If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   The RIAA is upset the Google won't accept *.* as a valid DMCA notice   (arstechnica.com) divider line 67
    More: Dumbass, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, RIAA, Google  
•       •       •

10572 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 May 2012 at 5:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-31 04:40:59 PM  
There really, really doesn't need to be any argument whatsoever about this. Google should have exactly zero legal responsibility for the sites it links to. If they want to avoid being evil, they should scan them for potentially harmful content, and if they really want to minimize the "harm" that their indexing does, they could work with the MAFIAA to ensure that, maybe, the first few search results for a song or movie go to "legitimate" websites. They really should have no liability for what other people put online.

/Hell, it annoys me that Google won't autocomplete the word "torrent" when I'm looking for...um...information about surging water currents.
 
2012-05-31 04:46:43 PM  
Perhaps if the RIAA's business model were brought into the 21st century, they wouldn't have these sorts of issues.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-31 04:49:54 PM  
Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day.

If this is about DMCA safe habor, rate limiting takedown requests could get Google in trouble.
 
2012-05-31 04:53:44 PM  
umm

stupid question, but what does any of this mean?
 
2012-05-31 04:54:15 PM  
The RIAA is suing someone for more money than the GDP of the entire world. I'm going with "I don't really care what the RIAA says" at this point.
 
2012-05-31 05:20:31 PM  
Wait.. The RIAA yelled at Google because other people aren't using a tool that Google provided for them to use?

Wait... Wut??
 
2012-05-31 05:24:25 PM  
The RIAA is upset

This is a repeat from every day for the last decade and a half.
 
2012-05-31 05:25:45 PM  

ZAZ: Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day.

If this is about DMCA safe habor, rate limiting takedown requests could get Google in trouble.


I'm guessing this is to prevent spamming by DMCA removal requests of possibly legitimate links/sites. Want us to take down a site? Better be sure it's a good one because we're only giving you so many of these a day.
 
2012-05-31 05:27:07 PM  
What? Chevy doesn't feel like giving a shiat that people have done bad things while driving their product?

Fark the RIAA. They should get a special wall when the time comes!
 
2012-05-31 05:28:41 PM  
FTFA: "Music labels have reasons for this. Generating the takedown lists takes real time and money, and it often feels like Whac-A-Mole-take down a link to a song and another identical copy takes its place."

Ding ding ding. Thus why RIAA's approach is asinine, outdated, and costing them more money than it's worth to them. Wake up.
 
2012-05-31 05:33:58 PM  
I'll just leave this here:

Link
 
2012-05-31 05:36:31 PM  

ZAZ: Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day.

If this is about DMCA safe habor, rate limiting takedown requests could get Google in trouble.


according to the article there are other companies that are issueing way more takedowns through the google system and they aren't complaining.


SilentStrider: stupid question, but what does any of this mean?


basically the RIAA has to pay employees to find these and fill out the requests to remove copyright violations from google search. That is expensive, and time consuming. By the time they even finish doing it, the material usually has popped up in a dozen more places. To a tech savvy person, this illustrates the idea that DMCA requests aren't an effective way of dealing with this problem. The RIAA agrees, but they've decided that instead of spending money and time to find a better way, they want to publically attack google, hoping it will force google to spend money and time to do this blocking on their own watch.
 
2012-05-31 05:41:30 PM  

tlchwi02: ZAZ: Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day.

If this is about DMCA safe habor, rate limiting takedown requests could get Google in trouble.

according to the article there are other companies that are issueing way more takedowns through the google system and they aren't complaining.


SilentStrider: stupid question, but what does any of this mean?

basically the RIAA has to pay employees to find these and fill out the requests to remove copyright violations from google search. That is expensive, and time consuming. By the time they even finish doing it, the material usually has popped up in a dozen more places. To a tech savvy person, this illustrates the idea that DMCA requests aren't an effective way of dealing with this problem. The RIAA agrees, but they've decided that instead of spending money and time to find a better way, they want to publically attack google, hoping it will force google to spend money and time to do this blocking on their own watch.


The RIAA pays third parties to run automated searches that then send automated notices to sites. This despite the fact that the DMCA is explicit in that the notices must be reviewed before being sent and there is a legal penalty for sending false DMCA notices of $10,000 per notice. See above like on a tiny fraction of their antics due to not following the law.
 
2012-05-31 05:43:23 PM  

deadcrickets: I'll just leave this here:

Link


I feel like Google should employ a few unquestionably reasonable people to go through the requests, and if they are deemed wasteful or completely idiotic like in your link, the offending organization loses the ability to submit banhammer requests for the next day. Why should Google have to waste their time for someone else's incompetence?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-31 05:45:08 PM  
instead of spending money and time to find a better way

They are spending a lot of time and money. Remember the warnings about bills in Congress? They don't arise spontaneously. RIAA and members spend a lot of money to make them happen.

Technical fixes require legislation because there is little incentive for hosting services to proactively look for violations or prevent repetitions.
 
2012-05-31 05:45:48 PM  

dahmers love zombie: If they want to avoid being evil, they should scan them for potentially harmful content, and if they really want to minimize the "harm" that their indexing does, they could work with the MAFIAA to ensure that, maybe, the first few search results for a song or movie go to "legitimate" websites. They really should have no liability for what other people put online.


Ironically enough, doing any of that might cause them to lose safe harbor protection.
 
2012-05-31 05:46:47 PM  
Every time the riaa goes full retard i seed.

Lawn is gonna be beautiful this year.
 
2012-05-31 06:01:36 PM  
RIAA: We're gonna get that Napster yet!
What, iTunes made HOW MUCH?
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUu
 
2012-05-31 06:03:58 PM  

VTGremlin: deadcrickets: I'll just leave this here:

Link

I feel like Google should employ a few unquestionably reasonable people to go through the requests, and if they are deemed wasteful or completely idiotic like in your link, the offending organization loses the ability to submit banhammer requests for the next day. Why should Google have to waste their time for someone else's incompetence?


Whilst also using all their monies to lobby for a change in the law, make it punishable by prison to request that a link to an IMDB page be removed, or any other such examples of stupidity, and not prison for some "overzealous staffer" who made a mistake, but prison for the CEOs. That would solve this problem.
 
2012-05-31 06:10:11 PM  
Linking to a site means you're responsible for it's content, just like writing down the address for the White House means you're a terrorist.
 
2012-05-31 06:16:56 PM  

ZAZ: Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day.

If this is about DMCA safe habor, rate limiting takedown requests could get Google in trouble.


That's what jumped out at me, too.
 
2012-05-31 06:18:51 PM  

ZAZ: They are spending a lot of time and money. Remember the warnings about bills in Congress? They don't arise spontaneously. RIAA and members spend a lot of money to make them happen.


well yes, but their spending time and money on doomed efforts. They should be spending their time and money wisely, instead of trying to fight google/FB/MS/etc who are all against the legal efforts the RIAA is making
 
2012-05-31 06:23:14 PM  

deadcrickets: there is a legal penalty for sending false DMCA notices of $10,000 per notice.


I'm curious... Why do you think that's true?
 
2012-05-31 06:24:20 PM  
FTA : Yes, Google has limits on take downs. In the picture below, note how one of Google's Webmaster tools allows only for 1,000 URLs per copyrighted file, and allows ten such files per notice (for a per-notice total list of 10,000 URLs).

This seems to be to protect the stability of the tool rather than to try and bottleneck the reporters of piracy. Do they really NEED to submit more?

FTA : While takedowns may be expensive or worthless or both, the labels simply aren't using Google's systems even to their current maximums, and they aren't even using them as extensively as other copyright holders.

Oh. Yeah, I forgot. They just want to be the boss of the internet.
 
2012-05-31 06:25:17 PM  
Why is RIAA still relevant? O yeah... forgot..

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-31 06:30:25 PM  

deadcrickets: SilentStrider: stupid question, but what does any of this mean?

basically the RIAA has to pay employees to find these and fill out the requests to remove copyright violations from google search. That is expensive, and time consuming. By the time they even finish doing it, the material usually has popped up in a dozen more places. To a tech savvy person, this illustrates the idea that DMCA requests aren't an effective way of dealing with this problem. The RIAA agrees, but they've decided that instead of spending money and time to find a better way, they want to publically attack google, hoping it will force google to spend money and time to do this blocking on their own watch.

The RIAA pays third parties to run automated searches that then send automated notices to sites. This despite the fact that the DMCA is explicit in that the notices must be reviewed before being sent and there is a legal penalty for sending false DMCA notices of $10,000 per notice. See above like on a tiny fraction of their antics due to not following the law.


thank you both.
 
2012-05-31 06:33:51 PM  

SilentStrider: umm

stupid question, but what does any of this mean?


The RIAA is pissed that Googles automated DMCA system has overflow/spam protections.
 
2012-05-31 06:40:41 PM  

Theaetetus: ZAZ: Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day.

If this is about DMCA safe habor, rate limiting takedown requests could get Google in trouble.

That's what jumped out at me, too.


Yeah, they are limited to 10,000 URLs per day.

And since they only submitted just under 50,000 URLs in all of last month, I think they are just bashing Google's limit unnecessarily. When they are pushing 250,000 requests per month, I will accept the argument that Google's limit might be part of the problem.
 
2012-05-31 06:56:35 PM  

dahmers love zombie: /Hell, it annoys me that Google won't autocomplete the word "torrent" when I'm looking for...um...information about surging water currents.


weird, but not only does it autocomplete for me, the list of suggest next words includes, in order:
downloads
sites
search
websites
client
torrentfreak
torrents.to
scan
download sites
finder
freak
s.to
 
2012-05-31 07:11:54 PM  
It isn't Google's business to monitor sites for the RIAA. Google is a private firm, not a monitoring agency. The RIAA isn't a monitoring agency either, but they sort of feel like that, and are amazed that no one else takes them as seriously as they take themselves--see the damages for more money than exists on the planet case.

The sad fact is, the RIAA is complaining that Google isn't making their jobs any easier, because they are complying with the law, and the RIAA would like them to just do whatever their lawyers want. That isn't in the Google business model. It isn't what they do. They don't own the rights to the sites that they link to--with the exception of Gmail and a few others under their umbrella. They neither hold, nor claim to hold, rights or interest in those sites, save listing how many times other folks asked for similar sites.

That the RIAA doesn't use the tools in an efficient manner, and then like a poor carpenter who blames the tools.

That they're sort of pissing in the wind, and then complaining that they're getting wet, and trying to blame the guy whose yard they're in for the sad state of affairs, pretty much illustrates the problem. They are hammering away at flies, and smashing plates, furniture, rather than trying to figure a way to plug the leaks in the damn house. The RIAA represents folks who haven't realized that the business model is changing, or rather, they do, and they have just decided to hate it to death.
 
2012-05-31 07:20:28 PM  

dahmers love zombie: There really, really doesn't need to be any argument whatsoever about this. Google should have exactly zero legal responsibility for the sites it links to. If they want to avoid being evil, they should scan them for potentially harmful content, and if they really want to minimize the "harm" that their indexing does, they could work with the MAFIAA to ensure that, maybe, the first few search results for a song or movie go to "legitimate" websites. They really should have no liability for what other people put online.

/Hell, it annoys me that Google won't autocomplete the word "torrent" when I'm looking for...um...information about surging water currents.


I was pissed when I used chrome and it made me jump through hoops to go to my favorite porn site. 'we can't let you go there its been identified as a site giving viruses' for the home page and every link off it.

Kills the mood when there's a doctor standing next to your girlfriend of 10 years and every time you touch her he screams at the top of his lungs 'SHE HAS HERPES I HEARD IT FROM A GUY'. When, in fact, she gets tested and is clean and hasn't ever banged anyone but you.

Don't judge me for comparing porn sites to girlfriends damnit. Use what you got, not what you want.
 
2012-05-31 07:21:35 PM  

hubiestubert: They don't own the rights to the sites that they link to--with the exception of Gmail and a few others under their umbrella.


Except YouTube. YouTube's kind of a biggie when it comes to copyright infringement. RIAA complains about it constantly.

Of course, ironically it's also the site that probably generates the most interest in music, and probably leads to more sales than anything short of iTunes... But COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
 
2012-05-31 07:32:58 PM  

DemonEater: hubiestubert: They don't own the rights to the sites that they link to--with the exception of Gmail and a few others under their umbrella.

Except YouTube. YouTube's kind of a biggie when it comes to copyright infringement. RIAA complains about it constantly.

Of course, ironically it's also the site that probably generates the most interest in music, and probably leads to more sales than anything short of iTunes... But COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!


You're right with YouTube. I did forget that they got swallowed up a while back. And I'm sure that there are folks who are pissed off with Picasa as well.
 
2012-05-31 07:59:38 PM  
I thought this was going to be about Youtube, but they are actually mad that Google links to sites they have no control over? That's what a search engine is supposed to do!

Go fark yourselves RIAA. Go fark yourselves and die (and take the MPAA with you).
 
2012-05-31 08:06:53 PM  

Skyfrog: I thought this was going to be about Youtube, but they are actually mad that Google links to sites they have no control over? That's what a search engine is supposed to do!

Go fark yourselves RIAA. Go fark yourselves and die (and take the MPAA with you).


Ditto. I refuse to purchase anything from either organization, and I will pirate the material of anyone who willingly joins them.
 
2012-05-31 08:14:03 PM  
I'm a little confused as to how the RIAA thinks an unlimited list of takedown requests will help/speed things up. Does the law stipulate how fast Google's response time must be? Or how many employees Google has to dedicate to this issue?

Because if I were Google I'd be tempted to allow an unlimited number of requests, submitted on 8.5"x11" sheets of paper, single spaced, to be delivered to one of the 4 full-time employees I have doing this particular job. Submit as big a stack of paper as you want, RIAA, those 4 people can only work so fast.
 
2012-05-31 08:18:32 PM  

jimmythefly: I'm a little confused as to how the RIAA thinks an unlimited list of takedown requests will help/speed things up. Does the law stipulate how fast Google's response time must be? Or how many employees Google has to dedicate to this issue?

Because if I were Google I'd be tempted to allow an unlimited number of requests, submitted on 8.5"x11" sheets of paper, single spaced, to be delivered to one of the 4 full-time employees I have doing this particular job. Submit as big a stack of paper as you want, RIAA, those 4 people can only work so fast.


You forgot the $6.95 handling fee + tax where applicable.
 
2012-05-31 08:34:38 PM  
Since when did Google become legally responsible for removing links? RIAA should be sending takedowns to the linked sites, not Google. Why is a search engine that indexes everything responsible for anything?
 
2012-05-31 08:43:06 PM  

deadcrickets: I'll just leave this here:

Link


If the copyright holder Warner Bros. asserts, under penalty of perjury, that the entity posting their content (Warner Bros.) does not hold the copyright of the posted material, does that mean it's now public domain?
 
2012-05-31 08:44:41 PM  
I'm so farking tired of journalists writing "blasted" when they mean "criticized". It wouldn't be so bad except it's EVERY GODDAMN TIME.
 
2012-05-31 09:02:06 PM  

dahmers love zombie: There really, really doesn't need to be any argument whatsoever about this. Google should have exactly zero legal responsibility for the sites it links to. If they want to avoid being evil, they should scan them for potentially harmful content, and if they really want to minimize the "harm" that their indexing does, they could work with the MAFIAA to ensure that, maybe, the first few search results for a song or movie go to "legitimate" websites. They really should have no liability for what other people put online.

/Hell, it annoys me that Google won't autocomplete the word "torrent" when I'm looking for...um...information about surging water currents.


Filetype:torrent filetype: works for any filetype

Downloads lots of FOSS ISOs think freeNAS is next
 
2012-05-31 09:10:07 PM  

rudemix: Fark the RIAA.


This; nothing more needs to be said.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-31 09:15:10 PM  
Because if I were Google I'd be tempted to allow an unlimited number of requests, submitted on 8.5"x11" sheets of paper, single spaced, to be delivered to one of the 4 full-time employees I have doing this particular job. Submit as big a stack of paper as you want, RIAA, those 4 people can only work so fast.

You'd hire more people once the lawsuits started piling up. DMCA takedowns are not favors for other companies. They are legal CYA. You are allowed to pretend you know nothing until the copyright owner calls your attention to the act of infringement. If you insist on pretending to know nothing after that, you risk being liable for contributing to the infringement (or being directly liable if you're serving the content on your server).

Harlan Ellison was allowed to sue AOL after AOL tried to avoid noticing DMCA takedown requests.
 
2012-05-31 09:30:14 PM  
Suggestion Tell the RIAA to shove it, and say we are only indexing what is on the internet. If you don't like what is on the internet go after the content producers. Anyone who thinks they can censor the internet can GEABOD and DIAF.
 
2012-05-31 09:32:00 PM  
Until there is an AUTOMATIC $10,000 penalty for invalid DMCA take-downs, the RIAA and friends can go fark themselves. As it stands, the fine is optional if the government decides to pursue the matter, which is almost never. Make it automatic and paid to the person who suffered under the false DMCA take-down, with the company responsible barred from issuing new take-downs to anyone until said penalty is paid.

They (copyright trolls) are supposed to review the results of automated crawlers, but since there is basically no downside to the shotgun scatter attack approach they are using, they have no incentive to reform their methods. The current system, in fact, encourages bad behavior on their part.
 
2012-05-31 09:48:30 PM  
Until Google goes to a terrible workplace, they're not going to have anyone do anything about it. Once it gets that bad the RIAA and MPAA simply won't exist on the internet anymore.
 
2012-05-31 09:53:50 PM  
Just shut down google. I'm sure no other search engine will pop up. And nobody could possibly figure out how to find pirated copies of anything. Problem solved.
 
2012-05-31 10:21:03 PM  
Throughout all of this I've failed to understand why Google is on the hook for anything. They aren't hosting the content. Go after the web host. Maybe I'm just ignorant of some law that makes Google liable? Does the DMCA cover search engines?
 
2012-05-31 10:23:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Perhaps if the RIAA's business model were brought into the 21st century, they wouldn't have these sorts of issues.


Your chicken dinner is ready, Mr. Aurelius.
 
2012-05-31 10:39:38 PM  

LindenFark: deadcrickets: I'll just leave this here:

Link

If the copyright holder Warner Bros. asserts, under penalty of perjury, that the entity posting their content (Warner Bros.) does not hold the copyright of the posted material, does that mean it's now public domain?


Fun part is if they take someone to court on the same content. Only three possible explanations and they lead to a load of fail for them.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report