Google Finally Restores ‘Downloader’ App To Store
from the insanity dept
A couple of weeks back, we discussed how Google had delisted the app Downloader from the Play Store after a DMCA notice was issued by a firm representing several Israeli TV networks. The problem with all of this is simple: Downloader doesn’t have anything to do with copyright infringement or piracy. All it does is combine a file manager and basic web browser. The DMCA notice centered on the latter, complaining that users could get to piracy sites from the browser. You know, just like you can from any browser.
Well, take heart, dear friends, because Google reinstated Downloader on the Play Store 20 days after it was removed.
Google has reversed the suspension of an Android TV app that was hit with a copyright complaint simply because it is able to load a pirate website that can also be loaded in any standard web browser. The Downloader app, which combines a web browser with a file manager, is back in the Google Play Store after nearly a three-week absence.
In addition to the rejected appeal, Saba filed a DMCA counter-notification with Google. That “started a 10-business-day countdown for the [TV companies’] law firm to file legal actions against me,” Saba wrote today. “Due to the app being removed on a Friday and the Memorial Day holiday, 10 business days had elapsed with no word from the law firm on June 6th and I contacted Google to have the app reinstated.”
All of which is why Google, further down the article, is quoted as saying they followed the standard playbook to DMCA takedown notices. The counter-notification kicked off that process, giving the firm that issued the original notice time to decide whether to file a lawsuit or not, which it presumably did not. The quote has all the hallmarks of Google resting on that process to wipe its hands clean of the whole situation.
But that’s stupid. It also serves as an example proving Saba’s point: the DMCA takedown process is broken. That a bunch of foreign TV networks can get a perfectly legit app removed from the app store for weeks just by pushing paperwork around is absurd.
As is Google’s continued inability to get things right with regard to this particular app.
In yet another example of the Google Play Store’s absurdity, Google had determined that my app collected email addresses without declaring so. Since there is no way for my app itself to collect email addresses, and without any additional information or help from Google, I can only assume that Google is referring to the email mailing list signup form on this website, which loads by default in the web browser of the Downloader app.
Once again, that isn’t the app doing a thing; it’s the web browser doing it if someone signs up to be on an email list.
So, the app is back, a lawsuit has not yet been filed, and everyone will probably forget about this entire thing, meaning the broken nature of the DMCA process will remain broken. Bang up job all around.
Filed Under: android, app store, copyright, dmca, dmca takedown, downloader, play store
Companies: google
Comments on “Google Finally Restores ‘Downloader’ App To Store”
The DMCA really does need much more fine grained reporting mechanisms. If the DMCA also required the specific identification fo the work that’s being infringed, the reasoning of how the work infringes copyright and why no exceptions qualify it for fair use laws, proof of copyright ownership, and contact info for a real human, plus requiring the notice to be signed under oath, the majority of these fraudulent notices would disappear very quickly.
Re:
Or really, if there were any meaningful consequences for any kind of copyright enforcement demand that couldn’t even identify the work that was allegedly infringed, most copyright cases wouldn’t have a bloody leg to stand on. But because copyright owners and holders whined hard enough, they got away with not even needing to make sure that it was their shit being downloaded.
This is why we get debacles like Malibu Media and Strike 3 adding completely unrelated titles to their subpoena demands in order to portray their defendants as debauched porn addicts, and Maria Schneider using dubious antipiracy evidence from a company that doesn’t even exist, refusing to cite what works of hers were actually infringed, before finally agreeing to have the case permanently dismissed after wasting everyone’s time for almost a decade.
If this was any other kind of offense being brought to the courts, the standard of evidence as set by copyright enforcers would be absolutely laughed out by a reasonable judge. Yet for the longest time, copyright enforcers have gone uncontested and got away with submitting crap for evidence to demand their blood money. What we should be doing is assuming that every one of them is like Prenda – they should have to actually back up their claims, not foist the burden of proof on individual users.
Re: Re: 'You claimed a work that wasn't yours? Time to cough up a hundred grand.'
Violations of copyright are considered so terrible that five if not six figure fines are treated as entirely reasonable potential penalties for individual violations, if taking down non-infringing works was given even half that much weight in court the overwhelming majority of bogus claims would disappear overnight.
Re: Re:
Remember the time when a judge had to remind Strike 3 that IP addresses weren’t downloaders? John Smith completely lost his shit that day.
The one upside about porn trolls suing children and grandparents was that it finally showed judges what was at stake. Lives were being ruined so skeezy old white dudes could pimp girls for a quick buck while the courts were being used as free attack dogs – or, as one exasperated judge put it, free “ATM”s. And boy do the courts not like that. If there’s one thing judges absolutely hate it’s being taken for a fool.
Re:
The DMCA does technically require all of that – there is a set format take-down notices are supposed to follow.
However hosts (such as Google in this case) are limited in what they can challenge, because there is no good faith defence for a host rejecting a notice as invalid but it turning out valid (enough for a court) which leaves the host liable (as the various ISP’s who the music industry have been suing found out).
Further the courts make it nearly impossible to get a DMCA notice declared invalid, declaring notices are valid even if they don’t follow the prescribed format. (Also doesn’t help that a rights owner doesn’t actually legally need to send a DMCA before they sue over copyright infringement).
I wonder…
Given how Chrome can be used to load pirate websites too, I wonder if we could DMCA Google itself to get them to stop pushing Chrome st everybody, at least for a short time?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Nice Post
why?
Why would they do that? What possible motivation could they have had to take this action? It was doomed to fail, and even if it had been permanent it wouldnt stop piracy at all.
Re:
Why not? It’s not like there’s any sort of punishment for bogus DMCA claims, the target was taken offline for a while and the owner had to weigh whether they were willing to provide personal information to file to get it back up, something not everyone would be willing to risk.
The situation points out a glaring problem in the cell phone industry. With only two operating systems out there, there is a lack of competition out there.
And having only three carriers, who are hurriedly buying up the MVNOs isn’t helping either.
The results are higher prices, and inferior service.