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."

39 of 148 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    9. 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"
    10. 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.

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

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

      --
      -
  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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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?

  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.

  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 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.
    2. 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*

    3. 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.
  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 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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

  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.

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

    ... US-style.

  9. 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?
  10. 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 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.