Google Further Highlights Wrongful DMCA Takedowns

Andy
March 20, 2013
199
google
Print

As the tsunami of DMCA takedowns sent to Google breaks yet another record, there are signs that the search engine is beginning to make rightsholders who have their requests denied a little more visible. As it reinstates Torrentz’s homepage after an earlier takedown against content that doesn’t exist, Google is now actively highlighting takedowns they refuse to process. While some are of minor interest, some reveal a comedy of errors.

In 2012 copyright holders asked Google to remove a staggering 51.4 million links to allegedly infringing webpages. By the end of the year Google was removing around half a million links per day.

Recovering from a small lull over the Christmas / New Year period, rightsholders were back with a vengeance in 2013.

After a somewhat jittery start, in the week starting February 11 rightsholders asked for the removal of 3,790,409 URLs, smashing the previous weekly record of 3,502,153 set December 17 last year.

But even this new record was eclipsed March 11 with a record 4,043,382 takedown requests.

However, just because a takedown is requested, it doesn’t mean that Google always complies.

In December 2012, Google began providing additional detail on requests it refuses to process. Now the search giant is back with a new addition to its Transparency Report which reveals on a daily basis a selection of copyright holders and anti-piracy companies that have been told that their requests will not be honored.

The latest set of results dated yesterday feature URLs which allegedly link to Saturday’s big UFC event in Montreal which featured Georges St-Pierre and Nick Diaz.

Underneath each item is a line which states “Requested to be removed in request XXXXXX”, which is actually a convenient link to the actual takedown request listed in Google’s Transparency Report.

The main request, 535215, shows that anti-piracy outfit MiMTiD asked for 60 URLs to be removed. Google removed 32 but refused to process 17, with the rest pending. Exact reasons for the refusals are not provided, but a check of some of the URLs listed reveals that they don’t exist on the target site and/or Google’s search.

While this particular sample doesn’t appear to show any blatantly stupid takedowns, those that can be described in such terms can be found on a daily basis. These would often be submitted and forgotten, but now they have an opportunity to appear prominently on Google’s “featured” list for everyone to see.

There are some great examples, such as this one sent by the Federation Against Copyright Theft on behalf of the BBC. It requests the takedown of links to the BBC show Wonders of the Solar System. As can be seen in the screenshot below, among a selection of torrent sites FACT also asked Google to censor the page that advertises the show on the BBC’s own website.

The poor BBC were also targeted by anti-piracy company Audiolock. This outfit was concerned that the UK’s leading TV broadcaster was providing links to a pirated copy of The View’s album “Cheeky for a Reason“, but when in fact it only published a review. Google refused to remove the link, fortunately.

And going deeper into this particular takedown request from Audiolock shows that if it wasn’t for Google’s diligence then the band’s online presence would have suffered even more damage. The request from the anti-piracy outfit asked Google to remove 28 links to allegedly infringing content but the search engine rejected 98% as wrongful.

They include: Removing links to the band’s actual music on iTunes, Amazon and Spotify, removing links to the album’s Wikipedia page, and censoring album reviews on almost two dozen sites including The Guardian, Independent, Metro, Drowned in Sound, Contact Music and NME.

The embarrassing thing for the anti-piracy groups is that Google’s tools allow you to keep digging to see exactly how far the rabbit hole goes and how awful it smells at the end. So we did.

It turns out that Audiolock have another customer called Hospital Records, which is one of the world’s most-loved Drum and Bass labels. In this takedown request for 25 URLs, Google denied 84%. Why? Well, Audiolock again tried to remove the label’s music from iTunes, Spofity and eMusic, and attempted to censor a whole bunch of legitimate reviews on some of the best Drum and Bass sites around.

But perhaps the most head-shakingly awful one of all can be found here, in which Audiolock tries (unsuccessfully) to take down legitimate tracks from electronic music store TrackitDown, a company which also runs its own successful music anti-piracy company. In fact, TrackitDown have been targeted by Audiolock on several occasions on behalf of at least five different labels.

After noticing the Google takedown, last week we reported on the plight of Torrentz, whose torrent-less homepage was removed from Google following a DMCA takedown from Paramount. We can report that Google reevaluated the report and concluded that the site’s homepage could be reinstated with immediate effect.

Google not only deserves praise for its Transparency Report but apparently its diligence in stopping takedowns that have the potential to damage artists, whose labels think they are handing over money to anti-piracy outfits in order to achieve completely the opposite.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

dlovin123

Now they have to start charging for every bogus request… Come on google you can pull through!
- funny
  
  In a perfect world they wouldn’t remove anything and tell everyone to sod off, because all they do is provide links.
  - http://twitter.com/SophiaJoshua2 Sophia Joshua
    
    There are some great examples, such as this one sent by the Federation Against Copyright Theft on behalf of the BBC. … http://www.Enjoytowork72dollareveryhouronthelabtop.qr.net/j0NQ
  - Search Engine
    
    “Google not only deserves praise for its Transparency Report”
    
    Since they delete links, they don’t deserve anything.
    - Hardcore_Gamer1
      
      Agreed. Why Google has taken it upon themselves to comply with big media is beyond me, especially when linking to other sites isn’t supposed to be illegal. Yet somehow people like the guy who ran TV Links end up in jail. By supporting this behavior, Google are setting a poor precedent. Down here in Canada when Amanda Todd commit suicide you could find underage pics of her on Google Images months after her death. Amazing Google can get millions of links off their engine for political reasons, yet not underage nudity.
    - ndmushroom
      
      Does Google have to comply, as part of the DMCA safe harbor clauses, or do they do that on a voluntary basis so that the copyright trolls leave them alone? I don’t know, but I suspect it’s the former.
      Either way, exposing false positives (especially the ones going against the interests of the very same people they’re supposed to protect) is an important move that might (in an ideal, i.e. another, world) change the mood and help impose sanctions on false positives / offer the possibility of an appeal, which can only be a good thing.
- bno112300
  
  No, that’s not it at all.
  
  All fake reports are perjury and those who sent them are liable for time in prison.
  
  Andy, ernesto? if you’re reading this, bring them to court on this.
  https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/torrentfreak.com/
  - Anon
    
    With what money?
  - Who
    
    YEP that’s correct…..legal definition…..
    
    “Perjury is A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth”
    
    same thing applies when you send a DMCA take down request. you are also required to provide proof for the take down.
    
    ATM they are NOT getting hit with perjury….so what do you do about it? write to your congressmen? doubt that will work.
    
    the ones using the law to make the people pay are indeed breaking it, BUT are never held accountable. its sad that WE the People must PAY.
    - bobmail
      
      You need to read the DMCA laws to understand why there is no perjury here. The standard in the law is good faith, not absolute accuracy.
      
      Thus, to hit them, you would have to show specific bad faith (ie: “lets get that site banned even through we know it’s legal, okay Lawyers?”). You will likely never find anything like that, so the standard in the law is not met.
      
      Sorry, try again!
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      bobmail, judges would care to disagree with you on that. In this case, it is obvious that the people in question didn’t do their proper ‘due dilligence’ and therefore this WOULD fit under the definition of perjury.
      
      It’s also perjury if you say something thinking it was true but you ignored other evidence or didn’t look for other evidence that would make your allegation false.
    - Guest
      
      @bobfail
      
      It’s now known that automated DMCA takedown systems are total inaccurate shit, but the copyright monopoly keep using them.
      
      That’s bad faith.
      
      Whether or not it qualified as perjury before, you can bet your ass it qualifies now. Unfortunately Google suffers from a severe case of chickenshititis, so they aren’t doing anything about it except trying to shame the copyright monopoly in to stopping it with all the fraudulent DMCAs. As if shame is an emotion they feel.
    - bobmail
      
      Nope, bad faith isn’t using a system that makes occasional errors. By that standard, bus companies and airlines are operating in bad fatih because they are sometimes late and sometimes have mechanical issues.
      
      Bad faith requires intent. There is no intent to deceive here. The intent is to try to keep up with millions of pirating monkeys who can’t help but try to give everything away because “they can”. Bad faith is assigned to the idiot who uploads the same file every other day to the “pay per download” file locker in order to make a living off of someone else’s work.
    - MadAsASnake
      
      98% isn’t occasional. And not knowing a thing about it is no cause at all fo file a DMCA complaint at all. It is perjury, because they are saying to the best of their knowledge when they have no knowledge at all – that knowledge is a requirement.
    - John H
      
      Nope; if the standard is good faith, then one need not show bad faith, one simply needs to show a lack of good faith. For example, demonstrating that companies using automated spray-and-pray systems for generating take-down notices know they generate a lot of bogus notices wouldn’t necessarily indicate *bad* faith, but certainly a lack of good.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “The standard in the law is good faith, not absolute accuracy.”
      
      Good faith went down the drain the very second it turned out that the system generated thousands of salse positives.
      
      See, it’s much the same argument as any legal situation – if a law stands to generate even as much as ten arrests of innocent people, said law will fall. That it provided correct information leading to arrests in 99,99% of the cases simply will not be enough.
      
      In this case, the actual error percentage is in whole percents. That’s a few too many orders of magnitude above what is acceptable.
      
      “Good faith” can only be assumed when the sender actually does not know this.
    - Who
      
      “The standard in the law is good faith, not absolute accuracy”
      
      this defiantly tells me and every one else that you have NEVER actually read the copyright law, as it does require accuracy for ANY copyright claim.
      
      the more I read this fucking thing the more I see the rights holders and the Government are abusing it and breaking it just the same.
      
      again another bobfail
    - bobmail
      
      WHo, you need to read the laws much more closely – and you need to understand the law in general.
      
      An assertion of copyright is that, “I assert that this is my work used illegally”. DMCA notices are a notification of that assertion, not an absolute certainty. That is why the law allows for counternotices and such.
      
      If it was a system that required absolute accuracy at all times, it would not permit a counter notice process. That there is such a counter notice system in place is a clear indication from the get go that they expect there to be some disagreements.
      
      Errors do happen, and the internet being a very dynamic place means that stuff that existed today may not be the same tomorrow. Between the time an infringement is seen and the time it is reported and acted on, even if a very short period of time, may find that the file no longer exists, has moved to a different URL, or has been combined onto another page of the same site.
      
      There is no hope of 100% accuracy here.
      
      The DMCA law is very clear – good faith assertions, with a counter notice process in place. That means that to find a notice to be perjurous would require that you show that (a) the notice was issued in bad faith, knowing in clear terms that the assertion is not true, (b) that the assertions in it were made in bad faith to cause harm, and (c) that a counter notice produced within the time frame was ignored.
      
      Read the law. Understand the law. Look up caselaw. Look up the details in the federal gazette when the law was published. Learn something. Then you can understand why all your arm waving is for nothing.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “If it was a system that required absolute accuracy at all times, it would not permit a counter notice process.”
      
      That being part of the problem. The system does not work, and generates thousands of false positives monthly.
      
      Each false positive requires the accused to spend two weeks stifled.
      
      That’s just not acceptable. The only acceptable way is that every takedown must be validated before being sent. That means automated takedowns go out the window completely.
    - MadAsASnake
      
      Tell you what I’ll be really careful never to know who has copyright on something then I can’t be guilty of infringement, because I can’t know it’s copyright… hows that…
    - Who
      
      WONG AGAIN. I don’t what law you are reading but its not the right one LOL.
    - Who
      
      DMCA: Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users
      
      Section 512(c) limits the liability of service providers for infringing material on websites (or other information repositories) hosted on their systems.
      
      Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material
      
      PROPER NOTIFICATION does NOT mean in good faith.
      
      The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and rules as to its effect. (Section 5
      
      12(c)(3)). Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified
      elements, to the service provider’s designated agent. Failure to comply substantially with
      the statutory requirements means that the notification
      will not be considered in determining the requisite level of knowledge by the service provider. If, upon receiving a proper notification, the service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material
      identified in the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability. In addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for claims based on its having taken down the material. (Section 512(g)(1)).
      In order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection (g)(1) gives the
      subscriber the opportunity to respond to the notice and takedown by filing a counter notification.
      In order to qualify for the protection against liability for taking down material, the service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed
      or disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory
      requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber,
      
      the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification. Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a
      notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentify-cation, is liable for any
      
      resulting damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) incurred by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider
      
      again another BURN!
      bobfail you clearly don’t know what you are talking about so STFU!
- Mandark
  
  Let me show you the truth:
  Not even google knows what copyright is.. proof:
  http://s11.postimage.org/x7rrhbekj/gcopy.png
- http://web.ncf.ca/shawnhcorey/ Shawn H Corey
  
  No, don’t charge. Sue them for copyright infringement. They are interfering with the copyright. Demand statutory damages.
  - Zumzum
    
    That’s actually a really good idea. Wrongfully requesting that the legitimate channels for an artist’s material be delisted is, in essence, infringing on the copyright owner’s rights to determine how copies are distributed. I believe civil damages are somewhere in the region of tens of thousand of US dollars per infringement in copyright cases – the US govt just confirmed it this week by requesting the SCOTUS not touch the Jammie Thomas case.
- G
  
  Every bogus request will serve Google well when finally they go in the ring with the MAFIAA and the likes… So keep them coming… Its not hard to make these guys look like idiots.
  - bobmail
    
    That won’t ever work out, because then they would have to admit to the tens (if not by now hundreds) of millions of valid takedowns they have handled.
    
    Google ain’t lily white in the stuff, far from it in fact. Even with thousands of DMCA notices about sites, they continue to index the rest of the site without consideration that perhaps, maybe it’s not the best idea.
    - Anyone
      
      why is it not the best idea?
      
      google indexes sites, that’s what it does
    - jim dorey
      
      and it doesn’t carry the content itself, it could reject based on that alone.
    - Ardvaark
      
      That’s not a very sound argument.
      
      It might make this better for the MAFIAA (as in a lower compensation maybe) but the ultimate result of said trial would remain pretty much unaltered.
      
      You’re invoking past records as a justification that your errors weren’t bad. Too bad that they’re still errors and still bad. If you run over someone with a car after 10 years of driving you won’t say “oh but I’ve never ran over someone before”, it won’t change the fact you hurt someone. You’ll get a lighter penalty but you won’t avoid the fact that you caused harm.
      
      So I guess the clock is ticking. Evidence is piling up and at an escalating rate so it seems.
    - Guest321
      
      Under the DMCA its not a crime to index sites but its damn sure illegal to send wrongful takedown requests. Besides, you must have completely forgotten about the safe harbor clause. Next time try not to make yourself look so stupid.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “That won’t ever work out, because then they would have to admit to the tens (if not by now hundreds) of millions of valid takedowns they have handled.”
      
      So they followed the law in good faith while the law was being systematically abused by the other party? How would that NOT work out, Baghdad Bob?
      
      Baghdad Bob logic:The US has superior firepower.
      
      Baghdad Bob conclusion:So they can’t win!
      
      Google ain’t lily white in the stuff, far from it in fact. Even with thousands of DMCA notices about sites…
      
      So because Google punctiliously follows the law to an extent which must appear herculean to every person, including a judge, who motions for discovery, they will get nailed?
      
      I could pull a “bobmail logic” on this one, but I think it stands very well for itself.
  - abe
    
    Good luck with that.
    
    Google either keeps up or they get sued big time.
    
    Plans are already in the works.
- One-Eyed Willie
  
  Not just for every bogus request. Charge for every request. Why should Google foot the bill?
  - highboi
    
    dcma is a federal law which cant be charged for.
    - lowgrl
      
      Erm… from the DMCA itself:
      
      “Any person who knowingly misrepresents . . . that material or activity is infringing . . . shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys fees. . . .”
      
      Google could indeed bring in their own solicitors to review the repeated wrongful requests and the abuser would be liable for those fees.
    - SCP-914: The Clockworks
      
      By that logic, the 21st amendment, which legalizes alcohol, would prohibit people from charging people for it.
- http://directdemocracyireland.ie/ Peeed Off
  
  It’s all becoming a fucking joke…!!!
- bobmail
  
  Yes, they can start charging… when the law gets changed (aka, NEVER!).
  
  Sorry, nice idea but you fail. Perhaps rights holder can charge google the same fee for every valid one they have to point out?
  - Anyone
    
    why should Google pay the costs for the MAFIAA’s negligence?
    charging around $50 per notice seems fair, Google has to pay people to proofread those things because clearly the MAFIAA doesn’t do that
  - John H
    
    Oh bobmail, how your career as a professional troll for the copyright lobby must eat at your soul. I hope you have a good therapist or dealer to help you cope. You know very well that, in the US at least, rights-holders are responsible for defending their copyrights. Granted, this is absolutely insane given how impossible such a task is on a planet with 7 billion people and an internet, but that’s a function of how absurd the concept of ‘intellectual property’ is in the first place.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1181592098 Karan Shah
  
  yeah, a DMCA processing fee…come on, people at google have to work on these links, so it costs them money…
  they should get back atleast some part of it…
  - dropin
    
    “yeah, a DMCA processing fee”
    
    I believe that a processing fee of $25 applies
    in New Zealand for each takedown request
    to ISPs,to cover their costs.
    - Anyone
      
      that’s not for takedowns, that’s for extortion letters (“strikes”) to people
      but that $25 is enough to stop the MAFIAA from sending any notices, so it should be applied to the DMCA as well
    - MadAsASnake
      
      Even a $5 fee would probably be too much for them. Anything they can’t use in SPAM quantities and costs is useless for their purposes.
    - jim dorey
      
      charge as a fee that would be refunded if the claim is legit, have it paid into a trust account. maybe forward the info to the actual copyright holder on how to sue for copyright interference, in case the takedown was for stuff on the legit owners site.
- asdasdasda
  
  Filing false DMCA claims is perjury, a felony offense under United States federal law. At the very bottom of the DMCA form, your signature is required stating that all the information is valid UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.
  
  Charge them? Fucking throw them in federal prison.
- http://twitter.com/SteveCall5 Steve Call
  
  Julia. true that Dorothy`s posting is cool, last monday I bought a great new Ford Focus since getting a check for $6682 this munth and more than ten-k this past-month. it’s realy the easiest work I’ve ever had. I actually started nine months/ago and pretty much straight away startad earning more than $70 per-hr. I work through this link………. BIT40.ℂom
- Gacek
  
  Tbh, If I was google I would Block bbc.co.uk as they requested :) And make long way to get it unbanned. That would teach them not to send random requests.
hupilo

I just hope these affected artists see the mess being made and tell em to f off
blueflybird

Google needs to move to a country where the DMCA shit can just be ignored.
- whatever
  
  Or just filter out DMCA requests only in US where DMCA applies. Why should I have my search engine censored because of an idiotic foreign law?
  - inclusivebird
    
    That could work too, but I don’t think Google is passionate enough about this issue to bother.
bobmail

Wrongful DMCA takedown? Bullshit. There’s no such thing as a wrongful DMCA takedown, Do you have any idea how long it takes to file one? Far too long, that’s how long. How will people produce copyrighted works if the process that allows them to subpoena and sue people isn’t sufficiently streamlined? Fucking pirate Google.
- MadAsASnake
  
  So you think that taking down the artists own content from fully legitimate paying sites and all references to said artist is good promotion?
  - Zumzum
    
    (it’s obviously not the ‘real’ bobmail – trying far too hard to troll. bobmail doesn’t need to try to troll, it just can’t help itself)
    - MadAsASnake
      
      As with Guest – it’s too hard to tell parody from the real thing
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      I actually had to read it twice before I could concur with you.
      
      Problem is, both our Baghdad Bob-lookalikes post so close to the real thing the only way to distinguish the two is by spotting that the troll doing the copying is far more honest than the original troll.
- Pierat
  
  “Bullshit”? YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
- SCP-1845
  
  Yes, there is. Imagine if your average troll used it to sabotage a company they don’t like such as EA. They could send requests to Google to get links to places where people could buy their games removed if there was no system of checks and balances. While EA might deserve it for some of the stupid stuff they do in regards of DRM, (always online and online passes), this could be used on other companies, too. It would be unfair if you wanted to buy some game like Normality, Duke Nukem Manhattan Project, etc. but couldn’t because some troll decided they hate those games for some reason and want to get rid of them, right?
- BuddhaFacePalmed
  
  Easy. Hired MarkMonitor. Set up your very own automated DMCA system. PROFIT.
  
  Suck it, douchebag. Filing a DMCA in the current system is easier than getting rid of false DMCA
- Anyone
  
  there should be a fee for each and every DMCA request
  why should google have to pay for the failing business model of the MAFIAA?
  
  at the very least there should be severe consequences for filing wrong DMCA takedowns. let’s say 6 strikes and you are banned from filing any more takedowns. you can pay $35000 to get it back, how does that sound?
  - funny
    
    3 strikes and chuck norris roundhouse kicks you.
- markp
  
  take your medicine bob dont forget your blue pill
- Guest
  
  Shit, I can’t even tell if this is the real bobmail or a parody.
  
  I mean on one hand these DMCA takedowns are inarguably wrongful, but on the otherhand bobmail’s so stupid he might not even notice.
  
  I don’t know what to think. Fuck.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    That’s the problem – you can’t really parody a clown. All you get is a pie-in-the-face version where the original might hide the joke better.
- icec0ld
  
  Comedy gold right here. Doesn’t the DMCA have a wrongful take down clause?
  
  Boom. Your argument falls apart. I don’t even have to look at the absurdness of your stupidity.
- zarathustra2k1
  
  Audiolock CEO posts “Google rightly denied the removal of these links because they were all sent through for removal by accident due to a fault.”; i.e. Wrongful takedown requests.
  
  knobmail wails “IT NEVAH HAPPENED!!!!1!”
  
  Unsurprisingly, knobfail shows once again what a completely-clueless twat he continues to be.
titchin

Google should take down everything they are requested to and then publish this list. Why are Google going to the trouble of fixing the copyright holders/anti piracy companies mistakes. Let them suffer from their own stupid mistakes. With Google fixing the mistakes for them they will just continue to send 1000s of automated takedown requests knowing Google will do the hard work going through them.
- Jorge_C
  
  Because here is what would happen: All of the legit links that were taken down (like apple store) would be restored within a very short amount of time since those companies have the money and lawyers to do it. However all of those smaller sites (like a site with a bad review of an album) don’t have the money or time to fight for them to be relisted. In the end the only people who get hurt are the people who aren’t rich and powerful enough to defend themselves. Naming and shaming is a much better solution and allows the public to see just how broken this system is.
  - jj
    
    Yes, I see your point but after and few incidents where the lawyers are the only one making the money then maybe the bigger companies will do something about this too.
  - highboi
    
    then let that fact be brought to the light, dont hide it for what it does but embrace it for what it can potentially do
Don Corleone

What a juicy business. Want to erase competition from the internet? Sign up with a copyright troll and let them submit bogus DMCA takedowns! Extortion & censorship: definite proofs that the entertainment industry is nothing more than a mafia.
Anony

If there’s even one bogus takedown, I say Google should ignore the
whole request. Then, the anti-piracy trolls would have to do the work to
verify all their requests are legit.
- MadAsASnake
  
  Just saying the same thing…
- aidanjt
  
  If they did that they’d arguably be held liable under the DMCA. That piece of shit law needs to be rescinded. US law makers need to have their attentions drawn to this problem and have its seriousness well explained to them.
  - highboi
    
    why should it, fake link = prejury. and as an act of prejury, google has the right to ignore the request (as the entire request might be invalid) or sue for swearing everything is accurate. thing is, a monkey can click a link and see if its accurate or not and the fact that a fake request got through proves that no one clicked the link, remember the request for tv shows that had s1e1 rather than S01E01? go do a pirate search, tell me what shows up with s1e1(any show on tv has a season 1 episode 1, its called the pilot). i did on piratebay and 3 pages showed up, the highest seeded torrent was 18 (at the time or checking) and since only the mafiaa is dumb enough to use s1e1, im sure those torrents are a trap set by…yup you guest it…
    - lowgrl
      
      Uploaded by bobmail when it was drunk! It’s a laugh-a-minute our bob.
    - aidanjt
      
      Because most takedown requests are automated, so they can still argue the request was made ‘in good faith’ because no evidence to the contrary of the request was noticed. That’s how bad that law is, it just needs to be obliterated, it’s fundamentally flawed, it always was, since it was big content that bought and paid for the law in the first place, surprise surprise, it overwhelmingly favours them.
  - bobmail
    
    “If they did that they’d arguably be held liable under the DMCA. That piece of shit law needs to be rescinded. ”
    
    Yup, let’s rescind the law. You can shut down all social media, youtube, and about 80% of the internet at the same time, because nobody would want to be directly on the hook for copyright infringement.
    
    DMCA makes it all possible, don’t piss on it if you don’t understand how it works.
    - icec0ld
      
      You speak like the idiotic ramblings of the copyright monopolists who seem to think they can pin literally anyone they want to for infringement.
      
      Fairly soon everyone is going to get sick of this shit. A number of judges already are.
    - Abby
      
      uh, he’s right. The only thing keeping all those sites online is the DMCA. They’d be shut down in hours if it wasn’t for the DMCA.
    - icec0ld
      
      uuhhhh, not really. Your statement makes no sense. What you’re saying amounts to is “the only reason you’re alive is because it’s illegal to murder people”. It creates the false impression that you could only live if you were protected by the law which, is far from the case I would imagine.
    - aidanjt
      
      Shut down for what? It was the DMCA which made linking a copyright violation in the first place.
    - Anyone
      
      ok, then just remove the takedowns from the DMCA
      only that part is broken, safe harbour provisions are fine, let’s just rename them to messager immunity and we finally have the same level of law online as offline
    - Guest321
      
      Yeah like you really know how the law works. That’s why you spread bullshit all over the place.
    - John H
      
      Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
      
      Seriously, though, bobmail raises a good point: the internet sprang into being on October 28, 1998 when the DMCA was signed into law, because nobody could risk liability for copyright infringement without something like it in place. Or, wait a minute, no, that’s not it…
      
      Oh! I remember now! In fact, before the DMCA, copyright law was predicated on the idea of ‘piracy’ involving distribution of physical media for profit, which made it difficult to enforce with respect to digital copies shared gratis. What actually happened was that services like Napster flagrantly violated copyright for YEARS without problems. While I realize the copyright industry doesn’t actually have a whole lot gong for it in terms of facts or logic, you’d think they could hire a better troll. Resorting to lying about historical precedent is just lazy.
    - Abby
      
      You’re not making any sense. The DMCA was around before Napster.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      Neither are you. The DMCA was only implemented in order to provide a means to censor stuff someone considers copyrighted out from the net. In that it abysmally fails.
      
      Without the DMCA we’d be far better off.
    - aidanjt
      
      God, don’t you ever get tired of lying all the time? It was the DMCA which made *LINKING TO* material (arguably) a copyright violation. Otherwise hosting files could just be put beyond US jurisdiction.
- Guest
  
  You cruel son of a bitch!
  
  Don’t you know if there’s one thing the MAFIAA hates it’s actually doing work?
k

guess the anti-piracy groups goin crazy …. literally.. fuck em though…

GOOGLE FOR THE WIN BITCHES! :P
- Guest321
  
  Good to see good old Google setting things right. My faith in Google has been restored. I hope Google will finally stand up for themselves and stop processing DMCA requests from trolls that send false notices. There’s no reason to entertain them anyway if they don’t follow the laws.
MadAsASnake

What astounds me is that these takedown companies get business at all. They cleary aren’t any good at it. I’d like to see a bar (lets say 99%) below which the entire notice is dismissed.
- Anon
  
  Mad, that’s just not even true. Regardless of where you look and research, surveillance and takedowns are up, piracy is way down, digital purchases continue to climb across the board in direct linkage to new laws and their enforcement, the media giants are finally having better and better years after a decade of piracy ransacking, and by every metric, they are clearly very good at this. They have been for decades and continue to be and that’s why they are who they are. Even mainstream artists like Reznor and Radiohead are returning to labels for protection from the pirates.
  
  This debate grows in quality as you acknowledge the facts.
  - gump
    
    Ransacking? Is thatwhy most media companies boasted record profits in the last decade.
  - Anyone
    
    piracy is down? :D
    - MadAsASnake
      
      Let them think that if they want to. Maybe they’ll leave the rest of us alone.
  - MadAsASnake
    
    What is not true?
    Piracy is down? In who’s dreams?
    Digital purchases up because high street is down
    SOPA, PIPA etc are being thrown out as the travesties they are, and enforcemt, so HADOPI caught the French pirate, and 3 strikes caught the NZ pirate. On the flip side, Prenda are getting mullered as the ****** they are.
    
    By the metrics above, Audiolock could hardly be worse at this.
    
    Can’t imagine how your standard of “success” could be any lower. By any real metric, it’s abect failure
    
    I think you need your meds
  - Guest
    
    “piracy is way down”
    
    The Pirate Bay a year ago:
    
    http://web.archive.org/web/20110107125142/http://thepiratebay.org/
    
    40.412.921 peers (28.298.076 seeders + 12.114.845 leechers) in 4.491.692 torrents.
    
    The Pirate Bay today:
    
    72.288.399 peers (52.888.342 seeders + 19.400.057 leechers) in 5.108.310 torrents.
    
    Ahahahahaha, yeah. Piracy is flourishing as always. But of course you have to lie and say it’s “way down” so you can help the MAFIAA keep scamming gullible clients into thinking it’s fighting piracy.
    
    “digital purchases continue to climb across the board in direct linkage to new laws and their enforcement”
    
    lolno, the new laws and their enforcement have accomplished jack shit. But by admitting that digital purchases are climing despite rampant piracy, you’ve just basically admitted that piracy doesn’t harm digital purchases.
    
    Get your shit together, boy; a few more blunders like that and Chris Dodd’s gonna cut your paycheck.
    
    “the media giants are finally having better and better years after a decade of piracy ransacking”
    
    Finally? They’ve been busting out record breaking profits for several years now, all the while screeching that pirates have them on their death nell.
    
    “Even mainstream artists like Reznor and Radiohead are returning to labels for protection from the pirates.”
    
    Are you still beating that dead horse? That’s pitiful. Reznor and Radiohead aren’t returning to labels for protection from pirates considering that pirates gave them millions of dollars. Quit lying. Although I realize that’s like asking a fish to stop inhaling water.
    - MadAsASnake
      
      Also, digital sales climbing and piracy climbing shows beyond dougt that the world does not want discs.
  - Guest
    
    You see, this is precisely why no one takes you seriously. You claim that piracy is way down, yet you insist that more laws are coming to marginalise “open culture”. If pirates are being less of a threat why go after them?
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    Is this the parody version again? You’re actually getting better at performing the real “Anon”.
    
    Except one thing. You forgot to call for punishment and point out how every pirate will soon languish in the lead dungeons of venice.
  - dropin
    
    “The media giants are finally having better and better years after a
    decade of piracy ransacking”
    
    Anon,you take first prize,for being TFs leading drama queen,congratulations.
aidanjt

What a god damn disasterous waste of resources.
jkjkjkjk

Don’t praise google for anything. They aren’t filtering notices for us but for them. People are leaving google because every search result seams to have some sort of take down notices. We realize its a filtered internet and leave. They lose time and money. Look at that graph. Its only going to get bigger.

Google is looking out for themselves. Don’t delude yourself they are the good guys all of a sudden. Its all about money. It always is.
- Guest321
  
  Why shouldn’t it be about money? Google is a business. They are not out to do charity. They deserve praise for keeping almost all their products free for the end users.
  - DoNoEvil
    
    Google products are NOT free you fool. Google sells ads. YOU are the product. You are sold to advertisers. THAT is how google made $60 BILLION last year.
    
    Stop being a fucking sheep.
- DoobyDoo
  
  ‘Its all about money. It always is’
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/business?s=t
  
  1. an occupation, profession, or trade:
  2. the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.
  3. a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern.
Anon

Or maybe only receive requests sent by fax or mail? That would prevent lots of abuses, indeed.
CCIFan

I still say Delist the MAFIAA companies submit false takedown notices until they stop or how about a big pop up from Google to show up before the person is directed to that site saying “This company participates in False and Illegal Takedown notices of the DMCA. Proceed with Caution”
- highboi
  
  “This company will one day extort money from you. Proceed with Caution”
  
  FTFY
http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

if that there graph were one of my shares price i would be wetting myself, so much so i would fill a bottle and toss it straight through one of the dmca hq’s windows, without the lid on!
http://twitter.com/Audiolock AudioLock.NET

We are very thankful to Google for their assistance in this matter. We would never knowingly try to remove legitimate content from their index for many reasons obvious to everyone including the fact that this would also be detrimental to our clients and charity partners.

Google rightly denied the removal of these links because they were all sent through for removal by accident due to a fault. The huge volumes of links to illegal downloads and pages linking to them which are indexed by Google continually mean that we have to use some automation to try to ensure we can protect labels and content owners at a price they can afford. We process over 50,000 links on average per day (and we only protect a comparatively very small number of copyright holders) and on this occasion a fault mean that unfortunately some were sent through incorrectly. We are extremely sorry to the sites involved and appreciate everyone’s concern regarding incorrect link removal. We have since added additional fail safes to try to stop this happening again in future.

We are again very thankful to Google for their assistance in dealing with this matter at the time and indeed to TorrentFreak for their diligent coverage of piracy and copyright issues. We continue to work hard to protect our clients and charity partners content as effectively as possible from the ever increasing volume of pirate links. Ben Rush – CEO AudioLock
- MadAsASnake
  
  Well, at up to 99% failure rates, and attempting to take down ALL of your clients work and promotion, and little else, your customers would have to be complete retards to come back for more of your “services”. This sort of extreme incompetence deservse one thing and one thing only – no customers. You really couldn’t make this up.
- IDIOCRACY
  
  As a gesture to you to show that what you do is useless and by default wrong, I will post (for your convenience) some phrases and filenames of torrents that do not exist on several forums… so expect your filters to get a hard job….hehe glad to be of service
- Typhoid Mary
  
  Its interesting to create a Disqus profile just to address this article. There is some obvious concern on your part in regards to serious Damage Control.
  
  You should be very thankful that Google did the job you were paid to do. Your failure rate is extremely high for people claiming to be working so hard.
  
  You must have all ex-government employees on staff.
- Anyone
  
  stop fucking censoring the internet
  adapt to the 21st century or die a well-deserved death
- MadAsASnake
  
  Mr Rush, you do know filing false cliams is perjury? Filing a claim on the basis of not knowing is also perjury – you sign that you do.
- markp
  
  you should be prosecuted for perjury
- Guest
  
  “We would never knowingly try to remove legitimate content from their index”
  
  Gee, maybe it’s time to stop automating the process then?
  - highboi
    
    proof that the link was never checked
  - SCP-914: The Clockworks
    
    Yep, it’s best to verify targets before shooting so you don’t commit friendly fire.
- nicola morelli
  
  if only the rights holders such as muscians,actors,programmers and so on actually got the majority of the profits made from copyright trolling…
  - MadAsASnake
    
    if only they got the “benefit” of the Audiolock “service” they paid for!
- icec0ld
  
  I’d say anyone would be mad to hand you any money at this stage.
  
  Links pop up faster than you could ever hope to DMCA them meaning any “protection” you provide is mere lip service.
  
  The accuracy you’ve shown is hilariously incompetent to the point of sheer hilarity.
  
  Google does your companies job Ben Rush. I’d be sad were it not such a great joke.
- Ardvaark
  
  Well since you’re in the business of Masses, in this case Mass DMCA take downs don’t you think it’s wrong to justify the shortcomings of your service in said volume of work?
  
  Other industries who rely on massively doing something don’t cut quality for quantity. However it’s very clear that not only your quality is very low (80%+ failure ratios) but you seem to use the very same concept of your business as an excuse to your failures. That’s just wrong. Especially when your failures not only target innocent people but also your own customers. A factory mass producing whatever product it does would’ve closed with such a rate of failure.
  
  What’s worse than a censor, is a censor who doesn’t even know what to censor.
  Leave the Internet free and clean and go find a useful business to society.
- dropin
  
  “Ben Rush – CEO AudioLock”
  
  After a clusterf**k like that an honourable man would
  
  tender his resignation.
  But I bet you will not,so what does that say about you.
anonymous

regardless of what Google and others do or dont do, this ‘torrent’ of takedown requests will not diminish in the slightest until there are penalties that can and must be imposed on those that make false requests. anyone and everyone else gets penalised over web site content. what’s good for one side should be equally as good for the other. there are numerous cases of ‘collateral damage’ that the entertainment industries dont give a toss about. they need to be taught a lesson. hitting them in the pocket as well as posting on the ‘net would perhaps help curb things a bit
Violated0

I got to laugh that the BBC is a customer of FACT and yet FACT in their stupid way tries to censor their own customer. Apparently nothing clicked when the letters “bbc” appeared in the site address.

So another day passes the in rampant censorship of the Internet and sure everything is game including your own official media by rivals or even angry customers.

You opened the floodgates and so you will drown in the flood.
- MadAsASnake
  
  FACT lost what sliver of credibility they had when they claimed piracy funds terrorism… You don’t need much intelligence to work out that FACT are professional liars.
  - Guest
    
    FACT may be liars by profession, but their lies are amateur at best.
  - highboi
    
    whoa piracy produces income? time to make use of my 60Mb/s connection
    - MadAsASnake
      
      who’d have thought it…
FenkZenk

Well you know full well Google will rule the world one day lol.

PC-Privacy.tk
The Dildozer

I think it would be much more fitting if everytime someone requested their own website be taken down, they do it. It would certainly give them a good incentive to improve their filtering algorithms.
An0nYm0u5

My question is… how many false requests must be made before these “anti-piracy groups” are forbidden to make any more requests or better yet… why does Google not bring this to the attention of the courts and obligate the “anti piracy groups” to physically send requests after personally reviewing the “illegal” link in question. At this point Google is wasting resources and time taking care of false and in a way illegally requested take downs.

If I was as powerful as Google currently is, I would not bend over backwards to work with groups who have clearly shown that they are not interested in taking down allegedly illegal content but more interested in taking out their competition and maintaining their hold on the world market using outdated sales models.
- Guest
  
  I think part of the problem is Google Play. Google now runs an “app store” for Android where people with phones and tablets can go to buy stuff like music, movies, and tv shows. Guess where most of that content comes from. Which may mean that, for now, Google might have to at least pretend to be civil with these people.
  
  Then again, maybe Google is using all these false takedowns to build up its own case for the future. Who knows?
JordanKratz

Google needs to start charging the assholes money for processing their broken DMCA Shit.
If they refuse google needs to start taking down their own stuff when they get one of these false DMCA that is really a link to the Legit Site.google get DMCA for HBO Site then remove HBO and make them have to resubmit and do all the work.
Wormlore

“Google refused to remove the link, fortunately.”

Don’t you mean “UNfortunately”?

Errors like this being processed could make the actual artist or broadcaster react. It could lead to effective reactions like withdrawing the mandate these companies have to act on their behalf (or sue them if they don’t have it).

Just making things right by himself has two consequences:
- Wrongful notifications will still be sent, with the expectation that Google will sort right from wrong. Nothing will change in the process since noone cares. As long as Google does it, why would they?
- Expectations might extend to other service providers. “If Google does it, why wouldn’t others do the same?”

It’s clearly not Google’s role to act as a judge. They should either do as any other DMCA (or equivalent) notices (for example on YouTube): assume it’s “right”, process it and wait for the censored address owner to complain.
Why would they treat the BBC’s website better than, say, the NASA broadcast of a probe landing on Mars?

Of course, there’s a hint of sarcasm in this comment.

It’s good that these wrongful takedowns are not processed.
But there should be a way to change things. Trying to “shame” companies that send such broadcast won’t work since they clearly ignore the meaning of “shame”. It’s almost as effective as simply frowning on a kid who willingly broke a window.
- anony
  
  I think an unexplored avenue would be for the artists whose valid links are blocked (like iTunes) to sue (anti-piracy co) for lost sales. If the die-a-RIAA can speculate $100K fine per pirated song why not speculate that much in lost sales because an anti-piracy outfit blocked access to legitimate revenue?
- ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt
  
  “”Google refused to remove the link, fortunately.”
  Don’t you mean “UNfortunately”?”
  
  Exactly what I thought when I read that, lol.
Jack

google’s search engine is already being crippled everyday . Wait and watch when the day comes when google is left with a few useful links that interests people .
joexxx

Again, judiciary needs to clean up this mess and institute harsh penalties for fake take downs since they infringe on free speech (in US, at least).
bobmail

Fuck you all. I know it’s just you Mary posting as all the different names, twat.
- Guest
  
  You have any evidence for that, bucko?
  - bobmail
    
    Come on Mary, you know that’s you too, I’m not paranoid, I have IPs and IPs = a person. That person is Mary.
    - icec0ld
      
      I’d love to know my IP.
      
      Maybe you can post it up here and prove it to me you’ve gotten his IP via the posts put here.
    - bobmail
      
      Don’t fall for it. It’s just Mary being an idiot and posting under my name. Sorry if she is bothering you.
    - Guest
      
      So you do have proof for that, right?
    - bobmail
      
      Yeah, pretty simple one actually – I know I wasn’t online when the posts were made (as they would have been in the middle of my night time) – and all the offending posts were made in a very short period of time by someone with a very, very short attention span.
      
      it’s likely the same person who planted the part about me loving the scum sucker lawyers. It’s all just a game now, kids at play. Apparently they get their lulz very easily.
    - Guest
      
      You do have exact proof for when you weren’t online, right? Or would you like to continue down the road of baseless accusations?
    - Anyone
      
      nice try, but that part wasn’t planted
      
      you just want to weasel out now that they got caught
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “Yeah, pretty simple one actually – I know I wasn’t online when the posts
      were made (as they would have been in the middle of my night time)”
      
      So they’re fakes because you say so. Naturally. By the same argument and basis that I, Aardvark, and “Guest”, to name but three, would also be “Mary”.
      
      Apparently, poor “Mary” works all over three timezones to start with then.
      
      “and all the offending posts were made in a very short period of time by someone with a very, very short attention span.”
      
      And which of your posts does that NOT describe?
      
      “it’s likely the same person who planted the part about me loving the scum sucker lawyers.”
      
      Ah yes. We’re right back to the beginning. Circular logic leads nowhere, bobmail.
      
      “proof”, even circumstantial, would be where you start making sense enough so a fake would be obviously visible. That’s a no-no 95% of the time, going back six months.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      Pull the other one…”Mary”. We’re not falling for it.
      
      Now “Mary” is me, Aardvark, Guest…and yourself.
      
      Sheesh. Is she under your bed threatening you every night as well?
    - ScrewEwe2
      
      We’re all Mary.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      At least in bobmail’s eyes, it would appear so.
      
      That is in a way the reverse of a conspiracy theory – the belief that one person, somewhere, is responsible for the opposition you get from dozens of people.
      
      More palatable than assuming the dozens of people are simply smart guys who on reading what you write, all have pegged you as an idiot.
    - dropin
      
      “Sheesh. Is she under your bed”
      
      That is Bobs secret fantasy,having Mary
      under his bed,and I bet she would be able to keep him under her thumb.
    - Guest
      
      Okay, sure.
      
      And if IPs = a person, I contend that all bobmails are the same.
- joexxx
  
  Take my advice, see a psychiatrist. It’ll do you good.
- bobmail
  
  What is really too bad here is that Mary (or her friends) are down to impersonating me to create trouble.
  
  Moderators: Time to haul out Mary the other trash, they are ruining your site.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    “What is really too bad here is that Mary (or her friends) are down to impersonating me to create trouble.”
    
    Novel way to get yourself off every bad analogy you’ve used in the past few months.
    
    All done by “Mary”.
    
    Nice try, bobmail.
  - dropin
    
    but,but,but, Bob I like Marys strong and forthright
    comments,
    You have to get over this obsession you seem to have about her.
JG

I wonder how much of the loss the MAFIAA claims they are suffering due to pirates is actually due to them requesting Google (and presumably Bing, Yahoo, etc) to remove legit links… How do you expect to sell a song/album if you remove it from iTunes and Amazon MP3, etc… (*Yeah, in this case, it’s requests to Google, I could still go to itunes & find it, but if they’re sending it to Google, they’re prob’ sending it to iTunes too)
_______

fuck google
duckduckgogo ftw
billzant

These companies, Audiolock, should be treated the same way as we are. If I accidentally upload a copyright video to cloud storage – for personal users such as myself it is hard to know if clips are copyright or not, the cloud storage blocks my whole account. They say you should know before you upload, but if companies ask for takedowns they should know. If these DMCA companies submit URLs that obviously should not be blocked such as the BBC review then all takedown requests should be refused. It is the blanket treatment of ordinary people supported by legal judgements that is so unjust about this copyright issue, and yet that same blanket treatment is not meted out to companies with paid experts.
- joexxx
  
  What kind of sorry cloud service are you uploading to that checks if the material is “copyrighted”?
  - billzant
    
    Mediafire, 4shared and vimeo told me that they received complaints I had copyrighted material. In the case of 4shared they told me what the material was ….
    
    All 3 accounts have been closed.
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      Well, I can understand vimeo closing your account (if you did it more than once) they are not a backup service.
      
      But MediaFire and 4shared doing that? A little more unexplained and just plain wrong
    - billzant
      
      Christopher, I used to find videos that I discussed on my blog. I uploaded them and they were accepted. In the case of vimeo I got messages that they had received takedown requests for the videos they had once accepted. I had no problem with them taking them down, then they said no more account. In other words their attitude has changed because of all this DMCA pressure.
      
      4Shared received one request and they stopped sharing priveleges – I can logon and download.
      
      Mediafire just said no account and I have no idea which clip was the cause.
      
      From my point of view I was uploading movies that they accepted, then they didn’t and closed my accounts. From their point of view , I surmise, so long as no-one complained they didn’t mind. It is the change of approach that is difficult for me – blanket dismissal.
      
      This is why I object to the blanket approach that the law is accepting. The takedown companies do not have legit cases and demand takedowns, and then there are these knock-on effects. At least that is how it appears to me.
StatikSh0ck

Yolo.
http://twitter.com/quietobserving Andrei

I wonder if anyone has tried to inform the artist themselves that the ‘antipiracy’ outfifts are trying to censor legitimate points of sale?
Darkknight145

Google will make a fortune if they fine them for each bogus request
DoNoEvil

Google made $60 Billion last year (give or take a few bill). Do not pretend they are suddenly on your side.

I’m certain its fairly trivial for them to check the validity of DMCA take down notices by now. It is probably built into their algorithms. I can assure you it is not some Google white knight clicking links and saying “fuck yeah! take that MAFIAA!” every time he finds a bad one.

Google isn’t your friend.
Guest

Just honor all request and remove all the links. Then if the site reacts, send them to the one who did the DMCA notice and let them deal together. Google shouldn’t even try to sort them. When the Copyrights holders will be sued for all their bogus requests they will finally understand their error maybe…
FenkZenk

Why does everyone wanna mess with the poor Pirate Bay? Jsut aint right man.

PC-Privacy.tk
brandongohwh

Google should honour requests to takedown legitimate sites and force them to pay to re-list them again. That should teach them not to use stupid auto bots
Joey

FACT doesn’t represent the BBC, so they shouldn’t be sending takedown requests for their shows at all.
guess who

come on google, when the morons send takedowns for stuff that would do the entety they’re trying to protect good, for fuck sake honour it and let the entitiy see just how well thier protection works for them.
vulgus

Internet Explorer 10 refuses to load amd block certain particular pages of certain particular sites. Censorship methods?
- Anyone
  
  Internet Explorer is only used to download a better browser
  noone uses it to actually browse the web
Pingback: Google reveals embarrassing take-down requests - WeTalkNerdy.tv
Scary_Devil_Monastery

…And as suspected, one massive abuse of the DMCA now coming into play for real is the various copyright holders falling over one another in a cannibalistic frenzy.

If Google actually did take everything down, every MPAA/RIAA affiliate would find themselves de-listed by their “peers”.

“Good faith”? Not one single judge would be able to state the automated takedowns are made in good faith after even a cursory look.
- bobmail
  
  That compares well with the massive abuse of copyright material, with pirating monkeys like yourself falling over themselves to be the first one to seed the latest movie in a cannibalistic frenzy.
  
  FIXED THAT FOR YOU PRICK!
  - dropin
    
    Bob,
    You are letting your temper get the better of you.
    Please I implore you,take a deep breath,and a mild sedative,and maybe have a nap for and hour,or two,or three etc etc.
    - Who
      
      dude its obvious this ASS HOLE is for nothing but greed and power. he gets pissed when he is proven he is wrong.
Pingback: Links 21/3/2013:Ubuntu to Halve Support Length, Valve Share for GNU/Linux Climbs | Techrights
Gae

Google should just go ahead and accept all the takedowns they receive without further investigation, then when the BBC wonders why its latest show only got 3 viewers or nobody at all shows up to a top artists major concert then all the blame can be laid at the door of these companies who are issuing the wrongful requests. Then they would soon find their client lists empty and their business dead.
piratekock

hahaha

4 MILLION takedowns a week and you guys think a few dozen denied is news.

hahahahahahahahahaha
DngrMs

Actually I think Google so action **every** request. By the looks of things legitimate sites would be significantly impacted and perhaps they might fight back against inaccurate takedowns.

If iTunes music disappears from Google I’m pretty sure Apple would have something to say to these takedown companies.
- DngrMs
  
  Google “should” action… :-|
HackSmash

its a shame that the The View & Hospital Records will never know how badly Audiolock it trying to erase their digital footprint. I wonder how much they are paying them to do this service for them.
Ricardo

Google SHOULD revome links for BBC and others. This way these companies would see how bad is the take down system, and they would help to ask for sanction against bogus requests.
Pingback: Google DMCA Takedowns Link Not Remove
Pingback: Google Relaxes DMCA Takedown Restrictions, Eyes Abuse | TorrentFreak
Pingback: Google Relaxes DMCA Takedown Restrictions, Eyes Abuse | Best Seedbox
Pingback: What is torrents? | Learn what torrents is and how to use them!
Pingback: Google Relaxes DMCA Takedown Restrictions, Eyes Abuse - Geeks Cafe
http://www.facebook.com/fringiee Zain Hassan

Wow lol.. What a pisstake ;s

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Google Further Highlights Wrongful DMCA Takedowns

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed