Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Censorship Google

Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds 155

Via TorrentFreak comes news that Google is now being asked to remove one million links per day (or an average of one takedown notice every 8ms). In 2008, they received one takedown request approximately every six days. From the article: The massive surge in removal requests is not without controversy. It’s been reported that some notices reference pages that contain no copyrighted material, due to mistakes or abuse, but are deleted nonetheless. Google has a pretty good track record of catching these errors, but since manual review of all links is unachievable, some URLs are removed in error. ... The issue has also piqued the interest of U.S. lawmakers. Earlier this year the House Judiciary Subcommittee had a hearing on the DMCA takedown issue, and both copyright holders, Internet service providers, and other parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process. In the meantime, the number of removal requests is expected to rise and rise, with 10 million links per week being the next milestone.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

Comments Filter:
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @12:47PM (#47713161)

    It would not be the first top dog search engine that disappears into obscurity because all it displayed anymore were paid-for links, ads and other crap the powers that are considered "agreeable".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @01:10PM (#47713385)

    86400 seconds in a day, 1 million takedown notice per day --> 1 notice every 0.0864 s, so 86ms

    Seriously, how hard is it ?

  • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @03:36PM (#47714705) Journal

    DMCA requires a statement:

            "under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

    The perjury statement is just that the person sending the complaint is an authorized representative of the _alleged_ owner.
    In other words, if you or I sent a complaint that someone is violating Bill Clinton's copyright, THAT would violate that section, because we're not authorized to enforce Clinton's rights.

    As to the accuracy of the complaint, DMCA provides that you can be sued for actual damages if you KNOWINGLY file a false complaint. "Knowingly" is a special word in law, with a carefully established definition. It means more than recklessly or negligently. To sue them, you have to prove that they KNEW it was bogus. If they filed it without caring whether or not it was bogus, that's insufficient. It would be better if you could sue for reckless or negligent claims, but you can only sue for knowingly false claims. Changing that one word from "knowingly" to "negligently" or "recklessly" would go a long way toward fixing DMCA.

    Secondly, the bogus claimant can be sued only for actual damages. Suppose it costs Google $5 to process each takedown. For a knowingly false takedown notice, they can sue to get that $5 back. They're not going to pend $100K to sue someone for $5. Not going to happen. What would fix that would be the same thing that holders of registered copyrights have under the law - statutory damages. The current text of the law is:

            Any person who knowingly misrepresents ... shall be liable for any damages ... incurred

    We could just change that to:

            Any person who RECKLESSLY misrepresents ... shall be liable for the greater of $25,000 or any damages ... incurred.
            Any person who negligently misrepresents ... shall be liable for the greater of $10,000 or any damages ... incurred.

    A Google lawyer could then sue Warner Bros for 100 reckless notices and damages would be _at_least_ $2.5 million which pays the lawyer's salary for several years. They'd settle for the $1 million "negligent" amount, and Google could have a staff of lawyers suing all the assholes, hitting them for a million dollars each time until they stopped sending notices recklessly.

A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.