Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Takedown Requests to Google Doubled In 2013
Daniel_Stuckey writes "Last month, a company working on behalf of the publisher Random House, asked Google to remove links to a free copy of Stephen King's Carrie from search results. Google complied for three out of the four requested links, but didn't remove Kim Dotcom's new website Mega.co.nz as requested — for even if Mega is hosting pirated copies of Carrie, they sure aren't on the homepage. But leaving that link up was an exception to the rule. More and more, copyright owners and the organizations they employ are cutting off where the websites and the public meet — the search engine. Google's transparency reports show that requests to remove links to copyrighted material rose steadily in 2013. The search giant received 6.5 million requests during the week of November 18, 2013, which is over twice as many as the same week a year ago. Google said it complies with 97 percent of requests."
I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).
We need a search engine that only searches DMCA takedown requests.
Google is halfway there, publishing every(?) takedown request they get.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
They should actually be grateful to google for helping find the files on the internet that they claim infringe. They can then contact the web hosts that have the files to get them removed. They are not my files, I did not put them there, stfu.
Don't worry content providers will just buy some new laws...
Maybe we can have a "war of the robots"? Google's web crawler finds stuff and the content providers have faster automated DMCA takedown notices?
This entire thing is a mess and only getting worse:
- YouTube scans music and sometimes mismatches public domain material with "copyrighted" material (public domain guitar solo of Bach comes to mind).
- "fair-use" is out the window.
- Selling "ringtones" for songs you already paid for (yeah, separate license, cant use it as a ring tone without additional license fees).
They need to start enforcing both sides of the law, if you put in a false DMCA takedown you should be held accountable. /rant>
who decided a link can be infringement?
The final solution...
Since Google complies with 97 percent of the requests, we start a crowdsourced effort to digitize every law firm letterheads in the world, and start sending bogus takedown notices for EVERY Film Preview, Trailer, Announcement, everything the majors, publishers and media giants dare to put online.
With a little organization and templates for the letters, we can paralyze this nonsense, flood it and render it useless.
I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).
Really?
without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays
My experience with lawyers has really been contrary to this statement.
Google+YouTube benefit financially when they only minimally follow the DMCA rules, and put the cost of policing rights violations entirely on rights holders. This is especially galling when Google+YouTube "earn" ad revenue on pages alongside rights violations. This model is wrong, and unfair. Google+YouTube should have a much stronger financial disincentive in place against facilitating rights violations, at least to the point where they are more proactive about it and don't simply wait for takedown notices to flow in. In other words, yes, the DMCA actually doesn't go far enough.
I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).
Really?!? That's the best you've got?
At least offer a SOURCE or a FRAME OF REFERENCE.
"I know this one guy..."
Fuck you. You are part of the problem.
Every time there's a story about the trend of automating everything people worry that all the jobs are going to go away and there will be nothing left for anyone who isn't a brilliant scientist or talented artist. Well it actually makes sense to outlaw the automation of C&D letters by bots like the media industry is currently doing. One can make an entirely reasonable argument that this kind of legal activity needs to be performed by a human, not a machine. (At least up up until the point where we get true AI at least, and then everything goes out the window anyways.)
All we have to do is get a law passed saying that each C&D claim has to be reviewed by a real human who is employed by the company whose content is supposedly being infringed, plus specify a minimum amount of time necessary for the review. Huzah! At a minimum of one minute per C&D review (which could certainly be increased to five or even ten minutes if necessary,) 6.5 million C&Ds per week is at least 2,700 new jobs, and if the number keeps doubling every year... In less than two decades we could have an entire economy based around C&D letters!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
If notices are going to be sent and processed (then accepted/rejected automatically), followed by verbal fighting, why not simplify the whole exercise? Have a two-way corewars battle between the service and the complainant, winner decides if the link stays. Since the complainant is rarely the copyright holder and the service rarely provides the material, you can extend this to a four-way battle using crobots.
This is just as logical as the current system and has a higher probability of protecting original content from abusive/malign notices.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have friend who's a slightly computerhobic musician. They were so proud about learning how to synthesize on their computer, that they decided to try making a YouTube video. They spent hours peerfecting some classical piece (Handel, I think). They created a YouTube account, figured out how to put the mp3 to a static picture, and posted it privately, intending to figure out how to animate the music score. Before they had the chance, (and while the video was still private), they got a takedown notice. They were totally in a panic that this could impact their day job. I helped them put together a counter notice. When they got the demand to "prove" they owned the content, there was much more panic. Even though the-powers-that-be took the notice away, there was nobody they couldd call about the notice, nobody but me for them to yell at about how unfair it was.
Upshot: to this day, they've never gone back to finish that video, and publish it. And if you talk to them about synthesizing music, instead of happy pride, you hear panicy shuddering and unhappiness.
I think there's a serious imbalance of power when legitimate owners have to prove their innocence, and the spawners of that notice get off with no consequences. How do we fix this?
Through our new government film exchanges you can shop for the movies that are right for you and your family! If you don't want to buy any of the movies on the Affordable Films Act exchange you will be fined!
I made a time lapse video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVbBfUWq3mU
I used background music from ccmixer
Gave the full attribution too!
Music : Improvisation On Sunday, by Alex Beroza(http://ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/...)
Uses : http://ccmixter.org/files/The3amAssoc... again under the following license.
And got a notice that it matches. I filed a dispute, and haven't heard from them again, and my video is up and running. However, if they had filed a counter claim, they would have taken it down? My account gets a copyright strike? I dunno
anyways, I notified the actual music composer about the claim, and maybe he is also trying to get it removed from their DB.
But its scary, if somebody puts a takedown notice, I cannot seek recourse. I am not in the USA and that makes it even more difficult.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Even if they turn out to be plays rather than movies.
What are actors going to do if there are no movies? Take up carpentry or accountancy??
No, they'll find more jobs acting in things that aren't movies.
PS why is it that a risk of no movies being made means we must have copyright?
Ultimately this is where it all started to go wrong, when we lost the war as to whether a link could or couldn't be infringing.
We need a roll back and a retrial that determines that a link can't be any more against the law than pointing at someone's open front door can be incitement to rob the place.
If the media industries want to go after unlicensed content then it should be simply about them going straight after people who have the actual content on their hard drives and nothing else. If they can't do that, or that's too hard, or time consuming? tough shit. It's a business decision, either it's worth your time to chase up or it's not, if it's not then don't go manipulating the law in your favour to bypass well established historical precedent on such issues like the right to a trial if you're accused of a crime rather than the corporate summary judgements that are DMCA takedown notices and their enforcement.
To search for infringing content on the world wide web, 6.5 million queries within one week? I'm so glad that all the basic math/physic/chemistry/biology etc. is free information, imagine if it were to be protected under a "modular" copyright law. :>
This is something that must not be overlooked. This is becoming a plague on Youtube...especially on that platform and the people who are the victims most of the time are the people who put the video up on youtube.
For example, the video Day One: Garry's Incident video on youtube (the one released by TotalBiscuit...just search for it)... it was available to some poeple and then because the company got too much bad press on it cause the game sucked way to bad and it seems like the game was in alpha stage...just too much problems and most reviews (including steam comments) told to not buy the game.
The company got around and requested the video to be removed. The user had no choice but to agree to this non sense. In the end, (not me cause I already saw the video ahahah), the consumer don't know what the game could be liked... But not in this case since youtube wasn't the only source of info lol.
What I want to say is simple...companies got too much power when it comes to this. The consumer or the other party or customer who has no ressources at all is the victim in this. Google seems to be bending way too easily and I hesitate to say this but I will, I feel like Google is feeding the trolls sometimes because they don't fight and automatically agree.
"I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot..."
Citation needed. This a site for NEWS, not Reddit, where everyone seems to have a "friend" who had something amazing happen to them or was visited by injustice. If this "friend" doesn't have traceable, verifiable proof that you can post, it has no business being here. If he does, than it should be posted to bolster the argument.
That's journalism 101.
Turn about is fair play. Since Google decided to start censoring us, it's time we start censoring Google. I suggest everybody start by finding a way to block their bots from watching and tracking what you do, to searching for your content on your web page, etc. etc.
Next, I suggest everybody take an active roll and preventing Google from being used as a search engine by anybody on your network/computer or by anybody else at any location.
Over the copyright I own over this very comment. Let's forget that it was given freely.
I make time lapse videos as a hobby, and I spend hours searching for CC licensed music. After finding such music, I go through the license type to make sure I am not using the music in a way it was not intended to.
Yet, anybody can file a claim.
Remember that fiasco about the video that had no music, just some background of birds chirping?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/
It was so ridiculous that everybody from slashdot to tech portals picked it up, and the guy won. However, what about countless others who are impacted every day.
Here see, they take down classical public domain music
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/10280813987/uk-music-publishers-issue-dmca-takedown-public-domain-sheet-music.shtml
Search google and stories are literally unlimited. Its a sad state of affairs, with everything heavily stacked in favour of those who can afford an expensive lawyer.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography