6 ms·

Google removed 1m DMCA links last month, 540,000 at the behest of Microsoft

84 points by rangibaby 14y ago

twelvechairs 14y ago
Interesting that filestube (a web search service covering links to filesharing websites) comes in well above the torrent search sites as no.1 for 'top targeted domains'. It seems a very abstract way of tackling the issue, preventing one search engine from linking to the results of another. Especially as (according to Wikipedia) filestube are happy to take down DMCA offending content themselves... Also - it makes me wonder whether web-based piracy (through filesharing websites), which seemed to hardly exist a few years ago, is becoming the 'dominant' form of piracy...
- wmf 14y ago
  I don't understand why Google even indexes Filestube given their policy against indexing SERPs (cf. Mahalo).
nextparadigms 14y ago
Isn't taking down links because of "piracy" a very legal grey area, if not even illegal? I thought DMCA was supposed to be about the actual content, not links to the content. And what the hell is Microsoft doing there? Are there really that many links to Windows iso's? I'd figure most would just get them through torrents. And speaking of which - does anyone still think Microsoft's banning of TPB links in MSN was just an accident?
- rangibaby 14y ago
  Facebook bans TPB links in messages too. And goatse.cx
- wmf 14y ago
  Search engines aren't regulated, but clearly Google thinks it's legally safer to take down such links. I get the impression that some non-US sites don't comply with the DMCA (since they don't have to) and thus the copyright holders move their enforcement up the chain.
  - magicalist 14y ago
    I'm not sure if that's right. You won't get google for inducing infringement or whatever, but there is: "A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider-- (A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing; (B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#d http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#d
gabaix 14y ago
Google now makes it easier to find illegal content. The link http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/?r=all-time http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/... is a one stop shop. I am wondering if that is annoying DMCA even more?
- benmccann 14y ago
  DMCA is a law. Laws cannot be annoyed.
- r00fus 14y ago
  s/DMCA/MAFIAA/
  - johncoltrane 14y ago
    I used to see these s/bad/better a lot around the web for many years. I could understand what it meant from the context so I never took the time to actually look around for an explication. I simply assumed it was an old BBS thing. Well, until I started to learn Vim
    - Ziomislaw 14y ago
      Vim got it from sed :)
      - ezequiel-garzon 14y ago
        And think it's fair to say that both vi(m) and sed got it from ed.
- ableal 14y ago
  Thanks for the link. Off-topic: the charts at http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/traffic/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/traffic/ should make the day of sociologists. In countries that fit in a single timezone, one can find interesting activity patterns - e.g. I see a lunchtime dip and a post-dinner peak.
JoachimSchipper 14y ago
This is an attempt by Google to create the community norm "protecting your IP is censorship". Notice who benefits - Google repackages, indexes, and otherwise uses lots and lots of contents that it didn't create, from webpages to feeds to books. This is not to say that Google is evil, or that protecting IP is more important than a free internet; but it is intimidating to see your "do not use my photograph/short story/program without permission" on the ominously named chillingeffects.org, and this is not an accident.
- jrockway 14y ago
  According to http://www.chillingeffects.org/about http://www.chillingeffects.org/about, the chilling effects clearinghouse is not affiliated with Google. They just happen to contribute C&D notices heavily. (Similarly, Google does not own Linux, but they contribute source code.) There seems to be some conception that contributing to non-profits or charitable organizations is wrong if you have an agenda. I don't understand that; though Google benefits from legal transparency and an Internet without censorship, isn't it nice that they contribute to non-profits that help further these causes? Do you want more censorship and hidden government proceedings instead? As a published author, I certainly value free expression more than a few extra bucks from my book. Without what I've learned from the Internet, I'd probably be flipping burgers for a living.
  - seertaak 14y ago
    What's hypocritical is that Google itself engages in "censorship" on a colossal scale, in the name of preventing spammy results (e.g. co.cc domains, not to mention Google's dealings with China). To be clear, I personally have no problem with this (in the same way that I have no problem with them removing links to copyrighted content), but they're obviously not handing over details of the sites they unilaterally delist to chillingeffects.com. So there's evidence of a double-standard. Furthermore, while chillingeffects.org may, nominally, not be affiliated with Google, it is also apparent to anyone paying attention that Google is waging a proxy battle against copyright holders, through large donations (e.g. 7MM grant for the Lessig and his "remix culture" shills at EFF) to non-profits or charities with agendas hostile to rights holders and sympathetic to their expansive view of fair use doctrines. When one takes into account Google's recent spending on lobbying (in recent quarters, it is well in excess of that spent by the e.g. RIAA), and their cavalier attitude to laws that don't suit them (tax/privacy), then it becomes fair to question their motives in arguing for an "open" internet. > As a published author, I certainly value free expression more than a few extra bucks from my book. You may well be a published author, but you are primarily employee at Google. You don't need to make money of your book(s); in fact, I'm sure you're quite happy to give the book away for free, since it bolsters your credentials and allows you to claim expertise in some area, which can then be monetized through employment. But this indirect avenue isn't available to musicians and non-technical writers -- there is no "mother Google" that will give them cushy jobs with free meals and other perks. > Without what I've learned from the Internet, I'd probably be flipping burgers for a living. I don't know your background, I don't want to be presumptive, and I realize you're being a bit flippant, but I'm guessing that if Google took you on, then you went to some top-tier university and you already come from a solidly (upper?) middle-class family. The idea that you'd be flipping burgers is inconceivable in the worst of possible worlds. Just to be clear, I have nothing against Google; I think they do great stuff. I'm a big fan of Dart language, for example, and think Google has a lot of cool tech. And I think that on balance, they're probably more a force for good than for evil. But having worked for a (morally ambiguous) company like Goldman Sachs, I know from personal experience that the initial enthusiasm at working at a new (and wildly successful) company can have an effect akin to wearing rose-tinted glasses. Incidentally, are Google hiring? ;)
sparknlaunch12 14y ago
"Overall, Google received 1.24 million requests from 1,296 copyright owners for removal the past month. They targeted 24,129 domains." Must be a full time job to fill out all those forms.
- michaelpinto 14y ago
  There might be quite a few full time jobs — although you could outsource that sort of work with ease, and automate much of the process. On the flip side I'm surprised that nobody has really abused this on a massive scale yet -- imagine if someone did a DOS style avalanche of take down notices
- Natsu 14y ago
  > Must be a full time job to fill out all those forms. If you look at the list of the top submitters of notices, you will see several organizations which do exactly that on behalf of IP owners, like Web Sheriff.
cft 14y ago
We are operating a company that is very removed from anything that one may commonsensically regard as copyrighted material: we do not stream videos, do not record videos, do not host videos, images or audio files. Our users send only text messages, somewhat like Twitter. We have public user groups. The number of defective DMCA notices has been rapidly increasing in the last 12 months, to the point that we spent multiple hours and signed an engagement letter with a well known San Francisco IP attorney, who called 95% of these notices "bogus", since they do not identify any infringing material. I think Google actually acts on a lot of deficient notices, removing the entire domains from its search, not just the deep links to copyright infringing materials, but the entire domains.
indygreg2 14y ago
The fact Microsoft is the #1 requester isn't a surprise to me. The 2nd most popular search engine probably automatically identifies "bad" content then siphons off this list to Google. If Google had more paid products (that weren't ad driven), I'd expect Google to be the largest referrer of Bing DMCA requests.
dantiberian 14y ago
So what kind of content is Microsoft asking for takedowns of?
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Software piracy.
arbitrage 14y ago
the suffix 'm' means 'one thousand'. if you want to abbreviate 'million', use 'mm'.
- webreac 14y ago
  not really http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_proper_abbreviation_for_1_million_dollars http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_proper_abbreviation_fo...
  - dpark 14y ago
    Yes, really. Your own link confirms it at the top: > The standard financial abbreviation for million is MM, e.g. $300 MM. If you use MM, basically everyone will understand. If you use M, some people will assume million but anyone with experience in finance (or anywhere close) will read "thousand". I pretty sure the blurb at the bottom of your link is wrong, though. 'M' as an abbreviation doesn't come from Roman numerals. That claim is all over the Internet, but I don't believe it's true. The 'M' is for mille, meaning "thousand". We use this in all sorts of terms, like millennium, millipede, "per mil", etc.
    - Ziomislaw 14y ago
      Just use kk (kilo*kilo) for million :) everybody is happy?
      - dpark 14y ago
        Nope, because financial people are set in their ways. :) MM isn't going away any time soon.
RKearney 14y ago
So if Microsoft requested 543,000 links be removed from Google's index in just one month, it really makes me wonder how much of Bing is censored.

84 points by rangibaby 14y ago

Interesting that filestube (a web search service covering links to filesharing websites) comes in well above the torrent search sites as no.1 for 'top targeted domains'. It seems a very abstract way of tackling the issue, preventing one search engine from linking to the results of another. Especially as (according to Wikipedia) filestube are happy to take down DMCA offending content themselves... Also - it makes me wonder whether web-based piracy (through filesharing websites), which seemed to hardly exist a few years ago, is becoming the 'dominant' form of piracy...

wmf 14y ago
I don't understand why Google even indexes Filestube given their policy against indexing SERPs (cf. Mahalo).

nextparadigms 14y ago

Isn't taking down links because of "piracy" a very legal grey area, if not even illegal? I thought DMCA was supposed to be about the actual content, not links to the content. And what the hell is Microsoft doing there? Are there really that many links to Windows iso's? I'd figure most would just get them through torrents. And speaking of which - does anyone still think Microsoft's banning of TPB links in MSN was just an accident?

rangibaby 14y ago
Facebook bans TPB links in messages too. And goatse.cx
wmf 14y ago
Search engines aren't regulated, but clearly Google thinks it's legally safer to take down such links. I get the impression that some non-US sites don't comply with the DMCA (since they don't have to) and thus the copyright holders move their enforcement up the chain.
- magicalist 14y ago
  I'm not sure if that's right. You won't get google for inducing infringement or whatever, but there is: "A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider-- (A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing; (B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#d http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#d

gabaix 14y ago

Google now makes it easier to find illegal content. The link http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/?r=all-time http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/... is a one stop shop. I am wondering if that is annoying DMCA even more?

benmccann 14y ago
DMCA is a law. Laws cannot be annoyed.
r00fus 14y ago
s/DMCA/MAFIAA/
- johncoltrane 14y ago
  I used to see these s/bad/better a lot around the web for many years. I could understand what it meant from the context so I never took the time to actually look around for an explication. I simply assumed it was an old BBS thing. Well, until I started to learn Vim
  - Ziomislaw 14y ago
    Vim got it from sed :)
    - ezequiel-garzon 14y ago
      And think it's fair to say that both vi(m) and sed got it from ed.
ableal 14y ago
Thanks for the link. Off-topic: the charts at http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/traffic/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/traffic/ should make the day of sociologists. In countries that fit in a single timezone, one can find interesting activity patterns - e.g. I see a lunchtime dip and a post-dinner peak.

JoachimSchipper 14y ago

This is an attempt by Google to create the community norm "protecting your IP is censorship". Notice who benefits - Google repackages, indexes, and otherwise uses lots and lots of contents that it didn't create, from webpages to feeds to books. This is not to say that Google is evil, or that protecting IP is more important than a free internet; but it is intimidating to see your "do not use my photograph/short story/program without permission" on the ominously named chillingeffects.org, and this is not an accident.

jrockway 14y ago
According to http://www.chillingeffects.org/about http://www.chillingeffects.org/about, the chilling effects clearinghouse is not affiliated with Google. They just happen to contribute C&D notices heavily. (Similarly, Google does not own Linux, but they contribute source code.) There seems to be some conception that contributing to non-profits or charitable organizations is wrong if you have an agenda. I don't understand that; though Google benefits from legal transparency and an Internet without censorship, isn't it nice that they contribute to non-profits that help further these causes? Do you want more censorship and hidden government proceedings instead? As a published author, I certainly value free expression more than a few extra bucks from my book. Without what I've learned from the Internet, I'd probably be flipping burgers for a living.
- seertaak 14y ago
  What's hypocritical is that Google itself engages in "censorship" on a colossal scale, in the name of preventing spammy results (e.g. co.cc domains, not to mention Google's dealings with China). To be clear, I personally have no problem with this (in the same way that I have no problem with them removing links to copyrighted content), but they're obviously not handing over details of the sites they unilaterally delist to chillingeffects.com. So there's evidence of a double-standard. Furthermore, while chillingeffects.org may, nominally, not be affiliated with Google, it is also apparent to anyone paying attention that Google is waging a proxy battle against copyright holders, through large donations (e.g. 7MM grant for the Lessig and his "remix culture" shills at EFF) to non-profits or charities with agendas hostile to rights holders and sympathetic to their expansive view of fair use doctrines. When one takes into account Google's recent spending on lobbying (in recent quarters, it is well in excess of that spent by the e.g. RIAA), and their cavalier attitude to laws that don't suit them (tax/privacy), then it becomes fair to question their motives in arguing for an "open" internet. > As a published author, I certainly value free expression more than a few extra bucks from my book. You may well be a published author, but you are primarily employee at Google. You don't need to make money of your book(s); in fact, I'm sure you're quite happy to give the book away for free, since it bolsters your credentials and allows you to claim expertise in some area, which can then be monetized through employment. But this indirect avenue isn't available to musicians and non-technical writers -- there is no "mother Google" that will give them cushy jobs with free meals and other perks. > Without what I've learned from the Internet, I'd probably be flipping burgers for a living. I don't know your background, I don't want to be presumptive, and I realize you're being a bit flippant, but I'm guessing that if Google took you on, then you went to some top-tier university and you already come from a solidly (upper?) middle-class family. The idea that you'd be flipping burgers is inconceivable in the worst of possible worlds. Just to be clear, I have nothing against Google; I think they do great stuff. I'm a big fan of Dart language, for example, and think Google has a lot of cool tech. And I think that on balance, they're probably more a force for good than for evil. But having worked for a (morally ambiguous) company like Goldman Sachs, I know from personal experience that the initial enthusiasm at working at a new (and wildly successful) company can have an effect akin to wearing rose-tinted glasses. Incidentally, are Google hiring? ;)

sparknlaunch12 14y ago

"Overall, Google received 1.24 million requests from 1,296 copyright owners for removal the past month. They targeted 24,129 domains." Must be a full time job to fill out all those forms.

michaelpinto 14y ago
There might be quite a few full time jobs — although you could outsource that sort of work with ease, and automate much of the process. On the flip side I'm surprised that nobody has really abused this on a massive scale yet -- imagine if someone did a DOS style avalanche of take down notices
Natsu 14y ago
> Must be a full time job to fill out all those forms. If you look at the list of the top submitters of notices, you will see several organizations which do exactly that on behalf of IP owners, like Web Sheriff.

cft 14y ago

We are operating a company that is very removed from anything that one may commonsensically regard as copyrighted material: we do not stream videos, do not record videos, do not host videos, images or audio files. Our users send only text messages, somewhat like Twitter. We have public user groups. The number of defective DMCA notices has been rapidly increasing in the last 12 months, to the point that we spent multiple hours and signed an engagement letter with a well known San Francisco IP attorney, who called 95% of these notices "bogus", since they do not identify any infringing material. I think Google actually acts on a lot of deficient notices, removing the entire domains from its search, not just the deep links to copyright infringing materials, but the entire domains.

indygreg2 14y ago

The fact Microsoft is the #1 requester isn't a surprise to me. The 2nd most popular search engine probably automatically identifies "bad" content then siphons off this list to Google. If Google had more paid products (that weren't ad driven), I'd expect Google to be the largest referrer of Bing DMCA requests.

dantiberian 14y ago

So what kind of content is Microsoft asking for takedowns of?

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Software piracy.

arbitrage 14y ago

the suffix 'm' means 'one thousand'. if you want to abbreviate 'million', use 'mm'.

webreac 14y ago
not really http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_proper_abbreviation_for_1_million_dollars http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_proper_abbreviation_fo...
- dpark 14y ago
  Yes, really. Your own link confirms it at the top: > The standard financial abbreviation for million is MM, e.g. $300 MM. If you use MM, basically everyone will understand. If you use M, some people will assume million but anyone with experience in finance (or anywhere close) will read "thousand". I pretty sure the blurb at the bottom of your link is wrong, though. 'M' as an abbreviation doesn't come from Roman numerals. That claim is all over the Internet, but I don't believe it's true. The 'M' is for mille, meaning "thousand". We use this in all sorts of terms, like millennium, millipede, "per mil", etc.
  - Ziomislaw 14y ago
    Just use kk (kilo*kilo) for million :) everybody is happy?
    - dpark 14y ago
      Nope, because financial people are set in their ways. :) MM isn't going away any time soon.

RKearney 14y ago

So if Microsoft requested 543,000 links be removed from Google's index in just one month, it really makes me wonder how much of Bing is censored.