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.
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.
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.
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?
First paragraph of TFA says "We’ve written about the ridiculousness of automated Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requests before, including Microsoft asking Google to censor BBC, CBS, CNN, Wikipedia, the US government, and even its own Bing links, but this latest episode takes the cake." That would seem to imply it's an automated process in play, although there really isn't much information in the article, and it could conceivably be read another way.
Oh no... it's the future.
Or perhaps just the movie studios clearly mis-understanding what the internet is all about.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
The corporations have gone rampant.
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 Wayback Machine never indexed it, but Google cached it. Here's the "Services" page. Apparently with piracy, "more than one area of expertise is required" so this group also provides Adoption, Medical Malpractice, DWI, Bankruptcy and Divorce services as well.
The domain was registered in 2005 and updated yesterday, so that's probably when it was parked.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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
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."
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...
While I see the difficulties with thousands of links, nevertheless this should just be a tool, and at some point a human has to double-check things. This should be on the claimant as they are the one under penalty of perjury. Where's the penalties anyway? It should be less than for deliberate perjury, but lesser the same way running over someone accidentally is less of a penalty than deliberately. The slap should cause taking notice, otherwise it's not slappy enouh.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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?
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.
Does it blend?
One could argue that from a legal standpoint, they may not be able to file a counter-claim notice against themselves and would need to have a court order issued, invalidating the first request, but then perjuring themselves. Which damage would be greater? Your page to "Ahmahgerd: The Bestest Movie Since the Invention of Movies" removed from search engines on opening weekend with no online ticket sales, or the Federal charges and resulting penalties for perjury?
I think my head just assploded...
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.
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.
Why? They deliberately submitted to Google an unverified list claiming it was infringing under "penalty of perjury". They can do this simply because they know they won't be charged with perjury. Quick, name just one case where a major studio was so charged... Won't happen because the system is and always has been rigged in their favor.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
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.
> They deliberately submitted to Google an unverified list claiming it was infringing under "penalty of perjury".
Nope, they deliberately submitted to google an unverified list claiming "in good faith" that they considered them infringing, and that "under penalty of perjury" they represented the copyright owners.
And as they do represent the copyright owners, they cannot be charged with perjury.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
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.
Don't be naive. The movie studios (like every powerful organization) understand EXACTLY what the internet's about, and EXACTLY how much potential it has for gain, both good and ill. The problem is that what they want for the internet doesn't line up with what the average consumer wants for the internet -- and, hey, how about that, it's the age-old tale of big guy versus little guy with new toys and tools.
The movie studios aren't stupid. Laughing at them over this is exactly the wrong response. And, by the way, every time this discussion gets reduced into "piracy" and "DRM," the entire world suffers for it, because it allows the incredible power and importance of instant, uninhibited worldwide communication to be boiled down to nothing more important than "free movies," which allows the big players (not just the movie studios, obv) to cheapen the discussion and gain control.
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)