SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
TorrentFreak reports
In a single week (beginning August 18, 2015) Google processed a mind-boggling 13,685,322 allegedly infringing URLs. That's almost 23 copyright complaints handled by the search giant every single second--or 100 URLs in the time it took to read this sentence.
In the most recently reported month, 5,991 copyright holders and 2,683 reporting organizations requested the removal of 55,702,393 URLs from 80,256 domains.
The most complained about services were all file-hosting sites including Chomikuj.pl (1,089,458 URLs), Rapidgator.net (711,175), and Uploaded.net (664,299).
[...] Two [...] sets of circumstances are undoubtedly inflating the figures reported by Google. Interestingly, they're both a direct result of copyright holder actions.
While domain takedowns have inconvenienced several large sites in recent times, those affected are increasingly using multiple domains to mitigate the problem. It's a strategy now being employed by many of the leading torrent sites--cut one head from the hydra and another appears, as the saying goes.
[...] Another big issue is caused by site blocking. Again taking The Pirate Bay as an example, there are now dozens if not hundreds of active proxies, mirrors, and clones, each of which attract their own sets of takedown demands.
[...] The tide of notices being sent to Google [...] [appears] to be having almost no effect on content availability. All popular movies and music tracks remain just a few clicks away. Let's not forget, Google takes down links to content, not the content itself.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday September 10 2015, @07:39PM
This more than anything.
I don't care if there are 3 trillion take down requests per second. Just as long as every single one of them is perfectly legal, correct, and accountable for mistakes with suitable penalties that are enforced .
This "tidal wave of justice" you speak of is really a tidal wave of demanded, but still baseless, appeals for justice being re-purposed as weapons in the business world.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday September 10 2015, @07:47PM
That would not benefit corporations.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Friday September 11 2015, @06:17AM
Where is the "+0.1 Insightful, but Obvious" mod when you need it?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10 2015, @07:55PM
I don't care if there are 3 trillion take down requests per second.
You should, because no one should be legally obliged to censor information without at least being ordered to by a court. There is no due process for DMCA takedowns until later in the process, and that's only if you have the money to fight back, which most don't. I say force everyone who desires censorship to go to court, and still grant websites safe harbor. You want censorship? We're not going to make it easy.
Ideally, there would be no government-enforced censorship allowed at all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday September 10 2015, @11:10PM
... Ideally, there would be no government-enforced censorship allowed at all.
Don't forget that the DMCA was carefully crafted* to encourage NONgovernment censorship.
*By not actively discouraging illegitimate takedown requests.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 11 2015, @01:48AM
It's very much government censorship. The government enforces copyright. The government enforces court decisions. Websites will lose safe harbor for not complying with the DMCA, and since the government enforces copyright and court decisions, this is all very much government censorship, even though they try to make it appear as if it isn't.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 10 2015, @08:19PM
There is no viable disincentive that would discourage inaccurate DMCA takedown notices.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday September 10 2015, @08:50PM
With respect, there are sure as hell is:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If that don't work...... set a misdemeanor jail term of 90 days if you exceed X number of false or inaccurate reports per period. This also means that a bot cannot actually be responsible for a takedown request. It will require *somebody's* name on the request that can be physically put in jail if necessary.
Let me put it this way: I could file all kinds of false requests (egregiously false requests at that), and the moment I actually affected a major corporation... do you think I could continue? That's the real question. If no penalties can work, and it can be used disruptively on purpose, let's turn it on the big boys too.
I wonder what would happen if all of the sudden Sony found a good percentage of their content unreachable with the same sort of head-firmly-shoved-up-ass shenanigans. Me thinks a viable disincentive would be sent my way rather quickly :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10 2015, @10:17PM
> With respect, there are sure as hell is:
None of that is part of the DMCA process.
One day the law might be amended to include it - assuming the pro-DMCA forces are unable to bribe any such amendment to death - but as the law is today, there is no penalty and no cost.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by M. Baranczak on Thursday September 10 2015, @09:43PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by draconx on Thursday September 10 2015, @10:18PM
What the statute actually says is that the notice contain (among other things, mostly identification of people and works) the following:
It seems like a pretty low bar to meet, as long as your notice is internally consistent, not blatantly false, and you only make claims regarding your own copyrights. The complaining party doesn't actually have to put in any effort to determine that the alleged infringement actually happened. For example:
"We believe that work XYZ infringes on the copyright of Freddy the Rat because our magic 8 ball said so. We have a good faith belief that incorporating Freddy the Rat images into XYZ was not authorized by the copyright holder. The information in this notice is accurate, and we are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder of Freddy the Rat."
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Friday September 11 2015, @12:32PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday September 10 2015, @08:45PM
One has to wonder if making it illegal to speak about a pirated movie is an effective way to prevent the download of same.
Clearly these numbers would indicate that is not the case.
Even a one dollar fee per takedown URL would bring this nonsense to a screeching halt.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.