25 ms·
I don't understand the arguments of either side in this debate. The RIAA/MPAA claim that demoting copyright-infringing search results in Google will reduce pir
by jmillikin 14y ago
I don't understand the arguments of either side in this debate.
The RIAA/MPAA claim that demoting copyright-infringing search results in Google will reduce piracy. This assumes that there's some large group of people using Google (or Bing, or Blekko, etc) to find pirated media. I don't see how that is plausible, given that the actual search results for pirated media are almost entirely scams and malware.
The EFF is concerned that demoting sites which generate many DMCA notices will muffle free speech. A hypothetical situation is:
1. A site hosts user-uploaded video, and refuses to comply with takedown notices.
2. User Alice uploads an expose of government misconduct, and user Bob uploads a few hundred pirated movies.
3. Google receives DMCA notices to remove links to the pirated movies from their index.
4. Alice's expose is now ranked lower in search results.
While this situation is theoretically possible, it seems unlikely. All of the major hosting sites I know of (for video, audio, text, blobs) respond to DMCA notices themselves, and therefore aren't targets for search-engine takedowns.
(conflict of interest disclaimer: I work for Google, though not on this project)
> Takedown requests are nothing more than accusations of
> copyright infringement. No court or other umpire confirms
> that the accusations are valid (although copyright owners
> can be liable for bad-faith accusations).
Isn't this incorrect? Under the DMCA, recipients of a takedown notice can file a counter-notice stating that the material is not infringing. From there, further actions involve the court system.
- dangrossman 14y ago> This assumes that there's some large group of people using Google (or Bing, or Blekko, etc) to find pirated media There are. Tens to hundreds of millions of them, probably. E.g. "Watch Game of Thrones" vs "learn to dance": http://i.imgur.com/JNyGy.png http://i.imgur.com/JNyGy.png Google suggests I check these popular searches too: * watch game of thrones megavideo * watch game of thrones episode 1 * watch game of thrones tvduck * watch game of thrones tv links * watch game of thrones episode 2 * watch game of thrones episode 3 * watch game of thrones episode 8 * watch game of thrones season 2 episode 1 online free I don't think they were looking for the link to subscribe to HBO.
- nivla 14y ago"Watch XYZ" does not mean anything since a studio can legally stream their own content. For example: Google "Watch Southpark" and the first result will be from southparkstudios.com. People simply want to watch a certain show online and it doesn't matter to them if its legal or illegal as long as they get to watch it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- tomrod 14y ago> This assumes that there's some large group of people using Google (or Bing, or Blekko, etc) to find pirated media. Ahem: "intitle:"index.of"(mpg(avi)wmv) (words you're looking for) -html -htm -php -asp -jsp Would this be affected by the new policy? I don't know. I was shown this by a modern young-un--didn't know it myself.
- zht 14y agothere are now plenty of sites that are aware of this and will have bogus directory listing pages
- _delirium 14y agoIs the caveat in #1 actually required? As I understand it, there's nothing in the DMCA requiring that a copyright holder file a takedown notice with the site before they file one with Google, since those are independent. They could file one with Google for the search results first, or they could file the notices simultaneously. That would result in sites being demoted even if they do comply with takedown notices, because under Google's new policy they'd be demoted just by the fact of Google having received DMCA notices.
- maxerickson 14y agoPresumably they will mostly only get demoted if they host a large amount of content that is subject to DMCA notices.
- e12e 14y agoI don't see how you can be confident of this: Look at how youtube handles allegations of copyright infringement. There's also a problem with flow of information; if your provider takes down something under the DMCA, they inform you, so you know about the (possibly frivolous) claim. I don't see how Google could make any reasonable guarantee to be able to inform the affected parties -- neither the author/user that publish, nor necessarily the various admins and providers that would be affected (Think shared hosting, shared domain, community message board...).
- jrockway 14y agoThe counter-notice process is somewhat dangerous, and is not something to be undertaken without a budget for legal representation. From what I've read on Wikipedia, there are basically two options for the original takedown sender: ignore the counter-notice for 10 days (at which case the disputed content can be put back up), or file a lawsuit against the infringer in federal court. Admittedly, Wikipedia's article on the subject is relatively poor, so I could be wrong. But filing a counter-notice seems a lot like going out in your backyard and whacking that wasp nest with your baseball bat. Maybe it will all work out, but probably not. Here is a classic example of how the DMCA takedown process works in real life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_c...