Slashdot Mirror


Who Sends Google the Most Takedown Notices? Microsoft

nk497 writes "Google has released details on the copyright takedown notices it's received over the past year, and the most requests by far have been from Microsoft. Over the past year, Google has received DMCA takedown notices for 2,544,209 URLs over Microsoft-related piracy, with NBC and the RIAA ranking second and third. Many of the reports do not come directly from companies such as Microsoft, but via firms set up only to chase copyright issues. The most popular targets appear to be file-sharing sites. 'These days it's not unusual for us to receive more than 250,000 requests each week, which is more than what copyright owners asked us to remove in all of 2009,' said Fred von Lohmann, Google senior copyright counsel, adding it takes on average 11 hours for Google to take action."

148 comments

  1. potential iffyness by MrDoh! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Must be an odd position to be in where your competitor can take down the main thing you do. Ok, infringement obviously needs to be taken down quickly, but I can see there being a huge issue here later.
    Is there something that matches this in Bing? And if there is, wonder how quickly Google will take down pirate apk sites.

    Ok, had to pause a moment there. Doing a search for;
    "free pirate android apps"
    on google/bing produces wildly different results as you'd imagine. Wonder how this will go.

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
    1. Re:potential iffyness by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google and Bing give wildly different results on many different topics, including topics that both companies are disinterested/uninterested parties. Not to say they aren't skewing the results of some hot topics, just that different results are to be expected for almost anything.

    2. Re:potential iffyness by dc29A · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Strange that MS doesn't remove from Bing the same links it asks Google to take out.

    3. Re:potential iffyness by sideslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't expect Google to have the same interest in censoring Android app results on Bing, because the relatively few apps actually owned by Google are generally released for free anyway, whereas Microsoft has a ton of commercial software that many people consider desirable to rip off, like Windows, Office, MS Game Studios titles, etc.

      Recall that in general for Microsoft, software is something they create to sell to the public. For Google, software is something they give away free so that they can sell people's private browsing experiences to advertisers.

    4. Re:potential iffyness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pirate apk sites? Damn those rogue HOSTS files!

    5. Re:potential iffyness by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Funny

      Strange that MS doesn't remove from Bing the same links it asks Google to take out.

      What are you implying? Next thing you'll claim Fox News only attacks liberals? You'd think everyone had an agenda.

    6. Re:potential iffyness by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      infringement obviously needs to be taken down quickly

      Obviously for you, maybe. Copyright infringement is supposed to be decided by courts, which is not an 11 hour process.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:potential iffyness by Exitar · · Score: 5, Informative

      The goal is to make Bing the search engine most used by people looking for copyrighted content, since they could not find it on Google anymore.

      Google should simply submit the same take down notice to Microsoft if the "illegal" link is found on Bing too.

    8. Re:potential iffyness by Inda · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There's nothing strange at all.

      The only reason those results are on Bing is because Microsoft scraped Google's search results.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    9. Re:potential iffyness by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Recall instead that the software is not created just for sale to the general public. It is also there to be pirated, a pirate copy of Windows is M$ second favorite operating system.

      It's also not just desirable from M$ perspective to encourage piracy of their products but also part of their marketing. It's easier for M$ to compete with Linux where there is piracy than where there is not. Every Windows user, pirated or not, is not a Linux user. It keeps Linux out of the picture. we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.

      It also makes sense from a marketshare perspective. When you have a monopoly, the most valuable thing you have is the monopoly itself. Preservation of the monopoly gives a better return on investment than anything else. Most of M$ revenues would dry up without the monopoly rents.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    10. Re:potential iffyness by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Maybe MS doesn't see a lot of click-through on those links and can actually do the calculus. I wouldn't be surprised if most pirates use Google since most people use Google. Or maybe the people in charge of this (since this does take MS resources to issue the takedowns) are just too brain-dead to search Bing as well. Or maybe Bing's takedown procedure is far more arcane and costly than Google's?

      Hanlon's razor, people. Use it.

    11. Re:potential iffyness by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The simple answer is that Microsoft has more copyrighted things out in the wild..... Windows of course, but also their various office products, and also games for the Xbox. - Google has less to protect and less infringement to deal with.

      I would have thought the top requester would be the government itself. They are #2 on youtube, demanding that videos be taken down.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:potential iffyness by sideslash · · Score: 1

      That's my sense as well. It seems like Microsoft's strategy is to go lighter on foreign piracy specifically. For example, I think it would make the most sense for them to try to censor Google, but not Baidu. The First World has both money and (somewhat) effective legal enforcement.

    13. Re:potential iffyness by jdev · · Score: 1, Troll

      Strange that MS doesn't remove from Bing the same links it asks Google to take out.

      No, they just realize that nobody uses Bing :) They send the takedown to Google first since that will do more good.

    14. Re:potential iffyness by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      They are de-listing the sites in their search results, not confiscating the domain.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    15. Re:potential iffyness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google should simply submit the same take down notice to Microsoft if the "illegal" link is found on Bing too.

      Google aren't evil. Microsoft are.

    16. Re:potential iffyness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when? Both have their evilness in the same league, it's just that MS as a software vendor is more visible.

    17. Re:potential iffyness by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      Google should simply submit the same take down notice to Microsoft if the "illegal" link is found on Bing too.

      They probably can't, since they aren't the copyright owner. I would think it would be easier to make some kind of case that if one party doesn't care enough to remove content from their own engine then the cost burden of doing so on the other should be compensated.

    18. Re:potential iffyness by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Ok, infringement obviously needs to be taken down quickly, but I can see there being a huge issue here later.

      Except that the topic isn't infringment; it's claimed infringement. Counts for the two could easily differ by orders of magnitude.

      I don't think it would be difficult to write a script that wanders around a target site, picking pages at random, and generating a "takedown" message. I could probably produce such a script in under a day that targets google. The most time-consuming part of the task would probably be getting the template for the message from our company's legal department.

      When google is reporting millions of such messages per year from a single source, it's pretty obvious that it's not individual humans doing it by hand. What I'd wonder is whether google has developed software for automating the handling of takedown notices, as they've done with news stories. I'd be surprised if they've hired the hundreds of thousands of people with legal training in copyright law that would be needed to handle such a flood.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    19. Re:potential iffyness by geniice · · Score: 1

      Depending on how you read the DMCA that would ever be perjury or straightforward fraud.

    20. Re:potential iffyness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Google aren't evil. Microsoft are.

      Bitch, please.

    21. Re:potential iffyness by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Which is a technique that is used by China as part of their censorship apparatus. Delisting search results is still an attack on free speech, even if the origin website remains accessible; if you are wondering just how important search engine results are, consider the effort spent on "search engine optimization" as well as the money Google makes displaying sponsored search results.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    22. Re:potential iffyness by 1u3hr · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't be surprised if most pirates use Google

      I thought "pirates" were those who made the files available. Not those who download them.Anyway,it's still trivial to download any MS software. The hassle is you have to look out for malware and then find a WGA crack. Rather than go through all that crap, when I was given a used corporate laptop with a heavily passworded Vista setup and faced wiping and reinstall to get a useful system, I just said "fuck all that" and got Ubuntu. My daughter complained, but she got used to it.

    23. Re:potential iffyness by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

      All suspects are GUILTY. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect.

      --
      -
    24. Re:potential iffyness by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Yes, I apparently have been brain-wormed by the media since I was using "pirates" with the media definition rather than the more accurate, geeky definition. Stupid brain worms.

    25. Re:potential iffyness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google should simply submit the same take down notice to Microsoft if the "illegal" link is found on Bing too.

      Can't do that. But, on the other hand...

      "Dear Microsoft,
          At your request, we took down link http://torrentstuff.totally.invalid/Windows8Pro.torrent. However, we have noticed that it has been 7 days and you still have the same link in Bing. We therefore assume that your notice was sent in error and the link is not in fact infringing. We are restoring the link, and will not take it down again until Bing does.
            Love and Kisses,
            Fred von Lohmann"

    26. Re:potential iffyness by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      I believe you are right. But... instead of removing links to Microsoft copyright material based on a DMCA request, why not replace the search request with a Bing derived search? Even label it as such.

      Should be automatable. (If DMCA copyright holder is Microsoft, search for the specific item on Bing, from the DMCA request; if found, annotate the result w/ Bing! instead of DMCA removal).

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    27. Re:potential iffyness by sideslash · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why your post was modded as troll, except maybe for the dollar signs in M$. Everything you said was spot-on. Cheers, dude.

    28. Re:potential iffyness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like Microsoft are that efficient. They probably don't remove them because their internal communication between departments is atrocious.

    29. Re:potential iffyness by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Sigh, the SOP when trying to make a product prevail over the competition is twofold:

      A - make your product better
      B - make the competition's product worse

      And the takedown notices flood logically follows.

      If you still think it's far fetched ask yourself: did MS ever use piracy of its own products for its own advantage in term of market share? answer, yes.

      Fact is, hanlon's razor contradicts occam's razor: it gives a predetermined weight over interpretation of facts that is proven irrelevant by the very existence of the term malice. If only incompetence explains things, there is no need for razors, if incompetence and malice explain things, judge the likelihood of both instead of discarding either a priori, it's that simple.

      Had you asked me, before I read comments: "do you think that microsoft likewise censors Bing?" I'd have answered nope, it'll happen only AFTER they beat google in the search biz, which is not any time soon.

        Hanlon's razor, people, use it to shave balls.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  2. That's a shock by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who knew they were so protective of Bob and Clippy?

    1. Re:That's a shock by tqk · · Score: 1

      Slashdot seems full of anti-Slashdot shills who believe everyone there has an agenda, and believe no one there has any sense of objectivity.

      FTFY.

      Gahd, I despise knee-jerk prophets and shallow as a pane of glass philosophizers. If you have to think, think deeper.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:That's a shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, because you certainly rise above the man on the street with your post. [/rolling of eyes]

    3. Re:That's a shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Clippy: "It looks like you're writing a DMCA take-down notice..."

    4. Re:That's a shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft was the big evil, are they still evil? Yes. Are they the most evil company? Sadly, no. Their "evilness" started declining somewhere after 2003, probably due to the fact that there was no one to take down or remove since they owned everything, or so they thought. They're still looking in the rear view mirror today, even though they got passed years ago.

      Google has been evil for at least the last 8 years and maybe more. Facebook has been evil since, I don't know, inception? The real question is which one is worse.

      Apple? Evil? I'm not sure they really fell into the camp until recently with Siri. While a cool tech, it's certainly ripe for abuse. If you're going to go off about the iTunes music store and DRM, first I'll note that Apple got the labels to sign on, and finally to remove DRM. I'd call them good guys on that front. That said, my music collection numbers into 10K songs, all lossless, and none purchased from the iTunes music store, yet still they amazingly somehow play on my iphone/ipods and other utilities, even on other systems.

      Phones? It's their phone, and they must be doing something right, as it is the #1 selling model with a huge loyal following. You may not like it, and that's fine. I don't like Yugos either, and don't own one.

      The last thing is the Mac App Store - this one's interesting, and the thing to note is that when you get something via the MAS, it's relatively safe software to run and use. Do I agree with all of it? Mostly, yes. It would be nice if they allowed you to post your non MAS solutions for registered devs with signed apps at least with a small cut since they are not hosting it nor anything else, but are still playing by proper rules. Free apps would obviously not get a cut, but at least it would give you a one stop shopping place for everything Apple has at least knowledge of. Note that this still allows you to install non MAS / Apple registered software, even on mountain lion. It's just allowing all registered devs to have a small advantage, instead of only MAS devs.

    5. Re:That's a shock by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft: Evil by design

      Facebook: Evil by proxy

      Google: Evil by accident

      Apple: Evil by tyranny

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:That's a shock by Grayhand · · Score: 2

      Slashdot seems full of anti-MS shills who are stuck in 1999.

      I don't know if it's amusing or just pathetic.

      I'll go with amusing. The whole point is just how much licensed intellectual property does a software company have to protect? They aren't exactly publishing lines of code in the articles. They don't even come up with clever names for products. We're talking Word, Office, Windows. What are all these people posting that requires take down notices? FYI there has always been far more people defending Microsoft on Slashdot than attack it. I'm a heretic with no real preference. Everyone attacks authors and bands for making money off old work so why not Microsoft? The last new product they released that was modestly successful was the Xbox. The bulk of their income comes from milking Windows and Office. They've sucked so hard on those cow's teats that they have calluses and the cow is practically inside out. If your stance is that you aren't bias then why are you defending them? What makes them less evil than the rest of the blood suckers? Bill Gates was once the richest man in the world largely due to running the biggest monopoly in computers. Not to mention all those nasty bits of code from other companies that kept finding it's way into Windows. I'm not attacking Microsoft I'm telling you to pry your eyes open and stop worshipping Microsoft. If you want to be noble rally around Linux. When's the last time that group issued a take down notice?

    7. Re:That's a shock by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      can we really not have the false flag troll as a response to a troll?

      Any corporation with billions can be a danger to anyone thanks to the legal environment in the US. Google tells people what they do and gives you a way to turn it off, apple tells you in fine print only but does not give you such an option.

      Google is only as close to the concept of evil as the FUD against them. When people actually look at facts it's pretty abundantly clear that there are moneygrabs and competitors who want google's money, but not anything google has been found guilty of. When apple goes "we invented X" (even though they didn't) and sues google, does that mean google is questionable? Only if you believe fud like your post.

    8. Re:That's a shock by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The XBox division is only successful if you ignore the vast amount of money spent to buy its market division.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:That's a shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False flag? FUD?

      Hardly. Google makes its money by targeted advertising but in a more sinister way, by reporting/selling usage data, information, and demographics to governments, corporations, etc.

      If you believe in personal privacy, that's unacceptable. Everyone hates facebook because it is well known that they do this, but why not Google?

      If, however, you don't value privacy (and I'm guessing this is the case) I can see your point. Carry on.

    10. Re:That's a shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but in a more sinister way, by reporting/selling usage data, information, and demographics to governments, corporations, etc.

      [Citation needed]

      "FUD? Hardly. *proceeds with a piece of Google eeeeevilness based entirely on what he (probably) believes to be true*"

      Dude, that's exactly what's called FUD. Google sells targeted ads. If you've got something to substantiate your claim on Google selling information used in ads targeting, please do provide a link, I wish to buy some.

    11. Re:That's a shock by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      FYI there has always been far more people defending Microsoft on Slashdot than attack it.

      You must read a different Slashdot than I do. I see people bashing Microsoft just to bash them. There will be an article about Apple suing Google, and there is inevitably several posts about Evil MS.

    12. Re:That's a shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HP: Evil by incompetence

      Cisco: Evil by greed

      Adobe: Evil

  3. Broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The DMCA seems broken. No one can possibly deal with all those notices. They'd have to use an automated system or have an inconceivable amount of manpower on their hands. To top it all off, there are bound to be mistakes.

    Copyright enforcement is just scary.

    1. Re:Broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They'd have to use an automated system

      "Works as intended".

    2. Re:Broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DMCA seems broken.

      Most of us figured that out 10+ years ago.

    3. Re:Broken. by geniice · · Score: 1

      All the alternatives are worse. Remember we are not dealing with subtle grades of fair use of complex issues over how long certain copyrights last. You can deal with them at a rate of about 1 a minute assuming you've got everything other than Y/N/Escalate automated. Assuming a 38 hour working week that's 110 people. The other half of the budget goes to the 10 lawyers or so needed to deal with the messy stuff. For a company of google's size that's quite doable.

    4. Re:Broken. by BanHammor · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, they tried to fix it with SOPA/PIPA... In all sorts of wrong places.

  4. The lawsuit itself became a business case by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real business case is no longer the software. As the article says, there are now dedicated companies who chase copyright issues. If they cannot find a copyright issue, they'll go bankrupt. If they find more copyright issues than last year (and win a few lawsuits), they'll make profit.

    I guess that soon enough, we cannot change the copyright laws anymore, because the copyright-chasers would lose their revenues.

    1. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well at least it keeps the circle round...

      Stuff is too expensive so people pirate it -> they start adding more and more protections that cost tons of money (not to mention it makes the paying customer really frustrated) -> stuff is too expensive...

    2. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by tqk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As the article says, there are now dedicated companies who chase copyright issues.

      Yes, and doesn't that strike you as just plain sick?

      It's interesting how many of these requests are received, but I couldn't easily find out how many of them were declined. Does anyone have a link to this information?

      I did not RTFA, but I did read this, which seemed a good overall review of the features. It looks like a very nice thing for Google to put out.

      That said, I'll stick with Ixquick, thanks.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by captainpanic · · Score: 0

      Well at least it keeps the circle round...

      Stuff is too expensive so people pirate it -> they start adding more and more protections that cost tons of money (not to mention it makes the paying customer really frustrated) -> stuff is too expensive...

      If you really want to make the circle round, it should go like this:
      Stuff is too expensive so people pirate it -> more and more anti-piracy lawsuits -> people start to pirate anti-piracy lawsuits

      [/joke]

    4. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand what you guys are complaining about. There is at least one, and often several, well-funded free alternative for most of Microsoft's hit products. I often see people posting here about how the FOSS rivals are *superior* to Microsoft's.

      So shouldn't this be seen as a good thing? Instead of consumers moving in the wrong direction, breaking the law and using someone else's work without paying the asking price, maybe they'll check out Linux, Libre or OpenOffice, MySQL, etc.

    5. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      That only works if you do business in a vacuum. If you never collaborate with world, are willing to train your employees from scratch on all of your software, and only ever have to produce hard copy output, then OSS can be a reasonable alternative.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A business should be able to afford $150 - $250 per employee for a license to MS Office. They usually buy PC's with Windows preinstalled.

      I suppose a tiny business of 1-10 people might have financial issues, but then they can do what you describe with FOSS.

    7. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im thinking that Microsoft signed a performance contract with these companies which is payed on a per notice basis. Essentially means that microsoft is losing just as much money as google is in regards to these takedowns.

    8. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by tqk · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what you guys are complaining about. There is at least one, and often several, well-funded free alternative for most of Microsoft's hit products.

      To be fair, I don't know what you're complaining about. From what I read, most of the bitching about IP maximalists I see is wrt MPAA and Hollywood's offerings, not software.

      And for the record, I just noticed I didn't have [*]office installed here, but as of 15 minutes ago, now I do.

      [*]Open. LibreOffice appears to be broken in Debian squeeze, drat. It works fine on my testing box.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      I see the problem as people are brought up using MS products. Although I'm a technical person and know about the alternatives not everyone I know is as lucky, I can only educate so many people at a time. Another issue is when something doesn't work the way a person expects because it's different from MS Word or Excel most people just give up. I have my launch menu on the right side of my screen, which drives people batty because they're use to seeing it on the bottom. I'm sure you can imagine the comments I get when someones trying to use Libre Office on my machine and can't find some feature because the icons are different.

      MS has been training people for years to use MS products at work and home so they shouldn't be surprised when an average user can't afford $150-$250 license for their home machine and pirate it instead. Because most people stick with what they know of course they'll go out and pirate it.

      I switched to Linux after my brand new laptop had a catastrophic failure trying to run Windows Vista. I bought the machine close to five years ago and it came with Windows XP, a sticker that said Vista ready and an upgrade deal. The problem was once Vista was installed the machine ran like crap, it hung during start-ups and shutdowns and often just randomly restarted or blue screened. I tried to downgrade back to XP, but was told I wasn't allowed and I'd have to buy a new license. I ended up with a developers copy of Windows 7 which ran fine on the machine until the developer period was up. I wasn't going to go and spend $200 on a Windows 7 license for a machine that was suppose to have windows on it, and had considered pirating a copy. Instead I installed Ubuntu, and more recently Linux Mint, now I run a pirated copy of Windows XP in VMWare to play games, which I consider legit because my machine came with XP so I've technically paid for it. I use Linux Mint and OSS for everything else. I installed Linux Mint on my wife's two year old computer when she start having problems with Vista. That lasted a week until she decided she needed a new computer to play her Facebook games.

      Yes I was disgusted and had considered divorce, but then my daughter came along so I've decided to give up on my wife and focus my attention on training her. I'm so proud eight months old and she can already use my Android phone. *cry*

    10. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      $150-$250, plus the labor cost for managing licenses, plus another $100 average at each upgrade cycle because installs do get lost, plus another $100 per employee when a "licensing expert" comes in and says your perfectly legal software really should have been purchased differently (despite the advice of the last expert) and it all now needs to be bought again through his particular favorite reseller.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then use the FOSS alternative which is supposed to be superior anyway.

      Hello? These convoluted arguments are a result of cognitive dissonance:

      - the BSA/RIAA/MPAA spend enormous resources attacking people who would never have bought their member companies' products anyway

      - almost everything MS does is crap, or at best is no better than free alternatives which come with no strings attached

    12. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Shagg · · Score: 1

      The BSA is just as bad. They usually blackmail businesses though, not individuals, so people don't complain about them as often as the RIAA/MPAA.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    13. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      As the article says, there are now dedicated companies who chase copyright issues.

      Yes, and doesn't that strike you as just plain sick?

      Yes, it just goes to show how greedy the average public is.

    14. Re:The lawsuit itself became a business case by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      FOSS: $1000 to $10000 per custom application that needs a compatibility interface, porting project, or data migration, plus $200 per employee for training because "it's different", plus $3000 per IT staffer per year for having a less common skill set.

      I personally love FOSS solutions, and use them where possible, but the economics just don't work out that well. It sucks.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. How many false positives? by biodata · · Score: 2

    It's interesting how many of these requests are received, but I couldn't easily find out how many of them were declined. Does anyone have a link to this information? It seems a bit surprising if there are not a single false positive in all those millions of requests. Is it the case that once someone asks for something to be taken down, Google cannot decline, even if the request is wrong?

    --
    Korma: Good
    1. Re:How many false positives? by biodata · · Score: 4, Informative

      Never mind found it in the FAQ: they removed 97% of search results specified in requests received between July and December 2011. The cases they talk about declining to remove are a laugh.

      --
      Korma: Good
    2. Re:How many false positives? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Under the DMCA, more-or-less. For a service provider to decline a DMCA notice means they can be potentially liable, so unless the content in question is of particually high value of the customer pays very well they have little incentive to even give the contents of the notice a glance. Take it down first, ask questions later.

    3. Re:How many false positives? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure whether or not they can decline. I think not. However, the proper procedure for a takedown notice states that the person requesting the takedown must submit

      5. A statement, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive right that is alleged to be infringed.

      So while I'm sure that there are some false positives, there are some people that would submit things which weren't actually infringements, I think most people would think twice against submitting a takedown notice to Google that they knew was for non-infringing content. Google might send lawyers after them. Take down requests for non-infringing content may work to scare away the little guys, but I'm pretty sure Google ignores quite a few requests that don't follow proper procedures or that obviously aren't copyright violations.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:How many false positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google might send lawyers after them.

      They might. But I doubt it.

      but I'm pretty sure Google ignores quite a few requests that don't follow proper procedures or that obviously aren't copyright violations.

      How could they? There are too many. Given that number of take down requests, there are very likely many false positives.

    5. Re:How many false positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be fun to set up a corporation to find abusive DMCA abusers and sue them.

    6. Re:How many false positives? by DarthBling · · Score: 2

      Never mind found it in the FAQ: they removed 97% of search results specified in requests received between July and December 2011. The cases they talk about declining to remove are a laugh.

      In case anybody is interested, I found the FAQ here.

      Here are a few examples of requests that have been submitted through our copyright removals process that were clearly invalid copyright removal requests.

              A major U.S. motion picture studio requested removal of the IMDb page for a movie released by the studio, as well as the official trailer posted on a major authorized online media service.
              A U.S. reporting organization working on behalf of a major movie studio requested removal of a movie review on a major newspaper website twice.
              A driving school in the U.K. requested the removal of a competitor's homepage from Search, on the grounds that the competitor had copied an alphabetized list of cities and regions where instruction was offered.
              A content protection organization for motion picture, record and sports programming companies requested the removal of search results that link to copyright removal requests submitted by one of their clients and other URLs that did not host infringing content.
              An individual in the U.S. requested the removal of search results that link to court proceedings referencing her first and last name on the ground that her name was copyrightable.
              Multiple individuals in the U.S. requested the removal of search results that link to blog posts and web forums that associated their names with certain allegations, locations, dates or negative comments.
              A company in the U.S. requested the removal of search results that link to an employee's blog posts about unjust and unfair treatment.

      We did not comply with any of these requests.

    7. Re:How many false positives? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Can you point me to a link for the FAQ which gave you a laugh? A laugh would be good. Thanks!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    8. Re:How many false positives? by biodata · · Score: 1

      Please see poster above you. I especially like this one: A content protection organization for motion picture, record and sports programming companies requested the removal of search results that link to copyright removal requests submitted by one of their clients and other URLs that did not host infringing content.

      --
      Korma: Good
    9. Re:How many false positives? by Shagg · · Score: 1

      It's a nice theory, but I've never heard of anyone actually being held accountable for submitting a false DMCA.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
  6. DDOS by any other name by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course not. The goal is less about taking down the sites and more about burning Google's resources through excessive takedown requests. Google ought to queue the requests in a FIFO pipe and process a small number per day. Maybe they could require payment for the processing, which does cost Google real money, to offset the time and resources wasted.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:DDOS by any other name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Payment for every request lodged per day over X perhaps - at a rate that increases as more are lodged.

      While my first thought was the same as yours - with pirated windows being microsoft's second favourite operating system, it is a little disingenuous to believe that they care more about attempting to curb piracy or even being seen to attempt to curb piracy than they do about wasting a competitor's resources in any way possible, especially given that they aren't removing those links from their own search engine - my second thought was a little different.
      People are presumably still going to try to find microsoft warez, and if they find that bing returns better results than google on that topic, or any other topic they're interested in, they might start to use it instead, replacing the habit of googling something with binging it. What better way to get people to use your search service than effectively offering them free stuff while simultaneously making it harder for them to find the same free stuff using other people's search? People love free stuff, even (especially?) free junk.

      And if they go back to using google? "Dear Mr Doe, it has come to our attention (around fourteen months ago, back when you started using bing) that you have in your possession a pirated copy of our software. Please prepare yourself for legal reaming. Have a nice day. P.s. You should have stayed with bing."

    2. Re:DDOS by any other name by atlasdropperofworlds · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It could be more insidious than that. By flooding Google with requests, Google will automate the process. In fact, I bet they already have. This means less human oversight, and a greater chance that anything can be censored.

    3. Re:DDOS by any other name by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe Microsoft's lawyers don't bother sending the same notices to Bing because, well, who uses Bing?

      (OK, I use Bing once in a while, before going back to Google when I realize Bing is just as crappy as Google search.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:DDOS by any other name by Marillion · · Score: 1

      Google should charge US$0.99 per take down for "administrative cost recovery" or some other similar reason. It's a price high enough to stop "frivolous" take downs. It's low enough that people who are actually loosing money because of a link should have no qualms about paying.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    5. Re:DDOS by any other name by geniice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google isn't going to do anything that would risk its safe harbour statements. At the same time sending these requests already costs Microsoft money

    6. Re:DDOS by any other name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Submitting take down requests cost's MS more than it cost's Google to remove them. They pay lawyers lots of money to make sure its all legit. investigators to gather info, & a vendor actually submits the request to Google (& eBay, and many other sites as well).

  7. All of file sharing domains now in one place! by ciantic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey! On a related note now there is a list of all file sharing domains in one place: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/?r=all-time - neatly organized.

    1. Re:All of file sharing domains now in one place! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Short for: these are the websites you clearly *could* go to in order to find what you want to download. I'm surprised scrapetorrent isn't at the top of the list since it's a decent aggregator.

    2. Re:All of file sharing domains now in one place! by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I can see right through that transparency report!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    3. Re:All of file sharing domains now in one place! by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      That's awful. I hate loopholes even more than bad laws.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  8. It is all about who stores it for sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your pictures can be used in ads if it is on their computer even after you remove your account,

  9. Welcome to free speech... by jez9999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... US-style.

    1. Re:Welcome to free speech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/?r=all-time
      You also get a nice little notice of DMCA that always include the link itself.

  10. 250,000 fingers in the dike a week by crazyjj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These days it's not unusual for us to receive more than 250,000 requests each week, which is more than what copyright owners asked us to remove in all of 2009

    In that case, they'll win the war any day now.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  11. non US search engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    why isn't there a google alternative that is worth a damn, that isn't in the US, isn't hosted in the US and doesn't use a US-controlled TLD, and thus, not subject to this DMCA bullshit?

    1. Re:non US search engines by MobyDisk · · Score: 1
    2. Re:non US search engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd find away around that, see: Megaupload

    3. Re:non US search engines by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      google.cn is owned by google, which is an american company.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:non US search engines by bgarcia · · Score: 2

      why isn't there a google alternative that is worth a damn, that isn't in the US, isn't hosted in the US and doesn't use a US-controlled TLD, and thus, not subject to this DMCA bullshit?

      Here you go: Baidu

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    5. Re:non US search engines by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*
      He was looking to avoid censorship, so I was pointing out that it could be much worse...

    6. Re:non US search engines by westlake · · Score: 1

      why isn't there a google alternative that is worth a damn, that isn't in the US, isn't hosted in the US and doesn't use a US-controlled TLD, and thus, not subject to this DMCA bullshit?

      The Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. is 15 trillion dollars and the Population of the U.S. is 312 million.

      Only the EU as a whole produces wealth on anything like this scale.

      The geek may fret and fume and claim otherwise.

      But, realistically, your people and operations based in the states will be quite safe from mob violence, religious persecution, political and economic upheavels of every sort.

      The search provider is, of course, only a half step away from becoming a content provider, with its own IP and revenue streams to protect.

    7. Re:non US search engines by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      You could try Yandex, it is pretty decent, and is not subject to DMCA.

  12. Wouldn't it be simpler.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..to just not index any page containing the term Microsoft? Just add it to the stopword list already.

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be simpler.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And then Google finds itself facing both an anti-trust suit and millions of customers leaving it.

      Thanks for the idea, but the lawyers say no, and the beancounters say HELL NO FYOU!

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be simpler.. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      think of the children!

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:Wouldn't it be simpler.. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      They would have to index Microsoft's domains, but since it can't easily be verified whether 3rd parties are respecting Microsoft's trademarks and licenses, excluding them is really the right thing to do.

  13. Asking for predictions by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Can I get some best guesses as to what year the first shooting war between two modern corporations will take place?

    It has to be a) an actual declaration of hostilities, with a competing facility being destroyed and b) there has to be human casualties (preferably employees of one of the corporations).

    I'm setting the over/under at 2020. Winner gets paid in Bitcoin.

    2001 only counts if you're a ronpaulie.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Asking for predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get some best guesses as to what year the first shooting war between two modern corporations will take place?

      For an idea of how that will unfold, read Heinlein's novel "Friday" .

    2. Re:Asking for predictions by geniice · · Score: 1

      Define modern because the East India company got up to some interesting stuff. Otherwise you would be looking at the activities of various mining companies in the DRC in the 90s.

    3. Re:Asking for predictions by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A corporation with power sufficiently unrestricted to wage open war is indistinguishable from an authoritarian government.

    4. Re:Asking for predictions by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No guesses like that but I'm guessing it will be between Coca-Cola and Nestle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Numbers are BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, they receive 250,000 requests each week, and it takes 11 hours to deal with them. That means they need 68,750 people working 40 hours a week to handle it, or twice their total headcount.

    I assume that they only reason they are processing these takedown notices at all is that there is a legal requirement in the DMCA for them to comply, probably within a few days.

    Fred von Lohmann, as a lawyer, is completely full of shit. Either the numbers are not that high, or they do not take 11 hours to process.

    1. Re:Numbers are BS by Geeky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's 11 elapsed hours, not 11 hours to do the work. They have a backlog. Each one might only take five minutes to process, but they'll get to it, on average, 11 hours after it's reported.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    2. Re:Numbers are BS by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      it takes on average 11 hours for Google to take action.

      what he means is, the cronjob that runs ./dmca_takedown.sh is set to run every 11 hours. you really think google wouldn't automate this?

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    3. Re:Numbers are BS by Imrik · · Score: 1

      That would actually be every 22 hours, or more likely, every 24 hours with the requests not being evenly distributed.

  15. Why doesn't Google play the same game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google could hire twice the amount of firms like Microsoft is doing, and harass the hell out of Bing.

  16. I actually appreciate this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As google posts all takedown notices to Chilling Effects, anytime I do a search I know I can visit the URLs in the CE document and get a real, valid DDL source about 98% of the time.

  17. Missing the hidden point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are most of the top links MS requests be removed?

                                          Porn and Piracy sites!

    Its in MS's interest to remove them from Google and not itself to drive those users to Bing.

    Very clever!!!

  18. No surprise. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    As apple has shown us over and over again, if you can't outdo your competition, go through legal channels to remove it.
    I guess Microsoft thought it'd try it as well.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  19. Before we collectively flip out about this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...could we at least CONSIDER that some of these claims might be legit?

    Microsoft publishes a lot of software. It's expensive stuff. People pirate it. There are a lot of places on the internet you could go to get a copy of Windows for free. I'd expect there are a lot of legit sites that Microsoft is well within their rights to request takedown on.

    How many of their requests are legit vs. "trying to silence our critics," I don't know. And neither do you.

    Assuming all their claims are frivolous and Microsoft hates free speech is a little premature from the facts in evidence (which are pretty thin). I realize this is Slashdot, and they're Micr$oft, and we hate them, but c'mon.

  20. Outstanding! by zidium · · Score: 0

    Despite the overt psychosis of the story's protagonist, this ad is marvelous!!! I honestly wish you the best and hope this ad medium will be continued in other stories for other products ;-)

    --
    Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    1. Re:Outstanding! by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      Indeed, it is amusing. I just wish it wasn't spammed into inappropriate places.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Outstanding! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I know, if this ad was for a relevant product, like Microsoft Office or Google Chrome, it would surely get a few clicks from this story. I'd click just for the amusement factor of the story, for sure. Not for this likely scam product, though.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    3. Re:Outstanding! by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      meh, it's a rerun. i want a new episode, dammit!

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  21. No equivalency in evilness between MS & Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sort of scamming is totally normal for MS. We do not see these sorts of scams from Google.

  22. Where will I then get a Windows ISO by thue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Computers nowadays don't come with a Windows CD. So if a virus messes up my computer, what am I to do?

    I have always downloaded a Windows ISO off the Pirate Bay, which I do with an entirely clean conscience, since I own a valid Windows Key, which Microsoft also checks when I actually install windows. Websites like the Pirate Bay is what makes it actually a tiny bit user-friendly to use Windows, in spite of Microsoft.

    1. Re:Where will I then get a Windows ISO by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Computers nowadays don't come with a Windows CD.

      I've bought two this year both came with a Win7 OEM DVD and a key, I had to 'remind' one sales guy that I was entiled to the half price OEM copy that comes with just about every motherboard, he wanted to sell me the retail version. I reminded him after we negotiate a price of course :)

      Personally I wouldn't stick a cracked .iso on my machine. Now you can call me a shill if you like but you'd be wrong, I do my banking and work from home 2 days a week, my computers are my tools of trade and I simply don't trust a cracked O/S with the keys to my piggy bank, and I'm sure as hell my employer would take a dim view of it.

      Moral of the story: Don't buy your PC from a department store and if you want a free O/S don't install some malware ridden windows .iso you found on TPB, there are plenty of free O/S's out there from reputable sources that are just as good (if not better) than windows..

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Where will I then get a Windows ISO by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Personally I wouldn't stick a cracked .iso on my machine.

      Even if the torrent hash matches the official file from technet?

      I was getting dismal download speeds on a 4GB iso the other day, so i hit pirate bay to get it. Same hash, same file, 1.8MB/s instead of 18kb/s...

    3. Re:Where will I then get a Windows ISO by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes you can validate .iso files with a lot less than $150 worth of your time and if this wasn't slashdot that would be informative :)

      I'm a 50+ corporate data plumber and have made a good living at it for 20yrs. I don't like the current IP laws, they are the proverbial dog's breakfast. I think the *IAA's should be prosecuted under racketering laws in the US for bankrupting avaerage Joe's, thankfully they can't pull that shit here in Oz and pretend it's not extortion.

      Having said that, for at least the last decade I have paid for the proprietary software I use. This is because when all's said and done, paying for proprietry software is the RightThing(TM) to do for those who are willing and able to spend money doing the RightThing(TM). If you don't have money and still want to do the RightThing(TM) then use the free stuff that glues the internet together, even if you have bags of money the free stuff is still worth a look.

      Conclusion: The RightThing(TM) and MS software are both expensive and often inconvienient.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Where will I then get a Windows ISO by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      1) Yes, computers these days DO come with the DVD and usually come with the DVD-ROM. I know that this is the case for HP and DELL systems. They also usually come with a restore partition if its a consumer-grade system, and if its for an enterprise your IT can make a restore partition thanks to instructions from Microsoft. 2) You can usually download the ISO straight from Microsoft, at least if you have an MSDN subscription. If not, your friends/family likely have a computer which means they should have a DVD as well, if you lost yours. Also, and I'm not sure if this is still the case, but Microsoft in the past has sent me a replacement DVD in the mail when I had a disc damaged. I did have to provide proof of purchase, and i probably only got it so fast since I live in WA. So stop making up stories to support your argument. It doesn't help you.

  23. What are the chances they are ALL legit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, given that the DMCA was NOT supposed to close down legit businesses, why should this illegal abuse of the system be accepted, even if most are right (which isn't what you're asking either)?

  24. Good faith? Good lord! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    2,544,209 URLs that Microsoft has checked and confirmed in order to meet the good faith requirement of the DMCA.
    Imagine the incredible number of jobs the copyright-infringement industry has created.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  25. Hanlon's razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Microsoft just hasn't figured out how to clean links out of Bing yet, it might not be malice at all.

  26. Why is Google responsible? by Anonymous+Cod · · Score: 2

    Google is just a search engine. Shouldn't the take-down notices be sent to the website host instead? Let search engines just do what they are intended to do, which is locate content.

    1. Re:Why is Google responsible? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Google is just a search engine. Shouldn't the take-down notices be sent to the website host instead? Let search engines just do what they are intended to do, which is locate content.

      Yeah, I've been wondering this myself. What laws actually require removing a link to something on a different site?

      Also, what's the sense in trying to shut down links to your material? If I found a link to something for which I'm the copyright owner, I'd follow the link, and send the takedown notice to the infringing site. Then I'd send a thank-you message to the linking site to thank them for tipping me off about the infringement. (This isn't hypothetical; I've actually done it. I've also thanked people for telling me about security holes in my sites' software. Am I stupid for doing this, and not threatening to sue them instead? ;-)

      It sounds like Microsoft (and the RIAA, etc.) actually want the infringement to stay online, and are trying to stop the sites that finger the infringers. Is there some sort of twisted business plan for which this makes sense?

      But more to the point, can anyone explain the legality of the story? If I link to (or otherwise report) an infringing file on another site, why can I be attacked as the infringer? Why am I not the benefactor who reported the crime? What laws support attacking the person who reports an infringement, while ignoring the actual infringer?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Why is Google responsible? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been wondering this myself. What laws actually require removing a link to something on a different site?

      The DMCA. See the 2600 case, which the EFF conceded after losing at the appeals level. Search engines in particular are covered under 17 USC 512(d)

    3. Re:Why is Google responsible? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ... Search engines in particular are covered under 17 USC 512(d)

      Well, with the usual IANAL qualification, I'd have to observe that that section (d) seems to fairly clearly say when a "service provider shall not be liable ...". It doesn't seem to actually state when a service provider shall be liable for anything. Presumably that's stated elsewhere, but I haven't seen it yet.

      Section (d) does say "except as provided in subsection (j)", but that section turns out to deal with situations where a court injunction exists, and I haven't read of such an injunction being delivered to google. Does anyone know of such an injunction?

      I do have a good number of web pages that include "References" sections, similar to what you find in most wikipedia pages (and pretty much all scholarly publications). Since these usually include keywords describing the reason for the link, such pages could presumably be considered to legally constitute a "search site". Am I really in danger of being sent to a federal prison for using hyperlinks in scholarly and other reference sections of my sites? I'd always sorta thought that I was honoring others by referencing or linking to their documents, but perhaps the legal system is trying to end this long-standing practice in the online environment.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:Why is Google responsible? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Well, with the usual IANAL qualification, I'd have to observe that that section (d) seems to fairly clearly say when a "service provider shall not be liable ...". It doesn't seem to actually state when a service provider shall be liable for anything. Presumably that's stated elsewhere, but I haven't seen it yet.

      It doesn't. That's the evil genius of the DMCA. It provides a safe harbor from liability whether or not that liability existed in the first place. In fact, it explictly says (in 512(l)): "The failure of a service provider's conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider's conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense."

      However, I'm pretty sure that if push came to shove, the courts in fact WOULD be more willing to find liability for service providers given that safe harbor exists than if it did not. And because the safe harbor is so easy, no ISP is wiling to take the risk.

  27. You can't search the Google list!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google, the search engine company, has a list of 7000+ "owners" and it can't be searched - or even displayed on one page so I can search with my browser? I can only look 20 at a time? 350 pages?

  28. 1 week != 1 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they get more take down requests in ONE WEEK than they did for the entire year of 2009, that implies that something is wrong. Is it the take down system, the copyright system, or the ones that decide to break the rules? Something is broken here.

  29. In answer to your question... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

    If you're genuinely interested.

    Computers nowadays don't come with a Windows CD. So if a virus messes up my computer, what am I to do?

    1. All major manufacturers provide a way to burn "recovery disks".
    2. If you don't create recovery disks, you call the OEM and they'll ship you the appropriate disks. More details here.
    3. P.S. - you should've installed MSE/not clicked on that unknown attachment, then, shouldn't you (snark off).

    I have always downloaded a Windows ISO off the Pirate Bay, which I do with an entirely clean conscience, since I own a valid Windows Key, which Microsoft also checks when I actually install windows.

    4. You can call Microsoft direct if you have a key. On their web site, they provide this contact information:

    • United States: (800) 360-7561, Monday through Friday, 5:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Pacific Time.
    • Canada: (800) 933-4750, Monday through Friday, 5:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Pacific Time.

    ...you're welcome.

    1. Re:In answer to your question... by thue · · Score: 1

      > 1. 2. 3.

      I have needed it to restore some old inherited laptops with Windows. And once for my home computer, which I assembled from scratch, reusing a Windows key from a laptop, so no OEM to call.

      > 4. You can call Microsoft direct if you have a key.

      Last time I called them (in Denmark), asking for a link to an iso, their supporter told me I couldn't get one. He suggested I download one off the pirate bay.

    2. Re:In answer to your question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a condescending post. You make it sound like Windows users should just take it up the ass and let Microsoft treat them like pirates. Why shouldnt people just download it instead of having to worry about it up front or call to beg for it later? Why not just download instead of putting up with anything like that, like calling to get cds shipped slow, calling Microsoft because you're otherwise not allowed to take any easier and more reasonable steps.

  30. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks Mr Ballmer, now get your videos off YouTube, you're nauseating the paying customers.

  31. My clean PC runs Xubuntu by tepples · · Score: 1

    Computers nowadays don't come with a Windows CD. So if a virus messes up my computer, what am I to do?

    Install MyCleanPC, which doesn't get Windows viruses.

    Clean, precise, pangolin-powered. MyCleanPC.

  32. The shakedown by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    It's probably because of the two quotes:

    Although 'piracy' has been an integral part of Microsoft's marketing and dominance on the desktop, even to the point of actively encouraging it, it's not a fact they want getting a lot of attention. A pirate copy of Windows is M$ second favorite OS. It means, obviously, that competing software is not used. It also means that if they can get their marketing arm, the BSA, in the door, they can probably shake the company down for everything, including servers and thus gain entrance to the server room. M$ used shakedowns against Netware in the 1990's and seems to be using it against Linux now.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.