8 ms·

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 oc

by 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?
        SR2Z 9mo ago
        Not all intellectual property is the same. Trademarks have to be registered, patents have to be filed, but copyright is automatically granted by law whenever someone creates a work. Trademark issues are therefore really simple: is the user of the trademark the one who has it registered or not? But copyright holders don't have any standard, obvious evidence they can point to that shows it's really their copyright. They can file a DMCA, in which case companies normally just assume the complaint is accurate - but if the party on the other end objects, the case has to go to a judge who will determine who actually has the copyright and if infringement occurred.
  - ipython 9mo ago
    but then why have a process at all?
    - pixl97 9mo ago
      So they don't get sued again by record companies.
  - digitalPhonix 9mo ago
    That’s like saying the DMV won’t tell you how to prove your identity because if they did people would use that info to get fake driving licences
    - dekhn 9mo ago
      The DMV is not a private company with enormous amounts of fraud/scam. Anyway, it's what I was told when I joined Google Ads a long time ago and it seems consistent with their philosophy and behavior.
      - digitalPhonix 9mo ago
        > The DMV is not a private company with enormous amounts of fraud/scam. So it sounds like their policy of having a high bar for proving identity but still publicising what is required to meet that bar works for preventing fraud? If anything, your argument is an indictment against Google.
- ghurtado 9mo ago
  > Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else That's not true. He mentions that he is the owner of the books official websites, which are registered with Google, presumably with all of his personal and billing information. It would take 2 seconds for anyone at Google to confirm this.
  - znhll 9mo ago
    > It would take 2 seconds for anyone at Google to confirm this. Not really... Google is literally too big, and the fact that they've offshored and/or automated support away and compartmentalized it all where no single IC employee could possibly do much. I had a billing/tax issue come up with my small biz Google Workspace, and I was getting nowhere via the normal support channels... So I asked my brother in-law who literally works at Google (but not in that team) for help. He could not help me as he had no idea who or what department could handle that and neither did his team members, and it would take weeks apparently to find the right person. I'm not the only paying Google customer with that experience. Google products are great, until you run into an issue you need to talk to a human.
    - MichaelZuo 9mo ago
      If googlers dont have an internal org chart they can check, then how do they verify who is on what team? Something doesnt add up. Because that seems like a bare minimum to collaborate at all.
      - znhll 9mo ago
        > Because that seems like a bare minimum to collaborate at all. Now you're getting a clue why Google had like 3-4 competing communication tools at some point lol
        MichaelZuo 9mo ago
        I’m talking about something much more fundamental, the entire company would pretty much implode within 24 hours (or at most a week) if they couldnt verify who is who. So it clearly cant be the case.
- a123b456c 9mo ago
  It seems like we will need either legislation or litigation, if we want things to improve.
- tossaway0 9mo ago
  I wonder if they just prioritize big companies who they either have agreements with or are scared could actually cause them serious legal trouble, and deny everyone else as much as possible because they’ve calculated the risk/reward/cost of getting it wrong.
- heavyset_go 9mo ago
  I don't like it, but the solution here is to hire an IP lawyer to handle the rights process. Google won't talk to us normies because 1) it's a cost and they don't have to 2) they've convinced themselves that if they tell anyone anything, then the unwashed masses will take advantage of their process/get the service we're owed under law
  - worik 9mo ago
    > Google won't talk to us normies because They really should.... > ... it's a cost and they don't have to There are much bigger costs looming for Google if they continue to ignore DMCA Google are in the hands of the Money Monkeys. Short term gain and get out before the pain. What a shame.
    - bitfilped 9mo ago
      I mean I don't disagree but "should" won't make next quarters line go up until it becomes an expensive enough problem to threaten that trend.
    - SR2Z 9mo ago
      Google settled a massive lawsuit with Viacom many years ago. The details of the settlement are hidden, but it seems pretty clear that it involves extraordinary deference to large rightsholders who in exchange won't threaten to blow YouTube to smithereens every year.
  - breppp 9mo ago
    or because of abuse https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47227937 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47227937
    - heavyset_go 9mo ago
      Sounds like they need to spend some of those billions of dollars on fixing the process and complying with the law, then. I don't get to ignore the law just because if I follow it, someone who doesn't might get one over on me. All of this nonsense because Google wants to automate their DMCA takedown process and not hire anyone to deal with real cases as they come, as is their duty to copyright holders.
- kevin_thibedeau 9mo ago
  Google doesn't need to verify anything. They just have to pass along the takedown request and provide a flow for prompt reactivation with a counter notice. After that their responsibilities end and the two disputing parties can litigate.
rcxdude 9mo ago
Also, the ones abusing the system tend to know it better: often it's their jobs to figure out how to work it to get what they want. The people who just want to use legitimately often it don't have the time and experience to learn it. (You see a similar thing with benefits and healthcare: often attempts to crackdown on people abusing the system just make it harder for legitimate users)
- HPsquared 9mo ago
  It's almost a law of nature.
- sayamqazi 9mo ago
  If you are from US I want to let you know about a scam. Here in asian countries people with good enlgish accents are recruited to pretend to be US citizens and claim benifits that are unused by the real people. There is a whole proper process of how this works. The recruit is given full identity information and a software to make the call appear from the US. The officials on the US side are in on this and get a share for each successfull claim.
cebert 9mo ago
> At the end of the day, the best option is to use an attorney who would at least run the risk of professional consequences for submitting false claims. What if folks signed their work with a private PGP key and published their public key? If you wanted to submit a DMCA request, simply sign a message to prove you’re the content owner. It seems like that could work.
- mulmen 9mo ago
  How does that prove I am the original author? Can't I just download a work and sign it as my own?
  - cebert 9mo ago
    Let’s consider a scenario where you’ve published a video with a public key, and you have a history of using that key for publishing your work. If someone else were to download that video, they wouldn’t be able to sign it because they lack the key. I believe the same principle applies to PDFs and ebooks.
    - mulmen 9mo ago
      They wouldn’t be able to sign it as me but they could sign it as themselves, taking credit. My question is what mechanism proves the video is signed by the rightful owner?
7bit 9mo ago
You are completely missing the point. Mistakes can be made. But OP asked repeatedly what he must provide so Google can validate his identity. They didn't answer his questions, even after OP asked multiple times. This is not a "mistake", that is negligence.
ChrisMarshallNY 9mo ago
I suspect the author is self-published (I don’t know him well, but his emails seem to indicate this). One of the things that you get, when dealing with a publishing house, is a bunch of IP lawyers on speed-dial. If you register works with the LoC, it might help in these situations (it isn’t required, but this is exactly the type of thing that it’s supposed to address).
- vintermann 9mo ago
  That's little more than corruption. Yeah sure, you can free your issue from the AI-washed auto-reject script if you know the right people. But it's nothing to do with what those people know. It's about who they are.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
thayne 9mo ago
I also suspect those responses were all generated by an AI.
ndiddy 9mo ago
The whole point of the DMCA takedown process is that it's rubber-stamp on the part of the service provider and all decisions regarding validity are left up to the courts. That's why there's a provision built into the law for the person receiving the claim to file a counter-notice to get their content reinstated. If Google is inserting themselves in the middle and denying claims because they don't believe that the person filing them is authorized to do so, I'm not sure whether that's proper procedure under the OCILLA.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

by jonas21 9mo ago

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?
        SR2Z 9mo ago
        Not all intellectual property is the same. Trademarks have to be registered, patents have to be filed, but copyright is automatically granted by law whenever someone creates a work. Trademark issues are therefore really simple: is the user of the trademark the one who has it registered or not? But copyright holders don't have any standard, obvious evidence they can point to that shows it's really their copyright. They can file a DMCA, in which case companies normally just assume the complaint is accurate - but if the party on the other end objects, the case has to go to a judge who will determine who actually has the copyright and if infringement occurred.
- ipython 9mo ago
  but then why have a process at all?
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    So they don't get sued again by record companies.
- digitalPhonix 9mo ago
  That’s like saying the DMV won’t tell you how to prove your identity because if they did people would use that info to get fake driving licences
  - dekhn 9mo ago
    The DMV is not a private company with enormous amounts of fraud/scam. Anyway, it's what I was told when I joined Google Ads a long time ago and it seems consistent with their philosophy and behavior.
    - digitalPhonix 9mo ago
      > The DMV is not a private company with enormous amounts of fraud/scam. So it sounds like their policy of having a high bar for proving identity but still publicising what is required to meet that bar works for preventing fraud? If anything, your argument is an indictment against Google.
ghurtado 9mo ago
> Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else That's not true. He mentions that he is the owner of the books official websites, which are registered with Google, presumably with all of his personal and billing information. It would take 2 seconds for anyone at Google to confirm this.
- znhll 9mo ago
  > It would take 2 seconds for anyone at Google to confirm this. Not really... Google is literally too big, and the fact that they've offshored and/or automated support away and compartmentalized it all where no single IC employee could possibly do much. I had a billing/tax issue come up with my small biz Google Workspace, and I was getting nowhere via the normal support channels... So I asked my brother in-law who literally works at Google (but not in that team) for help. He could not help me as he had no idea who or what department could handle that and neither did his team members, and it would take weeks apparently to find the right person. I'm not the only paying Google customer with that experience. Google products are great, until you run into an issue you need to talk to a human.
  - MichaelZuo 9mo ago
    If googlers dont have an internal org chart they can check, then how do they verify who is on what team? Something doesnt add up. Because that seems like a bare minimum to collaborate at all.
    - znhll 9mo ago
      > Because that seems like a bare minimum to collaborate at all. Now you're getting a clue why Google had like 3-4 competing communication tools at some point lol
      - MichaelZuo 9mo ago
        I’m talking about something much more fundamental, the entire company would pretty much implode within 24 hours (or at most a week) if they couldnt verify who is who. So it clearly cant be the case.
a123b456c 9mo ago
It seems like we will need either legislation or litigation, if we want things to improve.
tossaway0 9mo ago
I wonder if they just prioritize big companies who they either have agreements with or are scared could actually cause them serious legal trouble, and deny everyone else as much as possible because they’ve calculated the risk/reward/cost of getting it wrong.
heavyset_go 9mo ago
I don't like it, but the solution here is to hire an IP lawyer to handle the rights process. Google won't talk to us normies because 1) it's a cost and they don't have to 2) they've convinced themselves that if they tell anyone anything, then the unwashed masses will take advantage of their process/get the service we're owed under law
- worik 9mo ago
  > Google won't talk to us normies because They really should.... > ... it's a cost and they don't have to There are much bigger costs looming for Google if they continue to ignore DMCA Google are in the hands of the Money Monkeys. Short term gain and get out before the pain. What a shame.
  - bitfilped 9mo ago
    I mean I don't disagree but "should" won't make next quarters line go up until it becomes an expensive enough problem to threaten that trend.
  - SR2Z 9mo ago
    Google settled a massive lawsuit with Viacom many years ago. The details of the settlement are hidden, but it seems pretty clear that it involves extraordinary deference to large rightsholders who in exchange won't threaten to blow YouTube to smithereens every year.
- breppp 9mo ago
  or because of abuse https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47227937 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47227937
  - heavyset_go 9mo ago
    Sounds like they need to spend some of those billions of dollars on fixing the process and complying with the law, then. I don't get to ignore the law just because if I follow it, someone who doesn't might get one over on me. All of this nonsense because Google wants to automate their DMCA takedown process and not hire anyone to deal with real cases as they come, as is their duty to copyright holders.
kevin_thibedeau 9mo ago
Google doesn't need to verify anything. They just have to pass along the takedown request and provide a flow for prompt reactivation with a counter notice. After that their responsibilities end and the two disputing parties can litigate.

rcxdude 9mo ago

Also, the ones abusing the system tend to know it better: often it's their jobs to figure out how to work it to get what they want. The people who just want to use legitimately often it don't have the time and experience to learn it. (You see a similar thing with benefits and healthcare: often attempts to crackdown on people abusing the system just make it harder for legitimate users)

HPsquared 9mo ago
It's almost a law of nature.
sayamqazi 9mo ago
If you are from US I want to let you know about a scam. Here in asian countries people with good enlgish accents are recruited to pretend to be US citizens and claim benifits that are unused by the real people. There is a whole proper process of how this works. The recruit is given full identity information and a software to make the call appear from the US. The officials on the US side are in on this and get a share for each successfull claim.

cebert 9mo ago

> At the end of the day, the best option is to use an attorney who would at least run the risk of professional consequences for submitting false claims. What if folks signed their work with a private PGP key and published their public key? If you wanted to submit a DMCA request, simply sign a message to prove you’re the content owner. It seems like that could work.

mulmen 9mo ago
How does that prove I am the original author? Can't I just download a work and sign it as my own?
- cebert 9mo ago
  Let’s consider a scenario where you’ve published a video with a public key, and you have a history of using that key for publishing your work. If someone else were to download that video, they wouldn’t be able to sign it because they lack the key. I believe the same principle applies to PDFs and ebooks.
  - mulmen 9mo ago
    They wouldn’t be able to sign it as me but they could sign it as themselves, taking credit. My question is what mechanism proves the video is signed by the rightful owner?

7bit 9mo ago

You are completely missing the point. Mistakes can be made. But OP asked repeatedly what he must provide so Google can validate his identity. They didn't answer his questions, even after OP asked multiple times. This is not a "mistake", that is negligence.

ChrisMarshallNY 9mo ago

I suspect the author is self-published (I don’t know him well, but his emails seem to indicate this). One of the things that you get, when dealing with a publishing house, is a bunch of IP lawyers on speed-dial. If you register works with the LoC, it might help in these situations (it isn’t required, but this is exactly the type of thing that it’s supposed to address).

vintermann 9mo ago
That's little more than corruption. Yeah sure, you can free your issue from the AI-washed auto-reject script if you know the right people. But it's nothing to do with what those people know. It's about who they are.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

thayne 9mo ago

I also suspect those responses were all generated by an AI.

ndiddy 9mo ago

The whole point of the DMCA takedown process is that it's rubber-stamp on the part of the service provider and all decisions regarding validity are left up to the courts. That's why there's a provision built into the law for the person receiving the claim to file a counter-notice to get their content reinstated. If Google is inserting themselves in the middle and denying claims because they don't believe that the person filing them is authorized to do so, I'm not sure whether that's proper procedure under the OCILLA.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]