RIAA Still Can't Figure Out How To Use Google's DMCA Tools, Blames Google

from the but-of-course dept

Wed, Feb 20th 2013 7:42am — Mike Masnick

This will hardly comes as a surprise, but the RIAA and other "anti-piracy groups" are still complaining that Google "isn't doing enough" to prop up their old and obsolete business models. The latest complaint? That Google's system only accepts a mere 10,000 DMCA takedowns per day and somehow that's just not enough. It turns out that this isn't actually true, but we'll get to that in a moment. Much of the article focuses on Dutch extremist anti-piracy group BREIN saying that the limit needs to go away. But there is this bizarre statement from the RIAA as well:

“Google has the resources to allow take downs that would more meaningfully address the piracy problem it recognizes, given that it likely indexes hundreds of millions of links per day. Yet this limitation remains despite requests to remove it,” RIAA noted.

In addition to unthrottling the URL limits, RIAA also says it wants to lift the cap on the number of queries they can execute per day to find infringing content.

“Google places artificial limits on the number of queries that can be made by a copyright owner to identify infringements.”

This seems wrong on a variety of levels. As we noted last year when the RIAA raised some of these complaints, part of the problem appears to be that the RIAA doesn't understand how Google's tools work. There are some technical limitations in terms of how many URLs a "trusted partner" using automated means can submit at once, but no actual limit on the number of URLs that can be submitted total. There's a practical reason for the setup: in case an automated system goes haywire, Google wants to be able to catch it. But that's it. It does not limit the searches or the ability to submit DMCAs. We asked Google for specifics, and they confirmed:

While there is no limit on the number of DMCA notices that a copyright owner or reporting organization may send us, we put safety limits on the number of automated submissions that partners can make at one time using our tools in order to protect our systems from technical problems. We increase these limits for partners who have demonstrated a consistent track record of submission quality and volume.

On top of that, there's the issue that takedown notices go through a review process before the takedowns happen, to hopefully weed out abuse. For the RIAA to compare handling of takedown messages to the automated process of searching is really bizarre. It's basically them saying they want to be able to automatically takedown any content with no review whatsoever. That's a massive problem for a variety of obvious reasons. Indexing the web for search is an automated process. Taking sites down requires at least some level of review, even if only cursory. Apparently, the RIAA not only misunderstands the tools available, but also the DMCA process itself.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, limits, takedowns, tools
Companies: brein, google, riaa

105 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 6:58am

Apparently, the RIAA not only misunderstands the tools available, but also the DMCA process itself.

Actually, they understand quite well. To youse your own words:

It's basically them saying they want to be able to automatically takedown any content with no review whatsoever.

If Google did zero reviewing they would not be complaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  No, they'd still complain.
  
  Google hasn't given them the "shut off the internet" button yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    They'd complain even then. They want a "turn time back to 1980 button" too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ironically....1984......
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Stu dios,_Inc.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      1980? pah they'd prefer 1780...then they could just murder anyone that didn't give them their fees....(I mean publicly murder as opposed to the current method of bribing the DOJ into harassing people until they commit suicide)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 12:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      we would all be listening to 8-tracks again and a premium price on upgrades like cassettes and cds
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:51am
  
  Re:
  
  It's basically them saying they want to be able to automatically takedown any content with no review whatsoever.
  That's what they said loud and clear with SOPA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:11am
  
  Re:
  RIAA & MAFIAA can lick my dog's butt ! They are good for nothing else.Your pet need a good cleaning.........send for the Bootlickers at MAFIAA.Your Pet will be squeaky clean.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Monkey (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    I wouldn't want them ANYWHERE NEAR my animals, let alone having the MAFIAA CLEAN them ... o_o
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They would use an automated system that mangles your dog and then complain that your dog bleeds too much and you should be doing more to not let your dog get dirty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also "dog bleeding on the driveway" is a public performance..so YOU owe them money...pay up sucka!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Highboi, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:24am
  
  Response to: Ninja on Feb 20th, 2013 @ 6:58am
  I would like for them to not review anything and make it irreversible, the amount if hbo.com takedown links from hbo, Microsoft.com from Microsoft etc... These retards tools are censoring their own shit and legitimate content, I say let google bend over one more time to end it all, imagine, the Riaa removed your non illegal non infringing in any way website from googles index. You would be pissed right? Now imagine thus happens to 2 million people. Sounds like grounds for a class action lawsuit the end these dinosours for good
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Response to: Ninja on Feb 20th, 2013 @ 6:58am
    It would be funny, the problem is how many indie artists and publishers would get nailed with such a system. Post your work and then get it yanked down from the system you primarily use for distribution because an automated bot sees a copyright on it. Your copyright. You can't get the content back up in its usual service for days or weeks due to the administrative process.
    
    This kind of thing as usual hurts the users and the smallest of OC creators. The big companies own their own distribution and marketing channels so they don't care of their videos get taken down from another service.
    
    IMO this has always been less about piracy and more about limiting choice and keeping people for realizing that to be an artist you don't need a multi-million dollar contract and a greasy publisher.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:49pm
  
  Re:
  I wonder if they'd be so eager if someone were to make a fake DMCA claim against them? With oversight and a review process, such a claim would fail. But if there is no oversight or review, just accusation == conviction, someone might use it on them too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:44am

Google tries to stop Paypal, Visa and Mastercard processing payments for 'illegal' websites - RIAA still not happy.

Sounds about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- S. T. Stone, 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:49am
  
  Re:
  The RIAA/MPAA won�t celebrate until the Internet becomes a one-way medium like TV and radio.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    They'll complain even then if they cannot also be the monopoly gatekeeper on the sources of the one way medium.
    
    And have Hollywood Accounting rules apply.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Who says cable company ISP's don't already have a monopoly?? Comcast/Universal merger anyone?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  It is in the nature of interest groups never being satisfied. I wouldn't blame them for that.
  
  The things you can blame them for is ignorance, misinformation or bastardisation of good praxis science and lack of coherent logical ideals. Those areas are so large and important to educate people about that news about how deranged they are, can justify a complete blog of its own...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're right.
    They can never be satisfied because their whole job depends on not being satisfied.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gridlock, 21 Feb 2013 @ 3:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're right.
      They can never be satisfied because their whole job depends on not being satisfied.
      
      Ah, so the RIAA & MPAA & DiarrheAA groups are all whiny forever-useless American women? That explains so much.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  Because the RIAA would prefer that Paypal, Visa and Mastercard instead process the RIAA's illegal payments instead????
  (bribes and suchlike)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:49am

There should be a system similar to how the DMV handles senior drivers, except it would involve testing senior executives for their aptitude with technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:49am

Man I wish the RIAA would just shut up. They really don't get the fact that Google's search engine is a spider web crawler. Removing one link only mean it gets put further down in ranking until more websites start linking to it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christoph Wagner (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:51am
  
  Re:
  That's not true. The document in questions gets actually removed from the results and the DMCA request gets published on chillingeffects.org
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Baldaur Regis (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ah, chillingeffects. That's where they keep the REALLY tasty links. I wonder, though - has chillingeffects.org ever been DMCA'd?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, and no it's not rare at all
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ya know when Google puts at the bottom of its search page "Due to a DMCA takedown notice, we have removed one of the links, here it is on ChillingEffects.org?" There have been DMCA notices to Google, to tell them to take down those links. So there have already been DMCA notices to take down DMCA notices, and DMCA notices to take down the DMCA notices to take down DMCA notices, and so on and so on...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yo dawg...I heard you like DMCA notices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Baldaur Regis (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So there have already been DMCA notices to take down DMCA notices, and DMCA notices to take down the DMCA notices to take down DMCA notices, and so on and so on...
        AKA The Phenomenon Of Fractal Stupidity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PT (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When I see one of those Chilling Effects links, I click on it first. The "offending" URL is invariably still working and is usually what I was looking for. Though the other night I clicked through one and ended up at Hulu, viewing content provided by the organization that issued the takedown. Go figure...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't worry. I stopped doing facepalms and facedesks a long time ago. Couldn't afford new desks, so I had to get a hypnotist to get me to stop.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 12:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How?
    
    Is Google in control of the actual server serving that page?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  The RIAA not only doesn't get that fact, they also don't get the fact that there are other search engines unrelated to Google.
  
  You know, at some point, there might be some piracy focused search engines that stay underground. But the RIAA won't notice. These people are not that bright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    "You know, at some point, there might be some piracy focused search engines that stay underground. But the RIAA won't notice. These people are not that bright."
    
    Those are called private trackers.
    
    I know of at least 3. They have tons and tons of games, movies and music, and thousands of users, but no one bothers them at all. It's baffling. It's like, I dunno, they are targeting Google specifically for some nefarious reason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      SOPA.....That's why....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because the RIAA actually RUNS some of these underground search engines....they know pirating their own content and sticking adverts all over is the way to go.....well that and sometimes they like to poison the content....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To clarify..the RIAA runs some of the "fake" search engines that demand payment up-front then turn out to have zero actual useful links/downloads. They basically scam people out of a few $$$ here and there
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 12:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you call Baidu(Chinese) or Yandex(Russian) underground that is fine.
      
      Imagine if the Chinese or Russians become the leaders in search and are the ones getting all that juice traffic, what would that mean for the US?
      
      http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2242374/Yandex-Just-Passed-Bing-to-Become-4th-Largest-Gl obal-Search-Engine?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JarHead, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    The RIAA not only doesn't get that fact, they also don't get the fact that there are other search engines unrelated to Google.
    
    What other "unrelated" search engine? There's no such thing. Search = Google. When you try to find something on the net, you "google" it, not "duckduckgo" it, nor "altavista" it, etc.
    
    Those "other" search engine? That's just Googgle re-branding for specific demographics, or maybe even shell companies setup so Google can say "competition"...
    
    ...or so thought people related to the ??AAs...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mhab, 20 Feb 2013 @ 1:15pm
    
    Understatement
    they arent too bright, now that right there is the understatement of the century. but then again, that probably is one of the job requirements, considering the rediculous propaganda they're told to repeat
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:54am

"It's basically them saying they want to be able to automatically takedown any content with no review whatsoever. That's a massive problem for a variety of obvious reasons. Indexing the web for search is an automated process."

They're morons, with not a thought given to those who would be shut down despite being completely innocent. As long as their imaginary "lost" income is somehow protected, they don't care about anyone else's.

But, part of me wishes they could get what they want. Unlimited notices with action taken immediately without review. On recent evidence, I'd give them a day before they've removed their own content from the web completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:57am
  
  Re:
  That would suit them just fine, I'd imagine, considering they don't want to even acknowledge the internet exists for anything other than evil conspiracies against them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:58am
  
  Re:
  If only our content were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we file DMCA notices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    "If only our brains were made of glass, how much more careful would we think?"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If only the RIAA was made of glass...how much harder would we all throw bricks?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  But, part of me wishes they could get what they want. Unlimited notices with action taken immediately without review. On recent evidence, I'd give them a day before they've removed their own content from the web completely.
  
  But they still complain when they have this ability. They complain that Google, or whomever, should have somehow known that the content wasn't infringing and therefore should have been automatically ignored for that specific request. No matter what happens or what laws are passed and enforced the RIAA will never be happy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jackn, 20 Feb 2013 @ 7:58am

They better not look at bing. Because google is so responsive, it is hard to find pirated software. but in Bing, its game on. I sent a few DMCA's to bing myself. They don't cooperate and want to keep the entries in their results. If you took out all the pirate sites from bing, there wouldn't be much left.

I have a lot of fun with Bing's dmca agent. Google's is no fun, they just take it out of the results without any fun and games. Bing has many excuses and it set up like the rest of the 'customer service' functions - designed to make you go away or at least have to create some fxxing live, bing, hotmail, id (or something).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  Why the heck would you break the law in filing DMCA notices over items which you had absolutely no responsibility in creating?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jackn, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Who me? because I do have 'responsibility' in creating the items. All of the items where I send dmca, are my works (software, photos and videos and registered trademarks (my marks)).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Is it my imagination or did you just miss an opportunity to actually get noticed for your work??
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jackn, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would rather not promote it here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        lolporn
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jackn, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Also, I believe in fair use, so I don't send DMCA to squash criticism, etc. I generally don't send DMCA for using my media on a blog, facebook, etc...
      
      Nowadays, only when a site is hosting my software, do I send a dmca. Although, I working out a way for everyone to be happy, the pirates can pirate my software, and for those that would've paid, I might be able to entice them them to pay.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So basically, you don't send takedown requests for criticism, but any search engine link (which actually has a habit to reappear no matter the takedown) pertaining to free publicity towards your work, you would rather have it taken down? Clearly you haven't read about how HADOPI failed in France.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jackn, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't see it as free publicity. I see it as a bunch of boys amassing huge amounts of WAREZ for no other reason than amassing huge amount of WAREZ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He who dies with the most WAREZ.... is still dead....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 2:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So if that's their reason, so you really think taking down those links will magically make them wanna pay for your content?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 2:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yep, that's half the point that flies over the heads of some people. A large chunk of the people pirating are people who would never pay for it in any way even if piracy was impossible.
        
        I used to know someone like that - he'd automatically download everything added to certain music feeds, then end up deleting half of it straight away either because they were duplicates or something he wouldn't like. None of those downloads are lost sales, and I dare say that if he couldn't have downloaded like that he'd just use radio streams or - at most - Spotify. Thousands of downloaded tracks, and at most they represented lost revenue of around �5/month (assuming he paid Spotify and didn't just put up with the ads).
        
        That's why this whole thing is so stupid and frustrating. The methods being used to address piracy on the fantasy assumption that those people can be made to pay are actively losing them sales from the people who already do. Rather than realise that, they just double down on the wrong tactics and make things worse, while causing all manner of unacceptable collateral damage and unintended consequences.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jackn, 21 Feb 2013 @ 5:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Its not really about 'making them pay,' it about making it so they can't have it for free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 5:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In that case, they've chosen an impossible task, and that's all the more reason to fight their attempts to block free speech, shut down competitors and cause problems for everyone else in the world in the name of "fighting piracy".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 11:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So they won't pay in either case. What's the difference to your bottom line?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jackn, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, I dmca their host (if its in the us). As I told Bing, its ok if they don't take the links down, The links will be dead soon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is a much more acceptable approach than DMCAing search engines. Issuing takedowns to search engines has never made any logical or ethical sense to me. I wish they would all just ignore DMCA requests.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jackn, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clearly....
        
        I can see no other conclusion.
        
        if a then b
        
        also, not just search engine links, but the host too. Even if the site has a 'DMCA' agent, i still target the host, its much more fun and usually, they are more professional than the warez site owners.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nowadays, only when a site is hosting my software, do I send a dmca.
        
        Have you tried contacting them to resolve it some other way? Not being snarky, I am genuinely interested. I'm a software developer myself but not in a way that I have to worry about piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Same reason the RIAA and MPAA does?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:06am
  
  Re:
  Wow, reading that makes me almost want to use Bing... Almost
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    But Bing has awesome pictures.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:04am
  
  Re:
  You know Bing doesn't really exist right?
  Its just a site that parses google results, shuffles the order a bit and shoves shitty wallpaper over the results.
  
  Everytime Google changes their API it "breaks" bing which can't return anything. I don't even think Bing HAS its own server/search system to be honest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mmrtnt (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:23am

In Related News
Millions of People Each Day Refusing to Hand-Crank Gramaphones:
Spring Manufacturers Association of America (SMAA) Blames Electric Motor Companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:28am
  
  Re: In Related News
  Spring manufacturers are lobbying to make it illegal to retrofit a spring player with electric motor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:37am

the RIAA doesn't misunderstand anything. it ignores the bits it doesn't like, then, as usual, blames someone else for the failure and expects that someone else to spend money doing what RIAA could, but refuse to do or pay for themselves. if RIAA were able to be trusted and only issue dmca takedowns that were genuine, and paid suitable fines for false take down demands, it would be ok. however, they can't be trusted because they done even know when they want their own files removed (how stupid can you get??) and refuse to compensate anyone when they should. they do expect to be compensated when their stuff is removed, intentionally or not! the usual double standards!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baldaur Regis (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:01am
  
  Re:
  Not to be satiric or anything, but you've basically written their mission statement here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Cept he forgot the bit about harassing people until they commit suicide or leave the country taking their skills with them....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:46am

They want to be
able to flood the system to cause a backlog so they can say see they are not acting fast enough.

"only accepts a mere 10,000 DMCA takedowns" Yeah they want to put 100,000 a day even if 20 - 40% are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:49am

You're obviously doing something wrong if you have to file 10,000 DMCA takedown notices A DAY.

Forget Google, it's obviously the public their customers, and their customers they don't understand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  You're obviously doing something wrong if you're getting 10,000 DMCA takedown notices A DAY.
  
  FTFY.
  
  Google can't get sued soon enough. All of this is a precursor to that. Can't wait.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're awfully confident for a raging moron.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If he's a raging moron in a hurry, we may have a use for him in some trademark related lawsuits...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dude, they couldn't even take down the Pirate Bay, and that platform is actually dedicated to infringement. What makes you think that they'll sue Google?
    
    And for what purpose? Google actually gives them more tools than anyone else to fight infringement and platforms for monetizing their stuff.
    
    From a strategic point of view, attacking Google right now is a boneheaded idea. More so if you consider that there are many more targets worthy of attention.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 12:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Your comment doesn't make sense, you are obviously doing something wrong, like supporting the RIAA,
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Desco, 20 Feb 2013 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re: customers
  "Forget Google, it's obviously the public their customers, and their customers they don't understand..."
  
  Who do you think RIAA's customers are? It's not the public...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CK20XX, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:15am

Dear RIAA,

RTFM.

Sincerely,
Stressed, Overworked Techies Everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:05am
  
  Re:
  Heck, or even JFGI for that matter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colin, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:21am

�Google has the resources to allow take downs that would more meaningfully address the piracy problem it recognizes, given that it likely indexes hundreds of millions of links per day. Yet this limitation remains despite requests to remove it,� RIAA noted.

"They won't pay for things that are our problems when we tell them to!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:24am

Google should respond by saying just what percentage of the RIAA's takedown requests are actually complied with and then tell them if they want to submit more takedowns they should review them for legitimacy first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 9:57am

"a consistent track record of submission quality"

Which means they are fucked.
They hire lowest bidder companies who churn out tons of results, and the cartel membership thinks the number submitted is the quality indicator.

If the **AA's want to cram more results into the system, they need to start paying for every bad submission.

Google isn't getting a handout from the government to process these takedowns, and when HBO's agent is submitting content on HBO.com as material to be removed it should be clear to anyone that they are doing it wrong.

Instead the **AA's are working on trying to get someone with authority to demand that Google give them better access. Oh we can't submit as many as we need to, make them give us direct access. We are being robbed blind and we need special powers because IP is worth way more than the rule of law.

Lets just charge them $50 for each url they submit that isn't actually the work. The system will get much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:06am
  
  Re:
  Not even $50, charge them the cost of their average MP3 single.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think you meant to say the average demand for infringing a single which is several thousand dollars on the low end.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Unfortunately, someone somewhere will realize that the day that happens, the internet will be flooded with billions of links to nominally infringing content in an attempt to bankrupt the RIAA, so it would never get off the ground. Though it would be humorous to watch the poisoning of search results with fake content work against them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Someone working for MS sent a takedown packed to the rafters with urls because it matched like 2 numbers in a row. (was in an article here somewhere)
    
    They are already poisoned because they use the crappiest methods, they do no checking, and just throw them at Google and tell them to take care of it and put the effort into making sure they don't remove/censor the wrong links.
    
    I think the $50 for each bad hit would get the attention of the cartel membership and make them aware that the **AA is lying that this system works. They understand money much better than they understand tech.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PT (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why $50 just for each bad hit, and not for every filing? If I want to issue pretty much any kind of enforceable legal document I have to pay a fee per filing, legitimate or not. There should be a fee payable with each and every DMCA takedown.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sporkie (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re:
  How about a 6 strikes rule. Make 6 bogus DMCA take down requests and all of your subsequent requests are denied and the party receiving the request can sue you for time and expenses. Loss of internet access could be included.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 21 Feb 2013 @ 2:23am
  
  Re:
  Goldfarming is so over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 10:47am

I still say Google should just say "To prevent abuse, all takedown notices must be submitted in writing and mailed to a PO box, with no more than one takedown notice per letter."

This would both stem the tide of bogus takedowns and save the USPS at the same time. Think of all the stamps!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re:
  I still say Google should just say "To prevent abuse, all takedown notices must be submitted in writing and mailed to a PO box, with no more than one takedown notice per letter."
  
  That would probably not qualify them for DMCA safe harbor protection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave blevins (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:10am

RIAA (and other's) takedown notices
DCMA needs to be changed (at least, there are other problems):

1) No automatic tools can be used to issue take down notices.

2) 3 invalid take down notices and no further take down notices can be issued AT ALL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:17am
  
  Re: RIAA (and other's) takedown notices
  I would like that but we all know that isn't going to happen. Its pretty clear when you name yourself as infringing on your own work you didn't verify its infringing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 11:32am
    
    Re: Re: RIAA (and other's) takedown notices
    Perhaps they know they have been a "very bad boy" and they just want to punish themselves....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ophelia Millais (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re: RIAA (and other's) takedown notices
  The DMCA doesn't mandate the use of automated takedown submission tools. It was only recently that Google even started accepting electronic submissions; a few years ago, it had to be by fax and snail mail only, with about a 10-day turnaround time. They ought to go back to that.
  
  So, does the limit to the number of requests apply to the fax and snail-mail submission methods?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnny canada, 20 Feb 2013 @ 12:51pm

AOL was better at running the Internet
According to RIAA, AOL ran the interweb better than this new fangled Google does.

Can we please put AOL back in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2013 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: AOL was better at running the Internet
  But then all those discs would put coaster makers out of business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 5:27pm
  
  Re: AOL was better at running the Internet
  No AOL was no better:
  
  "What AOL did......what the RIAA does"
  
  Cornering your customers into TOS contracts....BMG Rootkit scandal.
  
  Sends out free samples encouraging you to buy into their in house services.....Suckers customers into pay per listen schemes and UltraViolet.
  
  Blocked off AOL users from the real World Wide Web and substituted their own content....sells discs that make DRM laden MP3 files due to watermarking scheme (for which they got sued for)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:02pm

�RIAA places artificial limits on the number of copies that can be made by a music fan to listen his favorite songs.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]