Publisher Is Pretty Sure Google Could End Piracy (techdirt.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Techdirt is running a story about Square One Publishers Rudy Shur, and his confusion over the DMCA process, and exactly what Google has control over. The story goes: "After being contacted by Google Play with an offer to join the team, Shur took it upon himself to fire off an angry email in response. That would have been fine, but he somehow convinced Publisher's Weekly to print both the letter and some additional commentary. Presumably, his position at a publishing house outweighed Publisher Weekly's better judgment, because everything about his email/commentary is not just wrong, but breathtakingly so.

After turning down the offer to join Google Play (Shur's previous participation hadn't really shown it to be an advantageous relationship), Shur decided to play internet detective. Starting with this paragraph, Shur's arguments head downhill then off a cliff then burst into flames then the flaming wreckage slides down another hill and off another cliff. (h/t The Digital Reader) '[W]e did discover, however, was that Google has no problem allowing other e-book websites to illegally offer a number of our e-book titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet.'

There's a huge difference between "allowing" and "things that happen concurrently with Google's existence." Shur cannot recognize this difference, which is why he's so shocked Google won't immediately fix it. 'When we alerted Google, all we got back was an email telling us that Google has no responsibility and that it is up to us to contact these sites to tell them to stop giving away or selling our titles.'"

Comments

The elders of the internet

[fieldstone]

But the Google is emperor of the internet! Everynoob knows this to be true.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google had a financial incentive to eradicate piracy results it would have zero trouble doing so. Gmail does a fantastic job removing Spam. The challenge of identifying pirated copies is pathetically easy. Identify website for instance with and also has a major film title in the header. Obviously it would take a bit of machine learning to eliminate false positives but it's not particularly more difficult of a challenge than "Oldest Living Person".

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is easy, just block everything. That is how Google does with the email. One example was that Google asked me to work for them, but when I replied to the email, my email went to spam box and the receiver never got it. Luckily I happened to know that Google does this sort of thing so I sent another email from gmail, which worked.

Now, I would understand that accidents happen, but they have actually spam-filtered the largest ISP in my country, with millions of email addresses and despite of multiple requests it is most likely still filtered. I stopped caring after a few years. It is like blocking gmail because some gmail users send spam (yes, I have received those).

Re:The elders of the internet

[wisnoskij]

I think I heard that they already do dowrank piracy. You get results when you are obviously searching for piracy, but otherwise you don't. Example: Typing in, simply, a movie title will never get you piracy results.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Google could totally wipe out piracy because they control all sites and servers on the internet....

Re:The elders of the internet

[TheRaven64]

They can do a good job on spam because there's generally consensus about what spam is, and when people see spam they're willing to click on a button that notifies Google that it's spam. This lets them train machine learning algorithms to identify it. That's not the case for piracy - people aren't going to click on a 'this site hosts pirated content' button next to search results. The people who are looking for it wouldn't want it to go away, most other people don't see it, and there's a huge potential for abuse (if such a button existed, I bet a lot of us would click on it for sony.com and so on).

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is my LAST stop when pirating, when every other resource I have has failed me and I'm willing to wade through the more questionable sites. Maybe 1 in 1,000 gets googled, and of those only 1 in 100 results in a success.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Opportunist]

But Google has a financial incentive not to. Why? Because people want to see the pages that give them free stuff. DUH. And if Google doesn't give them, they will turn away from Google and to the next search engine. And that is certainly the LAST thing Google would want.

And I would not rely on law makers to step in here. Because their incentive to have US businesses lose business to foreign ones isn't too high either. Because people can VERY easily jump ship on this one. If the word gets out that Google doesn't give you the results you're looking for anymore and, say, Yandex does, well, to hell with the US, hello Russia.

Why should real people care more about the country they live in than corporations?

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I heard that they already do dowrank piracy. You get results when you are obviously searching for piracy, but otherwise you don't. Example: Typing in, simply, a movie title will never get you piracy results.

Correct. And I'm OK with that. Type in movie name, get legit results. Type in scene release name, get scene results.

I wish they'd do something about spam.

I pick a random phrase from the Slashdot front page: "SAP specialists, storage 'gurus,' and network managers could all face some headwinds. 'Companies are continuing to"

I get Slashdot. I get the Dice article. Fair enough. That's the source.

But I also get links to obvious scrapers of content like kevlarsspace.wordpress.com, nigeria.shafaqna.com, w00t.pro, alblinux.net/aggregator, ricardoamaro, plus whatever malware the scrapers are trying to propagate via their ad networks. SEO has ruined Google, and I'm mainly whining about this because I don't see any automated way of solving the blogspam problem. (You can't just drop all copies after the first 15 minutes into the memory hole, because sometimes an actual human being might be actively mirroring something important in the event that the original site takes the article down.)

Re: The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't control the browser. They control a browser, which isn't one I even use, because it's shit.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't used Google for warez ever, there's no need. A mass Google deindexing will stop the most basic users, but the worst pirates spend up to 300% more. It would ultimately hurt content producers more than it would help.

Buyer protection from shitty digital products is almost nonexistent. If I can't download it first I'm not buying it, but offer me a refund and I'll reconsider.

Shitty product from Walmart: Returned for being a piece of shit, no questions asked.

Shitty movie/game/album from Walmart:
*Rubs nipples* No returns!
But it was a piece of shit!
*Rubs nipples faster* Fuck you!
Get the manager now!
A wild Snorlax appears!
*Destroys nipples*
Snorlax uses troll! We will exchange it for the same shitty fucking movie/game/album. *money shot*
It's super effective!

https://torrentfreak.com/0-more-on-content-than-honest-consumers-130510/

Even if the internet shut down tomorrow there would still be piracy.

Re: The elders of the internet

[Scarletdown]

They don't control Firefox. Also, they don't control search either. DDG is my default, over which Google has no say in what gets shown.

Re: The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Pleas think before you post.

Re:The elders of the internet

[CBravo]

There is no 'best' way to spamfilter bad emails. The definition of spam is unknown and being redefined constantly by spamfilters (which is a little different from what recipients think spam is).

The problem is that the process of 'what is spam' is quite complex for humans. For instance: Suppose I gave you permission to send me bulkmail and you only start to use it two years later. Is that spam? For one person it isn't, for the other it is.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they could ask the Publisher to give a list of the Publisher's book titles and approved websites and then make sure none of the unapproved sites end up on Google's search results for searches with those book titles, assuming they are unique titles.

If the titles are not unique, Google should try to do their best to show links to other books/stuff instead.

I'd be happy with that solution.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should real people care more about the country they live in than corporations?

I care to the extent that there's not anarchy on the streets and uneducated lower classes running around shooting up the place.

Everything else?

Fuck nationalism. As a human, I am a citizen of the world. My clothes are from China; my food is from Japan, Italy and France; my car is the best American vehicle Mexico can build; my coffee mugs are from Poland.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

p>Now, I would understand that accidents happen, but they have actually spam-filtered the largest ISP in my country, with millions of email addresses and despite of multiple requests it is most likely still filtered. I stopped caring after a few years. It is like blocking gmail because some gmail users send spam (yes, I have received those).

was it this one? Because it was not at all like blocking gmail.

https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/727/brazilian-internet-users-suffer-softlayers-security-fail

Re:The elders of the internet

[moronoxyd]

That doesn't work.
The same book is often published by different publishers in different markets.
If the US publisher gives Google a list of 'approved' resellers, Google would potentially block all the legal resellers for the UK, Australian etc. markets.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Wootery]

You're right there's no obvious simple solution, but I'm still surprised Google hasn't solved it: I see no reason for it to be impossible, or beyond the expertise of Google. Well, except that there might simply not exist any better matches on the web, in which case their current results make some sense.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes no sense. Book-reviews aren't officially sanctioned by the publisher. Neither are blog-posts or Slashdot discussions. You think Google should refuse to list those, too?

Re:The elders of the internet

[krashnburn200]

Does this mean we can't call Bill Gates to get the whole thing shut down?

Re:The elders of the internet

[GameboyRMH]

If Google can't control what people post on the Internet, Bill Gates should be able to block them from the Internet entirely. This guy should talk to Bill Gates, and say that Donald Trump sent him!

Re: The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, I forgot that Google controls all browsers.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Gmail does a fantastic job removing Spam.

The fact that I still need to occasionally check my spam folder for false positives says otherwise.

Re: The elders of the internet

[Dins]

+1 for Duck Duck Go. If you haven't tried it in a year or two, try it now - it's worlds better than it was and I use it for >95% of my searches now.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Dins]

Besides, that's a good way for Google to eventually work its way into irrelevancy. Once people find out that they can't use Google to find what they're looking for, they might be tempted to try other search engines (*cough* Duck Duck Go *cough). That movement would start out as very small and insignificant but if it persisted, especially with kids and teens, word of mouth alone could seriously cut into Google's user base. A situation I'm sure they're aware of and trying to dance around.

This is already happening to an extent with Facebook. I'm the father of a 17 year old boy. He and his friends would never touch Facebook with a 10 foot pole (that's my boy! :)

Re: The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, because automated blocking of YouTube videos has never hurt anyone.

You really ought to consider that the downside to a false positive is considerably more damaging than having to check your spam folder.

Re:The elders of the internet

[tomxor]

I think it would be really interesting if google actually did something like this because:

I'm not actually sure any abuse from pro-copyright groups would be able to outweigh legitimate opposition.

Google probably wouldn't stand for blatant abuse from pro-copyright groups on a system like this (web search is their bread and butter, youtube is not)

Obviously it would be bad for google because regardless of how well it works in favour of either side of the debate, it will further cast google as a censor of the web.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the case for piracy - people aren't going to click on a 'this site hosts pirated content' button next to search results.

Well, it wouldn't be that hard to disrupt current pirate practices.
At the moment there is a distinct and identifiable culture regarding how to provide informative filenames among pirates.
Detecting and filtering this will work until pirates have found a workaround.
Pirates also like to add readme-files and name files to market their group or page. That is like having spam with a signature. Using the same spam-filters Google already has but on those files would be tremendously easy and again stop a lot of pirates until they found a workaround.

Re:The elders of the internet

[thoromyr]

oh yeah, I'd definitely mark microsoft.com, sony.com, apple.com, ford.com, etc., as spam. OTOH, google would just white list its friends so it wouldn't actually have any effect. But minor sites with unapproved content (and I do *not* mean piracy) would get slammed into oblivion by a network of reporting by interested parties (microsoft, sony, apple, ford, etc.).

The suggestion amounts to anonymous internet voting, one of the most trivially gamed systems ever thought up. The most obvious cheating is easy to detect or ignore, but anyone with resources (microsoft, sony, apple, ford, etc.) can make it infeasible or pay someone who can.

Re:The elders of the internet

[R3d M3rcury]

It's Google's Internet, we just live in it.

I remember back in the '90s on the Mac, when you installed Internet Explorer, it put it in a folder called "Microsoft Internet." So it used to be Microsoft's Internet, but now it's Google's.

Re:The elders of the internet

[dgatwood]

Not to mention bookstore websites like Amazon.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Grishnakh]

and there's a huge potential for abuse (if such a button existed, I bet a lot of us would click on it for sony.com and so on).

That's not "abuse", that's a public service.

Re: The elders of the internet

[Coren22]

Very few Youtube blocks are actually inaccurate. Did you know that using a song, that you haven't gained permission for, as background for your video is still copyright infringement? It seems that many video uploaders have a serious lack of understanding of how copyright works.

If you are the original source for the music or video, including all audio, then and only then is the block completely wrong. If you gain permission from the publisher/author/singer to use their music or video in your video, then the block is incorrect.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Coren22]

Unlikely. Any block of the type you indicate would also block the legitimate sources of the media as well.

Re:The elders of the internet

[kilfarsnar]

But the Google is emperor of the internet! Everynoob knows this to be true.

To be fair, a lot of people have no idea how the Internet works. A few years ago I sat down with my elderly mother for about an hour to explain what was actually happening when she connected to the Internet and clicked on a link. At my previous job one project manager didn't understand how I could put servers that were located in our office "on the Internet". This Mr. Shur should have been more informed before he fired off this letter. But to many people, our modern technological world might as well be magic.

Re:The elders of the internet

[argumentsockpuppet]

Wait, you're just talking about Google results right? Or do you honestly expect Google to fix Bing and Yahoo and DuckDuckGo and the others?

I've been wondering if there is a place to point out that some people actually don't understand how the internet works. Maybe this is it.

I suspect TFA is about a guy who thinks somebody has to get permission in order to create web pages. He thinks Google has an arrangement with all the websites it indexes. He thinks that if Google takes search results out, then those websites won't get visitors. Many people don't realize that search engines aren't necessary. Most people don't realize that web domain names aren't necessary. Few people realize that Google can't tell what web sites are offering if the site designer doesn't open it up to allow Google to see that.

But lets pretend for a moment that Google figures out how to hack into every computer connected to the internet. (That's what it would take in order to actually recognize sites engaged in piracy, so lets pretend Google did that.) For the sake of this discussion, lets also pretend it wouldn't be MASSIVELY illegal. Also, lets pretend the dark web doesn't exist. For this argument, Google is able to completely index every computer connected to the internet and all the governments are okay with that: What then?

Google takes out any results it doesn't want to include due to piracy. So what? I get Yahoo or Bing to show me any piracy related links I'm interested in.

So lets pretend that Google is so awesome/terrifying/magical that not only are they breaking into every computer connected to the internet, they're letting anybody use their anti-piracy filter and the government makes Yahoo and Bing do the same thing.

So I use DuckDuckGo and then the US government makes them do the same thing.

So I go to Yandex.com because the US can't do anything about them. But in this alternate reality, lets say Russia's government gets on board too. What then?

I go to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And if *that* doesn't do it, I can write my own search engine. It won't be as slick or as fast as Google, but I can do it.

You're thinking "everybody goes to Google" but that wasn't true just a couple decades ago. A hundred companies would love for Google search to get (more) censored so they could take (more of) it's customers.

Google is the go to place for search today because they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, pumping money and research into keeping that position. Make no mistake, if they screw up and die tomorrow, the internet and web searching will continue with scarcely a stumble.

If Google and Bing and Yahoo and DuckDuckGo and Yandex and Ask and all the others get taken over by governments, it will mean that the internet as it exists today has ended, but not only that, it will mean that first time in all of human history (excepting the *maybe* the Toba catastrophe) that humanity has finally reached a point of single world governance.

And on that day, if I'm still alive, I'll be building my own internet. I have everything necessary to get started in my own home, as do most Americans. My new internet will have privacy built in (just like the guy who invented the one we use now wished he'd done.) Also, blackjack and persons of negotiable affection.... although to be honest I'm not sure I could stop those last two even if I wanted to and was in charge of the whole of humanity.

Re: The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

And, are we sure it pirated software/materials, and not one of his resellers, who gets a price cut, because they have a sweetheart deal, not making some money?

Re: The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

What Google are you using? There are shit lists of spam on Google, and Google *does* occasionally takedown search results for infringing sites.

Re: The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dry. For instance,
if you use a small segment and it is used to "enhance" or add some effect (drama/suspense/etc) to a recording, then it could very easily fall under fair use.
You can even use the full body of the work, in some (admittedly rare) instances, without issue

Don't listen to me though, Take a look at youtubes stance on it or, would you prefer The Copyright Office's Take, how about Wikipedia's

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

we could search for that dribbling moron apk's shit and flag that!

Re: The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Pleas think before you post.

The ironing is delicious.

Re:The elders of the internet

[sudon't]

I'm constantly amazed that people no longer seem to understand what a search engine is, or how it works. Even governments, such as the European Union, who presumably have people on the payroll to explain these things to them, seem to think Google = The Internet itself.
Of course, Google doesn't help itself when it manipulates search results for its own purposes. Once you've started down that road, you can no longer pretend to be merely a neutral indexer of the web.

Re:The elders of the internet

[arth1]

Gmail does a fantastic job removing Spam.

And legitimate e-mail. Anyone who has ever been Joe-jobbed will find that their legitimate, even personal e-mail ending up in G-Mail's spam trap. Forever.

Any solution that punishes innocents through false positives is not a solution, whether it's flagging e-mails, web sites, or suspiciously looking individuals.

Re:The elders of the internet

[arth1]

Not to mention bookstore websites like Amazon.

Or second hand sellers. Whether private or commercial.
Last I checked, "first sale" was still a valid doctrine.

Asking Google to police each and every one of the billions of web pages they index for suspicious content is like demanding the Mall of America and Disney Land run background checks on every visitor, so a criminal doesn't sneak in. Just orders of magnitude more ridiculous.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet!

They have that on computers now?

Re:The elders of the internet

[Opportunist]

I consider my taxes an investment in social peace. So yes, I can agree with this.

I prefer to buy domestic, though. For the same reason. First, I don't think that we gain anything from transporting stuff halfway around the globe. It's wasteful. Second, I want people here to have a job. For the same reason I pay taxes. It is better for the personal image people have of themselves if they work for a living than accepting government handouts. At least I would feel better if I know I earned the money I have instead of feeling like the world would be better off without me. And I'm also a firm believer that a working day's wage has to be enough to get by. Working 8 hours a day has to provide you with enough money to pay your rent, pay for your food and pay for everything else you need to live. Having to work two jobs should not be a requirement just to make ends meet.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to disable the spam filter on my gmail. It kept putting things I wanted in the spam folder.

Re:The elders of the internet

[sims 2]

I have had to take to checking the robots.txt on websites I want to search myself many many websites today still have

User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /

You know what that means? It means only google is allowed to crawl the website. That mean's ddg.gg and any other search engine that respects robots.txt won't be able to search it.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Wootery]

What on Earth are you talking about? AC and I were talking about why Google search results include copy-spam. Did you reply to the wrong comment?

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

>That mean's ddg.gg and any other search engine that respects robots.txt won't be able to search it.

Simple. Have your crawler pretend it's googlebot all the time. Or ignore robots.txt. It's what I do when I need to wget something.

Re: The elders of the internet

[sims 2]

Protip setup an email that's not easily guessed and disable the spam filter. Seriously if anyone contacts you at

492048415445205350414d2049205245414c4c592048415445205350414d2f2e@gmail.com

Its because you gave them the address no one is going to guess that!

Need an easy to type one for mailing lists? Try something like sendspamhere@gmail.com although be aware you will get so many emails a day that if someone actually does message you you won't be able to find it.

Re:The elders of the internet

[argumentsockpuppet]

No, worse. I didn't go back up through the previous discussion thread and misunderstood your reference to "it" to be the topic in TFA. Sorry.

Re:The elders of the internet

[NormalVisual]

Google is the go to place for search today because they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, pumping money and research into keeping that position. Make no mistake, if they screw up and die tomorrow, the internet and web searching will continue with scarcely a stumble.

Yup. I remember when AltaVista was the big dog, and then Google came and ate their lunch. There's nothing keeping the same thing from happening to Google except their own efforts.

Re:The elders of the internet

[NormalVisual]

Or if you run your own properly configured mail server (including SPF, DKIM, etc.) with a clean IPv6 address. For quite a while Google wouldn't accept SMTP connections via IPv6, so I had to fall back to IPv4 until earlier this year when they mysteriously began accepting them.

Re:The elders of the internet

[NormalVisual]

At my previous job one project manager didn't understand how I could put servers that were located in our office "on the Internet".

Well, if you didn't have a truck coming by periodically to take your content to the nearest tube, I guess I can understand it. ;-)

Re:The elders of the internet

[david_thornley]

I have three distinct books titled "What If?". I have two distinct books with the same title from the same author, different publisher.

Re:The elders of the internet

[solidraven]

That's the dumbest thing I read today. And that includes a transcript of a Trump interview. You'd end up blocking loads of legal content using such filter rules...

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Well what a coinkidink! My search bot is ALSO called "googlebot". It's derived from "go ogle bot", as in a bot that actively stares.

But seriously, how about testing each site to see if they respect "do not track"? If they don't, then you shouldn't feel obligated to respect their robots.txt.

Re:The elders of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you might have missed this: Popular Torrent Site Disappears From Google After Penalty

Meanwhile, the top search result in many locations points to a scam site that's serving malware to its visitors.

Re:The elders of the internet

[TheHappyHippo]

Isn't the Internet a Microsoft thing? http://fortune.com/2015/12/08/...

Re:The elders of the internet

[Wootery]

Ah, ok. No worries.

Re:The elders of the internet

[argumentsockpuppet]

Classy. I was a dick and you took an apology like a gentleman. Thank you.

Re:The elders of the internet

[RockDoctor]

The EU is perfectly well aware that Google is not the whole of the internet. The point of the "right of privacy" dispute is that getting the links off Google is the most effective way of making it harder for Joe Random to get the links. Anyone who wants to go to (say) BBC, Daily Mail and Grauniad websites will be able to find the original articles after searching for Joe Soap's previous news stories. but the most frequently used search engine will be under orders to not return certain results for that search.

If there were two search engines totalling 90% of the search activity on the net, the the EU would be giving orders to two search engines, not one.

What in the fuck?

[ravenspear]

Could someone explain the summary in plain English?

It sounds like something bad happened to someone important but other than that I have absolutely no idea what it is saying.

Re:What in the fuck?

[timbudtwo]

The Publisher did some googling and found on google website that had "no problem allowing other e-book websites to illegally offer a number of our e-book titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet." So he sent google a strongly worded email saying they should really do a better job. Google said: "Google has no responsibility and that it is up to us to contact these sites to tell them to stop giving away or selling our titles."

The story is that there is a stupid person on the internet.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary: Some old people are stupid enough to think that they can stop piracy by using google's leverage on the web. But they are just ignorant!!

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guy works for publishing company. Guy gets offered job at google. Guy declines job. Guy searches his companys work on google. Guy finds website selling his comapnys copywrited work. Guy asks google to take down content. Google says its not googles job to take down content, that guy should be talking to the website selling content. Guy doesnt know the way DCMA works (contact website not google)

Re:What in the fuck?

[fustakrakich]

Could someone explain the summary in plain English?

Crybaby publisher is scapegoating Google for for unauthorized distribution of works.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

TL;DR

A publisher thinks that google controls what is on every website and wonders why they cannot "take them down". In other words google, while dominant, is not "the internets" and stupid people have trouble understanding no single entity is directly in charge.

He is mostly pissed that people can share text online and believes that only books are the way to do so. To be fair that is his business model... Stupid as that is.

Re:What in the fuck?

[fred911]

This dude that's a publisher is pissed over getting spammed by Google and the fact that Google indexes websites that give away IP he's (or his clients) got the rights to.

  So he publishes this diatribe on his website and somehow got it published here also.

No nerd news here...

Re:What in the fuck?

[Nemyst]

From what I can gather: publisher is asked by Google if they want to put their books on Google Play. Publisher head refuses, does "detective work" and suddenly arrives in the 21st century, realizing that there are many pirate sites hosting their books. Since the guy used Google to reach those pirate sites, he comes to the conclusion that Google is doing the piracy.

The TL;DR of the summary of the rant is that somebody in a tiny position of power doesn't understand the internet.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Opportunist]

tl;dr version: Some old geezer mistook the service that distributes street numbers for the guys running the crack house.

Re: What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know about text publishing and piracy but google does take a cut from videos and music on youtube. They don't vet either users or media but instead throw up their arms and blame their own algorithms for allowing infringing media. Maybe google is throwing up their arms to catch all that ad revenue! Anyway, that is pretty much allowing piracy and profiting from piracy. This isn't like ISPs allowing any traffic, so why is it allowed?

Re:What in the fuck?

[penguinoid]

It's true -- Google could hire some censors, thereby increasing its costs, increase their liability, piss off its customers, reduce ad revenue, and reduce marketshare. Oddly enough, they have elected not to do so. (Also, it would have had a minimal effect on piracy)

Re: What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know about text publishing and piracy but google does take a cut from videos and music on youtube

There's the small matter of YouTube being a Google company, and these sites with the infringing works are NOT.
Google's making money off YouTube because they are YouTube. They aren't making money by having a certain websites listed in their search database. The database itself is how Google (Search) attracts users and makes money.

You're as stupid as the guy in the story.

Re: What in the fuck?

[Ixokai]

That's entirely different.

YouTube is hosting content, and they don't simply throw up their arms at all: they provide ample tools for rights holders to file DCMA claims and promptly disable content that is claimed, according to the obligations the DCMA sets upon them.

There is actually an opposite problem with Youtube: they accept dubious and wrong claims, which sucks, but from their POV they have to -- if someone puts in an incorrect DCMA claim on penalty of perjury, its on them in a court of law. But Google is a neutral party and has neither the right nor responsibility to judge these things.

So they readily take down content claimed infringing.

Google, the web search engine though? They aren't hosting content. They aren't providing content. SOmeone else is. They're indexing stuff, and to put on them the obligation for what is legal or not (that is hosted by someone else entirely) is a completely unfair burden.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that we should be proud that things have moved along, not that long ago people like him would probably try to contact "Internet Explorer" in order to remove content since that "is the internet".

Re:What in the fuck?

[F.Ultra]

With a very large amount of "some". Imagine the number of people needed if you where to censor the amount of pages going trough the Google index every day.

Re:What in the fuck?

[mwvdlee]

The guy seems to confuse patent and copyright law by blaming Google for making a distinction between the two.
Did the guy ever wonder why there are separate laws here?

As an added bonus, he says Google is evil for only going after infringements of their own patents, and not his copyrights.
Is he implying that Google should knowingly misrepresent itself as copyright owner of somebody else's work?

Re: What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having actual people preview publicly available content on YouTube would cut into Google's profit. It isn't that Google can't preview the content, it's that they don't want to. Google would have to hire people and spend money. Sure there is a way to take down content but that puts it all on the owner of the content. In the mean time google profits.

Re: What in the fuck?

[mwvdlee]

if someone puts in an incorrect DCMA claim on penalty of perjury, its on them in a court of law

As I understand it, this is incorrect, and is actually one of the most significant issues with DMCA.

The original claim has no penalties on it whatsoever; the claimant isn't on the line for anything and can lie and cheat without a worry.
The receiver of the claim has to act as the claim tells.
The person whose video is taken down can file a counterclaim.
The claimant can then take action against the counterclaim, only at this point is there any risk of penalty of perjury for the claimant.

Re: What in the fuck?

[SuricouRaven]

There is one point in the DMCA claim that is given under penalty of perjury: The submitter of the claim must attest that they are the copyright holder, or empowered to act on behalf of the copyright holder, of the work in question. That part of the claim is given under penalty of perjury.

There is, though, no requirement that the rest of the claim be accurate. This is intentional: It was expected from the very beginning that some level of automation would be required, so there was always the risk infringement would be mistakenly identified and a takedown sent where no infringement actually took place. That's why the counternotice procedure is also included. The sheer scale on which the DMCA would eventually be used was not anticipated though. The internet was a small place in 1998.

Re: What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mother must have huffed a lot of paint when she was carrying you, because you truly are a stupid individual.

I would strongly encourage you to look up how much video is uploaded to YouTube every minute. Then think about the sheer number of people that Google would need to hire to review this. (Basic math can be used to calculate this, think you can handle that?)

Then go stand in front of a mirror and repeat 5 times "I will not say moronic, ridiculous things on the internet anymore".

Moron.

Re: What in the fuck?

[Ixokai]

No, that's not true.

By making a DCMA claim, you're attesting under penalty of perjury that you own a right to whats being copied, or represent a rights holder, or otherwise have a right to make a claim. That's actionable if untrue. Just because its not usually acted upon -- that's a sad state of the imbalance of our legal system -- not the lack of a cause of action.

Now it requires someone else to actually fight it before it goes anywhere, and most DCMA claims end up in a kind of internet oblivion, but to make a claim is not -- in fact -- a zero liability action.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all the god damn fucking hyperbole added to the summary. I wish these assholes would leave the bias and slander out of the summaries and just give the facts. But no, that wouldn't make them appear witty enough. Idiots.

Re: What in the fuck?

[mrbester]

Only a belief that you own a right (or a belief that those you are acting for own a right) is required. This is how a royalty free public domain student's thesis video containing the word pixels that was updated to Vimeo years before the Adam Sandler film was made got taken down. DMCA is an unjust law where proof of a negative is required.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I can gather: publisher is asked by Google if they want to put their books on Google Play. Publisher head refuses, does "detective work" and suddenly arrives in the 21st century, realizing that there are many pirate sites hosting their books. Since the guy used Google to reach those pirate sites, he comes to the conclusion that Google is doing the piracy.

The TL;DR of the summary of the rant is that somebody in a tiny position of power doesn't understand the internet.

Good summary. Let me give it a try:
So bank robber used yellow pages to find bank, ergo yellow papers do the felonies (or TL;DR: too lazy, didn't research). : /

Re: What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

The work you claim to have a right to pursue is attested under perjury. That work doesn't have to be the one in the work being taken down, however.

If you flag a song called "Toxic" and claim that you work for the label to whom the rights of the Britney song belong to, and you do, then you are not perjuring, even if the song in question is not the Britney song "Toxic". If I were to claim to be the rightsholder or their agent to Britney Spears' estate for the song, I WOULD be perjuring, even if the song were an illegal use of the song.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful, our lawmakers seem to be in the same realm of understanding as far as the Internet (or common sense) goes.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Daemonik]

Could someone explain the summary in plain English?

It sounds like something bad happened to someone important but other than that I have absolutely no idea what it is saying.

Well, your initial supposition is wrong first off. Some guy who thinks he's important blames Google for the actions of people that are not under their control. It's like blaming crowbar manufacturers for people using crowbars to break into houses.

His business model is unable to adjust to the fact that his product is easily pirated, and he's blaming the most visible company connected to the Internet for other people pirating his works, without taking into account Google has no control over anyone but themselves, they are not the only search engine in the world, they only index the WWW portion of the Internet which has many other protocols that files can be shared over. He's tilting at windmills.

Re:What in the fuck?

[msauve]

"The story is that there is a stupid person on the internet"

And that person is the author of the very deliberately misleading (quoting out of context) and biased summary.

If you read the actual linked-to editorial, it's clear that he does in fact understand Google's role. From the original editorial:

If a store sells knockoff designer handbags, why is it okay for police to come in, confiscate the illegal merchandise, and arrest and fine the store owners? It's because the store is profiting from the sales of these illegal goods, in the same way Google can increase its advertising rates because these illegal sites increase the number of users it attracts.

He then goes on to make an insightful comparison to patent law, where a product manufacturer can be liable for infringement by using a part which violates a patent even if they didn't design or manufacture that part.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guy who works for a publisher found a site on the Internet that had stuff he thought was infringing. He notified Google expecting them to somehow stop the other Internet entity from having the stuff on the other site. When Google sent a letter saying you have to contact the site that actually has the stuff guy got in a huff.

Its sort of like expecting the telephone company to remove an entry in the telephone book because you feel the person who answers the telephone sometimes does something illegal.

Re: What in the fuck?

[Half-pint HAL]

Your mother must have huffed a lot of paint when she was carrying you, because you truly are a stupid individual.

I would strongly encourage you to look up how much video is uploaded to YouTube every minute. Then think about the sheer number of people that Google would need to hire to review this. (Basic math can be used to calculate this, think you can handle that?)

Then go stand in front of a mirror and repeat 5 times "I will not say moronic, ridiculous things on the internet anymore".

Moron.

Yes, but at volume of material is a consequence of YouTube's business model. Before you accuse anyone of stupidity or being a moron, have a think about things.

YouTube is a very interesting example of the difficulties with safe harbor laws. Safe harbor basically says that YouTube isn't a publisher. If it's not a publisher, what is it? It must be a printer. And a printing company can't be expected to check everything a publisher submits, can it? But YouTube looks a lot like a publisher to me, with layout, branding, recommendations and adverts all managed by YouTube. YouTube drives traffic to videos to generate ad revenue -- a printer takes a flat fee from a publisher, and it's not the printer's problem if the books don't sell.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not consider it insightful to conflate patent law, trademark law and copyright - three entirely separate concepts, especially under different jurisdictions - into a single entity. Some idiots do that and call the combination "intellectual property", which adds yet another concept (property law) into the mix, even further decreasing the value of their arguments.

Re:What in the fuck?

[BitZtream]

Bennett Hasleton started posting anonymously. That's really all you need to know about this post.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

> it's clear that he does in fact understand Google's role.

No, he clearly doesn't, and your quote only reinforces that.

Google's role in this is akin to the Yellow Pages. Let's say "A1 American Pawn" has an ad in the Yellow Pages (first listing, in fact) and they are caught selling some of this guy's stolen stuff. They sold a lot of stolen stuff and bought a bigger ad.

If this guy told the Yellow Pages they had a responsibility to remove this guy's ad, reduce the size of it, move it farther down the listings, or compensate him for the value of the stolen stuff, they'd be perfectly justified in telling him to fuck off. It's between him, A1 Pawn, and the police.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, Google indexes every site it can reach, on a regular basis. The publisher is asking Google to interact with specific sites to keep them from offering specific products. That is not what Google does. Google builds an index in a process which is entirely automatic. If it was not automatic, the process would be too slow to keep up.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Egads. Another one. How did you manage to get on the Internet?

Re: What in the fuck?

[Jason Levine]

If you want to require Google to preview all videos before uploading them, you're going to also have to require all websites to preview everything users upload - including comments. How does Slashdot know that this comment of mine isn't copyrighted by someone else? Maybe I'm taking their words and posting them here without the copyright owner's permission. Should Slashdot preview all comments before allowing them to be posted? How would the Slashdot editors know whether this comment is from a copyrighted work or not and whether or not it was used with the proper permissions?

Re: What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well just for the grins I did the math for you.

In 2014 Youtube received 300 hours of video every minute. That means they received 18000 minutes per minute. To review all of the video they received they would have to three shifts of 18,000 people. More considering the fact that no one is 100% effective at work, there is email to reply to bathroom breaks, meetings etc. So lets say three shifts of 20k people, so 60k employees.

In the third quarter of 2015 google had 59k employees. Essentially what you are demanding is that google more then double their workforce. That number would also continue to increse as the amount of video submitted goes up. What you are asking for is untenable.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Yellow Pages had an add which reads "free stolen stuffs if you call my number" or "I'm a hitman, hire me, discretion assured", I expect they would be asked to remove it and would have to comply.

Not that the comparison is of any value to me anyway because I disagree that any of the distribution of digital copies of something is actually stealing, but whatever.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, this guy thinks google IS the internet and thus has control over all the sites which appear in its index. A website indexed by google is offering the guys ebooks free/cheap and thus he believes that it's google doing it (because the site appears there) rather than a third party website.
He obviously doesn't know how the internet works.

Re:What in the fuck?

[R3d M3rcury]

If a store sells knockoff designer handbags, why is it okay for police to come in, confiscate the illegal merchandise, and arrest and fine the store owners? It's because the store is profiting from the sales of these illegal goods, in the same way Google can increase its advertising rates because these illegal sites increase the number of users it attracts.

Interesting concept...

So if I sell a drug that doesn't work and I use television to advertise my drug, it's the fault of everyone who advertised my drug?

Re: What in the fuck?

[Half-pint HAL]

I didn't ask you to do the maths, and I didn't demand anything.

I will restate what I said in brief: 1) The volume of material that YouTube receives is part of, and a result of, their business model. 2) YouTube looks and acts like a publisher in very many ways.

If you cannot discuss these points like a rational human being, then please stop accusing others of being "moronic".

Re: What in the fuck?

[penguinoid]

As I understand it, you only need to claim under penalty of perjury that you own some copyright or another, for example your highschool essay. Then you can cheerfully claim that you believe a movie that predates your essay is infringing.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Yellow Pages had an add which reads "free stolen stuffs if you call my number" or "I'm a hitman, hire me, discretion assured", I expect they would be asked to remove it and would have to comply.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't, First Amendment and all... but IANAL so I have no idea if there is precedent or any laws prohibiting such ads.

Besides, Google has no way to know in advance whether someone distributing the digital works has the right to do so. They're not in the business of vetting legitimate content from pirated content (and it would be impossible for them to do so). The DMCA is the only recourse for content owners to do a takedown, and since links to content are not the content, Google isn't the target of those takedowns.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Coren22]

It is less clear when the ad states "free ebooks here", as the site may have every right to post the ebooks for free. Google isn't the police, it is not their responsibility to police the internet trying to find every pirate. It is the publisher's responsibility to contact the web site with a DMCA, if they ignore it and don't delist the book, then you move up to their ISP, if they don't, you move up to their Peering providers. You could also sue the person who runs the web site with a lawyer to speed up the process. Nowhere in that order of events did I mention that Google has any responsibility, as they do not by law have ANY responsibility. If he wants to try and sue Google, he is more than welcome to, however, he will have to find a lawyer that will risk disbarment over such a stupid lawsuit.

Re: What in the fuck?

[Coren22]

But, Youtube has no reason, or financial incentive to be the copyright police. They have no reason to preemptively filter anything, nor should they, as it isn't their problem.

Re:What in the fuck?

[msauve]

I don't claim he has a valid argument, only that he does understand Google's role in the matter, contrary to the biased summary.

Re:What in the fuck?

[speedplane]

So if I sell a drug that doesn't work and I use television to advertise my drug, it's the fault of everyone who advertised my drug?

If the advertisers knew or should have known that the drugs were fake, then yes, it's the advertiser's fault too. Same with Google.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he implying that Google should knowingly misrepresent itself as copyright owner of somebody else's work?

Nope, he's stating it outright.

He's also stating that Google needs to track every work out there along, who owns it, and who is authorized to distribute it and where they're allowed to distribute it.

Re:What in the fuck?

[KGIII]

You get on the internet by clicking the blue "E," dummy!

(No, I could not resist.)

Re:What in the fuck?

[tepples]

Has Google already removed the offending site from its own search index (with the typical Lumen notice at the bottom of the first page of results) and advertising platform?

Re:What in the fuck?

[Your.Master]

No, I'm pretty sure the first amendment does not protect witnessing, in plain sight, solicitation to commit actual crimes.

Re: What in the fuck?

[david_thornley]

The DMCA takedown process doesn't require proving a negative. It's a safe-harbor process. If the host takes down whatever gets a DMCA complaint, it's not liable to the complainer for hosting the whatever, and if the host allows a DMCA counter-claim it isn't liable to whoever put the whatever up. Thing is, most whatevers are on free sites, which have rules like "We can take down anything for any reason". There normally isn't a contract because there's no consideration, and hence no liability. If you've paying the host to host the whatever, then there is actual liability, and you can sue the host for not allowing the counterclaim process.

Once the claim and counterclaim have been processed, the host is out of the loop and has no liability. At that point, it's between the copyright holder and the person who put up the whatever in the first place.

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crowbars? But gun manufacturers get blamed when stupid people use their guns to kill other people. WTF? Why doesn't anyone go after box cutter manufacturers?

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

kind of like blaming firearm manufacturers for people being robbed at gunpoint

Re:What in the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said, Google has no way to know if the works are legit or pirated, until a DMCA claim is made.

Re: What in the fuck?

[Half-pint HAL]

But, Youtube has no reason, or financial incentive to be the copyright police. They have no reason to preemptively filter anything, nor should they, as it isn't their problem.

It's not about being "the copyright police", it's about not publishing infringing videos. That's why the whole question hinges on whether or not YouTube is a publisher or not.

Re:Yes, they could stop piracy on their end

[fustakrakich]

Piracy will only take a huge hit when ISPs become liable for pirated content.

And why the hell should that ever happen? You trying to put the ISPs out of business? Since I see them as a single point of failure in the battle against censorship, that might not be a bad idea. It'll make room for real alternatives...

Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

I've to say, with Square One Titles on Health like Cancer: A Second Opinion, I can only presume that Rudy Shur believes that Square One should be, by extension, guilty of any wrongful death suit that occurs by following the advice given in the books that delay treatments that might otherwise save lives. Because as a publisher of such material, Square One is under a lot more control over what goes into the books they publish that Google has on what content is published by others, even if they're admittedly less than dutiful when it comes to preemptively scrubbing ilegally copyrighted material from the web or otherwise investigating and responding to publisher allegations of such things.

I mean, seriously, do you really want to be casting stones?

Re:Liability

[SuricouRaven]

We should start contacting the pirates too and making sure they know not to distribute this trash. It doesn't deserve to be read at all.

Re:Liability

[DavidHumus]

I particularly liked Anoint Yourself with Oil - For Radiant Health and The Diamond Color Meditation - Color Pathway to the Soul.

Google is the internet!

[thephydes]

Just like IE was the internet when it had dominant browser share . Yeah right!

Re:Google is the internet!

[wisnoskij]

I wonder is Microsoft/IE did/does get contacted by people telling them to take things off the Internet.

Re:Google is the internet!

[F.Ultra]

I'm absolutely positive that Microsoft both did and do receive messages to remove content from "Internet Explorer".

Re:Google is the internet!

[Scarletdown]

It would be hilarious if MS "complied" by sending the requestor an automated update that removed Internet functionality from all Windows based systems on their network.

somebody wants to defend google?

[sittingnut]

publisher may be making weak (rather than wrong) argument, but anyone defending almighty goog (you know the company that is suing others for patent and copyright infringements, spying on behalf of bloody western governments, abusing market power to crush rivals, censoring all sorts of stuff, doing evil while claiming to do no evil, etc etc) is simply wrong.

Re:somebody wants to defend google?

[khasim]

publisher may be making weak (rather than wrong) argument, ...

No. It is wrong. Completely wrong. Google has nothing to do with other companies that are violating copyrights.

... but anyone defending almighty goog ... is simply wrong.

And no one is defending Google. That is because Google is not involved as he claims they are.

Here's an example for you:
If you license Amalgamated Alice to distribute your product ...
But then you find Bob's Basement Bargains is distributing a copy of your product ...
Alice is not responsible for Bob's actions.

If you have a problem with Bob then you take it up with Bob. Do not claim that Alice should do something about it.

Re:somebody wants to defend google?

[Opportunist]

Even the worst serial killer is absolutely entitled to being defended if accused wrongly. And Google is accused wrongly in this case. Yes, a lot of what they do is despicable and worth of contempt. But that does not mean that it's ok to just bash them at any occasion.

Re:somebody wants to defend google?

[Hognoxious]

Thomas More and the Devil. Google it.

Re:somebody wants to defend google?

[sittingnut]

no one is defending Google.

did you read the linked article it explicitly defends google.

Re:somebody wants to defend google?

[sittingnut]

would have done better to quote the play(one of my favorites).
if you did, you will see that the article linked is not relevant to it and giving devil the benefit of the law. google is not denied justice in a legal process. quite the contrary .
it is the moralistic defense of google in a public forum, using weak & hypocritical arguments that i objected to.

Re:somebody wants to defend google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did *you* read the linked article? It explicitly presumes that Google has the moral and legal duty to shut down third-party sites because someone claiming to be a publisher claims that the third-party sites are hosting pirated content.

There is no *defense* of google in the linked article.

Re:somebody wants to defend google?

[sittingnut]

the linked article i am referring to is techdirt one, which is the source of main post (as highlighted even in the title bar).
denying such obvious facts is not smart. and indicates defeat in argument . thanks.

Idiots + Courts + Google = censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why (in Australia at least) the Dr Janice Duffy decision in her favor against Google was a big deal
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-researcher-more-than-$100k-for-defamation/7051450

It's a disturbing trend to hold google to account for every unwanted piece of content on the internet.

Re:Idiots + Courts + Google = censorship

[KGIII]

I live in the US. This is bound to be indexed by Google. I like poking sleeping bears. Let's see what happens, shall we?

Dr. Janice Duffy is a fat cow and is slightly more numb than a cunt full of Novocain.

I await my notice in the mail or from the process server.

Lol yeah right. One "word":

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube.

Summarize The Article

[wisnoskij]

Just summarize the article. We don't need to be told what to think by some anon

Re:Summarize The Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you do.

Re:Summarize The Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Just summarize the article. We don't need to be told what to think by some anon

Whizzingjockey, I insist you be more accepting of the odd and biased summary.

Sexy Regards,
-AC

Re:Summarize The Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy publisher rejects offer to join Google Play, decides Google is responsible for piracy of their books and rants in amusingly incoherent fashion.

Incoherent, mocking reference to this inanity is then posted to Slashdot, inviting you to mock the publisher.

You are here.

Re:Summarize The Article

[thegarbz]

What the? Are you trying to tell me you don't read Slashdot just for the commentary?

Re:Summarize The Article

[BitZtream]

Anon in this case looks a whole lot like Bennett Hasltons ignorant rambling ...

Actually, the behavior it's describing also sounds a lot like Bennett.

20 Euro says he wrote it.

Re:Summarize The Article

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need to be told what to think by some anon

Whoa.... You mean I don't need to care about the cows going moo?

Re:Summarize The Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense, I AM the thought police, and you will OBEY!

Re:Summarize The Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha disregard that, I suck cocks!!!

Sexy Regards,
-AC

Mow my lawn

[Required Snark]

And while you're at it, wash my car, do my dirty dishes and vacuum my house, Mr. Shur.

I can find you and your crap company on the interweb, so you owe me. DO SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT'S BUGGING ME!!!

Conversely Mr. Shur, pull you head out of you ass and enter the 21st century. Other wise shut the fuck up and leave those of us who have consciousnesses and cognitive abilities to get on with things.

How is this news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clueless publisher wants Google to remove content from piracy sites. News at 11. Is it newsworthy? Hardly. Is it nerd newsworthy? No freaking way.

Maybe the letter was miswritten?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the way the letter is being taken currently is what the author intended, I agree that Google can't do much.

However, I wonder if meant Google Play itself is hosting unlicensed copies of his books? I seem to remember there being complaints of various sites (Amazon, Google, etc) hosting these books without checking if the author is really the author. If so, I can understand why he is frustrated with Google, as Google is allowing this.

That being said, if he is talking about other web sites, then yes he doesn't understand the internet. He can get them removed from Google US with DMCA notices, if that is what he wants. Otherwise there isn't anything Google can do.

Presumption of innocence rules

[edis]

Google can block stuff, but it first has to be grounded, that content violates lawful presence. Coming from presumption of innocence, it is lawfully allowed to be found by users before that happens. While also google is quite correctly pointing to the fact, that sites can not legally operate, if they are unlawful - their act has to cease not depending on google at all.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[fahrbot-bot]

Google can block stuff, ...

From being displayed on google.com, sure, but it cannot "block stuff" on the remote site actually hosting the content. It seems that's the point about which Mr. Shur is confused. The DMCA take down requests need to be sent the sites hosting the content, not to Google. Mr. Shur is, apparently, an idiot.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[Opportunist]

Didn't the DMCA kinda reverse that? It always seemed like whoever claims that they hold some kind of copyright can slap that four letter insult to anyone with a sense of shame or justice at you and then it's on you to prove that you used it legally.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[NormalVisual]

The DMCA take down requests need to be sent the sites hosting the content, not to Google.

Wait 'till he finds out that his stuff is being hosted overseas, and that the DMCA doesn't apply outside the United States.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[Scarletdown]

Google also can not block stuff from showing up via a DDG search, Yahoo search, or any other search engine that is not Google.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Google did, and still does, host libelous content about me from the usenet on its Google Groups servers. When I contacted them asking for a takedown, they told me under the Safe Harbor Provision of the DMCA they "could not" do anything about it, and recommend I contact the site hosting the content.

Bastards.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[SuricouRaven]

Not quite. If you submit a counterclaim than the DMCA takedown is neutralised and you go back to the old-fashioned method: They can still sue you in a civil court.

There is an unanticipated issue with the counterclaim though: It requires revealing your real identity and address (to enable the suing), which can be a dangerous thing to do in a lot of hostile debate communities. It invites harassment.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[edis]

Of course, we are discussing here original claim of it doing nothing over the content it serves.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA isn't the right tool for that. You should probably have a lawyer send a cease and desist letter. If that doesn't work, you'll have to sue them.

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has been good about respecting DMCA takedowns by not showing the content in search results.

How many times have you seen this at the bottom of the page?

"In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at LumenDatabase.org"

Re:Presumption of innocence rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. The DMCA is only for *copyright* concerns. You'll need to:
A) go through normal legal channels (aka: file a law suit and win) to get someone to take down someone else's post discussing you, or
B) appeal to the kinder instincts of someone who doesn't know you from adam, and is willing to presume that you are who you claim you are without any evidence, and, by extension, that you are the kind of person you claim you are in order to retroactively censor speech by a completely different and unrelated third party.

You'll have better luck with option 'A'.

Shur doesn't know how Google or internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

He (Shur) doesn't know how Google or the internet works. He clearly doesn't understand links, search engines, or really much about anything except about how he can identify things that are on his lawn, and that Google points to things that others have that may or may not be from his lawn. Finger pointing and blame and threats are easy, and knowledge and facts and reality is hard. Shur mistakes will be made, but that won't stop the attempts at blaming Google.

Summary

[future assassin]

Guy goes on date with Pamela Handerson ends up with face palm disease.

Slashdot keeps posting stupid articles

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is full of linux users but all we see anymore is articles like this one and the terrafugia.

The publisher is not entirely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

But the publisher is essentially right. While Google doesn't control the existence of other sites, it very much controls whether those other sites are found in the results. The vast majority of people would never find those other sites if they were excluded from Google's results. Not even if they were given a direct URL, as they'd enter that URL into Google first.

Re:The publisher is not entirely wrong

[Scarletdown]

And at that point, users discover that there are search engines other than Google.

Oh for chrissakes...

[Chas]

1: Google cannot make demands of third party sites to cease selling/distributing (POSSIBLY) copyrighted works.

First off, Google itself, unless it's the actual publisher/author of record, has no standing to make such a demand (request actually).

Second off, Google has NO way of knowing what other ebook sites have coterminous agreements with a given publisher or author.

This is why it's up to the publisher/author to submit DMCA requests to the proper channels. And Google itself isn't a proper channel!

2: This idiot tries to compare it to a store selling knockoff handbags.

First off, these are ebooks, not handbags.

Second off, Google is not "the police" of the Internet. They have no legal standing to do go in and shut these sites down. ESPECIALLY since they have no way of knowing if such a thing would interfere with another distributor's agreements with the publisher/author.

3: Google has no problem going after people who infringe on their own patents.

That's because they're GOOGLE'S patents.

What this imbecile is asking for would be like Google going after you for violating Lockheed Martin's patents.

For someone who is an ostensibly successful publisher, this person shows a SHOCKING lack of knowledge of one of the central legal protections available to him for internet distribution. And it calls into question what other mistaken notions this ignoramus is operating under.

Oh! And now he's just jumped into a large, bright red crosshairs costume and strapped on a blinking neon "Kick Me" sign.

Re:Oh for chrissakes...

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been weirder precedents, like the "right to be forgotten" law in the EU, which compels search engines to block some search results even though the linked pages aren't even illegal. At least in this case the third party sites are possibly illegal, so you can't blame the publisher for publicizing his pet problem and trying his luck.

Re:Oh for chrissakes...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mostly right, but Google _is_ the police of the internet, or al least one of them.
Google will censor content based on the laws of some countries, and disregard the laws of others. They effectively choose which rules to follow, and they do enforce the ones they choose to follow. They are the discretionary police of the internet.

It's true that you are not forced to use Google, but it's also true that when you are delisted from Google, you might as well be offline.

Re:Oh for chrissakes...

[penguinoid]

For someone who is an ostensibly successful publisher, this person shows a SHOCKING lack of knowledge of one of the central legal protections available to him for internet distribution.

Or understands quite well how to use public outrage as free advertizing.

This is what the DMCA is for!

[91degrees]

The legitimate purpose of the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA is precisely this. Send a letter to the publishers infringing the work, and that publisher has to provide details of the actual pirate, and remove the work.

Google has limited power here. They don't know if something is infringing. They will probably remove the book from their search results if they can, but that's all.

Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another whiny bitch moaning about Google indexing sites that happen to distro his wares. In addition if this whiny bitch wants to actually do something about it, there is a process for that, one this guy does mention himself even attempting, so in a nut shell screw this guy and this ancient topic.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

does ^not^ mention.

Take a few deep breaths first

[ITRambo]

I know that whenever I get angry and want to, or do, spout all sorts of nasty things verbally, that it never results in a better outcome than keeping a cool head would have. This guy hasn't yet learned to bite his tongue in cases where emotion has beaten the crap out of logic. If your subconscious whispers "I shouldn't say this", then don't. Just accept that copyright infringement, in this case, is not Google's problem as they're playing by the rules, or so it appears, in this case.

Re:Take a few deep breaths first

[david_thornley]

Sometimes I just compose a really nasty email when I'm mad, preferably in a separate editor so there's no chance of sending it. That often cools me off.

Is that the new Netiquette?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a job offer, respond angrily for no reason in particular and start harrassing the company who offered the job?
What a moron.

Re:Is that the new Netiquette?

[RDW]

Get a job offer, respond angrily for no reason in particular and start harrassing the company who offered the job?

There was no job offer - 'join the team' is poor phrasing from Tim Cushing at Techdirt, in an article that's more distorted and melodramatic than the piece he's complaining about (which doesn't seem particularly angry). The publisher was approached by Google about selling their books via Play. The publisher declined, and pointed out that Google was at the same time making a profit from linking to pirated copies of the publisher's books in its search results. The publisher doesn't seem terribly well informed about how this whole Internet thing operates, but Techdirt's hyperventilating clickbait isn't exactly a model of clarity and accuracy either.

If only...

[bioteq]

If only APK's program could stop all wArEz on the internet.

If only APK's program could stop google's indexing of WaReZ on the internet.

If only APK could prove me wrong!

Re:Yes, they could stop piracy on their end

[AK Marc]

Almost all ISPs already do DPI, prioritization, and have a mechanism for content filtering (even if it's generally not turned on). There'd be some admin, but the equipment to filter out pirate web sites is already deployed almost universally around the world.

Why are pirates bothering with their crap?

[SuricouRaven]

An earlier commenter pointed out that Square One publishes some books of medical lies, peddling false cancer cures and the like, but check this out:
http://www.squareonepublishers...
http://www.squareonepublishers...
http://www.squareonepublishers...

This is a publisher of lies and woo. They do not deserve to be pirated. They do not deserve to be read. They do not even deserve to be acknowledged, except for purposes of mockery.

Re:Why are pirates bothering with their crap?

[fieldstone]

Yeah. Every single idea in all the books on the pages you linked is a lie or "woo".

Just because you live in a drab, black-and-white world of complete certainty about what's true is no reason to try to drag the rest of us there with you.

Re:Why are pirates bothering with their crap?

[SuricouRaven]

Detox and Revitalize: Color Pathway to the Soul.

The others aren't any better.

Re:Why are pirates bothering with their crap?

[chasm22]

Initially, I was totally in line with your thoughts. But as I worked my way down the list of books they peddle, I came to the sudden realization that it read like a copy of my wife's library. Further comment would serve no humane purpose.

Re:Why are pirates bothering with their crap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientism is a faith position like any other. And like any faith position, it's going to be myopic a lot of the time. Sorry about it.

"Let me ask you something."

[mrjb]

Let me ask you something. If a store sells knockoff designer handbags, why is it okay for police to come in, confiscate the illegal merchandise, and arrest and fine the store owners? It’s because the store is profiting from the sales of these illegal goods, in the same way Google can increase its advertising rates because these illegal sites increase the number of users it attracts.

Fan of analogies, is he. The question is, if a store sells knockoff designer handbags, why do you want the police to go after the store, rather than after the people who publish the Yellow Pages and the phone book?

Re:"Let me ask you something."

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't. In his analogy, he wants the Yellow Pages to unilaterally shut down the store, in order to avoid having to involve the police *at all*.

Enemy of my enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind Google being damaged or destroyed due to legal action?

Seriously, fuck that company.

CodeNoCode

[Anonymous Coward]

we've found the new donald trump, hurray

world hunger

[klaasb]

I am sure that if all nations work together we could end war and world hunger ... but hey.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why are there still sites hosting child porn, or violence, or government resistance? I call BS.

Re: No

[fieldstone]

Fascist much? One of these things is not like the others.

Writers are not the brightest....

[Lumpy]

when it comes to technology.

Dear authors... Technology is hard, leave it to the professionals.

Re:Writers are not the brightest....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pft, even professionals get shit wrong. Just ask Linus Torvalds.

and Square One Publishers cried...

[Gravis Zero]

all the way to the bank. -_-

Your government can end piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones who can end piracy are your government. Either by dissolving the government (HA!) or just simply striking copyright laws off the books entirely.

Of course, most people feel some level of piracy is good (well, they'd say bad, but as long as something is illegal, you're ensuring illegal things will happen) so most seem to feel something around 10 years of copyright is "right". Kind of like how most people feel Marijuana is OK to sell to adults, but God help us if those adults want to get their hands on anything stronger.

With understanding like that...

[argStyopa]

...he should probably be in Congress, no?

Consider a Yellow Pages like directory

[Anonymous Coward]

Many a dodgy plumber/builder has advertised in a directory such as Yellow Pages, and successfully ripped people off. Would the directory be held responsible for the policing of every merchant who has a listing in it? That is what some people are demanding of google.

Darn headings

[codeButcher]

On first scanning the headline, I read "... Google Could End Privacy". And I thought, meh what's new. C'mon, I can be the only one?

Re:Yes, they could stop piracy on their end

[Coren22]

Content filtering being turned on is the quickest way to bring the whole internet to its knees. There is not a computer invented that could keep up with the flood to perform content filtering in realtime.

Freedom to disagree with the law

[jdavidb]

Google has no problem allowing other e-book websites to illegally offer a number of our e-book titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet

Even if this were true instead of a complete misunderstanding, what's wrong with that? I also have no problem with other ebook websites illegally offering 100% of your ebook titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet. I don't agree with copyright law, and I'm not legally required to agree with it, and I won't lift a finger to help enforce it unless required to do so by law.

Re:Freedom to disagree with the law

[david_thornley]

From what I've heard about the books, I do have a problem with anyone distributing them. This is entirely separate from copyright concerns.

How should a YouTube producer get a sync license?

[tepples]

Did you know that using a song, that you haven't gained permission for, as background for your video is still copyright infringement?

Let's say I, as a video producer, want to go about this the legit way. I would need to obtain a sync license from the song's publisher and then either commission a cover version or obtain a master license from a record label. So once I have identified a song's publisher, how should I go about approaching this publisher for a sync license?

Or let's say I want to go about this a different way by writing my own music for the video instead. But there have been several notable cases of accidental infringement, such as Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, Three Boys Music v. Bolton, and Gaye v. Thicke. How can I identify whether a song that I wrote is in fact original before I publish it, which would open me to lawsuits for accidental infringement?

Internet == phone; server == answering machine

[tepples]

At my previous job one project manager didn't understand how I could put servers that were located in our office "on the Internet".

"The Internet is like the telephone network. If you have a phone line running to an answering machine in your office, the answering machine will accept calls from someone across town or across the country. Likewise, a server in your office can accept connections over an Internet line."

Did you use an analogy like that? If so, how did your project manager take it?

But to many people, our modern technological world might as well be magic.

That's why Jesus of Nazareth taught with analogies: people understand them.

Re:Internet == phone; server == answering machine

[kilfarsnar]

"The Internet is like the telephone network. If you have a phone line running to an answering machine in your office, the answering machine will accept calls from someone across town or across the country. Likewise, a server in your office can accept connections over an Internet line."

Did you use an analogy like that? If so, how did your project manager take it?

Yeah, something like that. I said something like, "Our whole office is technically on the Internet. The same way we can send and receive email, people can be sent to our server when they request our website. He got it, he just hadn't thought it through.

Re:Internet == phone; server == answering machine

[tepples]

Perhaps the boss thought Internet was directional, such that requests go one way and responses go the other. Asymmetric-rate connections might lead one to believe that, with the phone analog being payphones that don't take incoming calls. And in the era of IPv4 address exhaustion, so might carrier-grade NAT.

IP means imperfect parallels

[tepples]

Said idiots might justify the term "intellectual property" because aspects of these exclusive rights do have analogs to one another and to real property. For example, nominative use of a trademark and fair use of a copyrighted work can be compared to easements on real estate. The scenes a faire doctrine in copyright is analogous to prior art in patent and genericide in trademark, which in turn is analogous to a lesser extent to laches in patent and copyright. This introduces perhaps the most accurate expansion of what "IP" means: "imperfect parallels".

Re:Yes, they could stop piracy on their end

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you obviously don't know what the Internet is, it's a network of networks. There isn't any single computer that could keep up with the flood, but the Internet doesn't flow through a single computer, it flows through billions. And to get to those billions, there are millions of networking devices that are capable of filtering in real time.
 
A way of doing it with near-zero overhead would be to make a filter AS with filtered IPs on it. This AS would be "open" as in allow anyone to connect via BGP to it. Rather than securing it with passwords and such, leave it 100% open, but not accept routes from others. Just publish routes. Publish the route list of black-listed IPs, in real-time. And, every router on the Internet proper is running BGP and could black-hole that list of IPs. No new hardware, no bringing the Internet to its knees. One simple change, implementing filtering for all (once the change is implemented on thousands or millions of devices).
 
I can think of other ways to get a similar effect. And many ISPs are running proxies to save bandwidth and improve performance, and all of those have filtering capabilities. The hard part for any of this is making and maintaining the list. See email RBLs for issues.
 
That you can't think of a single way it would be possible just indicates you are stupid, not that it'd be hard.

Google could end wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is allowing wars to continue as well.

Heh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a Google anyways?

Re:Yes, they could stop piracy on their end

[fustakrakich]

There is only one wire going to your house. The ISPs, as that single point of failure we haven't circumvented yet, will have a USDA or FDA or TSA/FBI/DEA/CIA approved white list. Everything else is summarily blocked, no questions asked. Under the present circumstances, censorship and spying is not very difficult.