Transparency? Ridiculous, according to the volley of words now coming from the major labels. Just days after Google opened its books on copyright takedowns and DMCA compliance, the RIAA is roundly calling BS on the exercise. "Knowing the total number of links to infringing material available - and the limitations Google imposes on rights owners to search for infringements - reveals how meager the number of notices is relative to the vast amount of infringement.," blogged RIAA anti-piracy czar Brad Buckles.
That's just the beginning of the lengthy complaint. In fact, Buckles rattled through a fairly detailed set of 'facts' to discredit Google's copyright-friendly representations. And they are (in his words, trimmed a little)...
"1. In order to notify Google of an infringement, you first need to find the infringement. But Google places artificial limits on the number of queries that can be made by a copyright owner to identify infringements.
2. You can't notify Google about the scope of the problem if it limits the notices it will accept and process through its automated tool. And that is what Google does. On top of the query limitation, Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day.
3. One needs to consider these numbers and Google's activities in context. Google says it received requests to remove 1.2 million links from 1,000 copyright owners in one month. But consider that Google has identified nearly 5 million new links posted in just the last month in searches for free mp3 downloads of just the top 10 Billboard tracks.
4. Google’s 'transparency report' calculates the percentage of a site that is infringing – but this data is flawed and of little value on its own. Specifically, Google claims that the DMCA notices it has received for a site represent less than .1% of the links it had indexed for the domains at the top of this list.
But this number is misleading given the constraints imposed by Google on a copyright owner’s ability to find infringements and send notices to Google.
5. Google's data shows why its interpretation of the DMCA makes it ineffective. Let's take a step back for a moment. Everyone – including Google – knows that the worst sites are repopulated with links to infringing files of the same content as quickly as links are taken down. For example, in a recent one month period, we sent Google, and the site in question, multiple DMCA notices concerning over 300 separate unauthorized copies of the same musical recording owned by one of our member companies. Yet that song is still available on that site today, and we reached it via a search result link indexed by Google."
The complete blog post is here.
Central Scrutinizer Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Put up or shut up major labels. Google gives the people what they want.
It's election season so let's see if your lobbying bucks are bigger than google's.
Anon Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Google gives the people "what they want." lol Really? The people want illegally duplicated music? How about illegally duplicated EVERYthing? Do the people want that too?
Tell you what, keep pressing like this and thendon't be surprased when the internet migrates to a long "whitelist" where everything is kept offline until it's shown to be lawful to place it online. Then the burden shifts to the person who puts it up. As it should be. Whack a mole was never justice and the laws are not even close to being sorted yet. The more piracy pushes, the tougher the laws will be in reply.
Central Scrutinizer Wednesday, May 30, 2012
To "really" answer your questions: yes, google makes money from ad revenue inserted on searches for infringing material; yes or else there wouldn't be sites dedicated to distributing infringing material; yes people want illegally duplicated everything if they can acquire it without fear of criminal prosecution, civil liability or even shame.
Shift the burden to the content provider to protect their copyright ownership or police the internet? Are you a DRM advocate?
"Total Criminalization" is on the way! At least we will all be equal in the eyes of the law.
hello Thursday, May 31, 2012
You guys are squawing about copyright infringment. Have you googled your name lately. You will be surprised as to how much private information they display about you and your past.
John Eppstein Sunday, June 03, 2012
Yeah - most people want free stuff if they can get away with it. Google panders to that - it's no different than facilitating shoplifting.
And your comment about election season - so a criminal organization should be able to get away with their activities simply because they can buy more politicians? Do you REALLY believe that? Hey, let's just give the country to the Mafia then.
Speaking of which - the feds should hit Google with a RICO investigation. There's ample evidence - not onbly facilitating wholesale copyright infringement for profit, there's the recent pharmaceuticals case where Google was ordered to pay a 1/2 BILLION dollar fine, and a couple other cases pending.
Ongoing criminal enterpreise? HELL, YEAH!
sdfasdfea Wednesday, May 30, 2012
I'm not sure how well Google can keep up with Copyright removal requests, but I wouldn't be surprised that the company can be overloaded in regards to requests, which seems entirely appropriate reasoning for setting limits on number of requests and deletions that occur. If Google goes around deleting every request they receive without verifying they are Copyrights problems would arise.
I'm not one to claim Google is innocent in this regard. I'm highly doubtful Google is trying to assist infringement, but is more careful in the implentation of policies to fight such.
One issue with searching for free downloads on Google (at least when it comes to movies) is the links of sites do not contain any copyright material. Instead, the sites act as a middleman to sites that do host such content (which are largely hosted privately by others). Is Google required to remove sites that don't host content themselves and screen for possible links to infringing material? It's a rather tangled mess, and requiring a 'linking site' to be removed is like pulling gum out of your hair.
robbiefields Thursday, May 31, 2012
"One issue with searching for free downloads on Google (at least when it comes to movies) is the links of sites do not contain any copyright material."
If the referring page has any artwork from the film or cast lists, those are usually grounds for a take down.
As a record label, we can pursue based on unauthorized use of graphics, running order of songs or even unauthorized use of our label name.
Visitor Thursday, May 31, 2012
>>As a record label, we can pursue based on unauthorized use of graphics, running order of songs or even unauthorized use of our label name.
And if you do, you're an asshole. Those things are mostly fair use or nominative fair use (with respect to your trademark). No one is confused that this is a record company site. The name the label is just supplied for information. This AMG need permission to tell you that Michael Jackson was on Sony?
Robbie Fields Thursday, May 31, 2012
"And if you do, you're an asshole."
If you are going to call me names for protecting my property, don't hide behind anonymity.
If someone refers to my label for the purpose of commerce, they are trading off my service mark.
You're putting up straw man arguments :
"AMG need permission to tell you that Michael Jackson was on Sony?"
No one has made that argument, only you, rhetorically.
Visitor Thursday, May 31, 2012
Why dont you post a live link of somebody, somewhere that is doing one of these infringements that you are talking about so that we can know what you even mean by "unauthorized use of graphics, running order of songs or even unauthorized use of our label name"? Or post a screenshot that you saved to attach to the cease and desist letter or take downnotice during one of your "pursuits"?. I have to guess what this even is!
mdti Friday, June 01, 2012
kid, go open a book about copyrights and brands and stop bothering those who already know by asking questions that only show you have no idea of what you talk about. Thanks a lot for this.
Luke Wednesday, May 30, 2012
These guys are assholes. Blaming Google for what other people host is like blaming the government for paving the roads people drive getaway cars on.
Disclaimer: I'm against piracy, but can understand the allure given what often passes for the "legitimate" option.
Visitor Wednesday, May 30, 2012
why the hell is it google's responsibility to prevent pirating sites? They are blaming the map-maker for putting their enemies country on the map.
Myles na Gopaleen Wednesday, May 30, 2012
It is not their responsibility to prevent pirating sites. However, according to the DMCA they must respond to requests to take down the link. IF google takes a lackadaisical approach to removal then content owners get upset and start asking for tougher laws. On top of it all google sells ads on searches for infringing material.
anon Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Its much faster and easier to search for any music you want on soundcloud. And they are actually hosting the illegal material.
Do a search for any popular song on soundcloud and you will find pages and pages of it for free streaming and many times free download.
How do they continue to be overlooked by these 'concerned' major labels? Its so blatant and rampant. google search may even point you to one of these many pages I would guess.
LostInDigital Thursday, May 31, 2012
Google is a search engine.
If people search for illegal content, is this google's responsibility?
If illegal content exists, is this google's responsibility?
Is Google facilitating piracy by returning search results containing illegal content? Maybe.
RIAA shall keep in mind Google is doing a lot of business with major record labels through YouTube or Google Music.
All this sounds quite hypocrite.
"I'm doing business with you but I also criticize you for harming my business". Ridiculous.
QSDC Thursday, May 31, 2012
"Put up or shut up major labels. Google gives the people what they want. "
Google doesn't give anyone anything (OK, a free browser). Their business model is about making billions off of OTHER PEOPLE'S stuff.
NormaStick Sunday, June 03, 2012
Good to see that the labels are concerned that their artists mightn't be making all the money they are due. It would be the first time in half a century that they cared.
Oh that's right, silly me, this isn't about the artists missing out, it is about the labels missing out.
Tell someone who cares.
chris Sunday, June 03, 2012
well you obviously cared enough to comment you muppet.