And A Million Rickrolls Went Silent... Demonstrating The Problem Of Pressuring Google To Takedown Without Due Process

from the this-is-what-you-get dept

So, just after the news came out last night that Google execs were criminals for not taking down videos fast enough, suddenly people started noticing that the original infamous Rickroll video had been taken down, due to a "terms of service" violation. While some assumed that it was a copyright takedown, usually Google is pretty good about clarifying when it's an actual copyright takedown. This was clearly something different. After a few hours of people screaming about missing Rick Astley, Google put the video back up, saying it was caused by too many people "flagging" the video as violating the terms of service, leading to yanking the video.

In the end, this demonstrates the difficult position that Google is put in. It's getting sued by entertainment companies, threatened by politicians and now convicted of crimes for being "too slow" in taking down "bad" videos (with "bad" often being loosely defined). So it creates systems to try to speed up the process, and the end result is that those systems can be abused as well, leading to videos getting taken down without due process. What's amazing is that people still think that Google can easily figure out which videos should be kept up and which should be taken down -- but when you consider just how much content is on the site, and the difficulty of reviewing any complaints, and the likelihood of both false positives and false negatives in reviewing videos, it's really incredible that anyone thinks it's reasonable for Google to take responsibility for the content.

The "rickroll" incident is a pretty clear indicator of why trying to put secondary liability on a third party like Google will almost certainly lead to more incidents like this -- where legitimate content is taken offline due to a legally mandated itchy trigger finger.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: flagging, rickroll, secondary liability, takedown, youtube
Companies: google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Brian (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 11:44am

    Vevo

    Unfortunately it seems the video is now up under Vevo now, I'm not sure if it was there before this incident or not although I don't think it was.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 12:36pm

    It's back up

    Google corrected this. There was a blog entry or something, but I can't find it. The gist was that they get takedowns, they're reviewed (which is news to me, it seems like a rubberstamp process) and then taken down. If they get blowback, they take another look. Sounds like that was what happened here.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    PeytonFarquhar (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 12:37pm

    LMAO. I have zero sympathy for Google. Their partnership with the NSA pretty much convicted them as irrevocably evil, IMO. They deserve whatever they get.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 12:39pm

    The answer is obvious. Nobody is allowed to post ANYTHING to the Internet without first hiring a legal team to clear all content against possible copyright infringement. As soon as every collection agency has approved the content as being free of any rights conflict, then the content is to be posted on the Internet behind a username and password with a 30-day review process for any independent artists to vet their rights. After this review process, THEN the content will be publicly available to all people.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Re: It's back up

    Google corrected this.

    Yeah, I said that in the post. :)

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Re: It's back up

    Ah, missed that. I think I immediately skimmed to the bottom to see if there was an update.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    Hephaestus (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 12:51pm

    Yeah talk about stiffling innovation ....

    "is a pretty clear indicator of why trying to put secondary liability on a third party like Google will almost certainly lead to more incidents like this"

    Secondary liability will surely slow down new services from being offered, cause existing services to be shut down, cause great financial losses for ISP's, hosting, and web sites, and generally make everything done online require a lawyer. Even with a lawyers blessing there is still no real protection due to the lack of checks and balances, and probable increase in abuse.

    Oh yeah it will also slow down progress, slow down the advancement of science, and stop the creation of new art with the exception of current monopolies.

    This is so going to be fun to watch.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 12:53pm

    Re:

    "Nobody is allowed to post ANYTHING to the Internet without first hiring a legal team to clear all content against possible copyright infringement."

    That's how corporations deal with each other now, so they really don't see that as unreasonable.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    YA BABY, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:02pm

    LMAO ......starts flagging all things microsoft

    go go go

    link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:03pm

    I can see people being mildly annoyed at getting rickrolled, but flagging the video for ToS violations? really?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    Robert Ring (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:07pm

    I've never seen this Vevo thing before, but it really is unfortunate. No one will use the Rickroll'd joke anymore because whoever clicks on the link will have to sit through a stupid ad. By the time they get to the video, the punchline will be worthless.

    The secret to humor is timing, after all.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  12. identicon
    Ryan, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:13pm

    Re:

    Well, the flag feature is stupid, and I'm sure many people take it about as seriously as I do. I don't "abuse" it because I understand that makes it harder on YouTube/Google/whoever and that they really have no choice in the face of bullies concerned with copyright enforcement/political correctness/etc. and the occasional legitimate issue - even though there are better and less reactionary mechanisms for those - and also because I'm not ten.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:23pm

    If you try to shorten the url with bit.ly it comes back with bit.ly/RR as the shortened URL. Hah.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:28pm

    I for one am disappointed that Mike didn't even attempt to sneak in a link to you-know-what.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Muffin Man, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:47pm

    They repealed the judgment in Italy!

    Here is the video of the press conference!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

    link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:49pm

    Re:

    >I for one am disappointed that Mike didn't even
    >attempt to sneak in a link to you-know-what.

    Yeah, I also want to know more about the First Annual CFW-(TRB) Party "Trollin Time". But mike wouldn't know because he's not invited.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  17. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:51pm

    Re:

    Hmm. Something tells me not to click on that.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2010 @ 1:51pm

    Re:

    [Citation Needed]

    link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2010 @ 2:01pm

    Re:

    Ha! This is so funny because it is so true.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  20. icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 4:08pm

    I don't see what's the big deal. There's a solution that anyone can apply, it's really simple, everybody wins and the corporations are happy:





    (scroll down for solution:)





    We're no strangers to love
    You know the rules and so do I
    A full commitment's what I'm thinking of
    You wouldn't get this from any other guy

    I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling
    Gotta make you understand

    Never gonna give you up
    Never gonna let you down
    Never gonna run around and desert you
    Never gonna make you cry
    Never gonna say goodbye
    Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.