4 ms·

This is particularly ironic since it is Google - owner of YouTube. YouTube is by far the site with the largest amount of infringing content, and the largest amo

by azakai 14y ago

This is particularly ironic since it is Google - owner of YouTube. YouTube is by far the site with the largest amount of infringing content, and the largest amount of takedown requests. But somehow I doubt YouTube will be "demoted" as apparently other sites will be. In fact YouTube has a special position in the top bar of Google products, even better than a search result. Does anyone think Google will be removing it from there? If not, it's clearly unfair to demote any other site that competes with YouTube (or doesn't, for that matter - what's fair should be fair).

duaneb 14y ago
It's hard to tell exactly how it will affect YouTube, especially since we don't know how it affects results at all. I suspect the deciding factor will be how google knows about the takedown requests, since it will almost certainly treat YouTube specially. Furthermore, it's possible that YouTube is linked so much that the DMCA requests have a negligible effect. Personally, I think this is a mistake by Google. No reason I can think of makes sense - this won't appease content holders for long.
- azakai 14y ago
  > It's hard to tell exactly how it will affect YouTube, especially since we don't know how it affects results at all. I suspect the deciding factor will be how google knows about the takedown requests, since it will almost certainly treat YouTube specially. And that is what is wrong here. Google is treating websites it owns in a special way, promoting them in google.com results unfairly compared to the competition.
  - duaneb 14y ago
    Just because they treat their DMCA requests specially does not mean that they don't factor in the DMCA requests.
mtgx 14y ago
I'm usually a fan of Google, but I would love for them to get into real anti-trust trouble over not demoting Youtube, too, and getting forced to demote it because of the stupid decision they took themselves about downgrading sites based on DMCA notices. It would be something very satisfying about seeing this backfire against them.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
icebraining 14y ago
It depends on what takedowns they mean - if it's those to the site itself or those targeted at Google Search. I don't see how could they detect the former in other sites, and Youtube probably doesn't get much of the latter.
- azakai 14y ago
  But the point is, there is no meaningful difference between the two. Takedown notices sent to google.com about YouTube versus ones sent directly to YouTube using YouTube's existing mechanism are both takedown notices. If one demotes you, so should the other. But Google has a clear conflict of interest here.
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    There is a huge difference between the two. When a site receives a takedown notice, if it complies, then the content will actually be removed from the internet. From the point of view of the notice's submitter, this is the best outcome. If the site doesn't comply, then a notice can be submitted to search engines to de-list the site. The content is still available, still infringing, it's just fractionally more difficult to find. If Google demoted sites for complying with notices, it would be a very powerful reason for those sites to stop complying.
    - azakai 14y ago
      I see your point, but practically speaking, for most people removing from google.com is removing from the internet. You can't visit what you can't find. So there isn't a fundamental difference between the two types of takedown requests given the dominance of a single search engine. Given that, I imagine that copyright holders file takedowns where it has the quickest effect, either directly to the site or to google.com. But this is just a technical difference. It seems odd that it should affect search rankings, and it feel more wrong given that Google owns a major target of takedown notifications, so this isn't just Google objectively settings things in order - it has a huge inherent interest and bias here.
jmillikin 14y ago
Which video-hosting services do you think will be demoted? Every major one (YouTube, Vimeo, LiveLeak, etc) comply with the DMCA, so they're unlikely to have links removed from Google's search results.
- azakai 14y ago
  According to the article, > sites that have a “high number of removal notices” of takedown notices that result in actual takedowns will show up lower in some search results, That means that complying with the takedown notices is exactly what gets you demoted. Which means that this is directly relevant to YouTube, Vimeo, etc. The logic seems to be, if you have a lot of valid takedown notices sent to you, you must have a lot of infringing content. Which is true. And YouTube does have tons of infringing content, people upload copyrighted music all the time.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    Google's announcement of the change has clear language stating that they are using the takedown notices that Google receives for the scoring: http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/08/an-update-to-our-search-algorithms.html http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/08/an-update-to-our-se...
    - azakai 14y ago
      And according to that language, YouTube should be demoted quite a lot - we know it receives tons of takedown notices. Just search for any copyrighted video in history, it's on YouTube.
      - magicalist 14y ago
        You keep repeating the same point, which is confusing. How is this any different than Google is treating vimeo? Google is not looking at the number of takedown requests companies file with vimeo (they can't, in fact, takedown notices are AFAIK only public record if they proceed to a court case (companies that publish to chillingeffects do so voluntarily)), so they're only using the number of takedown requests they receive to remove search results linking to videos on vimeo. That's the same as youtube. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/youtube.com/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright... https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/vimeo.com/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright... Based on those numbers, neither are likely to be impacted by this, but you appear to want google to actually treat youtube differently (using "don't host this" instead of "don't return a link for this" as a signal).
dangrossman 14y ago
Why would YouTube be the largest target of takedown requests? 1) YouTube acts on DMCA notices, so there's no need to separately file notices against their search results 2) YouTube has given every major content provider access to internal systems to flag content and have it disabled immediately without human intervention 3) A proper DMCA notice creates some liability (penalty of perjury and all), where pressing a button in YouTube's content flagging system creates none, so the internal system is both practically and legally preferable to sending DMCA notices
- azakai 14y ago
  > Why would YouTube be the largest target of takedown requests? > 1) YouTube acts on DMCA notices Exactly - YouTube receives a ton of takedown notices, and acts on them. Those are grounds for demotion in search results now according to the new policy.
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    You're confused. Google does not know what sites are receiving DMCA notices. They have no omniscience of communication between content creators and websites they don't own. They will not be taking into account notices sent directly to YouTube or any other site in ranking search results. The new ranking signal is the number of DMCA notices sent to Google for each site, not the number of DMCA notices the site is sent. Google receives DMCA notices to remove search results pointing to infringing content. Google receives these notices primarily for sites that are outside the US and would ignore DMCA notices sent to them directly. They would not receive any significant number for YouTube videos because YouTube handles infringement directly; there's no reason to send a second notice to Google to pull the search listing. (I'm aware Google owns YouTube. That does not change anything.)
    - shenberg 14y ago
      Most web-sites don't have ContentID - there are companies that scrape the web to find potentially infringing content and file DMCA complaints on content-owners' behalf. It's much cheaper to just hit Google and a big few like Youtube rather than customize a bot for every site that handles DMCA takedowns.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
http://searchengineland.com/how-youtube-will-escape-googles-new-pirate-penalty-130180 http://searchengineland.com/how-youtube-will-escape-googles-...
- jmillikin 14y ago
  That article is misleading, I believe intentionally so. > But that Perez Hilton video listing would get removed > via the web search takedown system, as there is no > Google Video removal. The YouTube one, as I’ve > explained, would fall under the YouTube removal system. The video he mentions is hosted on perezhilton.com, which has instructions at http://perezhilton.com/copyright-statement http://perezhilton.com/copyright-statement for requesting a copyright takedown. There is no reason to request its removal from Google unless perezhilton.com refused to comply with the request, which seems unlikely. Further down the page, he includes a quote from Google which directly refutes the thesis of his article, but then says it must be a straight-up lie because it doesn't agree with his misconceptions about how the internet works.

by azakai 14y ago

duaneb 14y ago

It's hard to tell exactly how it will affect YouTube, especially since we don't know how it affects results at all. I suspect the deciding factor will be how google knows about the takedown requests, since it will almost certainly treat YouTube specially. Furthermore, it's possible that YouTube is linked so much that the DMCA requests have a negligible effect. Personally, I think this is a mistake by Google. No reason I can think of makes sense - this won't appease content holders for long.

azakai 14y ago
> It's hard to tell exactly how it will affect YouTube, especially since we don't know how it affects results at all. I suspect the deciding factor will be how google knows about the takedown requests, since it will almost certainly treat YouTube specially. And that is what is wrong here. Google is treating websites it owns in a special way, promoting them in google.com results unfairly compared to the competition.
- duaneb 14y ago
  Just because they treat their DMCA requests specially does not mean that they don't factor in the DMCA requests.

mtgx 14y ago

I'm usually a fan of Google, but I would love for them to get into real anti-trust trouble over not demoting Youtube, too, and getting forced to demote it because of the stupid decision they took themselves about downgrading sites based on DMCA notices. It would be something very satisfying about seeing this backfire against them.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

icebraining 14y ago

It depends on what takedowns they mean - if it's those to the site itself or those targeted at Google Search. I don't see how could they detect the former in other sites, and Youtube probably doesn't get much of the latter.

azakai 14y ago
But the point is, there is no meaningful difference between the two. Takedown notices sent to google.com about YouTube versus ones sent directly to YouTube using YouTube's existing mechanism are both takedown notices. If one demotes you, so should the other. But Google has a clear conflict of interest here.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  There is a huge difference between the two. When a site receives a takedown notice, if it complies, then the content will actually be removed from the internet. From the point of view of the notice's submitter, this is the best outcome. If the site doesn't comply, then a notice can be submitted to search engines to de-list the site. The content is still available, still infringing, it's just fractionally more difficult to find. If Google demoted sites for complying with notices, it would be a very powerful reason for those sites to stop complying.
  - azakai 14y ago
    I see your point, but practically speaking, for most people removing from google.com is removing from the internet. You can't visit what you can't find. So there isn't a fundamental difference between the two types of takedown requests given the dominance of a single search engine. Given that, I imagine that copyright holders file takedowns where it has the quickest effect, either directly to the site or to google.com. But this is just a technical difference. It seems odd that it should affect search rankings, and it feel more wrong given that Google owns a major target of takedown notifications, so this isn't just Google objectively settings things in order - it has a huge inherent interest and bias here.

jmillikin 14y ago

Which video-hosting services do you think will be demoted? Every major one (YouTube, Vimeo, LiveLeak, etc) comply with the DMCA, so they're unlikely to have links removed from Google's search results.

azakai 14y ago
According to the article, > sites that have a “high number of removal notices” of takedown notices that result in actual takedowns will show up lower in some search results, That means that complying with the takedown notices is exactly what gets you demoted. Which means that this is directly relevant to YouTube, Vimeo, etc. The logic seems to be, if you have a lot of valid takedown notices sent to you, you must have a lot of infringing content. Which is true. And YouTube does have tons of infringing content, people upload copyrighted music all the time.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  Google's announcement of the change has clear language stating that they are using the takedown notices that Google receives for the scoring: http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/08/an-update-to-our-search-algorithms.html http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/08/an-update-to-our-se...
  - azakai 14y ago
    And according to that language, YouTube should be demoted quite a lot - we know it receives tons of takedown notices. Just search for any copyrighted video in history, it's on YouTube.
    - magicalist 14y ago
      You keep repeating the same point, which is confusing. How is this any different than Google is treating vimeo? Google is not looking at the number of takedown requests companies file with vimeo (they can't, in fact, takedown notices are AFAIK only public record if they proceed to a court case (companies that publish to chillingeffects do so voluntarily)), so they're only using the number of takedown requests they receive to remove search results linking to videos on vimeo. That's the same as youtube. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/youtube.com/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright... https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/vimeo.com/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright... Based on those numbers, neither are likely to be impacted by this, but you appear to want google to actually treat youtube differently (using "don't host this" instead of "don't return a link for this" as a signal).

dangrossman 14y ago

Why would YouTube be the largest target of takedown requests? 1) YouTube acts on DMCA notices, so there's no need to separately file notices against their search results 2) YouTube has given every major content provider access to internal systems to flag content and have it disabled immediately without human intervention 3) A proper DMCA notice creates some liability (penalty of perjury and all), where pressing a button in YouTube's content flagging system creates none, so the internal system is both practically and legally preferable to sending DMCA notices

azakai 14y ago
> Why would YouTube be the largest target of takedown requests? > 1) YouTube acts on DMCA notices Exactly - YouTube receives a ton of takedown notices, and acts on them. Those are grounds for demotion in search results now according to the new policy.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  You're confused. Google does not know what sites are receiving DMCA notices. They have no omniscience of communication between content creators and websites they don't own. They will not be taking into account notices sent directly to YouTube or any other site in ranking search results. The new ranking signal is the number of DMCA notices sent to Google for each site, not the number of DMCA notices the site is sent. Google receives DMCA notices to remove search results pointing to infringing content. Google receives these notices primarily for sites that are outside the US and would ignore DMCA notices sent to them directly. They would not receive any significant number for YouTube videos because YouTube handles infringement directly; there's no reason to send a second notice to Google to pull the search listing. (I'm aware Google owns YouTube. That does not change anything.)
  - shenberg 14y ago
    Most web-sites don't have ContentID - there are companies that scrape the web to find potentially infringing content and file DMCA complaints on content-owners' behalf. It's much cheaper to just hit Google and a big few like Youtube rather than customize a bot for every site that handles DMCA takedowns.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

http://searchengineland.com/how-youtube-will-escape-googles-new-pirate-penalty-130180 http://searchengineland.com/how-youtube-will-escape-googles-...

jmillikin 14y ago
That article is misleading, I believe intentionally so. > But that Perez Hilton video listing would get removed > via the web search takedown system, as there is no > Google Video removal. The YouTube one, as I’ve > explained, would fall under the YouTube removal system. The video he mentions is hosted on perezhilton.com, which has instructions at http://perezhilton.com/copyright-statement http://perezhilton.com/copyright-statement for requesting a copyright takedown. There is no reason to request its removal from Google unless perezhilton.com refused to comply with the request, which seems unlikely. Further down the page, he includes a quote from Google which directly refutes the thesis of his article, but then says it must be a straight-up lie because it doesn't agree with his misconceptions about how the internet works.