Bogus DMCA Notices Nearly Delete Cyberlocker From Google
from the what-happens-when-you-let-others-mess-with-search-results dept
The legacy players in the entertainment industry, led by the MPAA and the RIAA have been trying to get the right to edit search results on various search engines for years, under the bogus belief that if people didn't get search results linking them to infringing files, they'd suddenly start spending more money on entertainment. As we've explained in detail, it's not nearly as easy as some people think to simply demote "bad" sites will promoting "good" sites. Even with a long list of reasons why such a plan won't work, Google (alone among the search engines) has actually been trying to implement something along these lines. And, exactly as we've warned, caving to the demands of the legacy entertainment industry never works. For them, it's never enough, as they'll continue to whine and complain until search engines have magically brought us back to 1982.And there are real dangers when you effectively let third parties "edit" or "shape" Google's results as they see fit. TorrentFreak recently highlighted a good example of this, as the cyberlocker RapidGator discovered that it's basically been almost entirely delisted from Google because of DMCA notices. RapidGator already blocks Google from indexing the files hosted on its site -- so even if some users of the service post infringing files, they wouldn't have appeared in Google anyway. As the article notes, copyright holders apparently sent Google DMCA takedowns on links that weren't even in Google's index in the first place. But, more importantly, the pages that were in Google's index were clearly non-infringing, including things like the site's front page or details about the site and the services it offers.
The end result is that Google has taken RapidGator almost entirely out of the Google index. As the company states, the same thing could easily happen to a more high profile or "mainstream" cyberlocker like Dropbox. Just get enough DMCA notices -- legitimate or not -- and thanks to pressure from the entertainment industry, the "results" pages on Google get effectively edited by the legacy entertainment industry. I wonder how long it will take until other industries demand similar rights....
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, cyberlocker, dmca, search results, takedowns
Companies: google, mpaa, rapidgator, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Turn it around on them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google isn't hosting the content, yet has to spend millions to comply with often wrong complaints.
IP is so valuable and important, why does everyone else have to foot the bill for them?
Hollywood accounting cuts their tax bill.
We give them handouts of public funds to keep making things.
We do all sorts of things to cater to them, and encourage them to not participate in the market fairly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To really 'incentivize' them to get it right, make the fee scale upwards as more and more bogus claims are filed, perhaps starting at $1 for each DMCA claim, and moving up $2-5 for every 10 bogus claims. With the automated way they file the claims, and how 'careful' they are with accuracy of the claims, that would get expensive fast, and they'd have no-one to blame but themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is in cahoots with others too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is in cahoots with others too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google is in cahoots with others too.
As with Twitter, the law firm has close ties to Google management and based on information I believe is credible have represented Google Ventures. Discovery will shine more light into those corners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second off, it is time we start DMCAing all these copywrong groups out of existence from Google. After all, they wouldn't want all the hackers to find them would they? Since there is no punishment for false claims, apparently you could do this without fear of reprisal. If someone were to write an extension for Firefox that randomly fired off DMCAs for their sites by the thousands, maybe that would get a little attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's see we have the RIAA & MPAA two organizations who try and defend the music and film industry dinosaur and monopolistic grip they had for years and years on how you get the product from them and the monies made from it.
Instead of adapting and changing the way you delivery those forms of entertainment to the public, they fought them tooth and nail and in the process fell further behind and out of pace with technological advances to bring those services to the masses.
Let's review something, Google had receieved over 21 million erroneous take down requests from the thrid party contractors who do this on entertainment companies behalf....Why because they automate it and they can't even get that right.
Those two trade organisation are too busy playing whack-a-mole to try and kill links with little to show for it. Those links get replaced, and it all starts again.
I sure wouldn't allow the RIAA & MPAA to edit a damn thing. the RIAA & MPAA send Google millions of takedown requests every month and they don't care whether all the information is right or even if they have the right to ask for it to be removed.
They send have been sending more and more DCMA notices every month, so they can point and say "look how many we sent, we're getting screwed to the Government" and it is used as a tactic to try and get Google, Yahoo, Bing and Yandex etc to give them the back door access they want.
Look at How it has gone in the UK with the restriction of sites and using letters from the Police with no court orders to have sites take down, and then you have the secret list of sites to be blacklisted that BPI protects and doesn't want anyone to know what or why they were included on it.... and how is that going for them, people have found other ways to get to the offending sites on their restriced list.
They didn't want music file sharing services like iTunes and video services like Netflix because they knew they would have to give up a share of the profits, they couldnt be in control of how and where you get and for how much... their monopoly was in jeopardy.
They say they wan't to protect the creators of the works and make sure they get their due for their creation? Really? Must be why the artists, actors, musicians, directors often sue those various entertainment companies for the way they account for monies earn from those works, and they are constantly getting sued.
So yeah they seem trustworthy, what could go wrong there..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shooting One's Foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shooting One's Foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just wondering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just wondering
We could file 50 million false take down notices on the MAFIAA and not one would be actioned. There are different sets of rules for us plebes.
If we could really do what people suggest it wuld have been done already a million times over. Our DMCAs will go straight into file 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: just wondering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: just wondering
Just because a case of DMCA abuse went against a poorer individual when used against the *AA's, does not mean the same precedent would be applied when they were the defendant.
Most likely the 'reasoning' that the court would use to excuse the double-standards would be that the individual was filing the false claims on purpose, knowing that they were false, thereby triggering the perjury penalties.
The *AA's on the other hand, due to the sheer number of automated claims they send out, would get off with a warning at worst, as any false claims were excused as 'anomalies'(gee, where have I heard that before?), purely accidental and 'quirks' of the software they were using to send out the DMCA claims(the fact that accidental or intentional the results would be the same would ever so conveniently never be brought up of course).
So basically, the more effort put into it, the more 'intentional' the results would be seen as, whereas if you just send out DMCA claims by the thousands/millions, any 'accidents' would get shrugged off by the court, assuming you've got the bank balance to get the high-court treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and what makes things so bad is those industries dont give a flyin' fuck over whether the business targeted, intentionally or not, survives or collapses! they have gotten what they want, FOR FREE AGAIN and that's all they are concerned about!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a great clip from WKRP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]