Vimeo Should Take Some Of The Blame For Simply Accepting Massive Bogus DMCA Takedown Over The Word 'Pixels'

from the nice-work,-geniuses dept

I was going to start off this post by noting that, over the weekend, Andy at TorrentFreak had the story of how Columbia Pictures appears to have hired the “worst anti-piracy group” around to issue DMCA takedowns, but that’s wrong. This kind of thing is all too common. Columbia Pictures appears to have hired basically your standard clueless “anti-piracy” group, and it’s resulted in a DMCA takedown letter that took down basically every video on Vimeo with the word “Pixels” in the title, all because of Columbia’s mega flop Pixels, an Adam Sandler film that is being called “one of the worst movies of the year.”

The DMCA notice sent by Entura International on behalf of Columbia Pictures, is so bad that whoever the genius was at Entura who put it together even notes in the “description” the full names of the videos it’s taking down — which should have been an indication that perhaps these were not the same videos as the Adam Sandler film. One of them is even clearly labeled as “the official trailer” of the Adam Sandler film.




Also, as some have noted, this takedown effort includes the critically acclaimed film that inspired the Adam Sandler film. Columbia Pictures bought the rights to Patrick Jean’s video in order to make its own film, but those “rights” did not include being able to DMCA the original. It also took down other completely unrelated projects as one created by a Cypriot filmmaker for a non-profit NGO, a Hungarian student’s final project for his degree, and a personal project involving Pantone paint swatches.

The TorrentFreak article notes that the NGO, named NeMe, has protested the takedown, pointing out that this is ridiculous and asking for help — only to have Vimeo staff say that the only way to deal with it is to file a counternotice:




And while that is the official process, counternotices often scare people off, because if the other side disagrees, the next step in the DMCA is for the other side to file a lawsuit — and many don’t even want to take that chance.

And, yes, obviously, much of the blame for this ridiculous set of circumstances should fall on Entura International for being terrible at its own job in issuing bogus takedowns. And some of the blame should fall on Columbia Pictures for hiring Entura — a company that clearly has no business sending out DMCA takedowns. But, also, much of it should fall on Vimeo for simply giving in and accepting the obviously bogus takedown requests. Just recently, we noted that Automattic (the company that makes WordPress) had published in its transparency report that it had rejected 43% of the DMCA takedown notices it had received — and we suggested other companies start paying attention. Google also is known for rejecting bad DMCA takedowns.

However, it appears that Vimeo doesn’t bother. Send a takedown, no matter how ridiculous, and apparently the company will comply and take it down — and if you complain to support staff, the company tells you that you need to go through the legal process of sending a counternotice, rather than reevaluate its own faulty review process. Of course, if the story of bogus takedowns gets enough press attention then Vimeo might act and and ask Entura for an explanation leading the company to withdraw the takedowns and try to wait out the ridicule. But, really, that’s ridiculous. Vimeo should be standing up for its users’ rights and it did not. Vimeo failed.

Yes, we can argue that it’s ridiculous the way the DMCA safe harbor process creates incentives for Vimeo to do exactly what it did here (in that it grants full liability protection for taking down any work if you receive a valid notice), but more and more companies are at least doing cursory reviews. Vimeo has clearly chosen not to do so, which, at the very least, should raise questions among users about if that’s the right platform for them to use, when the company doesn’t seem even remotely interested in making sure its own works are protected against bogus takedowns.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: columbia pictures, entura, sony pictures, vimeo

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 “Vimeo Should Take Some Of The Blame For Simply Accepting Massive Bogus DMCA Takedown Over The Word 'Pixels'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
47 Comments
That Anonymous Cowardsays:

While it is insane, they are always fearful of being the next dancing baby case.
The cartels have no problem throwing tons of cash down a hole to crush those who resist their demands, correct or not.
No one wants to be the first case that proves they need to review the notices before blindly accepting them.
The fact that even if the takedown was bogus there was still going to be a black mark against the account holders is the really stupid part for Vimeo. Some random troll send multiple notices, screw all your work, get off our site because we don’t want to deal with the hassle.

This is another chapter in how broken the DMCA process is, and nothing is going to change because much money is spend to buy the law they want, not the law that should be.

I look forward to someone starting a company to disrupt the marketplace that doesn’t yank first & then punish you still later when it is bogus. That they review the claims and reject as needed. I look forward to a court having to hear how they didn’t act fast enough and the company producing the 100 bogus takedowns covering 100000 items that they were expected to check in a reasonable time.

It really is time we stop allowing the cartels to demand everyone else pay for their mistakes and the huge amount of derp they generate with these bogus notices. Imagine if they had to pay a fine for every bogus notice, they would get much better much faster.

Violynnesays:

Vimeo, like all video streaming sites, should take all the blame.

Rather than stand up against what’s clearly now abuse of the law, they buckle and “comply”, leaving its users to fend for themselves.

If these sites are worried about lawsuits, then they should allow them.

If every gatekeeper tried to sue every site which refuses to comply with the DMCA, they’d go bankrupt pretty quick.

Anonymoussays:

‘much of the blame for this ridiculous set of circumstances should fall on Entura International for being terrible at its own job in issuing bogus takedowns. And some of the blame should fall on Columbia Pictures for hiring Entura — a company that clearly has no business sending out DMCA takedowns. But, also, much of it should fall on Vimeo for simply giving in and accepting the obviously bogus takedown requests’

the ones deserving of being chastised, ridiculed and actually taken to court are those in Congress, the dumb fucks, who let themselves be bribed off, allowing the entertainment industries to put out Take Downs when ever they wanted, against whom so ever they wanted, for any reason they wanted WITH NO COMEBACK ON THEM EVERY TIME THE LAW WAS MISUSED! had this never got on the books in the first place, and make no mistake, the reason it did had to be for what is stated above because no one in their right mind who was enacting laws that were supposed to affect everyone and be fair, would do something like this complete one-sided debacle for nothing!
why hasn’t anyone even tried to get a sensible change incorporated in this ridiculous law? i assume, for the same reason it was enacted in the first place and there were too many dollars falling into particular pockets to stop it from happening!
disgraceful behavior by people who have trusted positions in government supposedly to look after both sides of the corporate/public fence but who always go to the corporate side, because helping their ‘friends’ is more important, or should i say PROFITABLE!

Anonymoussays:

I've said it before, but...

I think sites like Vimeo ought to make it an internal policy that, when something like this happens, they take down all the authorized uploads from the offending rightsholder. In this case that would mean any Columbia promotional trailers that survived Entura’s carpet bombing and any content that Columbia’s staff tried (or later will try) to deliver through the Vimeo platform. As a private entity, Vimeo can (except for any binding contracts to the contrary), delete whatever it wants to delete at any time. Banning a rightsholder from using the platform seems like fair retaliation for the rightsholder engaging in such blatant misuse of the DMCA. Since it’s an internal policy, rather than a legal obligation, they can err on the side of clemency (or not, depending on how irate they are), and they don’t need to hit every last upload. That fuzz factor makes all the difference in viability between a notice&takedown system versus a retaliatory cleansing.

OldMugwumpsays:

Re: Re: take down every video

Suppose I make a short film titled “The”, in which the word “the” spins around for 30 seconds while I hum a made-up tune.

Then I send takedown notices to every streaming service asking them to takedown every video with the word “the” in the title.

Perhaps the ensuing chaos would make somebody in Washington finally sit up an take notice? Perhaps?

Anonymoussays:

The faults lie entirely on the copyright protection services perpetrating stupendously shoddy workmanship.

When one of these asshats spew faulty DMCAs:

The copyright holders should immediately fire these losers and demand their money back.

The recipients of all these garbage notices should create a shared database of the companies shotgunning notices and refuse to honor a single demand from them. If they persist, send them invoices for their time.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

“If Columbia Pictures, Sony, BMG, etc have to start dealing with their content being removed wrongly we might get some change.”

And the change will be for Columbia Pictures, Sony, BMG etc. suing the company or persons responsible for sending that DMCA notice that got the content removed and calling for the penalty of $150,000 for each wrongly DMCA notice. And yet if the shoe was on the other foot as in for those persons who wrongly had their content removed due to wrongly DMCA notices by these companies nothing will be done, no compensation will be given to those persons.

Anonymoussays:

And while that is the official process, counternotices often scare people off, because if the other side disagrees, the next step in the DMCA is for the other side to file a lawsuit — and many don’t even want to take that chance.

Well, yes, but neither does Vimeo. I think that unless the takedown is designed to unmask an anonymous person, a counter-notice isn’t onerous for the user.

JoeCoolsays:

Re: Re:

Maybe not onerous, but it IS usually futile. I had a DMCA filed on a clearly non-infringing file I had posted at MediaFire. Despite filing a counter-notice, the file was never reinstated. I eventually posted it again under a different name to make it available to users. So even if you file the counter-notice, most often the folks on the other end ignore the whole thing, your file is still down, and you still have a strike against you with the service.

Anonymoussays:

Since content owners like to use horribly inaccurate automated processes to generate takedown notices with the excuse that there is too much content to check by hand, it is unreasonable for us to expect that media sites will be able to check every takedown request.

Instead they should write their own automated, automated takedown verifier and responder, and excuse themselves saying that they are receiving too many takedown notices to reasonably verify them all.

If it rejects most of the takedown requests, well that’s just the content owners’ fault.

Anonmyloussays:

Two options

Content creators have 2 options here I think to help Vimeo understand the ridiculousness of simply giving in.

1) Boycott. Remove all your content form the Vimeo platform. Less content means less viewers, hurting Vimeo’s bottom line enough to make them take action.

2) “Civil Disobedience”. Rename ALL your content to have “Pixels” in the title, forcing Vimeo to remove the content themselves in the next round and hurting their bottom line themselves when they are “forced” to remove hundreds of thousands of videos.

GEMontsays:

Miss Statement

And, yes, obviously, much of the blame for this ridiculous set of circumstances should fall on Entura International for being terrible at its own job in issuing bogus takedowns.

Should that not read:

And, yes, obviously, much of the credit for this standard set of circumstances should go to Entura International for being so good at its job of issuing bogus takedowns.

John85851says:

How is it possible that Vimeo allowed this?

Okay, I understand that Vimeo can’t or won’t read DMCA requests, but how in the world can a video that was uploaded in 2006 be infringing on a movie made in 2015? Can’t Vimeo apply some logic to these takedown requests?

And like I’ve said before when these companies issue takedowns for their own stuff, I say remove it. If Entura wants Vimeo to remove the official “Pixels” trailer that Columbia themselves uploaded, then fine: Vimeo should take it down and put a black mark on Columbia’s user account. If Columbia tries to upload another trailer that Entura doesn’t like, then Columbia should be banned.

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 Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow