Facebook Closes Pages Because Of False Copyright Infringement Claims

UPDATE BELOW:

Facebook has shut down at least a half-dozen legitimate Facebook pages due to what appears to be a dysfunctional copyright infringement claims system.

Affected sites, which include popular tech blog Ars Technica, were given no warning that the page would be shut down and received no description of the offending content. Anybody with an email address, real or fake, can make a complaint to Facebook without having to validate the claim, effectively giving anyone the ability to shutter any page without proof.

Ars Technica received the following from Facebook:

We have removed or disabled access to the following content that you have posted on Facebook because we received a notice from a third party that the content infringes or otherwise violates their rights:

Fbpage: Ars Technica

We strongly encourage you to review the content you have posted to Facebook to make sure that you have not posted any other infringing content, as it is our policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers when appropriate.

If you believe that we have made a mistake in removing this content, then please visit http://www.facebook.com/help/?page=1108 for more information.

Ars Technica wasn't the only site to suffer this sudden shutdown. Neowin, another popular software blog, has had its page shut down repeatedly, with Facebook informing it that the only way to reinstate the page would be if the complainant retracted his claim:

If you believe that we have made a mistake in removing this content, then please contact the complaining party directly with the following information to resolve your issue:

Notice #: [255360006]
Contact Information:
Name - [Jonathan ******]
Email - [******@gmail.com]

If both parties agree to restore the reported content, please ask the complaining party to contact us via email with a copy of the agreement so that we can refer to the original issue. We will not be able to restore this content to Facebook unless we receive explicit notice of consent from the complaining party.

Neowin, unsuccessful in contacting the claimant, continued bothering Facebook, leading the social network to simply respond, "The page uses trademark that belongs to one of our clients. The trademark 'Neowin' represents a store of robot toys and is registered in UK and US." Neowin scoured registered trademarks in both countries and found no match. Eventually, Facebook restored the page, only to take it down again for the same reason.

Yet another tech site, Redmond Pie, has been plagued by repeated takedowns where its page would be replaced by a fake page. This fake page offered free iPads, damaging the real Redmond Pie's credibility, and causing it to lose its 70,000 fans. Though the site sent Facebook legal documentation of its intellectual property, Facebook replied with the following:

While we appreciate your concerns, unfortunately, as we hope you can understand, we are not in a position to adjudicate disputes between third parties. When we receive an allegation of trademark infringement, or a suitable report of a violation of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, our procedures require that we take action appropriate to the report. If you believe these reports are not being made in good faith or are inaccurate, we suggest you or your legal counsel contact the complaining party to discuss this further. If the reporting party withdraws their complaint or you prevail in court, we would be happy to follow up about restoring the removed material.

In other words, Facebook would only reinstate the page once Redmond Pie settled with the complainant, who remained unresponsive. Even if the user should reply, a refusal to withdraw the complaint would force Redmond Pie to go to court to settle the matter.

Last year, ZDNet's columnist Violet Blue had a page on women's issues taken down by anti-porn conservatives who went so far as to celebrate their successful takedown online.

Though such a policy would seem to keep Facebook's hands clean of any possible copyright issues, it's also clearly proven problematic. As Ars Technica wrote, "Everyone who uses Facebook is on some level a Facebook partner. A thoroughgoing social site, it is nothing without its users. That Facebook would so harshly judge and move against its most valuable assets without any semblance of fairness or evenhandedness is disappointing."

The Huffington Post has contacted Facebook and has been told that it is "looking into this issue right now" and expect to have a statement soon. We will be updating as soon as we hear back.

UPDATE:

A Facebook spokesperson has responded with the following:

We take seriously both the interests of people who post content and those of rights holders. Abuse of DMCA and other intellectual property notice procedures is a challenge for every major Internet service but we work to ensure that we don't take content down as a result of fraudulent notices. We have been in touch with Ars Technica and are investigating this case.

UPDATE (4/29/2011):

Facebook has released another statement about the matter:

We have investigated a number of recent intellectual property cases and have restored four pages as a result. We apologize for any inconvenience. Abuse of DMCA and other intellectual property notice procedures is a challenge for every major Internet service and we take it seriously. We have invested significant resources into creating a dedicated team that uses specialized tools, systems and technology to review and properly handle intellectual property notices. This system evaluates a number of factors when deciding how to respond and, in many cases, we require the reporter to provide additional information before we can take action. As a result of these efforts, the vast majority of intellectual property notices that we receive are handled without incident. Of course, no system is perfect and we are always striving to improve our practices. As such, we will be considering the results of our investigation into this matter as we continue to refine our systems and procedures.

Comments

[Patrick Bay]

11:21 AM on 06/21/2011

I bet there are plenty of companies out there with claims against Facebook, and if that's the case, is Facebook going to take down their whole site or are they above their own "laws"? This reeks of Apple-style hypocrisy.

[auditor0007]

02:04 AM on 04/30/2011

Simply put, Facebook needs to make available the name, address, and phone number of the person or company filing the complaint. This way, legal action can be taken against them immediately. If someone files a false complaint, they should be held liable for all damages. While it might take a while, I have a hunch this would put a stop to many of the false complaints.

[decyle]

12:33 AM on 04/30/2011

Duh!

[Kris Sleicher]

04:38 PM on 04/29/2011

I think that the complainant/accuser is the one who needs to provide the proof before any page is removed from FB. In the American justice system, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. FB should never make an assumption, especially that of an accuser being in the right.

[think-it-over]

05:15 PM on 04/29/2011

The burden of proof only lies with the accuser in a trial. For better or worse, the DMCA takedown process is a compromise between protecting copyrights and protecting the online providers who make it possible for virtually anyone to post content to the internet, and it only exempts online providers from liability if they comply with the rules and remove content when they get a proper takedown notice. FB isn't making any assumptions,. They're (presumably) following the requirements of the law and making sure the takedown notice meets legal requirements before removing the material.

[BlueHorde]

12:06 PM on 04/30/2011

Having to come to an agreement with the complaining party, or going to court, means that anyone can be a victim with no real recourse. The page takedown is the win, and apparently anyone can take any page down without any legitimate grounds ... even if it would be overturned after all the time and expense of a legal fight.

As a penniless conservative activist living in my parent's basement, I could take down every liberal page on Facebook with spurious claims that would never be upheld in court. They could sue me for every penny I don't have. Or I could be a limited liability "corporation" set up by a lobbying firm, with no real assets. But in the meantime, every page that represents views I dislike are taken down. Win

Or vice versa.

Let the cleansing begin!

[Hawkes George]

04:33 PM on 04/29/2011

Facebook is going to far. Just a matter of time till someone holds them accountable for there actions.

[Lanny Shay]

01:55 PM on 04/29/2011

i am not facebook's biggest fan. in fact one of the pages taken down yesterday is owned by a friend.

that said, anyone who thinks facebook has a bunch of dumb, underpaid, twenty something slackers wandering around is clueless. every person i know in tech would quit their job tomorrow for a chance to work at facebook. if you do not have an advanced degree from one of the best schools (stanford, carnegie-mellon, etc) you won't even get in the door.

the one person i know who worked there for the last 6 years sold his stock and "retired" last year at age 31. after taxes he has somewhere between $10 and $20 million dollars in the banks.

[frankerin]

01:31 PM on 04/29/2011

Why are anonymous complaints given any credence. What exactly is the law. This law was seriously objected to when suggested and complaints made to the idiots in the senate who sponsored it (with no regard at all to any personal or electoral advantage, of course) and got it passed. These hidden bombs such as crediting anonymous complaints without regard to the so called violator gives facebook and others authority they deny they have and which is far beyond the expectation of american citizens, or a least those who are still imbued with american values. Politicians, lawyers and advocacy groups of every stripe do not any longer believe in american justice.

[lvconsiglerie]

12:51 PM on 04/29/2011

Every time you post to Facebook or any social or business website, you give up your right to personal or professional privacy. These sites are purposely designed to be warm and fuzzy so that unsuspecting users will reveal more and more about their lives, family and friends as well as current likes and dislikes. Social networking is now being propelled by companies that have something to sell and that will use any method to make the sale. It's a bad joke on the users and the only way to stop it is non participation. People along for years without Facebook, My Space, Linked In, Twitter, etc. These sites haven't enriched our lives, they have invaded them for the purposes of selling. Wise up and delete your profiles now. Know news isn't always good news.

[Clare53]

02:55 PM on 04/29/2011

Speak for yourself. FB has in fact enriched by life. I found old friends that I love and get together with outside of FB. I interact with most of my FB friends on a fairly regular basis. It's a quick and easy way to stay in contact with people, even my good friends that I see a lot. My friends post interesting and thought-provoking articles, videos and links and we've had some fascinating and informative discussions about some of those links and newspaper articles. I check my privacy settings regular to make sure FB has not defaulted them to what they want. I've never been so involved in discussions and ideas with my friends since grad school.

[lvconsiglerie]

04:16 PM on 04/29/2011

Clare - for an intelligent woman, you completely missed my point.

Facebook may have started out harmless, but it's evolved over time and now it is all about advertising and sales...not friendship. This company is not altruistic and didn't retune and modify their online site for anything other than to gather even more consumer information to make them more desireable to big money companies like Pepsico and Nike.

Facebook could care less about you, your friends, the frank discussions, etc. To them, consumers are nothing but sheep.

Facebook exists to gather data, pure and simple. The more information you give them about your life, the more vunerable you become to advertisers. It's a slick way to get you to willingly part with precious information that advertisers can't get directly. And when you defend it so passionately, advertisers win.

I also cringe when I see all the TV ads for Wheat Thins and James Patterson using facebook to hawk their products.

Why do you think so many companies are bomboarding facebook with their product information, coupons, sweepstakes, gift with purchase offers, etc? If it's all about family and friends, then why these money grubbing corporations using it for monetary gain? Do we really need Coke, Kraft and Toyota on facebook? The answer is no...we don't need them, but they need facebook to get to us.

Face facts Clare...Big Brother is watching and you're providing one hell of a peep show.

[oneyippie]

10:30 AM on 04/29/2011

Why do businesses post their content on Facebook? Don't they know that giving facebook their content only takes visitors away from their own websites, thus making their websites drop in rank, while Facebook continues to increase rank? And then you have incidents like these?

Businesses don't need Facebook, despite the hype!

[Marionette]

12:06 PM on 04/29/2011

i 'like' that statement ;)

[Max Imus]

12:44 PM on 04/29/2011

traditional log in systems have extremely low loyalty and lack of verifiable identities. This makes it hard to manage comment systems (people tend to be more civil and real when using their actual identities.).

Facebook also has better social sharing, "liking", and event invitations which a lot of home grown commenting systems do not offer.

[Stefan Dembowski]

07:55 AM on 04/29/2011

It's what the Right Wing does on YouTube for anything they don't like.
Surprised this didn't happen sooner!

[shakesome]

07:33 PM on 04/29/2011

Well-played. Finding a political angle in a non-political article. You'll be a MOD in no time

[Stefan Dembowski]

08:06 PM on 04/29/2011

Gee, should I have prefaced it with:
"As an Example, "??

Do you deny that It's what the Right Wing does on YouTube for anything they don't like???

[Wicked Zen]

12:07 PM on 04/30/2011

Actually, it is relevant. The article is about DMCA abuse. Abuse by any party - political, private, corporate, or whatever - that goes unchecked is further evidence of the short-sightedness of that law.

[Pumpski]

07:40 PM on 04/28/2011

I am sure if some clown out there wanted to take down some big name corporate page they wouldn't do it. They would see right through the idiocy of the infringment situation. But if some everyday good guy company gets some jealous fool to submit a bogus claim Facebook takes it down. Why? Because they likely have dumb twenty year olds working for them that they pay very small amounts of money to do the job. So they come into work with an irritated mind because they are eating ramen noodles to get by and the rent is paid by the skin of their teeth so they take it out on others and take down pages left and right. That is my guess.

[MiddletownHal]

06:28 PM on 04/28/2011

FaceBook doesn't give a damn! My pages, both personal & business have had video upload disabled since November and I've kept "appealing" claiming that I've the songwriters permission to use his work. I only get form letters back as a response & only one time did a seem a "real" person got back to me, but did not reply to my email. It is most frustrating. I suspect my page was complained by a competitor or someone with some faulty brain apparatus if FB didn't just make a mistake for which their robots can't fix. I don't understand why FaceBook is being mean & spiteful.

[HighDesertBob]

05:58 PM on 04/28/2011

It would seem Facebook would require some proof that a copyright or whatever was being infringed other than their say so. They should require the complaining party to provide documentation that shows the subject party is in violation other than just taking their word for it.
This seems rife with possibilities for one provider to mess with another provider just for spite.
As noted in previous posts, guilty until proven innocent. This is not how it is supposed to be. Facebook is playing a dangerous game by staying with their policy.

[think-it-over]

05:24 PM on 04/29/2011

Unless FB wants to be liable for copyright infringement they can't require proof. All they can do is require the complainant to make an allegation in the manner required by law, which is what they're doing. FB is paying it safe by staying with the legal requirements.

[HighDesertBob]

07:17 PM on 04/29/2011

So anyone who wants to mess with a company can do so by claiming copyright infringement without any proof. Interesting.
I suspect if someone claims a copyright infringement against another company and the claims prove false, they could be sued by the other company. And, of course, Facebook, by extension for causing them financial problems defending a false allegation and for FB for colluding with the perpetrator.

[Robert R Payette]

04:24 PM on 04/28/2011

Guilty until proven innocent? Ridiculous!! :(

[MJP MJP]

11:51 AM on 04/29/2011

No, just America.

[shakesome]

07:39 PM on 04/29/2011

No, just the right to act freely. Facebook's right to control their own property. THAT is America. If you don't like it, go to a communist country or a Third World country, develop your own technology and processes, and let the government take it from you and tell you what to do. In America, you can do as you wish with your property (as long as its legal).

[think-it-over]

05:36 PM on 04/29/2011

If I walk into your house and start cooking dinner should you have to prove that you own the house first, or do you want to be able to just tell the cops you own it and have me removed? How is this different?

[phate323]

09:09 PM on 04/29/2011

um, i would appreciate someone walking into my house and cooking dinner....

[Benjamin Rosenfeld]

04:23 PM on 04/28/2011

My gears of mischief have begun to turn, mwahahahahahaha!!!