Jeremy Keith of the blog Adactio says he received a notice from Google two days ago that the search engine was removing all links to a post where PerfectPitch was mentioned by a commenter. The reason Google provided: "Somone has filed a DMCA complaint against your site."
Keith posted the offending comment from the original thread on his other blog, The Session, which I'll repost below:
I think that is referring to www.PerfectPitch.com. I'm not saying anything about such commercially-oriented courses because I don't know them, but I think we'd all be wise to bear in mind the general comments voiced in the first two posts on this thread.
Because that comment is so innocuous, Keith is wondering if Boucherle wanted it gone because he thought it was criticism, or if really he's just trying to force his own site to the top of the Google search results page by abusing the DMCA to get other results kicked off. Either way, it's not a legitimate use of the DMCA. Or as Keith puts it:
The Session has pretty good Google juice. The markup is pretty lean, the content is semantically structured and there's plenty of inbound links. Could it be that the owner of perfectpitch.com sent a DMCA complaint to Google simply because another site was getting higher rankings for the phrase "perfect pitch"? If so, then that's a whole new level of SEO snake-oilery.
Blog post on 'PerfectPitch' Takedown Notice [Adactio via Techdirt]
"Perfect Pitch" [The Session]
RELATED
"PerfectPitch Owner Apologizes For DMCA Notice, Explains What Happened"
(Photo: Chesi - Fotos CC)
It's been resolved, apparently the guy was just sending out takedowns shotgun-style to everybody who showed up in a google search for torrents and burge(?) and pitch. A pretty obnoxious mistake, but still a mistake:
"To our shock and horror, an employee of ours mistakenly included Mr. Keith's site in our list, merely because it made a reference to illegal copies of our course. Naturally, this is not grounds for removal of this page at Google. Our intention was only to remove actual pages where the course is being illegally distributed, and not any pages of free speech, such as Mr. Keith's blog. This was a misjudgment and error on our employee's side, and on behalf of our company, we sincerely apologize."
Linky here:
@Difdi: quick - register perfect_pitch.com, and start teaching people to sell things, then register perfect-pitch.com and sell acoustic woods to instrument makers!!!
]]>@ARP: I always thought you could refer or use any copyrighted material in the following ways: commentary, personal opinion, reviews, and satire. maybe we should all refer to perfectpitch in satirical ways, thus using their copyrights freely AND making fun of them....
]]>Obviously, the URL is a typo because I input perfectbitch.com and got a dog training site.
]]>@yume_ryuu: Well, you could do a GWB and say, "This takedown notice is just a goddamn piece of paper!"
]]>@WiglyWorm must cease and decist: I just ignore the law as the law is an ass. Civil disobedience, anyone?
]]>@ARP: Consumerist will thrust 3 fingers at any takedown notice and proclaim: Read between the lines, bitches!
]]>@ltscrounge: No, I mean Douchebag.
]]>Heh. I'm curious to see what "method" they're using. Then again, I don't need to pay $129 to develop perfect pitch. I have it already :)
]]>Don't you mean "Douche!"
]]>Walmart = Hell
Good now Hell & Walmart are equal when searching google.
]]>What would be nice is if host companies (Google) took the time to establish an independent commission that would determine whether something is actually a copyright violation before blindly throwing out a takedown notice, but I think that's pretty improbable.
]]>(f) Misrepresentations.- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section-
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Nice.
]]>@Aaronjk: Chan Ho Park has nothing to worry about, then.
]]>"In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org."
]]>We could start with the whole "burden being on the alleged infringer to prove that the content does infringe rather than on the rights holder to prove that their rights are being infringed" thing.
]]>We could start with the whole "burden being on the alleged infringer to prove that the content does infringe rather than on the rights holder to prove that their rights are being infringed" thing.
]]>@Aaronjk: Nice going, now Consumerist is going to get a take-down notice.
PS- I agree regarding the site. It might has well have the bright flashing menus from the late 90's.
]]>hmm...so, in theory, if everyone made a comment about a player throwing a PERFECT PITCH in a baseball game, it would make this guy angry?
I'm all for that.
]]>@aka_mich: Sure you can, but they all need to be disemvoweled:
Trgt, Bst By, Wlmrt, Hm Dpt, Lws, ppl, Mcrsft, Ggl, SPN, and Mnstr. My favorite would be any mention of the American Automobile Association would simply be " ".
@aka_mich: You forgot MONSTER!!!! Beverage or Cable, you're choice.
]]>Oh wait, that isn't good at all!
]]>