Slashdot Mirror
Movie Studios Ask Google To Censor Links To Legal Copies of Their Own Films
An anonymous reader writes "Several large movie studios have asked Google to take down legitimate pages related to their own films, including sites legally hosting, promoting, or discussing them. Victims of the takedown requests include sites where the content is hosted legally (Amazon, CBS, iTunes, Blockbuster, Verizon on demand, and Xfinity), newspapers discussing the content in question (the BBC, CNET, Forbes, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, The Mirror, The Daily Mail, and Wired) as well as official Facebook Pages for the movies and TV shows and even their Wikipedia entries. There are also a number of legitimate links that appear to be completely unrelated to the content that is supposedly being protected. The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."
I'm thinking Google should just remove any and all links to anything that even just has the movie studios' name on it. Including their own websites.
So, Hollywood is actively trying to push itself into obscurity?
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Is this policy or is it one idiot (or even an algorithm) gone beserk?
Take them all down, plus any link relating to the studio, all studio movies, show times, or anything similar.
Make the bastards pay for promotion like they did in the days of newspaper advertising. Charge them 10 million dollars per movie studio, 1 million per movie, and 100k per site to get back into Google's index.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I hope Google delists these webpages (only the specific pages that correlate to the films) and any other (free?) advertisements. Maybe then the film studios get to feel, how it is not having ads in the internet. Just let them shoot in their own feet.
Why don't they just ask Google to shut down?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.
No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
There has to be some sort of fine for this automated bullshit. The price for bullshit "take-downs" should be enough to discurage this automated take-down crap.
In fact, automated requests should not be allowed.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
as always
I'm thinking the net would be a much better place if Google just obeyed these requests, no questions asked. And did it very fast.
Google didn't avoid taking action against "offenders" because of any moral stance -- these requests are obviously the result of some faulty logic on the part of some reporting system, automated or otherwise, and they are simply stalling until there is confirmation of this to avoid duplication of effort. Same thing any other business in their shoes would do.
Seriously this sounds like an Onion article that someone copied and put on their site.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
"The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."
How is that good news? If the studio wants a link to their own Facebook page for a movie removed from search results, DO IT. Google should comply with the idiotic requests. I would imagine the response would be similar to those newspaper sites that have requested their stuff be removed from Google News: traffic dives and they change their tune rather quickly. IMO, the best way to show the stupidity of the DMCA is to plainly demonstrate it to the content creators.
take down their domain names because they are promoting valuable content! don't publish advertising related to these products! and Mr. Governor Brown, TAKE DOWN THOSE BUILDINGS!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The studios want to become the sole source for their material. The studios need to get the content removed from each of those websites then it won't be on google. Then they will grant permission to friendly, authorized sources for their movie reviews, ratings, etc.
Another way the studios could have asked this was to change the entire nature of the internet, since that is the whole purpose of links.
no comment
Fuck off and die. Especially the die part.
>In early November, a few dozen DMCA notices were sent by a company called “Yes It Is – No Piracy!” on behalf of several major movie studios, including Lionsgate, 20th Century Fox, BBC Films, Summit Entertainment, Sony Pictures, and Walt Disney Pictures.
If you go to the website in question (http://yesitis.org/), it is now a goDaddy parked domain.
Some have inferred that this means it isn't exactly a legitimate request from the studios.
Would be neat if when a content provider asks for valid stuff to be taken down too many times,
then the provider has no consequence for ignoring all the content provider's requests for a while
Sort of like DCMA take down timeout.
a) all takedown notices from a rights holder will be sequentially queued
b) right holder must provide complete history of ownership and demonstrate right to assert takedown
b) if item (N) is found to be an invalid take down request a fee of $ZZ,ZZZ must be paid
c) regardless of the validity of request (N+1) it will not be acted on until any fees requried for invalid requests (MN+1) have been paid
As long as the rights holders are making valid requests they get serviced. Mess around and they have to pay for the work done.
Only if you didn't want Google to index anything. Someone out there will request links be removed to websites just for shits and giggles.
The website they give: http://yesitis.org/ is simply a parked domain on GoDaddy, their WHOIS is hidden.
My belief is that someone setup the domain - sent some faked requests to Google to try and stir something up.
Insert signature here...
Perhaps they should also censor themselves from print media including movie posters and lets not for get radio..
This should help productions that do not follow such self defeating mentality
They didn't use the word illegitimate.... Does this mean they are running out of who to sue and need Google to help filter their search for who to sue?
It may have been some randoms doing DMCA illegally:
FTFA:
Update: Yesitis.org now points to a parked page. Yet another sign that these notices may be fraudulent, and not authorized by the copyright holders at all. If that’s indeed the case it remains unclear what the purpose of these notices is. It would show how easily these DMCA notices can be abused.
In Hollywood they have a tendency to cause foot injury especially in Westerns like this one made by MPAA lawyers.
Is simply to take it down as requested. Allow "Big Content" to face the real consequences of their actions.
What's a Bing? Sorry, I'm just too lazy to Google it.
Oh, that's easy! I saw this hip new original television show called Hawaii Five-0 where the characters say "Bing it!" and the dialog flows so naturally in this scene you just have to see it. And when she looks up Clifton Bowles, she just has to push in "C" and then "L" and Clifton Bowles autocompletes because, let's face it, everyone's searching for Clifton Bowles and "CL" is more than enough to complete that search!
...
Oh yeah, as a viewer that product placement was natural and unforced and subconsciously I find myself saying "Bing it!" more and more in everyday conversations. I've also found myself buying a lot of Bing Crosby CDs, planning my trip to Bing, Iran and drinking a lot of British Bing Cola
My work here is dung.
So what does the "under penalty of perjury" part of a DMCA takedown notice mean?
AFAIK, a takedown notice has to include something like this:
Under penalty of perjury I certify that the information contained in the notification is both true and accurate, and I have the authority to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright(s) involved.
Doesn't that mean that someone can be held legally liable for fraudulent takedown notices? Who would have to sue to enforce it? Google? The legitimate site that was taken down because of the notice? The Department of Homeland Security since they are supposed to be keeping us safe?
The best way to protect copyright holders is to not watch, discuss or promote any of their products. Make it illegal to even announce the availability of a copyrighted work because that would lead directly to infringement. Information Sequestration! If they don't know about it, they can't steal it!
I'm responsible for maintaining a marketing site owned by a sister-company of big Hollywoood movie studio. We market the DVD/BluRay/Online releases of major blockbuster movies. As part of a limitation of our CMS, we couldn't host trailers ourselves, so the marketing team was using a YouTube account.
The YouTube trailer for the DVD/BluRay release of a major summer blockbuster was taken down via a DMCA request. As a result, the trailer was broken on our marketing page for that release. Luckily, this was right around the time that we got our own video hosting resolved so we were able to solve it. But it was beautiful that for a couple days, the page running on OurCompanySite.com displayed a video with the message, "This content removed from YouTube at the request of Our Company"
"The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."
No. That's the bad news. Much better if Google had taken them all down (so this shit hit the fan and got spread all over, and then was proactive about anticipated future demands, - removed every URL that contained any mention of the referenced intellectual properties or the media companies. Assign the bastards to oblivion!
1. Take down link as requested.
2. Take down all other links to targeted material.
3. Take down all links to domain originating request.
4. Take down all links to owner of targeted material.
5. Keep links down for at least 30 days.
Profit!!!!
Here ya go!
Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby (May 3, 1903 â" October 14, 1977)[3] was an American singer and actor.
I have not, and never will use Bing, as I don't want involved with contacting or using the dead.
Shame on Microsoft for not letting the dead rest in peace!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I think Google should comply, just to make it apparent to the studios how dumb they're being.
Imagine when the marketing arm of the studio inquires as to why the legitimate sites are not appearing and Google tells them they're gone because they told Google to take it down.
Should read something like "Movie studios using legal loop holes to manipulate search engine results to direct searches for movies to their official websites and nowhere else."
And replace the links with links to copies of the take down notices and see how things turn out.
If the studios are going to send Google thousands of automatically generated URLs without checking them and claim it was a "good faith" attempt, Google should just stop processing the list at the first invalid URL requested as an "exception case, resubmission required" and claim it was an automated "good faith response".
Otherwise, it's just absurd that they can spam Google with automated DCMA scanning tools which Google then has to take seriously and respond to individually...
Ouch.
Tell you what, come back with a court order and the takedown will proceed. Until such time, welcome to the rule of law.
Bots? or it is a left hand / right hand thing where people who deal with the blocking don't know about the places that are legally in place?
No more www.sony.com. No more www.timewarner.com. Remove them from search results. Come on Google, do it.
organisations like Google are in the unenviable position of having to either a) devote a great deal of resources to looking into all these takedown requests to see if they are valid, or b) accept the takedown requests at face value, and wait to see if the person on the receiving end protest.
B appears to be standard operating procedure for YouTube.
I think Google should fill these removal requests. The movies studios were the authors of most, if not all, of DMCA, so why not show them how awful the law truly is? I've never seen CBS' “How I Met Your Mother,” because most television shows made today are pedantic, except for Adventure Time, but it's been out for awhile, right? Something like the main page for the show no longer able to be found seems like it would be painful for the studio. After the eventual request for reinstatement of the URL, Google should drag it's feet, or better yet, have the studio bring it up in court.
According to the DMCA, Google is protected by the safe harbor amendment as long as they comply with all lawful requests. Google, I assume, would not put itself anywhere near being in breech of the law and ignore the request just because they were asked nicely. Do it! Take the pages down. Let's see how they feel when the shoe is on the other foot.
stop going to movies made by/for communist obama cocksuckers!!!
Does it blend?
I'm thinking that Google honour the valid request including (especially?) sites where the complainant and the victim are the same ,ie, all the official sites
To qualify for the protections under the DMCA, Google is required to so b), accept them at face value UNLESS the other side calls BS (files a counterclaim.) . If they call BS, Google has to accept that unless the complainant comes back sating they are filing suit in federal court. So either way Google doesn't have a choice, if the notice is in the proper form. They can't play judge and jury -they are required to act based on what the parties tell them.
If you have lived for a long time on either side of the line, it is very easy to forget that the other world exists.
In my case, "the other world" currently happens to be the world of movie ads and buzz. I didn't realize just how well the advertising works, until I stopped seeing it all, and suddenly stopped feeling the urge to go see movies unless some real person actually mentioned it, or I somehow stumbled across a review (which happens to occur in the course of my job).
Before the change, back in the 1990s, I somehow "magically" knew about this Friday's new releases, because it was pounded into my fucking head. And yes, I mysteriously wanted to see some of the movies. Why, I'm not sure, but it was very very real.
They want you to see ads. They don't want to talking about the movie because they can't control what you say. You might say "that movie sure was boring" and they certainly don't need that to come up in a Google search for a movie title. See the ads, and ads includes the movie's own site (every movie has a site now). It does not include IMDB or your local weekly entertainment paper.
They want you to hear that everyone is talking about it, but IRL almost nobody is really talking about it. And whatever people are saying, is probably the wrong thing.
I wonder if Yahoo or Bing made some exclusivity deal with the studios.
This NEEDS to happen. I'm certain this idea was thought up by some marketing drone.
Marketing Ass 1: "I got a great idea! Let's force google to take down links to our movies! That will TOTALLY make people want to see and buy our movies!"
Marketing Ass 2: "But how will they know about it...?"
Marketing Ass 1: "Fuck you, we're doing it anyway."
The less I hear/see about these asinine movies, the better. (Even though it's a rarity these days that the movie studios actually release a NEW movie, instead of some shitty ass 3d version of an older one).
Fuck You.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Clearly the movie industry does not consider fair use to be fair. Clearly they will cross every line, well past what is legal, to encroach on the rights of the citizens of the world. Limited copyright for them means limited to the bounds of the universe, and lasting as long. The pendulum has swung far too far in their direction. Clearly as signal, such as 20 years as a maximum length, would go well to bringing us all closer to reality.
I think it's high time for Google to issue an internet death sentence for a day or two to each movie studio that participated in this. They will see what happens when their internet presence disappears from Google.
I can't wait to hear the next story about MPAA studios suing their own marketing departments.
"have asked Google to take down legitimate pages related to their own films, including sites legally hosting, promoting, or discussing them"
Over the years there have been similar wishes over and over again, which would make Google basically a police mandate over content hosted by 3rd parties, making them un-findable in searches. Which, in my view is crazy a** stupid. If they have problems with content out there, they should kick those in their behinds who actually host the content they want to "protect", and not try to get a search engine block access. The very purpose of a search engine is to answer your queries, independent of those queries' perceived legality (and searching for the title of a movie is most certainly not illegal). If someone puts up illegal content for others to see, that person/entity should be policed over, and leave the freaking search engines alone. I don't want to get to a point where a search engine can't be trusted to actually search for what you seek because some companies force it to censor results.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
The good news would be on the third claim of infringement, remove and ban the entire corporate network from Google for "enabling piracy" and "persistent copyright infringement".
When the companies find out that they're being targeted, THEY will sue for false notice.
Derp.
Then: Hey everybody we made a movie, check it out, it's really awesome.
Now: We made a movie but don't fucking talk about it or I'll sue your ass.
Never link to their stuff, never discuss it, never link to their sites, never mention them by name, and, of course, never buy from them.
It's not as if they have anything you need.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I think if we just pretend those money sucking parasites never existed and stopped writing about them there would be nothing to link on google also. I'm beginning to question my own desire to watch films produced in the USA. Maybe it's time to put them out of business.
If I were Larry Page I'd have laughed them out of my office.
Frankly, this kind of behaviour from them makes me WANT to pirate their content [on the assumption that it was worth watching in the first place, in reality, there's too much garbage] - just because they're being arseholes.
But seriously, I sincerely hope that Google tells the studios to go fuck themselves.
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)
"The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."
Yaaay.....