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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:03am

    How many of the 2.5m were bogus?

    I will go out on a limb and say 'most'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      bob, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:08am

      Re:

      Dude RTFA: 2.5%. That's 97.5% accuracy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        weneedhelp (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:15am

        Re: Re:

        Big boB is trusting Big search's numbers?

        The 97.5 that get removed are all legit, right, gotcha boB.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          We can be assured that at least 97.5% of the 2.5 million requests were correctly filled out, which is a lot better than the DMCA bots used to do.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            the data is available for download, and you can see which URLs were rejected for each request...so it shouldn't be too hard to pull a sample and get this number

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          bob, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually, I don't trust Big Search at all on this. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of ultimately legit DMCA requests that were part of that rejected 2.5%-- requests that were ultimately accepted. I'm sure they're bouncing requests for misplaced commas and plenty of other mundane reasons.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Cory of PC (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:09am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            And we're supposed to trust (and believe) you?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Adrian Lopez, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:10am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Even if 100% of requests were accepted, how does that help determine how many of those requests involve actual cases of infringement rather than alleged cases of infringement?

            Also... "big search"? Could you sound any more ridiculous?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 2:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Also... "big search"? Could you sound any more ridiculous?"

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 2:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "I wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of ultimately legit DMCA requests that were part of that rejected 2.5%-- requests that were ultimately accepted"

            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?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:30am

        Re: Re:

        Just because they only reject 2.5% that does not mean that the rest were truly genuine, you ninny. We have seen before that there have been many successful take downs should never have happened.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          bob, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Google and their apologists love to trumpet the occasional cases of some accidental infringement like the grandmother who happens to post a video of a visit to a birthday party, a video that happens to include a copyrighted song in the sound track.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Richard (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:52am

            Re: 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%.

            not rejecting!=approving.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Gwiz (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            But anyone who spends a few minutes on YouTube knows it's easy to believe that 97.5% are legit.

            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?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              btrussell (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 8:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "You can't tell by just looking, moron."

              You can if you just look at the pixels.
              Or is it pixie dust? I can never remember.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually, I spend hours and hours on Youtube every day and don't see any infringing content.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 2:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "But anyone who spends a few minutes on YouTube knows it's easy to believe that 97.5% are legit."

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 7:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If they're rejecting 2.5% that means Google is approving 97.5%.

            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?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:50am

        Re: Re:

        Dude RTFA: 2.5%. That's 97.5% accuracy.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          bob, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:57am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Dream on, dude. Keep on dreaming that there are no pirates out there. Keep on dreaming that all of that content on YouTube is legit. Keep on living in your alternative reality because it bears no resemblance to any thing I've seen.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Please point out where anyone on this site has ever said that there are NO pirates.

            Good luck with that one.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Well, I don't believe in copyright infringement as piracy, so technically, I would be a person saying there are no pirates.

              But I would say that there are lots of copyright infringers.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 2:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Please point out where anyone on this site has ever said that there are NO pirates."

              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...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            JWW (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That your ruler for popular song includes everything from the past 80 years, shows your bias.

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            silverscarcat (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 1:33pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Dood, 80 years?

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 6:11pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            UNlicensed doesn't mean infringing, especially if the artist already monetizes them through YouTube. Get a grip, join us in the 21st century.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      fogbugzd (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:10am

      Re:

      My guess is that most of the rejects were for notices that were incomplete or too seriously flawed to put into the system.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:31am

      Re:

      Maybe google should just threaten to close down for a day. Let the government get involved in doing something to stop this nonsense once and for all, 1 day will be enough to bring a lot of businesses to a standstill.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Gameguyalien, Dec 13th, 2012 @ 4:03am

      Fuck off google

      Keep out of other people's website information is FREE GO AWAY 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

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Gameguyalien, Dec 13th, 2012 @ 4:03am

      Fuck off google

      Keep out of other people's website information is FREE GO AWAY 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

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Gameguyalien, Dec 13th, 2012 @ 4:03am

      Fuck off google

      Keep out of other people's website information is FREE GO AWAY 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

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:08am

    "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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:12am

      Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"

      "They reject about 2.5% of takedown notices."

      Yes because we all know that the 97.5 that get removed are all valid. /s

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Another AC, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:14am

      Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"

      The missing bit of info is how much is this costing Google to do it?

      I guarantee most other people/companies can't do it due to the sheer cost.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike Brown (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 1:36pm

        Re: Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"

        Exactly! How many people is Google paying to sit around and watch these videos, looking for infringement? See, piracy creates jobs! /s

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      fogbugzd (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:41am

      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...

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Adrian Lopez, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:01am

      Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"

      "You guys claim piracy is minor (yes, I'm assuming the 97.5% is valid, then). -- So WRONG AGAIN."

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Cory of PC (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:06am

      Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"

      And before I say what I'm about to say, I like to pass on some wisdom: "If it isn't a problem, don't make it one. If it is a problem, don't make it any bigger."

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:08am

      Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"

      You guys claim such large-scale processing can't be done at all, let alone rapidly. -- So WRONG once...


      Wrong. We claim that large-scale processing can't be done accurately. Nothing in the article refutes that claim.

      You guys claim piracy is minor (yes, I'm assuming the 97.5% is valid, then).


      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 7:37pm

      Re: "over 10 million takedowns per month"

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    bob, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:14am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:18am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      "If Google actually punished people for constantly uploading copyrighted material"

      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

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:29am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      Wow. Google is making money hand over fist for making it easy for their users to do stuff. Content producers are, according to their own words, losing money while they make it more difficult for their customers to do stuff in the name of stopping piracy (read DRM). I wonder which is the better option.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        bob, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:54am

        Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

        Actually Google is very much like the RIAA/MPAA when it serves their interests. Have you ever tried to use the AppEngine? They've got it locked down and they want to use two factor authentication because they don't want any shenanigans that will actually hurt them. When other people are the target, they're more than willing to pretend that, hey, it's Chinatown Jake.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Cory of PC (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:14am

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          Yes, compare Google to the RI/MPAA. I'm sure they share a whole lot in common with each other! bob, you do realize there's much more to the Internet than Google, right!? I don't mind you being a fan-boy for some of the other search engines, but you got to let this go... Google is NOT THE FREAKING INTERNET!!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chosen Reject (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:23am

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          I've never tried to use AppEngine, but for the life of me I can't figure out how two-factor auth is a bad thing in itself. From my admittedly cursory web searches I see there is a bug when if you turn two factor auth on (so it looks to be optional). However, it appears that it's more of an "Oops we didn't think of that" rather than a "we're adding this specific pain point". Bugs happen on accident, DRM does not.

          Sorry, try again.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:30am

      Re: 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."

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        bob, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:52am

        Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

        The form is a real pain and that's why many hire specialists. Have you ever heard of anyone hiring a specialist to upload their pirated video to YouTube? Nope. I rest my case.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:58am

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          Your case is laughable, as always.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:05am

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          The form asks you to give a link as well as your name and details (phone number, address etc).

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:06am

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          You are just about the biggest idiot going.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:11am

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          You need a the help of a specialist to fill in your name and other trivial information?

          That explains a lot about you...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

            I've had it with your bullshit bob, so here's Google's DMCA policy:

            http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

            They specifically request the following for a DMCA takedown to occur:


            A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

            Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

            Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. Providing URLs in the body of an email is the best way to help us locate content quickly.

            Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

            A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

            A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.


            All trivial to compile and send. They even provide a webform to expedite the process. But it doesn't stop there:


            If there are many videos to be removed, or you expect to have an ongoing need to remove potentially infringing content from YouTube, we suggest that you sign up for our Content Verification Program, which electronically notifies us, removing any room for error. YouTube also offers industry-leading Content Identification and Management tools.


            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          I hate you bob. I really do., Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:27am

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          You're so full of shit it's actually quite sad.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Chosen Reject (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

            It could be a lot simpler. This is how bob wishes it would work.

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          silverscarcat (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 1:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          all I do is laugh at you, bob.

          Because a copyright apologist like you has no idea what you're saying.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 2:49am

          Re: Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

          "The form is a real pain and that's why many hire specialists"

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Cory of PC (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:30am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      Oh my GOD, bob said Google! ... I'm not sure to either celebrate or beat my head against a wall.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:48am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      What terminating the Youtube account is not enough?

      Google is receiving 10 million DMCA's for ISOHunt?

      LoL

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:49am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      Just face it, to have 10 million DMCA's filed means that there is something wrong with the law not with people.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:53am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      Son you know nothing about pain, try defending against a bogus DMCA and see what pains really mean.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:55am

      Re: 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."

      Yeah, you know what else is a pain?

      Sorting through and reviewing those notices for free.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:57am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      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.

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:58am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      Actually a better option would be for Google to move all its server over to the UK, one of the few countries that has not been demanding millions from them, set everything up there and then stop doing the take-downs, admit once and for all that they are just indexing the internet, nothing more and that if copyright holders cant cope with it they must do something about what is there not about a site that is only indexing what is there.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:59am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      If Google actually punished people for constantly uploading copyrighted material

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:20am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      bob, these numbers ONLY are for google search (not youtube), so google isn't helping the infringers upload anything. Certainly they could block websites completely, but that would open them up to liability, and more importantly to Google, it would just shunt all that traffic to another search engine. (there are infinite numbers of torrent / file download search engines out there)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JWW (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:39am

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      Yeah, because pissing off and ditching their customers and users on behalf of a whiny industry that feels itself entitled to, to put it bluntly, A POLICE STATE to make sure they get paid is a great idea.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      I hate you bob. I really do., Dec 12th, 2012 @ 12:02pm

      Re: 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."

      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).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        I hate you bob. I really do., Dec 12th, 2012 @ 12:05pm

        Re: Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

        Oops. Silly me, that second link I included won't work, as that link comes up for me because I am signed into my Gmail account in Chrome.

        The proper link can be found in

        wwwgoogle.com/webmasters/tools

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 7:39pm

      Re: And it could be soooo much more easier for Google

      Requoted for accuracy:

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:14am

    "[the number of DMCA takedowns] it's up to 2.5 million per week"

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:17am

    perhaps if the entertainment industries carry on like this, they will overload the system and Google will stop it. they shouldn't have started it in the first place as those industries are doing nothing other than abusing it anyway

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    And the MPAA/RIAA and the rest of the copyright holders will use all of this argument that Google has seen an increase of DMCA takedown requests of 2.5 million a week to further fuel and pursure the claims that piracy is on the increase and must be stopped at all costs etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:23am

    2.5 Million Takedowns

    How is it even possible that they are reviewing these manually? Can anyone seriously give me an estimate on how long it takes to review a take-down? If it is 1 per minute, Google has 1100 people employed full-time just to review DMCA take-downs?

    I guess there is an argument that copyright creates jobs...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:40am

      Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns

      The number is ridiculous, but it shouldn't take a minute to click a link and see that you are downloading a file named The Dark Knight Rises. They aren't supposed to be determining actual infringement; that's partly the job of the DMCA filer -- who swore under penalty of perjury --, partly of the submitter of the work, but ultimately of the courts if the filer decides to go that far. My bet is one person could knock out 30-60 of these in a minute especially if done in parallel. At 30 per minute, that reduces it to just 35 people. That would be one really boring job though.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:05am

        Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns

        I suspect they're only verifying accuracy (i.e. the form is correctly filled out) and possibly auditing a small percentage of requests.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 7:07pm

        Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns

        My bet is one person could knock out 30-60 of these in a minute especially if done in parallel.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 3:27am

        Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns

        "it shouldn't take a minute to click a link and see that you are downloading a file named The Dark Knight Rises."

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chosen Reject (profile), Dec 13th, 2012 @ 9:16am

          Re: Re: Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns

          My suspicion is that 97% accuracy number is way too generous. I bet there's a lot more that aren't legitimate. But Google is actually going beyond the law here to verify that the DMCA request is accurate. It's the filer who swore under penalty of perjury that it is, and Lenz v Universal taught the DMCA filers that they must consider fair use. Legally, Google doesn't have to do any verification, so any work they do is work (and money) they shouldn't have to spend. Given that, my guess is they are simply doing a very quick audit of file names or other basic checks.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:10am

      Re: 2.5 Million Takedowns - the future

      How is it even possible that they are reviewing these manually? Can anyone seriously give me an estimate on how long it takes to review a take-down? If it is 1 per minute, Google has 1100 people employed full-time just to review DMCA take-downs?

      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!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    themusicgod1, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    extrapolating

    ...this means in about 5 years, on average, every human being on earth will be getting a DMCA takedown at least once a day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    DMCA compliance in terms of man-hours

    Given a 5 day work week and an 8 hour work day, 2.5 million alleged infringements per week amounts to Google needing to handle 500,000 alleged infringements per day, or 8,333 per hour, or 1,388 per minute, or 23.14 per second.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 7:08pm

      Re: 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.

      That would be three shifts of 23 workers each, not taking any breaks.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:52am

    I got a claim against a video I made with a DJ's permission, even posted it on his facebook page a year ago. Last weekend I received a notification that there was a claim against the video. I went to the dispute page and there were 4 different media groups were listed. YouTube wouldn't specify who sent the claim, I was supposed to guess and of course if I was wrong they would shut down my account.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:02am

      Re:

      And here is where copyright lovers will point out that while you had the DJ's permission, it may or may not have been his music. So while you did have a good faith belief that you had permission to make the video, the fact you didn't trawl the non-existant Central Copyright Database and submit your request (in paper form and in triplicate of course) and wait the requisite six months, won't mean squat when someone can just claim that your video is infringing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mesonoxian Eve (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 10:54am

    Now I'm curious:
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:04am

    Can't help but think, if google added a $1 fee for each DMCA request, to make up for the amount they've got to pay people to do nothing but review requests, that the number would probably drop like a rock.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:22am

      Re:

      Doubtful, keep in mind the companies are already paying these DMCA spam companies millions of dollars in consulting fees.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That One Guy (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 12:12pm

        Re: Re:

        Ah, but that's when you use their own arguments against them. If they are going to claim to be losing billions per year to piracy, a simple $1/link would seem to be an insanely good investment. However, if they weren't willing to pay such a paltry sum, then obviously it must not be that important or damaging to them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:31am

    Ok, so what bill is coming up or they are proposing to put up on that is ramping up these numbers of take down requests?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 12:53pm

      Re:

      Ok, so what bill is coming up or they are proposing to put up on that is ramping up these numbers of take down requests?

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm

      Re:

      It's a lead-up to where Google is shown to not have a viable repeat infringer policy, which is necessary if they wish to maintain safe harbor protection via the DMCA.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:32am

    Governments should'nt be regulating the internet, the internet should be regulating the governments

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JWW (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 11:42am

      Re:

      That. Is an absolutely fantastic line....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 12th, 2012 @ 12:46pm

      Re:

      I absolutely love that quote, and I hope it gets a light bulb icon soon.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Brent Ashley (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

    Who is making the claims?

    I don't see any analysis of the sources of 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bayan Rafeh (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 12:25pm

    If the amount of students getting detention in a school increased tenfold in two years there would clearly be something wrong with the school, not the students, but the analogy doesn't apply because pirates.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ArkieGuy (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 12:47pm

    Top 10 Submitters removed over 85% of URLs

    Great data!!! Here's a little summarized table for you....

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AigWLtPZF29BdG9lM3ZFbUFOWGxSYXZMTElXZGprNHc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ellie (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 1:14pm

    Google Transparency Report data

    Thank you, Mike Masnick! I found out about this here, via TechDirt, before anywhere else. You were FIRST.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ellie (profile), Dec 12th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

      Re: Google Transparency Report data

      Oh crud! Never mind. I just realized that Mike Masnick already linked directly to the data download page in this article. Well, I'll just be grateful, having nothing to offer in return.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This