey claimed a dmca takedown in the past?

 

[Greenman]

In my business that would be called "abuse of process", and it's a very big deal that can get you sued to death.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine someone who's site was removed from the search results erroneously would could file suit against MS and win damages.

The system is completely screwed up though.

 

[lxskllr]

In my business that would be called "abuse of process", and it's a very big deal that can get you sued to death.

Copyright process is tilted heavily in the corporation's benefit. There needs to be a penalty for wrongful/frivolous take down requests. Start charging $25 for wrongful take downs, and the system will immediately improve.

 

[TheSpy007]

Copyright process is tilted heavily in the corporation's benefit. There needs to be a penalty for wrongful/frivolous take down requests. Start charging $25 for wrongful take downs, and the system will immediately improve.

$25? Should be more like $25 million. The only way to get them to listen is to hurt their bottom line.

 

[lxskllr]

$25? Should be more like $25 million. The only way to get them to listen is to hurt their bottom line.

Perhaps... I'd be willing to cut them a break if they cut non-commercial offenders a break. Instead of hauling someone into court, and wasting everyone's time and money trying to extract hundreds of thousands of dollars for a shitty movie, send them a bill for for $25. That's what the movies worth, plus a little extra for for punishment.

Then we can start working on copyright reform, so I stop getting notices for material made by people long dead...

 

[Jodell88]

Copyright process is tilted heavily in the corporation's benefit. There needs to be a penalty for wrongful/frivolous take down requests. Start charging $25 for wrongful take downs, and the system will immediately improve.

LOL 25 dollars is nothing to them.