7 ms·
This is the expected result of increased scrutiny over Google. Whether or not to respond to claims of abuse is a tradeoff between limiting false negatives or li
by Steven_Vellon 6y ago
This is the expected result of increased scrutiny over Google. Whether or not to respond to claims of abuse is a tradeoff between limiting false negatives or limiting false positives. When there is an increase in the cost of false negative, both monetary and in terms of status and reputation, then Google is going to optimize to reduce false negatives at the expense of creating more false positives.
This should definitely be part of the conversation when discussing regulating content on Google and other large aggregators and social media platforms. I find that the so-called "techlash" has resulted in more stringent policing of content, but also greater opportunity to abuse reporting functionality. Using copyright claims malicious has been a known practice for years now, at least between content creators (e.g. feuding YouTubers having their fans report rivals). I'm not surprised to see governments using the same tactics.
- naruvimama 6y agoCan the claimants not be penalised for false claims?
- kevingadd 6y agoIn practice it's difficult if not impossible to do anything about it, between providers being unwilling/unable to identify the claimants and the costs involved in taking them to court.
- jandrese 6y agoEspecially hard to get the courts involved if the claimants are in other countries. About the best you could hope for is if a person can be shown to be acting in bad faith they could have all of their takedowns reversed and the material in question flagged so that further takedown notices trigger an audit. In practice this might just mean making a new account for each takedown notice, but it does raise the bar a bit on bad behavior. I'd also assume big media cartels would be exempt because operating in bad faith is their entire business plan and they're willing to sue to maintain the status quo.
- naruvimama 6y agoA lot of automated copyright claims are made by reasonably sized organisations. Should require a deposit for making automated claims. Do not have to take them to court, the burden of proof lies with the copyright holder. And sufficient mechanism for counter claims and forfeiting the deposit. Also can take collective action against all falsely claimed copyright. The real trouble is something flagged as offensive, once a comment of mine on Quora was taken down. I was given a warning of that being offensive and me being potentially banned. I have no idea to this day what was taken down and why people found it offensive. The right to contest sadly does not exist, this makes it so easy political or religious groups to silence individuals.
- mullingitover 6y agoSeems like if Google is doing extrajudicial enforcement, they could easily stipulate in their terms of use that false claims can result in a lifetime ban from Google services. People might think twice about making false claims if they (or their entire organization) will lose all access to their Google accounts forever.
- elliekelly 6y agoIf Google added that to their terms I would hop in the false copyright claim game ASAP. I want nothing to do with Google and I would be very interested in Google deciding they want nothing to do with me, too.
- ikeboy 6y agoGoogle sued someone last year for false claims, settled for 25k. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16074437/youtube-llc-v-brady/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16074437/youtube-llc-v-... I'm involved in a lawsuit against a large company that made false claims of infringement against my business - see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16562550/thimes-solutions-inc-v-tp-link-usa-corporation/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16562550/thimes-solutio... I've been tracking similar cases, and have a database of over a hundred cases of lawsuits over false infringement claims. False copyright claims are often harder to prosecute than trademark or patent cases.
- dependenttypes 6y agoGoogle pretty often refuses to respond to counter-dmcas, there is a lawsuit currently over this. In addition recently lumen database stopped publishing the full list of links in the dmca complaints.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoI was also going to share this. Google and other places like Twitter and Facebook seem to be willing to pull the trigger instantly on a DMCA and unwilling to put it back up with the C-DMCA even though the same law protects them if they do.
- judge2020 6y agoI'd like to think this is because Google, Twitter, etc. know these media companies have a lot of lobbying connections that could get the DMCA landscape changed to drastically hurt them.
- dependenttypes 6y agoI would rather argue that this is because the media companies are their partners.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoI would lean this way as well. People who are filing counter notices are probably not big buyers of advertising on the platform.
- judge2020 6y agoI think the Lumen full link thing is (at least in part) due to the fact that people were going to the lumen db to find the de-listed links to pirated movies (since the DMCA complaint submitter has already verified that those websites do, in fact, contain the copyrighted movie).
- 6y ago
- derekp7 6y agoThat sounds very much like what has been claimed about Amazon handling the French court order to fine them a high dollar amount for each non-essential (as determined by the court) item they deliver. If the cost of something slipping through the cracks is that high, then it is cheaper to not do business where there are potential cracks to slip through.
- MereInterest 6y ago> Amazon handling the French court order to fine them a high dollar amount for each non-essential (as determined by the court) item they deliver Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Amazon has shown that they cannot be trusted to determine whether workers or items delivered are essential, and do not take the safety of their workers into account. The cost of behaving in an untrustworthy manner is having everybody else treat Amazon as untrustworthy.
- jimmaswell 6y agoI'm so glad I don't live in France. What a ridiculous place. People need "non-essential" Amazon deliveries and drivers need jobs now more than ever.
- josefx 6y agoFun fact: The court order doesn't use the word essential even once, it was introduced by Amazon lawyers and PR. The court order was solely about repeated safety violations and Amazons refusal to reduce operations to a safe level. The court order also gave an explicit whitelist of Amazons own categories for the reduction, not a generic "essential" or "food" classification that Amazon would have to interpret itself. > People need "non-essential" Amazon deliveries and drivers need jobs now more than ever. Which is why Amazon quite clearly made the right choice by shutting down the warehouses completely, right?
- albertsun 6y agoIt's only a tradeoff if you assume that the process must be automated and operate with a minimum of actual human scrutiny or consideration. Any qualified human review would immediately be able to distinguish and vastly improve both the false negative and false positive rates. But because these tech companies devalue that kind of work they aren't willing to invest in it.
- tsycho 6y agoUmm, you do realize that this is basically a DDOS attack, and automated tools are a necessity. What needs to happen is a law/legal process where you can counter sue against false DMCA/copyright complaints, with large penalties for indiscriminate and abusive filings. That would put the onus on copyright holders to put in some validation effort before filing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- polishTar 6y agoA couple of things to consider: 1. There's a real social cost associated with constantly subjecting human reviewers to traumatizing content. It can lead to devastating mental health problems. (some relevant articles: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo..., https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/12/16/youtube-moderators-suffer-ptsd-flashbacks-hours-spent-watching/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/12/16/youtube-mo...) 2. Humans make mistakes as well, especially as volume of content increases and policies get more nuanced. 3. There's way more violating content then you could ever imagine. As just one example, YouTube reported having to remove >1.8 BILLION comments for spam or other policy violations in 2019 (https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-policy https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-policy). 4. The large tech companies spend billions on human moderation as it is. YouTube alone for example has >10,000 full time human reviewers. (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/12/expanding-our-work-against-abuse-of-our.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/12/expanding-our-work-ag...)
- joshspankit 6y agoSeems to me the onus should fall on the false reporters: - If the claim is valid, the provider who hosted the content eats the costs as a cost of doing business - If the claim is invalid due to negligence, intent, or abuse of the system, the claimant should face a fine equal to or greater than the true cost of determining that the claim is false. The courts essentially work this way, the internet should too.
- ehsankia 6y agoI don't get it, yes false positive removals are an issue worth discussing, but does it really warrant a whole WSJ front page article? Could WSJ make it any more obvious that they have a vendetta against tech companies and are just grasping at whatever hit piece they can get their hands on?
- w-j-w 6y agoTech companies need to be held accountable for their actions by someone. That's always been journalism's job. As long as they don't print lies, I don't see the issue.
- bsder 6y ago> When there is an increase in the cost of false negative, both monetary and in terms of status and reputation, then Google is going to optimize to reduce false negatives at the expense of creating more false positives. The problem is that Google optimizes for cost and doesn't give an iota of damn about accuracy. Fine their ass when they are legally wrong and suddenly Google will become really good at figuring things out. And, if there is enough cost, they'll even allocate some people to the problem.
- matheusmoreira 6y agoFalse positives in law enforcement means innocent people are being punished. This isn't something that should ever happen.
- emmelaich 6y agoFalse positives should never happen and they are inevitable at the same time.