RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google
from the pebkac dept
With the release of Google's copyright transparency report recently, which helped highlight some astoundingly stupid DMCA takedown notices -- including a few from the RIAA -- you just knew the RIAA would have to lash out in response. But the question was what angle would it take. Now we know: it's simply making things up.The RIAA put up a blog post in which it listed out "five facts" to attack Google's transparency report claims. Except, this is RIAA math. If you actually read the "facts" you realize they're basically two points repeated over and over again: (1) Google limits how many searches they can do to find infringing material. (2) Google limits how many infringing domains it can report via its Webmaster tools.
There's a big problem with both of those claims (beyond the fact that "two" does not equal "five"). It's that neither "fact" appears to be really accurate. Google does have some tools that limit crawlers from automated searches, and perhaps the RIAA has been using such tools to try to find infringement. That would certainly explain its decision to DMCA reviews from media sites of musicians, or official release videos from artists' own accounts. Of course, that would also subject the RIAA to claims of falsifying DMCA notices, since they have to swear that they have a good faith belief that there really is infringing material on those sites, and they can't do that if they don't actually look at them.
As for the limits on submissions, well, as Ars Technica points out the only "limit" appears to be how many URLs can be submitted in a single submission. That seems to be 1,000 per shot:
But there's no indication that you can't just go back and then list out the next 1,000. There may be a few other safeguards within a separate program that Google has with "trusted" partners, but even then it appears to just be how many URLs can be submitted in a single batch, rather than a total limit. In fact, as Google told SearchEngineLand, the RIAA is simply wrong, and there are no actual restrictions besides how many URLs can be submitted at once:
We have never imposed any limit on the number of DMCA notices that a copyright owner or reporting organization may send us, although we do have some technical safeguards in our trusted partner program (where submitters may be using automated mechanisms to send large volumes) as a safeguard against accidental flooding of the system.And if you need any more proof that the RIAA is completely full of it, you just need to look at Google's own transparency report, where it shows that Microsoft filed more than five times as many DMCA takedowns as the RIAA and NBC Universal filed twice as many:
It seems that even if there was "a limit", which there does not appear to be, then the RIAA is not coming anywhere close to that limit anyway.
In other words, we can sum up the RIAA's complaint about Google's copyright transparency report as being "the transparency report is wrong, because we're clueless about how to work your tools." Given the RIAA's general (lack of) understanding about technology, perhaps that's not too surprising. But it is amusing to see them so stringently and publicly display their ignorance.
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, takedown, transparency report
Companies: google, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
RIAA wants a button that says "What has Google done for the RIAA today?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So in other words, when google becomes evil/icompetent in fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean Google gets to keep 13% more of the profits than the artists who actually write their music? They'll never go for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you click it a message pops up "Piracy has been stopped!"
Then two seconds later a message pops up "Oh noes! They've figured a way to work around our measure! Click the button!"
Repeat as necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Genius!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hummmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hummmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hummmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hummmmmm
go away! batin'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hummmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hummmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Good faith belief"
Hmmm. I'm not completely convinced by this. I could have a "good faith belief" in something based on a two-stage process. Something like "the software told me so" plus "the software is carefully written, has been well-tested, and has always been right in the past". Of course, you would need *both* parts, not just the first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Good faith belief"
Software is just code. It has no belief in anything, therefore it cannot say it has good faith on whether something is infringing on copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
I thought every judge already did this since they never ever ask for any proof for accuracy.
They just don't say it out loud but that is exactly how the system works today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Good faith belief"
"The software told me so" is 100% falling back on some person.
Also, the proof that the program will almost never make any errors is quite a task to provide. If you do know of systematic errors of any kind in the code or lack of safety towards certain legal uses (This is actually more or less impossible to avoid to some extend!), the program should not be able to be accepted as sufficient to have "good faith".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
After all, there's still quite a push to expand from voting by software to voting over the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
You will rarely see actual stats about the hit to miss ratio for larger organizations, most of them probably do a very good job, and get mostly tripped up by dynamic pages and shifting URLs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
...or not:
- Efficient Process or "Chilling Effects"? (PDF)
dynamic pages and shifting URLs
...which are not indexed by most search engines. (It's why Apache has mod_rewrite.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Good faith belief"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ONLY way to satisfy the MAFIAA is simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ONLY way to satisfy the MAFIAA is simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The ONLY way to satisfy the MAFIAA is simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ONLY way to satisfy the MAFIAA is simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google actually had posted a wonderful video on YouTube explaining in detail how to use these tools. Unfortunately, someone had turned on a radio in the background for two seconds toward the beginning of the training video and the audio was captured on the recording. The RIAA started to watch the training video, but just by reflex they issued a takedown notice as soon as they heard the music (but way before the fat lady sang) and that was that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe if the RIAA were more careful with the amount of requests they issue, it wouldn't be such a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bummer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google shouldn't have any limits on DMCA reporting, the law does not allow. There is no indication from the screen shots that the 1000 is repeatable from the same account, nor that it would not just remove the previous 1000 reported and replace it with the new ones (effectively killing the process).
Limiting searches would also seem to be a very nice way to support piracy, making it harder for rights owners to search Google for infringing material.
You can make fun of them all you like, but perhaps it would be better if you sat down and just tried to figure out how fucking huge their job is, and why Google being gently obstructionist is a pain in the ass for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come back once you have legitimate criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
NBC isn't listed as have any proxies, so they are the better example of why RIAAs argument is garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They can't complain about a limit when on average they are shy of the limit by nearly 10%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And then remember all of the John Doe warrant requests on IP addresses and decided that they wanted to make the ISP's and courts do that job for them too. Not to mention the grandmothers and other blameless people that were crucified by those meaningless charges.
So, I finally decided that if the RIAA needed better VOLUNTARY assistance, maybe another search engine would do one for them. What's a good limit by the way? 1000 at a pop? 10000? 100000? Seems to me that from a coding verification level, you would want some limit on each single use.
All in all, nice try but, I not buying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Google: Sure, what for?
RIAA: The entire internet.
Google: .....And this is why we have a 1000 limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can make fun of them all you like, but perhaps it would be better if YOU sat down and just tried to figure out how fucking huge Google's' job is, and why the RIAA is a huge pain in the ass for them.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually following the law? That's their problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying Google is breaking the law by providing tools that make it easier for the RIAA to submit DMCA take down requests? They are breaking the law when they then review and remove the link from their index?
If you're not saying that, please be specific in what laws they are breaking and under what circumstances. I'm dying to hear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, there may be a limit, but despite their outcry over the limit and their outcry over how huge a problem piracy is and oh woe is them... somehow, despite all their bitching about how no one is wanting to help them all, despite all the tools available at their disposal, and all the tools they want made in the future, and all the tools they've abused that were custom tailored to suit their needs... they ARE NOT even remotely making an effort on their own part to help others help them.
They are literally the most entitled people on the planet. They bitch about a problem that has arisen from their own inability to change or even want to meet the demands of changing markets, they push for a specific law to enable them to have things taken down, they push for specific tools to allow them to benefit from the law they themselves pushed for and DESPITE all this they refuse to even try and do anything about the problem. Other than act like whiny little bitches. They literally want everyone else to foot the bill for their perceived problem (regarding enforcement), they want others to do the work (also regarding enforcement and takedowns) and so on and so forth.
We will indeed keep making fun of them all we like. Why? Because they are a group who deserves to be made fun of. Not only are they hypocrites, they are lazy hypocrites with a bigger sense of entitlement than even the worst pirates.
And it's funny you say "Google shouldn't have any limits on DMCA reporting, the law does not allow". Really? Google is one of the companies who has gone above and beyond what is required by the law, yet you still find reason to complain? Sheesh. Would you like to share with the class what exactly everyone and their mothers need to do (except the RIAA and the studios and the labels... because why should they do any work or make any change themselvse) to make you and them (the previously mentioned) happy? Is it a magical "stop all piracy" button? Maybe worldwide genocide (so if we're all dead, none of us can pirate)? I'm legitimately curious. I honestly can say whatever you say will be ridiculous and I'll laugh out loud at, but I'd like to hear it anyway. Because I'm just a nice guy like that. : )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The math doesn't work on these assumptions. RIAA submitted 443,738 over the past year. If they were capped a 1000 per day, then that number couldn't be higher than 365,000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Capped at 1000 per day
Anyway, the reason why they can get such high numbers is because members the RIAA employ companies to file the takedown notices on their behalf. Luckily these companies reveal who they work for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guilty 'till you have proven that noone can rightfully claim that there is a problem is just a disgusting dictatorial way of thinking. You should be ahamed of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They also have to pay people to monitor what DMCA takedowns they receive.
The RIAA wants to take a back seat and make everyone work for them instead of adding to the effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, reading or looking into the issue is good. Google said in blatant terms, there is no limit. You can only add 1000 at a time to prevent the system from getting flooded and breaking down. You can submit 1000 as many times as you want.
Google limits all automated searches to prevent abuse. Any competent IT person limits things like e-mail login attempts, connections, etc etc to prevent systems from being abused.
Your understanding of basic IT needs an upgrade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thats just it bub, there is no law specifically to this situation, there is no law saying google cant limit DCMA takedowns to 1000 a pop, and there is no law that says that they are required by law, google has every right by your logic, because there is in fact no law right now specific for one way or the other.
And last time i checked, RIAA doesnt create the laws in your country, or am i wrong on that one?
Now your probably thinking, we should know that this is the right thing to do, and the only reason someone would say otherwise is if their pirates, or, (for the more open minded ones, of your kin folk), POSSIBLE pirates.
We're just trying to protect our way of life, right.
Absolutely, but piracy is way, way, waaaay down on that LIST, what we want is the right to be heard, that goes for you too bub, and through THAT right, we have the OPPORTUNITY to add our voices to the things we feel is'nt right, ESPECIALLY, when seing something we feel strongly about having no opposing voice, i mean none whatsoever
People vs Government vs, or, and Corporations
We're in a three legged race, everyones fighting for who has the most rights, and in most cases, for one to gain a right, another must loose it, guess whos been picked to lose em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, Sancho, we realize Mr. Quixote has innumerable windmills ahead of him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just so you know, this is completely false. Companies may place limits on DMCA notices all they want.
In fact, companies are not required to go through the DMCA process at all. It is completely voluntary. The only thing you gain from following the DMCA, is automatic immunity from secondary liability. On the other hand, if you don't follow the DMCA process, that doesn't necessarily mean you're liable for infringement.
Does placing a limit on the number of requests mean you didn't follow the DMCA? Don't know - there's no mention of it in the statutes. If that limit is there for technical reasons (e.g. to keep your database from crashing), then almost certainly it wouldn't. But even if it does, it's doubtful that any judge would find you liable in any case.
Of course, that's all moot, since Google only caps the number of takedown requests per form, and you can submit multiple forms per day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oops, my bad. It turns out that if those limitations are there for technical reasons, the service provider absolutely is covered under the DMCA. It's in 512(i)(2)(C).
So, you're completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, infact i think that should be a law :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crawlers and Bots
Told you they used bots with poor parsers to do it :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some book reviews.
Reviewed by: Cary Sherman
1/5
This book makes no fucking sense!
The Internet For Dummies
Reviewed by: Cary Sherman
1/5
This book makes no fucking sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Issue the DMCA notice to Google at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bots
I seem to not be able to find my comment with the experiment anywhere on this site.
It took 3 days for a DCMA takedown request of my comment which provided absolutely no link:
"Torrent Download The Avengers Free".
The article here states that Web crawlers and bots being used was the possible reason for such an influx of DCMA takedown notices to google.
So now that we have Disney's attention, let's see if I can't provoke another company under the RIAA......Say Sony BMG
"Download Torrent Michael Jackson Entire Discography Free"
Happy hunting RIAA :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Page Not Found
But preserved by the Wayback Machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]