Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the Is-a-digital-millennium-1024-years? dept.

Fluffeh writes:

A new paper published in the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology shows that the number of DMCA notices received by Google increased 711,887 percent in four years. The increase can be credited to a few copyright holders and industry groups such as the RIAA, who started an avalanche of takedown requests after the SOPA and PIPA bills died in Congress.

New research by Stanford Law School's Daniel Seng reveals that online services such as Google and Twitter have seen a surge in takedown requests in recent years. In fact, drawing on data from ChillingEffects.org, Seng finds that the number of DMCA notices processed by Google increased 711,887 percent in four years, from 62 in 2008 to 441,370 in 2012.

The most active copyright holders up until 2012 were the RIAA, Froytal and Microsoft, each listing more than five million notices. Seng's paper doesn't include the most recent data, but Google's Transparency Report shows that these numbers more than doubled again in 2013.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by enharmonix on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:18PM

    by enharmonix (1891) <enharmonix+soylentnews@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:18PM (#21508)

    I really think that someone (maybe google since they have a shitload of cash) should challenge in court wether automated takedown requests are valid and or legal.

    I agree with the cash thing but not the courts. Why fight the spirit of the law for years when you have the option to change the letter in a couple of months?
     
    I really can't decide how to react to the inevitable outcome, though. Buying votes to eliminate a bad law is kind of like killing puppies to feed starving orphans.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by DECbot on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:55PM

    by DECbot (832) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @02:55PM (#21533) Journal

    Buying votes to eliminate a bad law is kind of like killing puppies to feed starving orphans.

    What's the problem? You're just using your money for the good of the public.

    Oh... wait, I see what you're saying now. But if you serve old dog to the orphans, the meat will be tough.

    --
    cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:06PM (#21541)

      starving orphans > puppies
      I don't really see any problems with this? Can someone explain why it would be bad to feed the orphans?

      • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:38PM

        by Lagg (105) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:38PM (#21562) Homepage Journal
        This is what we in the field call an analogy. It wouldn't be, but you'd rather give them golden corn or something first and then resort to killing one animal to feed another next if that proves impossible. Same thing here. I don't know if I agree with it necessarily, google is just sitting on their asses lately and giving these parasites tools to harass people. They pretend it's out of their control but something tells me that's a lie, being that they're fucking google. So personally I'd rather see them drop the money in court and at least put in the minimal effort since this is getting ridiculous. I have a tiny little youtube channel that has gotten hit by copyright matches 5 times now since I started my project. I naturally challenge each one since the author of the program using the music gives explicit license, but sometimes they reject the dispute and at that point google basically says: "You can appeal this rejection but if the challenging party also rejects the appeal you will lose your account". A bit one sided right? Nothing like giving parasites the power of judge, jury and executioner.

        Long story short: Why shouldn't google get off their lazy asses and do something about it. The only way they can justify helping this trash harass their users is because they get kickbacks.
        --
        http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿