RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google

from the pebkac dept

Fri, Jun 1st 2012 10:36am — Mike Masnick

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

84 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:39am

RIAA will bitch and moan until Google comes up with "Click here to stop piracy" link in their reporting tools.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
big al, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:42am

hummmmmm
"you can't fix stupid" proved true again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:43am

Re:
In other words, when Google becomes a good guy in their eyes and does all the work for them.
RIAA wants a button that says "What has Google done for the RIAA today?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:46am

Re:
RIAA will bitch and moan until Google gives them 87% of all profits and rights to all Google copyrights/trademarks/patents.

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:46am

Re:
Actually, Google should on April 1st should have a "Click HERE to stop piracy" button.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:54am

So basically the RIAA is bitching that it can't kill more then 1000 urls in one shot. Poor Poor RIAA I feel so sad for them, NOT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:54am

"Good faith belief"
"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."

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 thread ]
sehlat (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:55am

The ONLY way to satisfy the MAFIAA is simple.
Shut down the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glen, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:00am

RIAA: You mean we have to actually learn how to use the tools Google supplies? Damn!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Genius!
I would like another "Insightful" button for this post so I can mark it doubly insightful...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:04am

Re:
And that they can't find more infringing material on any given site because google limits the number of searches they can do per day. Which makes a lot of sense, because there are no other search engines besides google and everyone knows that it's impossible to access a site without having gone through google first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:04am

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2181693/riaa-tackles-google-piracy-takedowns

It all gets a big 'whatever' from Google, where these claims have been routinely dismissed. "We have never imposed any limit on the number of DMCA notices that a copyright owner or reporting organisation may send us," said a spokesperson, with the suggestion that in some cases the system can be flooded with requests from rightsholders.
"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."

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 thread ]
ahow628 (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:05am

Bummer
I tried to leave a comment on the RIAA blog post, but they limit the number of comments I can leave.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:09am

Re: Re:
Just going to leave that here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Re:
Dammit my sarc tag license expired!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:16am

Re: Re:
It's funny how the RIAA limit their consumer base, then cry when they become the victims of "limitation."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:20am

Re: "Good faith belief"
Not a chance in hell. There is no way saying the "software told me so" would ever be accepted by a judge. Good faith belief requires that a human has checked and swears that the link is infringing.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:22am

The RIAA is looking for an "All" button. They just want to report every website and then let the websites prove they are innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:25am

Re:
The RIAA just needs an "EASY" button. Too bad Staples already owns the rights to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:28am

given how clueless the RIAA obviously are with modern technology at Google (that was probably designed specifically for them, given the constant whining they do over illegal searches and downloading etc) to save themselves looking, if possible, even more stupid and achieve at the same time what they have been trying to for years, why dont they design and launch their own internet? they can have it do exactly what they want, they can have it look exactly how they want, they can allow on to it exactly who they want, when they want and, most importantly of all, they can have those they have allowed on to it to download only what they have been told they can. think of the shit that is going to stop everyone else getting and the amount of money they keep insisting they are losing from being lost. if that doesn't change, at least they will know exactly who was doing what and when!! no charges against printers or dead people for spoofing an IP address either!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:39am

Re: "Good faith belief"
Since when has a piece of code been made a person in legal eyes? Meaning: There has to be someone accountable for the actions of the program.
"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:41am

Why dont they split the list of urls hire 100 extra staff, and have 100 people make 100000 DCMA takedowns requests in one go, i mean everyone knows IP laws creates jobs right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:42am

Actually, I think they have a point.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:46am

Re: The ONLY way to satisfy the MAFIAA is simple.
what, the whole thing? :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:47am

Re:
Database fields to store what they are submitting are only so large.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:47am

Re:
Your "point" is obliterated by facts. Microsoft did not have any problem submitting massive amounts of DMCA takedowns.

Come back once you have legitimate criticism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:48am

One click delete, no backsies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:50am

Re:
I see your point and for a moment, seriously thought about it.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:50am

A perjury charge should be filed against them for every time they fail to review the sites and no legitimate cause for take down is discovered. You can't automate something that has the ability to have such a chilling effect on free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:51am

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 their job is, and why Google being gently obstructionist is a pain in the ass for them."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:51am

Re: Re:
+4 Insightful and Funny!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:52am

Re: Re:
1 take down request per form would be a much better way of doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:53am

Re:
And yet, they aren't even coming remotely close to hitting any of those limits... which is a huge point you're missing.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:53am

Re:
I can see this being an appropriate response to each bogus charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:54am

Re: Re:
"when they become a good guy in [the RIAA's eyes"

So in other words, when google becomes evil/icompetent in fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:54am

Re:
"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)."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:59am

Re:
What you are claiming is that you haven't seen proof that Google is not doing anything wrong, when RIAA has not brought even the slightest proof to back their mud slinging...

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 thread ]
Wally (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:01pm

Crawlers and Bots
"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."

Told you they used bots with poor parsers to do it :-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:02pm

Re:
Google is being obstructionist? Are you serious?! Google put 30 million dollar into Youtube to help fight piracy with an updated system.

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 thread ]
Jeremy2020 (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:06pm

Re:
Technology is difficult to understand. If the RIAA wants to develop new database technology that doesn't suffer from limits, give it a license that allows free use then we can talk.

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 thread ]
Wally, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:07pm

Re: Re:Capped at 1000 per day
You would cap them too if you had to manually index through them individually.

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 thread ]
New Mexico Mark, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:12pm

Re:
I'm betting on this scenario:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:14pm

Re: hummmmmm
Maybe not right away but survival of the fittest fixes stupid in the long run.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:17pm

Re: Re: The ONLY way to satisfy the MAFIAA is simple.
Mostly. The RIAA, MPAA and Disney all get to keep their sites. Only we don't call them sites anymore we call them channels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:19pm

RIAA can't find Google's DCMA takedown page because RIAA accidentally Google's takedown page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:22pm

Re:
Can we do the perjury charges is batches of 1000?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re:
With the power of Greasemonkey, this should indeed be possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JarHead, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: hummmmmm
Well, if you ever watched Idiocracy, you'll see that's not the future those guys envisioned. According to the movie, smart people will hold back (read: act responsibly) getting children, while the "less brighter" ones will breed like rabbits. So in the end fools will outbred the smarties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:32pm

Some book reviews.
DCMA Takedown Requests For Dummies
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:46pm

Re:
"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)."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re:
"Can we do the perjury charges is batches of 1000?"

Yeah, infact i think that should be a law :p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Re: hummmmmm
dude... sentients are too harsh.

go away! batin'!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 1:20pm

Re:
perhaps it would be better if you sat down and just tried to figure out how fucking huge his job is

Yes, Sancho, we realize Mr. Quixote has innumerable windmills ahead of him...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re: Re: hummmmmm
Ahh! Thanks. I have been trying to find that movie but forgot the name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re:
I hope they pay Google for creating the button you know because working for free is illegal ... oh wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re:
To be fair, Microsoft is listed as having 6 different reporting organizations helping to submit their take-downs.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 1:32pm

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 thread ]
TasMot (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 2:04pm

Why Issue the DMCA notice to Google at all
It's a really good thing that Google is the only search engine on the Internet. That way, just issue one DMCA notice to Google and the offending material goes away. Oh wait, Google is not hosting the alleged infringing material, somebody else is. Oh wait, Google is not the only search engine either. So, instead of utilizing Google (oh, wait, using Google is free and you can't get anything for free, that's stealing according to RIAA logic), to find the offending sites that contain the alleged infringing material and issuing a DMCA takedown notice to them to remove the infringing material (which would remove it from all the other search engines they are not talking about (like Bing even since Microsoft doesn't even remove the links for the alleged infringement that they issue DMCA notices to Google for). No, instead lets complain that Google is still finding the alleged infringing material that the RIAA is not getting taken off of some other web site. For heaven's sake, I don't EVER want to be the messenger delivering to the RIAA. I bet they have a sign in all the offices, "SHOOT MESSENGERS ON SITE".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rabbit80, 1 Jun 2012 @ 2:05pm

How about all the millions of new Google links that are added daily are passed to the RIAA for approval? If the link is not approved or rejected within 24hrs they are automatically added. If Google could prevent automated responses, this would cost the RIAA a fortune and see the scale of the problems Google faces dealing with the takedowns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
How is it any different than speeding tickets, where cops say "the radar gun told me they were doing 90". Isn't that just "the software told me so" ? Judges accept that every day (not sure that they *should*, but they definitely *do*).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 2:21pm

Re:
It's funny how you use the word "actually," as if you do anything but agree with their points, no matter how stupid they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
While you're quite correct, I don't think many judges (or indeed, a large proportion of the population in general) would agree with you.

After all, there's still quite a push to expand from voting by software to voting over the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand, 1 Jun 2012 @ 2:25pm

Re:
They already did - it's called "Cable".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 2:44pm

Re:
Google shouldn't have any limits on DMCA reporting, the law does not allow.

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 thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 3:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
Even you went too far to show that the RIAA is lying. This links to the RIAA's own page on Google's new transparency reports. There are four important numbers. Their median per week is 5 requests for 4,234 urls. So on average per week they aren't sending 1,000 urls per request. Total requests are 486 but only 443,906 urls, so once again they aren't even getting to the limit of 1,000 urls per request.

They can't complain about a limit when on average they are shy of the limit by nearly 10%.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 3:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Continuing looking at their numbers, it doesn't really even look like there is a limit of 1,000 urls per request. 18 of their last 20 request have had over 1,000 urls. One had over 10,000 urls. What is it that they are complaining about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 4:09pm

Re: hummmmmm
You can fix stupid, all it takes is a quick trip to the vet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 4:23pm

Re: Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
Radar guns operate on absolutes. Infringement is never an absolute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 4:49pm

Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
They only need to roll out stats showing that they have spotting tens of million of infringing URLs, and that the vast majority of them have been confirmed as right. There is no requirement here for absolute certainty, just a reasonable belief. That's not much.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 4:49pm

Re: Re:
Google's job is easy - turn on mass of computers, index everything.

Actually following the law? That's their problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 5:35pm

Re: Re:
87%?

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 thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 5:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
Actually following the law?

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 thread ]
Karl (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:17pm

Re: 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

...or not:

Over half - 57% - of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors[.]
- 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:42pm

Re: Re: Re:
RIAA: We want to submit a takedown request.

Google: Sure, what for?

RIAA: The entire internet.

Google: .....And this is why we have a 1000 limit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:45pm

Re: Re: Re:
In which an AC completely destroys his previous comment by insisting that Google isn't following the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:20pm

Re: Re:
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.

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 thread ]
LazDude2012, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:26pm

Re:
Are you serious? You really want every link to go through the RIAA for approval? You might as well ask for bribing Congressmen to be legal again. :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 2 Jun 2012 @ 12:36am

Re: "Good faith belief"
The software told you what? That an artists name is used on a webpage? So what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Jun 2012 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the calibration of said guns has been successfully challenged in court by the defence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Jun 2012 @ 6:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Good faith belief"
Indeed. The exact same file can be both infringing and non-infringing, depending on who uploaded it and in what context. It's nowhere near as simple as "the posted speed limit is 50 and you were going 70, pay up".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Jun 2012 @ 6:29am

Re: The ONLY way to satisfy the MAFIAA is simple.
Nah, then they will just complain about how sales have dropped when they lose all that free advertising...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rabbit80, 2 Jun 2012 @ 9:41am

Re: Re:
'Twas just a random thought. Pile all the work onto the RIAA since they think its plausible for others to do it. Let them soak up the costs of verifying every single link submitted to Google - it would either bankrupt them or they would have to admit that it's not feasible!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 2 Jun 2012 @ 11:23am

Bots
Ok I recall mentioning or predicting bots crawling around to sniff out "infrimgement" on a previous article and I ran that "experiment". Seems that my comment was taken out that was Titled "Bots" to which another reader had said in response that he could imagine there were DCMA takedown notices on the way.

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 thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 3 Jun 2017 @ 6:18pm

Page Not Found
But preserved by the Wayback Machine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]