Google helps fight piracy

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Mike L

The key word is "valid". According to the article referenced above, "This new system will take into account every one of the Copyright Removal Requests they receive that turn out to be valid" (my italics).

This is presumably to prevent attempts to spam the system by issuing bogus notices to your competitors.

Mike

Indeed, that is a key word, but Google hasn't provided details yet on how they'll determine what is a valid takedown notice. Google is going to do this via algorithms rather than humans, so I'm curious what criteria they will use to determine validity.

[sunnysmiles]

Well I think its a good idea . I know a site that is not main stream but has all pirated books and audio on . They refuse to take any thing of their excuse is well it came from scribd or internet archive. It can effect small publishers a lot especially if they are trying to make Ebooks available at a reasonable cost; it makes a lot more work for the publisher to prove they own copyright.

[Sil_liS]

I asked this before, but didn't get a reply. Why would google get the Copyright Removal Requests?

If a site hosts copyrighted material without the approval of the copyright holder, wouldn't the site be the one to get the Copyright Removal Requests? How does google get involved? Google can't remove the copyrighted material, so why would google get the Copyright Removal Requests?

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I asked this before, but didn't get a reply. Why would google get the Copyright Removal Requests?

If a site hosts copyrighted material without the approval of the copyright holder, wouldn't the site be the one to get the Copyright Removal Requests? How does google get involved? Google can't remove the copyrighted material, so why would google get the Copyright Removal Requests?

The article linked in the OP links to this page of the Google Transparency Report, which says:

Google regularly receives requests from copyright owners and reporting organizations that represent them to remove search results that link to material that allegedly infringes copyrights. Each request names specific URLs to be removed, and we list the domain portions of URLs requested to be removed under specified domains.

Google aren't asked to remove copyrighted material, they're asked to remove links to copyrighted material.

[usuallee]

I'm no pirate, but this is pretty draconian & a slippery slope if you ask me. I'm very leery of censorship of any kind.

Well, not any kind. I'm 100% in favor of complete censorship of kiddie porn, more than ever now that I'm a parent. And legit national security-type information where people could be harmed if the info got out.

But c'mon, it's ridiculous to treat media piracy in the various heavy-handed ways we've seen, of which this is just the latest. It's like swatting a mosquito with a jackhammer. I of course believe artists/ creators should be compensated, because it's only fair, and because I selfishly want talented folks to be motivated to create new content for my enjoyment.

But it's never been proven to my satisfaction that piracy actually harms anyone. Hell, here we are well into the second decade of computer piracy & there are more films, tv shows, books, music, games on offer than ever before, it seems to me. Why would this vast wealth of content be created if no one was making money? The argument that piracy is harming anything seems unglued from the reality I'm seeing.

I'm getting sick of google just like I got sick of Apple, and now I use Musicbee, not itunes, a Droid not an iphone, and my ipod is gathering dust. When a company starts getting too big for its britches, putting its shareholders ahead of it's customers, getting bloated and losing what made it cool in the first place, I seek alternatives.

Sorry, this turned into a bit of a rant here

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by avantman42

The article linked in the OP links to this page of the Google Transparency Report, which says:


Google aren't asked to remove copyrighted material, they're asked to remove links to copyrighted material.

Are you saying that the Copyright Removal Requests are not requests to remove copyrighted works?

At the end it will just make google search unreliable.

[avantman42]

I agree that many proposed anti-piracy solutions are draconian (I once saw someone suggesting that Google should refuse to allow the word "torrent" in searches), but this doesn't seem too bad, and is certainly better than many.

Google tweak their search algorithms all the time, for various reasons. This is another tweak. They're not removing pages from search results based on DMCA notices, but they are using them as another data point in the algorithms. Also, note that they say:

And we’ll continue to provide “counter-notice” tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated. We’ll also continue to be transparent about copyright removals.

I don't think this is particularly draconian.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Are you saying that the Copyright Removal Requests are not requests to remove copyrighted works?

At the end it will just make google search unreliable.

From what I can tell (based on what it says on the Google page I linked to), Google get requests to remove search results to a particular page/file. If it's valid, they remove those results, but will still link to other pages etc on that site. Sites that get many such requests will have a lower ranking in Google search results.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by avantman42

From what I can tell (based on what it says on the Google page I linked to), Google get requests to remove search results to a particular page/file. If it's valid, they remove those results, but will still link to other pages etc on that site. Sites that get many such requests will have a lower ranking in Google search results.

It all seems very pointless.
Option 1: people can't search for a link to copyrighted work. Since the link can still be transmitted by other means, pirates will still be able to get hold of the links, but copyright holders won't be able to see that the works are available.

Option 2: the copyrighted works are just posted somewhere else. Time and money is being spent to request the removal from search results of the same works every week.

But what makes it pointless at the end is very simple: you can search by site. Or you can ignore entire sites in your search with the simple "-site:__________". This measure will only deter the very stupid.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It all seems very pointless.

I agree that it will do little to impact piracy, but I'm not convinced that piracy is the reason they're doing it.

It does give Google ammunition when/if they are accused of facilitating piracy. That alone may make it worthwhile as far as Google is concerned.