

Google: Transparency for copyright removals in search - sjbach
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/transparency-for-copyright-removals-in.html

======
jrockway
What's amusing is that the takedown notices are a matter of public record, so
it's not like the URLs are actually disappearing from the Internet.

Here's a recent example:

[http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=...](http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=367515)

Someone should create a searchable database of these URLs, so that you can
search for pirated content that's already been validated as authentic by
RIAA/MPAA lawyers. Perhaps that would put a "chilling effect" on Internet
censorship.

~~~
Natsu
> Perhaps that would put a "chilling effect" on Internet censorship.

Actually, it would most likely invite new theories of vicarious liability for
infringement and make such transparency more legally risky.

That said, reading through the ChillingEffects list is a great way to gather
news. For example, you find out about leaked materials rather quickly.

------
joshuahedlund
What a fascinating window into this hidden yet enormous neverending game of
whack-a-mole.

I was initially surprised that Microsoft dwarfs the RIAA in requests, but of
course their software sells at much higher prices than albums. I wonder how
popular an artist has to be for the RIAA to consider it worth paying someone
to find links and submit requests...

It also sounds like an enormous burden (read: barrier to entry) for search
engines. I'm sure Google is constantly optimizing just how much of the process
it can automate. (ex. If a submitter has had X requests approved for Y domain,
remove it automatically?) I love how they let webmasters know about it,
though, to remove fears of false positives.

------
tptacek
"As a percentage of site's URLs" is a disingenuous statistic. Google has a
notion of which URLs on a site are _germane_ ; for instance, how likely they
are to come up in searches. Reported URLs on TORRENTZ.EU as a percentage of
germane URLs will probably tell a different tale than "<0.1%".

Put differently: you'd have to be made of stupid to have a ratio of infringing
URLs to overall URLs that looked unfavorable; all you have to do to minimize
that metric is to spray crap all over some portion of your site that nobody
but Googlebot cares about.

~~~
Natsu
I think I misunderstood you, because it sounds like you're implying that these
sites have "spray[ed] crap" all over their sites to look better in this newly
released report?

You may know more than I do about the existence of pages of crap on
torrentz.eu because I have never been there, but it's rather difficult for me
to believe that anyone is intentionally gaming a report they had no way of
knowing the existence of until Google's announcement.

~~~
tptacek
<http://torrentz.eu/i>

You have to dig _not_ to find copyright-infringing links at the root of
TORRENTZ.EU's index.

At yet the statistic on Google's summary page suggests that TORRENTZ.EU is
primarily --- no, overwhelmingly --- a _non-infringing_ site. And that is the
reason the statistic is there: to put forward that argument.

We don't have to agree on the policy debate here, but let's at least call
spades spades.

~~~
Natsu
I never said there wasn't infringing content there. I had never been there,
after all, though I just took a quick peek after you linked to it just now.
Nothing loaded. That's probably due to noscript, which I wouldn't dare turn
off on a site like that.

I still think it unlikely that anyone is gaming that metric. It might be a bad
one for whatever reason, but I can't imagine that anyone has been gaming it
given that nobody knew of it until just now.

~~~
tptacek
A metric that says the overwhelming majority of TORRENTZ.EU is noninfringing
is a bogus metric. My point is, I think, pretty clear. We can debate whether
infringement is worth caring about, but no reasonable debate suggests that
TORRENTZ.EU is mostly rightsholder-neutral.

~~~
Natsu
I've never argued for it being a good metric, only against it being
intentionally gamed by any of the sites.

------
grecy
I had to dig into the FAQ [1] to find what I wanted:

"We removed 97% of search results specified in requests that we received
between July and December 2011."

It doesn't say anything about how the requests must be formatted and if they
are legally enforceable. i.e. Can just anyone submit a request? Does it have
to include any kind of evidence?

[1][http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/...](http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/)

~~~
magicalist
The form is linked to multiple times in the same FAQ. If you want the DMCA
requirements, you can find them here:

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#c_3>

edit: I'm not exactly sure what you're asking with "legally enforceable", but
again, if you mean in terms of the DMCA, my understanding is that if a
notification satisfies those requirements, you _must_ comply. That's why the
counter-notification process is so important.

~~~
girlvinyl
Small correction: You must comply if you intend to keep yourself protected by
the safe-harbor provisions specified in the DMCA. If you do not comply, you
then become exposed to liability, though not necessarily guilty of
infringement.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Link for the lazy like me, who couldn't find the page, initially:

<http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/>

------
vibrunazo
I'm building an app that will have a lot of user generated content. How much
should I worry about implementing something similar to this on our system
before going on air? This sounds extremely cumbersome and expensive to
operate. I don't think we could afford this initially.

Should we only bother with it after it becomes a problem (hopefully by then
we'll have enough revenue to afford this)? Or is it too risky to launch
without such system and get brought down ourselves?

~~~
magicalist
Megaupload is a good cautionary tale. IP 'holders' have enough power to do bad
things if they can cast you as a bad actor, so far better to have some kind of
take down support that works for the country you operate in.

Manual processing of requests is probably fine for many launching apps (unless
there is the possibility of automated content creation on the part of your
users), which also lets you be really careful with complying with applicable
laws while (crucially) maintaining the rights of your users.

But, yes, if you're in the US and want to maintain safe harbor protections,
you will have to handle any takedown requests you receive.

------
altrego99
Number of "user data requests" by governments is scary. What do the government
do with the user's data?

