Google: 99.95% of Recent ‘Trusted’ DMCA Notices Were Bogus

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Zarathustra[H], Feb 22, 2017.

  1. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,729
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    If you've been following the conversation regarding copyright infringement lately, you know that rights-holders, citing piracy being on the increase, have been arguing that DMCA style takedown notices have been woefully inadequate in stopping the flow of piracy, and are looking to get even greater legal rights to force search providers to preemptively filter results. Google has countered that the DMCA has been very effective in driving piracy sites out of the country, and that the overwhelming majority of reports filed are bogus, never in their index to begin with.

    I'd imagine that stories like the one we reported on Monday where 49.5M reports were filed by APDIF do Brasil against links that didn't even exist before they reported them, have a lot to do with this.

    It would be a shame if rights-holders successfully force more arduous regulations on search providers for a problem they are fabricating based on their erroneous reports.

    “A substantial number of takedown requests submitted to Google are for URLs
    that have never been in our search index, and therefore could never have appeared in our search results,” Google states.

    “For example, in January 2017, the most prolific submitter submitted notices that Google honored for 16,457,433 URLs. But on further inspection, 16,450,129 (99.97%) of those URLs were not in our search index in the first place.”
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
    Armenius and captaindiptoad like this.
  2. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    This is what you get from government trying to poke their noses into things where they don't belong.
     
    Armenius and HoffY like this.
  3. Shotglass01

    Shotglass01 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,918
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Just as bogus, piracy equals 99.95% in lost sales.
     
  4. Jean-Francois Laliberte

    Jean-Francois Laliberte n00b

    Messages:
    11
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2017
    Maybe if google started charging just 1$ per takedown request, you'd see a sharp drop in takedown notices from all those dmca trolls.
     
    Armenius, Chupachup, B00nie and 8 others like this.
  5. SvenBent

    SvenBent 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,844
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Pretty much the same issue as with spam.. its soo fast and cheap that it is almost doesn't matter how small your sucess rate it still going to pay out.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  6. Spidey329

    Spidey329 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,677
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    They need to be allowed to charge an administration/processing fee. Guarantee the entertainment industry flips a lid, throws a ton of cash at lobbyists, and maybe fixes their bots in the mean time.

    Even 1 cent would still rack up serious fees.
     
    Armenius, mesyn191 and captaindiptoad like this.
  7. steakman1971

    steakman1971 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,433
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    What I wonder is how much does it cost Google (and others) to deal with the take down requests? I'm assuming its automated at this point, but someone has to write the scripts, maintain the service, fix bugs, etc. Seems fair to me this could be passed back to the people requesting the take down.
     
    Armenius and captaindiptoad like this.
  8. Wiffle

    Wiffle Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    293
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Im in favor of them charging something like a 100$ fee per takedown request. Seeing as this is a legal matter, and legal courts charge processing fees in order to pay for the employees that handle the work (lol actually its to ward off frivolous filiings), Google should do the same. If these requests are legitimate "piracy" complaints, then 100$ charge is a small pittance compared to the "huge" damages piracy causes these companies.
     
    Dunnlang, Armenius and mesyn191 like this.
  9. GaryJohnson

    GaryJohnson [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,053
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    If they're going to do that then they might as well just proceed with regular court action against the copyright infringers. Oh wait, maybe they should just do that... you know use the regular legal system that the rest of us regular people have to use and not the special unfair one that was setup especially for them by their bought congressmen.
     
    Dunnlang, BlueFireIce and Armenius like this.
  10. Wiffle

    Wiffle Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    293
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    WHAT!?!?! You mean a lawyer would actually have to submit a filing to the correct federal court which has jurisdiction over the area in which the plaintiff resides or does business along with a prima facie that would likely hold under preliminary hearings, and then court order Google to do a takedown!?!? This is blasphemy!
     
  11. Gorankar

    Gorankar [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,151
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Due process. Where has it gone?
     
    Armenius and mesyn191 like this.
  12. sirmonkey1985

    sirmonkey1985 [H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010

    Messages:
    21,170
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    it's probably not that automated.. my guess is it receives the request, searches the cache and index database, finds the associated url(s) which is then put into a queue that some one has to check and accept the removal of it, if it doesn't find the url it goes into another list. doing a fully automated system is just asking for trouble with random sites being removed for no reason. so yeah google should be charging the crap out of these companies to do this.
     
  13. nutzo

    nutzo [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,377
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Exactly this.

    Could you imagine how much the government would be charging if the government had to handle each request?
    The court/administrative fees on a traffic ticket is usually much more than the actual ticket fine here in California.

    If the movie industry was actually losing billions to piracy, and these take down notices where real and made a difference, then they should be willing to pay for the costs to comply with the notice.
     
    Dunnlang, Armenius and mesyn191 like this.
  14. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    So in other words, better that 2000 non-infringing sites get taken down than 1 piracy site be allowed to stay up? Except for all the ones that do anyway?
     
  15. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Uh the music and movie industry pushed HARD for the DMCA. From what I remember they wrote and lobbied for it extensively.

    Recent attempts to reform the DMCA to favor consumers have been blocked by those 2 industry groups and the reforms they want are absolutely ridiculous. They essentially want to be able to spy on you non-stop from what I remember about the last major attempt by them to "reform" the DMCA.

    Anyways here is a decent story about some of their hypocrisy on the DMCA:
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-that-we-wrote-to-build-useful-services.shtml
     
    Dunnlang and Armenius like this.
  16. Zion Halcyon

    Zion Halcyon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,101
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Google was complicit with this. I have been reading a LOT of shady shit about Google lately, to the point where I no longer want them involved in my browsing habits and invading my privacy. The tradeoff for convenience has ceased to be worth it. It's ironic, though - just a month after the internet handoff from America to foreign powers, suddenly Twitter, Facebook, Google, MS and Apple are all getting in on this censorship shit where they don't outright ban you necessarily, but instead put you into a small "internet ghetto" where you can shout among a few likeminded people, without realizing the masses will not be seeing the information. I don't want Twitter deciding for me what tweets I see. I don't want google to auto-filter out valid news sites because they don't align with Google politically. So this is what China's internet censorship feels like....
     
  17. Chupachup

    Chupachup Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    435
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    I was thinking more like a $10 service charge to cover Google personnel, heat, lights, etc., used to support handle these requests and maintain the systems used to track, verify and ultimately take them down.

    It would be no more outside the norm of a company charging $25 for a failed check fee or your bank charging you another $5-15 for an overdraft. It's all in how much you want to value the bits that are flipped now days.
     
    Darunion and Armenius like this.
  18. Toepunch

    Toepunch Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    How about not charge so much to go see a movie or buy music?
     
  19. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Yeah, I know. This is government heavy handedness at its best, and pushed by the rich elitists. The entire music and movie industries have pushed this. Government should not even be involved in what is a decidedly market situation. If the industries involved in this would actually listen to the markets and follow what the customers are telling them, they wouldn't have these problems, and wouldn't need government "help". The rich bastards running things just can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to actually listen.
     
  20. BlueFireIce

    BlueFireIce [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,078
    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Agreed, considering they think each share is worth millions, they should be more than willing to pay $100 bucks for each take down.
     
    Chupachup, mesyn191 and Dunnlang like this.
  21. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    If you know that private industry was the driving force behind the DMCA then how can you place all the blame on the govt?

    Yes ideally the govt. shouldn't have passed the DMCA but that particular shit show required 2 to tango so to speak and without the RIAA/MPAA it never would've existed either.
     
  22. Olle P

    Olle P Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    331
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    I'd be more moderate and suggest a suitable fee ($10-100) charged for every bogus request.
    Valid requests should be treated free of charge for the plaintiff.

    The suggestion from Google to perform pre-emptive bans on reported bogus URLs that don't yet exist seems very wrong though!