Did Hollywood Not Use Available DMCA Tools Just To Pretend It Needed SOPA?
from the transparency's-a-bitch dept
The more you dig into Google's new copyright transparency reports the more eye-catching info you find. Julian Sanchez, for example, has noticed the rather interesting timing of massive explosions in Hollywood studios using Google's DMCA takedown system for search... in correlation with key elements of the fight to get SOPA passed. For example, there's a really big spike in DMCA takedowns for search the week of November 14th.Hmmm... what happened that week? Oh, that's right: the House Judiciary Committee hearings about SOPA, where part of the "evidence" for why SOPA was needed was the MPAA's anti-piracy boss Michael O'Leary insisting that doing Google searches on certain movies led you to links to pages where you could download unauthorized copies. He was wrong, actually -- as our own tests showed, they took you to legal versions. But isn't it interesting to see that, for example, the very first search takedown that Lionsgate sent to Google happened on November 15th? Similarly, it's interesting to see that right after the SOPA blackouts made it clear that SOPA was going to die... there's another new "burst" of takedown filings. Twentieth Century Fox appears not to have used the system at all until January 30th of this year -- or a week or so after SOPA was officially declared dead. How about Paramount Pictures, one of the more vocal supporters of SOPA? It filed just one search takedown prior to the whole SOPA debate. But about a month after SOPA was declared dead, suddenly Paramount started using the tool. NBC Universal certainly had been a regular user of the system all along -- but right after SOPA died, its usage clearly trended upwards -- whereas prior to that, its usage looked pretty flat.
In other words, you could certainly make a reasonable case that the studios went to Congress to complain about how they couldn't get rid of search results they don't like from Google... when they hadn't even tried to use the tools available which appear to do the job they wanted.
There certainly may be other factors, but it's possible that the studios had been holding back on using the tools as a way of providing extra "evidence" of a problem that had to be addressed by law. Again, as Sanchez points out:
How about before you break the Internet, you try USING THE F***ING TOOLS YOU ALREADY HAVE?A reasonable question, but don't expect a reasonable answer.
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: dmca, hollywood, house judiciary committee, michael o'leary, sopa
Companies: google, lionsgate, mpaa, nbc universal, paramount pictures, twentieth century fox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The MPAA merely lobbies for the studios in Congress and represents them as the hated face to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess the RIAA does not hire IT people with practical minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Digital Emmigrants
Obviously nobody at the RIAA/MPAA knows how to use the internet. I'll bet they don't even have IT people. Likely there's only a couple dozen computers in the office(s), and when they need to transfer data from one to another they use floppy disks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Digital Emmigrants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Digital Emmigrants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Digital Emmigrants
They can't, remember? Don't copy that floppy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It's Broken: Google Is Now Fielding 300,000 Takedown Requests a Week..."
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120524google#5UW6JXhgpqIADM-5Rv1rQg
30 0 Hundred Thousand PER Week... oh, yeah, that's not a problem...
- signed, your friend, from digital music news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How is this great news for Google again? I mean logging the time to go through each complaint must cost them a good amount of money.
Though the other issue is this this solution came into effect from the RIAA's lobbying so even if new laws did pass for copyright enforcement, they'll probably be just as half assed as this DMCA system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since they're clearly automated and are so often targeted against legal content that Google have to hire people to manually process them... yes, it is a problem. It's also a great example of how merely fighting the supply of pirated content is a fool's game if you don't actually listen to what customers want and try to restrict them instead of providing a legal, unrestricted supply.
In case you want to start going "but, Amazon, Spotify, etc.": Google is global and most of the pirated content is available from countries that have few or even zero legal options for digital content. The industry's own outdated practices are the only thing stopping legal content being available globally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+can+I+remove+a+page+or+site+from+google+search+results%3F
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that was the case, the drop off in dcma takedowns could indicate that they had something big set up ready to replace dcma, waiting for the word on sopa, would explain the next day take down of megaupload, pettinace......all conjecture offcourse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1st(my favorite), they likely had their heads inserted so far up their backsides that they completely ignored the tools already present.
2nd, they knew of the tools but were too lazy/cheap to make efficient use of them.
3rd, they were too busy suing anyone or anything.
This could go on and on. Regardless of why, the Studios and their Puppet Masters, the MPAA and RIAA, willfully ignored/refused to use tools already available. Stupid is as stupid does!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, would they have used the options in SOPA, or waited another year or two (complaining the whole time that SOPA wasn't enough) until they got the next law passed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DHS Asked Gas Pipeline Firms To Let Attackers Lurk Inside Networks
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/05/07/2058243/dhs-asked-gas-pipeline-firms-to-let-atta ckers-lurk-inside-networks
"While the main motive behind the request is likely to gain information on the attackers, letting them stay close to critical systems is dangerous."
I think part of the reason could be that they want the networks to get hacked so they can find reason to push through more bad legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
or it could just be exposing the truth...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA tools are, at best, very temporary solutions to bigger problems. The time required to track down, report, and get an actual removal from Google is pretty high. To document it, track each page, make sure that the site in question does in fact infringe, etc... it's all work. When they don't do all that work perfectly, you are first in line to redicule them for using automated tools.
The "tools" don't accomplish the job. They merely move the problem around from page to page and site to site, as "users" upload more pirated or copyright material.
Trust me, if DMCA really worked, they would be killing with it. It's not working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you'd prefer a system where they don't have to check if there's infringement, and where they can force all search engines to remove ENTIRE sites from search, even if they have tons of non-infringing content?
Yeah, that seems reasonable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, it's amusing that this AC also ignores the other tools the MAFIAA can use to fight with piracy without any stupid draconian law: make it more readily and easily available, in more formats and without abyssal-dumb DRM or region restriction.
The problem with using Google takedown tools and the ones I mentioned is that they'll require both effort and accepting less profit per sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It seems VERY reasonable, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Signed,
The American Public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So I happen to agree that the DMCA is a sign of a much, much bigger problem. But we should not ignore copyright laws. We should get them fundamentally changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no problems moral or otherwise in doing so, I can't possibly find a reason to respect any granted monopoly existence in this day and age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not in a free country, no.
If you want to live in a place where everything you do or say has to be pre-approved by those in power, than that's your choice. But that's not a place I would choose to live.
It seems much more reasonable to me for those asserting broad monopoly rights over something to prove those rights are legitimate, and when asking for someone else to be censored to show clear and definitive proof of harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How about asking the police to police themselves?
Or Congresscritters?
One of three major industries in the US is policed by themselves: Entertainment, Oil and Insurance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ever heard the expression "innocent until proven guilty"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hence why, in most Justice's opening statements, it's said, "You stand here accused of [insert crime here]".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the reality isn't quite so rosy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your legal standing in a court of law doesn't make your actions rights. It just makes you point meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, for a whole lot of reasons. But let's get to the bottom line: I think it's wrong for an industry to demand that third parties engaging in legal activities shoulder the burden and expense that is required to support the industry's preferred business model.
If it's so essential that this be done, it should be done by the industry that its important to, not shoved off on a different industry altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
IP holders are in a far better position to do this than others because IP holders are in a much better position to determine whether something infringes on their IP privileges or not. If it's so expensive for IP holders to do this then imagine how much more expensive it must be for service providers to do this.
"Shouldn't it be those who choose to use and profit from content that should be required to show that they have rights, not the other way around?"
No. That's like saying that the mail delivery system, which 'uses and profits' from mail deliveries, should be the ones required to show that they have the rights to deliver everything they deliver and that they aren't delivering any infringing or illegal items. If anything, the ones sending contraband should be the ones to be punished.
The overwhelming majority of the material that the post office delivers is perfectly legal, just like the overwhelming majority of content that Google and others host is perfectly legal. Google doesn't profit from infringing content any more than the post office does. Requiring Google to police all of its content in the way that you desire is like requiring the post office to open every package and research every delivery to make sure that nothing illegal or infringing makes it through. It would either bankrupt the post office or make the process so expensive that it would stop the overwhelming majority of perfectly legal deliveries from being delivered. The same thing with Youtube. But that's what you want to do to Youtube, you aren't interested in stopping infringement, you want to stop competition altogether. Since it's impossible for Google to police content as thoroughly as you would like them to without substantially reducing the amount of content being uploaded (since every piece of uploaded content must be viewed by a Google staff and then thoroughly researched and negotiated to make sure that it's not infringing) your proposal will effectively prevent many many people from uploading perfectly legal content for no good reason.
Actually, I responded to your request before, you are likely the same shill I responded to before. Here is my response again.
"The overwhelming majority of uploaded content is non-infringing and days of content are uploaded every minute. It's prohibitively expensive for service providers to hire someone to manually watch and review all of the content and then to magically determine which parts of that content are infringing before posting it. But that's what admittedly you want. Which will necessarily prevent the overwhelming majority of that (perfectly legal) content from being uploaded by making it too expensive for most users to get most of their content uploaded and reviewed. All of the (perfectly legal) content that doesn't get uploaded as a result hurts the creators and uploaders of that content and it hurts all of those people who would otherwise view that content. But, again, this is what you admittedly want. You truly are selfish. Your very own words express your selfishness, you don't even do a good job hiding it with what you say. You make for a terrible PR person."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120406/02303918400/viacom-didnt-actually-win-against- youtube-appeals-court-ruling-is-still-dangerous.shtml#c363
(more responses are there too).
Why should IP holders get an IP privilege (something entirely provided to them by government at taxpayer expense) and require everyone else to hold all of the burden of enforcing this privilege.
IP is opt out, it's virtually impossible for a service provider to know what's infringing since everything is protected by default, especially given the volume of uploaded content. and since the overwhelming majority of content is non-infringing and Google makes almost all of its money from non-infringing content (and likely spends far more money policing infringing content in labor costs than any money they allegedly make from it), it's far far far easier for IP holders to identify infringing content than it is for a third party. At the very least the burden should be on IP holders to enforce their own privileges, they should be thankful that our bought government even provides them with any privileges (a privilege that I think ought to be abolished), if they can't be bothered to police their own content then the least they can do is forgo their privileges. IP holders aren't required to do anything to let others know what constitutes infringing content, they aren't required to opt in anywhere so that service providers can better reference the content and have a starting point to further investigate whether or not it's infringement, they should hold such requirements, it's the least they can do, but instead they want to force everyone else to police their privileges. That's typical of IP holders, they're lazy, they want all of these free unowed monopoly privileges and they want everyone else to undergo all of the expense and do all of the work required to enforce their privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then we should go back to "opt-in" copyright. You have to register the copyright and re-register after x many years. That way a comprehensive database could be established so everyone would know the copyright status of a work instead of the murky waters we have today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, it's amusing that this AC also ignores the other tools the MAFIAA can use to fight with piracy without any stupid draconian law: make it more readily and easily available, in more formats and without abyssal-dumb DRM or region restriction.
The problem with using Google takedown tools and the ones I mentioned is that they'll require both effort and accepting less profit per sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ;-D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ;-D
Ouch! Bad things!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright is such a failure in it's present incarnation that nothing can work. You need to cut copyright back to maybe 3 years IF claimed + 3 years extension IF claimed.
Without respect from the public the system cannot work.
Just admit you overreached and lets make something that people can live with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they did their jobs accurately then even with SOPA they would still need to track down and report their links and to also then have the ISPs remove the links or block them (And you think that it would be less than the mere 11 hours it takes google on average to remove a link?)
You don't understand, the tools do the job, they remove the infringing works. If we had SOPA people would still move the "problem" around from page to page and site to site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, "reading things" is obviously very hard for some people, so I can see your point.
Are we talking about a fair process to address sources of unlicensed media or a murder weapon? I'm guessing the latter.
From their communications it looks like what your handlers really need (want) a "way back" button that works as effectively on others as it does on themselves. I'm pretty sure they were all on the leading fringe of that generation that so quickly switched maxims from "No War" to "Lawyer Up". However, it would appear that they did, in fact, take the brown acid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at the advantages...DMCA takedowns cost them nothing, yet they spend millions in lawsuits and "educational" programs that produce little to no results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or you could tell me which option is cheaper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "tools" don't accomplish the job. They merely move the problem around from page to page and site to site, as "users" upload more pirated or copyright material.
Trust me, if DMCA really worked, they would be killing with it. It's not working."
I have two words for this:
TOO FUCKING BAD.
The DMCA is a law that HOLLYWOOD ITSELF PUSHED FOR. So boo-fucking-hoo if its "too difficult" and doesn't "accomplish the job."
How about this? We abolish the DMCA (which you seem to validate, since you yourself claim its not working) and go back to the way things were with good old bog-standard copyright infringement enforcement. Private party, civil cases, run through a court and a judge from discovery to trial. Oh thats right. Before the DMCA, NO PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WAS EVER SUED FOR INFRINGEMENT.
And no, answering "ratchet up enforcement further" is not a valid, or even a good, answer to the problem.
The Avengers made $1 billion (and counting!) in just a few weeks.
PIRACY IS NOT THE PROBLEM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
TOO FUCKING BAD.
Which word doesn't count as a word? :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DMCA doesn't work because of underlying problems and you want to augment those problems by eliminating due process?
You said right there automated tools don't get it right and you want to make it easier for those tools to make those mistakes and get away with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I personally hope that everything they claim ownership to is 100% expunged from the net.
It will make more room for new people with REAL talent and NEW ideas.
The techno-illiterate can still drag their lard-asses to a meat-space "theater" somewhere and pay a month's horse and buggy assembly-line wages to watch the latest "car chase and terrist blowing shit-up release" if they really need to be retro (a.k.a. obsolete). Who gives a fuck? Thinning of the herd is what it's all about.
The old-school idustry a.k.a. "Hollywood" is killing itself. Let them. It will soon all be over except for the bad smell of rotting dead formerly-rich cigar-chewing morons. We can feed the remains to the sharks (how fitting!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The timing of the lack of requests really does seem like they were purposely letting things go, in order to make the situation seem worse.
Couple this in with the prior article on all of this being shunted onto Google's shoulders, and not any of the other search engines that frequently challenge 'people doing not so smart things' and it seems pretty clear that they were either conspiring to cry wolf.
Was there not an article on here yesterday about the housing market and a group trying to gang up on another database search site for housing that earned their ire? Is this not in some way against the law? I guess they would have to show there was a conspiracy to do so.
But as an aside: Whenever I see articles on piracy, I just like to think that a lot of the piracy is apparently corporate piracy - given the amount of law suits between companies for patents, either upon how similar something looks, or the code/parts inside of it.
And that makes me imagine some boardroom of these companies walking around with parrots on their shoulders, going 'Arrr' to everything, with a Jolly Roger hanging on the back wall.
But it makes me sad, since I know it probably isn't the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Gov look out you are screwing with the Public and the Public is slowly waking up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they appear to want is roll back time to pre-1980 where they were the _only_ source of media, and in total control of pricing and terms.
DVRs, Streaming Media, etc... they want it ALL GONE so they don't have to spend any more time/money on Government lobbying, DMCA takedowns, and anything similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too much credit
I mean, do you really think they bothered to understand the laws they passed last time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A penalty is needed.
If there was just one little addition to the law that said if a copyright claimant is incorrect about the claim, or not the legal copyright holder or authorized in writing to act on behalf of the rights holder, then such organization or person shall be barred from filing any future DMCA claims against any web site. Perhaps then they'd actually have a human screen the claims and verify the content before submitting it.
There is not any incentive for the claimant to be correct if there is not something to lose on their end. Losing future use of the DMCA for rights holder that file false or incorrect claims because of bot hits, and not having a human verify the claim before submitting it, would end most all abuses of DMCA. Everyone else on the receiving end of a DMCA notice has something to lose. That should work both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]