Slashdot Mirror


Film Studios Send Takedown Notices About Takedown Notices

another random user sends this excerpt from the BBC: "Two film studios have asked Google to take down links to messages sent by them requesting the removal of links connected to film piracy. Google receives 20 million 'takedown' requests, officially known as DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notices, every month. They are all published online. Recent submissions by Fox and Universal Studios include requests for the removal of previous takedown notices. ... By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts. 'It would only take one skilled coder to index the URLs from the DMCA notices in order to create one of the largest pirate search engines available,' wrote Torrent Freak editor Ernesto Van Der Sar on the site."

197 comments

  1. DUH! by Ragnarok89 · · Score: 0

    Round and round we go...

    1. Re:DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I love the smell of recursion in the morning.

    2. Re:DUH! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Round and round we go..."

      There's something here I don't understand.

      If the material has been taken down, then the links should not function.

      If the links have not been taken down, then the material is (most likely) not infringing.

      So the "problem" would appear to be nothing but a fiction.

    3. Re:DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this case I think the takedown notices are not for the removal of the pirate websites, but the removal of their URLs from Google's results. If the URLs remain in Google's takedown notice database, and the sites themselves are still up, people can just comb Google's database for pirate links.

      That isn't to say that the larger 'problem' of piracy itself is anything but fiction, of course.

      Captcha: LAWSUIT

    4. Re:DUH! by DragonTHC · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the takedown notices are supposed to be public record.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    5. Re:DUH! by overlordofmu · · Score: 1, Funny

      Me too! It smells like the smell of recursion in the morning, in the morning.

      (Can someone refactor that to make it tail recursive?)

    6. Re:DUH! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "In this case I think the takedown notices are not for the removal of the pirate websites, but the removal of their URLs from Google's results. If the URLs remain in Google's takedown notice database, and the sites themselves are still up, people can just comb Google's database for pirate links."

      I see. I misread OP. I was thinking this was about YouTube (owned by Google), not about Google searches.

    7. Re:DUH! by Livius · · Score: 2

      From their perspective, people having legitimate access to copies is a problem.

    8. Re:DUH! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I love the smell of recursion in the morning.

      I love the smell of recursion in the smell of recursion.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Barbara Streisand effect... by dmgxmichael · · Score: 3, Funny

    Again. A pity the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations.

    1. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      A bigger pity still is that we get down on our knees and deepthroat the ??AA when we reelect their politicians over and over. The solution is obvious, but we remain too starstruck by bling to actually try it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Again. A pity the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations.

      Are you being sarcastic? (My sarcasm meter sometimes lets me down.) Corporations do have first amendment rights.

    3. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the biggest pity of all is that you think you will be actually allowed to get that kind of presidential candidate in the first place.

    4. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      He meant that corporations can suppress the free speech rights of others, because they themselves are not bound by the first amendment, and also because they can strong-arm the government into giving the corporations pseudo-governmental powers that also sidestep the first amendment.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    5. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by pclminion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A bigger pity that Google will get down on their knees and deepthroat the MPAA like a good little whore.

      Your perspective is skewed. Google isn't doing this because the *AA asks them to, they are doing it because it is the law.

      If the *AA's get out of hand, Google could easily just buy the entire industry. Every single one of those companies. With cash. Several times over. You don't seem to understand the amount of money Google has. They aren't kowtowing to private corporate interests at this point, they are simply doing what the law requires them to do. If you get a take-down notice, you have to take it down. If the *AA's begin to make the world suck too bad for Google, they could just purchase them and eradicate all of it.

    6. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Lazere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who said anything about president? And there is the real problem, the people are only looking at the president, but when it comes to the people in the house/senate, they just vote for the guy who has the right letter behind them. Remember kids, the president doesn't make the laws. Please actually pay attention to your house/senate candidates next election.

    7. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A bigger pity still is that we get down on our knees and deepthroat the ??AA when we reelect their politicians over and over.

      ...or buy tickets to their movies, or buy the Blu-Ray, DVD, etc...

      But yeah, you're mostly right. I do disagree about it being a case of starstruck behavior, though. I think it's because the vast majority of the population simply doesn't give a crap. They're either completely ignorant about it, know something about it but think it's "too geeky" and happily not care, or they know all about it but happily download movies anyway (thinking that the odds of getting caught are well below that of getting busted for illegal marijuana use in Northern California).

      Either way, until you can get the population both cognizant and passionate about it, approximately nothing will happen. Problem is, most folks get their info from, oh, wait - the media. The same media who really, really, really don't want you to get in the way of the revenue streams from their respective entertainment divisions.

      Long story short? Good luck with that, sadly.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by turp182 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anti-trust regulations would probably prevent such a move, otherwise Apple would have done it already...

      Interesting idea.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    9. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      I don't think you understand what the first amendment is. It prevents the govt from controlling speech of its citizens. your comment says that govt can silence corpoarations because the first amenment doesn't apply, and that this is a pity. Is this what you meant to say?

    10. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't have to purchase all of them - just a couple of the big boys. Then have said big boys withdrawal from the MPAA cartel.

      Problem is, once Google gets one of those, it's going to have to show some sort of profit, else the shareholders will rebel. This in turn leads to behavior designed to maximize profit, which is, well, what the MPAA members are doing.

      Now if you can find a way to maximize profit with one of the companies, but without being a dick about it... but that's holy grail stuff.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      They could buy one of them, but anti trust regulations would prevent them buying the rest.

      AOL did do that during the dot.com boom, and it didn't work out well for them. I think that would discourage Google from doing the same.

    12. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Google does seem to fight the government on our behalf.
      They just can not legally tell you about it most of the time.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    13. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by tattood · · Score: 1

      If the *AA's begin to make the world suck too bad for Google, they could just purchase them and eradicate all of it.

      You make it sound as if buying another company is as easy as buying a gallon of milk. Buying another company requires interest on both sides, as well as a lot of paperwork an politics to get it approved.
      Also, Google is not in the business of making content. They don't actually produce any content on any of their sites. They simply index what other people have created, and make it available.

      According to Yahoo finance, Google has 48 billion in cash.

      Google could easily just buy the entire industry. Every single one of those companies. With cash. Several times over.

      Universal was bought by Comcast, which has a market cap of 108 billion. Nice try.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    14. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      If the *AA's get out of hand, Google could easily just buy the entire industry. Every single one of those companies. With cash. Several times over.

      Bullshit. Disney's market cap is ~$104 billion. Comcast has a market cap of ~$108 billion. Viacom has market cap of ~$31 billion. News Corp has a market cap of ~$71 billion. Time Warner has a market cap of ~$54 billion. Finally Sony has a market cap of ~$17 billion. So to purchase all the MPAA member companies they would need ~$385 billion. They don't have that in cash. Let alone "several times over".

    15. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

      To buy one of them would require shareholder approval. Google can't just decide on their own to buy them.

    16. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by fast+turtle · · Score: 2

      except that most of the **AA companies are publicly traded. This means that all Google has to do is buy a majority of the stock and then kick out the damn idiots who are on the board for people they like. Then they get to set corporate policies such as Don't bother Google with redundent DMCA's as they're a waste of corporate money.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    17. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      The "big boys" are worth $108, $104 and $71 billion. Google doesn't have the cash nor is their stock worth enough to buy them all in a stock swap. This is before the fact that Google isn't just able to purchase these companies because they say so.

    18. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you an ignoramus or just good at playing one? To be able to buy majority stake requires someone selling their shares. Google can't just decide to buy stock because they say so. Also even a 51% stake in all these companies would amount to nearly $200 billion. Google can't afford it.

    19. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. The decisions effectively granting them first amendment rights have been on the basis of the employees of the corporation having first amendment rights that apply even when they're speaking on behalf of their employer.

    20. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know how the stock market works?

    21. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Yeah because buying controlling stakes in huge public companies that have billions of shares of issued stock is soo easy to do. Oh wait it's not.

    22. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Please actually pay attention to your house/senate candidates next election.

      Goodluckwiddat. I think one of the problems is this message that getting out to vote is such a noble thing to do. It isn't. If you aren't educated about a decision you participate in, then why are you participating to begin with?

      IMO end the "get out the vote" "rock the vote" "vote or die" campaigns.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    23. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to barge into your little "vicious circle", but this is still not the solution. Not even close. The solution is a major overhaul of democracy itself. In other words, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

    24. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Parent comment, please mod it up.

      Consider that most of the current crop of politicians got their jobs because of massive "get out the vote!!111zor!" efforts. Consider further that this new crop of voters don't exactly have a firm logical grasp on what the hell is going on (as opposed to "the issues", which the media happily uses and manipulates as distraction and drama-generators). Mind you, this goes for activists and media on *both* 'sides' of the ideological aisle.

      So, well... we end up with a bunch of folks who vote based on something else entirely: emotion, the little letter after their names, whether the candidate said the right buzzwords in the right order, which one has the best commercials, is the best-looking, etc. You know, crap that really does nothing about fixing what's broke, let alone taking the country/state/locality in a good direction.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    25. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      Anti-trust regulations are no longer being enforced. Haven't you received the memo? Regulations kill jobs.

    26. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      And in the rare case the right guy is voted in for President, the Ido's elected to the house/senate will block every bill passed anyway.

    27. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Either way Google doesn't have the nearly $400 billion needed to buy the MPAA companies anyway. It's also highly doubtful the shareholders of every company would even agree to the buyout in the first place even if they did.

    28. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by PRMan · · Score: 2

      And who would have the moral fortitude to stand up to that kind of pressure because it's "the right thing"?

      As far as I can see, only 2 types of people:

      * Devout religious people (for religious reasons)

      * Devout libertarians (for ideological reasons)

      How many of you on here would elect either one of these candidates once you find out they are...

      * Also anti-gay (religious) or pro-gay (libertarian)?

      * Also anti-abortion (religious) or pro-abortion (libertarian)?

      * Wants Creationist teaching (religious)?

      * Pro-drug (libertarian)?

      I can go on and on. The fact is, anyone who has the morals to stand up to them also has deep convictions as to what else should make up a better society. And the media (which is, of course, also the MAFIAA) is expert at finding these hot buttons and pushing them thereby ensuring that such a candidate never has a sniff of being elected by making them seem repugnant to the other side that has different morals.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    29. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      If the *AA's get out of hand, Google could easily just buy the entire industry. Every single one of those companies. With cash. Several times over.

      Bullshit. Disney's market cap is ~$104 billion. Comcast has a market cap of ~$108 billion. Viacom has market cap of ~$31 billion. News Corp has a market cap of ~$71 billion. Time Warner has a market cap of ~$54 billion. Finally Sony has a market cap of ~$17 billion. So to purchase all the MPAA member companies they would need ~$385 billion. They don't have that in cash. Let alone "several times over".

      They'd actually need ~$193 billion, plus the cooperation of shareholders. Still outside their ballpark. They'd need the full $385 billion to do a hostile takeover and make anti-profit-taking decisions though -- assuming this didn't get blocked by politicians or monopoly/merger lawsuits before that.

    30. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The valuation isn't that high. Not even close.

    31. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Tokolosh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why doesn't Google just buy some copyright repealing legislation? That seems the most cost-effective strategy.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    32. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      A bigger pity that Google will get down on their knees and deepthroat the MPAA like a good little whore.

      Your perspective is skewed. Google isn't doing this because the *AA asks them to, they are doing it because it is the law.

      If the *AA's get out of hand, Google could easily just buy the entire industry. Every single one of those companies. With cash. Several times over. You don't seem to understand the amount of money Google has. They aren't kowtowing to private corporate interests at this point, they are simply doing what the law requires them to do. If you get a take-down notice, you have to take it down. If the *AA's begin to make the world suck too bad for Google, they could just purchase them and eradicate all of it.

      If google could, they should. Buy them all up, and put everything 14+ years old in public domain. That would be a nice "do no evil" move.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    33. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Zirbert · · Score: 1

      Posting only to undo accidental downmod. Sorry about that!

    34. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current price on a stock is the price that the /last/ trade executed at, not the price that /all the stock/ would go for.

    35. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by archivis · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you let us buy big media company, we'll de-index all that embarrassing stuff that's still hanging around the net you desperately wish would go away.

      --
      In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
    36. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The house/senate are the ones who pass the bills for the president to sign in the first place so how are they blocking them again? (FYI the President can't pass bills, Only sign them or veto them)

      What you describe makes no sense and is perfect example of why some form of intelligence test should be required to vote (particularly if you don't know how our govt. works you don't get to vote.)

      You're an idiot and should be the first one banned.

    37. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If the *AA's get out of hand, Google could easily just buy the entire industry. Every single one of those companies. With cash. Several times over. You don't seem to understand the amount of money Google has.

      You don't seem to understand just how much the music industry is really worth. Don't buy into the hype that they are struggling. Universal Music made $6bn in revenue last year. The company itself is valued at more than that, and that's just one member of the RIAA. Google has about $50bn cash on hand.

      Yes Google *could* buy out the industry but there would be nothing left, and they definitely could NOT buy them out several times over. Not to mention the resulting shareholder backlash when a company buys up someone else out of spite when that other company isn't even part of their core business.

      It would be corporate suicide. You give Google WAY too much credit.

      Now ... de-listing all *IAA members and music from search results is far easier. But again that just gives other search engines (if you can call Bing that) some fodder for showing how crappy the search results of Google are if you're interested in music. Google are not all powerful, they are simply filthy rich.

    38. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Or $20B (of Google's ~$48B C.O.H.) gets them voting stake @ 5% each....

    39. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      Google is usually just the intermediary and in that case they have to take down the content indicated the take-down notice, notify the owner of that content and if they reply that they don't believe the content infringes Google reinstates the content and passes the reply from the owner back the the notice sender.

      In this case Google is the end recipient so they can just reply with a "no we don't believe that this infringes your rights and we won't take down the content. Shut up or take us to court, your move **AA." Then the **AA's can either take Google to court in a costly process that is in no way guaranteed to go their way or they can back down.
      IANAL

    40. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro-Abortion isn't a libertarian stance. Pro-life is. A libertarian values the right to life of the defenseless unborn over the "right" of the mother to murder her offspring. The whole "right to control her own body" and "reproductive rights" arguments are strawmen, and always have been.

    41. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by ami.one · · Score: 1

      To control corporations you DO NOT need to purchase every single share. None of key owners hold 100% stock. Most people with 10-20% are effectively in full control.

    42. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Both positions are defended by libertarians. Claiming that libertarians only have one position is a clear no-true-scotsman fallacy.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion

    43. Re: Barbara Streisand effect... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The Google founders still control the majority of the votes (because they have special, private stock which gives ten votes per share).

    44. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because Google doesn't actually care about taking down content? We all still use youtube.

    45. Re:Barbara Streisand effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Although this President is actively avoiding the job for some perceived political gain. Very sad and we all suffer.

       

  3. Sorry, the law doesn't work that way by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry but even the government is getting their hand slapped over secret proceedings (see the recent rulings regarding national security letters), there's no way we're going to allow companies to hide their actions in a civil matter.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      we? "what's this we shit, white man?"

      'we' have stopped having control over our laws decades ago.

      'they' have control and everyone knows it. you been asleep or something?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      'they' have control and everyone knows it. you been asleep or something?

      It is, as one commentator has recently put it, the bitter legacy of Mickey Mouse.

    3. Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way by MitchDev · · Score: 0

      The second any business became "Too big to fail", it was over for the government to represent actual citizens...

    4. Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      who is "they"? people seem to say this a lot, but don't seem to actually know who 'they" are. the government? the wealthy? or just people who get involved rather then sitting around blaming some mysterious group of people who are in control? if there is something about this world you don't like then take some advice, quit spending your time bitching about it and get off your ass and get involved.

    5. Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      who is "they"? people seem to say this a lot, but don't seem to actually know who 'they" are. the government? the wealthy? or just people who get involved rather then sitting around blaming some mysterious group of people who are in control? if there is something about this world you don't like then take some advice, quit spending your time bitching about it and get off your ass and get involved.

      " You're no longer part of the system. You are above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We're them. We're they. We are the Men in Black."

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way by Xeranar · · Score: 1

      We have complete control over our government. Giving away copies of movies, music, and other media is a crime as it atands in the US. It's a crime more or less everywhere where IP is respected. I'm agreeing it shouldn't be a crime but the system is doing what it has to do. As it stands the industry picks their fights carefully so as not to create groundswell in society against them. It's nothing new for them.

    7. Re:Sorry, the law doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the hell up. "We" is only not "they" for the definition of "we" that's "people too fucking lazy to get off their ass and get involved".

      This government is still voted in by the people. If you don't like who's in office and who those representatives appoint, then organize a change. If you can't, then maybe your opinions just aren't shared by the majority of people.

  4. Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts.

    See, Alanis, *this* is ironic.

  5. Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Was that a comment or a request for a development project?

    1. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that a comment or a request for a development project?

      It looks like dmcaindex.com is available and waiting for someone to fill this gap in the public record.

    2. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was my take. Guess what I'm doing tonight.

  6. Yo, I heard you like the DMCA... by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    (...)

    1. Re:Yo, I heard you like the DMCA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 REDACTED

  7. it is as we have feared. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    Takedown notices have become so widely applied to every aspect of internet content that they have evolved to become self aware.

    the DMCA is becoming t2@(35## NO CARRIER

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:it is as we have feared. by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now we just need to convince them to take themselves down. Is it wrong to coerce suicide in an artificial lifeform?

    2. Re:it is as we have feared. by JeanCroix · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wrong? Pfft. Not only is it right, but it can be an artform. Let's get the master to do it - bring in Shatner.

  8. Confidentiality not lawful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you send a demand letter it is property of the recipient. They are free to publish it if they wish. A person receiving a DCMA take doewn notice is under no obligation, and in fact would be stupid to, agree to any confidentiality at all. The recipient is under no obligation to do so.

    A more pressing area of legal disclosure is charges against otherwise innocent until proven guilty persons. Prosecutors do perp walks, and public news conferences, all the time despite the legal, and ethical, and moral, land mines.

    JJ

    1. Re:Confidentiality not lawful by isorox · · Score: 1

      When you send a demand letter it is property of the recipient. They are free to publish it if they wish. A person receiving a DCMA take doewn notice is under no obligation, and in fact would be stupid to, agree to any confidentiality at all. The recipient is under no obligation to do so.

      A more pressing area of legal disclosure is charges against otherwise innocent until proven guilty persons. Prosecutors do perp walks, and public news conferences, all the time despite the legal, and ethical, and moral, land mines.

      JJ

      And the public laps it up. They don't ask why is an innocent man being bared in front of the camera like he's broken the law.

    2. Re:Confidentiality not lawful by dywolf · · Score: 1

      National Security Letters would like have a word with you about your assertion about a right to publish.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    3. Re:Confidentiality not lawful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Those just got ruled unconstitutional, as is right and proper.

    4. Re:Confidentiality not lawful by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      It could also be argued that a takedown notice does not constitute a creative work deserving of copyright protection and as such the DMCA would not apply.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re:Confidentiality not lawful by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      And that ruling was stayed pending the eventual government appeal. Until that stay is lifted it's business as usual regarding NSL.

    6. Re:Confidentiality not lawful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stay was for 90 days pending appeal. If the government does not appeal or the appeals court does not issue its own, the stay will expire.

    7. Re:Confidentiality not lawful by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      When you send a demand letter it is property of the recipient. They are free to publish it if they wish.

      If the letters are sent in electronic form (which they are to Google) then there is no physical letter to be property. The contents of the letter (if it is sufficiently original) could be protected by copyright, though, and thus Google could be infringing the copyright in the letters by posting them.

      This can get even more fun as some people have argued that a URL is capable of being protected by copyright (if a headline can, a URL should be). If that's the case, then some of the takedown notices sent to Google (and other places) may include URLs protected by copyright, and thus may be infringing in themselves.

      Copyright law is far crazier than most people realise.

  9. Keanu says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHOA - that's very meta man!

  10. An Easy Problem to Fix by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Stop sending takedown notices. You're helping the so-called pirates and by the logic you've used in the past that makes you culpable for their piracy.

    1. Re:An Easy Problem to Fix by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Or worse: send zillions of DMCA requests for non-existing material, just to pollute the list...

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:An Easy Problem to Fix by Bureaucromancer · · Score: 1

      One hopes they do that next. It might actually be enough to provoke the perjury charges they are supposed to be liable for on bad notices.

    3. Re:An Easy Problem to Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop sending takedown notices. You're helping the so-called pirates and by the logic you've used in the past that makes you culpable for their piracy.

      And in fact, if they never made the content at all, then there would be nothing to 'pirate'. So they are untimately responsible.

  11. And here we are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to start suing the search engines for searching.

    Fuck the media industry execs.

    Save the industry, go independent. Spread the word.

  12. We are going to start an endless loop.... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now they will send to Slashdot a takedown notice to take down the message about the takedown request they sent to google to take down the list of their takedown requests....

    1. Re:We are going to start an endless loop.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they will send to Slashdot a takedown notice to take down the message about the takedown request they sent to google to take down the list of their takedown requests....

      Yo dawg, I heard you like takedown notices so I put a takedown notice on your takedown notice so you can...

      Ahh, fuckit, that meme sucks.

    2. Re:We are going to start an endless loop.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Takedown-ception? Genius!

      Let's see if we can come up with an automatically recursive legal structure to waste their time. A catch-22 landmine, if you will... Black hole these idiots and we'll never see them again.

    3. Re:We are going to start an endless loop.... by base3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's apropos. And you beat me to it :).

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    4. Re:We are going to start an endless loop.... by WhatAreYouDoingHere · · Score: 1

      To further the loop, here's a Google link to this page, currently the top result.

      --
      "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
    5. Re:We are going to start an endless loop.... by tgd · · Score: 1

      Now they will send to Slashdot a takedown notice to take down the message about the takedown request they sent to google to take down the list of their takedown requests....

      Wait a minute ... you may be onto something here. Maybe this is the magic we've been looking for the last ten years to get Slashdot editors to do their jobs!

  13. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

    "It's like a million Dancing With The Stars, when all you want is Doctor Who..."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  14. My programming instructor was right by waddgodd · · Score: 1

    It's true, Recursion IS taking over the world, now even idiocy has been made to work in a recursion loop

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
    1. Re:My programming instructor was right by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This is why centers of empire shift slowly over centuries, where the new core forms on the outskirts of the old empire, repeat ad nauseuk.

        Fertile crescent -> Greece -> Rome -> Western Europe -> US, and now -> China

      It's not resources being used up -- it's sclerosis. The new empire opens, and keeps open, trade routes. Eventually, for one reason or another, they start lording over themselves with increased taxation, or de facto pseudo-taxation of kickbacks. People give up and move to greener pastures with less overhead.

      Recursive feedback loop -- the more government interferes, the more things slow down, and the more they interfere to "fix" things, AKA maintain their own power.

      Onward shifts center of empire due to what is essentially a meme-driven disease.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  15. Giant Database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Of pirated material that has been mostly taken down. Right. Because that makes a shitton of sense, and it isn't already easy enough to pirate stuff if you want to anyway. They just don't want to look bad.

    1. Re:Giant Database by leuk_he · · Score: 0

      No, If the original links would have been taken down, then they would not need to ask google to bring the index-link down. There are sites that are in foreign countries that are "slow" in processing takedown notices, so the link might still be effective.

      Now why would google have outsourced the hosting of take-down notices to chilling-effects.org. ......

  16. Re:unintentionally by mark-t · · Score: 2

    If there were actually any proof of that allegation, google would be a whole shitpile of trouble.

  17. Unless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless the takedown notice itself is copyrighted.

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

      Unless the takedown notice itself is copyrighted.

      Generally speaking you can't copyright legal notices.

    2. Re:Unless by fredklein · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:Unless by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      I really is amazing what can't be copyrighted.

      Things like databases, lists, recipes, strings of random numbers and letters (activation codes for windows), etc., etc.

  18. Isn't mathematics wonderful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can be used for almost anything... even stupidity.

  19. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by schlachter · · Score: 2

    By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts.

    Ha.."unintentionally"

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  20. Indexing the URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why would you need a skilled coder when the databases are in plain CSV format ?

    http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/data/

    1. Re:Indexing the URLs by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because to most of these sites and executives a CSV file is a magical thing that requires highly talented programmers.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Indexing the URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Excel reports:
      "File not loaded completely."
      And then, after clicking help:
      "The file contains more than 1,048,576 rows or 16,384 columns. To fix this problem, open the source file in a text editor such as Microsoft Word. ..."

      Word reports after a few minutes:
      "You have exceeded the maximum number of pages supported by Microsoft Word or this document may be damaged. ..."

      See, this requires some skills!

    3. Re:Indexing the URLs by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I can attest that this is true. For some state licensing requirments the complaince forms were only allowed to be uploaded in CVS... I was hired to convert Excel spreadsheet data into a format compatible with the state's CVS format.

      If it wasn't for these "executive" morons, "talented programmers" like me wouldn't have paid days off, like this one.

    4. Re:Indexing the URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I can attest that this is true. For some state licensing requirments the complaince forms were only allowed to be uploaded in CVS... I was hired to convert Excel spreadsheet data into a format compatible with the state's CVS format.

      If it wasn't for these "executive" morons, "talented programmers" like me wouldn't have paid days off, like this one.

      The required CVS format could of been very different to CSV format, and I'm sure Excel does not have a 'Save as CVS' option.

    5. Re:Indexing the URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIn fact the 'save as CSV' option in Excel doesn't even create a proper CSV file. Excel produces a SSV (Semi-collon Seperated Values).

  21. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by isorox · · Score: 1

    By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts.

    See, Alanis, *this* is ironic.

    It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need are a set of ear plugs

  22. stupid robots by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some day I'm going to write a page about a "boardwalk game where you manage an empire from your throne" just to see how fast it gets blocked from google search results. Oops, I probably blocked Slashdot just by typing that. The robots who send the notices are amazingly stupid and use leaps of logic that make your average creationist look like an evidence-user.

    I'm not saying piracy isn't happening out there, but from what I've seen I bet over 90% of DMCA notices are bogus. If anyone is crawling chilling-effects looking for juicy links to yummy forbidden files, boy are they going to be disappointed. They'll learn that someone's CS101 web crawling assignment has been emailing google about every damn page it finds.

    Anyway, since in this case, the content's provenance is systematically known, they can confidently ignore the DMCA notices, as though they virtually received a counter-notice from within their own organization. No need to take anything down. Non-story, other than highlighting how amazingly bad the robots are, and that the special legal obligation created by them, probably ought to be removed or else notice-senders should be held accountable. Congress, do something about that. Can't someone just anonymously slip it into the budget bill?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:stupid robots by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      You assume there would BE a budget bill...

    2. Re:stupid robots by redneckmother · · Score: 1

      After two days, I'm still puzzling over a DMCA notice from a Google search for "gparted-live torrent". The resulting link to chillingeffects.org didn't seem relevant at all...

    3. Re:stupid robots by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      BTW, I looked at the notices, they include a large number of links that start with vk.com, which is a Russian version of FB, the way FB should have been designed.

      It has a much better, more intuitive user interface from stories I read on comparing FB vs VK (vk means "v kontakte", which may be translated as "in touch" for "staying in touch") and on that site anybody can host any image, song, video and text they like and it's very easy to search through them and find whatever you want.

      It is actually a good advert for VK and they offer a large number of languages that you can access the site in.

  23. Why are they even sending them to Google? by void* · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't those film studios be sending DMCA takedown notices to whatever ISP/etc is actually hosting that content, and not Google, who is not hosting that content?

    --


    Code or be coded.
    1. Re:Why are they even sending them to Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't those film studios be sending DMCA takedown notices to whatever ISP/etc is actually hosting that content, and not Google, who is not hosting that content?

      Heavens, no! That'd be expensive and time-consuming! And we all know how destitute and poor Hollywood is! Just look at how many people pirate their stuff[1]! And so many movies do so poorly to begin with, they don't even have the money to pay screenwriters or lowly actors[2]!

      [1] Source: Hollywood
      [2] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

    2. Re:Why are they even sending them to Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under the DMCA, Google can't be sued for contributory infringement if their index is built by robots and they follow takedown notices from copyright owners for allegedly infringing links ("Safe Harbor.") The alternative would be having to vet everything added to their index to avoid lawsuits or just not run a search engine at all. Without DMCA there would be no Google, or YouTube, or WordPress, or GitHub, or Flickr, or Facebook, etc...

    3. Re:Why are they even sending them to Google? by void* · · Score: 1

      I know this.

      The point is this:

      If they send the takedown to Google, they get the link removed from the search engine, sure. But the content is still there, so what real effect does removing the link have? None.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    4. Re:Why are they even sending them to Google? by void* · · Score: 1

      Well, other than the link not being in Google. But the link is not actually their content, it's just a pointer to their content.

      --


      Code or be coded.
  24. Critically important by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts. 'It would only take one skilled coder to index the URLs from the DMCA notices in order to create one of the largest pirate search engines available,' wrote Torrent Freak editor Ernesto Van Der Sar on the site."

    I stumbled on one of these notices filed by the RIAA yesterday, and it seems not only reasonable but important for the notice to be posted, including the relevant URL; otherwise, how will I know that the site hosting the illegal material is doing so illegally? I looked at the site in question, and they most certainly didn't include any notice that downloading that particular song was a violation of copyright. But because of the notice that Google linked to, I knew that I shouldn't do it.

    It seems to me that MPAA and RIAA want to have their cake and eat it, too.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Critically important by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Google could do a simple API letting you search the URLs. Or they could publish a hashed version of the URLs along with code for the hash.

      There are a number of was that would give you what you want without actually publishing the URL.

    2. Re:Critically important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also they would like your cake, they don't need it, they just want it.

    3. Re:Critically important by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      They say the cake is not yours to begin with, since they only leased the cake to you not sold it.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Critically important by redneckmother · · Score: 1

      They say the cake is not yours to begin with, since they only leased the cake to you not sold it.

      That's okay by me, their cake is mostly junk food, so I don't "lease" it.

    5. Re:Critically important by AngryDill · · Score: 1

      They say the cake is not yours to begin with, since they only leased the cake to you not sold it.

      Then I'll make sure to send the cake back to them...
      ...after I've eaten it. ;-)

      --


      I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
  25. This was done by accident? by Stormin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By making the notices available, Google is unintentionally highlighting the location of allegedly pirated material, say some experts.

    I thought that was kind of the whole point of the things being posted?

  26. Actually, meta-Streisand by srussia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First there was the Streisand (unintentionally calling attention to what you don't want publicized),

    then the reverse Streisand (intentionally calling attention by demanding suppression of ostensibly unwanted but actually desired publicity),

    and now comes the meta-Streisand (unintentionally calling attention to intentional demands that caused unintentional publicity of what you didn't want publicized.)

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Actually, meta-Streisand by nugatory78 · · Score: 3, Funny

      if you can pull off all three at the same time, that grants you the power up of mega-Streisand

      --
      The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. - Frank Herbert
    2. Re:Actually, meta-Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you can pull off all three at the same time, that grants you the power up of mega-Streisand

      Where are Robert Smith and Sidney Poitier when we need them?

    3. Re:Actually, meta-Streisand by demonbug · · Score: 0

      if you can pull off all three at the same time, that grants you the power up of mega-Streisand

      What would Brian Boitano do??

    4. Re:Actually, meta-Streisand by c · · Score: 1

      First there was the Streisand (unintentionally calling attention to what you don't want publicized),

      then the reverse Streisand (intentionally calling attention by demanding suppression of ostensibly unwanted but actually desired publicity),

      and now comes the meta-Streisand (unintentionally calling attention to intentional demands that caused unintentional publicity of what you didn't want publicized.)

      Now we just need the Streisand-effect version of Godwin's law (i.e. "As an online discussion about censorship grows longer, the probability of a mention of Streisand approaches 1.") and we'll achieve... something.

      Just be careful with what kinds of adjectives you apply to Streisand.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    5. Re:Actually, meta-Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here is the meta-law; As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone invoking silly 'law' approaches 1.

      Don't we feel so clever? Invoking law as a intellectually superior way of saying 'INB4'... Also, fuck you.

    6. Re:Actually, meta-Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First there was the Streisand (unintentionally calling attention to what you don't want publicized),

      then the reverse Streisand (intentionally calling attention by demanding suppression of ostensibly unwanted but actually desired publicity),

      and now comes the meta-Streisand (unintentionally calling attention to intentional demands that caused unintentional publicity of what you didn't want publicized.)

      Just punch it in the nose and youre good to go.

  27. I have the solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When you own the government, you dont have to obey laws.

  28. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

    I think her justification for the title of the song was that none of the examples in it were actually ironic... which in itself is ironic.

    --
    Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
    Kull: She told me she was 19!
  29. Re:unintentionally by game+kid · · Score: 1

    If the studios do drag Google employees to trial for that, they'd probably argue they were Just Following Orders, due to the company mission. Not that the argument would save them, but takedown letters do have information and all...

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  30. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Irony is subjective and malleable. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Almost anything can be ironic or not depending on your point of view, it's specifically defined that way.

  31. Foreign sites by tepples · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't those film studios be sending DMCA takedown notices to whatever ISP/etc is actually hosting that content

    Not all countries have a counterpart to the notice and takedown procedure used by the United States.

    1. Re:Foreign sites by void* · · Score: 1

      That doesn't change the fact that Google removing the links doesn't remove the content.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    2. Re:Foreign sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence the point behind TFA. If google posts the takedown notice with the original URL, an end user could use the highly complex process of copy and paste to get the offending material anyway.

    3. Re:Foreign sites by void* · · Score: 1

      If the content were removed, rather than the links, all links would stop working, whether the linking was done by Google or anyone else.

      Pretty soon there will be requirements to remove links to pages that haven't removed links ... if there aren't already. The whole thing is stupid, basically.

      --


      Code or be coded.
  32. I thought you can't copyright legalese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this true? Can anyone provide a link to the statute? If you can't copyright a legal notice, what does it say about Google when the oblige to invalid requests?

  33. Actually, mecha-Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    And what actually is "mega-Streisand"?
    Don't you mean mecha-Streisand?

    1. Re:Actually, mecha-Streisand by nugatory78 · · Score: 1

      damn it... heres my geek badge back.

      --
      The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. - Frank Herbert
    2. Re:Actually, mecha-Streisand by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Mecha-Streisand is the new upcoming Hero Atlas Mech on Mech Warrior Online.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  34. Yo Dawg, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard you like takedown notices.......

  35. Too late Double DMCA JEOPARDY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome of DMCA created Uber torrent Overlord.

  36. Copyright on legal documents? Don't think so by erroneus · · Score: 1

    It's not a creative work. It's something they wish to censor. That should be another law or something.

    But that's what they believe the DMCA is for. After all, that's how they USE it right? Censoring other peoples' content and the like?

  37. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Xeranar · · Score: 1

    That doesn't make it ironic. It makes it obtuse perhaps. Irony is going further into the deep southern US in the antebellum period to escape slavery. I measure irony based on the Huckfinn test. The actual takedown of takedowns seems ironic but it is really based on different reasons so it isn't.

  38. Re:unintentionally by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

    Yes, unintentionally. In fact, the studios requesting the take down of the take down are the ones who gave up that location. They'd love to be able to say "A file at an undisclosed location is in violation of our copyright, but since we don't want to tell you where, please just block all searches for 'X, Y, and Z.'" But, since they have to actually say where they think it's coming from, they have to give up the position themselves.

  39. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    You're wrong, ironically.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  40. I have the solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop submitting take down notices..

  41. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    Does Google, take action before releasing the requests? I guessing this is not for Youtube but search links to 3rd party websites.

  42. Almost there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recursion is the world. Reality is itself recursive. I would love to call you an idiot, but that would make me an idiot too.

  43. More Likely by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Movie industry does not want it known how active they are at sending take down notices. After all the price we all pay for movies goes up as there effort to do this sort of activity goes up. The 'take down tax'.

    There is also the big brother bad guy protecting their profit against the little guy public relations problem. They certainly would like all that take down to happen behind the scenes where no one notices.

    They are trying to do some damage control.

    1. Re:More Likely by Grumbleduke · · Score: 2

      They (or rather, the dodgy "enforcement" companies they contract the work out to) don't want us to know how bad they are at sending out these notices. Takedown notices (particularly Google's) are now a running joke in some places, due to the percentage of mistakes (targeting reviews of films, IMDB/Wikipedia pages, pages that are unrelated but happen to have a few keywords, sites not indexed by Google, pages that no longer exist, etc.) and yet someone is paying a lot of money to issue all these notices.

      I'm increasingly of the opinion that a lot of the anti-piracy industry is one big scam, targeted at film and music studios. I'm not sure yet whether the relevant executives etc. at the studios are in on it... I think for the most part they're not (they just repeat what they're told), but some must have caught on by now.

  44. 'Do no evil' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just too funny!

  45. Re:Copyright on legal documents? Don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, come on. They're not claiming copyright on the legal documents.
    If it is contributory infringement for Google to link to the warez, then how is it okay to post the legal documents that link to them?

  46. If it were copyrighted.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it were copyrighted, then by default Google would need a license to read the notice. Which would have to be agreed to by Google and Google would have to have the right to refuse, else it is not a binding agreement. If Google do not agree to the terms of the license for the take-down notice, then they cannot read it. And if Google cannot read it, then Google has not been served with notice of infringing content. And if Google hasn't been served with notice of infringing content, they don't have any requirement under DMCA rules to do anything about it.

    If Google are bound to accept the license terms by the DMCA ammendments, then it cannot be a binding agreement on Google, therefore they would still be able to post it, no matter what the license says.

    1. Re:If it were copyrighted.... by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      If it were copyrighted, then by default Google would need a license to read the notice. Which would have to be agreed to by Google and Google would have to have the right to refuse, else it is not a binding agreement.

      Somebody +1 this insightful fast!

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

  47. 'MPAATakedwn=': recursive on all control paths... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm just curious if they'll send takedown notices on the takedown notices on the... well, you know. After all, Google may have to append the original notice on the 2nd one so everyone knows what's being referred to...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  48. So now 'anti-piracy' means secret courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The takedown notices are legal documents that the US constitution demands are available for public inspection. Secrecy is granted in legal actions rarely, and only in very specific forms of cases where it is deemed that openness would risk serious harm to individuals.

    The copying, by individuals, of films and TV shows CANNOT be considered a serious reason to damage constitutional protections, regardless of what the depraved criminal, Rupert Murdoch may claim. Murdoch was the mastermind behind the greatest program of illegal phone-tapping in the UK, and during his commercial competition with competing satellite broadcasters in Europe, had his Israeli division of News International illegally hack the 'access cards' used by the other companies, and had counterfeit versions of these cards flood Europe. Murdoch gets away with his crimes, because he is the official 'Goebbels' for the regimes of both the UK and USA.

    The ability to view the 'takedown' notices is essential, for it allows us to see firstly that they are often illegally generated by automatic computer programs with no Human oversight, and that as a consequence, frequently target vast numbers of sites that have nothing to do with the claimed infringement.

    Murdoch wants his censorship to be secret, just as he doesn't want you to know that he has created the software systems (for Gates of Microsoft fame) that will gather EVERY private and intimate data about your child at school in the USA, and share that data un-vetted with any third-party willing to pay the fee. The Gates Foundation has created the greatest tool for actual pedophiles the planet has ever seen. There is massive correlation between the status of a child (and the child's family) and the likelihood that abuse of that child will be discovered or reported. Bill Gates has purposely created a computer system that allows child abusers identify the 'best' areas and families within a city or town. Gates' database even includes medical details of your kids, including their developmental status. In the UK, a Gates like figure, Jimmy Savile, also operated in full public view, with the same level of connections to children's charities, hospitals and schools.

  49. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Argh! Now I've got that stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch.

  50. So MPAA == TPB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After all, TPB is in trouble for posting the links that people link to copyrighted stuff to download. If linking to the links is wrong because the ones describing those links are contributing to the "piracy problem", then MPAA by describing those links are contributing to the "piracy problem".

  51. URLs by Skapare · · Score: 1

    People still need to know if THEIR URL is subject to a search engine entry takedown. The only case where the search engine would not need to provide it is if the party doing the takedown ALSO sends the info to the owner of the URL.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  52. The Sad Thing Is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sad thing about this is that 10 years ago, a link to a database would have already been posted here several times.

    R.I.P. Slashdot, a mere 5 o'clock shadow if it's youth.

    1. Re:The Sad Thing Is... by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      It was already posted above. A direct link to a Google provided CSV. Can't get any easier than that.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  53. One problem with this Theory of yours... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Is that if Google was *able* to buy all these companies (and they can't, they don't have that kind of money, whatever you may think), then they WOULD NOT have to comply with "the law", because they would then own "the law" and could change the laws to whatever benefits them.

    You've forgotten that the "laws" in this great nation are written by lobbyists, who work for the 1%. And if Google owns all those firms, they are the biggest 1%'er there is, alpha-dog, owner of all legislation. The government might as well close up shop, if it wasn't for that fact that they need to tax the rest of the 99% into complacency. But that money would still flow to Google then, because they'd change the laws to give themselves massive subsidies.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  54. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

    See, Alanis, *this* is ironic.

    So is calling a song that does not include irony "Ironic".

  55. Dr Sheldon Cooper would probably buy one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, a *sarcasm* detector. That's a *really* useful invention!

  56. Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shades close to contempt of court and G has a track record a mile long in this area.

    And good luck with getting straight answer from Google about penalties - Google keeps its secrets close some one want to ask Matt Cutts whey they don't publish a list of sites with penalties.

  57. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right, ironically. Or is it wrong?

  58. Google does not have that much cash by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

    Sorry to destroy your little fantasy, but Google has 60b in short term assets (cash and equivalents):
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GOOG+Balance+Sheet&annual

    Disney has 39b in stock holders equity:
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=DIS+Balance+Sheet&annual

    NBC Universal has 29b in stock holders equity:
    http://apps.shareholder.com/sec/viewerContent.aspx?companyid=cmcsa&docid=8075925

    So there goes 113% of Google's short-term assets with just those two companies... and they would have to take on 55b in additional liabilities. So they would have 0 cash, no short term assets, and over 75b in liabilities.

    In other words.. never going to happen.

    1. Re:Google does not have that much cash by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

      Disney has a market cap of $104 billion. NBC Universal is owned by Comcast which is worth $109 billion. Your figures are off by quite a bit.

    2. Re:Google does not have that much cash by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      Hmm... my figures come from the annual reports filed by the company and include links to the reports... someone with no references says my figures are off... wonder which one of us is wrong....

    3. Re: Google does not have that much cash by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You're the one who is wrong. Your figures are right, but you don't know what they mean. Market cap (which the other poster had right) is the total value of all the stock (number of shares times share price). That is how much you would have to pay to 'buy the company'. Stockholder equity is assets minus liabilities and has nothing to do with how much it would cost to buy the company.

    4. Re: Google does not have that much cash by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      And while you're busily correcting his mistakes, you're missing the same thing everyone else in this minithread has missed.

      Stock comes in multiple classes. Especially for a very large corporation like Disney or Comcast, there are whole swaths of that market cap which are utterly irrelevant. Why? Because there's absolutely no need to buy the company. It's only necessary to gain control of it. It's possible to gain control of a company by buying just enough of the voting stock.

      Disney's market cap includes billions in non-voting stock. Those stocks can be completely ignored. They are powerless. All that matters is voting stock, and it's only necessary to buy enough to outvote the rest of the shareholders. Even if the rest of the shareholders try to protect the existing board of directors, you can force an election (according to the articles of incorporation of the company in question), then successfully elect your own board. Your board then fires the executive staff and appoints your hand-picked replacement CEO, CTO, CIO, etc. You don't have to come anywhere close to paying the full market cap of a company in order to do that. It could be that only 30% of the shares of a company are so-called preferred stock, with voting rights. Buy 50% + 1 share of that 30%, and you can control the company utterly (most articles of incorporation specify a simple majority of stockholders as being the winner of votes). If, say, Disney had only 30% voting stock, control could be purchased for $15.6 billion.

      It's possible to buy that $15.6 billion for not much more than $15.6 billion, too. Google could spawn a bunch of new suspiciously well-funded baby corporations with innocuous names, get them accounts with a bunch of different stock brokers, and quietly buy up 10,000 shares here, 50,000 shares there. Pretty soon it starts to add up to real money. And with it, control. There's even a name for it. It's the type of hostile takeover called a creeping tender offer. Next thing you know, Sergei Brin and Larry Page show up at the annual stockholder's meeting with suitcases full of proxies and rock their world.

      Not that I expect Google to bother. It's a lot cheaper just to continue their passive resistance and let bittorrent do its work.

  59. But Google will be the shareholder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it buys these companies. Just structure the deal such that the Google board has control (majority voting rights) over the subsidiary. Create a holding company, whatever

    iromic captcha: disarm

  60. Challenge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Accepted! This is going to be legend... Wait for it... Dairy! Legendary!

  61. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's aware of what it means, and knew that the examples weren't always ironic.

    Morissette commented about the writing of the song: "For me the great debate on whether what I was saying in 'Ironic' was ironic wasn't a traumatic debate. I'd always embraced the fact that every once in a while I'd be the malapropism queen. And when Glen and I were writing it, we definitely were not doggedly making sure that everything was technically ironic".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_(song)#Linguistic_usage_disputes

  62. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Irony is that it is a black man who introduced slavery to the colonies but everyone ignores this real black invention during Black History Month for fake black inventions.

  63. Your pants are not yours. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a DMCA takedown notice ASAP!

  64. Consider it Done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proposal:
    Take all URLs index them as stated above.
    Use URL shortening to rewrite the URL to one not able to be easily deciphered by the movie / music companies.
    Create flashy website or client to access them via.
    Use tor/ VPN to access the web links.
    Enjoy!

  65. Re:'MPAATakedwn=': recursive on all control paths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, does anyone use anything but torrents to download movies anymore? With rapidshare or something similar, you have gigabytes of data, usually in several rar files that you have to download individually, while waiting the requisite amount of time between downloads and navigating popups and captchas. With a torrent you don't need google, just go to the torrent site and search.

    Second, they're actually right. This is actually a great way to find more of what you're searching for (usually porn), because the links to the originating sites are in the 'chilling effects' documents at the bottom of the search screen. Displaying the takedown notice in some form is really necessary because anyone can send a takedown notice for anything and claim they're the copyright holder. You want to mess with your competitors or suppress content, then send loads of fake takedown notices to google and by the time anyone's sorted out that the dmca requests are fake, the content has been unsearchable for long enough to damage the victimized site.

  66. Re:'MPAATakedwn=': recursive on all control paths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe this hasn't been posted and I know that it's beaten to death but:

    Yo dawg, I hear you like pirated material. So I'm givin your DMCA notice a DMCA notice so you can takedown your takedown.

  67. Refactored by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 0

    In the morning, I love the smell of loving the smell of loving the smell of recursion.

    I think to be recursive, your verbs need to refer to themselves. You know? I know that you know. I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know what I'm talking about.

    I am loving that I am loving that I am loving the smell of recursion in the sentence.

    Okay, I think I'm done for now.

    Do you think that I'm done?

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Refactored by overlordofmu · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points (and hadn't already posted in this thread) I would be giving you one.

  68. Brainyno, no brainy or ... by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    Sounds like they mean they aren't brainy. So are they stupid? Anyway, it reminded me how much I just dislike the sound of "new" words that end in "O". It sounds very not English-like. These words often sound to Latin/Italian to my ears. Can we not stick to more English-based variants of things please? Does Brainynot not get the job done just as well... letting you get the message across that you are a dumb business?

    So anyway but yeah... I do like the sound of this product's potential! ;)

  69. Re:Not raaaaaiiiiiiiiiaaaaain on your wedding day. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    I was hoping someone would point that out. 'cause you know when they made that decision, they were snickering about it.

  70. Curses! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    They've figured it out. At least they still don't know that outubeyay is the new aspternay.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  71. Thanks for the idea... by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

    Fox and Universal!

    --

    THINK! It's patriotic

  72. Non Issue by krage28 · · Score: 1

    The takedown notices, and the concept of potentially fetching all of them and using them to pirate stuff, is a non-issue. I just tried to do exactly that. chillingeffects.org will block your ip after you request 500 contiguous notices. If you want to get all 500k of them, you'd need to use 1000 different ip addresses. That isn't really that hard, but not exactly trivial, nor legal. Who here has legal access to 1000 different ip addresses? Another idea would be to fetch them from the google cache. Google cache bans your ip if you request about 50 different urls from it, for a temporary amount of time. Good luck getting them all from the google cache.