Beta
×

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!

Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the can-we-just-fix-copyright-already dept.

Censorship 155

Via TorrentFreak comes news that Google is now being asked to remove one million links per day (or an average of one takedown notice every 8ms). In 2008, they received one takedown request approximately every six days. From the article: The massive surge in removal requests is not without controversy. It’s been reported that some notices reference pages that contain no copyrighted material, due to mistakes or abuse, but are deleted nonetheless. Google has a pretty good track record of catching these errors, but since manual review of all links is unachievable, some URLs are removed in error. ... The issue has also piqued the interest of U.S. lawmakers. Earlier this year the House Judiciary Subcommittee had a hearing on the DMCA takedown issue, and both copyright holders, Internet service providers, and other parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process. In the meantime, the number of removal requests is expected to rise and rise, with 10 million links per week being the next milestone.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google don't be evil (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713157)

No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.

Re:Google don't be evil (1)

FrozenToothbrush (3466403) | about 2 months ago | (#47713219)

If the entertainment studios want certain content taken down they can spend the 5 minutes it takes sending the request.

Re:Google don't be evil (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about 2 months ago | (#47714331)

"5 minutes it takes sending the request"

More likely, they have automated the whole process and it takes them milliseconds to send the request to several parties.

Re:Google don't be evil (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 2 months ago | (#47714563)

I thought this was a Yoda joke. Yes, I need a cheap laugh today.

Re:Google don't be evil (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47714565)

Including a list of 5000 other websites that have no relation whatsoever to the website which is hosting the infringing content.

Re:Google don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714635)

Suppose that one out of a thousand fans posts a link to downloadable content that merits a takedown. If an artist has a million fans, that's 1000 notices to send. At 5 minutes per request, that translates to over 83 hours of tedium.

Faulty logic (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47713221)

Your statement is based on an absolutely false assumption. You really don't have to look hard to find that most requests have nothing to do with illegal content. The overwhelming majority of the take down requests are for censorship purposes.

Re:Faulty logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713521)

I want to believe you, but can anyone cite this claim? I am not suggesting that s. petry is wrong, I just haven't seen any evidence for or against.

Re:Faulty logic (1, Insightful)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 2 months ago | (#47713643)

I'm also incredibly skeptical, unless s.petry includes defines fighting copyright infringement as censorship.

Re:Faulty logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713711)

It is censorship. What else is it when content is removed under threat of force (legal or otherwise)? Comply or be punished.

it's called... (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 months ago | (#47714011)

stopping self-entitled idiots from stealing other peoples stuff.

Re:it's called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714345)

The self-entitled idiots are the ones who think we should have a system where some people have government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon free speech and real private property rights.

Re:Faulty logic (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 2 months ago | (#47714821)

The example of the BronsCon (post below) is enough for you?

Re:Faulty logic (4, Interesting)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 months ago | (#47713925)

GoDaddy filed a DMCA request against one of my sites a few years back. The site was comprised of entirely original, all-text content (e.g. no images they could claim ownership of, and text entirely from my own fingers), but they didn't like the subject matter (a complaint regarding how they handle user-initiated termination of their domain privacy services), so, rather than contact me to resolve the issue (I had been unable to contact anyone on their end who could do anything for me) they fired off a DMCA takedown request to my VPS provider.

My VPS provider, being a reasonable company, saw that I was hosting several sites and, rather than take down the instance, forwarded the request to me. I contacted them to inform them that I intended to dispute the request and that no content would be removed as a result, they write back indicating that they figured that's what I would do and fully understood as they agreed the request was bogus. I CC'd GoDaddy's support team on that email, as well.

GoDaddy's next move was to file a WHOIS data inaccuracy complaint with ICANN. My next move was to CC their support team on my response to that.

In the end, I got a call from their VP of corporate development, or some such, who was able to immediately resolve my issue and light a fire under the dev team's ass to fix the issue permanently, and I took the site down. Had they worked with me from the start, the site never would have existed in the first place, but that's apparently not how GoDaddy (and, as is clear if you follow the news, other large corporations) wants to run things; they'd rather throw money out the window playing games and bullying people, instead of working with them to solve actual problems people have with their services.

In the end, the 20+ domains I had registered through them ended up on a different registrar and they got some bad PR and a perpetual negative review from me when people ask me (and they often do) who they should register their domains through or host their website with.

Re:Faulty logic (2)

GNious (953874) | about 2 months ago | (#47714181)

If GoDaddy filed an effectively-bogus DMCA, why weren't they punished?

"[..] statement by you UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf."

Re:Faulty logic (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 months ago | (#47714267)

Because it wasn't worth my time to pursue it. I wanted my specific issue fixed; in the end, they fixed it. It took much less time and cost them much more money (in the form of lost future income) for me to just cease doing business with them, and I didn't have to miss a day of work to meet with an attorney, and another day to go to court.

If I were Google, fielding a million of these per day, it might be worth my time, though.

Re:Faulty logic (2)

suutar (1860506) | about 2 months ago | (#47714303)

The penalty of perjury clause applies to the statement that you are an agent of the owner of the copyright allegedly being infringed, not to the statement that the target of the request is infringing. The belief in infringement is a "good faith" item, which is hard to disprove.

Re:Faulty logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714321)

Because its the responsibility of the DEFENDANT to pay the legal fees to bring whoever files a bogus DMCA claim to court. If you had the option of spending $1 million in legal fees to challenge a bogus DMCA claim for your personal fan fiction web site, would you pay the legal fees or just take down the fan fiction? (And no, if you win, the courts won't award you any money.)

perjury re identity only not accuracy. EZ fix DMCA (5, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about 2 months ago | (#47714705)

DMCA requires a statement:

        "under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]

The perjury statement is just that the person sending the complaint is an authorized representative of the _alleged_ owner.
In other words, if you or I sent a complaint that someone is violating Bill Clinton's copyright, THAT would violate that section, because we're not authorized to enforce Clinton's rights.

As to the accuracy of the complaint, DMCA provides that you can be sued for actual damages if you KNOWINGLY file a false complaint. "Knowingly" is a special word in law, with a carefully established definition. It means more than recklessly or negligently. To sue them, you have to prove that they KNEW it was bogus. If they filed it without caring whether or not it was bogus, that's insufficient. It would be better if you could sue for reckless or negligent claims, but you can only sue for knowingly false claims. Changing that one word from "knowingly" to "negligently" or "recklessly" would go a long way toward fixing DMCA.

Secondly, the bogus claimant can be sued only for actual damages. Suppose it costs Google $5 to process each takedown. For a knowingly false takedown notice, they can sue to get that $5 back. They're not going to pend $100K to sue someone for $5. Not going to happen. What would fix that would be the same thing that holders of registered copyrights have under the law - statutory damages. The current text of the law is:

        Any person who knowingly misrepresents ... shall be liable for any damages ... incurred

We could just change that to:

        Any person who RECKLESSLY misrepresents ... shall be liable for the greater of $25,000 or any damages ... incurred.
        Any person who negligently misrepresents ... shall be liable for the greater of $10,000 or any damages ... incurred.

A Google lawyer could then sue Warner Bros for 100 reckless notices and damages would be _at_least_ $2.5 million which pays the lawyer's salary for several years. They'd settle for the $1 million "negligent" amount, and Google could have a staff of lawyers suing all the assholes, hitting them for a million dollars each time until they stopped sending notices recklessly.

Re:Faulty logic (2)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 2 months ago | (#47714597)

Why did you take the site down? Am I misunderstanding this? Did you voluntarily capitulate? If they were doing something wrong and you were bringing it to light, then why take it down?

"ogle" in "Google", violates my rights (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 months ago | (#47714421)

so take your homepage down. that's how silly it's getting. geez

Re:Google don't be evil (2)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 months ago | (#47713609)

No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.

Uh, hey how about instead of trying to "screen" all content (by the way, that's a cute word you used there for censoring), perhaps you should realize no one forces you to use Google. It's as simple as that.

Oh, and one more thing. Go ahead and try and define "illegal" on a global scale. Good luck.

Re:Google don't be evil (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47714591)

Oh, and one more thing. Go ahead and try and define "illegal" on a global scale. Good luck.

There has never been an easier task.

Here's a list of what is "illegal" on a global scale:
1. Everything

Re:Google don't be evil (1)

mjtaylor24601 (820998) | about 2 months ago | (#47713703)

No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.

Sure no problem. We'll just lookup each file uploader and check to see if they're authorized to distribute the material in question...what's that you say? It's impossible to verify the identify of most uploaders? Well we can at least check every file against the master database of copyrighted material...wait, you're saying there is no such database? Hmm...maybe your plan needs a little more work.

Google should be wary (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47713161)

It would not be the first top dog search engine that disappears into obscurity because all it displayed anymore were paid-for links, ads and other crap the powers that are considered "agreeable".

Re:Google should be wary (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 months ago | (#47713713)

It would not be the first top dog search engine that disappears into obscurity because all it displayed anymore were paid-for links, ads and other crap the powers that are considered "agreeable".

Be wary? Oh that's rich.

These monopolies have billions in cash reserves to run them profitless for a very long time.

Like decades.

In other words, Too Big To Fail is here to stay, regardless of the market captured or lost. Better get comfortable with the elected overlords. They're not going anywhere.

Re:Google should be wary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713959)

While that may be true, the shareholders would riot in a damned hurry if the stock price were to tank because Google becomes less relevant.

Re:Google should be wary (1)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#47714817)

While that may be true, the shareholders would riot in a damned hurry if the stock price were to tank because Google becomes less relevant.

Which would be relevant only if Larry, Sergey and Eric decided to allow it to be. As long as the three of them stay united, they outvote the rest of the shareholders combined.

Re:Google should be wary (2)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#47714799)

These monopolies have billions in cash reserves to run them profitless for a very long time. Like decades.

Aside from the rather questionable assertion that Google is a monopoly, the company's cash reserves are nowhere near that large, or, rather, the company's expenses are much larger than you believe. Last I heard, Google has cash reserves of ~$60B (which, note, aren't actually cash; you don't leave that much capital sitting idle), and annual operational costs of about $40B. How long Google could continue to operate with hugely decreased revenues depends on just how far the revenues declined, and how much economizing the company could do, but I strongly doubt that it would be "decades". If all advertising revenue derived from the search engine disappeared and Google didn't economize at all, it would be bankrupt in maybe three years.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but I don't speak for Google. Everything in this post is derived from public information.)

Re:Google should be wary (1)

hojo (94118) | about 2 months ago | (#47714691)

This is exactly right.

Google will become another also-ran, in the end, because they set up Google in the United States.

All the useful stuff on the net is going to end up being hosted from non-US areas because of the legal system abuses that are manifest in the USA.

The first Google-like search engine that works well and doesn't deal with DMCA and other abusive legislation will get my search business, and everything else, eventually. I don't give two shits about Google except so far as it satisfies my desire for a good search engine. Once it quits working in that regard, it's dead to me, just as it killed off my use of Altavista.

or they could just NOT do it (4, Interesting)

cellocgw (617879) | about 2 months ago | (#47713197)

Instead of having software automatically remove every alleged infracting page, how about having the software automatically send a notice back informing the complainant of a lack of credible evidence, and dropping all the takedown notices into some summer intern's Inbox?

I mean, jeez...

Re:or they could just NOT do it (2)

afidel (530433) | about 2 months ago | (#47713539)

They can't do that, the DMCA very clearly says that the provider must remove the infringing material, then the poster can challenge the takedown, failing to remove the content as requested removes their safe harbor and opens them up to copyright infringement claims with statutory damages of $100,000 per violation, never going to happen.

Re:or they could just NOT do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713675)

The DMCA doesn'y say anything at all about search results. It's about hosting allegedly infringing material.

Re:or they could just NOT do it (1)

afidel (530433) | about 2 months ago | (#47713799)

Google falls under the definition of service providers for purposes of the DMCA.

Re:or they could just NOT do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714087)

Sure, but they're not hosting anything. Links to infringing content are pretty solidly in the realm of the legal. It's actually kind of weird that they rolled over on that one.

Re:or they could just NOT do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714387)

Tell that to torrent sites

Re:or they could just NOT do it (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 months ago | (#47714469)

Sure, but they're not hosting anything. Links to infringing content are pretty solidly in the realm of the legal. It's actually kind of weird that they rolled over on that one.

They're solidly in the realm of the legal in the US because of USC 17 512(d):

(d) Information Location Tools.- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider:
(...)
(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

If they don't respond to DMCA notices they fail condition (C) and become liable. This has been established legal history since way back when web pages used to link to illegal MP3 files, perhaps longer. It's not true in the general case, just because you point them to other website that might contain something illegal won't get you into trouble. But pointing directly to infringing content and claiming you aren't liable because you're not the one hosting it doesn't fly.

DMCA has a section for search engines. Full text (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 2 months ago | (#47714791)

The DMCA has a section titled "Information Location Tools" which covers linking. Here's the relevant text of the law:

        for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—
        (1)
                (A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
                (B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
                (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]

Further up, it says that once you've received a DMCA notice with all the blanks filled in, you have actual knowledge. So Under d 1 c, after receiving notice a search engine or other locator service (torrent tracker) must "acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material"

The problem is that there's no statutory damages for even knowingly false claims, and no damages at at for reckless claims.
Adding statutory damages for reckless claims would mean these big companies would stop filing all the reckless claims.

Fix DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713889)

Mandatory jail time for fraudulent takedown request, argued in common pleas court by the victim. common please to prohibit the aggressor from bringing lawyers.

Re:Fix DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714647)

jail time? you are too nice. executions.

Re:or they could just NOT do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713585)

They don't do that because that would strip them of safe harbor protection and expose them to liability. Maybe you should read the DMCA and see what it contains.

They'd become liable,thanks to DMCA (1998) (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 2 months ago | (#47713709)

If they asked for evidence, they'd become liable for any infringement. This is all controlled by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Under DMCA, when they receive a notice, they have to remove the content. If the other side sends them a counter-notice, they have to put it back up. If the complainant then notifies the carrier that they are filing suit in federal court, the carrier takes the content own again. If they choose not to follow this procedure, if they set themselves up to judge the evidence, they then become liable for any infringement. In other words, if they are going to judge the evidence, they better get it right 10% of the time, always coming to the same conclusion that a judge or jury does later. Otherwise, Google would be liable for any instances where the court disagreed with Google's decision. The problem is that DMCA doesn't effectively provide penalties for filing bogus notifications. You can send out completely false notifications and have things taken down all day long and nobody can do anything to stop you (almost). DMCA does one good thing in that it allows Google (or a web hosting company, or Slashdot) to operate without having their own internal court system to decide these things. The problem is that it requires Google to do the claimant's bidding without any cost or risk to the claimant.

how about they stand up for themselves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713201)

links are not infringement!

Optimizing the process (2)

mdenham (747985) | about 2 months ago | (#47713203)

Just take down everything permanently because it'll eventually infringe another corporati--excuse me, "non-human person"'s copyright in the future anyway.

Re:Optimizing the process (1)

fnj (64210) | about 2 months ago | (#47714779)

Just take down everything permanently because it'll eventually infringe another corporati--excuse me, "non-human person"'s copyright in the future anyway.

I prefer the term "inhuman person" myself.

Well... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713229)

"...parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process."

Well, you could start by requiring that the entire notice be filed under penalty of perjury, not just the part that says you are who you claim to be.
You could also start by requiring that the notice provide *evidence* (sufficient to sustain a claim of copyright infringement in a court of law) of the claimed infringement.

Failure to do *either* or *both* of these is just going to result in the request rate increasing to the point where it is impossible for even a fully-automated system to handle them on the receiving end, because there's currently no downside to sending a bogus DMCA takedown notice.

Re:Well... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 months ago | (#47713565)

I'm hoping that Google has no automation for takedowns, and only one person responsible for doing it, and that that person is handling requests on a first come, first serve basis.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713607)

Thats not enough. DEMAND payment information as part of the submission and CHARGE a small processing fee per request (lets say, 5 cents per request). And if found guilty of filling bogus claims FINE THEM to bankruptcy.

Re:Well... (2)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 months ago | (#47714077)

That's unfair to someone filing a legitimate request. Instead, charge a larger sum, on the order of $5 per request, plus $1 per notice (to encourage notices to be batched into single requests and reduce your payment processing costs), with a limit of, say, 100 notices per request, and hold that amount in escrow. Once the window for dispute closes, refund the collected per-notice fee for each request not successfully disputed; if no notices are successfully disputed, also refund the request fee (minus your payment processing costs).

You'll almost immediately see companies start sending notices in batches of 100 (at a potential cost of $105) to reduce the cost of valid notices to just the cost of processing a $105 payment, something on the order of $3, versus the cost of processing 100 $6 payments, which is on the order of $25. You'll also see a sharp decrease in false notices, since one false notice in a batch would cost $6, with each additional false notice in that batch costing $1. I'm sure there would still be enough of them to pay for staff to process all of the incoming requests, though, which would be a win for everyone; the companies having to process the requests wouldn't be out the cost of doing so, and the requests themselves would pay for enough staff to process them in a timely manner, which should make the people filing them quite happy.

Of course, the law would have to allow for this, which I don't think it does at this point. Sadly.

Its a smokescreen (1)

spikestabber (644578) | about 2 months ago | (#47713253)

These great numbers allow them to complain to our government corporate puppets that the DMCA is broken and needs "fixing", ie, make all search engines and service providers liable for infringement, thus requiring full keyword filtering, isoHunt style.

Re:Its a smokescreen (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 months ago | (#47714085)

Or, they throw up a red flag that the system is being abused, giving our elected representatives cause to take away this special gift that has been given to the copyright lobby.

Typical google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713259)

Ask to be forgotten = Google braking the process as much as possible, telling the media which page were removed, making a lot of fuss whining censorship.

DMCA takedown : no fuss, removal within 8 ms not caring much if there is an error.

An easy fix. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713271)

Obviously there should be a way to report copyright issues. However to do so there should be a deposit required, say $1000. If the infringement is valid, then the deposit is returned. If there was no infringement found or there was an "error" then Google keeps their $1000 for the trouble. That should cut down on the number of fraudulent claims.

Re:An easy fix. (2)

Sigma 7 (266129) | about 2 months ago | (#47713535)

Obviously there should be a way to report copyright issues. However to do so there should be a deposit required, say $1000.

A.k.a. justice for the rich rather than the starving artist.

The actual fix is to require the plaintiff to sign the whole statement under penalty of perjury rather than just that they represent someone - or at the very least, put a punishment for flinging out fradulent DMCA takedown in the same way filing frivilous lawsuits is punished.

Re:An easy fix. (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 months ago | (#47714099)

put a punishment for flinging out fradulent DMCA takedown in the same way filing frivilous lawsuits is punished.

In other words, a slap on the wrist and a stern talking-to? Yeah, that'll work.

Re:An easy fix. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713575)

That's nice and all - but Google isn't a judge and only a judge can make a decision on whether something is infringing or not. This is just the way copyright law is setup in the US. Google can't look at the content and say, "this doesn't infringe because it is fair use" or whatever. Google can't make the claimant prove that they own the copyright to the material - the DMCA isn't setup that way. We have a crap system because the laws that govern copyright are crap.

Re:An easy fix. (1)

redeIm (3779401) | about 2 months ago | (#47713853)

Obviously there should be a way to report copyright issues.

By going to court. Oh, you want to subvert the court system and have takedown notices that remove safe harbor if ignored? Fuck off.

Automated perjury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713289)

Did they learn nothing from the robosigning foreclosure scandal?

Here's a quick fix. Kinda... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713349)

Somewhat simple... For EVERY site that they get a request of content removal for, pass that request onto the site operators, and then Google should immediately remove all links and cache to said site, as well as block said site from Google DNS.

It's insane to expect Google to be the 'oversight' arm for this crap.

Re:Here's a quick fix. Kinda... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713635)

...so, if under your plan, I submit a takedown request for a subpage on Apple.com or StackExchange, I can troll the whole world by having all the search results for their entire domains purged from google?

Conversely, I guess YouTube would be permanently offline.

Nevermind, fuck it: your idea is brilliant—bring on the trollpocalypse!

Re:Here's a quick fix. Kinda... (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | about 2 months ago | (#47714209)

I don't see that this strategy solves anything at all, except making frivolous copyright claims even more powerful.

Why is this Google's problem? (4, Insightful)

Last_Available_Usern (756093) | about 2 months ago | (#47713359)

They aren't hosting the content, they're merely making pointers to it. Isn't this an issue that should be handled by the company hosting/managing the web content? I'm surprised Google is getting involved in this at all and it makes me wonder what their motivations for doing so are, given the obvious administrative burden this is imposing.

Re:Why is this Google's problem? (4)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47713453)

What if I erected a sign with the text "Small Cock -->" next to you? You maybe wouldn't want me to have the sign there. At that point would it be OK to you if I just said "I ain't hosting the penis, I am just making pointers to it"?

Re:Why is this Google's problem? (1)

Last_Available_Usern (756093) | about 2 months ago | (#47713613)

Actually, it would be more accurate if someone else was holding the sign and Google was just pointing it out. In this case I still say the guy holding the actual sign is the one you go after.

Re:Why is this Google's problem? (2)

AnontheDestroyer (3500983) | about 2 months ago | (#47713681)

That's no where near the same. In your example, I'd have to be 1 in 10 billion people in a hidden room (the cloud), and for anyone to see the sign they'd have to explicitly search me out. Then upon emerging as a possibility for person search, your sign is only one of 10 other signs, several of which will be, "Big Penis," and "Huge Penis," because that's the honest to goodness truth, I tells ya. Then maybe they click on a link where I have a graphical depiction of the member in question.

So it's completely different.

Re:Why is this Google's problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713729)

Do you DMCA or otherwise attempt to violate those wearing "I'm with stupid -->" shirts? Because you'd be the first...

Re:Why is this Google's problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713505)

YouTube.com [youtube.com] is owned by Google [wikipedia.org] and hosts content.

Re:Why is this Google's problem? (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47713527)

What Google gets if it follows the OCILLA procedure set forth in 17 USC 512 is a safe harbor defense to accusations of contributory or vicarious infringement.

Time For Cynicism (3, Insightful)

organgtool (966989) | about 2 months ago | (#47713363)

The rightsholders have claimed copyright on birdsong, a public transmission of the space shuttle launch, and many other claims of complete nonsense, proving that their algorithms are way too aggressive in flagging videos and that they can't even be bothered to review the "infringing" material before issuing a takedown notice. So who wants to bet that the legislative resolution to this issue has nothing to do with harsher penalties for fraudulent requests and everything to do with harsher penalties for "pirates" who happened to have a radio or television playing in the background when they caught something unusual on video?

Math wrong by one order of magnitude ... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713385)

86400 seconds in a day, 1 million takedown notice per day --> 1 notice every 0.0864 s, so 86ms

Seriously, how hard is it ?

Re:Math wrong by one order of magnitude ... (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 2 months ago | (#47713485)

what if we say "every business day", so divide your number by 3. HA!

Re:Math wrong by one order of magnitude ... (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about 2 months ago | (#47714063)

I told you at least a hundred million times that math is just too hard to do!

Re:Math wrong by one order of magnitude ... (2)

Rashdot (845549) | about 2 months ago | (#47714837)

Oh good. I was thinking how hard that job must be, but every 0.0864 seconds is a lot easier then every 0.00864.

1kk or 10kk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713389)

Doesn't 8ms add up to 10 million links rather than 1 million?
24 * 60 * 60 * 1000 = 86,400,000ms
86,400,000ms / 8ms = 10,800,000

Eh...

This is the future Republicans want for all of us (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713391)

They want us to constantly have to do unpaid work for their corporations which their kind considers people. That's how stupid they are.

Re:This is the future Republicans want for all of (4, Insightful)

Andrio (2580551) | about 2 months ago | (#47713495)

This mentality will destroy the country. Stop turning things into Republicans vs Democrats. Truth is they both serve the same corporate masters.

Under Obama, for example, a former Monsanto Exec became the head of the FDA. A former telecom lobbyist became the chairman of the FCC. I mean, what the fuck, right?

Basically, whether you vote Republican or Democrat, this kind of thing will go on. The two party system is just useful for distracting people, and getting them to vote in such a way where nothing will actually change.

Re:This is the future Republicans want for all of (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 2 months ago | (#47713875)

I beg to disagree. Under the 2 party system things change, just not for the better. One party can erode one set of rights and then in a few years they lose power and the other party gets to erode some other rights. They both then get to campaign on the rights that the other side took away, yet never manage to get around to reinstating them when they are in power.

Re:This is the future Republicans want for all of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713911)

When the Republicans represent corporations and hate poor people and want us to die, it's hard not to hate them. In fact, it is our duty to hate anyone that wants to kill us and our families. It is less than intelligent for your kind to want us to support our own deaths. How can your kind defend that?

Clinton is a republican? (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 2 months ago | (#47713621)

DMCA is 1998, so Bill Clinton.

Re:Clinton is a republican? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714643)

Well it was a unanimous vote, so not really Clinton's fault since he couldn't veto that. However, both parties are clearly responsible.

Very, very easy to fix (2)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 2 months ago | (#47713461)

All takedowns have to be sworn under penalty of perjury. Next time google gets one that points to a page with no infringement (just happened) (just happened again) (oops, and again, okay, I'll stop counting now) whoever sent it needs to be prosecuted for perjury. The infringement notice bots would be shut down in 10 minutes when those behind them are suddenly facing prosecution.

As I've said time and again: we don't need a new law - we need to enforce what we've got.

Re:Very, very easy to fix (2)

CPIMatt (206195) | about 2 months ago | (#47713503)

The problem is that there is no penalty in the law for a mistaken copyright take-down. What we need is for every mistaken take-down, an automatic $1000 fine.

-Matt

Re:Very, very easy to fix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713617)

On the prosecutors list of cases to try, 512(c) takedown notice perjury comes somewhere below police misconduct and mattress tag removal.

Re:Very, very easy to fix (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 2 months ago | (#47713625)

All takedowns have to be sworn under penalty of perjury. Next time google gets one that points to a page with no infringement (just happened) (just happened again) (oops, and again, okay, I'll stop counting now) whoever sent it needs to be prosecuted for perjury. The infringement notice bots would be shut down in 10 minutes when those behind them are suddenly facing prosecution.

As I've said time and again: we don't need a new law - we need to enforce what we've got.

They're under penalty of perjury, but only that the submitter is acting in good faith that they actually own the copyright to the content. If there's a link to a torrent of Cap_America_Winter_Soldier.mp4, and Disney files a takedown request based on the filename, they're fine, even if it turns out that the file is actually four public domain images of a baseball hat, a map of the US, a tree with snow on it, and a GI, all on a loop for two hours.

Re:Very, very easy to fix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713877)

actually, it isn't even that. The file could have any name and is entirely irrelevant. The only thing under perjury is:

1) named copyright holder does in fact hold a copyright on the work *allegedly* being infringed

2) the person sending the complaint is either the copyright holder or a duly authorized agent

Everything else can be fiction. And content *must* be pulled, though it *may* be reinstated weeks later *if* the "offender" files a proper contest in which everything they say is under penalty of perjury. Not one sided in the least.

We had a DMCA complaint for "infringing content" that was on the basis (not stated, but the only link) that it *credited* another work as inspiration. That's right: if you credit any other content creator or work as inspiration you just created legal liability for yourself. After a month or two our lawyers allowed the 100% non-infringing work to be re-instated.

No matter how its abused, the DMCA (and any successor) is for one thing only: shakedowns.

Re:Very, very easy to fix (1)

VorpalRodent (964940) | about 2 months ago | (#47714811)

I loved that movie, but I found the ending too predictable.

So when does a law need to be revisited? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713477)

Are laws not supposed to be for the people. seems to me if there are so many cases of infringement that every 8 milliseconds legal action needs to be taken, instead of seeing the law as unjust and unfeasible. we now automate the legal process and assume guilt until innocence is proven

Google should fill... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713549)

Google should fill a request to be forgotten...

not 8ms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713577)

there are 86,4000 seconds in a day, 1 million takedown notices equates to one every .0864 seconds. This is not every 8 milliseconds (which would be .008 seconds), 1 million per day is a lot, but every 8ms is an order of magnitude greater.

HPT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47713641)

High Performance Take-down at a nano second level is the future. Only those search engine companies with enough computing power to perform all the required take-downs shall flourish.

What do they consider a take down request? (2)

ZiakII (829432) | about 2 months ago | (#47713653)

What do they consider a take down request though? For the website I administer for my job I just submitted 60 take down requests using the Google webmaster tools this morning as our Chat Form Page got incorrectly indexed (robots.txt error on our part) and we want our customers to go through the contact reason page first.

These are legal requests but are they counting these in that number?

Optimize the process? (2)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 months ago | (#47713669)

...both copyright holders, Internet service providers, and other parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process.

The solution is not to optimize the process. The solution is to scrap the process, and the DMCA along with it.

Re:Optimize the process? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714505)

The sociopaths who actually make these decisions don't care about logic or fairness. If you want to move them, you must apply political force. That is the *only* language they understand. Everything else is just posturing.

Competitive Sabotage? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47713725)

You have to wonder if competing search engines could be spurring these claims somehow, culling such vast numbers of pages from Google's index is a great way to degrade the usefulness of Google's search...

Re:Competitive Sabotage? (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | about 2 months ago | (#47714277)

Might not be competing search engines.

Could just be a SEO-trick where a company hires a SEO optimization company to remove the content of competitors.

Internet takedown? (1)

Peter L. Berghold (3639725) | about 2 months ago | (#47713805)

Seems like those that send the DMCA takedown requests are trying to strangle Google (and others) to the point of making the Internet useless. If the search engines get hammered makes it harder to find content you are looking for. And to what end?

First hand experience (5, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47713893)

I used to work in a department that handled DMCA notices on the consumer side. (They were complaining that our customers were hosting the content) The vast majority of these complaints were fraudulent. The problem is that the media companies hire other companies to monitor for infringement and send take-down notices. I suspect they pay per notice sent and they are getting swindled. Some were so bad, we literally blacklisted their domain so they'd stop sending us complaints. They'd send take down notices for people that weren't even in our IP block. They were just sending nonsense and collecting money from the content provider. This likely also where the content providers get their insane numbers about the amount of money they are losing.

Re:First hand experience (2)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about 2 months ago | (#47714015)

And it's going to continue until there are real repercussions to sending invalid dmca take-down notices. Right now I can issue dmca take-down for every video ever added to youtube. What's going to stop me?

Re:First hand experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714411)

The fact that someone had that same idea and already followed through on it?

Corporate sense of justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47714309)

Guilty until proven innocent, convicted on the basis of accusation.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?