×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Film Studios Send Takedown Notices About Takedown Notices

Soulskill posted 1 year,14 days | from the can-you-issue-a-takedown-for-the-streisand-effect? dept.

Movies 197

another random user sends this excerpt from the BBC: "Two film studios have asked Google to take down links to messages sent by them requesting the removal of links connected to film piracy. Google receives 20 million 'takedown' requests, officially known as DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notices, every month. They are all published online. Recent submissions by Fox and Universal Studios include requests for the removal of previous takedown notices. ... By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts. 'It would only take one skilled coder to index the URLs from the DMCA notices in order to create one of the largest pirate search engines available,' wrote Torrent Freak editor Ernesto Van Der Sar on the site."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

197 comments

DUH! (0)

Ragnarok89 (1066010) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368081)

Round and round we go...

'MPAATakedwn=': recursive on all control paths... (4, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369145)

I'm just curious if they'll send takedown notices on the takedown notices on the... well, you know. After all, Google may have to append the original notice on the 2nd one so everyone knows what's being referred to...

Barbara Streisand effect... (3, Funny)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368085)

Again. A pity the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368137)

A bigger pity that Google will get down on their knees and deepthroat the MPAA like a good little whore.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368667)

A bigger pity still is that we get down on our knees and deepthroat the ??AA when we reelect their politicians over and over. The solution is obvious, but we remain too starstruck by bling to actually try it.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (3, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368917)

And the biggest pity of all is that you think you will be actually allowed to get that kind of presidential candidate in the first place.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (5, Insightful)

Lazere (2809091) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369169)

Who said anything about president? And there is the real problem, the people are only looking at the president, but when it comes to the people in the house/senate, they just vote for the guy who has the right letter behind them. Remember kids, the president doesn't make the laws. Please actually pay attention to your house/senate candidates next election.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369211)

A bigger pity still is that we get down on our knees and deepthroat the ??AA when we reelect their politicians over and over.

...or buy tickets to their movies, or buy the Blu-Ray, DVD, etc...

But yeah, you're mostly right. I do disagree about it being a case of starstruck behavior, though. I think it's because the vast majority of the population simply doesn't give a crap. They're either completely ignorant about it, know something about it but think it's "too geeky" and happily not care, or they know all about it but happily download movies anyway (thinking that the odds of getting caught are well below that of getting busted for illegal marijuana use in Northern California).

Either way, until you can get the population both cognizant and passionate about it, approximately nothing will happen. Problem is, most folks get their info from, oh, wait - the media. The same media who really, really, really don't want you to get in the way of the revenue streams from their respective entertainment divisions.

Long story short? Good luck with that, sadly.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (4, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369043)

A bigger pity that Google will get down on their knees and deepthroat the MPAA like a good little whore.

Your perspective is skewed. Google isn't doing this because the *AA asks them to, they are doing it because it is the law.

If the *AA's get out of hand, Google could easily just buy the entire industry. Every single one of those companies. With cash. Several times over. You don't seem to understand the amount of money Google has. They aren't kowtowing to private corporate interests at this point, they are simply doing what the law requires them to do. If you get a take-down notice, you have to take it down. If the *AA's begin to make the world suck too bad for Google, they could just purchase them and eradicate all of it.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (3, Insightful)

turp182 (1020263) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369241)

Anti-trust regulations would probably prevent such a move, otherwise Apple would have done it already...

Interesting idea.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369251)

Wouldn't have to purchase all of them - just a couple of the big boys. Then have said big boys withdrawal from the MPAA cartel.

Problem is, once Google gets one of those, it's going to have to show some sort of profit, else the shareholders will rebel. This in turn leads to behavior designed to maximize profit, which is, well, what the MPAA members are doing.

Now if you can find a way to maximize profit with one of the companies, but without being a dick about it... but that's holy grail stuff.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369333)

They could buy one of them, but anti trust regulations would prevent them buying the rest.

AOL did do that during the dot.com boom, and it didn't work out well for them. I think that would discourage Google from doing the same.

Actually, meta-Streisand (5, Interesting)

srussia (884021) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368531)

First there was the Streisand (unintentionally calling attention to what you don't want publicized),

then the reverse Streisand (intentionally calling attention by demanding suppression of ostensibly unwanted but actually desired publicity),

and now comes the meta-Streisand (unintentionally calling attention to intentional demands that caused unintentional publicity of what you didn't want publicized.)

Re:Actually, meta-Streisand (3, Funny)

nugatory78 (971318) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368599)

if you can pull off all three at the same time, that grants you the power up of mega-Streisand

Actually, mecha-Streisand (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368689)

And what actually is "mega-Streisand"?
Don't you mean mecha-Streisand?

Re:Actually, meta-Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368783)

if you can pull off all three at the same time, that grants you the power up of mega-Streisand

Where are Robert Smith and Sidney Poitier when we need them?

Re:Actually, meta-Streisand (0)

demonbug (309515) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368895)

if you can pull off all three at the same time, that grants you the power up of mega-Streisand

What would Brian Boitano do??

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (1)

OakDragon (885217) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368705)

Again. A pity the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations.

Are you being sarcastic? (My sarcasm meter sometimes lets me down.) Corporations do have first amendment rights.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (2)

SydShamino (547793) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368959)

He meant that corporations can suppress the free speech rights of others, because they themselves are not bound by the first amendment, and also because they can strong-arm the government into giving the corporations pseudo-governmental powers that also sidestep the first amendment.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect... (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369249)

I don't think you understand what the first amendment is. It prevents the govt from controlling speech of its citizens. your comment says that govt can silence corpoarations because the first amenment doesn't apply, and that this is a pity. Is this what you meant to say?

Sorry, the law doesn't work that way (5, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368087)

I'm sorry but even the government is getting their hand slapped over secret proceedings (see the recent rulings regarding national security letters), there's no way we're going to allow companies to hide their actions in a civil matter.

Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368153)

we? "what's this we shit, white man?"

'we' have stopped having control over our laws decades ago.

'they' have control and everyone knows it. you been asleep or something?

Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way (0)

MitchDev (2526834) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368427)

The second any business became "Too big to fail", it was over for the government to represent actual citizens...

Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368545)

who is "they"? people seem to say this a lot, but don't seem to actually know who 'they" are. the government? the wealthy? or just people who get involved rather then sitting around blaming some mysterious group of people who are in control? if there is something about this world you don't like then take some advice, quit spending your time bitching about it and get off your ass and get involved.

Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368679)

who is "they"? people seem to say this a lot, but don't seem to actually know who 'they" are. the government? the wealthy? or just people who get involved rather then sitting around blaming some mysterious group of people who are in control? if there is something about this world you don't like then take some advice, quit spending your time bitching about it and get off your ass and get involved.

" You're no longer part of the system. You are above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We're them. We're they. We are the Men in Black."

Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way (1)

Xeranar (2029624) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368753)

We have complete control over our government. Giving away copies of movies, music, and other media is a crime as it atands in the US. It's a crime more or less everywhere where IP is respected. I'm agreeing it shouldn't be a crime but the system is doing what it has to do. As it stands the industry picks their fights carefully so as not to create groundswell in society against them. It's nothing new for them.

Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368109)

By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts.

See, Alanis, *this* is ironic.

Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. (2)

schlachter (862210) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368349)

By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts.

Ha.."unintentionally"

Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. (1)

isorox (205688) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368415)

By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts.

See, Alanis, *this* is ironic.

It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need are a set of ear plugs

Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368567)

I think her justification for the title of the song was that none of the examples in it were actually ironic... which in itself is ironic.

Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. (1)

Xeranar (2029624) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368773)

That doesn't make it ironic. It makes it obtuse perhaps. Irony is going further into the deep southern US in the antebellum period to escape slavery. I measure irony based on the Huckfinn test. The actual takedown of takedowns seems ironic but it is really based on different reasons so it isn't.

Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368589)

Irony is subjective and malleable. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Almost anything can be ironic or not depending on your point of view, it's specifically defined that way.

Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368825)

Does Google, take action before releasing the requests? I guessing this is not for Youtube but search links to 3rd party websites.

Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43369371)

Argh! Now I've got that stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch.

Wait a minute (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368111)

Was that a comment or a request for a development project?

it is as we have feared. (5, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368127)

Takedown notices have become so widely applied to every aspect of internet content that they have evolved to become self aware.

the DMCA is becoming t2@(35## NO CARRIER

Re:it is as we have feared. (3, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368151)

Now we just need to convince them to take themselves down. Is it wrong to coerce suicide in an artificial lifeform?

Re:it is as we have feared. (4, Funny)

JeanCroix (99825) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368311)

Wrong? Pfft. Not only is it right, but it can be an artform. Let's get the master to do it - bring in Shatner.

Confidentiality not lawful (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368163)

When you send a demand letter it is property of the recipient. They are free to publish it if they wish. A person receiving a DCMA take doewn notice is under no obligation, and in fact would be stupid to, agree to any confidentiality at all. The recipient is under no obligation to do so.

A more pressing area of legal disclosure is charges against otherwise innocent until proven guilty persons. Prosecutors do perp walks, and public news conferences, all the time despite the legal, and ethical, and moral, land mines.

JJ

Unless (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368319)

Unless the takedown notice itself is copyrighted.

Re:Unless (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368389)

Unless the takedown notice itself is copyrighted.

Generally speaking you can't copyright legal notices.

Re:Unless (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368533)

I really is amazing what can't be copyrighted.

Things like databases, lists, recipes, strings of random numbers and letters (activation codes for windows), etc., etc.

Re:Confidentiality not lawful (1)

isorox (205688) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368439)

When you send a demand letter it is property of the recipient. They are free to publish it if they wish. A person receiving a DCMA take doewn notice is under no obligation, and in fact would be stupid to, agree to any confidentiality at all. The recipient is under no obligation to do so.

A more pressing area of legal disclosure is charges against otherwise innocent until proven guilty persons. Prosecutors do perp walks, and public news conferences, all the time despite the legal, and ethical, and moral, land mines.

JJ

And the public laps it up. They don't ask why is an innocent man being bared in front of the camera like he's broken the law.

Re:Confidentiality not lawful (1)

dywolf (2673597) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368635)

National Security Letters would like have a word with you about your assertion about a right to publish.

Re:Confidentiality not lawful (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368737)

Those just got ruled unconstitutional, as is right and proper.

Keanu says (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368175)

WHOA - that's very meta man!

An Easy Problem to Fix (4, Interesting)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368183)

Stop sending takedown notices. You're helping the so-called pirates and by the logic you've used in the past that makes you culpable for their piracy.

Re:An Easy Problem to Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43369239)

Stop sending takedown notices. You're helping the so-called pirates and by the logic you've used in the past that makes you culpable for their piracy.

And in fact, if they never made the content at all, then there would be nothing to 'pirate'. So they are untimately responsible.

And here we are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368221)

Time to start suing the search engines for searching.

Fuck the media industry execs.

Save the industry, go independent. Spread the word.

We are going to start an endless loop.... (4, Funny)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368227)

Now they will send to Slashdot a takedown notice to take down the message about the takedown request they sent to google to take down the list of their takedown requests....

Re:We are going to start an endless loop.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368397)

Now they will send to Slashdot a takedown notice to take down the message about the takedown request they sent to google to take down the list of their takedown requests....

Yo dawg, I heard you like takedown notices so I put a takedown notice on your takedown notice so you can...

Ahh, fuckit, that meme sucks.

Re:We are going to start an endless loop.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368583)

Takedown-ception? Genius!

Let's see if we can come up with an automatically recursive legal structure to waste their time. A catch-22 landmine, if you will... Black hole these idiots and we'll never see them again.

unintentionally (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368267)

"Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material"

Unintentionally, yeah sure they did it unintentionally.

Re:unintentionally (2)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368297)

If there were actually any proof of that allegation, google would be a whole shitpile of trouble.

Re:unintentionally (1)

game kid (805301) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368569)

If the studios do drag Google employees to trial for that, they'd probably argue they were Just Following Orders, due to the company mission [google.com]. Not that the argument would save them, but takedown letters do have information and all...

Re:unintentionally (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368785)

Yes, unintentionally. In fact, the studios requesting the take down of the take down are the ones who gave up that location. They'd love to be able to say "A file at an undisclosed location is in violation of our copyright, but since we don't want to tell you where, please just block all searches for 'X, Y, and Z.'" But, since they have to actually say where they think it's coming from, they have to give up the position themselves.

My programming instructor was right (1)

waddgodd (34934) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368269)

It's true, Recursion IS taking over the world, now even idiocy has been made to work in a recursion loop

Re:My programming instructor was right (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369221)

This is why centers of empire shift slowly over centuries, where the new core forms on the outskirts of the old empire, repeat ad nauseuk.

  Fertile crescent -> Greece -> Rome -> Western Europe -> US, and now -> China

It's not resources being used up -- it's sclerosis. The new empire opens, and keeps open, trade routes. Eventually, for one reason or another, they start lording over themselves with increased taxation, or de facto pseudo-taxation of kickbacks. People give up and move to greener pastures with less overhead.

Recursive feedback loop -- the more government interferes, the more things slow down, and the more they interfere to "fix" things, AKA maintain their own power.

Onward shifts center of empire due to what is essentially a meme-driven disease.

Giant Database (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368295)

Of pirated material that has been mostly taken down. Right. Because that makes a shitton of sense, and it isn't already easy enough to pirate stuff if you want to anyway. They just don't want to look bad.

Re:Giant Database (0)

leuk_he (194174) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368357)

No, If the original links would have been taken down, then they would not need to ask google to bring the index-link down. There are sites that are in foreign countries that are "slow" in processing takedown notices, so the link might still be effective.

Now why would google have outsourced the hosting of take-down notices to chilling-effects.org. ......

Isn't mathematics wonderful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368325)

Can be used for almost anything... even stupidity.

Indexing the URLs (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368413)

Why would you need a skilled coder when the databases are in plain CSV format ?

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/data/ [google.com]

Re:Indexing the URLs (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368555)

Because to most of these sites and executives a CSV file is a magical thing that requires highly talented programmers.

Re:Indexing the URLs (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,14 days | (#43369049)

Sadly, I can attest that this is true. For some state licensing requirments the complaince forms were only allowed to be uploaded in CVS... I was hired to convert Excel spreadsheet data into a format compatible with the state's CVS format.

If it wasn't for these "executive" morons, "talented programmers" like me wouldn't have paid days off, like this one.

Re:Indexing the URLs (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43369193)

Sadly, I can attest that this is true. For some state licensing requirments the complaince forms were only allowed to be uploaded in CVS... I was hired to convert Excel spreadsheet data into a format compatible with the state's CVS format.

If it wasn't for these "executive" morons, "talented programmers" like me wouldn't have paid days off, like this one.

The required CVS format could of been very different to CSV format, and I'm sure Excel does not have a 'Save as CVS' option.

Re:Indexing the URLs (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368963)

Excel reports:
"File not loaded completely."
And then, after clicking help:
"The file contains more than 1,048,576 rows or 16,384 columns. To fix this problem, open the source file in a text editor such as Microsoft Word. ..."

Word reports after a few minutes:
"You have exceeded the maximum number of pages supported by Microsoft Word or this document may be damaged. ..."

See, this requires some skills!

stupid robots (3, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368499)

Some day I'm going to write a page about a "boardwalk game where you manage an empire from your throne" just to see how fast it gets blocked from google search results. Oops, I probably blocked Slashdot just by typing that. The robots who send the notices are amazingly stupid and use leaps of logic that make your average creationist look like an evidence-user.

I'm not saying piracy isn't happening out there, but from what I've seen I bet over 90% of DMCA notices are bogus. If anyone is crawling chilling-effects looking for juicy links to yummy forbidden files, boy are they going to be disappointed. They'll learn that someone's CS101 web crawling assignment has been emailing google about every damn page it finds.

Anyway, since in this case, the content's provenance is systematically known, they can confidently ignore the DMCA notices, as though they virtually received a counter-notice from within their own organization. No need to take anything down. Non-story, other than highlighting how amazingly bad the robots are, and that the special legal obligation created by them, probably ought to be removed or else notice-senders should be held accountable. Congress, do something about that. Can't someone just anonymously slip it into the budget bill?

Why are they even sending them to Google? (2)

void* (20133) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368507)

Shouldn't those film studios be sending DMCA takedown notices to whatever ISP/etc is actually hosting that content, and not Google, who is not hosting that content?

Foreign sites (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368627)

Shouldn't those film studios be sending DMCA takedown notices to whatever ISP/etc is actually hosting that content

Not all countries have a counterpart to the notice and takedown procedure used by the United States.

Re:Why are they even sending them to Google? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368707)

Shouldn't those film studios be sending DMCA takedown notices to whatever ISP/etc is actually hosting that content, and not Google, who is not hosting that content?

Heavens, no! That'd be expensive and time-consuming! And we all know how destitute and poor Hollywood is! Just look at how many people pirate their stuff[1]! And so many movies do so poorly to begin with, they don't even have the money to pay screenwriters or lowly actors[2]!

[1] Source: Hollywood
[2] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why are they even sending them to Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368893)

Under the DMCA, Google can't be sued for contributory infringement if their index is built by robots and they follow takedown notices from copyright owners for allegedly infringing links ("Safe Harbor.") The alternative would be having to vet everything added to their index to avoid lawsuits or just not run a search engine at all. Without DMCA there would be no Google, or YouTube, or WordPress, or GitHub, or Flickr, or Facebook, etc...

Critically important (5, Interesting)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368515)

By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts. 'It would only take one skilled coder to index the URLs from the DMCA notices in order to create one of the largest pirate search engines available,' wrote Torrent Freak editor Ernesto Van Der Sar on the site."

I stumbled on one of these notices filed by the RIAA yesterday, and it seems not only reasonable but important for the notice to be posted, including the relevant URL; otherwise, how will I know that the site hosting the illegal material is doing so illegally? I looked at the site in question, and they most certainly didn't include any notice that downloading that particular song was a violation of copyright. But because of the notice that Google linked to, I knew that I shouldn't do it.

It seems to me that MPAA and RIAA want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Re:Critically important (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368603)

Google could do a simple API letting you search the URLs. Or they could publish a hashed version of the URLs along with code for the hash.

There are a number of was that would give you what you want without actually publishing the URL.

Re:Critically important (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368651)

also they would like your cake, they don't need it, they just want it.

This was done by accident? (5, Insightful)

Stormin (86907) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368519)

By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts.

I thought that was kind of the whole point of the things being posted?

I have the solution... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368541)

When you own the government, you dont have to obey laws.

I thought you can't copyright legalese? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368681)

Is this true? Can anyone provide a link to the statute? If you can't copyright a legal notice, what does it say about Google when the oblige to invalid requests?

Yo Dawg, (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368741)

I heard you like takedown notices.......

Too late Double DMCA JEOPARDY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368749)

I for one welcome of DMCA created Uber torrent Overlord.

Copyright on legal documents? Don't think so (1)

erroneus (253617) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368761)

It's not a creative work. It's something they wish to censor. That should be another law or something.

But that's what they believe the DMCA is for. After all, that's how they USE it right? Censoring other peoples' content and the like?

Re:Copyright on legal documents? Don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43369103)

Oh, come on. They're not claiming copyright on the legal documents.
If it is contributory infringement for Google to link to the warez, then how is it okay to post the legal documents that link to them?

If it were copyrighted.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43369127)

If it were copyrighted, then by default Google would need a license to read the notice. Which would have to be agreed to by Google and Google would have to have the right to refuse, else it is not a binding agreement. If Google do not agree to the terms of the license for the take-down notice, then they cannot read it. And if Google cannot read it, then Google has not been served with notice of infringing content. And if Google hasn't been served with notice of infringing content, they don't have any requirement under DMCA rules to do anything about it.

If Google are bound to accept the license terms by the DMCA ammendments, then it cannot be a binding agreement on Google, therefore they would still be able to post it, no matter what the license says.

I have the solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43368817)

Stop submitting take down notices..

More Likely (3, Insightful)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | 1 year,14 days | (#43368949)

The Movie industry does not want it known how active they are at sending take down notices. After all the price we all pay for movies goes up as there effort to do this sort of activity goes up. The 'take down tax'.

There is also the big brother bad guy protecting their profit against the little guy public relations problem. They certainly would like all that take down to happen behind the scenes where no one notices.

They are trying to do some damage control.

'Do no evil' (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43369067)

Just too funny!

Frist PPsot.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43369073)

Are there? Let's Be a lot slower work that you May be hurAting the future at all

So now 'anti-piracy' means secret courts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43369279)

The takedown notices are legal documents that the US constitution demands are available for public inspection. Secrecy is granted in legal actions rarely, and only in very specific forms of cases where it is deemed that openness would risk serious harm to individuals.

The copying, by individuals, of films and TV shows CANNOT be considered a serious reason to damage constitutional protections, regardless of what the depraved criminal, Rupert Murdoch may claim. Murdoch was the mastermind behind the greatest program of illegal phone-tapping in the UK, and during his commercial competition with competing satellite broadcasters in Europe, had his Israeli division of News International illegally hack the 'access cards' used by the other companies, and had counterfeit versions of these cards flood Europe. Murdoch gets away with his crimes, because he is the official 'Goebbels' for the regimes of both the UK and USA.

The ability to view the 'takedown' notices is essential, for it allows us to see firstly that they are often illegally generated by automatic computer programs with no Human oversight, and that as a consequence, frequently target vast numbers of sites that have nothing to do with the claimed infringement.

Murdoch wants his censorship to be secret, just as he doesn't want you to know that he has created the software systems (for Gates of Microsoft fame) that will gather EVERY private and intimate data about your child at school in the USA, and share that data un-vetted with any third-party willing to pay the fee. The Gates Foundation has created the greatest tool for actual pedophiles the planet has ever seen. There is massive correlation between the status of a child (and the child's family) and the likelihood that abuse of that child will be discovered or reported. Bill Gates has purposely created a computer system that allows child abusers identify the 'best' areas and families within a city or town. Gates' database even includes medical details of your kids, including their developmental status. In the UK, a Gates like figure, Jimmy Savile, also operated in full public view, with the same level of connections to children's charities, hospitals and schools.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...