Microsoft up to their dirty old tricks again - DMCA'ing OpenOffice

[VirtualLarry]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ock-many-links-to-competing-open-office.shtml

Microsoft issuing DMCA takedown notices, for sites hosting OpenOffice?

 

[corkyg]

Apparently the word has not reached one of the main sources:

http://download.cnet.com/OpenOffice-org/3000-18483_4-10263109.html

And the ptime source also looks OK.

http://www.openoffice.org/download/

 

[ashetos]

They should worry about libreoffice more!

 

[lxskllr]

I don't blame MS specifically. It looks like it's the typical broken copyright ID system, making incorrect take down notices. The "war on copyright infringement" is as big a joke as the war on drugs, and frivolous complaints will continue as long as there's no repercussion. Companies should be charged $25 for every incorrect complaint, and you'd see this nonsense end pretty quickly.

 

[manko]

Apparently the word has not reached one of the main sources:

http://download.cnet.com/...

Did cnet stop bundling crapware with their downloads? I've been avoiding them since I heard about that a few years back.

I've been meaning to try LibreOffice too.

https://www.libreoffice.org/

 

[Engineer]

Did cnet stop bundling crapware with their downloads? I've been avoiding them since I heard about that a few years back.

Don't think so. If I cannot get a direct link from a CNet download (not the damn CNet downloader), I'll find it to download somewhere else (Major Geeks, etc. as long as there is no downloader).

 

[lamedude]

I don't even have a tinfoil hat answer to why 512(f) enforcement is next to non existence. The Diebold case is the only time AFAIK. Looks like an open and shut case and 125 grand is a nice payday to me.

 

[John Connor]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ock-many-links-to-competing-open-office.shtml

Microsoft issuing DMCA takedown notices, for sites hosting OpenOffice?

You have to be kidding me. I have been using Openoffice for years! Screw M$!

 

[Mushkins]

Is it sleazy? Yeah. But what a shite article:

Again, it is likely that what happened was yet another case of a really broken automated system, but that's no excuse at all. We're talking about flat out censorship, by abusing a legal process, to attack a direct competitor of Microsoft.

We're not talking about flat out censorship by abusing legal processes to attack a direct competitor. We're talking about "yet another case of a really broken automated system," like they said the very sentence before. But hey, pitchforks and conspiracy theories get more pageviews.

For shame techdirt.

 

[zokudu]

To be fair the notices were only sent for torrents that were labeled as Open Office 2010. They were searching for "Office 2010" it's not their fault these torrent creators labeled their torrents wrong. Open Office doesn't have a yearly label. You can see the whole takedown request here.

 

[Savatar]

To be fair the notices were only sent for torrents that were labeled as Open Office 2010. They were searching for "Office 2010" it's not their fault these torrent creators labeled their torrents wrong. Open Office doesn't have a yearly label. You can see the whole takedown request here.

That makes sense... as usual, it's not a conspiracy. They probably just had people searching for "Office 2010" or "Office 2013" and requested take-downs for any torrents that matched. I doubt they actually download them all to see what's in them.

 

[imagoon]

To be fair the notices were only sent for torrents that were labeled as Open Office 2010. They were searching for "Office 2010" it's not their fault these torrent creators labeled their torrents wrong. Open Office doesn't have a yearly label. You can see the whole takedown request here.

BUT BUT PITCHFORKS! We have no use for your silly facts. I would suspect this is all automated based on word matches also. I highly doubt MS has any interest in messing with openoffice and likely wouldn't waste the money to attack such a tiny userbase unless they actually were infringing. So many "hysteria first, be damned the facts" posts lately.

 

[lxskllr]

I doubt they actually download them all to see what's in them.

That's the entire problem. They're making DMCA claims against material they don't own. If you don't know the material's yours, you shouldn't be making complaints, and improper complaints need to be punished. Companies shouldn't be given carte blanc to do as they wish, with the little guy expending money and effort to defend against fraud.

 

[Savatar]

That's the entire problem. They're making DMCA claims against material they don't own. If you don't know the material's yours, you shouldn't be making complaints, and improper complaints need to be punished. Companies shouldn't be given carte blanc to do as they wish, with the little guy expending money and effort to defend against fraud.

By the little guy, you mean the individual who named the torrent? Like someone else pointed out, they didn't even name it properly since OpenOffice doesn't use year version numbers... plus, it is supposed to be one word, not two. That takes, what, a couple minutes to upload one with the proper name? Using "Open Office 2010" could be considered as infringing the Office copyright by some people... so a take-down isn't entirely unreasonable.

If you wanted to speculate, the user who uploaded it probably did so to purposefully cause such confusion. In other words, they were just begging for either a take-down notice or wanted to increase their share ratio.

 

[lxskllr]

By the little guy, you mean the individual who named the torrent? Like someone else pointed out, they didn't even name it properly since OpenOffice doesn't use year version numbers... plus, it is supposed to be one word, not two. That takes, what, a couple minutes to upload one with the proper name?

They're under no obligation to use any naming convention. This goes way beyond MS. The same nonsense happens everywhere else on the net with videos, books, and music being taken down on false claim. The companies et away with it because it costs them nothing. They need to start paying for their fraud.

 

[Savatar]

They're under no obligation to use any naming convention. This goes way beyond MS. The same nonsense happens everywhere else on the net with videos, books, and music being taken down on false claim. The companies et away with it because it costs them nothing. They need to start paying for their fraud.

Do you have sources that show where that is happening? In this particular case, it makes sense to me, and I've never heard of a take-down notice that I thought was unreasonable before. Maybe there's just an impression that companies are trying to claim DMCA on their competitors, but I'd be shocked if that is what is really happening. If we think about what the law is here, and why it is that way, maybe we can understand why this happened a little better.

If you're talking about the software distributor, they actually are under certain restrictions concerning how they name their software. If they named it Open Office 2010, Microsoft would almost certainly go after them for infringement. Those regulations are generally considered reasonable by most people so as to not cause confusion. For example, if Google called their suite Office or Word as well, people would assume that it was fully compatible with MS Office/Word... then you'd have 10 different companies publishing something called 'Word'.

If you're talking about the person who uploaded the torrent... yes, they can technically name it anything but that name [as representing a piece of software] could still infringe and cause confusion for people. In general, I would think the name of the torrent should match what is being torrented, and in this particular case the name of the torrent did not accurately reflect what it really was... so I personally don't see the problem.

 

[imagoon]

They're under no obligation to use any naming convention. This goes way beyond MS. The same nonsense happens everywhere else on the net with videos, books, and music being taken down on false claim. The companies et away with it because it costs them nothing. They need to start paying for their fraud.

Actually I am pretty sure "Office 2010" is trademarked so just naming the file that can result in an automatic take down to defend their trademark as required by law lest they lose the trademark.

 

[Savatar]

BUT BUT PITCHFORKS! We have no use for your silly facts. I would suspect this is all automated based on word matches also. I highly doubt MS has any interest in messing with openoffice and likely wouldn't waste the money to attack such a tiny userbase unless they actually were infringing. So many "hysteria first, be damned the facts" posts lately.

While I'm sure that they have something (or a third party) that scans for infringements in an automated manner, there almost definitely is someone actually verifying whether they would consider it infringing or not before the email is sent. In this case, perhaps they considered the name of the torrent enough to cause confusion and took action on that.

 

[lxskllr]

Actually I am pretty sure "Office 2010" is trademarked so just naming the file that can result in an automatic take down to defend their trademark as required by law lest they lose the trademark.

Open Office 2010 isn't. If they want to make a trademark claim, they can take it to court the way the rest of us do. The DMCA take down system is non-adversarial, and is weighted exclusively in favor of the claimant. Media companies have greater rights than everyone else does. They're super citizens, and the rest of us have to bow down to their influence. I don't know what to say to anyone that doesn't see the problem with this.

 

[Savatar]

Open Office 2010 isn't. If they want to make a trademark claim, they can take it to court the way the rest of us do. The DMCA take down system is non-adversarial, and is weighted exclusively in favor of the claimant. Media companies have greater rights than everyone else does. They're super citizens, and the rest of us have to bow down to their influence. I don't know what to say to anyone that doesn't see the problem with this.

I agree that the current DMCA take-down system is efficient, but there are good reasons for it being the way that it is. Take a moment to think about it before bashing everything to do with 'law', and come up with some plausible alternatives. At the rate that new content is pirated, going through previously existing legal procedures for each case of infringement on the internet would be a ridiculous waste of time and money not only for the copyright holders, but for online service providers (OSPs) like Google or Twitter. You can literally find several links to copyrighted material online within minutes after a show airs or even before a movie opens in your area. Are you honestly telling me not only that you would be completely OK with companies wasting that much more time and money, but that you'd be OK with paying more for each of these products to cover their costs?

In the DMCA take-down process, there actually are provisions which say that the claimant is liable for what they indicated in the notice, under penalty of perjury if it is found to be false [1]. And the counter-notice to reinstate your page's listing is just as simple as the initial take-down notice. In this case, as many have already pointed out, even though it is "Office 2010" that is trademarked - having a piece of software or torrent named "Open Office 2010" can in fact still infringe. This is the same reason you would see Burger King going after McDonalds if they named a new sandwich the "Open Whopper". You can't just add a word to the front of a trademark and have that magically be OK, at least based on my current understanding of how trademarks are supposed to work.

Beyond all that, though, individuals can have a copyright or trademark just like businesses or corporations. If you have one, you can protect it with the same DMCA take-down notices that they use.

[1] http://www.sfwa.org/2013/03/the-dmca-takedown-notice-demystified/

 

[lxskllr]

I agree that the current DMCA take-down system is efficient, but there are good reasons for it being the way that it is. Take a moment to think about it before bashing everything to do with 'law', and come up with some plausible alternatives. At the rate that new content is pirated, going through previously existing legal procedures for each case of infringement on the internet would be a ridiculous waste of time and money not only for the copyright holders, but for online service providers (OSPs) like Google or Twitter. You can literally find several links to copyrighted material online within minutes after a show airs or even before a movie opens in your area. Are you honestly telling me not only that you would be completely OK with companies wasting that much more time and money, but that you'd be OK with paying more for each of these products to cover their costs?

In the DMCA take-down process, there actually are provisions which say that the claimant is liable for what they indicated in the notice, under penalty of perjury if it is found to be false [1]. And the counter-notice to reinstate your page's listing is just as simple as the initial take-down notice. In this case, as many have already pointed out, even though it is "Office 2010" that is trademarked - having a piece of software or torrent named "Open Office 2010" can in fact still infringe. This is the same reason you would see Burger King going after McDonalds if they named a new sandwich the "Open Whopper". You can't just add a word to the front of a trademark and have that magically be OK, at least based on my current understanding of how trademarks are supposed to work.

Beyond all that, though, individuals can have a copyright or trademark just like businesses or corporations. If you have one, you can protect it with the same DMCA take-down notices that they use.

[1] http://www.sfwa.org/2013/03/the-dmca-takedown-notice-demystified/

Right, so the media companies get instant removal on a complaint, while I get reinstatement within 10 days if I contest it, all the while I'm losing revenue due to ads not being seen, or whatever. THEN, if I want to be compensated, I can take Sony to court, and go up against their team of lawyers and hope I win. That's assuming I want to take it that far. Maybe I'll just let my niece be disappointed that she can't see the video I made for her birthday because I don't have the money to fight Sony with an uncertain outcome.

Work is hard. That's why it's called work. Companies shouldn't be able to bypass the court system for "efficiency". If it isn't worth the effort to do it right, maybe they shouldn't be worrying about it at all.

 

[imagoon]

Open Office 2010 isn't. If they want to make a trademark claim, they can take it to court the way the rest of us do. The DMCA take down system is non-adversarial, and is weighted exclusively in favor of the claimant. Media companies have greater rights than everyone else does. They're super citizens, and the rest of us have to bow down to their influence. I don't know what to say to anyone that doesn't see the problem with this.

That isn't how trademarks work. Open Office 2010 is easy enough to confuse with Office 2010. Now if the user had just named it what it actually was they wouldn't have had an issue.

 

[lxskllr]

That isn't how trademarks work. Open Office 2010 is easy enough to confuse with Office 2010. Now if the user had just named it what it actually was they wouldn't have had an issue.

That's exactly how trademarks work. If someone thinks a trademark is infringing, it goes to court. That's assuming they don't make a private agreement outside of the court system. I don't know how trademark works with file names, and I bet you don't either. If MS took someone to court over a torrent file name, I couldn't even guess the outcome. A torrent is just a file on a computer, and usually isn't advertised or sold. If I name a video of my pet cat and mouse "Tom and Jerry at the House.webm", and upload it as a torrent, is that infringing on Warner content? It shouldn't be, but in any case, I don't think it's clearcut, and Warner shouldn't be able to take it down, especially since it isn't their content.

 

[Savatar]

That's exactly how trademarks work. If someone thinks a trademark is infringing, it goes to court. That's assuming they don't make a private agreement outside of the court system. I don't know how trademark works with file names, and I bet you don't either. If MS took someone to court over a torrent file name, I couldn't even guess the outcome. A torrent is just a file on a computer, and usually isn't advertised or sold. If I name a video of my pet cat and mouse "Tom and Jerry at the House.webm", and upload it as a torrent, is that infringing on Warner content? It shouldn't be, but in any case, I don't think it's clearcut, and Warner shouldn't be able to take it down, especially since it isn't their content.

Yeah the Tom and Jerry thing is kind of confusing. I think the way that it currently works is that, even if you really have a cat named Tom and Jerry... you can use that name in public files as long as it doesn't compete with them. As soon as it starts competing with them, if it becomes really popular on YouTube for example, then it is subject for copyright - because now somebody is making money from that or it is resulting in potential confusion/lost sales (in this case, YouTube, via ads or something).

Would a torrent be taken down under that pretext? I'm not sure. I can understand why that might be a little concerning if that happens. It is easily avoidable, though, just name it "My Cat and Mouse"!

 

[imagoon]

That's exactly how trademarks work. If someone thinks a trademark is infringing, it goes to court. That's assuming they don't make a private agreement outside of the court system. I don't know how trademark works with file names, and I bet you don't either. If MS took someone to court over a torrent file name, I couldn't even guess the outcome. A torrent is just a file on a computer, and usually isn't advertised or sold. If I name a video of my pet cat and mouse "Tom and Jerry at the House.webm", and upload it as a torrent, is that infringing on Warner content? It shouldn't be, but in any case, I don't think it's clearcut, and Warner shouldn't be able to take it down, especially since it isn't their content.

Hence the ability to contest the takedown... The providers are not required to remove the information without question, they are only required to be responsive to the takedown request. They just take stuff down because it is easier to do so.

A site like Google gets a take down. Are they going to pay a lawyer to go through it all at hundreds of dollars an hour? No. They are going to take it down and see who if anyone whines.

If you really want to host "Tom and Jerry at the house" you can do it on your own at tomandjerryatthehouse.com and challenge the takedowns all you want. There are some providers who will not automatically disconnect you. I highly doubt if you drafted a DMCA take down for the Microsoft.com site that their providers would just disconnect them.