

Google removed 1m DMCA links last month, 540,000 at the behest of Microsoft - rangibaby
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-infringing-link-removal/

======
cft
We are operating a company that is very removed from anything that one may
commonsensically regard as copyrighted material: we do not stream videos, do
not record videos, do not host videos, images or audio files. Our users send
only text messages, somewhat like Twitter. We have public user groups. The
number of defective DMCA notices has been rapidly increasing in the last 12
months, to the point that we spent multiple hours and signed an engagement
letter with a well known San Francisco IP attorney, who called 95% of these
notices "bogus", since they do not identify any infringing material. I think
Google actually acts on a lot of deficient notices, removing the entire
domains from its search, not just the deep links to copyright infringing
materials, but the entire domains.

------
gabaix
Google now makes it easier to find illegal content. The link
[http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/...](http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/?r=all-
time) is a one stop shop.

I am wondering if that is annoying DMCA even more?

~~~
r00fus
s/DMCA/MAFIAA/

~~~
johncoltrane
I used to see these s/bad/better a lot around the web for many years. I could
understand what it meant from the context so I never took the time to actually
look around for an explication. I simply assumed it was an old BBS thing.

Well, until I started to learn Vim

~~~
Ziomislaw
Vim got it from sed :)

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
And think it's fair to say that both vi(m) and sed got it from ed.

------
nextparadigms
Isn't taking down links because of "piracy" a _very_ legal grey area, if not
even illegal? I thought DMCA was supposed to be about the actual content, not
_links_ to the content.

And what the hell is Microsoft doing there? Are there really that many links
to Windows iso's? I'd figure most would just get them through torrents. And
speaking of which - does anyone still think Microsoft's banning of TPB links
in MSN was just an accident?

~~~
wmf
Search engines aren't regulated, but clearly Google thinks it's legally safer
to take down such links. I get the impression that some non-US sites don't
comply with the DMCA (since they don't have to) and thus the copyright holders
move their enforcement up the chain.

~~~
magicalist
I'm not sure if that's right. You won't get google for inducing infringement
or whatever, but there is:

"A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as
provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for
infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or _linking
users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing
activity_ , by using information location tools, including a directory, index,
reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider--

(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is
infringing;

(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or
circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove,
or disable access to, the material;"

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

------
twelvechairs
Interesting that filestube (a web search service covering links to filesharing
websites) comes in well above the torrent search sites as no.1 for 'top
targeted domains'. It seems a very abstract way of tackling the issue,
preventing one search engine from linking to the results of another.
Especially as (according to Wikipedia) filestube are happy to take down DMCA
offending content themselves...

Also - it makes me wonder whether web-based piracy (through filesharing
websites), which seemed to hardly exist a few years ago, is becoming the
'dominant' form of piracy...

~~~
wmf
I don't understand why Google even indexes Filestube given their policy
against indexing SERPs (cf. Mahalo).

------
JoachimSchipper
This is an attempt by Google to create the community norm "protecting your IP
is censorship". Notice who benefits - Google repackages, indexes, and
otherwise uses lots and lots of contents that it didn't create, from webpages
to feeds to books.

This is not to say that Google is evil, or that protecting IP is more
important than a free internet; but it _is_ intimidating to see your "do not
use my photograph/short story/program without permission" on the ominously
named chillingeffects.org, and this is _not_ an accident.

~~~
jrockway
According to <http://www.chillingeffects.org/about>, the chilling effects
clearinghouse is not affiliated with Google. They just happen to contribute
C&D notices heavily. (Similarly, Google does not own Linux, but they
contribute source code.)

There seems to be some conception that contributing to non-profits or
charitable organizations is wrong if you have an agenda. I don't understand
that; though Google benefits from legal transparency and an Internet without
censorship, isn't it nice that they contribute to non-profits that help
further these causes? Do you want more censorship and hidden government
proceedings instead?

As a published author, I certainly value free expression more than a few extra
bucks from my book. Without what I've learned from the Internet, I'd probably
be flipping burgers for a living.

~~~
seertaak
What's hypocritical is that Google itself engages in "censorship" on a
colossal scale, in the name of preventing spammy results (e.g. co.cc domains,
not to mention Google's dealings with China). To be clear, I personally have
no problem with this (in the same way that I have no problem with them
removing links to copyrighted content), but they're obviously not handing over
details of the sites _they_ unilaterally delist to chillingeffects.com. So
there's evidence of a double-standard.

Furthermore, while chillingeffects.org may, nominally, not be affiliated with
Google, it is also apparent to anyone paying attention that Google is waging a
proxy battle against copyright holders, through large donations (e.g. 7MM
grant for the Lessig and his "remix culture" shills at EFF) to non-profits or
charities with agendas hostile to rights holders and sympathetic to their
expansive view of fair use doctrines.

When one takes into account Google's recent spending on lobbying (in recent
quarters, it is well in excess of that spent by the e.g. RIAA), and their
cavalier attitude to laws that don't suit them (tax/privacy), then it becomes
fair to question their motives in arguing for an "open" internet.

> As a published author, I certainly value free expression more than a few
> extra bucks from my book.

You may well be a published author, but you are primarily employee at Google.
You don't need to make money of your book(s); in fact, I'm sure you're quite
happy to give the book away for free, since it bolsters your credentials and
allows you to claim expertise in some area, which can then be monetized
through employment. But this indirect avenue isn't available to musicians and
non-technical writers -- there is no "mother Google" that will give _them_
cushy jobs with free meals and other perks.

> Without what I've learned from the Internet, I'd probably be flipping
> burgers for a living.

I don't know your background, I don't want to be presumptive, and I realize
you're being a bit flippant, but I'm guessing that if Google took you on, then
you went to some top-tier university and you already come from a solidly
(upper?) middle-class family. The idea that you'd be flipping burgers is
inconceivable in the worst of possible worlds.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against Google; I think they do great stuff.
I'm a big fan of Dart language, for example, and think Google has a lot of
cool tech. And I think that on balance, they're probably more a force for good
than for evil. But having worked for a (morally ambiguous) company like
Goldman Sachs, I know from personal experience that the initial enthusiasm at
working at a new (and wildly successful) company can have an effect akin to
wearing rose-tinted glasses.

Incidentally, are Google hiring? ;)

~~~
jrockway
When I first read your comment I thought you had a good point, but now that
I've thought about it for a few hours, I disagree.

Takedown notices slow progress throughout our industry, whether legally
justified or not. If you look at the comment threads below this one, many are
asking questions like, "I want to start a website, should I worry about this?"
to which the replies are, "yes, hire a lawyer". That's good advice in this
legal climate, but it slows progress tremendously.

If someone just wants to share their weekend project, they're out a few hours
and ten bucks a month to host the thing. But they're exposing them to
potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal liabilities; perhaps
they miss some takedown notes while they are away on vacation. That's a pricey
lawsuit should someone be inclined to pursue it. (And there's no indication
that rightsholders won't.) The initial legal consultation regarding a site you
want to launch is not cheap either -- an hour with a lawyer buys you a year of
Amazon EC2 CPU time.

The end result is that people that want to share their programming work won't
because they decide it's too legally risky. Sites like The Chilling Effect
Clearinghouse let us see what sort of takedown notices are currently popular
and plan our services accordingly. If that happens to discourage rightsholders
from enforcing their rights, well, that's fine with me. I want to see new ways
of using the Internet, even if it comes at the expensive of the big copyright
holders.

As for removing spam from search results; that's actually a warming effect.
Because Google removes spam results, small companies have the opportunity to
compete with or compliment Google here. All they need to do is create an
"uncensored" all-spam-site web index and offer that to the wider Internet
community. The people that want to search spam sites will then be able to,
creating value and a new business model. (Look at how successful DuckDuckGo
has been, and all they do is wrap Bing's results. A new index could be
amazingly successful.)

~~~
seertaak
btw, rereading my post, I see now that the tone is somewhat snarky and
accusative, so I apologize for that.

> Takedown notices slow progress throughout our industry, whether legally
> justified or not. If you look at the comment threads below this one, many
> are asking questions like, "I want to start a website, should I worry about
> this?" to which the replies are, "yes, hire a lawyer". That's good advice in
> this legal climate, but it slows progress tremendously.

I agree that's a factor, but I think the case is somewhat overstated. If you
look at the list of top targeted companies on the blog post, you'll see names
like filestube.com, torrentz.eu, etc. As far as I can tell, copyright-
infringing material is the bread-and-butter of these firms. If the legal costs
go up for them, then that's actually the _goal_. But companies like Instagram,
airbnb, ridejoy, etc... I don't think they would have serious issues with, or
incur substantial costs because of, the DMCA. Basically, if your business
isn't leveraging copyrighted material to gain popularity without paying rights
holders for it, you'll be ok.

Also, Bastiat's dictum on "what you see, and what you don't see" applies: what
you see is companies/units like YouTube getting embroiled in legal action and
you think, "these laws aren't worth it". What you don't see are the companies
that never make it (particularly in software) because of piracy, or the
spectrum of business models that become unfeasible as a result of the fact
that users have grown hooked to free content.

> As for removing spam from search results; that's actually a warming effect

I totally agree -- I just wish Google applied the same philosophy to copyright
infringing links and material. IMHO the afore-mentioned sites/links are very
much like spam in the copyrights arena -- they operate at the margins of
respectable and honest practices. I think the internet would benefit, long-
term, if rights holders were protected from infringement, as a result of the
fact that the ad-based business model would be supplemented by a viable
direct-payment model.

------
dantiberian
So what kind of content is Microsoft asking for takedowns of?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Software piracy.

------
RKearney
So if Microsoft requested 543,000 links be removed from Google's index in just
one month, it really makes me wonder how much of Bing is censored.

------
indygreg2
The fact Microsoft is the #1 requester isn't a surprise to me. The 2nd most
popular search engine probably automatically identifies "bad" content then
siphons off this list to Google. If Google had more paid products (that
weren't ad driven), I'd expect Google to be the largest referrer of Bing DMCA
requests.

------
sparknlaunch12
_"Overall, Google received 1.24 million requests from 1,296 copyright owners
for removal the past month. They targeted 24,129 domains."_

Must be a full time job to fill out all those forms.

~~~
Natsu
> Must be a full time job to fill out all those forms.

If you look at the list of the top submitters of notices, you will see several
organizations which do exactly that on behalf of IP owners, like Web Sheriff.

------
arbitrage
the suffix 'm' means 'one thousand'. if you want to abbreviate 'million', use
'mm'.

~~~
webreac
not really
[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_proper_abbreviation_fo...](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_proper_abbreviation_for_1_million_dollars)

~~~
dpark
Yes, really. Your own link confirms it at the top:

> _The standard financial abbreviation for million is MM, e.g. $300 MM._

If you use MM, basically everyone will understand. If you use M, some people
will assume million but anyone with experience in finance (or anywhere close)
will read "thousand".

I pretty sure the blurb at the bottom of your link is wrong, though. 'M' as an
abbreviation doesn't come from Roman numerals. That claim is all over the
Internet, but I don't believe it's true. The 'M' is for _mille_ , meaning
"thousand". We use this in all sorts of terms, like millennium, millipede,
"per mil", etc.

~~~
Ziomislaw
Just use kk (kilo*kilo) for million :) everybody is happy?

~~~
dpark
Nope, because financial people are set in their ways. :) MM isn't going away
any time soon.

