Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Google

Copyright Takedown Requests to Google Doubled In 2013 117

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the history-is-no-more dept.
Daniel_Stuckey writes "Last month, a company working on behalf of the publisher Random House, asked Google to remove links to a free copy of Stephen King's Carrie from search results. Google complied for three out of the four requested links, but didn't remove Kim Dotcom's new website Mega.co.nz as requested — for even if Mega is hosting pirated copies of Carrie, they sure aren't on the homepage. But leaving that link up was an exception to the rule. More and more, copyright owners and the organizations they employ are cutting off where the websites and the public meet — the search engine. Google's transparency reports show that requests to remove links to copyrighted material rose steadily in 2013. The search giant received 6.5 million requests during the week of November 18, 2013, which is over twice as many as the same week a year ago. Google said it complies with 97 percent of requests." I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Takedown Requests to Google Doubled In 2013

Comments Filter:
  • Pass more laws? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02, 2013 @08:54PM (#45580091)

    Don't worry content providers will just buy some new laws...

    Maybe we can have a "war of the robots"? Google's web crawler finds stuff and the content providers have faster automated DMCA takedown notices?

    This entire thing is a mess and only getting worse:
    - YouTube scans music and sometimes mismatches public domain material with "copyrighted" material (public domain guitar solo of Bach comes to mind).
    - "fair-use" is out the window.
    - Selling "ringtones" for songs you already paid for (yeah, separate license, cant use it as a ring tone without additional license fees).

    They need to start enforcing both sides of the law, if you put in a false DMCA takedown you should be held accountable. /rant>

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02, 2013 @09:54PM (#45580407)

    I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).

    Really?!? That's the best you've got?

    At least offer a SOURCE or a FRAME OF REFERENCE.

    "I know this one guy..."

    Fuck you. You are part of the problem.

  • by Cytotoxic (245301) on Monday December 02, 2013 @09:54PM (#45580413)

    I really couldn't disagree more. It is one thing to claim that "information wants to be free" and disavow copyrights altogether, but simply pointing to a location and saying "this is what exists at website.com" should always be protected speech under all circumstances. I really can't think of any justification for preventing someone from pointing out a true fact about where something is located. Not even if it were something much worse than a bootleg copy of a concert video or a copy of a Hollywood DVD - like something really both illegal and immoral, such as kiddie porn.

    That is all that google does. "Hey, you can find a web page that contains the words "banana hammock" at this address". I don't care what words you substitute for "banana Hammock" and what content you actually find at the web address, simply pointing to it should in all cases be a protected expression of the right to free speech. I don't care if you earn 8 trillion dollars for saying it, or it costs you three bucks and a half-eaten snickers bar to say it, the financial arrangements around your speech are perfectly irrelevant to your right to speak.

  • by Mr. Slippery (47854) <(ten.suomafni) (ta) (smt)> on Monday December 02, 2013 @10:34PM (#45580629) Homepage

    Agreed that simply posting links to hosted content is less of an issue than hosting it on YouTube directly, but it still amounts to facilitating rights violations

    Free speech is a real right. Copy"right" is a synthetic one. Free speech trumps copyright each and every time.

  • Re:THE SOLUTION ! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet (841228) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday December 02, 2013 @11:33PM (#45580869) Journal

    Actually the reason why boycotts never work against the *.A.As is that they use "PPT Math" which means they always win. Let me give an example..

    Evil corp, lets call them FNJ, has an artist, lets say Titney Steers is her name, that sold X amount last year. So the PHBs come up with a PPT that shows that if they sold X last year thanks to their incredible "shit don't stink(TM)" ad campaign then album Y MUST sell X*Y...if it don't? why its teh evil piratez and they take the PPT to their congress whores and gets more draconian laws and copyright extensions, its a win/win for them!

    So you see if every single person on the planet outright refused to so much as listen to Titney Steers new "I'm a big skanky Ho" single they would just get more laws, maybe if they bribed enough even a "too big to fail" bailout, so they CAN NOT LOSE no matter which way they go!

  • Re:Still sucks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02, 2013 @11:53PM (#45580925)

    Use a media sharing service that does not care about DMCA notices. May I suggest several alternatives. [google.com]

  • Re:Still sucks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Krojack (575051) on Tuesday December 03, 2013 @12:34AM (#45581111)

    Every time a copyright claim is made against a Youtube account and it turns out to be false, the company that made the claim needs to be punished in some way such as a fine. Maybe Google can send them bills for every false claim. This could force them to make sure the copyright claim they made are legit.

    Either way, something needs to be done to stop them from claiming anything and everything right off the bat.

  • by Camembert (2891457) on Tuesday December 03, 2013 @01:47AM (#45581389)
    I am all for modestly budgeted yet highly creative movies from all over the globe. At the same time, it is unlikely that a movie like Gravity (my favourite film of 2013 despite the scientific errors) would have been possible at that technical quality level outside Hollywood.
  • by xenobyte (446878) on Tuesday December 03, 2013 @03:29AM (#45581657)

    I know someone who had his original work taken down by a Warner Bros DMCA bot (without recourse, naturally, since only lawyers are people nowadays).

    Really?!? That's the best you've got?

    At least offer a SOURCE or a FRAME OF REFERENCE.

    "I know this one guy..."

    Fuck you. You are part of the problem.

    No, YOU are a part of the problem. Why do you need more details? - Do you want to fight for this guy or something?

    The details doesn't matter. There are millions like him out there. People recording themselves (thus owning the rights) playing classical music (which isn't copyrighted anymore) gets taken down daily. I've even heard of videos with no musical content - pure nature stuff - being DMCA'ed.

    The system is severely broken and severely abused, yet it is still exceedingly easy to find any kind of pirated content online. DMCA is a complete failure.

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...