9 ms·

So not only do they process illegitimate copyright strikes / DMCA takedowns, but they also don't process legitimate ones. Google is broken to the very core. T

So not only do they process illegitimate copyright strikes / DMCA takedowns, but they also don't process legitimate ones. Google is broken to the very core. This is what happens with a company that tries to minimize costs of support to zero.

hsuduebc2 9mo ago
The times when google was the good guy of the internet is over. Now it's basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities.
- bschwindHN 9mo ago
  > Now it's basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities. At first I thought you meant "Now, [the good guy of the internet] is basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities." I see what you meant now, in that google is reaching microslop levels of shittiness with slightly shinier shit.
  - hsuduebc2 9mo ago
    Oh, damn. That’s the last way I’d want it to be interpreted. :D
reactordev 9mo ago
Google has only cared about one thing for the last decade, being number 1. They were willing to sell their soul to beat meta and they’ll sell their skin to beat OpenAI.
ycombinary 9mo ago
[dead]
jonas21 9mo ago
You're getting at the crux of the issue: it's very hard to distinguish legitimate DMCA takedown requests submitted by individuals from illegitimate ones, and occasionally, they're going to make mistakes. Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else who was trying to take down the content illegitimately. At the end of the day, the best option is to use an attorney who knows the right procedures and would also run the risk of professional consequences if they submitted false claims.
- digitalPhonix 9mo ago
  > Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else who was trying to take down the content illegitimately Ok, but then Google needs to say what would convince them that the author is who they say they are. The author asked multiple times how they prove they’re the real author and Google’s replies never even acknowledge the question.
  - dekhn 9mo ago
    Google won't tell you this because they believe it would reveal information to scammers.
    - tempestn 9mo ago
      That's Kafkaesque. We're not talking about SEO here, just simple proof of identity. If they require something sane like ID, they could simply say so. If they need something insane, or have no process at all for proving identity, then this is no excuse.
      - thaumasiotes 9mo ago
        In this case, a more likely explanation might be "Google won't do this because it would put you in a position to obligate them to do something else". There isn't really a risk of enabling scammers to issue false DMCA takedowns; as you note, that issue is resolved by requiring proof of ownership.
        SR2Z 9mo ago
        The only way to demonstrate that you own copyright to a piece of content is by going to court.
        thaumasiotes 9mo ago
        If that were true, how would the judge know who to rule for? Are you saying that anyone can become the owner of any intellectual property simply by filing a lawsuit?
CuriouslyC 9mo ago
It's not just goog, friend. It's capitalism down too the root. Piracy is more a moral and political statement than an economic one.
- dmix 9mo ago
  This is a copyright law invented in 1998 from the UN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty These things predictably always have ways for moneyed players to abuse them and for organizations to half commit. Even China signed up.
  - gruez 9mo ago
    >This is a copyright law invented in 1998 from the UN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty Copyright law existed long before 1998, so it's hardly something "invented in 1998 from the UN". There might be some aspects it standardized, but so far as I can tell I can't see how it's relevant to this particular case.
    - dmix 9mo ago
      We’re discussing a post about DMCA in this thread which is a policy pushed by the UN and adopted by the US as DMCA. Not sure what your point is. DMCA is one of the worst parts of the internet and for some reason capitalism is the boogieman in this thread. IP law has become hyper restrictive/excessive, with little oversight, and favours large companies with teams of lawyers.
      - CuriouslyC 9mo ago
        Capitalism is the boogieman because greasing the wheels to enact anti-consumer legislation is 100% in the spirit of modern capitalism. Capitalism had moral authority from the invisible hand (with empirical support), but absent that, it's just another system of power, and clearly not a just one.
      - 9mo ago
oefrha 9mo ago
I have some experience in this regard, and Google, even though it’s known for nonexistent human support, isn’t even the worst. I helped a Chinese creator friend DMCA takedown a bunch of accounts on YouTube/Instagram/TikTok straight up stealing her content / impersonating her. TikTok’s response was fastest, one account was taken down within eight hours (to my pleasant surprise), another was taken down in three days. YouTube was all right, accounts were taken down in a week or so. Facebook/Instagram was the worst. They asked for the least info upfront in their takedown form, sent a bunch of follow up emails, then eventually just ghosted me. I initiated new email chains referencing the case ID but never heard from anyone. I had to negotiate with the account holder but that went nowhere either since my threat to take down the account turned out to be a joke. To this day the infringing account is still up.
- alex1138 9mo ago
  They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122
  - alex1138 9mo ago
    Downvoters: I am suggesting that the lack of care by a CEO in his younger years translates directly in his older years as the company grows and reaches global proportions Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719 Use your brain for once, or else don't (please) work for any FAANG companies
    - duskdozer 9mo ago
      I'm for believing that people can change, but thinking that someone has changed requires some actual indication that they have changed
- wisty 9mo ago
  IANAL but if you send a DMCA notice and they ignore it, they are (partly) liable. That's the point of DMCA. File in a small claims court (or notify of your intent to do so) and see how long it takes to get a response ... I wonder if you could probably even suggest a fee for damages, wasted time, etc due to their slow response and hope it's cheaper than them getting a lawyer to assess it ... You would need to be the owner, and would know where to file though. If it's not your content, and you're "helping a friend" (but not actually legally representing them) then my guess is they haven't received a valid DMCA.
wslh 9mo ago
And when applying the law is so expensive.
ptdorf 9mo ago
Gotta cut on support to buy those AI GPUs.
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
Do the e-mails sound like an AI? I wonder if PDF’ing some random nonsense and referring to them authoritatively would get through. The author’s e-mails are friendly. What it might be looking for is corporate legalese.
emsign 9mo ago
Google would be left by the wayside and quickly be gone if it hadn't embedded itself all across the web.
hackerbeat 9mo ago
Yes, same for search. Results are useless and site owners suffer.
BiteCode_dev 9mo ago
All web providers do this, not just google. I have hosting that regularly shut down my servers based on legal demands from jurisdictions that should have no reach my service whatsoever, or on total bogus claim. If I refuse to act, they shut me down. If I'm late in acting, they shut me down. Zero check on the legitimacy on the claim, zero trust in my debunking the claim. The reality is, it's not economically viable to do so. I'm not giving them enough money to be worth it. So as long as I'm a small actor, anything that looks remotely legit is just processed as-is with no recourse. The entire world can basically impose its view on me as long as they find a convincing way to tell my hosting "you are at risk". And it's not one single provider either. Most of them do that: domain name, vps hosts, proxies, caches, etc. The system is broken.
- owebmaster 9mo ago
  This post is about Google, not all providers. Don't astroturf, create a post about all providers
baranul 9mo ago
A major part of this problem appears to be that there is no identifiable humans in the loop to bring complaints to. Many of Google's responses are automated and black box algorithms. When a Google response to a problem is outright bonkers, there is often not much that can be done, but to keep hitting the head on the wall (hoping something different happens) or be the lucky few that can get or has a human contact at Google. From what I've read and heard, those with human contacts, often have been identified as needing special attention. Where they are persons who are making significant money for Google and the businesses they own or can create problems in court.

hsuduebc2 9mo ago

The times when google was the good guy of the internet is over. Now it's basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities.

bschwindHN 9mo ago
> Now it's basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities. At first I thought you meant "Now, [the good guy of the internet] is basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities." I see what you meant now, in that google is reaching microslop levels of shittiness with slightly shinier shit.
- hsuduebc2 9mo ago
  Oh, damn. That’s the last way I’d want it to be interpreted. :D

reactordev 9mo ago

Google has only cared about one thing for the last decade, being number 1. They were willing to sell their soul to beat meta and they’ll sell their skin to beat OpenAI.

ycombinary 9mo ago

[dead]

jonas21 9mo ago

You're getting at the crux of the issue: it's very hard to distinguish legitimate DMCA takedown requests submitted by individuals from illegitimate ones, and occasionally, they're going to make mistakes. Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else who was trying to take down the content illegitimately. At the end of the day, the best option is to use an attorney who knows the right procedures and would also run the risk of professional consequences if they submitted false claims.

digitalPhonix 9mo ago
> Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else who was trying to take down the content illegitimately Ok, but then Google needs to say what would convince them that the author is who they say they are. The author asked multiple times how they prove they’re the real author and Google’s replies never even acknowledge the question.
- dekhn 9mo ago
  Google won't tell you this because they believe it would reveal information to scammers.
  - tempestn 9mo ago
    That's Kafkaesque. We're not talking about SEO here, just simple proof of identity. If they require something sane like ID, they could simply say so. If they need something insane, or have no process at all for proving identity, then this is no excuse.
    - thaumasiotes 9mo ago
      In this case, a more likely explanation might be "Google won't do this because it would put you in a position to obligate them to do something else". There isn't really a risk of enabling scammers to issue false DMCA takedowns; as you note, that issue is resolved by requiring proof of ownership.
      - SR2Z 9mo ago
        The only way to demonstrate that you own copyright to a piece of content is by going to court.
        thaumasiotes 9mo ago
        If that were true, how would the judge know who to rule for? Are you saying that anyone can become the owner of any intellectual property simply by filing a lawsuit?

CuriouslyC 9mo ago

It's not just goog, friend. It's capitalism down too the root. Piracy is more a moral and political statement than an economic one.

dmix 9mo ago
This is a copyright law invented in 1998 from the UN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty These things predictably always have ways for moneyed players to abuse them and for organizations to half commit. Even China signed up.
- gruez 9mo ago
  >This is a copyright law invented in 1998 from the UN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty Copyright law existed long before 1998, so it's hardly something "invented in 1998 from the UN". There might be some aspects it standardized, but so far as I can tell I can't see how it's relevant to this particular case.
  - dmix 9mo ago
    We’re discussing a post about DMCA in this thread which is a policy pushed by the UN and adopted by the US as DMCA. Not sure what your point is. DMCA is one of the worst parts of the internet and for some reason capitalism is the boogieman in this thread. IP law has become hyper restrictive/excessive, with little oversight, and favours large companies with teams of lawyers.
    - CuriouslyC 9mo ago
      Capitalism is the boogieman because greasing the wheels to enact anti-consumer legislation is 100% in the spirit of modern capitalism. Capitalism had moral authority from the invisible hand (with empirical support), but absent that, it's just another system of power, and clearly not a just one.
    - 9mo ago

oefrha 9mo ago

I have some experience in this regard, and Google, even though it’s known for nonexistent human support, isn’t even the worst. I helped a Chinese creator friend DMCA takedown a bunch of accounts on YouTube/Instagram/TikTok straight up stealing her content / impersonating her. TikTok’s response was fastest, one account was taken down within eight hours (to my pleasant surprise), another was taken down in three days. YouTube was all right, accounts were taken down in a week or so. Facebook/Instagram was the worst. They asked for the least info upfront in their takedown form, sent a bunch of follow up emails, then eventually just ghosted me. I initiated new email chains referencing the case ID but never heard from anyone. I had to negotiate with the account holder but that went nowhere either since my threat to take down the account turned out to be a joke. To this day the infringing account is still up.

alex1138 9mo ago
They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122
- alex1138 9mo ago
  Downvoters: I am suggesting that the lack of care by a CEO in his younger years translates directly in his older years as the company grows and reaches global proportions Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719 Use your brain for once, or else don't (please) work for any FAANG companies
  - duskdozer 9mo ago
    I'm for believing that people can change, but thinking that someone has changed requires some actual indication that they have changed
wisty 9mo ago
IANAL but if you send a DMCA notice and they ignore it, they are (partly) liable. That's the point of DMCA. File in a small claims court (or notify of your intent to do so) and see how long it takes to get a response ... I wonder if you could probably even suggest a fee for damages, wasted time, etc due to their slow response and hope it's cheaper than them getting a lawyer to assess it ... You would need to be the owner, and would know where to file though. If it's not your content, and you're "helping a friend" (but not actually legally representing them) then my guess is they haven't received a valid DMCA.

wslh 9mo ago

And when applying the law is so expensive.

ptdorf 9mo ago

Gotta cut on support to buy those AI GPUs.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

Do the e-mails sound like an AI? I wonder if PDF’ing some random nonsense and referring to them authoritatively would get through. The author’s e-mails are friendly. What it might be looking for is corporate legalese.

emsign 9mo ago

Google would be left by the wayside and quickly be gone if it hadn't embedded itself all across the web.

hackerbeat 9mo ago

Yes, same for search. Results are useless and site owners suffer.

BiteCode_dev 9mo ago

All web providers do this, not just google. I have hosting that regularly shut down my servers based on legal demands from jurisdictions that should have no reach my service whatsoever, or on total bogus claim. If I refuse to act, they shut me down. If I'm late in acting, they shut me down. Zero check on the legitimacy on the claim, zero trust in my debunking the claim. The reality is, it's not economically viable to do so. I'm not giving them enough money to be worth it. So as long as I'm a small actor, anything that looks remotely legit is just processed as-is with no recourse. The entire world can basically impose its view on me as long as they find a convincing way to tell my hosting "you are at risk". And it's not one single provider either. Most of them do that: domain name, vps hosts, proxies, caches, etc. The system is broken.

owebmaster 9mo ago
This post is about Google, not all providers. Don't astroturf, create a post about all providers

baranul 9mo ago

A major part of this problem appears to be that there is no identifiable humans in the loop to bring complaints to. Many of Google's responses are automated and black box algorithms. When a Google response to a problem is outright bonkers, there is often not much that can be done, but to keep hitting the head on the wall (hoping something different happens) or be the lucky few that can get or has a human contact at Google. From what I've read and heard, those with human contacts, often have been identified as needing special attention. Where they are persons who are making significant money for Google and the businesses they own or can create problems in court.