For streaming services such as Netflix, Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems provide a level of control over the company’s most valuable assets, including movies, TV shows, and other content for consumer consumption.

DRM not only restricts access to customers authorized to consume content, it can determine when and how it’s consumed too. When all goes to plan, DRM should also prevent end users from casually copying movies and TV shows, which should result in a positive contribution towards minimizing the spread of pirated content online; at least in theory.

Widevine Everywhere

Ultimately, whether users loathe it or just hate it, DRM exists in billions of web browsers and devices. One of the most widespread is Google’s Widevine and avoiding its footprint today is almost futile. It can be found in Chrome, Firefox and similar browsers, mobile platforms such as Android, videogame consoles, plus many set-top boxes and smart TVs. At least five billion of them, most probably more.

Unsurprisingly, Widevine has been exploited and reverse engineered over the years, as evidenced by the content it’s supposed to protect ending up on pirate sites, almost without exception. In 2020, Google took action against Chrome extension Widevine L3 Decryptor , which was capable of decrypting Widevine content keys by hijacking calls to the browser’s Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

Problems persisted throughout 2021 and 2022 with Widevine Dump but the problems haven’t gone away. The same goes for individuals and groups committed to countering Widevine, although it’s still possible to attract negative attention.

OnlyFans Targets CDRM-Project

In a DMCA takedown notice dated April 22, 2025, OnlyFans owner Fenix International Limited informs GitHub that it had “recently become aware” of repos on the platform with code “specifically designed” to circumvent Fenix’s DRM, aka Widevine.

“The identified repositories contain step-by-step instructions which are specifically designed to circumvent the DRM protections in place on OnlyFans. The repositories contain links that are ‘hard-coded’ and specifically targeted at OnlyFans,” Fenix writes.

“The coding is designed to impersonate a video player in order to decrypt and play DRM protected files, obtaining the ‘secret’ token required to play the DRM protected content. The downloaded files are then converted into an MP4 format which has the DRM protection removed.”

In line with its pro-developer policy when processing DMCA takedown notices, GitHub contacted the operator of the main repo and the operators of six additional forks, with an opportunity to address the complaint and avoid suspension.

For reasons that aren’t revealed, GitHub’s outreach couldn’t prevent the suspension of the entire CDRM-Project repo and all reported forks.

GitHub requested Fenix to identify “every specific file” in the repo that it considers infringing; Fenix responded with a statement that the “entire repository is infringing” and should be removed.

Anti-Circumvention Complaint

To GitHub’s credit, when rightsholders allege violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, GitHub conducts its own assessment. If there is no basis for a claim, GitHub sometimes finds other copyright-related grounds, but here there is no pushback. That’s usually a sign of a complaint that stands up under intense scrutiny.

Another unusual aspect to the complaint is the Fenix response to GitHub’s request to provide the alleged infringer’s contact details, if they’re in possession of them. In most cases rightsholders say they’re unaware of those details but here, Fenix provides the details of two sets of owners and two sets of contributors.

The project is now being made available via a repo on cdm-project.com but how long that’s likely to last is unclear.

When any DRM system unnecessarily restricts access to content by design or due to inherent limitations, those who suffer the most are legitimate customers. Most have no interest in piracy, were never part of the original problem, but are responsible for the bulk of the revenue. Once DRM starts to feel like DRM, that’s where the big problems start.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

For streaming services such as Netflix, Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems provide a level of control over the company’s most valuable assets, including movies, TV shows, and other content for consumer consumption.

DRM not only restricts access to customers authorized to consume content, it can determine when and how it’s consumed too. When all goes to plan, DRM should also prevent end users from casually copying movies and TV shows, which should result in a positive contribution towards minimizing the spread of pirated content online; at least in theory.

Widevine Everywhere

Ultimately, whether users loathe it or just hate it, DRM exists in billions of web browsers and devices. One of the most widespread is Google’s Widevine and avoiding its footprint today is almost futile. It can be found in Chrome, Firefox and similar browsers, mobile platforms such as Android, videogame consoles, plus many set-top boxes and smart TVs. At least five billion of them, most probably more.

Unsurprisingly, Widevine has been exploited and reverse engineered over the years, as evidenced by the content it’s supposed to protect ending up on pirate sites, almost without exception. In 2020, Google took action against Chrome extension Widevine L3 Decryptor , which was capable of decrypting Widevine content keys by hijacking calls to the browser’s Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

Problems persisted throughout 2021 and 2022 with Widevine Dump but the problems haven’t gone away. The same goes for individuals and groups committed to countering Widevine, although it’s still possible to attract negative attention.

OnlyFans Targets CDRM-Project

In a DMCA takedown notice dated April 22, 2025, OnlyFans owner Fenix International Limited informs GitHub that it had “recently become aware” of repos on the platform with code “specifically designed” to circumvent Fenix’s DRM, aka Widevine.

“The identified repositories contain step-by-step instructions which are specifically designed to circumvent the DRM protections in place on OnlyFans. The repositories contain links that are ‘hard-coded’ and specifically targeted at OnlyFans,” Fenix writes.

“The coding is designed to impersonate a video player in order to decrypt and play DRM protected files, obtaining the ‘secret’ token required to play the DRM protected content. The downloaded files are then converted into an MP4 format which has the DRM protection removed.”

In line with its pro-developer policy when processing DMCA takedown notices, GitHub contacted the operator of the main repo and the operators of six additional forks, with an opportunity to address the complaint and avoid suspension.

For reasons that aren’t revealed, GitHub’s outreach couldn’t prevent the suspension of the entire CDRM-Project repo and all reported forks.

GitHub requested Fenix to identify “every specific file” in the repo that it considers infringing; Fenix responded with a statement that the “entire repository is infringing” and should be removed.

Anti-Circumvention Complaint

To GitHub’s credit, when rightsholders allege violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, GitHub conducts its own assessment. If there is no basis for a claim, GitHub sometimes finds other copyright-related grounds, but here there is no pushback. That’s usually a sign of a complaint that stands up under intense scrutiny.

Another unusual aspect to the complaint is the Fenix response to GitHub’s request to provide the alleged infringer’s contact details, if they’re in possession of them. In most cases rightsholders say they’re unaware of those details but here, Fenix provides the details of two sets of owners and two sets of contributors.

The project is now being made available via a repo on cdm-project.com but how long that’s likely to last is unclear.

When any DRM system unnecessarily restricts access to content by design or due to inherent limitations, those who suffer the most are legitimate customers. Most have no interest in piracy, were never part of the original problem, but are responsible for the bulk of the revenue. Once DRM starts to feel like DRM, that’s where the big problems start.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

For streaming services such as Netflix, Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems provide a level of control over the company’s most valuable assets, including movies, TV shows, and other content for consumer consumption.

DRM not only restricts access to customers authorized to consume content, it can determine when and how it’s consumed too. When all goes to plan, DRM should also prevent end users from casually copying movies and TV shows, which should result in a positive contribution towards minimizing the spread of pirated content online; at least in theory.

Widevine Everywhere

Ultimately, whether users loathe it or just hate it, DRM exists in billions of web browsers and devices. One of the most widespread is Google’s Widevine and avoiding its footprint today is almost futile. It can be found in Chrome, Firefox and similar browsers, mobile platforms such as Android, videogame consoles, plus many set-top boxes and smart TVs. At least five billion of them, most probably more.

Unsurprisingly, Widevine has been exploited and reverse engineered over the years, as evidenced by the content it’s supposed to protect ending up on pirate sites, almost without exception. In 2020, Google took action against Chrome extension Widevine L3 Decryptor , which was capable of decrypting Widevine content keys by hijacking calls to the browser’s Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

Problems persisted throughout 2021 and 2022 with Widevine Dump but the problems haven’t gone away. The same goes for individuals and groups committed to countering Widevine, although it’s still possible to attract negative attention.

OnlyFans Targets CDRM-Project

In a DMCA takedown notice dated April 22, 2025, OnlyFans owner Fenix International Limited informs GitHub that it had “recently become aware” of repos on the platform with code “specifically designed” to circumvent Fenix’s DRM, aka Widevine.

“The identified repositories contain step-by-step instructions which are specifically designed to circumvent the DRM protections in place on OnlyFans. The repositories contain links that are ‘hard-coded’ and specifically targeted at OnlyFans,” Fenix writes.

“The coding is designed to impersonate a video player in order to decrypt and play DRM protected files, obtaining the ‘secret’ token required to play the DRM protected content. The downloaded files are then converted into an MP4 format which has the DRM protection removed.”

In line with its pro-developer policy when processing DMCA takedown notices, GitHub contacted the operator of the main repo and the operators of six additional forks, with an opportunity to address the complaint and avoid suspension.

For reasons that aren’t revealed, GitHub’s outreach couldn’t prevent the suspension of the entire CDRM-Project repo and all reported forks.

GitHub requested Fenix to identify “every specific file” in the repo that it considers infringing; Fenix responded with a statement that the “entire repository is infringing” and should be removed.

Anti-Circumvention Complaint

To GitHub’s credit, when rightsholders allege violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, GitHub conducts its own assessment. If there is no basis for a claim, GitHub sometimes finds other copyright-related grounds, but here there is no pushback. That’s usually a sign of a complaint that stands up under intense scrutiny.

Another unusual aspect to the complaint is the Fenix response to GitHub’s request to provide the alleged infringer’s contact details, if they’re in possession of them. In most cases rightsholders say they’re unaware of those details but here, Fenix provides the details of two sets of owners and two sets of contributors.

The project is now being made available via a repo on cdm-project.com but how long that’s likely to last is unclear.

When any DRM system unnecessarily restricts access to content by design or due to inherent limitations, those who suffer the most are legitimate customers. Most have no interest in piracy, were never part of the original problem, but are responsible for the bulk of the revenue. Once DRM starts to feel like DRM, that’s where the big problems start.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In recent years, music and movie companies have filed several lawsuits against U.S. Internet providers, for failing to take action against pirating subscribers.

One of the main allegations is that ISPs fail to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in “appropriate circumstances”, as the DMCA requires.

These lawsuits resulted in multi-million dollar judgments against Cox and Grande. Meanwhile, more companies are at risk too, including Frontier Communications, which emerged from bankruptcy four years ago.

Frontier vs. Movie and Music Companies

Frontier is fighting not one, but two legal battles. After the company was sued by several prominent record labels including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, a group of independent film companies filed a similar lawsuit.

Progress was slow in both cases but after the court denied Frontier’s motions to dismiss last year, the parties began preparing for a trial starting next week.

With damages that could run to hundreds of millions of dollars, the stakes are high. The music companies alone listed 7,758 sound recordings; based on the statutory maximum of $150,000 per willfully infringed work, that could translate to over $1 billion in damages.

The movie and music company plaintiffs separately alleged that Frontier is secondarily liable for copyright infringement because it allegedly provided internet service to known repeat infringers.

The movie companies sought additional relief, most notably a request for an injunction that was bound to pique wider interest due to a site blocking component.

Pirate Site Blocking Measures (Shelved)

In a pretrial order published last week, the parties shared their contentions in advance of the scheduled trial at the New York Bankruptcy Court. The movie companies listed their site-blocking demand as one of the key questions to be answered.

The companies argued that the domains thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and (the currently offline ) torrentgalaxy.to, should be blocked.

“MCCs further request the Court grant an injunction ordering Frontier to terminate accounts of customers that have repeatedly infringed MCCs’ Works and block access on the domain name service (‘DNS’) level of foreign piracy websites thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and torrentgalaxy.to and any of their proxy websites,” the pretrial order reads.

If granted and carried through to conclusion, this would’ve been the first time that a major U.S. Internet provider had blocked pirate sites. However, not long after the joint pretrial order was published, Frontier and the movie companies announced that they were aiming to settle the case.

Movie Companies and Frontier Settle “In Principle”

Last Friday, the parties submitted a joint notice of settlement to the court, mentioning that a settlement is being finalized. As a result, the movie companies asked to be excused from the trial next week.

“Parties have arrived at a settlement in principle, which the Parties are working quickly to document and finalize. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court excuse MCCs from participating in the trial […] to give the Parties an opportunity to effectuate their settlement and file a stipulation for dismissal,” the update reads.

The court has yet to grant this request, but it shows that the movie companies seem unlikely to participate in the trial. In fact, two of the movie companies have already finalized their settlement.

This significantly narrows the scope, since the trial will focus on the music company claims alone. Since the movie companies requested the site blocking injunctions, this request will naturally be off the table as well.

Music Companies go to Trial with Frontier

Regardless of the outcome, the music companies’ claims remain, and Frontier will have to put up a defense at trial, of which the company shared a glimpse in the pretrial order.

Among other things, the ISP plans to argue that it lacked sufficient knowledge of the infringements based on the notices sent by copyright holders. Frontier will further point out that it did not encourage or materially contribute to any infringement, emphasizing the substantial non-infringing uses of its service.

The ISP will also highlight its repeat infringer policy, which included warnings and termination of accounts when appropriate. It will argue that the policy should be sufficient for the ISP to benefit from the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

All in all, it’s clear that the scope of the trial will be significantly reduced if the movie companies and Frontier settle. That said, with a billion dollars in potential damages still in play, significant risk remains.

—

A copy of the joint pretrial order, submitted to the New York Bankruptcy Court, is available here (pdf) . The joint notice of settlement can be found here (pdf) .

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In recent years, music and movie companies have filed several lawsuits against U.S. Internet providers, for failing to take action against pirating subscribers.

One of the main allegations is that ISPs fail to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in “appropriate circumstances”, as the DMCA requires.

These lawsuits resulted in multi-million dollar judgments against Cox and Grande. Meanwhile, more companies are at risk too, including Frontier Communications, which emerged from bankruptcy four years ago.

Frontier vs. Movie and Music Companies

Frontier is fighting not one, but two legal battles. After the company was sued by several prominent record labels including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, a group of independent film companies filed a similar lawsuit.

Progress was slow in both cases but after the court denied Frontier’s motions to dismiss last year, the parties began preparing for a trial starting next week.

With damages that could run to hundreds of millions of dollars, the stakes are high. The music companies alone listed 7,758 sound recordings; based on the statutory maximum of $150,000 per willfully infringed work, that could translate to over $1 billion in damages.

The movie and music company plaintiffs separately alleged that Frontier is secondarily liable for copyright infringement because it allegedly provided internet service to known repeat infringers.

The movie companies sought additional relief, most notably a request for an injunction that was bound to pique wider interest due to a site blocking component.

Pirate Site Blocking Measures (Shelved)

In a pretrial order published last week, the parties shared their contentions in advance of the scheduled trial at the New York Bankruptcy Court. The movie companies listed their site-blocking demand as one of the key questions to be answered.

The companies argued that the domains thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and (the currently offline ) torrentgalaxy.to, should be blocked.

“MCCs further request the Court grant an injunction ordering Frontier to terminate accounts of customers that have repeatedly infringed MCCs’ Works and block access on the domain name service (‘DNS’) level of foreign piracy websites thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and torrentgalaxy.to and any of their proxy websites,” the pretrial order reads.

If granted and carried through to conclusion, this would’ve been the first time that a major U.S. Internet provider had blocked pirate sites. However, not long after the joint pretrial order was published, Frontier and the movie companies announced that they were aiming to settle the case.

Movie Companies and Frontier Settle “In Principle”

Last Friday, the parties submitted a joint notice of settlement to the court, mentioning that a settlement is being finalized. As a result, the movie companies asked to be excused from the trial next week.

“Parties have arrived at a settlement in principle, which the Parties are working quickly to document and finalize. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court excuse MCCs from participating in the trial […] to give the Parties an opportunity to effectuate their settlement and file a stipulation for dismissal,” the update reads.

The court has yet to grant this request, but it shows that the movie companies seem unlikely to participate in the trial. In fact, two of the movie companies have already finalized their settlement.

This significantly narrows the scope, since the trial will focus on the music company claims alone. Since the movie companies requested the site blocking injunctions, this request will naturally be off the table as well.

Music Companies go to Trial with Frontier

Regardless of the outcome, the music companies’ claims remain, and Frontier will have to put up a defense at trial, of which the company shared a glimpse in the pretrial order.

Among other things, the ISP plans to argue that it lacked sufficient knowledge of the infringements based on the notices sent by copyright holders. Frontier will further point out that it did not encourage or materially contribute to any infringement, emphasizing the substantial non-infringing uses of its service.

The ISP will also highlight its repeat infringer policy, which included warnings and termination of accounts when appropriate. It will argue that the policy should be sufficient for the ISP to benefit from the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

All in all, it’s clear that the scope of the trial will be significantly reduced if the movie companies and Frontier settle. That said, with a billion dollars in potential damages still in play, significant risk remains.

—

A copy of the joint pretrial order, submitted to the New York Bankruptcy Court, is available here (pdf) . The joint notice of settlement can be found here (pdf) .

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In recent years, music and movie companies have filed several lawsuits against U.S. Internet providers, for failing to take action against pirating subscribers.

One of the main allegations is that ISPs fail to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in “appropriate circumstances”, as the DMCA requires.

These lawsuits resulted in multi-million dollar judgments against Cox and Grande. Meanwhile, more companies are at risk too, including Frontier Communications, which emerged from bankruptcy four years ago.

Frontier vs. Movie and Music Companies

Frontier is fighting not one, but two legal battles. After the company was sued by several prominent record labels including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, a group of independent film companies filed a similar lawsuit.

Progress was slow in both cases but after the court denied Frontier’s motions to dismiss last year, the parties began preparing for a trial starting next week.

With damages that could run to hundreds of millions of dollars, the stakes are high. The music companies alone listed 7,758 sound recordings; based on the statutory maximum of $150,000 per willfully infringed work, that could translate to over $1 billion in damages.

The movie and music company plaintiffs separately alleged that Frontier is secondarily liable for copyright infringement because it allegedly provided internet service to known repeat infringers.

The movie companies sought additional relief, most notably a request for an injunction that was bound to pique wider interest due to a site blocking component.

Pirate Site Blocking Measures (Shelved)

In a pretrial order published last week, the parties shared their contentions in advance of the scheduled trial at the New York Bankruptcy Court. The movie companies listed their site-blocking demand as one of the key questions to be answered.

The companies argued that the domains thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and (the currently offline ) torrentgalaxy.to, should be blocked.

“MCCs further request the Court grant an injunction ordering Frontier to terminate accounts of customers that have repeatedly infringed MCCs’ Works and block access on the domain name service (‘DNS’) level of foreign piracy websites thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and torrentgalaxy.to and any of their proxy websites,” the pretrial order reads.

If granted and carried through to conclusion, this would’ve been the first time that a major U.S. Internet provider had blocked pirate sites. However, not long after the joint pretrial order was published, Frontier and the movie companies announced that they were aiming to settle the case.

Movie Companies and Frontier Settle “In Principle”

Last Friday, the parties submitted a joint notice of settlement to the court, mentioning that a settlement is being finalized. As a result, the movie companies asked to be excused from the trial next week.

“Parties have arrived at a settlement in principle, which the Parties are working quickly to document and finalize. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court excuse MCCs from participating in the trial […] to give the Parties an opportunity to effectuate their settlement and file a stipulation for dismissal,” the update reads.

The court has yet to grant this request, but it shows that the movie companies seem unlikely to participate in the trial. In fact, two of the movie companies have already finalized their settlement.

This significantly narrows the scope, since the trial will focus on the music company claims alone. Since the movie companies requested the site blocking injunctions, this request will naturally be off the table as well.

Music Companies go to Trial with Frontier

Regardless of the outcome, the music companies’ claims remain, and Frontier will have to put up a defense at trial, of which the company shared a glimpse in the pretrial order.

Among other things, the ISP plans to argue that it lacked sufficient knowledge of the infringements based on the notices sent by copyright holders. Frontier will further point out that it did not encourage or materially contribute to any infringement, emphasizing the substantial non-infringing uses of its service.

The ISP will also highlight its repeat infringer policy, which included warnings and termination of accounts when appropriate. It will argue that the policy should be sufficient for the ISP to benefit from the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

All in all, it’s clear that the scope of the trial will be significantly reduced if the movie companies and Frontier settle. That said, with a billion dollars in potential damages still in play, significant risk remains.

—

A copy of the joint pretrial order, submitted to the New York Bankruptcy Court, is available here (pdf) . The joint notice of settlement can be found here (pdf) .

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Even after years of trawling the invaluable Lumen Database , the scale of online copyright infringement today still manages to surprise week after week. And with more time spent searching, the greater the chances of the archive surfacing curiosities from years ago, or unusual items from the more recent past.

Take the bait and time has a tendency to get eaten away in journeys down various rabbit holes, and that’s a good thing. Without Lumen, censorship would undoubtedly thrive in a darker place; it already needs little encouragement.

Free* Speech (*Terms and conditions apply, YMMV)

After a spurious attempt to deindex one of our articles with a bogus copyright claim, research led us by chance down a parallel path, revealing an even greater threat to free speech and legitimate reporting.

The nature of a sizeable number of the takedown notices in question brings to mind the Lumen Database’s original name, Chilling Effects. The name was derived from the likely suppressant effect of abusive takedown notices and legal threats on free speech.

In the United States, where speaking the truth doesn’t usually amount to a crime, the scope of free speech far exceeds that available in Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, libel is a criminal offense and in the UK, the rich can launch libel action in the High Court. There, regular people can be drawn into a potentially ruinous legal quagmire, for as little as vigorously opposing one man’s assertion that his online handle is Satoshi .

Threats to Google: Censor the Govt, BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail

Working for the BBC, Guardian, or Daily Mail can provide a safety net against the potential consequences of legal threats, but immunity from receiving threats themselves doesn’t exist. In a notice addressed to Google, the company was ordered to “De-index the specified URLs” from search results within 14 days to “prevent further dissemination” of what is described as “defamatory and harmful content.”​

Published in 2022, the BBC URLs above report the details of a damning investigation involving serious neglect and abuse of children. The ‘Hansard’ URLs link to the website of the Houses of Parliament which contains transcripts of government ministers discussing the scandal. The name of the sender is redacted, but Google was threatened with an injunction and damages for simply having those links in its indexes.

Business Disputes: He Said, She Said

Another notice demands a takedown based on the Defamation Act 2013, claiming that “the publication of a statement that would cause serious harm to the reputation of a person or entity” meets the criteria for defamation. The article in question was published by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, warning the public against doing business with a named fraudulent company.

Takedown notices involving businesses and a maze of disputes related to the pursuit or recovery of money, are sent to Google in large numbers. Many involve allegations or denials of fraud. Some deny fraud despite documented evidence to the contrary. Others resort to vague copyright claims or indeed, anything else that might help silence the opposition. Whatever the mechanism, the legal threats persist.

All notices referenced here are listed under the same sender ID in the Lumen Database. Some have a similar format or likely common sender, others appear to be written by unconnected individuals. Some are barely understandable, others fail to identify what should be taken down; a surprising number contain no information, period.

Who’s Telling the Truth? Friendly Sender or Something Else?

Considering how many takedown notices Google receives, it does a remarkable job of getting most things right. The reality is that it can’t check every complaint or validate every backstory.

The notice below appears to be someone being a good citizen, and we definitely need more of those. On the other hand, could it be a ruse to prompt Google into taking action against the Google Drive account listed in the takedown notice? We could test out the link, but taking unnecessary risks in this climate would be pretty stupid.

The next two complaints request TikTok-related takedowns. How Google was supposed to know what was said, or who did what, let alone who’s telling the truth, is unclear. The first notice sender, who seems oblivious to the inherent difficulties, may not have given it much thought. The second knows fraud when they see it, and a bit about the legality of copyright too.

Concerned Citizens

If the takedown notice below is in some way official, presumably other avenues exist to ensure adherence to the regulations rather than de-indexing a business. The sender may be someone concerned about harmony in the trade or, at least potentially, someone with nothing better to do. In any event, it’s more work for Google.

While it’s easy to sympathize with the position some senders claim to find themselves in, deleting links to news articles isn’t going to help. An article published by a UK news website reported how a drunken family member terrified another with a knife, before battering them over the head with a radio. At the local school, the news was blamed for creating unwanted friction.

“This has gone to [sic] far and is causing grievances left right and center. I would like this delisted at the least from when you enter ‘[REDACTED] [REDACTED]’ into Google search bar,” the sender insisted.

A rambling notice reportedly sent by a person convicted of a serious crime, demanded the removal of an article reporting their sentencing. Active on social media now, having learned nothing, this matter can only be referred directly to the police.

Internet Dispute Court: Judge Google Presiding

From complaints about students using an AI service to write their assignments, to an insistence that content must be deindexed because the author “is from Estonia for God’s sake,” Google has much on its plate, including social media squabbles to preside over. Requests to remove links to Facebook pages, accounts on X, and listings on Temu, are seen as problems to be solved by silencing those who didn’t send a complaint.

One notice argued that a news story about a sportsman’s wife, who discovered that her husband was also married to someone else, should be removed because it amounts to defamation of the wife’s character .

Google also receives many takedown notices for photos uploaded to Google Maps. A cursory review of a few suggest that some images taken inside various restaurants may not have met the standard their owners’ expected.

Other notices seem to have good intentions, but appear to use drama to improve takedown odds. In one example, a potential map error becomes a hazard to public safety fueled by potential fraud and deception.

Unjustified Takedowns Remain Unacceptable (usually)

Copyright-related takedowns have their moments but from the few hundred reviewed for the above, takedowns for other reasons represent a far greater risk to the public record and associated freedom of speech.

Under the DSA, large platforms including Google are required to inform the European Commission when and why content was taken down . The scheme was available late 2023, the number of takedowns reported today is significant.

To end on a lighter note, takedowns that put the well-being of others before selfish interests, are a pleasure to read and immediately restore all faith in human nature.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Even after years of trawling the invaluable Lumen Database , the scale of online copyright infringement today still manages to surprise week after week. And with more time spent searching, the greater the chances of the archive surfacing curiosities from years ago, or unusual items from the more recent past.

Take the bait and time has a tendency to get eaten away in journeys down various rabbit holes, and that’s a good thing. Without Lumen, censorship would undoubtedly thrive in a darker place; it already needs little encouragement.

Free* Speech (*Terms and conditions apply, YMMV)

After a spurious attempt to deindex one of our articles with a bogus copyright claim, research led us by chance down a parallel path, revealing an even greater threat to free speech and legitimate reporting.

The nature of a sizeable number of the takedown notices in question brings to mind the Lumen Database’s original name, Chilling Effects. The name was derived from the likely suppressant effect of abusive takedown notices and legal threats on free speech.

In the United States, where speaking the truth doesn’t usually amount to a crime, the scope of free speech far exceeds that available in Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, libel is a criminal offense and in the UK, the rich can launch libel action in the High Court. There, regular people can be drawn into a potentially ruinous legal quagmire, for as little as vigorously opposing one man’s assertion that his online handle is Satoshi .

Threats to Google: Censor the Govt, BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail

Working for the BBC, Guardian, or Daily Mail can provide a safety net against the potential consequences of legal threats, but immunity from receiving threats themselves doesn’t exist. In a notice addressed to Google, the company was ordered to “De-index the specified URLs” from search results within 14 days to “prevent further dissemination” of what is described as “defamatory and harmful content.”​

Published in 2022, the BBC URLs above report the details of a damning investigation involving serious neglect and abuse of children. The ‘Hansard’ URLs link to the website of the Houses of Parliament which contains transcripts of government ministers discussing the scandal. The name of the sender is redacted, but Google was threatened with an injunction and damages for simply having those links in its indexes.

Business Disputes: He Said, She Said

Another notice demands a takedown based on the Defamation Act 2013, claiming that “the publication of a statement that would cause serious harm to the reputation of a person or entity” meets the criteria for defamation. The article in question was published by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, warning the public against doing business with a named fraudulent company.

Takedown notices involving businesses and a maze of disputes related to the pursuit or recovery of money, are sent to Google in large numbers. Many involve allegations or denials of fraud. Some deny fraud despite documented evidence to the contrary. Others resort to vague copyright claims or indeed, anything else that might help silence the opposition. Whatever the mechanism, the legal threats persist.

All notices referenced here are listed under the same sender ID in the Lumen Database. Some have a similar format or likely common sender, others appear to be written by unconnected individuals. Some are barely understandable, others fail to identify what should be taken down; a surprising number contain no information, period.

Who’s Telling the Truth? Friendly Sender or Something Else?

Considering how many takedown notices Google receives, it does a remarkable job of getting most things right. The reality is that it can’t check every complaint or validate every backstory.

The notice below appears to be someone being a good citizen, and we definitely need more of those. On the other hand, could it be a ruse to prompt Google into taking action against the Google Drive account listed in the takedown notice? We could test out the link, but taking unnecessary risks in this climate would be pretty stupid.

The next two complaints request TikTok-related takedowns. How Google was supposed to know what was said, or who did what, let alone who’s telling the truth, is unclear. The first notice sender, who seems oblivious to the inherent difficulties, may not have given it much thought. The second knows fraud when they see it, and a bit about the legality of copyright too.

Concerned Citizens

If the takedown notice below is in some way official, presumably other avenues exist to ensure adherence to the regulations rather than de-indexing a business. The sender may be someone concerned about harmony in the trade or, at least potentially, someone with nothing better to do. In any event, it’s more work for Google.

While it’s easy to sympathize with the position some senders claim to find themselves in, deleting links to news articles isn’t going to help. An article published by a UK news website reported how a drunken family member terrified another with a knife, before battering them over the head with a radio. At the local school, the news was blamed for creating unwanted friction.

“This has gone to [sic] far and is causing grievances left right and center. I would like this delisted at the least from when you enter ‘[REDACTED] [REDACTED]’ into Google search bar,” the sender insisted.

A rambling notice reportedly sent by a person convicted of a serious crime, demanded the removal of an article reporting their sentencing. Active on social media now, having learned nothing, this matter can only be referred directly to the police.

Internet Dispute Court: Judge Google Presiding

From complaints about students using an AI service to write their assignments, to an insistence that content must be deindexed because the author “is from Estonia for God’s sake,” Google has much on its plate, including social media squabbles to preside over. Requests to remove links to Facebook pages, accounts on X, and listings on Temu, are seen as problems to be solved by silencing those who didn’t send a complaint.

One notice argued that a news story about a sportsman’s wife, who discovered that her husband was also married to someone else, should be removed because it amounts to defamation of the wife’s character .

Google also receives many takedown notices for photos uploaded to Google Maps. A cursory review of a few suggest that some images taken inside various restaurants may not have met the standard their owners’ expected.

Other notices seem to have good intentions, but appear to use drama to improve takedown odds. In one example, a potential map error becomes a hazard to public safety fueled by potential fraud and deception.

Unjustified Takedowns Remain Unacceptable (usually)

Copyright-related takedowns have their moments but from the few hundred reviewed for the above, takedowns for other reasons represent a far greater risk to the public record and associated freedom of speech.

Under the DSA, large platforms including Google are required to inform the European Commission when and why content was taken down . The scheme was available late 2023, the number of takedowns reported today is significant.

To end on a lighter note, takedowns that put the well-being of others before selfish interests, are a pleasure to read and immediately restore all faith in human nature.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Even after years of trawling the invaluable Lumen Database , the scale of online copyright infringement today still manages to surprise week after week. And with more time spent searching, the greater the chances of the archive surfacing curiosities from years ago, or unusual items from the more recent past.

Take the bait and time has a tendency to get eaten away in journeys down various rabbit holes, and that’s a good thing. Without Lumen, censorship would undoubtedly thrive in a darker place; it already needs little encouragement.

Free* Speech (*Terms and conditions apply, YMMV)

After a spurious attempt to deindex one of our articles with a bogus copyright claim, research led us by chance down a parallel path, revealing an even greater threat to free speech and legitimate reporting.

The nature of a sizeable number of the takedown notices in question brings to mind the Lumen Database’s original name, Chilling Effects. The name was derived from the likely suppressant effect of abusive takedown notices and legal threats on free speech.

In the United States, where speaking the truth doesn’t usually amount to a crime, the scope of free speech far exceeds that available in Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, libel is a criminal offense and in the UK, the rich can launch libel action in the High Court. There, regular people can be drawn into a potentially ruinous legal quagmire, for as little as vigorously opposing one man’s assertion that his online handle is Satoshi .

Threats to Google: Censor the Govt, BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail

Working for the BBC, Guardian, or Daily Mail can provide a safety net against the potential consequences of legal threats, but immunity from receiving threats themselves doesn’t exist. In a notice addressed to Google, the company was ordered to “De-index the specified URLs” from search results within 14 days to “prevent further dissemination” of what is described as “defamatory and harmful content.”​

Published in 2022, the BBC URLs above report the details of a damning investigation involving serious neglect and abuse of children. The ‘Hansard’ URLs link to the website of the Houses of Parliament which contains transcripts of government ministers discussing the scandal. The name of the sender is redacted, but Google was threatened with an injunction and damages for simply having those links in its indexes.

Business Disputes: He Said, She Said

Another notice demands a takedown based on the Defamation Act 2013, claiming that “the publication of a statement that would cause serious harm to the reputation of a person or entity” meets the criteria for defamation. The article in question was published by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, warning the public against doing business with a named fraudulent company.

Takedown notices involving businesses and a maze of disputes related to the pursuit or recovery of money, are sent to Google in large numbers. Many involve allegations or denials of fraud. Some deny fraud despite documented evidence to the contrary. Others resort to vague copyright claims or indeed, anything else that might help silence the opposition. Whatever the mechanism, the legal threats persist.

All notices referenced here are listed under the same sender ID in the Lumen Database. Some have a similar format or likely common sender, others appear to be written by unconnected individuals. Some are barely understandable, others fail to identify what should be taken down; a surprising number contain no information, period.

Who’s Telling the Truth? Friendly Sender or Something Else?

Considering how many takedown notices Google receives, it does a remarkable job of getting most things right. The reality is that it can’t check every complaint or validate every backstory.

The notice below appears to be someone being a good citizen, and we definitely need more of those. On the other hand, could it be a ruse to prompt Google into taking action against the Google Drive account listed in the takedown notice? We could test out the link, but taking unnecessary risks in this climate would be pretty stupid.

The next two complaints request TikTok-related takedowns. How Google was supposed to know what was said, or who did what, let alone who’s telling the truth, is unclear. The first notice sender, who seems oblivious to the inherent difficulties, may not have given it much thought. The second knows fraud when they see it, and a bit about the legality of copyright too.

Concerned Citizens

If the takedown notice below is in some way official, presumably other avenues exist to ensure adherence to the regulations rather than de-indexing a business. The sender may be someone concerned about harmony in the trade or, at least potentially, someone with nothing better to do. In any event, it’s more work for Google.

While it’s easy to sympathize with the position some senders claim to find themselves in, deleting links to news articles isn’t going to help. An article published by a UK news website reported how a drunken family member terrified another with a knife, before battering them over the head with a radio. At the local school, the news was blamed for creating unwanted friction.

“This has gone to [sic] far and is causing grievances left right and center. I would like this delisted at the least from when you enter ‘[REDACTED] [REDACTED]’ into Google search bar,” the sender insisted.

A rambling notice reportedly sent by a person convicted of a serious crime, demanded the removal of an article reporting their sentencing. Active on social media now, having learned nothing, this matter can only be referred directly to the police.

Internet Dispute Court: Judge Google Presiding

From complaints about students using an AI service to write their assignments, to an insistence that content must be deindexed because the author “is from Estonia for God’s sake,” Google has much on its plate, including social media squabbles to preside over. Requests to remove links to Facebook pages, accounts on X, and listings on Temu, are seen as problems to be solved by silencing those who didn’t send a complaint.

One notice argued that a news story about a sportsman’s wife, who discovered that her husband was also married to someone else, should be removed because it amounts to defamation of the wife’s character .

Google also receives many takedown notices for photos uploaded to Google Maps. A cursory review of a few suggest that some images taken inside various restaurants may not have met the standard their owners’ expected.

Other notices seem to have good intentions, but appear to use drama to improve takedown odds. In one example, a potential map error becomes a hazard to public safety fueled by potential fraud and deception.

Unjustified Takedowns Remain Unacceptable (usually)

Copyright-related takedowns have their moments but from the few hundred reviewed for the above, takedowns for other reasons represent a far greater risk to the public record and associated freedom of speech.

Under the DSA, large platforms including Google are required to inform the European Commission when and why content was taken down . The scheme was available late 2023, the number of takedowns reported today is significant.

To end on a lighter note, takedowns that put the well-being of others before selfish interests, are a pleasure to read and immediately restore all faith in human nature.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.