6 ms·

The article buried the lede, which I think is this-- Google as email provider had information all along that DMCA notices it was sending to its YouTube property

The article buried the lede, which I think is this-- Google as email provider had information all along that DMCA notices it was sending to its YouTube property were not legitimate. Google even went so far as to flag and reject some of those notices because of false personalities, but instead of going to the root cause to stop abuse of its systems it allowed the same user to plug along long enough to manipulate YouTube in a way that caused Bungie an alleged $7.6m in damages. Then the icing is that when Bungie came knocking Google initially resisted a court-related request to allow Bungie to identify the user and stop the abuse. Wow.

cyanydeez 4y ago
Back a decade ago, century link kept disabling my isdn line based of spammed dmca takedowns. I wrote them several letters demanding proof, even pointing that their abuse form was entirely open to anyone and asking for any substantive proof. It took them a third time to actually send some printouts which amounted to again random spammer on their dmca form. They "solved" the problem by firewalling connections and a lame gateway asking you to admit to whatever.
jonas21 4y ago
> Then the icing is that when Bungie came knocking Google initially resisted a court-related request to allow Bungie to identify the user and stop the abuse. Wow. A big corporation came asking for data on an individual GMail user, and Google told them, "we're not giving that to you without a proper subpoena." That's exactly what you want your email provider to do.
- tinco 4y ago
  Maybe, but that's not the point. It's not about the owner of the Gmail account, it's about the identity of whoever sent the DMCA request. Google should have had more than just an email, should have verified at least a registered company or domain or trademark, and should have willingly gave up the verified contact information to anyone who asks.
  - palunon 4y ago
    > should have verified at least a registered company or domain or trademark None of those things are necessary to hold copyright.
    - tinco 4y ago
      Regardless of that it should be required for filing an automated DMCA filing with Google. They should just be paying a helpdesk that does KYC for stuff like this.
- myself248 4y ago
  Google shouldn't just hand over someone's information, but when Bungie provided evidence of abuse, Google _should_ have kicked off a robust internal abuse investigation. Knocking people off their platform for being jerks is absolutely within their ToS and purview under law. The fact that they harbored the jerk for so long, even in the face of credible evidence and actual harm, suggests that, as another headline on the frontpage right now says, "If your [platform] is full of assholes, it's your fault."
CobrastanJorji 4y ago
But basically all of those actions would be things that would generate negative headlines. Would any of the following Hacker News stories surprise you? * Google Shut Down British Teen's YouTube Account, Kid Loses Access to GMail * Google Giving Out User Information to Companies Without Court Order or Protest * Google Is Sharing GMail User Information with Game Publishers Out For DMCA Revenge Every step along the way, there'd be an article and 100 Hacker News comments talking about how evil Google is and talking up how Duck Duck Go really isn't so bad as long as you remember the shortcuts that make it use Google. Resisting requests from big companies demanding that they give out user information is a good thing. Changing their mind when they had clear evidence that the user was up to no good is a good thing. Not immediately shutting down someone's GMail account because they're doing something that upsets YouTube is a good thing.
- xmprt 4y ago
  The thing that's missing in all those headlines is context. Google has context and I like to imagine Hacker News readers would understand the context too (or at least find a top comment talking about the context). So Google refusing to do anything or make life extremely hard when they're the ones with all the data is really frustrating.
  - crayboff 4y ago
    It's relatively rare on the internet, even in HN, that all of the nuance would be seen or understood before people jumped to conclusions.
    - hackernewds 4y ago
      But it was done here, and that deserves credit. Few forums on the internet would solicit this level of discussion
      - crayboff 4y ago
        This isn't really a great example of the point, however. This wasn't a story about a large company that cut corners for the sake of speed and efficiency just because there was context could have justified it.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
They didn't just bury the lede, they didn't cover google's barn door security hole on the DMCA submission process that allowed this guy to submit a hundred or so DMCA takedown requests with no need to prove his identity. And then there's this: > Bungie had to devote significant internal resources to addressing it and helping its players restore their videos and channels – an effort complicated by the fact that while YouTube has a form that allows anyone to claim to represent a copyright holder and issue copyright strikes, it has no dedicated mechanism for copyright holders who are being impersonated to let YouTube know about the DMCA fraud Small content creators have only been complaining about this for, oh, ten years or so? > This meant that Bungie had to work through several layers of YouTube contacts over a period of several days before it could adequately communicate and begin addressing the problem. Days? Several layers? Gasp! Fetch the vapors! Now imagine you're not a billions-of-dollars-in-revenue worldwide-known gaming company - and thus you have zero ability to reach a human.
remus 4y ago
To my mind it's far more concerning that Google did so little to confirm the identity of the guy sending the fake notices, let alone establish whether he had any right to be sending the notices in the first place.
- sascha_sl 4y ago
  That's just the DMCA.
  - remus 4y ago
    While the DMCA might not oblige google to do any of that they could do it off their own back. Given that a few dodgy DMCA notices can effectively shut down a channel (which could be someone's livelihood) it doesn't seem that unreasonable.
cm2187 4y ago
But can google legally stop processing DMCA notices from a source that was known to make fake DMCA notices in the past?
- myself248 4y ago
  IANAL but I think they might be able to pursue a case of "vexatious litigancy" against the person. That essentially strips them of some ability to use the legal system because they've rampantly abused it in the past. It's a high bar to pass, but literal thousands of fake claims might indeed pass it.

cyanydeez 4y ago

Back a decade ago, century link kept disabling my isdn line based of spammed dmca takedowns. I wrote them several letters demanding proof, even pointing that their abuse form was entirely open to anyone and asking for any substantive proof. It took them a third time to actually send some printouts which amounted to again random spammer on their dmca form. They "solved" the problem by firewalling connections and a lame gateway asking you to admit to whatever.

jonas21 4y ago

> Then the icing is that when Bungie came knocking Google initially resisted a court-related request to allow Bungie to identify the user and stop the abuse. Wow. A big corporation came asking for data on an individual GMail user, and Google told them, "we're not giving that to you without a proper subpoena." That's exactly what you want your email provider to do.

tinco 4y ago
Maybe, but that's not the point. It's not about the owner of the Gmail account, it's about the identity of whoever sent the DMCA request. Google should have had more than just an email, should have verified at least a registered company or domain or trademark, and should have willingly gave up the verified contact information to anyone who asks.
- palunon 4y ago
  > should have verified at least a registered company or domain or trademark None of those things are necessary to hold copyright.
  - tinco 4y ago
    Regardless of that it should be required for filing an automated DMCA filing with Google. They should just be paying a helpdesk that does KYC for stuff like this.
myself248 4y ago
Google shouldn't just hand over someone's information, but when Bungie provided evidence of abuse, Google _should_ have kicked off a robust internal abuse investigation. Knocking people off their platform for being jerks is absolutely within their ToS and purview under law. The fact that they harbored the jerk for so long, even in the face of credible evidence and actual harm, suggests that, as another headline on the frontpage right now says, "If your [platform] is full of assholes, it's your fault."

CobrastanJorji 4y ago

But basically all of those actions would be things that would generate negative headlines. Would any of the following Hacker News stories surprise you? * Google Shut Down British Teen's YouTube Account, Kid Loses Access to GMail * Google Giving Out User Information to Companies Without Court Order or Protest * Google Is Sharing GMail User Information with Game Publishers Out For DMCA Revenge Every step along the way, there'd be an article and 100 Hacker News comments talking about how evil Google is and talking up how Duck Duck Go really isn't so bad as long as you remember the shortcuts that make it use Google. Resisting requests from big companies demanding that they give out user information is a good thing. Changing their mind when they had clear evidence that the user was up to no good is a good thing. Not immediately shutting down someone's GMail account because they're doing something that upsets YouTube is a good thing.

xmprt 4y ago
The thing that's missing in all those headlines is context. Google has context and I like to imagine Hacker News readers would understand the context too (or at least find a top comment talking about the context). So Google refusing to do anything or make life extremely hard when they're the ones with all the data is really frustrating.
- crayboff 4y ago
  It's relatively rare on the internet, even in HN, that all of the nuance would be seen or understood before people jumped to conclusions.
  - hackernewds 4y ago
    But it was done here, and that deserves credit. Few forums on the internet would solicit this level of discussion
    - crayboff 4y ago
      This isn't really a great example of the point, however. This wasn't a story about a large company that cut corners for the sake of speed and efficiency just because there was context could have justified it.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

They didn't just bury the lede, they didn't cover google's barn door security hole on the DMCA submission process that allowed this guy to submit a hundred or so DMCA takedown requests with no need to prove his identity. And then there's this: > Bungie had to devote significant internal resources to addressing it and helping its players restore their videos and channels – an effort complicated by the fact that while YouTube has a form that allows anyone to claim to represent a copyright holder and issue copyright strikes, it has no dedicated mechanism for copyright holders who are being impersonated to let YouTube know about the DMCA fraud Small content creators have only been complaining about this for, oh, ten years or so? > This meant that Bungie had to work through several layers of YouTube contacts over a period of several days before it could adequately communicate and begin addressing the problem. Days? Several layers? Gasp! Fetch the vapors! Now imagine you're not a billions-of-dollars-in-revenue worldwide-known gaming company - and thus you have zero ability to reach a human.

remus 4y ago

To my mind it's far more concerning that Google did so little to confirm the identity of the guy sending the fake notices, let alone establish whether he had any right to be sending the notices in the first place.

sascha_sl 4y ago
That's just the DMCA.
- remus 4y ago
  While the DMCA might not oblige google to do any of that they could do it off their own back. Given that a few dodgy DMCA notices can effectively shut down a channel (which could be someone's livelihood) it doesn't seem that unreasonable.

cm2187 4y ago

But can google legally stop processing DMCA notices from a source that was known to make fake DMCA notices in the past?

myself248 4y ago
IANAL but I think they might be able to pursue a case of "vexatious litigancy" against the person. That essentially strips them of some ability to use the legal system because they've rampantly abused it in the past. It's a high bar to pass, but literal thousands of fake claims might indeed pass it.