DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
from the an-avalanche dept
Back in May, we wrote about Google adding a section in its Transparency Report focused specifically on all of the DMCA copyright takedowns it receives. That tool has provided a bunch of interesting data and information, mainly highlighting abuses of the DMCA process. It also shows the scale of DMCA takedown activity with Google. The latest is that Google has put out a blog post noting that when they launched that report, they were receiving approximately 250,000 DMCA takedowns a week. Today, it's up to 2.5 million per week. That's in just six months. Because that's insane, I'm going to repeat it: in just six months, the number of DMCA takedowns that Google receives has increased by a factor of 10 from 250,000 per week to 2.5 million.The company also claims that it does the ensuing takedown in an average of just six hours -- even with having someone review each and every takedown, and even rejecting a few. They reject about 2.5% of takedown notices. Again, when you think about it, this remains incredible. They're actively reviewing 2.5 million takedowns a week, and not just reflexively removing all those results from search, but doing at least a quick reality check on them. There are still plenty of bogus takedowns, so the effort isn't perfect, but it is fairly incredible. Given how many times we see copyright maximalists complaining that Google doesn't take DMCA takedowns seriously, I wonder if anyone else out there processes so many DMCA notices in such a short period of time. I doubt it.
Also interesting: they're now making all of the data available for download, so perhaps we'll start to see some interesting research come out of this.
Either way, this should highlight just how ridiculous the current system is. When one company is processing over 10 million takedowns per month, the system is clearly broken. Maybe it's time to look at why -- but, of course, Congress just wants to stick its head in the sand instead.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I will go out on a limb and say 'most'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The 97.5 that get removed are all legit, right, gotcha boB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I suspect (ballpark numbers) 5% of the requests don't involve the correct copyright owner and 40% of the links aren't infringing. (I'd guess another 10-20% aren't technically infringing but aren't quite innocent)
But really it's pretty clear that this is just a giant money pit for both Hollywood and the tech industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
Also... "big search"? Could you sound any more ridiculous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's one of his favourite terms, usually used to imply monopolism by Google. If you think that's good, wait till he starts whining about paywalls in cases where the term doesn't even remotely apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of the remaining 97.5% of accepted requests were grey areas or legitimate content that was removed, but Google didn't have the time or information to accurately investigate and decided to err on the side of caution and accept a request they couldn't immediately prove as invalid.
Interesting how your erring on the side of caution assumes that the people sending these requests aren't lying, despite repeated examples of them doing so, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But I don't see anything here. Where's Mike's skepticism? Where's Google's? If they're rejecting 2.5% that means Google is approving 97.5%.
You know as well as I that they would be citing the bad actors on ChillingEffects if they could. But anyone who spends a few minutes on YouTube knows it's easy to believe that 97.5% are legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
not rejecting!=approving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't tell by just looking, moron.
How many of these so called non-legit videos have been identified by the ContentID system and the rights holder has chosen to leave them up and earn the ad revenue instead of removing them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can if you just look at the pixels.
Or is it pixie dust? I can never remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can send you links to two videos, both identical. One was uploaded by someone with permission. One was uploaded by someone else without permission. The DMCA notice came from a 3rd party. Quick, which one is legit and is the DMCA notice valid? You have 2 minutes... go!
Anyone who thinks you can tell the validity of a video just by looking at it is a frigging moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the sake of argument, we'll assume that the 97.5% are accurate, and the 2.5% are bogus.
Given the numbers, that means Google is still receiving 250,000 bogus takedown requests per month. And nothing is being done about those 250,000 cases of perjury.
In what world is that even close to sane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No!
You RTFA.
Google rejected 2.5%. That in no way implies that the remaining 97.5% were all genuine - merely that they were not sufficiently obviously bogus for Google to rejected them on first review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's easy to understand how 97.5% are legit. Go to YouTube and type the name of any memorable song from the last 80 years. You'll probably see dozens of clips and I would wager any amount of money that 90% are unlicensed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good luck with that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I would say that there are lots of copyright infringers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The voices in his head, like the other opinions those people attack. It's easier than attacking reality, which has an unfortunate habit of being complicated with grey areas, as well as meaning that people commenting on Techdirt have distinct, often opposing, opinions on various subjects rather than acting as a hive mind. There's no way to attack that with pithy comments and insults, so they have to build these strawmen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyrights on song that can even be 80 years long is a huge part of the problem. We need LIMITED copyrights again.
People don't respect copyright anymore because copyright has become ETERNAL for the big media companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright should not be older than my grandmother!!
Hell, my grandfather died at age 79, do you think that copyright should be older than THAT?!
If so, you are nothing more than a copyright apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I was in google I would be recommending that all people involved in take-downs take a day off, on that day google must shut down in America. As if they do not they could be held liable for content found in a search where a dmca had been sent.
If this happened for a few hours Americans would be demanding the government do something about it, they could not force google to put there search engine up again without declaring that they were immune from take-downs. And once Google had that many others could demand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck off google
You go being are friend to being are Enemy stop this please the government will kill the Internet trying to control it fuck you google
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck off google
You go being are friend to being are Enemy stop this please the government will kill the Internet trying to control it fuck you google
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck off google
You go being are friend to being are Enemy stop this please the government will kill the Internet trying to control it fuck you google
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"over 10 million takedowns per month"
2) You guys claim piracy is minor (yes, I'm assuming the 97.5% is valid, then). -- So WRONG AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
Yes because we all know that the 97.5 that get removed are all valid. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
I guarantee most other people/companies can't do it due to the sheer cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
But seriously, I am completely shocked that they only reject 2.5%. If I thought for one second that the other 97.5% must be infringing, then I would want to invest my life savings on the company that developed the software that finds all that infringing content. Of the billions of vids on Youtube, it somehow managed to discern parody and criticism from other forms of verbal expression with 97.5% accuracy. Impressive. I know people who can't do that. many of them comment here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
What we say is that Google can't screen every video for copyright infringement. That is still true. It's a lot different when processing electronic forms that come in. They are just text. Text is relatively easy.
>>2) You guys claim piracy is minor (yes, I'm assuming the 97.5% is valid, then). -- So WRONG AGAIN.
That is not what is claimed. There is a lot of piracy. What the community here maintains is that the damage is minor. Also, the data doesn't show how many of those notices are duplicates, or flat out wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
Are you actually suggesting that counting cases of infringement without also counting all the non-infringing content not included in these figures is somehow a good way to tell whether piracy is a major problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
The reason I'm saying this is that with so much talk of digital piracy, it wouldn't be a problem if these people stop talking about it and stop blaming everyone who goes online of being a filthy pirate. Action speaks louder than words!
But as always, are we supposed to take you seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
Wrong. We claim that large-scale processing can't be done accurately. Nothing in the article refutes that claim.
Wrong again. I have never once seen anyone here claim that piracy rates are low. (Since you cite the 97.5% figure, I assume you're referring to piracy rates). Also, the 97.5% figure is about how many google did not reject outright. It says nothing about how many are valid. Google does not determine the validity of a request beyond basic laugh-test checking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"
1) You guys claim such large-scale processing can't be done at all, let alone rapidly. -- So WRONG once...
2) You guys claim piracy is minor (yes, I'm assuming the 97.5% is valid, then). -- So WRONG AGAIN.
BOOM! Now what freetards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
If Google actually punished people for constantly uploading copyrighted material, the number of requests would drop dramatically. If Google would actually lock up gmail accounts after a half-dozen infractions-- in other words offering the weakest of punishments-- people would stop.
But Google doesn't try to stop any of this because Google makes money from all of the freely accessible content.
They could also actually block the sites where they see repeated infringement. If they knock down a few ISOHunts, they wouldn't have to process endless DMCA requests for the same site.
Face it. Google has only themselves to blame for this number. They could make it easier by actually trying to take the side of the artists for a change. But they only want to make things easire for the uploaders who are their partners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Three strikes boBBY boy. Three cases of accused infringement and your account gets suspended son. Fair use, does not matter. Talking out of your ass again boB.
https://www.youtube.com/user/uneedhelp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
You know, maybe Google should be like the MPAA/RIAA/etc. They should worry more about stopping a few illegitimate uses than about making their services easy to use for their users/customers. Then they too can be like the brilliant minds in Hollywood and lose money, fans, loyalty, and goodwill! That'll show those pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Sorry, try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
FUD. The process mostly automated. All you need to do is fill in a form and off you go.
You're painting Google as the bad guy, but they actually did a lot of work into streamlining the DMCA takedown procedure. If filling a form is too hard for you, then you probably don't have much of a copyright to defend anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Ya know what. You're right. That form is too difficult for the likes of you. Perhaps it would just be easier and simpler for you to just be let loose in the data centre and smash a few hard drives...after all, you don't care at all about collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
That explains a lot about you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy
They specifically request the following for a DMCA takedown to occur:
All trivial to compile and send. They even provide a webform to expedite the process. But it doesn't stop there:
ContentID: http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid (funnily enough, the tag line is: "Block, Monetize, or Track Viewing Metrics — It's Automated, and It's Free")
Content Verification Program: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_program
So, as usual, you are full of shit bob. It is stupidly easy to send DMCA takedown requests, as demonstrated by the mind-boggling scale on which they are occurring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
http://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form
THAT is where you can find the form to be filled out and submitted for copyright infringement on Youtube. (Of course, you can submit a paper version, which requires more effort on one's part, but it is in no way difficult or requires a specialist.)
Here's how difficult it is.
Question 1: What is the issue?
(You literally have to be a complete idiot/illiterate if you are unable to realize you need to select "Copyright Infringement (Someone copied my creation)"
Question 2: Copyright infringement - Who is affected?
Choices are: 1. I am! 2. My company, organization or client. 3. Another copyright owner.
(Again, you literally have to be a complete idiot/illiterate if you are unable which of those you need to select as specifically applies to you.)
After selecting the answer the rest of the form is generated. Information you need to enter is the URL of the ALLEGEDLY infringing video to be removed, description of the work allegedly infringed (and it gives you simple choices), and information about yourself (Copyright Owner/Company Name, Your Ful Legal Name, Your Title/Job Position, Phone, Fax, Street Address, City, State/Provice, ZIP/Postal Code, and Country).
I am NOT a specialist. I could easily fill out that form. Why/how? Because apparently, unlike you, I can read.
bob, stop fucking lying and stop being a fucking drama queen making things out to be more complicated than they actually are not. It COULD NOT be any simpler. Unless you're an idiot. Based on your comments and what I personally checked/verified myself just now (and which anyone else is free to follow up and check on themselves), YOU ARE AN IDIOT/ILLITERATE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
1) Type "Batman" in the youtube search bar
2) Each result shows a "Remove from Youtube" button
3) He clicks the button (does not look at the actual video)
Once the button is clicked, the content disappears from Youtube, all Google accounts the submitter had are immediately zipped up and sent to the RIAA/MPAA before being deleted from Google servers (including backups), and an anonymous tip is sent to the FBI that a terrorist-funding kingpin has been found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Because a copyright apologist like you has no idea what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
You have to give enough information to determine who you are and why you're complaining about the video? Yeah I can see how that would be a pain for you. You'd have to stand behind facts in that case rather than launch wild conspiracy theories and accusations against people while hiding behind anonymity. Sorry, if you want to claim you're affected by a video, you have to identify yourself, that's how it works.
Or perhaps you mean that you have to actually enter a form manually, rather than set up a bot that spams Google with millions of requests an hour? What a hardship that must be for people like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Google is receiving 10 million DMCA's for ISOHunt?
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Yeah, you know what else is a pain?
Sorting through and reviewing those notices for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Only if Google also had a system to punish those who abuse the DMCA process. Such as forcing them to send snail mail DMCA's after x amount of abuses. Otherwise any idiot who just didn't like their competitor could just send a couple thousand bogus DMCA notices and have them removed.
Face it. Google has only themselves to blame for this number. They could make it easier by actually trying to take the side of the artists for a change. But they only want to make things easire for the uploaders who are their partners.
What about the whole ContentID system they developed at thier own cost? You know, the one you can use to monetize your content that other people upload. Sometimes you are like a spoiled child. Since you are the one choosing to enforce your copyrights, when are you going to chip in and help pay for enforcing them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
We are not talking about material uploaded to Google - we are talking about stuff that Google finds automatically because it is hosted somewhere on the web. Google does not (and could not possibly) police that.
Bob - you keep demosnstrating that you don't have a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
No, it's not.
http://support.google.com/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1114905&page=ts.cs
If you're referring specifically to a Web Search on Google, the appropriate page link is below.
https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=sitemaps&passive=1209600&continue=https ://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-notice?pli%3D1%26%26rd%3D1&followup=https://www.google.c om/webmasters/tools/dmca-notice?pli%3D1%26%26rd%3D1&authuser=0
And of course getting to that link couldn't be more straight forward. Google gives you options to select for each question and you choose as is appropriate.
"It's sooo much easier to just upload something to YouTube."
Yes, well, "Upload video" is as easy as you can make things for anyone. Facebook has that ability too. So do a plethora of other sites. All perfectly legitimate/legal. The ability to upload a video onto a website DOES NOT make the website illegal/wrong/bad. Contrary to your delusional beliefs.
"You can tell where their bread is buttered."
Indeed you can. Providing relevant and in demand services to people for free and generating revenue from ads. This is common knowledge to all but the most dense.
"If Google actually punished people for constantly uploading copyrighted material, the number of requests would drop dramatically."
Well, Google actually isn't the internet, contrary to what some idiots believe. Google cannot punish people for uploading material onto sites that aren't theirs. That's your first hurdle, insofar as you not being able to make the distinction.
Secondly, Google, in the manner related to the article is merely indexing the web and providing relevant search results for any queries made by people. They can't punish people for searching for whatever they wish to search for.
So your point about "the number of requests would drop dramatically" is pretty much irrelevant per the rest of my debunking of that sentence.
"But Google doesn't try to stop any of this because Google makes money from all of the freely accessible content."
Google makes money from ads. Nothing more, nothing less. (Well not true, they also make some money from their other ventures like Google Apps for Business and things of that sort. But all completely legal and on the up and up.)
"They could also actually block the sites where they see repeated infringement."
No, they CANNOT block the sites. For the reasons I listed previously. Namely that they aren't the internet, nor are they the hosting companies providing web hosting services for said sites, nor do they provide servers for said sites, etc.
Google just indexes the web. Think of them like the phone book and you'll stop coming off like an idiot and realize how ridiculous your "points" are.
"If they knock down a few ISOHunts, they wouldn't have to process endless DMCA requests for the same site."
See previous response to your last "brilliant" sentence/comment.
"Face it. Google has only themselves to blame for this number."
Uh no, they don't. The only people responsible for the uploading of copyright infringing material are those who upload it.
Nor is Google responsible for filing DMCA takedown request. It's not their job/business to do so.
Again, your points are irrelevant as they pertain to Google.
"They could make it easier by actually trying to take the side of the artists for a change."
Ah yes, that would be why there's no such thing as Play Music and Play Movies and Play Books. /s All of which provide music and movies/tv shows and books to the public for a fee, which gets in turn given to the copyright holders (WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO GIVE ANY ROYALTIES TO THE ARTISTS).
That's also overlooking the fact that they created the ContentID system, entirely on their time/dime, which monetizes content on YouTube for the copyright holders. For the idiots out there, this is a system by where copyright holders upload a video/song, which has magical stuff done to it and is then compared to other videos/songs allowing for easier takedowns/monetization (monetization through which infringing material is left up BY THE CHOICE OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER, but generates revenue from the material which is directly funneled back to the copyright holder).
"But they only want to make things easire for the uploaders who are their partners."
At this point, your stupidity is too much to deal with. So I'm going to just let slide this last sentence as I've already explained how Google DOES NOT do any of the things you claim they do, nor are they capable of doing so. Here's hoping you'll realize how stupid and incorrect you are (and here's knowing ahead of time you won't).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
The proper link can be found in
wwwgoogle.com/webmasters/tools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Have you ever tried to file a DMCA request with GOOGLE? It's a real pain. It's sooo much easier to just upload something to YouTube. You can tell where their bread is buttered.
If Google actually punished people for constantly uploading copyrighted material, the number of requests would drop dramatically. If Google would actually lock up gmail accounts after a half-dozen infractions-- in other words offering the weakest of punishments-- people would stop.
But Google doesn't try to stop any of this because Google makes money from all of the freely accessible content.
They could also actually block the sites where they see repeated infringement. If they knock down a few ISOHunts, they wouldn't have to process endless DMCA requests for the same site.
Face it. Google has only themselves to blame for this number. They could make it easier by actually trying to take the side of the artists for a change. But they only want to make things easire for the uploaders who are their partners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
Do you want to requote all the people who completely ripped it apart too? Oh wait, those didn't get downvoted, no need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google
http://t.qkme.me/35ke38.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, it's time we sit down and reflect on this number.
Are people REALLY committing illegal acts on such a massive scale, on Google services alone? Or is there something that is fundamentally broken here?
My opinion is that we have far passed the threshold where something that used to be illegal should be re-though and accepted as 'normal', and we should adjust laws to reflect that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2.5 Million Takedowns
I guess there is an argument that copyright creates jobs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns
Um... 1-2 seconds to open, read, and act on a takedown notice - average? So for each one that takes 4 seconds you need to do one in half a second. No. 20 seconds as an average... maybe. 10 seconds, I doubt it. At 30 seconds each, that would still be 521 full-time employees by my math. A little over $15.6 million per year if they pay only $15/hr, just in wages, not counting any benefits, office space, power, equipment, etc.
Though as Richard says it gets crazy if they keep increasing. Obviously it can't keep going up by a factor of 10 every six months (please tell me it can't). That would mean in two years they would get 25 billion takedown requests per week, or 41,336 per second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns
Does it take that long to determine if the content of the file is as promised by the file name? What if the file is actually just a parody or fan fiction or other non-infringing use of the name? What if it's a rare copy of some long-forgotten but legal public domain material with that name? What if the file has been named "Rise Of The Black Bat", how much time do you need to determine that the file is actually TDKR rather than something else?
I agree that part of the job here is with the DMCA filer, and that Google aren't individually checking that every claim is correct, but the job is still not 100% accurate or easy even if you take something as obvious as your example - and most aren't that obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns
Does it take longer to actually determine infringement? Absolutely.
Could the files really be fair use, public domain, or otherwise not copyright infringement? Certainly.
Is it Google's responsibility to determine that? Not in the slightest. But they do have an interest in not removing links from their search engine, or content from their other services, so they've added a basic check over and above what is their legal responsibility.
The real problem is that "under penalty of perjury" isn't really getting enforced, so there is no incentive on the part of the DMCA filers to get it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns - the future
Project this 18 months into the future and Google will need 100 000 people (double its current workforce) for this task. In another three years the whole population of the planet will be processing these requests!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
extrapolating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: extrapolating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA compliance in terms of man-hours
Without an automated (and inaccurate) mechanism in place, this means that a group of 23 employees working full time would have only one second to review each case of alleged infringement before moving on to the next case. To get just one minute per infringement you'd need 1,380 employees working full time on manual DMCA compliance. Not a lot of room to get things right, and certainly not cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA compliance in terms of man-hours
That would be three shifts of 23 workers each, not taking any breaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I made all my videos simply because I'm a fan, I'm not making any money off of them. Some of them are popular, some are not. I didn't want to run the risk of losing my channel and all my other video so I just deleted it. I guess I'll just find somewhere else to host it and not feel bad about it, I had the DJ's explicit permission to use his music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many DMCA takedowns does TD get?
It'd be nice to see if there's an increase there as well, even if it's not on the same level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a company can just send out a bot to go gather up a couple of thousand links, and then submit them, given there is no fee to do so they have no incentive to make sure the links are actually leading to infringing stuff. However, if they had to pay even a paltry $1, I get the feeling they might go for quality/accuracy, rather than just snagging as many as they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the past, every time there is a significant increase in take downs, there has always been pending legislation they wanted passed and used the amount of take down notices they had generated for the excuse to justify it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the past, every time there is a significant increase in take downs, there has always been pending legislation they wanted passed and used the amount of take down notices they had generated for the excuse to justify it.
Well, do keep in mind that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is still very much alive and kicking. It isn't dead yet, and if people forget about it--which the MPAA et al. are hoping for--then all the victories against SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA will be for naught. Because the TPP is worse than all of those, and being kept even more secretive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The next step would be a request for them to start self-policing. And then, if they refuse, a massive class action lawsuit will commence against Google.
Grab some popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Go forth my son, and spread the good word
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope to live long enough to see that become reality. But the sad current reality is this: Until "the internet" can bring to bear more military and/or economic might to defend itself than that wielded by the governments arrayed against it (which seems like most of them, including and led by the United States), that will remain just a cute quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is making the claims?
Did claims from the entire spectrum of claimants suddenly increase tenfold, or did certain particular claimants start flooding the system with a huge number of complaints?
It would be interesting to know the distribution of complaints-per-claimant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Top 10 Submitters removed over 85% of URLs
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AigWLtPZF29BdG9lM3ZFbUFOWGxSYXZMTElXZGprNHc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Top 10 Submitters removed over 85% of URLs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Transparency Report data
Here's something for you, as a token of my gratitude https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/data/ It is the download page for all copyright-related data used in preparing the Google Transparency Report. It even includes a data dictionary (and the format is zipped CSV files, not PDF ;o) I think it is a new feature, as the page is time stamped 12 Dec 2012.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Transparency Report data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheSolution
Take these birds should go to prison?
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/frigate-birds-steal-fish-form-the-mouth-of-a-blue-sto ck-video-footage/1B02887_0015
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
register
Hi, can you register our web site to the url please.. www.martend.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]