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).

Comments

New Search Engine

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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/

Re:New Search Engine

[Charliemopps]

Actually, that's where I usually find the best torrents. I do the search, hit the take down request and thanks to Firefoxes "right-click open link" I can download them right off the DMCA request. It's awesome. If I have to look through the google links, most of them are scams or spam... the DMCA requests give me a nice consolidated list of content I'm actually interested in.

Watching the media industry try and fight file sharing is like watching someone you really dislike struggling in quicksand... with a snake wrapped around them... they keep spitting at you and throwing rocks, but that just makes it all the better as you watch them slowly sinking towards their ultimate doom. Actually, I'm prolly pull out someone I really hate... the media industry however can die.

Re:New Search Engine

[Camembert]

I am all for modestly budgeted yet highly creative movies from all over the globe. At the same time, it is unlikely that a movie like Gravity (my favourite film of 2013 despite the scientific errors) would have been possible at that technical quality level outside Hollywood.

THE SOLUTION !

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:THE SOLUTION !

[HiThere]

That depends on how you do it (though the fake letterhead is improper).

If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.

But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)

Re:THE SOLUTION !

[hairyfeet]

Actually the reason why boycotts never work against the *.A.As is that they use "PPT Math" which means they always win. Let me give an example..

Evil corp, lets call them FNJ, has an artist, lets say Titney Steers is her name, that sold X amount last year. So the PHBs come up with a PPT that shows that if they sold X last year thanks to their incredible "shit don't stink(TM)" ad campaign then album Y MUST sell X*Y...if it don't? why its teh evil piratez and they take the PPT to their congress whores and gets more draconian laws and copyright extensions, its a win/win for them!

So you see if every single person on the planet outright refused to so much as listen to Titney Steers new "I'm a big skanky Ho" single they would just get more laws, maybe if they bribed enough even a "too big to fail" bailout, so they CAN NOT LOSE no matter which way they go!

Re:THE SOLUTION !

[MysteriousPreacher]

If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.

You might want to seek legal advice before attempting this. Get a photo of the lawyer's face on hearing your plan.

But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)

Prosecution is pretty rare. Still, if you have a person acting on your behalf, claiming you can act in bad faith is like saying you can get away with burglary if you manage to convince some else to break in to a house under the pretence that it's your house and you forgot your keys. Again, suggest this to the lawyer and check their facial expressions. The consultation will cost money, but the resulting photos could form a new meme!

DMCA Counter-notice

[HaeMaker]

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?

Re:DMCA Counter-notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Previous music distribution site owner here(www.hulkshare.com). Dealt with this kind of nonsense all the time. Hundreds of DMCA bots sending thousands of notices daily - and not just to us but our bandwidth providers as well. DMCA takedown bots are best countered with identical tactics.

Example: User signs up for you to host their files. Part of the EULA is that the owner in good faith asserts his or her content is theirs, or legally distributable by them. This allow you to automate responses to the DMCA bots, the moment the takedown notice comes in, your automation sends the appropriate rebuttal informing them that you also act in good faith that the content is legally able to be distributed via your site. This gives the original DMCA sender N days to challenge your own DMCA challenge. The act(and documentation of the act) of sending this response nullifies their request. You always CC your upstream bandwidth provider as well. Once you get these notices, you have 24 hours to react - and you can be reasonably sure they also received the same request you did. If they don't see you handling it, they will cut your access off(and presumably your entire site) to avoid legal action against them for not complying with the request.

When I ran things, we employed someone full time to sift through DMCA notices to find counter-notices to our original rebuttals. Those ones you actually had to act on, or you'll lose your ass in court - and they _will_ take you. Grandma and Grandpa may just get nasty letters and requests for money - but once they know they have a business with pockets (deep or not) on the hook, you can expect civil filings. If you ignore a 2nd notice in response to your rebuttal, you'll get a notice for obstructing their original notice by sending a false rebuttal - and a notice that a civil case is pending against John Doe. Shortly after expect a 1) summons 2) request for discovery of 'John Doe', and finally 3) a 'deal' you can settle for to avoid your sites' name ending up in civil court.

The only way to fail with DMCA takedowns is to ignore them. After 24 hours without either 1) removing content, or 2) sending appropriate challenge: they will have your upstream bandwidth provider cut you off(and be within their "legal rights" to do so, whatever passes for those these days).

Re:Change the business model

[Cytotoxic]

I really couldn't disagree more. It is one thing to claim that "information wants to be free" and disavow copyrights altogether, but simply pointing to a location and saying "this is what exists at website.com" should always be protected speech under all circumstances. I really can't think of any justification for preventing someone from pointing out a true fact about where something is located. Not even if it were something much worse than a bootleg copy of a concert video or a copy of a Hollywood DVD - like something really both illegal and immoral, such as kiddie porn.

That is all that google does. "Hey, you can find a web page that contains the words "banana hammock" at this address". I don't care what words you substitute for "banana Hammock" and what content you actually find at the web address, simply pointing to it should in all cases be a protected expression of the right to free speech. I don't care if you earn 8 trillion dollars for saying it, or it costs you three bucks and a half-eaten snickers bar to say it, the financial arrangements around your speech are perfectly irrelevant to your right to speak.

Still sucks

[zaywot]

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?

Re:Still sucks

[Krojack]

Every time a copyright claim is made against a Youtube account and it turns out to be false, the company that made the claim needs to be punished in some way such as a fine. Maybe Google can send them bills for every false claim. This could force them to make sure the copyright claim they made are legit.

Either way, something needs to be done to stop them from claiming anything and everything right off the bat.

I have been on the receiving end

[tanveer1979]

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.