RIAA Hits 25 Million Google Takedowns

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Imagine trying to process all these requests from the RIAA every day. Google should send those guys a bill. ;)

A few moments ago Google processed the RIAA’s latest batch of copyright takedowns making the organization the music industry’s top sender of DMCA notices. Just ahead of the BPI, the RIAA has now removed more than 25 million URL listings from the world’s largest search engine.
Click to expand...
 
There are some attorneys at the RIAA with great job security.
 
Looking like a white collar "production line" setup strictly for creating paperwork.

Who needs monkeys with typewriters when you can have lawyers with ipads.
 
too bad all that energy and money isn't concentrated on something beneficial to business or society.
 
collegeboy69us said:
too bad all that energy and money isn't concentrated on something beneficial to business or society.
Click to expand...

You mean by making sure that the people that own a product can get paid for their efforts so they can sink that money into future efforts?
 
Modred189 said:
You mean by making sure that the people that own a product can get paid for their efforts so they can sink that money into future efforts?
Click to expand...

Yes, because removing youtube links, definitely will 100% make sure that the people that own a product get paid for their efforts.
 
I would be interested to see how the RIAA generates so many take down noticed. How do they find "infringing" content, and also how Google is processing all of this data. Something tells me a large part of it is simply automated, on both ends, and that probably a large portion of those take downs were fair use. Of course most people don't care and/or don't have the resources to fight it so the RIAA just keeps pumping them out. Its a self perpetuating downward spiral if you ask me.
 
ZenDragon said:
I would be interested to see how the RIAA generates so many take down noticed. How do they find "infringing" content, and also how Google is processing all of this data. Something tells me a large part of it is simply automated, on both ends, and that probably a large portion of those take downs were fair use. Of course most people don't care and/or don't have the resources to fight it so the RIAA just keeps pumping them out. Its a self perpetuating downward spiral if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about the fair use part. How many people are out there making parodies, commentaries on the original works, or using non-sampled works?
I really think the vast majority are cases of simple hosting of originals, or music videos etc.
 
percydaman said:
Yes, because removing youtube links, definitely will 100% make sure that the people that own a product get paid for their efforts.
Click to expand...

No kidding. The logic that the RIAA operates with sure seems fuzzy.
 
Google has become such a little bitch. Do a search for a movie and you get a wall of DMCA takedown notices.
 
Does Google still post the DMCA notices at the bottom of the search engine with an email stating all the sites they want to take down?? :D
 
Man these guys are blockheads. They just do not get that they need to adapt.
 
Steve said:
Imagine trying to process all these requests from the RIAA every day. Google should send those guys a bill. ;)
Click to expand...

It's not a joke, really. Google *ought* to bill these guys for its time at a nice, stiff hourly rate. This activity seems bot and machine-driven, to me, because there is just no way that individual people working 'round the clock could *ever* find 5M separate Google search results linking to pirated material--in just six weeks! If you employed 1,000 people working 24/7 they couldn't do it. The RIAA is collecting mass IP address ranges in a mechanized, sweeping manner that often throws the baby out with the bath water. Which is *why* Google really shouldn't be cooperating with the RIAA at all--except on a "1-IP-address-at-a-time" basis that would indicate actual research on the part of the RIAA for each and every link the RIAA seeks to have culled.
 
Yea, that didn't end too well. But the bottom line is that they have to do SOMETHING to protect their rights, otherwise they lose them.
 
Modred189 said:
You mean by making sure that the people that own a product can get paid for their efforts so they can sink that money into future efforts?
Click to expand...

Artists don't get paid shit for plays. They make all their money from concerts and merchandise. Buying an album pays the production company.
 
Vicinity said:
Artists don't get paid shit for plays. They make all their money from concerts and merchandise. Buying an album pays the production company.
Click to expand...

Which has costs. Artist development, creation and promoting those tours, promoting artists etc.
 
There have been artists that have posted original work only to have it taken down by RIAA takedown requests. Or videos that had some song playing on the TV in the background of some kids video...

I can understand the artist, as they may be doing a breach of contract (sold their soul). But, just because some kid has Powerpuff Girls in the background of their dance video is a bit over the top. Some people don't even have a song in the background and have been taken down for infringing content, only to dispute and have things validated. It costs too much to fight in court, so they drop it. But, RIAA doesn't have to prove it has a right to the content. The 'offending party' has to defend that it has the right. Once it gets to court, then it's RIAA vs. other party. But, who wants to go to court over some YouTube video or whatever? RIAA wins regardless.

If I were Google, I'd make it required to NOT allow automated requests. CAPTCHA, email validation, etc.. Any bots would be banned by IP. Misuse of the system or something like that. Just fight back against these people. Allow non-automated requests as required, though.
 
Someone smarter than me (pretty much everybody with a pulse) should set the RIAA up for a lawsuit.

Use keywords that are misleading on an obscure song that you have the copyright license for. They will see it as an infringement for the 5 minutes they spend researching it, call for it to be taken down, then file for damages.
 
Qinsp said:
Someone smarter than me (pretty much everybody with a pulse) should set the RIAA up for a lawsuit.

Use keywords that are misleading on an obscure song that you have the copyright license for. They will see it as an infringement for the 5 minutes they spend researching it, call for it to be taken down, then file for damages.
Click to expand...

There's no penalty for an incorrect takedown notice unless you can prove malice. And that's impossible.
 
Vicinity said:
Artists don't get paid shit for plays. They make all their money from concerts and merchandise. Buying an album pays the production company.
Click to expand...

Thats not entirely true. It depends on the contact you have negotiated with the record label. Most make around 3-5 cents on the dollar, or around 50 cents per CD.. Which certainly adds up for popular albums, but is by no means enough in my opinion, especially for bands just starting out. On the other hand some popular artist with a little more clout and a huge fan base might make upwards of 2-3 dollars per CD. It really just depends on how good of a negotiator your band manager is, and how popular your music is.

It's just a numbers game, and you can be damn sure the record label will take advantage of that any chance they get. That, in my opinion, is the real problem; the dishonesty and underhanded business dealings of the folks at the labels. Those people are shrewd, narcissistic, and mostly sociopathic, ass holes and only care about lining their pockets. However, it is the naivety of up and coming artists that enables them to be that way. Another self perpetuating cycle.
 
I'm stunned the CEO of Google hasn't figured out a way to make this a profit center instead of a loss center.

Like sell the takedowns directly to the artists and skip the RIAA and other middlemen, or charge the RIAA for operating a business using the the Google servers by updating the commercial user contract for Google.
 
Modred189 said:
There's no penalty for an incorrect takedown notice unless you can prove malice. And that's impossible.
Click to expand...

Then, can we set up some group that blanket sends takedown requests for their videos? Malice? Nah, I was just helping them out by trying to get their videos/music removed to help with CD sales. I thought it was a non-legit site. I thought the YouTube account was fake....
 
Modred189 said:
There's no penalty for an incorrect takedown notice unless you can prove malice. And that's impossible.
Click to expand...

You would show malice by claiming the RIAA is "flooding" the system with takedowns without using due diligence, knowing that the lack of diligence is harming others.
 
No, you can't issue a take-down notice for someone else's stuff.
 
Qinsp said:
You would show malice by claiming the RIAA is "flooding" the system with takedowns without using due diligence, knowing that the lack of diligence is harming others.
Click to expand...

That's not malice under the law.
 
The class action? suit against GM gas tanks in the trucks would be a prime example.

GM knew that a certain percentage of trucks could catch fire in side collision, they deemed that the victims were so small in number that it was to their financial advantage to ignore the victims. Hence they were charged for punitive damage from malice. They did not know who they were harming, but they knew some would be harmed.

But yeah, the whole GM fuel tank thing was BS.

In any case the RIAA knows their business model will unfairly harm a small percentage of people. And while they are not directing the malice against a specific person or group, the business model itself is proof of malicious intent for the victims.
 
Modred189 said:
Yea, that didn't end too well. But the bottom line is that they have to do SOMETHING to protect their rights, otherwise they lose them.
Click to expand...

I agree, and that something they should have done is work with Napster in the beginning. Had they done so and been on the forefront of this revolution they wouldn't be in the position they are now. Hell, they're still in that position because they refuse to conform, but they feel like they got the rug pulled out from under them. They thought it was a lowkey problem. In fact when it came down to crunch time, the only reason they made headway was because Sean Parker dubiously referred to the word "pirating" in a memo instead of the word "sharing" as the entire start up of Napster was centered around. From there the RIAA ran with it and nailed those kids. In the process, though, they came to realize their victory was quite shallow b/c, as we all know by now, other servers were now server shares instead of just the Napster servers.
 
There should be a fee like $0.05 to issue a takedown. The fee gets refunded if the takedown is indeed legit.
If you go over 1000 bad requests in a month you lose access to takedown requests for 30 days.
Go over the limit 3 times in a Calandar year and you're booted for life.
This counts for the copyright holder not for the agent of the holder. (AKA you can't just switch to another shell company)


This seems fair to me.
 
plupien79 said:
There should be a fee like $0.05 to issue a takedown. The fee gets refunded if the takedown is indeed legit.
If you go over 1000 bad requests in a month you lose access to takedown requests for 30 days.
Go over the limit 3 times in a Calandar year and you're booted for life.
This counts for the copyright holder not for the agent of the holder. (AKA you can't just switch to another shell company)
Click to expand...

They'd make it against the law because you'd be hindering their 'official' business as copyright holders. They bought the laws... I mean, they helped show the lawmakers how the laws should be to protect the innocent victims in the copyright cases.... :rolleyes:
 
Sometimes they take down stuff that isn't even owned by them or stuff that you can't buy even if you wanted to.
Whats the point of taking down stuff that you cant buy? Im referring to some relatively obscure, Norway label published Black Metal albums that were taken down. I would buy them...if they were made available, but they are out of print!
 
Modred189 said:
You mean by making sure that the people that own a product can get paid for their efforts so they can sink that money into future efforts?
Click to expand...

None of the money the RIAA collected from lawsuits went to the artists.

The RIAA members are all just middlemen who leech away most of the money. Most musicians don't make money from their record deals.
 
ZenDragon said:
I would be interested to see how the RIAA generates so many take down noticed. How do they find "infringing" content, and also how Google is processing all of this data.
Click to expand...
It is completely automated, and there is NO TRUE APPEAL PROCESS, as that is automated as well.

I shot a funny video of my cat performing his usual antics while music was playing in the background (at the time was playing a small portion of the indiana jones soundtrack).

While this is clearly under fair use, especially considering there were cat and human and general house noises on top of the song quietly playing in the background and it was only a small portion of the song (so short, I'm surprised their automated filters caught it).

So I did the appeal process but it was almost instantaneously denied. The appeal I think just uses Google's own filter search of your video, and if it fails then the appeal is denied. Once denied no further appeals are possible, your video is gone or muted and that's the end of that.

Its complete and total nonsense.
 
And don't get me wrong, my video was stupid and pointless and the world is a better place now that its gone, but the principle of it all with robot overlords deciding my fate with no human intervention possible pissed me off on principle.
 
after watching the movie "download" (2013), i have a new found hatred against a certain set of people.
those certain people involved in the entertainment industry, aka owning the entertainment industry who steal from the artists just to keep adding gold to their ever growing 'berg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top