Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Movie Studios Ask Google To Censor Links To Legal Copies of Their Own Films

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-you-dare-point-at-my-stuff dept.

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."

10 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Hm... by sidthegeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hm... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perfect time to show them what Google really does for them: any page that includes the name of the studio, or any of the movies that the studio has ever made will no longer appear in search results. See how long it takes them to realise their folly.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
    2. Re:Hm... by jcoy42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think Google should impose a fee to said studios for making bogus takedown requests. After all it's not free for Google to comply with these requests, and if the studios aren't even willing to validate them perhaps they should be billed for the time it takes to do so.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
  2. Huh by Cinder6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, Hollywood is actively trying to push itself into obscurity?

    --
    If you can't convince them, convict them.
  3. Many of the links by SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  4. It's BULLSHIT. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Onion? Is that you? by yotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously this sounds like an Onion article that someone copied and put on their site.

    --
    Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
  6. "The good news"? by Huntr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  7. queue and charge for invalid takedown notices by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Why?? by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or perhaps just the movie studios clearly mis-understanding what the internet is all about.

    Perhaps? It's been a while. They've clearly demonstrated it beyond any shred of doubt.

    --
    Write boring code, not shiny code!