Google's Information On DMCA Takedown Abuse

Binestar writes "According to a PC World article, Google has submitted a brief to New Zealand about its proposed copyright law (section 92A). "In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.""

Comments

In Ancient Times

[Anenome]

There was a time when music was sold as sheet music. Somehow Joplin was making a $100,000 a week in the 1920's, even though it's fairly trivial to simply hand-copy someone-else's work.

I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but copyright law is increasingly working more against society than in its interests, and this story just goes to prove that yet again. When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.

Re:In Ancient Times

[matrixskp]

When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.

Or in this case just not established in the first place. Thankfully the New Zealand Prime Minister has delayed the implementation of Section 92a and it may well be suspended. A big thank you has to go out to all those who took part in the Internet Blackout NZ... blacking out NZ websites and profiles on popular social networking sites in protest of the proposed changes.

Re:In Ancient Times

[drinkypoo]

True, but this is why we should rely on good studies.
As it stand, it seems that, if anything, illegal online music distributors are helping sell music.

Obligatory Citation

Re:In Ancient Times

[cbiltcliffe]

....but that doesn't necessarily mean that the abuses outweigh all the good.

57% were businesses targeting competitors. I take that to mean that they were trying to shut down their competitor's production/sales, rather than having a legitimate beef against a product.

If so, that means only 43% are legitimate claims, or even less if the 37% that aren't valid copyright claims isn't just a subset of the 57%.

I'd say >57% abusive, 43% not abusive means that the abuses outweigh the good.

Re:In Ancient Times

[Anonymous Coward]

What Joplin are you referring to? Janis wasn't born until 1943 and Scott died in 1917. Neither made anything close to $5.2 million a year from what I can tell.

Re:In Ancient Times

[mcgrew]

The music might be in the public domain, but the sheet music probably isn't.

On the contrary, it is. All the old literary masters are on the internet as well.

Re:Note to summary writer...

[artor3]

Do you know what makes money the root of all evil? It[']s love.

Could mean "Love, in general, is the answer to the question" or "Love of money is what makes it bad."

See? Its absolutely possible to make a sentence where, when the apostrophe is misused, it's presence or absence matters.

Content of Submission

[Rangataua]

The content of the Google submission to TCF can be found here. Some of the other submission (including the Auckland District Law Society and the Radio New Zealand submissions) are worth a read.

Re:Well DUH!!!

[interkin3tic]

In a world where executives of companies that lose money expect as a matter of course to be paid millions of dollars of bonuses, it is a given that a tool such as the DMCA **WILL** be abused to silence opposition or competition...

Which is why this needed to be pointed out to politicians who can't think ahead for themselves.

Re:Are those overlapping percentages?

[JeanPaulBob]

Aha! I found the info here, through a link provided in someone else's comment. TFA is a bit off, it seems to me. The 37% figure is notices about sites outside America. And there were three other types of "flaws":

In this study, we traced the use of the Section 512 takedown process and considered how the usage patterns we found were likely to affect expression or other activities on the Internet. The second level of analysis grew out of the fact that we observed a surprisingly high incidence of flawed takedowns:

• Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about uncopyrightable material, and the like);
• Notices to traditional ISP's included a substantial number of demands to remove files from peer-to-peer networks (which are not actually covered under the takedown statute, and which an OSP can only honor by terminating the target's Internet access entirely); and
• One out of 11 included significant statutory flaws that render the notice unusable (for example, failing to adequately identify infringing material).

In addition, we found some interesting patterns that do not, by themselves, indicate concern, but which are of concern when combined with the fact that one third of the notices depended on questionable claims:

• Over half--57%--of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors;
• Over a third--37%--of the notices sent to Google targeted sites apparently outside the United States.

[bold added]

Re:So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm not sure if it is a statutory requirement or not; but the following language is extraordinarily common in DMCA takedown notices:

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

From here,

"(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and 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."

makes it sound as though the minimum requirements may be slightly looser. IANAL, though.

Re:So...

[brit74]

Michael Crook hit with a lawsuit for fake DMCA takedowns
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/12/04/update-michael-crook-responds-to-eff/

Diebold paid $125,000 for false DMCA takedowns
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/diebold-inc-v-online-policy-group

Universal: EFF SLAPPed us with dancing toddler DMCA lawsuit
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/universal-eff-slapped-us-with-dancing-toddler-dmca-lawsuit.ars

DMCA takedown backlash: EFF sues Viacom over Colbert parody clip
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/03/dmca-takedown-backlash-eff-sues-viacom-over-colbert-parody-clip.ars

Re:Note to summary writer...

[Runaway1956]

Duhhh. People don't speak like a textbook. I often use such words as "oughta", as in "oughta be tarred and feathered". It isn't ignorance, nor is it carelessness - I type it that way intentionally, because people all over America TALK THAT WAY. Ain't you glad that it's so? (Don't bother telling me that "Ain't ain't a word", I've heard it enough times, and it IS A WORD, commonly used by uneducated and educated people alike.)

Re:Note to summary writer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhiza gar panton ton kakon estin he philarguria. So it's literally "all the evils".

Re:Are those overlapping percentages?

[merchant_x]

That link you provide says that the ideal serving temperature for coffee is 155-175. So it appears that McDonald's was serving their coffee about 20 degrees above the recommended temperature if in fact they were serving the coffee at 185 degrees.