Google and the DMCA

[LucyDuke]

I just found this at the bottom of a Google search results page.

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

This particular notice is not yet available, but it looks like they just put up the cease and desist... complete with urls of the offending page.

The link that's supposed to go to Google's DMCA policy just goes to a page where you can request they remove material.

1. When did this start happening? (Is this totally old news I just didn't get the memo on? It's the first time I've seen it.)
2. Does anyone else find this creepy?
3. How far can this kind of thing go?

 

[Mise]

I've seen it before, I wasn't too fussed. There is plenty of stuff on the internet, and Google isn't the only way to find it.

 

[illram]

This has been going on since the beginning of the DMCA. It's called "Notice and Takedown," and it's a procedure initially designed to avoid an overabundance of copyright lawsuits. Basically, under the DMCA anyone who believes they are the victim of copyright infringement, before suing anyone, has to send a notice to the ISP or other content provider or host (e.g. Youtube) and inform them that they are hosting allegedly infringing material. Then, the ISP takes the material down. It is up to the person who uploaded the content to then prove to the satisfaction of the ISP that the material is not actually in violation of any laws or copyrights. If the ISP does not take it down or puts it back up, it is then on the accuser to sue them. In practice, rarely does the offending content come back.

It's an effective way for ISPs or other hosts like google to basically pass the buck and in some ways it is necessary, otherwise big providers would basically be too afraid to host anything on their websites. Of course on the other hand, it is ripe for abuse as someone like google will essentially pull anything requested.

 

[mdwh]

This has been going on since the beginning of the DMCA. It's called "Notice and Takedown," and it's a procedure initially designed to avoid an overabundance of copyright lawsuits. Basically, under the DMCA anyone who believes they are the victim of copyright infringement, before suing anyone, has to send a notice to the ISP or other content provider or host (e.g. Youtube) and inform them that they are hosting allegedly infringing material. Then, the ISP takes the material down. It is up to the person who uploaded the content to then prove to the satisfaction of the ISP that the material is not actually in violation of any laws or copyrights. If the ISP does not take it down or puts it back up, it is then on the accuser to sue them.

My understanding is that if the ISP (or website, whatever) receives a counter claim from the uploader that the material isn't infringing, then the ISP can put it back up, and won't be liable. The action would be to sue the uploader.

 

[Quintillus]

I just found this at the bottom of a Google search results page.


This particular notice is not yet available, but it looks like they just put up the cease and desist... complete with urls of the offending page.

The link that's supposed to go to Google's DMCA policy just goes to a page where you can request they remove material.

1. When did this start happening? (Is this totally old news I just didn't get the memo on? It's the first time I've seen it.)

It's been happening for years now, but it's not all that common. I've seen it probably less than twice per year on average, and that's usually when I'm trying to get it to come up for the sake of seeing it come up.

2. Does anyone else find this creepy?

Not sure that's quite the word I'd use but it is a form of censorship.

3. How far can this kind of thing go?

As far as Baidu has gone in China. Google may not be censoring its results in China, but that doesn't mean it isn't doing censoring in the U.S. or elsewhere (albeit on a much, much smaller scale than Baidu et. al. in China).

The place where I see this sort of thing a lot is YouTube. It's fairly common to see DMCA takedown notices there, though it was a lot more common back in the day when Warner Records was trying to get all their music off of YouTube. There it's usually fairly clear that it's for copyright reasons, and it mostly serves the purpose of preventing people from discovering and/or playing their music. With Google, it's often a bit less clear exactly why the content was removed.

Along a similar vein you may find Google's Transparency Report interesting. It has stats on which countries requested that Google remove contents, from which services, and for what reasons. I find it a bit more creepy, as it's not only (ostensibly) for copyright reasons, but can also be for various other reasons.

 

[deanej]

Why are they deleting people's email? What could possibly cause them to do that?

 

[LucyDuke]

I expect it from YouTube, where they're actually hosting the content. Search results are different.

 

[GoodGame]

I expect it from YouTube, where they're actually hosting the content. Search results are different.

That is sort of a good point, but in a way Google is not just a search engine, but a meta-website that puts all that stuff on display. I'd agree with your point if all they were giving you were urls, but they're actually re-displaying the images.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

I expect it from YouTube, where they're actually hosting the content. Search results are different.

Not really. They have immunity from copyright lawsuits for their search results (linking to infringing material, etc) only as long as they respond to DMCA requests. As long as they believe the requests are made in good faith, they have to abide by them or face possible lawsuits.

Google also hosts cached versions of the sites and a bunch of other data, so its not as if they're purely linking.

 

[LucyDuke]

First part: eh, technicality. That's a practical matter only because the law happens to be exactly as it is, not because linking is actually comparable to hosting. It is, but shouldn't be, their responsibility.

And the second is not damning. They could drop the cache and the previews just as easily as outright removing the item.