Google Play Keeps Banning the Same Web Browser Due To Vague DMCA Notices

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: App developer Elias Saba has had some bad luck with Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns. His Android TV app Downloader, which combines a web browser with a file manager, was suspended by Google Play in May after several Israeli TV companies complained that the app could be used to load a pirate website. Google reversed that suspension after three weeks. But Downloader has been suspended by Google Play again, and this time the reason is even harder to understand. Based on a vague DMCA notice, it appears that Downloader was suspended simply because it can load the Warner Bros. website. [...]

The notice includes a copy of the DMCA complaint, which came from MarkScan, a "digital asset protection" firm that content owners hire to enforce copyrights. MarkScan said in its complaint that it represents Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. A DMCA notice is supposed to identify and describe the copyrighted work that was infringed. But MarkScan's notice about Downloader identifies the copyrighted work only as "Properties of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc." It provides no detail on which Warner Bros. work was infringed by Downloader. A DMCA notice is also supposed to provide an example of where someone can see "an authorized example of the work." In this field, MarkScan simply entered the main Warner Bros. URL: https://www.warnerbros.com/. The Downloader app had been installed over 10 million times before the takedown, according to an Internet Archive capture taken before the latest suspension.

Saba appealed the takedown today, but he told us that the appeal was rejected by Google Play after 24 minutes. Saba said he also submitted a DMCA counter-notice, which gives the complainant 10 business days from today to file a legal action. After his first takedown in May, his app was reinstated after the DMCA complainant didn't take any legal action. Saba also wrote a blog post today about the latest takedown. "Given that my app still does not contain any copyright-infringing content and never has, I've countered this new DMCA takedown which will, hopefully, mean the app will be restored sometime in the coming weeks," he wrote. "In the meantime, you can sideload the app onto your Google TV or Android TV devices by downloading the APK from https://www.aftvnews.com/downloader.apk. Downloader remains available on Fire TV devices directly from the Amazon Appstore." Saba said it's "absurd that Google seems to make no effort at all to verify the copyright claims being made on my app which is just a web browser that can download files and has no content of any sort in it."

"If loading a website with infringing content in a standard web browser is enough to violate DMCA, then every browser in the Google Play Store including @googlechrome should also be removed," said Saba in May. "It's a ridiculous claim and an abuse of the DMCA."

For God's sake

[Randseed]

So basically their complaint is that the application connects to their HTTP server, issues a request to load a page, and their server loads it. Congratulations. They are complaining about wget or curl.

you are jumping ahead we only an DRM locked OS to

[Joe_Dragon]

you are jumping ahead we only an DRM locked OS to view our site.

Re:

[NomDeAlias]

"we only an DRM..." Huh?

Seems you jumped ahead when typing that. Care to correct?

Re:

[ls671]

I sure hope the guy knows this: you can easily spoof the User_Agent ("browser") in requests you send and send anything you want. Just run a test web server, capture User-Agent string of recent chrome versions and send that. Guaranteed success, even with Cloudflare!

Re:

[msauve]

And the Internet delivers that content. Surely, they can take down the Internet using a DMCA notice.

Re:

[iAmWaySmarterThanYou]

Tomorrow we'll see Cisco routers and switches everywhere go offline due to DMCA notice.

Re:

[AppXprt]

Sounds like Chrome is in violation of the DMCA too then...

Re:For God's sake

[ihavesaxwithcollies]

Don't worry, Chrome will soon violate all of us.

Re: For God's sake

[Midnight Thunder]

It probably already is, but we come back for more.

Re:

[Can'tNot]

There's obviously more going on here, that explanation is clearly not sufficient. Maybe this thing contains some mechanism to circumvent some basic DRM and download streamed material, not necessarily in an illegal way but perhaps in a way that these companies don't like. Or maybe the software is entirely above board but has been promoted by some piracy group or something. A lot of possibilities.

Re:

[vbdasc]

if the material is being openly unconditionally broadcast then they can suck lemons when a client device requests it

If their pockets are deeper than yours then they can do whatever they please and you can suck lemons.

Re:

[Can'tNot]

Which TFA? There were eight links in that summary. I did a modicum of investigation before I posted, clearly more than you, but there isn't much insight to be had here. Nor would there be, speculation is all that you can really do when you're trying to divine the undisclosed motives behind an action.

Maybe instead of whining you could contribute something?

Re:

[vbdasc]

Yeah, perhaps the browser includes by default some bookmarks for thepiratebay or something. /s

Re:

[Can'tNot]

It wouldn't surprise me if it were something like that. There aren't much in the way of limitations for those DMCA takedown notices.

Re:

[Narcocide]

Well, the most likely possibility is that WB staffs the DMCA desk with a intern, so every time the school season changes and there's a new intern, the intern goes through and reports all the user-agent strings that aren't chrome or firefox.

Re:

[Can'tNot]

It's not just Warner Bros., but also "several Israeli TV companies."

If you remember Popcorn Time, it was a bittorrent client which streamlined downloading pirated media. It was similarly targeted for DMCA takedowns. There are many bittorrent clients which were not targeted in this way, and the primary difference between these is basically: attitude. Popcorn Time was pro-piracy, while other clients are neutral.

Re:

[preflex]

Or maybe the software is entirely above board but has been promoted by some piracy group or something.

It's this.

Re:For God's sake

[Kisai]

The problem with "Warner"'s IP enforcement is that they're extremely heavy handed. They don't do what they are supposed to do and identify individual works. They just see that "Superman" is mentioned in something they don't own and they fire off a DMCA.

I suspect the reason "downloader" keeps being flagged is simply because of the name. Suggesting that it can be used to rip media. Like why would you use this browser over the stock browser? Google search "Downloader browser" and most of the top links are just "video downloader"

Re:

[bobbutts]

You can't install a Chrome or Firefox or any other normal browser on Android TV. This browser is specifically for Android TV.

Re:

[codebase7]

They are complaining about wget or curl.

Those utilities allow the user to save the content for offline viewing. Yes they are complaining about them, because they have the misguided belief that things they put on the public internet are somehow still "access controlled" by them.

This is what happens when you fail to teach kids about putting shit on the internet folks.

False DMCA complaints have penalties

[Firethorn]

I think that false/bad DMCA complaints should come with consequences. They're supposedly being filed by experts, by lawyers.

Ergo, I propose the following penalty structure if a DMCA complaint is found to be false or bad. Equivalent to a SLAP lawsuit, mostly, but a bit worse:
1. They are responsible for all lost income during the time, including things like estimated* ad revenue or such.
2. They are responsible for all lawyer/legal fees.
3. Plus up to $10k/day.

*I'm sure the court can come up with a reasonable estimate, like the period before the suspension.

Re:False DMCA complaints have penalties

[bugs2squash]

maybe a bar review for misusing the legal system

Re:

[NomDeAlias]

That one is a very good idea if a lawyer has signed their name to it.

anti-SLAPP provision so that attorney fees are pai

[Joe_Dragon]

anti-SLAPP provision so that attorney fees are paid in cases like this.

Re:

[idlehanz]

Right. But it takes an organization willing to look into it. My experience has been that Google just automates these things. Humans aren't involved. I think fixing would cost money that Google doesn't want to invest.

Re:

[NomDeAlias]

The organization that you can make look into is a federal court. On Youtube you can send a counter notice which dares the company to sue you. If they don't sue then YouTube puts it back up or at least they used to. I haven't had to file any counter notices for a few years now but had previous success with that route.

Re:

[Pieroxy]

Google doesn't have any choice in the matter. They are not the problem, they are a victim. They are legally obligated to act on every DMCA takedown notice they receive, of course they automated these things!

Re:False DMCA complaints have penalties

[taustin]

I think that false/bad DMCA complaints should come with consequences. They're supposedly being filed by experts, by lawyers.

Ergo, I propose the following penalty structure if a DMCA complaint is found to be false or bad.

Better yet, enforce what's there now. DMCA takedowns are filed by specific individuals, under penalty of perjury. Put a few lawyers in prison, and the automated notices (which is what this is, no human actually look at it except, perhaps, to sign it, and probably not even then) will disappear very quickly. Let the studio execs personally sign those notices, then put them in prison.

Re:False DMCA complaints have penalties

[youngone]

If you don't like it, buy your own laws.

Re:False DMCA complaints have penalties

[Xenx]

Better yet, enforce what's there now. DMCA takedowns are filed by specific individuals, under penalty of perjury.

The problem is that the wording around "good faith belief" leaves a lot of room to wiggle out of it. This is for both good, and bad, as it also protects honest mistakes. There is no requirement for a lawyer, or other legal professional, to submit the claim. It could just be some random person that created the copyrighted work seeing it being used. However, unfortunately, proving bad faith claims isn't always easy.

Re:

[taustin]

The problem is that the wording around "good faith belief" leaves a lot of room to wiggle out of it.

No, the problem is lazy prosecutors who don't care, and are willing to accept that "I got this email from a completely automated system about a takedown notice for a web page I've never even looked at (because if I had, it would be bleedingly obvious the notice is bogus) so I auto-signed it and sent it on" is "good faith."

Proving bad faith might be hard, but it's not impossible, and the abuse of the DMCA is so blatant, the case will sometimes prosecute itself. When a copyright holder gets a takedown notic

Re:

[Xenx]

You are correct in that it's hard, but not impossible. However, I didn't say it was impossible. I said it wasn't always easy. That means sometimes it's easy, like with your example of a DMCA on their own work, but other times its not. Proving intent, even when it looks obvious, is usually quite difficult. So, it usually has to be egregiously bad to have a chance.

Re:

[BitterOak]

Better yet, enforce what's there now. DMCA takedowns are filed by specific individuals, under penalty of perjury.

Are they filed under penalty of perjury? I don't think so.

Re:

[taustin]

Better yet, enforce what's there now. DMCA takedowns are filed by specific individuals, under penalty of perjury.

Are they filed under penalty of perjury?

Yes, they are, under US 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A) [cornell.edu]

If it's not sworn under penalty of perjury, it's not a DMCA takedown notice, and should be ignored (and the company receiving it, in this case Google, has no safe harbor protection against, say, libel for claiming it was infringing).

I don't think, so.

You left out a comma. I corrected that for you.

Re:

[mkendall]

Read paragraph (iv) carefully. The penalty of perjury only applies to the second half of the sentence, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner.

Re:

[jezwel]

Are they filed under penalty of perjury?

Yes, they are, under US 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A) [cornell.edu]

If it's not sworn under penalty of perjury, it's not a DMCA takedown notice, and should be ignored (and the company receiving it, in this case Google, has no safe harbor protection against, say, libel for claiming it was infringing).

Thanks for highlighting that, I'll copy the relevant part about perjury:

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I've italicised the relevant part to 'under penalty of perjury', which therefore means the preceding parts of the act - primarily that the material is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity - is not under penalty of perjury. IIRC there were some DMCA claims that were thrown out as the submitting organisation was not authorised to act on behalf of the copyright holder.

Re:

[Binestar]

Better yet, enforce what's there now. DMCA takedowns are filed by specific individuals, under penalty of perjury.

I dislike when I see people misunderstanding the perjury part of the DMCA stuff. The DMCA mentions perjury twice in the law. the first is this line about filing a DMCA takedown notice: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

The statement that the information in the notification is accurate is *NOT* a part of the under penalt

Re:

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... under penalty of perjury.

That the lawyer is employed by somebody who owns stuff: Yes, the bar is that low. It's a mystery how a law forcing everyone else to spend time and money protecting Hollywood, got approved. The fact no politician, oversight committee or steering committee wants to change it, tells you who the US politicians really work for.

The real problem is, everyone else doesn't want to protect Warner's/Sony's/Universal's profits, so they implemented an automated cancel service. (One time, it cancelled Sony's own live-stream service.) As the summary suggests, it doesn't obey the law.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Firethorn]

You have somebody with a job title of "IP Compliance Administrator", they are paid to do it. They do it regularly. Ergo, they're an expert at it by now.

That you've never had a bad complaint indicates that they're doing the job well enough to avoid that. They're a professional.

As for tweaking to protect "good faith efforts", I agree, and that WOULD take a lawyer, probably a group of them, to nail down halfway well.

For example, there's a reason I separated out 'false' and 'bad'. A false complaint would be

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[billyswong]

Or we can make the immediate takedown request of DMCA optional. That is, if you request immediate takedown and later on turn out the copyright claim is invalid, you go to jail. Give it some "skin in the game".

Re:

[NomDeAlias]

They already do come with consequences. This person can now file a lawsuit for DMCA abuse. I don't know about $10K a day but his attorney fees, actual damages and punitive damages can add up. He should be shopping for a lawyer. Might get one on contingency.

Re:

[The MAZZTer]

Good luck.

I personally think a better deterrent is for all browsers to block www.warnerbros.com. After all, nobody else will want to risk a DMCA takedown. This should persist until someone officially reverses it in a panic, which will happen very quickly.

Re:

[scott_evil]

10k per day is nowhere near punitive enough. put the upper limit at 1,000k per day, then it's going to make even the big boys think twice.

Re:

[CoolDiscoRex]

Propose it to who?

I mean, I completely agree with you, but even I finally learned that it is futile. The crooked politicians are not going to hold their donors accountable. Otherwise what would be the point of paying bribes?

You can propose stuff to us all day long and it will be nothing but mental masturbation.

Again, I agree with you one hundred percent, but most of us are Americans. We bitch whine and moan on the internet, and then we move on. Everyone knows that we are not going to do a damn thing, and

Who's great idea was it?

[Wolfling1]

Who's idea was it to make Alphabet the policeman? Did anyone consider how stupidly dangerous that is?

Re:

[Firethorn]

Who's idea: Congress. Did they consider this: Not one bit.

Re:

[Baron_Yam]

Incorrect. They knew exactly what they were doing when they were lobbied for it - to give more or less unfettered power to the rich to stop the poors from bothering them, while simultaneously stopping the poors from having any serious hope of defending themselves if abused.

This was very obvious from the beginning and anyone canny enough to get elected to office couldn't have failed to see it.

Re:

[taustin]

The burden of proof isn't on them, it's on whoever filed the notice - under penalty of perjury. Prosecute the perjury, and the problem disappears.

Re:

[Can'tNot]

No, the burden of proof is on the defendant. That's one of the biggest problems with the DMCA. Filing a takedown is not done under penalty of purgery, but filing a counterclaim is.

Re:

[djinn6]

Who's idea was it to make Alphabet the policeman? Did anyone consider how stupidly dangerous that is?

Just about every government. The only ones who are policing the content themselves are countries like Russia. Everyone else have laws against government censorship, so they need a henchman to do the dirty work for them.

The only saving grace is that these companies haven't figured out how to turn their control over public discourse into something profitable. So they are unwilling participants... for now.

DMCA ban is better then an CFAA change

[Joe_Dragon]

DMCA ban is better then an CFAA change.
But at least if you get an CFAA change you will have the right to an real court and jury trail.

so this can be used to DMCA ban any ad blocker or?

[Joe_Dragon]

so this can be used to DMCA ban any ad blocker or other tool (other then stuff like screen readers) the can modify the out put of the web page?

and apple better look out if they do this as they

[Joe_Dragon]

and apple better look out if they do this as they don't have side loading.

or maybe to keep there store lock in they need to have manual review of all DMCA complaints

will they take down Firefox with the same takedown

[Joe_Dragon]

will they take down Firefox with the same takedown request?
and if they do so but not chrome does it become and anti trust issue?

Re:

[ajegwu]

All we need is someone with some copyrighted material out there to make a move and find out!

Common Practice with Competitor Browsers

[AppXprt]

Yea, this happened to me too, except it wasn't through DMCA requests. Google's play team would just repeatedly remove my browser, that had an alternative search engine, for no reason without any explanation, only ever reinstating it with strongly worded legal letters. This happened a least 10 times, before it entirely destroyed the company so of course they do it to others. They do this to any and every direct competitor out there and that's why innovation in those markets are stagnant, if not completely dead.

Re:

[viperidaenz]

What was your browser and company?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

DMCA complaint is to easy

[Askmum]

a DMCA counter-notice, which gives the complainant 10 business days from today to file a legal action

This seems to be the first logical step for a serious DMCA complaint. DMCA should be changed to make this mandatory.

DCMA ....

[JasterBobaMereel]

The only valid legal response Google has to a DCMA notice is to take down the requested app - it's not optional

It's also not their place to fight it on your behalf, or to decide it it is valid - just if the DCMA notice was filed correctly

Say thanks to the US government - who thought this would work (it does work for big companies)