MPAA Threatens To Have Google Disconnected From The Internet Over File Sharing?

from the ah,-the-power-of-false-threats dept

Tue, Feb 8th 2011 1:05am — Mike Masnick

While Homeland Security insists that Google is different than the sites whose domain names its seized lately, its agents haven't done a very good job of explaining why (beyond "in our minds, it's different.") However, at least according to the automated script the MPAA uses to warn ISPs of file sharing, perhaps Google isn't all that different. The MPAA -- who, it should be noted -- was a major driver for the domain name seizures -- sends out form letters warning people they could lose their internet access over file sharing, and over at TorrentFreak, they've noticed that Google's been on the receiving end of a bunch of these threats lately. Mostly at issue are situations where people are using Google's free WiFi that's provided mainly in Mountain View, but in some cases it appears to involve employees working from Google's headquarters. Of course, the chances of Google losing internet access over such threats is less than nil, but it's amusing to see the MPAA still include the baseless threat.

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: copyright, disconnection, file sharing, mpaa
Companies: google, mpaa

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:09am

Actually...
This is a genius PR thing, if Google can handle it correctly. They can just say 'Fine, we'll disconnect all your labels from our SEO. Your move.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:35am

Brilliant Idea!
You mean... remove all reference to MPAA's website? Un-indexed? Sounds like a fair punishment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:58am

Quite
Of course, the chances of Google losing internet access over such threats is less than nil, but it's amusing to see the MPAA still include the baseless threat.
The thing I find interesting about that statement is that such a threat against Google has no more or less basis in fact than those against any end user. So why exactly is it a ludicrous threat against google when it's not against a user? The obvious answer is that Google have billions of pounds with which to contest such a claim. Pretty much demonstrates to me that copyright law as it stands at the moment is nothing more than legalised extortion against people that can't possibly defend themselves.
Maybe it's just me, but every time I hear about these letters I have a mental image of Ray Winston standing in a small shop in the East End of London commenting to the owner; (husky menacing cockney accent) "Very... flammable these old places, 'know what I mean...?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 5:21am
  
  Re: Quite
  Since Google was founded and is headquartered in the U.S., I prefer to say they have billions of dollars. Yes, they have plenty of just about any major currency, but there's a certain relevance in using the currency shared with the MPAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not an electronic Rodent, 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re: Quite
    Since Google was founded and is headquartered in the U.S., I prefer to say they have billions of dollars.
    A fair point and a slip on my part, but then $ wouldn't have fitted my East End gangster reference quite so well would it? I meant they can afford to defend themselves against threats better than the average guy on the street.
    To keep my slightly silly mental image running, think the shopkeeper in question replying to Mr. Winston "I don't know nuffink about that guvnor you want to talk to Mr. Kray and his bruvver" :-)
    
    Or perhaps in this case you'd prefer "You want to talk to Mr. Wilson and his brothers, Woodrow, Woodrow and Woodrow."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:36pm
    
    Re: Quite
    Since Google was founded and is headquartered in the U.S., I prefer to say they have billions of dollars.
    
    Sounds more impressive in �. The USD isn�t worth as much as it used to be. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:26am
  
  Re: Quite
  Love the reference!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:33am

best laugh so far this week lets see what google do best thing would be to say to the MPAA stick it i would
ISP er google sir sorry but we have to disconnect you
google we will buy you out and the MPAA can stick it
ISP how much?
google enough
ISP ok sir
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceboy (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:14am

Looks like someone's getting too big for their britches! No doubt the asshats at the MPAA have been emboldened by the recent website shutdowns, and their strategy is now clear.

Their goal was never about shutting down these smaller websites, but about setting precedent so they could go after bigger fish. Looks like Google is their first target. Also, to continue with fishing analogies, the MPAA is going to need a bigger boat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:52am
  
  Re:
  I don't think even the MPAA is stupid enough to go after google. I'd say it's just a mistake on the MPAA's end, one they'll back down from pretty quick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - halley (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Okay, I agree that it's just a mistake on MPAA's part to do this. However, this points to a big problem in the cases: they do NO due diligence on vetting these cases. Filing suit, or even sending a C&D, should not be done without a good faith effort. What we have here is a robot-rubber-stamped process that is spamming the legal system. How is this not a DoS attack on the courts?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Spaceboy (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But the goal isn't to shut Google down. It's to extort massive amounts of money from them with the threat of blocking them from the Internet or whatever. The fact that there was no due process for the smaller lesser/unknown websites didn't stop them, it merely emboldened them.
      
      I have no doubt this will backfire on them, they just don't see that yet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jose_X, 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    >> I don't think even the MPAA is stupid enough to go after google
    
    Wrong. There are many who would step up to fill Google's shoes with a more corporate and monopolistic bent if Google could be displaced.
    
    Google gives everyone similar rights, but I can see other candidates who would strike deals with the major players and largely exclude most other people from the show (eg, to be "safe") or tax them unfairly because of their small size.
    
    Wealth has a strong tendency to preservation of it (and more so the more wealth in concentrated in few hands). Those hands don't like anything that resembles fairness.
    
    In fact, without the government -- and people love to hit on the government -- there would be much greater abuse since those with the greatest levers are able to exact the most draconian/biased of contract terms so as to even more convincingly lock in their gains. Once they have you on paper to very unfair terms and locked out of most "rights" and reasonable chance to win things back, your only recourse is physical force. .. And, except in the most extreme of circumstances, wealth buys you better guns, supplies, and manpower.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dave, 9 Feb 2011 @ 5:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "In fact, without the government --" there would be no monopolies. We cede the power to use force to the government, and every monopoly that exists does so only because it is promoted by the government.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 5:34am
  
  Re:
  They could never shut down Google. The public backlash would be deafening if google.com quit working b/c of ICE/MPAA. It would be a PR nightmare of historic proportions for them and the government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 4:12am

The sooner the MPAA and RIAA fall the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 4:48am

That does it...
I'm done. Got a new movie coming out? DON'T CARE! I'm not going to watch it, at the theater, Red Box, Online, NetFlix...nothing. New catchy song? DON'T CARE! I'm not going to listen to it on the raido, torrent it, iTunes it, youtube it...nothing.

I'm past tired of the RIAA/MPAA antics. Supporting them is pretty much like giving cash to a drug addict. They refuse to change their ways, and may get you in legal trouble. So I'm doing to RIAA/MPAA media like I would a drug addict, remove them from my life.

I got better things to spend my money on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 4:50am
  
  Re: That does it...
  (note, raido may possibly be a Freudian slip for what I will do with my cash...lawl)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 5:07am
  
  Re: That does it...
  @ Anonymous Coward - RE: That does it...
  
  You do have alternatives. Might I suggest http://vodo.net/ for original content. I am a fan of Pioneer One myself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:44am
  
  Re: That does it...
  Let me join you my angered comrade. Fuck all them bitches. They want to protect their stupid content beyond limits. Fine, shove your lame ass movies up your ass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 10:29am
  
  Re: That does it...
  I feel the same way, but mostly because I haven't found much worth watching/listening to. I guess turning mid-thirties does that to ya. New Demographic FTW!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 5:17am

All this piss and vinegar from a bunch of people who didn't read the story:

"Of the 100 latest infringement notices received by Google for sharing copyright works, most of them are associated with IP-addresses used by Wi-Fi customers while a few point to Google�s headquarters. "

Some of them are wifi, but some of them are also Google employee computers. It doesn't matter who the company is, this is truly unacceptable behavior. What you choose to do in your own home is your own legal issue, but doing it at work, well...

It pays to read the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 5:52am
  
  Re:
  Do you know how many State government PCs a month are removed from the network for "sharing illegal content"? When I worked in state government it was about 28%. 99.9 times out of 100 it was the machines were infected with viruses. Just because they point to IPs on the Google intranet doesn't mean they are consciously infringing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    You would think that the brains at Google would know how to keep a computer from getting infected (don't they use linux anyway?). That should not be an issue for them.
    
    You are saying that 28% of state government computers were dropped offline each month for illegal file sharing (and not any other issue)?
    
    Are they so poorly setup, lacking basic anti-virus software that they get hacked at a rate like that? That would be major news, you better call your local TV station for coverage. That would be a very serious situation!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:31am
  
  Re:
  Maybe you should count yourself among those who didn't read the article. It says that there has been a spike in the number of infringement notices Google has been receiving. Either the number of people filesharing has suddenly spiked or the MPAA is looking at bigger targets.
  
  Occam's razor applies here. The MPAA has had success with smaller websites and now they are setting up for larger ones.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Occam's razor doesn't mean "apply what you think is right", does it?
    
    Have you considered the simple alternatives, such as increases in people using wi-fi in the area to lower their risk of getting caught pirating? Perhaps Google hiring new people who are less up on corporate policy? Perhaps changes in their networks or computers that allow employees more freedom (and thus maybe more viruses)?
    
    Perhaps the MPAA people have started to specifically work an area that they noticed a bunch of file sharing coming from. Perhaps they know it's Google's wi-fi network and want to get the media talking about the negatives of open wifi connections.
    
    There are plenty of possiblities on the wi-fi side, fewer on the Google corporate office side.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:40am
  
  Re:
  It also pays to understand the technology.
  
  What is the methodology of these automated 'We detected an infringement' letters? Do they actually connect to the IP and download all or part of the file?
  
  Many bit torrent trackers are inserting random IPs into their tables. That's how you get network printer IPs that are 'detected' or how people without computers (but cable service) are sued.
  
  What if the IP is the external address of a NAT? There could be hundreds of hosts behind that NAT and no way to tell which it was.
  
  Heck, it could even be a honeypot machine designed to capture malware for study in order to prevent end users from getting it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
reader, 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:24am

I hope it end up with MPAA takeover by Google and then reduced to nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:43am

From the torrentfreak article Mike linked to:
Every year, the major movie studios and record labels send out tens of thousands of warnings to Internet users who are suspected of sharing their content using BitTorrent. These infringement notices are meant to inform users of their wrongdoings, and to convince the recipients to never download anything again.

The process works as follows. The copyright holders hire companies such as BayTSP and MediaSentry to track down people who share certain titles on BitTorrent and other file-sharing networks. These companies then join the swarm and request files from others. When someone shares a piece of the file with them, they log the IP-address, look up the ISP and send out an infringement notice automatically.

Most of the notices are sent out to the larger ISPs who are then asked to forward them to the customers in question . . . .
Here's what I don't get... the ISPs are complaining about the IP lookups in the mass infringement cases. Time Warner, for example, told a judge they can only lookup 28 IP addresses a month total for two cases combined. Another big ISP (I can't remember which), told a judge it costs them $120 per lookup. If that's the case, how is it that the ISPs can do "tens of thousands" of lookups for these automatically-generated infringement notices, but when faced with a court order to do the same, it's too big a burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re:
  Part of that is to do with Dynamic IP changes. Still, I agree with you on the fact that it magically appears that the ISPs are doing these lookups for the MAFIAA pro bono, as it were.
  
  But if it's so expensive, then who's doing the lookups?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:51am
  
  Re:
  If that's the case, how is it that the ISPs can do "tens of thousands" of lookups for these automatically-generated infringement notices, but when faced with a court order to do the same, it's too big a burden?
  
  Very likely because providing information as a result of a court ordered subpoena is an entirely different situation than sending an automated scary email.
  
  Providing incorrect information to the court - there's possibly a perjury charge there. So multiple databases need to be crosschecked by a human being to insure accuracy to the best of their ability.
  
  Automated infringement notice? Blast off scary email message to 1000 users based on the first hit of an IP lookup. Meh, anyone can write a script to do that. Worst that happens is you scare some people into using less of the ISP's precious bandwidth, or you generate a few calls to your outsourced customer service call center.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:48am

Better get MS, Apple, unix, etc off too
It all those nasty operating systems that facility the piracy. Better stop those too.

Hell even hardware manufactures are in on piracy facility game too. Stop them.

Your eyes allow you to see pirated stuff better poke them out for good measure. And your ears so you can not hear with out paying the RIAA for certified hearing aid.

I think a far better solution would be to cut the internet off to the all MPAA/RIAA offices, staffs, homes and lawyers.

It is all well and nice to try to protect your investments but trying to hold everyone else accountable for you bad business models and expectations of profit is just unrealistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:01am

Um, this is kind of an important bit, but Google IS an ISP. They own lines all over the world, and they only have one customer, themselves. How exactly are they going to get them to remove themselves from the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:14am

This is a whole lot of NOTHING
This is just comical. The MPAA just has an automated process that targeted Google on accident. They have no intention of threatening or extorting anything from Google. Attacking Google over copyrights would basically be the same as declaring war on the net. The MPAA would then have to threaten Yahoo and Microsoft as well as any other major search engines.

That alone would bring enough of a firestorm on the doorstep of nearly every politician in the world and certainly change A LOT of views about copyright laws. The MPAA doesn't want reductions in copyright laws or to lose any political strength it has right now.

So take it for what it is, a comical mistake that just shows the MPAA has no real clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOLs, 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:29am

Let me get this straight:

Google could walk in and probably buy out the entire organization with pocket cash. Following said purchase, it would then proceed to fist the rear end of every head of the MPAA.

And the MPAA is trying to dictate to the eighty-thousand pound juggernaut in the room?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:47am

Then people will use Yahoo, Bing, or whatever.

Doesn't matter.

It's like someone saying that you'll stop murder if you ban guns.

Theft has been around a lot longer than the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mrtraver (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:35pm

Google has one word for the MPAA:
Bring it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe coool (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 12:17pm

Go sue the Chinese Government and the rest of the 3rd world
see how far that MPAA can harras , or MPAA just wipe their butts and knees down and pray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe coool (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 12:20pm

Anal Coward
Anal coward , go wipe my butt !!! for your non sense !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe coool (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 2:19pm

Why Google ? You are desperate ! barking at wrong tree !! you 're greedy ! why don't MPAA go to the Chinese, Russian Goverments and beg them for not copying your stuffs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe coool (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 2:19pm

Why Google ? You are desperate ! barking at wrong tree !! you 're greedy ! why don't MPAA go to the Chinese, Russian Goverments and beg them for not copying your stuffs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]