Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google The Internet IT

Web Browser Suspended Because It Can Browse the Web is Back on Google Play (arstechnica.com) 35

Posted by msmash from the once-bitten,-twice-shy dept.
Google Play has reversed its latest ban on a web browser that keeps getting targeted by vague Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices. Downloader, an Android TV app that combines a browser with a file manager, was restored to Google Play last night. From a report: Downloader, made by app developer Elias Saba, was suspended on Sunday after a DMCA notice submitted by copyright-enforcement firm MarkScan on behalf of Warner Bros. Discovery. It was the second time in six months that Downloader was suspended based on a complaint that the app's web browser is capable of loading websites.

The first suspension in May lasted three weeks, but Google reversed the latest one much more quickly. As we wrote on Monday, the MarkScan DMCA notice didn't even list any copyrighted works that Downloader supposedly infringed upon. Instead of identifying specific copyrighted works, the MarkScan notice said only that Downloader infringed on "Properties of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc." In the field where a DMCA complainant is supposed to provide an example of where someone can view an authorized example of the work, MarkScan simply entered the main Warner Bros. URL: https://www.warnerbros.com/.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web Browser Suspended Because It Can Browse the Web is Back on Google Play More

Web Browser Suspended Because It Can Browse the Web is Back on Google Play

Comments Filter:

  • Oh Google... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Randseed ( 132501 ) on Thursday November 30, 2023 @03:24PM (#64044495)
    The sad part is that Google probably doesn't even think they fucked it up.

    • Re:Oh Google... (Score:4, Funny)

      by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Thursday November 30, 2023 @03:40PM (#64044545)

      The sad part is that Google probably doesn't even think they fucked it up.

      Their automated software that handles this probably is still in beta ... :-)

      (The next development step is: Canceled.)

    • Re:Oh Google... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2023 @03:48PM (#64044555)

      DMCA's pre-fucked

      that's by design, the ridiculous amount of middleman obligation is exactly what the corpos paid for

      inb4 people start posting the word perjury, plebs don't get to say "I didn't know" but it works fine here, prove that MarkScan was competent+malicious when they can shrug and say "tee hee! oopsie sploopsie!"

      not that google automating everything isn't a second form of bullshit, but changing that would not solve the upstream problem that congress obediently signed for

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      google didn't fuck up, they did their part. warner bros engaged in vandalism by filing a false dmca claim and will get away with it. this should be at least a felony. they probably do that every day, but most apps aren't as lucky as this to get reinstated. my guess i that that's s why this is news.

      • Why do you presume they will get away with it? There are punitive damages and real damages that can be sued for.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          well, around here people are blaming google, not warner bros :-)

          honestly, i don't know. i figure suing warner bros isn't easy even if you have a straightforward case.

          i think biggest problem here is the law, it should allow for these claims to be actually investigated before having to take any action.

          actually, this is the justice's responsibility thrown on google's shoulders. dmca claims should go through court, not directly to google, like they did before. but actually submitting to justice to sort out grie

          • It's not thrown on Google though. It's thrown on the individual parties with Google stuck in between. Copyright law is very grey on what constitutes a violation and what is fair use and so that is left up to judges and juries.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by znrt ( 2424692 )

              yes, it becomes pretty complicated. simplifying a lot: copyright law is a solution looking for a problem, and instances like this one just highlight the fundamental flaw. well, it's the cost of making money.

      • Right? These fuckers need to suffer a serious fine whenever it's found they fraudulently make these claims. Make it 1% of their income each time, so you can punish offenders proportionately.

  • Warner bros sloppy DMCA complaints. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Thursday November 30, 2023 @03:30PM (#64044519) Homepage Journal
    The developer needs a better application name than "Downloader". Most likely that's what's triggering WB's scan.
    There should be some sort of penalty for repeatedly making incorrect accusations.

    • Re:Warner bros sloppy DMCA complaints. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by raburton ( 1281780 ) on Thursday November 30, 2023 @03:49PM (#64044565) Homepage

      The developer needs a better application name than "Downloader". Most likely that's what's triggering WB's scan.

      No, the problem is the first step in installing many dubious apps on your android set top box is to install Downloader from the play store/whatever app store it has on it, and use that to download dodgy app (which isn't in the app store). So to the lazy observer Downloader looks dodgy too, or they don't care and are just happy to break the tutorials for setting up apps that are.

      As an example: https://www.firesticktricks.co... [firesticktricks.com]

    • He can call it, "Use this app to tip off Warner Bro IP for FREE!" and their DMCA notice would still be crap if that was the only change.

      Way to victim blame.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

      This was moderated insightful?

      What's triggering WB's scan is incompetence and the attitude that they don't give 2 $#1+'s about what and who they affect. Combined with a broken legal system with no desire to fix it or address the issues.

       

  • Google could do something about this (Score:3)

    by laughingskeptic ( 1004414 ) on Thursday November 30, 2023 @03:32PM (#64044527)
    They could go to federal court and ask for an injunction against Warner Bros and any of their agents from filing any further DCMA notices until they convince the court that they have their house in order. This will take years in Federal Court if Google's lawyers are any good at all.

  • In a better world (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Thursday November 30, 2023 @04:02PM (#64044611)

    Markscan should be facing legal consequences for abusing the DMCA, as should Google for accepting and acting on improper DMCA notices. And Warner should end its relationship with Markscan.

    None of that will happen, of course.

    • Why do you assume he won't sue?

      • Lack of resources relative to the entities being sued, and the way the DMCA is deliberately slanted against such action.

        • The entities possessing large sums of money is an incentive to sue. The egregious nature of this case is incentive for a lawyer to take it on contingency.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DewDude ( 537374 )

            Except the likelihood of the lawsuit getting thrown out at the request of the defendant's is pretty high...and at that point no lawyer would take the case on a contingency.

            • No it's not very high likelihood at all. What are you talking about? The case has merit and real damages. Courts don't just throw out cases because the defendant is rich. At that point? Huh? At that point the lawyer would have already been retained on contingency and would have had to have filed a suit to be dismissed. You really aren't making much sense. Rich companies pay settlements to avoid court all the time. This would likely be one of those cases.

  • vexatious litigant (Score:5, Informative)

    by denisbergeron ( 197036 ) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `noregreBsineD'> on Thursday November 30, 2023 @04:17PM (#64044635)

    In Canada we have the concept of vexatious litigant

    Vexatious litigants persistently and habitually engage in legal proceedings without having a legitimate claim requiring resolution. [They] may sue in order to annoy, harass, or financially punish other people. (https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2alpha/alpha-eng.html?lang=eng&i=1&index=frt&srchtxt=PLAIDEUR%20QUERULENT)

    US should have this kind of laws agains these idiot !

    • Yeah, they can/should sue:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]

    • The trouble is that it costs $$ to go to court. Warner Bros & Google have far more money than a small developer so the odds are stacked.

      • No, it does not always cost money to go to court if you have a strong case. It's called "contingency".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DewDude ( 537374 )

          Except the studios have loopholes. These lawsuits never hold up. Consider they can file DMCA complaints that are "final" and "unappealable." They get to make the accusations against you and say "you did it. we don't care. you did it. you are not allowed to make a defense. you will comply."

          The reality is the law doesn't work for us.

          • That's not true. You can absolutely "appeal" a takedown with a lawsuit and they do in fact hold up including punitive damages. They don't get to just make accusations costing plaintiffs money with no recourse.
    • That exists in most western legal systems, but it's rather difficult to get the courts to declare someone a vexatious litigant. They recognize that such a thing could be just as easily abused in order to restrict the rights of a person by removing their ability to seek relief through the court system. Generally it only gets applied to crazy sovereign citizen types or other pro se (self-represented) litigants as anyone going through legal council has someone who theoretically knows if some claim has absolute

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfm3 ( 830843 )
      That concept exists in the US too.

      I'd never heard of it until the director of our legal department met with me and used that term to describe someone... to make a long story short I was told that we were likely to get caught up in a frivolous lawsuit based on this individual's past patterns and I ended up receiving a LOT of coaching in how to ensure that we had all of our ducks in a row whenever that time came.
    • Why do you assume the USA doesn't have a vexatious litigant classification? It wouldn't apply here there are provisions in the DMCA for this type of abuse though.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DewDude ( 537374 )

      Except the DMCA is not legal action and it's a bunch of agreements made between studios and providers. "You tell this person to fuck off and we won't sue you"...so ultimately a lawsuit would be dropped because the action wasn't taken BY the studio, just at the request of the studio. Google would say it's legally bound to respond to these.

      US laws are designed to fuck the people, not help them.

  • It is sad but not surprising that the cancer of DMCA still exists a generation after such a one sided horrific law was so unwisely codified.

    The missing part? There should be a meaningful penalty for filing nuisance, fraudulent or just plain wrong takedown notices.

    For decades copyright trolls like MarkScan have abused the system and done very real damage to anyone and everyone that crossed their path. The easy solution is for the copyright holder to pay the innocent victim 1% of their global net income. S

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DewDude ( 537374 )

      The new trick is the complaints are considered "final". They won't accept an appeal and refuse any possible argument you have.

      Copyright trolls are winning. Markscan will suffer no consequences.

  • It's absolutely fucking useless. There are no penalties for false claims, and ANYONE can make one. Most DMCAs can be completely ignored because they were never valid to begin with.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Close