Google Takes Down ‘Downloader’ App Again After Bullshit DMCA Complaint, Restores It Again
from the again?!? dept
Earlier this year we discussed an app being removed from the Google Play store over copyright concerns and a DMCA notice that was sent in by a firm representing several Israeli television networks. The app, called “Downloader,” was created by Elias Saba, and he was very confused by the takedown. The reason for his confusion is based on what his app actually does: it combines a simple file management solution and a web browser for smart/streaming devices. It does not host any infringing content. It does not even point a user to any infringing content. If this app is a copyright problem, in other words, so is, oh, I don’t know… Google Chrome. And, yet, Google took the app down, before eventually realizing its mistake and reinstating the app to the Play Store.
As if that whole story isn’t annoying enough, it just happened again. And in the exact same way.
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.
Google notified Saba that the app was suspended again last night, according to the notice that Saba shared with Ars. “Your app contains content that allegedly infringes upon the copyright of others, and violates applicable copyright laws in the relevant country/jurisdiction,” the notice from Google said.
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.
It’s really that simple. In the DMCA notice itself, where MarkScan was supposed to list the infringing content within the app, the notice lists only https://www.warnerbros.com/. Again, my smart TV has a browser on it that can also access that website. It’s called Chrome and is a Google product. But for some reason, that app gets to remain on the Play Store while Downloader has been taken down a second time for the same bullshit reason as the last go around.
And Saba is rightly pointing out that this sort of DMCA abuse, or at least a complete neglect by both MarkScan and Google to actually review what these DMCA notices are claiming to ensure they comply with copyright law, shows just how wide open the current DMCA notice and takedown process is for abuse, error, or collateral damage.
Unsurprisingly, Saba is outraged. “You would think that Google would at least verify that the takedown request is actually making a plausible claim,” he told Ars today. “The most important field in the takedown where the claimant has to specify where the copyright infringement exists is void of all detail. If this complete lack of information is all it takes to take an app down, then no app in the Google Play Store is safe from being suspended with just a few clicks and a frivolous takedown request.”
Saba has since appealed the takedown, but that appeal was almost immediately rejected by Google. From there, he had to submit a counter-notice, and now MarkScan has two weeks to either file legal action, or else his app will be reinstated.
Fortunately it didn’t take that long. After initially delisting the app from the Play Store, Google reversed that decision, noting correctly, and far too late, that the DMCA notice didn’t list any actually infringing content within it.
Google has defended its DMCA-takedown process by saying that, under the law, it is obligated to remove any content when a takedown request contains the elements required by the copyright law. But in this case, Google Play removed Downloader even though the DMCA takedown request didn’t identify a copyrighted work—one of the elements required by the DMCA.
That’s probably why Downloader’s latest suspension was reversed more quickly than the previous one. But the incident raises questions about whether Google will do anything to prevent repeated suspensions of apps wrongly targeted by vague or bogus DMCA notices.
Yeah, it sure as shit does! And Saba has gone on to note that it sure would have been nice for Google to have reviewed the notice and found that it was insufficient before taking his app down instead of after.
If we’re going to suffer under this notice and takedown nonsense, there should be a responsibility on the service provider to determine whether a notice is valid to begin with, never mind real toothy penalties for those submitting this sort of garbage as well.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, downloader, notice and takedown
Companies: google, markscan, warner bros. discovery
Comments on “Google Takes Down ‘Downloader’ App Again After Bullshit DMCA Complaint, Restores It Again”
I feel like charging a fee of like $2000-$5000 per takedown notice would very quickly solve this problem. And I wouldn’t care that it wasn’t “legal”.
“What do you want us to do? We pay a child in a call center $0.01/hr to review these!” -Google
Slap affect
Thought there was a Slap effect if it was false.
But it takes MORE to fight this, then to send the DMCA.
Re:
Sure. Try suing Google. Laws like this are only for the rich and powerful or for going against someone of equal or lesser financial power.
Re: Re:
Given that Google Chrome reslly does infringe copyrights AT LEAST as much as Downloader does, I wonder how Google would react to a DMCA takedown notice targeted at Chrone?
Re: Re: Re:
The DMCA doesn’t actually apply to Chrome on the Playstore, as the DMCA protects them hosting third party content, not first party content that Chrome would be classed as.
Tortious interference?
Given that MarkScan had reason to know that their claim was false, and that making the claim would interfere with Saba’s financial opportunity, seems like this might open the door to a claim of tortious interference.
Re:
I feel like this would be quite difficult to prove. Unless Saba actually suffered damages by either or both the actions of Google or MarkScan, they wouldn’t really have a strong case. I suppose damage could be reputational though, so maybe?
Re: Re: re: tortious interference
Take a look at the criteria for it. The potential for loss of financial gain provides a basis for a claim. https://millerlawpc.com/tortious-interference-contract/
the answer is simple
Saba just stops paying Google for their services.
But, hang on, he doesn’t pay for them.
That makes it much trickier to claim Google need to change.
What’s in it for them? Fewer whiny freeloaders??
Re:
What’s in it for them is people actually trust their services, instead of turning their noses at copyright thanks to their insistence on overreaching.
Or perhaps you’d far prefer it if it was easier to sue grandmothers.
Re: Re:
Spoken like a true freeloader. I’ll sue whoever I think broke the law, thank you very much.
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright law’s best and brightest!
Turn the DMCA around on MarkScan: file one claiming that the web site they named infringes on Saba’s copyright on the Downloader app. They’re the ones who claimed their site was similar enough to the app to be considered infringing, and Saba can prove he holds the copyright on the app or has a license for the parts he doesn’t own outright so it’s not his half of the pair that’s infringing on anyone’s copyright. Then insist that Google treat MarkScan and Saba equivalently when it comes to takedown requests seeing as, per Google’s own claim, they have no choice but to remove the content from their listings.
When the law is that one sided abuse isn't possible it's guarenteed
Unfortunately I can all too easily see Google’s side in this(and if that doesn’t feel slimy to say…), with the way the law is entirely one-sided while it would be nice if Google put even the slightest amount of work into vetting DMCA claims pulling the trigger thanks to a bogus one is vastly safer for them than ignoring a legitimate one, as only the latter carries an actual potential cost.
No, you want to crack down on bogus DMCA claims the method to do that would be to add and enforce some actual penalties for those filing fraudulent or even deficient ones. If there was a risk of a penalty even a fraction of the size that accused infringers faced then mass-DMCA companies would fold overnight and the companies that were still sending them would be much more careful in ensuring that they were going after actual infringement rather than just shotgunning claims with fingers crossed.
Re:
Google also has the problem that they are dealing with a flood of DMCA notices, and automation is the only way of dealing with them. That makes it easier for people to put in false claims, whether by accident or design, or simply issue a take down for every site that is found by a single word search.
Someday maybe we can convince congress that regular people have rights & sometimes own copyrights.
That unbalancing the law to be so lopsided is an affront to justice & the rule of law.
But then they might not get offered cameos in movies anymore.
Possible revenue source
Whenever Washington decides it needs yet another revenue source, all they have to do is get a list from Google of all the DMCAs they rejected and fine the originator at some amount each. Worth millions, and Google does all the heavy lifting.
I Presume...
I presume this take-don (with rinse and repeat) was an algorithmic action deviod of human contact; once again, proving that our AI overlords are not ready to rule the world, try as they might.
(But then, I knew that already from watching my car try to Full Self Drive)
The name
I bet this keeps happening because of the name. Idiot content companies and their representatives/partners see “Downloader” and assume it must be for downloading something illegally. I mean what else is there to download besides major studio movies and TV shows, right?
“If this app is a copyright problem, in other words, so is, oh, I don’t know… the entire World Wide Web.”
Amirite?