Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

Posted by Unknown on from the can-we-just-fix-copyright-already dept.

Via TorrentFreak comes news that Google is now being asked to remove one million links per day (or an average of one takedown notice every 8ms). In 2008, they received one takedown request approximately every six days. From the article: The massive surge in removal requests is not without controversy. It’s been reported that some notices reference pages that contain no copyrighted material, due to mistakes or abuse, but are deleted nonetheless. Google has a pretty good track record of catching these errors, but since manual review of all links is unachievable, some URLs are removed in error. ... The issue has also piqued the interest of U.S. lawmakers. Earlier this year the House Judiciary Subcommittee had a hearing on the DMCA takedown issue, and both copyright holders, Internet service providers, and other parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process. In the meantime, the number of removal requests is expected to rise and rise, with 10 million links per week being the next milestone.

35 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Google don't be evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.

    1. Re:Google don't be evil by geekmux · · Score: 2

      No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.

      Uh, hey how about instead of trying to "screen" all content (by the way, that's a cute word you used there for censoring), perhaps you should realize no one forces you to use Google. It's as simple as that.

      Oh, and one more thing. Go ahead and try and define "illegal" on a global scale. Good luck.

    2. Re:Google don't be evil by davester666 · · Score: 2

      "Earlier this year the House Judiciary Subcommittee had a hearing on the DMCA takedown issue, and both copyright holders, Internet service providers, and other parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process."

      Note who wasn't present. Anybody representing the public.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Google should be wary by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

    It would not be the first top dog search engine that disappears into obscurity because all it displayed anymore were paid-for links, ads and other crap the powers that are considered "agreeable".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Google should be wary by swillden · · Score: 2

      These monopolies have billions in cash reserves to run them profitless for a very long time. Like decades.

      Aside from the rather questionable assertion that Google is a monopoly, the company's cash reserves are nowhere near that large, or, rather, the company's expenses are much larger than you believe. Last I heard, Google has cash reserves of ~$60B (which, note, aren't actually cash; you don't leave that much capital sitting idle), and annual operational costs of about $40B. How long Google could continue to operate with hugely decreased revenues depends on just how far the revenues declined, and how much economizing the company could do, but I strongly doubt that it would be "decades". If all advertising revenue derived from the search engine disappeared and Google didn't economize at all, it would be bankrupt in maybe three years.

      (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but I don't speak for Google. Everything in this post is derived from public information.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. or they could just NOT do it by cellocgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Instead of having software automatically remove every alleged infracting page, how about having the software automatically send a notice back informing the complainant of a lack of credible evidence, and dropping all the takedown notices into some summer intern's Inbox?

    I mean, jeez...

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:or they could just NOT do it by afidel · · Score: 2

      They can't do that, the DMCA very clearly says that the provider must remove the infringing material, then the poster can challenge the takedown, failing to remove the content as requested removes their safe harbor and opens them up to copyright infringement claims with statutory damages of $100,000 per violation, never going to happen.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. Optimizing the process by mdenham · · Score: 2

    Just take down everything permanently because it'll eventually infringe another corporati--excuse me, "non-human person"'s copyright in the future anyway.

  5. Faulty logic by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your statement is based on an absolutely false assumption. You really don't have to look hard to find that most requests have nothing to do with illegal content. The overwhelming majority of the take down requests are for censorship purposes.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Faulty logic by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      GoDaddy filed a DMCA request against one of my sites a few years back. The site was comprised of entirely original, all-text content (e.g. no images they could claim ownership of, and text entirely from my own fingers), but they didn't like the subject matter (a complaint regarding how they handle user-initiated termination of their domain privacy services), so, rather than contact me to resolve the issue (I had been unable to contact anyone on their end who could do anything for me) they fired off a DMCA takedown request to my VPS provider.

      My VPS provider, being a reasonable company, saw that I was hosting several sites and, rather than take down the instance, forwarded the request to me. I contacted them to inform them that I intended to dispute the request and that no content would be removed as a result, they write back indicating that they figured that's what I would do and fully understood as they agreed the request was bogus. I CC'd GoDaddy's support team on that email, as well.

      GoDaddy's next move was to file a WHOIS data inaccuracy complaint with ICANN. My next move was to CC their support team on my response to that.

      In the end, I got a call from their VP of corporate development, or some such, who was able to immediately resolve my issue and light a fire under the dev team's ass to fix the issue permanently, and I took the site down. Had they worked with me from the start, the site never would have existed in the first place, but that's apparently not how GoDaddy (and, as is clear if you follow the news, other large corporations) wants to run things; they'd rather throw money out the window playing games and bullying people, instead of working with them to solve actual problems people have with their services.

      In the end, the 20+ domains I had registered through them ended up on a different registrar and they got some bad PR and a perpetual negative review from me when people ask me (and they often do) who they should register their domains through or host their website with.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:Faulty logic by GNious · · Score: 2

      If GoDaddy filed an effectively-bogus DMCA, why weren't they punished?

      "[..] statement by you UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf."

    3. Re:Faulty logic by suutar · · Score: 2

      The penalty of perjury clause applies to the statement that you are an agent of the owner of the copyright allegedly being infringed, not to the statement that the target of the request is infringing. The belief in infringement is a "good faith" item, which is hard to disprove.

    4. Re:Faulty logic by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

      Why did you take the site down? Am I misunderstanding this? Did you voluntarily capitulate? If they were doing something wrong and you were bringing it to light, then why take it down?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    5. Re:Faulty logic by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Go type in your favorite search engine "DCMA bogus requests" and a treasure trove will appear. There are plenty of citations available to back my statement.

      I'll give you a very easy starting point if you hate sifting data, assuming you really want to look. Alex Jones has had numerous take down orders, accounts cancelled, and content banned. I don't agree with much of what he says, but at the same time I don't believe that he should be censored. He's an easy one to find information on, there there are numerous other less sensationalist people that have similar stories.

      GP stated that anyone receiving take downs is posting illegal content, and that is an outright lie. Google even publishes some of the bogus requests.

      Do you think that the exponential growth in requests is all magically legit? Anyone that understands the basics of statistics should have a WTF moment by looking at this graph

      These are not court processes with transcripts, but enough communications can be reviewed to determine that the majority of these are not people ripping off and sharing a song or movie.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re:Faulty logic by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

      But to me it seems reasonable to maintain documentation of an issue - even if it is resolved - with the intent that they don't do the same thing to someone else. But, OK, your call of course. Just curious.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  6. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "...parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process."

    Well, you could start by requiring that the entire notice be filed under penalty of perjury, not just the part that says you are who you claim to be.
    You could also start by requiring that the notice provide *evidence* (sufficient to sustain a claim of copyright infringement in a court of law) of the claimed infringement.

    Failure to do *either* or *both* of these is just going to result in the request rate increasing to the point where it is impossible for even a fully-automated system to handle them on the receiving end, because there's currently no downside to sending a bogus DMCA takedown notice.

    1. Re:Well... by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      That's unfair to someone filing a legitimate request. Instead, charge a larger sum, on the order of $5 per request, plus $1 per notice (to encourage notices to be batched into single requests and reduce your payment processing costs), with a limit of, say, 100 notices per request, and hold that amount in escrow. Once the window for dispute closes, refund the collected per-notice fee for each request not successfully disputed; if no notices are successfully disputed, also refund the request fee (minus your payment processing costs).

      You'll almost immediately see companies start sending notices in batches of 100 (at a potential cost of $105) to reduce the cost of valid notices to just the cost of processing a $105 payment, something on the order of $3, versus the cost of processing 100 $6 payments, which is on the order of $25. You'll also see a sharp decrease in false notices, since one false notice in a batch would cost $6, with each additional false notice in that batch costing $1. I'm sure there would still be enough of them to pay for staff to process all of the incoming requests, though, which would be a win for everyone; the companies having to process the requests wouldn't be out the cost of doing so, and the requests themselves would pay for enough staff to process them in a timely manner, which should make the people filing them quite happy.

      Of course, the law would have to allow for this, which I don't think it does at this point. Sadly.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  7. Why is this Google's problem? by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They aren't hosting the content, they're merely making pointers to it. Isn't this an issue that should be handled by the company hosting/managing the web content? I'm surprised Google is getting involved in this at all and it makes me wonder what their motivations for doing so are, given the obvious administrative burden this is imposing.

    1. Re:Why is this Google's problem? by jones_supa · · Score: 4

      What if I erected a sign with the text "Small Cock -->" next to you? You maybe wouldn't want me to have the sign there. At that point would it be OK to you if I just said "I ain't hosting the penis, I am just making pointers to it"?

    2. Re:Why is this Google's problem? by tepples · · Score: 2

      What Google gets if it follows the OCILLA procedure set forth in 17 USC 512 is a safe harbor defense to accusations of contributory or vicarious infringement.

    3. Re:Why is this Google's problem? by AnontheDestroyer · · Score: 2

      That's no where near the same. In your example, I'd have to be 1 in 10 billion people in a hidden room (the cloud), and for anyone to see the sign they'd have to explicitly search me out. Then upon emerging as a possibility for person search, your sign is only one of 10 other signs, several of which will be, "Big Penis," and "Huge Penis," because that's the honest to goodness truth, I tells ya. Then maybe they click on a link where I have a graphical depiction of the member in question.

      So it's completely different.

  8. Time For Cynicism by organgtool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The rightsholders have claimed copyright on birdsong, a public transmission of the space shuttle launch, and many other claims of complete nonsense, proving that their algorithms are way too aggressive in flagging videos and that they can't even be bothered to review the "infringing" material before issuing a takedown notice. So who wants to bet that the legislative resolution to this issue has nothing to do with harsher penalties for fraudulent requests and everything to do with harsher penalties for "pirates" who happened to have a radio or television playing in the background when they caught something unusual on video?

  9. Math wrong by one order of magnitude ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    86400 seconds in a day, 1 million takedown notice per day --> 1 notice every 0.0864 s, so 86ms

    Seriously, how hard is it ?

    1. Re:Math wrong by one order of magnitude ... by Rashdot · · Score: 2

      Oh good. I was thinking how hard that job must be, but every 0.0864 seconds is a lot easier then every 0.00864.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
  10. Very, very easy to fix by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

    All takedowns have to be sworn under penalty of perjury. Next time google gets one that points to a page with no infringement (just happened) (just happened again) (oops, and again, okay, I'll stop counting now) whoever sent it needs to be prosecuted for perjury. The infringement notice bots would be shut down in 10 minutes when those behind them are suddenly facing prosecution.

    As I've said time and again: we don't need a new law - we need to enforce what we've got.

    --
    Do you have ESP?
    1. Re:Very, very easy to fix by CPIMatt · · Score: 2

      The problem is that there is no penalty in the law for a mistaken copyright take-down. What we need is for every mistaken take-down, an automatic $1000 fine.

      -Matt

  11. Re:This is the future Republicans want for all of by Andrio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This mentality will destroy the country. Stop turning things into Republicans vs Democrats. Truth is they both serve the same corporate masters.

    Under Obama, for example, a former Monsanto Exec became the head of the FDA. A former telecom lobbyist became the chairman of the FCC. I mean, what the fuck, right?

    Basically, whether you vote Republican or Democrat, this kind of thing will go on. The two party system is just useful for distracting people, and getting them to vote in such a way where nothing will actually change.

    --
    The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
  12. Re:An easy fix. by Sigma+7 · · Score: 2

    Obviously there should be a way to report copyright issues. However to do so there should be a deposit required, say $1000.

    A.k.a. justice for the rich rather than the starving artist.

    The actual fix is to require the plaintiff to sign the whole statement under penalty of perjury rather than just that they represent someone - or at the very least, put a punishment for flinging out fradulent DMCA takedown in the same way filing frivilous lawsuits is punished.

  13. What do they consider a take down request? by ZiakII · · Score: 2

    What do they consider a take down request though? For the website I administer for my job I just submitted 60 take down requests using the Google webmaster tools this morning as our Chat Form Page got incorrectly indexed (robots.txt error on our part) and we want our customers to go through the contact reason page first.

    These are legal requests but are they counting these in that number?

  14. Optimize the process? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    ...both copyright holders, Internet service providers, and other parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process.

    The solution is not to optimize the process. The solution is to scrap the process, and the DMCA along with it.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  15. Competitive Sabotage? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    You have to wonder if competing search engines could be spurring these claims somehow, culling such vast numbers of pages from Google's index is a great way to degrade the usefulness of Google's search...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. First hand experience by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to work in a department that handled DMCA notices on the consumer side. (They were complaining that our customers were hosting the content) The vast majority of these complaints were fraudulent. The problem is that the media companies hire other companies to monitor for infringement and send take-down notices. I suspect they pay per notice sent and they are getting swindled. Some were so bad, we literally blacklisted their domain so they'd stop sending us complaints. They'd send take down notices for people that weren't even in our IP block. They were just sending nonsense and collecting money from the content provider. This likely also where the content providers get their insane numbers about the amount of money they are losing.

    1. Re:First hand experience by amoeba1911 · · Score: 2

      And it's going to continue until there are real repercussions to sending invalid dmca take-down notices. Right now I can issue dmca take-down for every video ever added to youtube. What's going to stop me?

  17. perjury re identity only not accuracy. EZ fix DMCA by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    DMCA requires a statement:

            "under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

    The perjury statement is just that the person sending the complaint is an authorized representative of the _alleged_ owner.
    In other words, if you or I sent a complaint that someone is violating Bill Clinton's copyright, THAT would violate that section, because we're not authorized to enforce Clinton's rights.

    As to the accuracy of the complaint, DMCA provides that you can be sued for actual damages if you KNOWINGLY file a false complaint. "Knowingly" is a special word in law, with a carefully established definition. It means more than recklessly or negligently. To sue them, you have to prove that they KNEW it was bogus. If they filed it without caring whether or not it was bogus, that's insufficient. It would be better if you could sue for reckless or negligent claims, but you can only sue for knowingly false claims. Changing that one word from "knowingly" to "negligently" or "recklessly" would go a long way toward fixing DMCA.

    Secondly, the bogus claimant can be sued only for actual damages. Suppose it costs Google $5 to process each takedown. For a knowingly false takedown notice, they can sue to get that $5 back. They're not going to pend $100K to sue someone for $5. Not going to happen. What would fix that would be the same thing that holders of registered copyrights have under the law - statutory damages. The current text of the law is:

            Any person who knowingly misrepresents ... shall be liable for any damages ... incurred

    We could just change that to:

            Any person who RECKLESSLY misrepresents ... shall be liable for the greater of $25,000 or any damages ... incurred.
            Any person who negligently misrepresents ... shall be liable for the greater of $10,000 or any damages ... incurred.

    A Google lawyer could then sue Warner Bros for 100 reckless notices and damages would be _at_least_ $2.5 million which pays the lawyer's salary for several years. They'd settle for the $1 million "negligent" amount, and Google could have a staff of lawyers suing all the assholes, hitting them for a million dollars each time until they stopped sending notices recklessly.

  18. DMCA has a section for search engines. Full text by raymorris · · Score: 2

    The DMCA has a section titled "Information Location Tools" which covers linking. Here's the relevant text of the law:

            for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—
            (1)
                    (A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
                    (B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
                    (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

    Further up, it says that once you've received a DMCA notice with all the blanks filled in, you have actual knowledge. So Under d 1 c, after receiving notice a search engine or other locator service (torrent tracker) must "acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material"

    The problem is that there's no statutory damages for even knowingly false claims, and no damages at at for reckless claims.
    Adding statutory damages for reckless claims would mean these big companies would stop filing all the reckless claims.