Google Video Blasted Over Piracy Claims

Stony Stevenson writes "A US-based copyright watchdog has sunk its teeth into Google by sending a report alleging copyright violations on Google Video to members of Congress. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) researched the extent of copyrighted material being hosted on Google Video earlier this summer and released a Top 50 list of apparently copyrighted movies. But, in the latest spot-check of Google Video conducted from 10 to 18 September, the NLPC claims to have discovered 300 additional instances of apparently copyrighted films, including over 60 movies released this year. This is despite Google's claim that it respects the rights of copyright holders, and provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted intellectual property from the site."

Comments

Re:NLPC is a right-wing organization

[yuna49]

Even worse is their hijacking of the ghost of Paul Douglas, one of the most famous and influential progressive politicians of the postwar period. The "about us" statement says the purpose of the group is to be a watchdog for the Code of Ethics authored by Douglas.

I bet he rolls over in his grave every time someone reads that web page.

If you read their history page, you'll see that their primary targets are Democratic politicians, labor unions, and progressive organizations.

Anyone claiming that the NLPC is "a US-based copyright watchdog," as stated on the Slashdot front page, hasn't done his or her homework.

A Copyright Watchdog?

[NewbieV]

From the NLPC's website,

NLPC was founded in late 1991 following the release of the Senate Ethics Committee report whitewashing the Keating Five. The report made reference to the Code of Ethics for Government, but not by name, presumably for fear of giving it greater standing. NLPC was founded to promote ethics, and to give the Code the visibility it deserves.

This seems to be an organization that focuses on politics more than anything else: its list of accomplishments seems to be targeted at Democrats more than Republicans, although there are a few Republican politicians named.

A quick Google turned up this page about the chairman of the NLPC's affiliations.

So why would a Republican-leaning group be aiming at Google?

Re:The only tool needed

[ari wins]

Hell, I had one occasion where I happened across a picture of girl I used to know, unclothed. I went to Google and searched for DMCA takedown notice, and the first result was from Google itself, explaining exactly what to e-mail to them if you had an issue. I proceeded to copy most of the page, and as a representative of the female's interests, sent it off to the admin of the site, with an extra line or two about how the content was being used "for profit".

Received a reply a few hours later, and they removed both the offending picture, and the thumbnail/link to it. Granted, it probably just went up somewhere else the next day, but the point still remains that it's beyond easy to have material removed using the DMCA. The problem is, and always has been, finding the material, which opens up a whole new slew of privacy concerns and what have you.

Re:The only tool needed

[cpt kangarooski]

Hell, I had one occasion where I happened across a picture of girl I used to know, unclothed. I went to Google and searched for DMCA takedown notice, and the first result was from Google itself, explaining exactly what to e-mail to them if you had an issue. I proceeded to copy most of the page, and as a representative of the female's interests, sent it off to the admin of the site, with an extra line or two about how the content was being used "for profit".

Received a reply a few hours later, and they removed both the offending picture, and the thumbnail/link to it. Granted, it probably just went up somewhere else the next day, but the point still remains that it's beyond easy to have material removed using the DMCA.

Actually, looking at your story, it sounds as though it is overly easy to use the DMCA. Only copyright holders and their authorized agents may invoke the take-down provisions of the DMCA, and in that case of a photograph, that will typically be the photographer, not the subject. The mere fact that the girl was in the photograph probably means absolutely nothing. Now, it might be that there is a publicity right at issue, but the DMCA offers no remedies for that. Basically, given what you described, you probably acted inappropriately, and maybe tortiously.