×

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!

Copyright Takedown Requests to Google Doubled In 2013

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the history-is-no-more dept.

Censorship 117

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Last month, a company working on behalf of the publisher Random House, asked Google to remove links to a free copy of Stephen King's Carrie from search results. Google complied for three out of the four requested links, but didn't remove Kim Dotcom's new website Mega.co.nz as requested — for even if Mega is hosting pirated copies of Carrie, they sure aren't on the homepage. But leaving that link up was an exception to the rule. More and more, copyright owners and the organizations they employ are cutting off where the websites and the public meet — the search engine. Google's transparency reports show that requests to remove links to copyrighted material rose steadily in 2013. The search giant received 6.5 million requests during the week of November 18, 2013, which is over twice as many as the same week a year ago. Google said it complies with 97 percent of requests." I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

117 comments

New Search Engine (4, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 5 months ago | (#45580037)

We need a search engine that only searches DMCA takedown requests.

Google is halfway there, publishing every(?) takedown request they get.

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

Re:New Search Engine (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#45580253)

Actually, that's where I usually find the best torrents. I do the search, hit the take down request and thanks to Firefoxes "right-click open link" I can download them right off the DMCA request. It's awesome. If I have to look through the google links, most of them are scams or spam... the DMCA requests give me a nice consolidated list of content I'm actually interested in.

Watching the media industry try and fight file sharing is like watching someone you really dislike struggling in quicksand... with a snake wrapped around them... they keep spitting at you and throwing rocks, but that just makes it all the better as you watch them slowly sinking towards their ultimate doom. Actually, I'm prolly pull out someone I really hate... the media industry however can die.

Re:New Search Engine (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580485)

So you only download torrents that the copyright owners are aware of? That sounds like a fantastic way to be named in a John Doe suit.

Re:New Search Engine (1)

Neuroelectronic (643221) | about 5 months ago | (#45580573)

Assuming you can ID me by my IP

Re:New Search Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580681)

So, what do you do to prevent that?

Re:New Search Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581033)

Leave your WiFi open to the world.
Use TOR proxies.

Re:New Search Engine (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581503)

Use parents open WiFi.

Re:New Search Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581831)

Leave your WiFi open to the world. Use TOR proxies.

If you think the first one is a good defence you might be in for a rude awakening. Courts don't see it this way.

Re:New Search Engine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45582237)

Court didn't see nigger as peoples too, but that has changed. Court are never reference for what is right or wrong, they are only tool to enforce fascisms.

If there is enough 'open wifi' case, they will eventually come to reason. Subject someone to torture and imprisonment because some anonymous criminal walked over your lawn is abusive.

Re:New Search Engine (0)

Wootery (1087023) | about 5 months ago | (#45583753)

Court are never reference for what is right or wrong, they are only tool to enforce fascisms

Right, which is why people in countries without stable law & order are doing so well compared to the rest of us...

Your anarchist trolling needs work.

Re:New Search Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45584157)

I am not an anarchist and I never made such claim. What I said is that fascism is required for society to work. Freedom is a denial of the obvious truth. We should accept that we are mere peasant without rights, freedom or purpose. Trying to find a little bit of happiness wherever we can should be enough because it is all we have anyway.

Re:New Search Engine (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 5 months ago | (#45582129)

Play the odds. Participate, and don't sweat about it.

You have a greater chance of being killed in an auto accident, or struck by lightning, than ever being hit with one of those infamous copyright shakedown notices. They've abused the John Doe suit process too often, as well as several other legal avenues, and the courts have gotten tired of that. There's growing recognition that piracy is not something the law can stop, and that trying to do so is a waste of the public's money and time. There are even whispers that piracy shouldn't be considered a crime, and realization that it is certainly not theft and that it was an error to try to frame copying as a form of theft or go along with that thinking when others tried to do so. Many of us have realized for some time that the real problem is not the entire body public, but rather their business model, and that there are other ways to profit from artistic endeavor It's not our fault that they refuse to even acknowledge that these other ways exist and can work.

They are cowardly terrorists anyway. They are less likely to pick on you if you belong to a demographic that is more likely or able to fight back, that is, you aren't a helpless old lady or a teenage delinquent from a broken household. They've been trying to score easy wins by carefully picking their targets, then using these wins in their campaign of terror, to "send a message". We should continue to send back the message that we won't be scared into not sharing.

Re:New Search Engine (1)

Camembert (2891457) | about 5 months ago | (#45580523)

>> the media industry however can die.

So, if it dies, which new movies will you enjoy?

Re:New Search Engine (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580579)

>> the media industry however can die.

So, if it dies, which new movies will you enjoy?

Gosh, whatever will I do with 2,729,202 unwatched hours of Netflix content. I'm not sure I'll be able to find anything within the 2,714 genres...

Re:New Search Engine (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 5 months ago | (#45580677)

Really there is a lot I can do without exposing myself to the rot that is TV/Movies. There are a few interesting shows here and there but nothing I'd miss.

With games and books plus the existing media, I can't believe I'll be totally bored. And push comes to shove, I can take a motorcycle ride and just enjoy the sights without the big black border around it :)

[John]

Re:New Search Engine (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#45580919)

just like tech employment: no one wants to pay american rates anymore and so the foreign market steps up to fill the void.

same with films and music: if the 'big players' can't be bothered anymore, smaller guys will step up and fill the void.

we will always have music and movies. and if the big guys go chap 11, it will be a Good Thing(tm) in disguise.

Re:New Search Engine (4, Insightful)

Camembert (2891457) | about 5 months ago | (#45581389)

I am all for modestly budgeted yet highly creative movies from all over the globe. At the same time, it is unlikely that a movie like Gravity (my favourite film of 2013 despite the scientific errors) would have been possible at that technical quality level outside Hollywood.

Re:New Search Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581857)

just like tech employment: no one wants to pay american rates anymore and so the foreign market steps up to fill the void.

same with films and music: if the 'big players' can't be bothered anymore, smaller guys will step up and fill the void.

we will always have music and movies. and if the big guys go chap 11, it will be a Good Thing(tm) in disguise.

This has been the theory, that the need for new business models in music will hit the stars and grow the indie base, but it seems to me music is moving in the exactly opposite direction. There is an increased concentration on hit stars, who seem to be best able to thrive in this new model.

Re:New Search Engine (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 5 months ago | (#45584341)

just like tech employment: no one wants to pay american rates anymore and so the foreign market steps up to fill the void.

same with films and music: if the 'big players' can't be bothered anymore, smaller guys will step up and fill the void.

we will always have music and movies. and if the big guys go chap 11, it will be a Good Thing(tm) in disguise.

That's what's happening here - our government (BC, Canada) decided to not do the race to the bottom in film tax credits (in order to compete with other provinces), much to the hue and cry of the local production firms. Whether that's good or not, remains to be seen, though there is a drop off in the number of productions actually done here.

Instead, they started pursuing overseas film contracts - notably Bollywood. Of course, much bellyaching also happened, for Bollywood films are typically low budget (compared to Hollywood) and have much less effects and post production.

Of course, one of the arguments against film and tax credits is that the benefits really go towards the 1% in the US and that the money would be better spent on local industry than help making the rich get richer. (And Hollywood knows it - they routinely play locations off one another to get more and more tax credits). Depending on who you ask, it goes either way - either that money generates more tax revenues than the credits cost, or it's about the same. (No one argues less, because then it's obvious that it's far cheaper ot just pay those guys directly).

Re:New Search Engine (1)

rjch (544288) | about 5 months ago | (#45581075)

So, if it dies, which new movies will you enjoy?

About as many as I currently do. Basically none.

Whatever new movies are produced. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45582241)

Even if they turn out to be plays rather than movies.

What are actors going to do if there are no movies? Take up carpentry or accountancy??

No, they'll find more jobs acting in things that aren't movies.

PS why is it that a risk of no movies being made means we must have copyright?

Re:New Search Engine (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#45582285)

On that note, is there anything to stop someone creating and archive and search engine of Google's published DMCA takedown notices? Effectively a site that acts as a DMCA archive and provides easy access to all taken down URLs and their associated request details?

Re:New Search Engine (2)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 5 months ago | (#45580271)

I am happy to report that Google's YouTube branch is slightly better. I got an IP challenge for a video composed of short clips from multiple Bob Dylan interviews (it is amazing how often that guy got asked the same thing for over 42 years). I was actually able to challenge it both times, both currently under review. It was a little bit of a blurry process, since one challenge it was not immediately clear to me where I was using anything from "Bob Dylan-Conversation II", then I discovered that was another name for a Studs Terkel interview I was using a short clip from, from another source. BTW, all of the clips are credited on the video.

Anyway, hopefully the obvious fair use will prevail and anybody interested in what the guy has to say about himself can watch the thing.

Still sucks (5, Interesting)

zaywot (3433807) | about 5 months ago | (#45580695)

I have friend who's a slightly computerhobic musician. They were so proud about learning how to synthesize on their computer, that they decided to try making a YouTube video. They spent hours peerfecting some classical piece (Handel, I think). They created a YouTube account, figured out how to put the mp3 to a static picture, and posted it privately, intending to figure out how to animate the music score. Before they had the chance, (and while the video was still private), they got a takedown notice. They were totally in a panic that this could impact their day job. I helped them put together a counter notice. When they got the demand to "prove" they owned the content, there was much more panic. Even though the-powers-that-be took the notice away, there was nobody they couldd call about the notice, nobody but me for them to yell at about how unfair it was.

Upshot: to this day, they've never gone back to finish that video, and publish it. And if you talk to them about synthesizing music, instead of happy pride, you hear panicy shuddering and unhappiness.

I think there's a serious imbalance of power when legitimate owners have to prove their innocence, and the spawners of that notice get off with no consequences. How do we fix this?

Re:Still sucks (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580925)

Use a media sharing service that does not care about DMCA notices. May I suggest several alternatives. [google.com]

Re:Still sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581001)

This might be the wrong thing to admit here, but I did try to do it as a torrent, but somehow I missed a step or something. Do I have to change the file extension or something?

Re:Still sucks (3, Insightful)

Krojack (575051) | about 5 months ago | (#45581111)

Every time a copyright claim is made against a Youtube account and it turns out to be false, the company that made the claim needs to be punished in some way such as a fine. Maybe Google can send them bills for every false claim. This could force them to make sure the copyright claim they made are legit.

Either way, something needs to be done to stop them from claiming anything and everything right off the bat.

Re:Still sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581755)

I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).

Quote from the /. story..

This is because the neo-communists that run the record/film/book industry do not want people creating on there own, they're dictators, so much for a "free market", unless they can own you themselves or have the ability too, your are stuck on the outside looking in.

You could suggest using other video driven web sites besides the defunct "we are about your freedoms" Gaagle. Even use the cloud to distribute the music, I love how politicians are more concerned with Healthcare.org, and other petty bullshit, meanwhile this take down of anything these communists demand continues to get out of control, it great to watch them struggle with there pathetic notions that piracy (which isn't linked to loss of revenue) is somehow destroying there monopolies.
And the little guy/gal that isn't infringing on anybodies "copyright" gets attacked, it is a little ironic you friends are being attacked, and yet you have countless people posting solo, or band videos, in which they are playing someone elses music, (good or bad) being left up.

Re:New Search Engine (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 5 months ago | (#45580665)

We need a button for Media Company takedown.
Everytime someone pushes it, it VOTES down the server of the media company. Now if a whole lot of people were to ping..er..I mean vote, we could keep media companies off the internet until they get with the program, change their ways and release all the artists from contract, come out with their hands up and their pants down and kiss our asses till the cows come home.
I think that's only fair for the tolerance we've exhibited for their existence so far.
Hey, it's time to make them pay for Disco, Reruns, Sequels, 8 track tape, Vanilla Ice, Ronald Reagan, DCMA, and all the people they've been ripping off for far more than a century now , especially us. Fuck em, we don't owe them a living! Make them get real jobs.

MegaFail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580057)

They should actually be grateful to google for helping find the files on the internet that they claim infringe. They can then contact the web hosts that have the files to get them removed. They are not my files, I did not put them there, stfu.

Re:MegaFail (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 5 months ago | (#45580099)

They should actually be grateful to google for helping find the files on the internet that they claim infringe. They can then contact the web hosts that have the files to get them removed. They are not my files, I did not put them there, stfu.

But a lot of the time, they don't really care if the content is available -- what they care about is whether they've got a cut of the action. Google, by linking to the sites, is acting like a publicist and distributor -- and that's exactly the role that publishing houses are in. Therefore, Google is the competitor, and must be silenced. After they're silenced, then the publishing house can approach the hoster and talk license fees.

Pass more laws? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580091)

Don't worry content providers will just buy some new laws...

Maybe we can have a "war of the robots"? Google's web crawler finds stuff and the content providers have faster automated DMCA takedown notices?

This entire thing is a mess and only getting worse:
- YouTube scans music and sometimes mismatches public domain material with "copyrighted" material (public domain guitar solo of Bach comes to mind).
- "fair-use" is out the window.
- Selling "ringtones" for songs you already paid for (yeah, separate license, cant use it as a ring tone without additional license fees).

They need to start enforcing both sides of the law, if you put in a false DMCA takedown you should be held accountable. /rant>

Can we find and kill the idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580103)

who decided a link can be infringement?

Mod parent up (2)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#45582273)

Ultimately this is where it all started to go wrong, when we lost the war as to whether a link could or couldn't be infringing.

We need a roll back and a retrial that determines that a link can't be any more against the law than pointing at someone's open front door can be incitement to rob the place.

If the media industries want to go after unlicensed content then it should be simply about them going straight after people who have the actual content on their hard drives and nothing else. If they can't do that, or that's too hard, or time consuming? tough shit. It's a business decision, either it's worth your time to chase up or it's not, if it's not then don't go manipulating the law in your favour to bypass well established historical precedent on such issues like the right to a trial if you're accused of a crime rather than the corporate summary judgements that are DMCA takedown notices and their enforcement.

THE SOLUTION ! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580115)

The final solution...

Since Google complies with 97 percent of the requests, we start a crowdsourced effort to digitize every law firm letterheads in the world, and start sending bogus takedown notices for EVERY Film Preview, Trailer, Announcement, everything the majors, publishers and media giants dare to put online.

With a little organization and templates for the letters, we can paralyze this nonsense, flood it and render it useless.

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580155)

False takedowns under the DMCA are kind of a federal offense, unless you're a huge media corporation apparently.

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (5, Interesting)

HiThere (15173) | about 5 months ago | (#45580357)

That depends on how you do it (though the fake letterhead is improper).

If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.

But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (3, Informative)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 5 months ago | (#45582245)

If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.

You might want to seek legal advice before attempting this. Get a photo of the lawyer's face on hearing your plan.

But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)

Prosecution is pretty rare. Still, if you have a person acting on your behalf, claiming you can act in bad faith is like saying you can get away with burglary if you manage to convince some else to break in to a house under the pretence that it's your house and you forgot your keys. Again, suggest this to the lawyer and check their facial expressions. The consultation will cost money, but the resulting photos could form a new meme!

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580491)

It's illegal to claim copyright for something you don't own the copyright for. It isn't illegal to mistakenly identify something else as the thing you have copyright for.

So it would be illegal for me to send a takedown notice for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPVWy1tFXuc [youtube.com] claiming that I owned the copyright for "The Hobbit" films. But I could send a takedown notice claiming that the film at that URL was actually video I took at my friend's wedding (which I legitimately do hold the copyright to). The part that's under the penalty of perjury is the part where I claim ownership of a specific copyright, not the part where I claim that a URL is hosting material that infringes on that copyright.

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 months ago | (#45580899)

But I could send a takedown notice claiming that the film at that URL was actually video I took at my friend's wedding (which I legitimately do hold the copyright to).

All the better; if you own a couple hundred copyright works -- and claim something in the video as an infringement, because it contains elements "strikingly similar" to your video footage of trees and grass, and your audio recordings of various nature sounds.

A single frame, or sound is enough. The more works you list alleged to be infringed, the more examples you find, the better

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580159)

Or... Legally...

1. Stop watching/buying the shit they put out; and
2. Tell your friends why you feel they should stop watching/buying it.

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580609)

Or... Legally...

1. Stop watching/buying the shit they put out; and
2. Tell your friends why you feel they should stop watching/buying it.

Uh, no. This shit never works. I learned long ago that crowdsourcing against human stupidity is a wasted effort.

There aren't enough Facebook friends to choke out one of the huge conglomerates before they would literally sue their former customers into spending money with them again through some new obscure federally mandated anti-terrorist tax.

coming soon: The Affordable Films Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580917)

Through our new government film exchanges you can shop for the movies that are right for you and your family! If you don't want to buy any of the movies on the Affordable Films Act exchange you will be fined!

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (2)

bob_super (3391281) | about 5 months ago | (#45580171)

Don't do that, you're going to upset The Job Creators!!!

The Google jobs creators, that is, since 3% of "6.5 million requests during the week of November 18, 2013" means they need a whole lot of Google employees to process and deny so many takedown notices.
Because this is a delicate legal process which has to be done carefully and could not be automated for fear of mistakes or overreach, you know.

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 5 months ago | (#45580869)

Actually the reason why boycotts never work against the *.A.As is that they use "PPT Math" which means they always win. Let me give an example..

Evil corp, lets call them FNJ, has an artist, lets say Titney Steers is her name, that sold X amount last year. So the PHBs come up with a PPT that shows that if they sold X last year thanks to their incredible "shit don't stink(TM)" ad campaign then album Y MUST sell X*Y...if it don't? why its teh evil piratez and they take the PPT to their congress whores and gets more draconian laws and copyright extensions, its a win/win for them!

So you see if every single person on the planet outright refused to so much as listen to Titney Steers new "I'm a big skanky Ho" single they would just get more laws, maybe if they bribed enough even a "too big to fail" bailout, so they CAN NOT LOSE no matter which way they go!

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580323)

I'm going to agree with the guy below.

Not saying its you, but clearly people are paying for this stuff so they will continue to produce it and maximize their revenues (DMCA takedown notices to stop piracy, SOPA/PIPA, and various forms of FUD).

The other day there was an article in the news about how they arrested a counterfeit ring and how the merchandise is "potentially unsafe". Further they label it "cheap junk" then state it was "worth $6.5 Million". So which is, worth millions or junk? It was counterfeit handbags, what is the worst it can do, break?
The counterfeit items were probably from the same factory as the "original" and this is just more FUD to make sure you pay that huge "brand premium license fees" for what is essentially made in China stuff anyhow.

Try going to a live show or something else instead of buying stuff from the *AA groups if you dont like their behaviour.

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 5 months ago | (#45581237)

Interestingly, if you don't copy the name or logo of the brand, you can sell a perfect replica (or "unsafe cheap junk") without any "intellectual property" laws standing in your way. Only trademarks are considered IP in fashion. All of fashion, much larger than all the copyright industry put together, survives with rampant "piracy" and no laws to stop it, let alone massively abused over-regulation like DMCA.

Hell, the shoe industry alone is 40% larger than the entire global music industry.

[Actually footwear probably has tech patents in addition to trademarks.]

It's bizarre how much the copyright industry has convinced people that it is this huge important thing that must be protected, when actually it's pretty trivial. I say nationalise the whole industry, then kill copyright entirely. Bam! Done. All that angst, all that fussing, all goes away. And one by one, without the US lobby constantly at them, other countries will follow. Global freedom.

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45582407)

Cheap junk?, I even saw counterfeit clothes that are better quality than the originals, this is due to the drop in quality by the brands and not because of a great counterfeit.

Re:THE SOLUTION ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580751)

While we're at it, let's send false GPL infringement notices too!

DMCA Counter-notice (4, Informative)

HaeMaker (221642) | about 5 months ago | (#45580139)

I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).

Really? [lmgtfy.com]

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (1)

game kid (805301) | about 5 months ago | (#45580203)

Even if Lamer thought that was a de facto no-go, he could've just reported the details on some tech news site like...oh I dunno...TechDirt?

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580225)

1. Google receives a bogus complaint about your work from one of its copyright buddies via the automated process it created for them.
2. Google stops supplying links to your work in its search results.
3. ???
4. You don't profit.

Note that DMCA notices and counter notices have nothing to do with this process.

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#45580653)

5. Google doesn't profit from your Google Ads on your website.

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45582839)

Is there a joke I'm missing here? Google profits as a middleman for all their ads.

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 5 months ago | (#45584807)

You missed the post he was responding to. If no one can find the website, no one can view their ads

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (1)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about 5 months ago | (#45580279)

You need legal standing to do that, and that means they have to get your name right when they take it down... otherwise, you have to prove you are actually the creator before filing the counter notice. And, since an individual doesn't have a legal team, it's effectively been made impossible. The legal system is a joke at this point...

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 5 months ago | (#45580341)

Could you give any reference whatsoever to bolster your claim, or are we simply supposed to take your legal thoughts as fact?

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580513)

I would cite them for you but they've all been DMCA'ed.

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580533)

Sounds like bullshit. Care to point to a person with acknowledged legal understanding to back that up? Why should anyone believe your interpretation of the law? Your job is editing a couple of ~100 word submissions a couple times a week and you fail at it spectacularly.

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#45580375)

Even if you file a counter-notice, it is still taken down. You aren't notified before the takedown of intent to take down, and if you counter-notice it remains up until the matter is resolved. The item would be taken down (even if only temporarily) when DMCA requested.

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580527)

Previous music distribution site owner here(www.hulkshare.com). Dealt with this kind of nonsense all the time. Hundreds of DMCA bots sending thousands of notices daily - and not just to us but our bandwidth providers as well. DMCA takedown bots are best countered with identical tactics.

Example: User signs up for you to host their files. Part of the EULA is that the owner in good faith asserts his or her content is theirs, or legally distributable by them. This allow you to automate responses to the DMCA bots, the moment the takedown notice comes in, your automation sends the appropriate rebuttal informing them that you also act in good faith that the content is legally able to be distributed via your site. This gives the original DMCA sender N days to challenge your own DMCA challenge. The act(and documentation of the act) of sending this response nullifies their request. You always CC your upstream bandwidth provider as well. Once you get these notices, you have 24 hours to react - and you can be reasonably sure they also received the same request you did. If they don't see you handling it, they will cut your access off(and presumably your entire site) to avoid legal action against them for not complying with the request.

When I ran things, we employed someone full time to sift through DMCA notices to find counter-notices to our original rebuttals. Those ones you actually had to act on, or you'll lose your ass in court - and they _will_ take you. Grandma and Grandpa may just get nasty letters and requests for money - but once they know they have a business with pockets (deep or not) on the hook, you can expect civil filings. If you ignore a 2nd notice in response to your rebuttal, you'll get a notice for obstructing their original notice by sending a false rebuttal - and a notice that a civil case is pending against John Doe. Shortly after expect a 1) summons 2) request for discovery of 'John Doe', and finally 3) a 'deal' you can settle for to avoid your sites' name ending up in civil court.

The only way to fail with DMCA takedowns is to ignore them. After 24 hours without either 1) removing content, or 2) sending appropriate challenge: they will have your upstream bandwidth provider cut you off(and be within their "legal rights" to do so, whatever passes for those these days).

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#45582559)

You need to move your business outside of the US, to somewhere with a saner legal system. Then when you get a DMCA request you can just respond with "not applicable in this jurisdiction" and perma-block the address. Maybe report it to some anti-spam blocklists, since that's all it is.

Seriously, who would be crazy enough to run any kind of media stream/file storage/innovative website in the US these days?

Re:DMCA Counter-notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580607)

Did you not understand he meant w/o hiring a law firm?

Beg to Differ (2)

Oysterville (2944937) | about 5 months ago | (#45580237)

without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays

My experience with lawyers has really been contrary to this statement.

Change the business model (0, Troll)

Scowler (667000) | about 5 months ago | (#45580265)

Google+YouTube benefit financially when they only minimally follow the DMCA rules, and put the cost of policing rights violations entirely on rights holders. This is especially galling when Google+YouTube "earn" ad revenue on pages alongside rights violations. This model is wrong, and unfair. Google+YouTube should have a much stronger financial disincentive in place against facilitating rights violations, at least to the point where they are more proactive about it and don't simply wait for takedown notices to flow in. In other words, yes, the DMCA actually doesn't go far enough.

Re:Change the business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580345)

How about when the industry settles for price fixing which they have done multiple times in the past ( http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement_x.htm)

Or doesnt pay royalties (effectively piracy) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates/

If it was a private citizen charged with distribution of unlicensed material the fine is what, $20,000 per song?

Shouldn't the industry they pay more then a private citizen as a demonstration that these piracy laws are important?

Re: Change the business model (0)

Scowler (667000) | about 5 months ago | (#45580389)

I'm making no statement regarding how violators themselves should be handled. All I'm saying is, no legitimate enterprise should be rewarded for helping these violators, even if that help only amounts to putting on blindfolders. The cost of enforcement should be more evenly distributed, particularly if ad revenue is involved.

Re:Change the business model (4, Insightful)

Cytotoxic (245301) | about 5 months ago | (#45580413)

I really couldn't disagree more. It is one thing to claim that "information wants to be free" and disavow copyrights altogether, but simply pointing to a location and saying "this is what exists at website.com" should always be protected speech under all circumstances. I really can't think of any justification for preventing someone from pointing out a true fact about where something is located. Not even if it were something much worse than a bootleg copy of a concert video or a copy of a Hollywood DVD - like something really both illegal and immoral, such as kiddie porn.

That is all that google does. "Hey, you can find a web page that contains the words "banana hammock" at this address". I don't care what words you substitute for "banana Hammock" and what content you actually find at the web address, simply pointing to it should in all cases be a protected expression of the right to free speech. I don't care if you earn 8 trillion dollars for saying it, or it costs you three bucks and a half-eaten snickers bar to say it, the financial arrangements around your speech are perfectly irrelevant to your right to speak.

Re: Change the business model (0)

Scowler (667000) | about 5 months ago | (#45580475)

Agreed that simply posting links to hosted content is less of an issue than hosting it on YouTube directly, but it still amounts to facilitating rights violations. I don't know if doing so should be illegal per se, just that doing so should hurt Google's bottom line, in such a way that they proactively try to prevent it.

Re: Change the business model (1, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 5 months ago | (#45580629)

Agreed that simply posting links to hosted content is less of an issue than hosting it on YouTube directly, but it still amounts to facilitating rights violations

Free speech is a real right. Copy"right" is a synthetic one. Free speech trumps copyright each and every time.

Re: Change the business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580667)

Then why is the MLK speech which was done in public protected and everyone continues looking for ways to monetize it?

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2013/08/dr-kings-dream-speech-protected-under-copyright-un.html

Repeat his speech in public an see which "right" trumps which...

Re: Change the business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581575)

There are no real rights. If the society around you decide syou don't have the right to say "freedom". Then you don't. Yes, you still can, as you can murder someone, or distribute some copyrighted works, but that's not your right anymore, because it's not granted to you by the powers that be. If the sentence for saying "freedom" is death then it is. IT's illegal, and not a right in any way.

Re: Change the business model (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580641)

How does "fair use" come into play here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

If i make a video of my cat and lay down an audio track should this fall under "fair use"? Will youtube flags it as a copyright violation?

This sort of thing is "copyright escalation" which gradually chips away public rights in favor of rights holders.

Cant remember the link, but i was looking for royalty free music the other day for youtube to avoid this sort of problem. Someone recorded a Bach song on his guitar and warns you cant use it on youtube as it will be flagged.

Bach (21 March 1685) getting royalty checks as the composer?
Did the person who recorded his song and manage to protect it pay Bach a royalty?

It seems commercializing the public domain is a disturbing trend.

Re: Change the business model (1, Offtopic)

Cytotoxic (245301) | about 5 months ago | (#45580765)

Agreed that simply posting links to hosted content is less of an issue than hosting it on YouTube directly, but it still amounts to facilitating rights violations. I don't know if doing so should be illegal per se, just that doing so should hurt Google's bottom line, in such a way that they proactively try to prevent it.

Let's try explaining it by absurd example.

I don't know that Scowler complaining to his friends about the drug dealers that hang out behind the 7-11 should be illegal per se, but it still amounts to facilitating illicit drug use. I'm not saying he should go to jail, just that providing information about the location of drug dealers should hurt Scowler's pocketbook, in such a way that he'll proactively try to prevent it.

Substitute any other behavior you'd like for drugs in this silly vignette and you'll see why your financial solution is no improvement. I'm not saying that homosexuality should be illegal per se, just that engaging in that behavior should affect your bottom line...

Free speech is free speech. Anything that chips away at our right to freely express our ideas is an abomination. "Facilitating rights violations" is an absurd, made-up weasel word to get around protections for free speech. Substituting financial penalties for criminal violations doesn't change the calculus at all. And no, the fact that there are government officials at the highest levels who agree with you doesn't make you right, it just makes it more terrifying.

None of that means that there isn't a real problem that the entertainment industry has to face with piracy. It just means that I'm not willing to trade any of my freedom for their security. And you shouldn't be willing to make that trade either.

Re: Change the business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581663)

New poster to this thread here.

The difference between Google and a human providing the location of where to find drugs is that it's much easier for a human to filter out that response. Who is going to pay Google to enhance their algorithm to filter out results? Even if Google does a case-by-case basic, of filtering out results, doesn't that put excess burden on them? Isn't Google providing search results in good faith? Even their auto-complete isn't acting malicious. See: http://search.slashdot.org/story/13/01/23/0056204/

Search results being totally different than hosting, as the hosters need to take action if someone files a complaint. But the individual user is whom they should be going after, not the search engine and not the company hosting the site (unless the hoster is ignoring the requests).

Re: Change the business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580767)

Maybe you would like google (and the rest) to first ask the media trolls if they may put up a link to a site they just crawled prior to listing it? You get it now? Maybe if the media trolls had their own network, with their own pipes and their own infrastructure, they could demand something like this. Unless they do, they can go and fuck off.

PS: Captcha: educator ;)

Re: Change the business model (2)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#45581233)

I don't know if doing so should be illegal per se, just that doing so should hurt Google's bottom line, in such a way that they proactively try to prevent it.

I don't think it should be illegal at all, personally, but courts have ruled repeatedly that linking can and often does constitute contributory infringement, going back to the original 2600 ruling. Bottom line nothing, Google is legally obligated to comply and the courts could get really nasty with them if they just refused.

(Disclaimer: I am a Google employee, but that has nothing to do with this post. I've been fascinated with online copyright law for decades, and you can find many examples of me saying exactly the same things long before I started writing code for Google.)

Re:Change the business model (1)

module0000 (882745) | about 5 months ago | (#45580613)

This model is wrong, and unfair. Google+YouTube should have a much stronger financial disincentive in place against facilitating rights violations, at least to the point where they are more proactive about it and don't simply wait for takedown notices to flow in. In other words, yes, the DMCA actually doesn't go far enough.

Why? Would you like more ads, or perhaps you would like to pay a subscription fee to access Goole+YouTube? Labor is not free. How do you propose they pay the people who will implement your suggestions?

Also, so that myself and other copyright holders can empathize with you....what copyrighted works of yours have they abused? I mean, it would be rather illogical for someone who holds 0 copyrights to post your comment. Certainly you have created something of worth(that happens to be copyrighted), and you aren't just a troll.

Holy shit, and fuck you. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580407)

I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).

Really?!? That's the best you've got?

At least offer a SOURCE or a FRAME OF REFERENCE.

"I know this one guy..."

Fuck you. You are part of the problem.

Re:Holy shit, and fuck you. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580631)

I also hear Unknown Lamer's best friend is a black gay jew.

Re:Holy shit, and fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45580807)

To Anon 0854:

You seem overly upset... you must be a lawyer.

Re:Holy shit, and fuck you. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 5 months ago | (#45581395)

you could just google for the dozens(hundreds?) of examples.

what part of error ratio and "millions per week" you don't understand?

Re:Holy shit, and fuck you. (2, Insightful)

xenobyte (446878) | about 5 months ago | (#45581657)

I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).

Really?!? That's the best you've got?

At least offer a SOURCE or a FRAME OF REFERENCE.

"I know this one guy..."

Fuck you. You are part of the problem.

No, YOU are a part of the problem. Why do you need more details? - Do you want to fight for this guy or something?

The details doesn't matter. There are millions like him out there. People recording themselves (thus owning the rights) playing classical music (which isn't copyrighted anymore) gets taken down daily. I've even heard of videos with no musical content - pure nature stuff - being DMCA'ed.

The system is severely broken and severely abused, yet it is still exceedingly easy to find any kind of pirated content online. DMCA is a complete failure.

I think i've solved the job problem! (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about 5 months ago | (#45580447)

Every time there's a story about the trend of automating everything people worry that all the jobs are going to go away and there will be nothing left for anyone who isn't a brilliant scientist or talented artist. Well it actually makes sense to outlaw the automation of C&D letters by bots like the media industry is currently doing. One can make an entirely reasonable argument that this kind of legal activity needs to be performed by a human, not a machine. (At least up up until the point where we get true AI at least, and then everything goes out the window anyways.)

All we have to do is get a law passed saying that each C&D claim has to be reviewed by a real human who is employed by the company whose content is supposedly being infringed, plus specify a minimum amount of time necessary for the review. Huzah! At a minimum of one minute per C&D review (which could certainly be increased to five or even ten minutes if necessary,) 6.5 million C&Ds per week is at least 2,700 new jobs, and if the number keeps doubling every year... In less than two decades we could have an entire economy based around C&D letters!

Re:I think i've solved the job problem! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45581555)

One can make an entirely reasonable argument that this kind of legal activity needs to be performed by a human, not a machine. [...] All we have to do is get a law passed saying that each C&D claim has to be reviewed by a real human

We may already have such a law. Since it's impossible for any current computer program to have "faith" or even "opinion", it's impossible for a bot to send a notice "in good faith". Likewise, the bot cannot legally "sign" or certify an automatically generated notice on someone else's behalf.

I wonder how you would stand legally if you just returned boilerplate Counter-Notices to boilplate Notices, "Pursuant to Title 17, chapter 5, section 512, subsection (c), paragraph (3), subparagraph (B), clause (ii) of the United States Code, this "Digital Millennium Copyright Act Counter-Notice", ID12345, is issued to {name} to inform such parties that;
(1) the recipient has cause to believe DMCA Notice ID9999 was not actually signed as required under Title 17, chapter 5, section 512, subsection (c), paragraph (3), subparagraph (A), clause (i).
(2) the recipient has cause to believe DMCA Notice ID9999 was not actually issued in good faith as required under Title 17, chapter 5, section 512, subsection (c), paragraph (3), subparagraph (A), clause (v).
(3) the recipient has cause to believe DMCA Notice ID9999 was neither issued by, nor certified accurate by, an actual authorised entity as required under Title 17, chapter 5, section 512, subsection (c), paragraph (3), subparagraph (A), clause (vi).
Therefore, under Title 17, chapter 5, section 512, subsection (c), paragraph (3), subparagraph (B), clause (i), DMCA Notice ID9999 fails to comply substantially with the necessary provisions of such notice and is therefore rendered ineffective. Yo."

Alternative take-down system (1)

jd (1658) | about 5 months ago | (#45580459)

If notices are going to be sent and processed (then accepted/rejected automatically), followed by verbal fighting, why not simplify the whole exercise? Have a two-way corewars battle between the service and the complainant, winner decides if the link stays. Since the complainant is rarely the copyright holder and the service rarely provides the material, you can extend this to a four-way battle using crobots.

This is just as logical as the current system and has a higher probability of protecting original content from abusive/malign notices.

I have been on the receiving end (3, Interesting)

tanveer1979 (530624) | about 5 months ago | (#45581523)

I made a time lapse video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVbBfUWq3mU [youtube.com]

I used background music from ccmixer
Gave the full attribution too!

Music : Improvisation On Sunday, by Alex Beroza(http://ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/...)
Uses : http://ccmixter.org/files/The3amAssoc [ccmixter.org]... again under the following license.

And got a notice that it matches. I filed a dispute, and haven't heard from them again, and my video is up and running. However, if they had filed a counter claim, they would have taken it down? My account gets a copyright strike? I dunno

anyways, I notified the actual music composer about the claim, and maybe he is also trying to get it removed from their DB.

But its scary, if somebody puts a takedown notice, I cannot seek recourse. I am not in the USA and that makes it even more difficult.

A new way of creating jobs.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45582283)

To search for infringing content on the world wide web, 6.5 million queries within one week? I'm so glad that all the basic math/physic/chemistry/biology etc. is free information, imagine if it were to be protected under a "modular" copyright law. :>

To be taken seriously (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 5 months ago | (#45583021)

This is something that must not be overlooked. This is becoming a plague on Youtube...especially on that platform and the people who are the victims most of the time are the people who put the video up on youtube.

For example, the video Day One: Garry's Incident video on youtube (the one released by TotalBiscuit...just search for it)... it was available to some poeple and then because the company got too much bad press on it cause the game sucked way to bad and it seems like the game was in alpha stage...just too much problems and most reviews (including steam comments) told to not buy the game.

The company got around and requested the video to be removed. The user had no choice but to agree to this non sense. In the end, (not me cause I already saw the video ahahah), the consumer don't know what the game could be liked... But not in this case since youtube wasn't the only source of info lol.

What I want to say is simple...companies got too much power when it comes to this. The consumer or the other party or customer who has no ressources at all is the victim in this. Google seems to be bending way too easily and I hesitate to say this but I will, I feel like Google is feeding the trolls sometimes because they don't fight and automatically agree.

This Is a News Site, Not Reddit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45583847)

"I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot..."

Citation needed. This a site for NEWS, not Reddit, where everyone seems to have a "friend" who had something amazing happen to them or was visited by injustice. If this "friend" doesn't have traceable, verifiable proof that you can post, it has no business being here. If he does, than it should be posted to bolster the argument.

That's journalism 101.

Turn about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45584113)

Turn about is fair play. Since Google decided to start censoring us, it's time we start censoring Google. I suggest everybody start by finding a way to block their bots from watching and tracking what you do, to searching for your content on your web page, etc. etc.

Next, I suggest everybody take an active roll and preventing Google from being used as a search engine by anybody on your network/computer or by anybody else at any location.

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...