DMCA Fun: Movie Studios Issue Takedowns Over Their Authorized Films

from the but-of-course dept

We’ve covered how often DMCA notices seem to be sent improperly, taking down others people’s work, but it’s also true that we see people send DMCA notices on their own work pretty often. TorrentFreak has done a great job detailing many cases where Hollywood’s biggest and most famous studios have been issuing DMCA takedowns on their own movies, as well as their own movie promotional pages. Among the takedowns are ones from Lionsgate taking down authorized versions of a film on iTunes, Amazon, Blockbuster and Xfinity.

Then there’s 20th Century Fox trying to protect Family Guy… by issuing a takedown of the Wikipedia page about the show. Even worse? Another takedown for the show How I Met Your Mother, in which the “original work URL” listed is the CBS website for the show (which makes sense), but that very same URL is listed for takedown

Other studios seem to takedown press stories about their movies. The BBC, for example sent takedowns on a bunch of press coverage and reviews of their film “Ill Manors.”

While Sony Pictures issued a takedown supposedly about their film “The Other Guys,” but which really targeted a ton of articles… about Megaupload.

And then there are just random ones like notoriously aggressive about IP studio Summit Entertainment issuing takedowns over the movie 50/50… but including an announcement about US Energy Secretary Steven Chu delivering a keynote speech at the “50th Anniversary” of SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator). Apparently, you can’t take a chance with anything that has “50” in the title. Might be the movie.

While these may be amusing to point out, they raise a much larger issue. Copyright holders like to insist that companies like Google and others can just “obviously” tell what is and what is not infringing and they should be able to magically stop piracy because of that. And yet… here we are, where the studios themselves can’t even figure it out. How the hell do they expect others to figure it out for them?

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: bbc, disney, fox, sony pictures, summit entertainment

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DMCA Fun: Movie Studios Issue Takedowns Over Their Authorized Films”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
art guerrillasays:

Re: it is obvious to them

(parasitizing on your post to make a meta-comment)

i would note that as is often the case in these stories where outright idiocy, wholesale perfidy, and bald extortion are being undertaken by the MAFIAA, their apologists are virtually no where to be found…
they REFUSE to address the numerous posts which describe -say- ‘hollywood accounting’, and attempt to defend the indefensible, since it is obvious there is no rational, real-world, commensensical way to do so… The They ™ shut up real fast on those type of articles…

but let a tech-challenged grannie unknowingly have their grandbrat try -not even complete- a download of some pop music crap on her ‘puter that they’ve already heard a billion times, and suddenly these rough customers, these ne’er-do-wells, these, these PIRATES, are responsible for the downfall of western civilization, and the bots will scream about it ceaselessly…

funny, that…
what i call ‘diode morality’: only works one way…

art guerrilla
aka ann archy

This kind of stuff has gotten beyond ridiculous. Maybe a law saying that any kind of take-down that was ruled frivolous or abusing fair use (such as a takedown on a review) should result in the studio losing copyright and trademarks on that show/movie for 20 years.

Honestly…when you’re telling Google to take down your own website…that’s insane.

Ed C.says:


Well, if the dullards want to remove themselves from the net, why should we stand in their way? The faster they dig their own graves, the faster we can backhoe it in. Then bury it in cement, just to be on the safe side. They have a nasty habit of raising from the grave.

We could reinstitute the old tradition of burring them facedown, so that if they do reanimate they’ll end up digging a hole to China, but I’ve heard they’re already negotiating a trans-hell freeway.


Those that issue DMCA’s notices to get content removed argue like hell when the DMCA notice is not carried out etc. so Google etc. should go ahead and remove the content and if it was issued by the mistake of the studio then tough. If the studio make a mistake then they should pay for the mistake. Also, why should the likes of Google etc. have to investigate the legality of each DMCA request. Surely it is written in the DMCA request that the information written given is truthful and so Google etc. should honour each DMCA request as truth as written and delete the content.


Full Circle

It seems the lack of understanding of technology has become more pervasive in the MPAA than we all thought….wait not..what understanding?

So here’s the back story:

MPAA to Google: “Can we copy your automated takedaonw system?”

Google to MPAA “Sure, here is the code…you have to set the temperatures yourself as this was only meant for YouTube.”

MPAA “Cool, lets set the automated URL finder to all asterisks and see what we find….”

Someone please tell me how long did it take for that automated system…which was clearly copied from Google’s ContentID system (albeit rather poorly)…to come full circle on the MPAA?

I asked my wife how long it would take for it to come full circle on the MPAA when this automated stuff began began….she said “Somewhere between 3 to six months”…I now have to prepare her a fancy dinner as it seems I lost….



Problem is that Google’s actual search mechanism for its URL database is based on an algorithm that automatically detects the links of one page in reference to another. The entire task of searching for the most relative hits to your search query is what you get as search results. The pages that are most referenced to your search query appear on top. So shutting down those links from the results is irrelevant because they will eventually be discovered again by Google’s web crawler.


“Copyright holders like to insist that companies like Google and others can just “obviously” tell what is and what is not infringing and they should be able to magically stop piracy because of that.”

Well OBVIOUSLY I’m guilty of infringing on my own songs & music I record and upload to my personal/business websites.


Same old duck -- I mean canard.

“Copyright holders like to insist that companies like Google and others can just “obviously” tell what is and what is not infringing and they should be able to magically stop piracy because of that.” — NO, Mike, it’s companies such as Megaupload that HOST the files, not just link to, and YES, a glance at most of the content there would have been enough.

Your repeated lameness isn’t even up to your glory days, Mike.

Take the link to hear Melancholy Mike cover a Springsteen tune reminiscing his one big quip and nothing since:
Glory days well they’ll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl’s eye
Glory days, glory days
“Glory Days” (Bruce Springsteen)


Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.

Well if it is that easy to see infringement and you probably believe that the false positives are of no consequence, lets see you be responsible for every mistake you make and have to pay for any damages/costs that others incur because of this nonsensical behavior then.

Sure you are of the mind that if people make mistakes they should be responsible for them right?

That Crazy Freetardsays:

Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.

OK, I’ve had it.

So sick of seeing this little troll here egged on by all of you. I’ll admit that, until now, I was a smallish part of the problem.

The only way this guy’s ever going away is if we ignore him completely.

From now on, I’ll be reporting all posts by OOTB as well as all who reply to him.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.

I don’t believe you should be responding for the sake of expecting a response. Responding to out_of_the_asscrack is to demonstrate how ridiculous, unintelligent and contradictory the copyright maximalists and advocates are. Then when they whine that they’re being censored we can point to out_of_the_asscrack as their forerunner.

If they want to be taken seriously they should consider revising the standards at which shills are allowed to make posts.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Same old duck -- I mean canard.

I don’t believe you should be responding for the sake of expecting a response. Responding to out_of_the_asscrack is to demonstrate how ridiculous, unintelligent and contradictory the copyright maximalists and advocates are. Then when they whine that they’re being censored we can point to out_of_the_asscrack as their forerunner.

If they want to be taken seriously they should consider revising the standards at which shills are allowed to make posts.


Re: This is why we need Six Strikes laws

Well yes and no DannyB. Six Strikes in the US is a whole other ball of wax.

So far, 6 strikes is in limbo for a couple of reasons. The main reason cited by the copyright office is that Hurricane Sandy hit New York. But this may or may not be the only reason. Most ISP’s in the US are held by contract to protect the identities of their customers unless it actually comes form a judge’s direct court order in that specific area in which you were served notice.

Bare with me here.

The only reason I can think outside of Hurricane Sandy as the main reason is that Verizon has been sued by a copyright troll for not coughing up the personal identifications of accused users based on their IP addresses tied to the users’ accounts.

In short it seems like nobody wants to be first to plunge into this mess due to privacy clauses embedded in their contracts. It has to be court ordered and it is far more expensive to get a court order off of a civil suit when client confidentiality is in danger of being breached, than it is for customers in the system to chuck out the proposed US$35 to clear your name.

I guess you could say it puts most Telco’s in a quandary to keep their customers rather than loose them after they get booted from their services. The blame on Hurricane Sandy by the US copyright office shows complete and utter denial on their part.

Dave Reedsays:

It's simple, really.

If there were a fine, even a small one, say $25 for invalid notices (paid to the real owner, perhaps a 50/50 split with google/youtube/etc) they’d start clearing these lists. If we bumped it up to the $750,000 they think their content is worth, I guarantee those lists would be checked and re-checked.

Basically, as long as mistakes are painless there is no reason for them to correct them. Google oughta charge ’em. Wouldn’t need a court order or new law or anything. Just bill ’em for invalid notices.


Copyright holders like to insist that companies like Google and others can just “obviously” tell what is and what is not infringing and they should be able to magically stop piracy because of that.

I’ve listened to this argument for years, and even supported their argument for a long time, but eventually I realized the core of their argument mostly amounted to “if you simply allowed us to continue to control all the distribution channels, and kill off or gain control of anything – thereby effective allowing us to maintain our control of all distribution channels – that might potentially compete with our control, then we wouldn’t have this problem.” At that point I decided I couldn’t in clear conscience support their position anymore.

Whenever I hear their rhetoric anymore it makes me think of a line from Captain America:

Abraham Erskine: Do you want to kill Nazis?
Steve Rogers: Is this a test?
Abraham Erskine: Yes.
Steve Rogers: I don’t want to kill anyone. I don’t like bullies; I don’t care where they’re from.


A few years ago the same thing happened to the band Cradle of Filth. Or at least it looked like it. On the bands web page they had embedded YouTube video of the bands songs. But all of them got blocked. If it wasn’t for the videos of them on YouTube i never would have bought albums and shirts of them. They don’t get radio play and i don’t watch TV. Way to shoot your own foot off. The so called ‘illegal’ sharing of music videos on YouTube has introduced me to more bands than MTV or radio ever would have. Music industry gets more money from me due to YouTube.


I would imagine most of these takedown notices are done by overzealous companies who want to look good for their clients (CBS, Viacom, etc). But when will they be held responsible for false claims? If I was CBS and the takedown company said my own site was infringing, I’d fire, sue, and blackball the company. If they’re that bad at telling good sites from bad, then how can anyone trust the rest of the their list?

And what kind of punishment will these companies get? I say “name and shame” any company who sends takedown notices to any legit site, such as Wikipedia, a review site, or the actual site.



I wonder if the same people who are so strict on their “copyright” hold themselves to the same standard they hold others. Have they ever did a reivew on art,a book, or movie? Have they ever got their ideas from others? Have they ever made up stories in their imagination based on others? Have they pretended to play characters from a movie or book in a public place like a playground?Have they ever visted sites that had unauthorized copyrighted material? People in the entertainment industry can be so greedy.Maybe if we started to boycott their products if they are suing their fans who write reviews or create wikipedia pages they wouldn’t be so greedy. Some of the things that come from the industry are immoral. They don’t need to add greedy to their immoral list. What ever happened to the free speech clause in the consitution? I doubt the founding fathers would support such DMCA and 1976 copyright foolishness. The 1790 copyright laws were so much more reasonable than today’s copyright law. Copyright law restricts freedom of expression.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ┬╗

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it