marketly – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Another Week, Another Hollywood Company Files A Takedown Against TorrentFreak

from the a-weekly-occurrence dept

The news site TorrentFreak tends to get more false DMCA copyright notices than other sites, in part because of its name. It seems that people who don’t bother investigating anything jump to the wrong conclusion that because it has “Torrent” in its name, it must be a “piracy” site, rather than a news site that reports on news about copyright and filesharing. So last week, TorrentFreak got some attention after Starz not only sent a bogus DMCA takedown over a TorrentFreak news article about leaked TV shows, but then started DMCAing anyone who even tweeted that Starz was abusing the DMCA this way. Starz eventually admitted it had made a mistake and issued a pretty lame apology.

You might think that others in Hollywood would at least pay a little attention to this sort of thing — but apparently not. This weekend TorrentFreak reported that yet another tweet of yet another of its stories was removed due to a copyright claim — this time from Warner Bros. Just like last time, where Starz utilized an awful third party service (The Social Element) to handle these takedowns, this time Warner Bros employed a company called Marketly, one of a few such companies who claim they’re in the “brand protection” business and go around issuing often dubious takedowns.

The takedown notice, sent by Warner Bros? anti-piracy partner Marketly, accused us of posting a tweet that made ?computer program(s)? available ?for copying through downloading,? without permission of the copyright owner.

?We hereby give notice of these activities to you and request that you take expeditious action to remove or disable access to the material described above, and thereby prevent the illegal reproduction and distribution of this software via your company?s network,? the notice added.

Except that nothing in the tweet in question made a “computer program” available for copying. The tweet was pointing to a story from last month entitled Former Kinox.to & Movie4k.to Admin Freed, Tax Office Retrieves €1.75m:

While it is a story about former pirate streaming sites, you’d think it’s the kind of story a company like Warner Bros. would like to keep up, as it talks about the operator of such a site going to prison and handing over a ton of money.

I sent Marketly a bunch of questions regarding this takedown, and the company got back to me actually defending the takedown and insisting it was appropriate. The argument was that because Twitter automatically turns URLs into links, so the headline itself was “linking” to two pirate sites:

The hyperlinks Twitter inserted in TorrentFreak?s tweet directed users to webpages that are infringing on Warner Bros. content causing Marketly to issue a notice as noted in TorrentFreak’s article.

But that’s questionable on multiple levels. First of all, no one is using those particular links to magically discover pirate websites. Second, they are still news articles, reporting on news about these sites, and the fact that those should be censored raises serious 1st Amendment questions. Third, even if those links do go to the sites, they are still not links directly to Warner Bros. infringing material. Instead, they are links to sites whereby people might find Warner Bros. infringing material. But that’s also true of Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter itself and much, much more. Does Marketly take it upon itself to block links to those sites as well?

The DMCA does let you block links to specifically infringing content, but not to entire sites across the board, yet Marketly (and apparently) Warner Bros., don’t much seem to care about the specifics of the law. Like so many in Hollywood, the incorrect assumption they make is that if a site has some infringing material, then there’s no problem with wiping out the entire site.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, reporting, takedown, tweets
Companies: marketly, torrentfreak, twitter, warner bros.

from the how-about-that... dept

We just wrote about Google’s very cool, new copyright transparency tool, which lets you dig into the details of all the search takedowns that Google gets. As people start to play around with the site, some interesting things are coming to light. Lots of people noticed that the number one copyright holder requesting takedowns from Google search was… Microsoft. While some have suggested this is an attempt by a competitor to worsen Google’s search rankings, that’s difficult to believe for a variety of reasons. If Microsoft were issuing bogus takedowns, that would certainly come to light pretty quickly.

However, what is interesting is that you can use the new system to play around and notice that Microsoft doesn’t always seem to take down from its search engine, Bing, the same links that it orders Google to takedown. As we noted in our original post, there’s been plenty of talk suggesting that Google isn’t fast enough in taking down things upon DMCA request, but the company claims that they average less than 11 hours — and considering that they’re processing over 1 million takedowns per month (and are checking them by hand), that’s pretty impressive. How long does it take Microsoft to take content down?

Well, you would think that if Microsoft is sending a takedown notice to Google to remove a site from its search engine, that it’s almost certainly letting Bing know to remove it too, right? Why wouldn’t it. But if you do some digging, you can find sites that Microsoft has ordered taken down from Google, but which are still available via Bing. Here’s just one example. If you look through Google’s transparency report, there’s a specific search takedown request that was filed on May 11, so not too long ago. You can see the full ChillingEffects notice here as well. The takedown was sent, on behalf of Microsoft, by a company called Marketly, who appears to send a large number of takedowns, according to the Google data. In this case, Marketly had sent a takedown to Google demanding the removal of a bunch of URLs from its index concerning a variety of XBox 360 games, including DiRT 2. The 20th URL listed goes to a page on TorrentRoom.

Now, if you take that URL and put it into Google and Bing, you get two very different responses. First, there’s Google:

Okay. As per the takedown, clearly Google has removed that URL from its index. Now how about Microsoft:

Whoops! There it is. Now, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that if Marketly is sending a takedown to Google to get such a link taken out of its search engine, on behalf of Microsoft, that it quite likely is issuing the same kind of takedown to Microsoft’s Bing (hell, you’d perhaps think that Microsoft could just pull the link without a takedown). And yet… the site, which Microsoft supposedly wants to disappear, is gone from Google, but found easily on Bing.

This would suggest that, either Marketly and Microsoft decide to leave up certain infringing content on Microsoft’s own search engine while taking it down from Google… or that Microsoft certainly isn’t that fast at doing removals. And yet, why don’t we hear the people who always bitch about Google complaining about Microsoft?

Of course, the data is also revealing some other interesting “issues” with Microsoft’s takedowns. Kurt Opsahl, for example, noticed that Microsoft sent Google a takedown, you can view here, which claims that previous takedown notices, also from Microsoft, are in fact, infringing. This one was also sent by “Marketly” and suggests that they don’t do much research to make sure the sites are legitimately infringing before issuing takedowns.

Filed Under: bing, search, takedown, transparency
Companies: google, marketly, microsoft