TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Google Starts Reporting False DMCA Takedown Requests

Google has quietly rolled out a new feature to its copyright transparency report, allowing the public to see when DMCA takedown notices sent by copyright holders are false. The search giant is currently processing more than a dozen million “infringing” links per month, but points out that not all requests sent by rightsholders are legitimate. As an example, Google cites a request where a major U.S. motion picture studio asked them to censor their IMDb page and official trailer.

googleEver since Google started publishing a transparency report for the DMCA requests it receives, the number of notices being sent have shot through the roof.

During the past month copyright holders asked Google to remove 12,045,130 webpages from its search. Unfortunately, however, not all of these requests are legitimate.

In some cases the notices are flagged as false because the content has already been removed from the original site. But the automated systems used by copyright holders also include perfectly legitimate content as we’ve highlighted in the past.

This hasn’t gone unnoticed by Google either.

“A major U.S. motion picture studio requested removal of the IMDb page for a movie released by the studio, as well as the official trailer posted on a major authorized online media service,’ they write in their FAQ.

Google doesn’t give any names, but they’re referring to Warner Brothers.

Naturally, Google doesn’t remove any of the links they find to be non-infringing. And to give the public insight into how often these false notices occur the search giant has updated its transparency report to include this data.

As of this week Google is specifying how many, and which URLs they keep up.

For a DMCA request sent by Microsoft, 3% of the reported webpages were not removed. This notice “falsely” requested Google to censor AMC Theatres, BBC, Buzzfeed, CNN, HuffPo, TechCrunch, RealClearPolitics, Rotten Tomatoes, ScienceDirect, Washington Post, Wikipedia and even the U.S. Government.

These false takedowns are now clearly specified as “no action taken” and the full URLs are shown in the report.


Microsoft DMCA

There are thousands of mistakes like this, including Disney’s request to remove a page on the music portal Last.fm which is clearly not infringing.

Google also didn’t act on the three attempts to remove a TorrentFreak page from its search engine. Again, Microsoft is one of the senders and they asked Google to remove our list of most downloaded movies.


False DMCA for TorrentFreak?

Previously it was very hard to find out what happened with these requests, but with the extra data added by Google it’s now easy to see how many and which URLs were not removed from their search results.

It’s good to see that Google is being transparent about how it responds to false claims, and they have to be applauded for accurately spotting so many of these mistakes. Not an easy task when hundreds of thousands of URLs are reported per day.

Whether the data will motivate copyright holders to make their takedown systems more accurate has yet to be seen.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Guest

    And the Copyright holders excuse for being sent a notice that they have submitted a false DMCA notice will be “It wasn’t my mistake it was the computer that made the mistake” lol

    • Asdfasfd

      lets make that argument in the court of law after ‘copyright infringement’

    • Psychopath

      The mafiaa was probably doing that on purpose so they could say that it was google’s fault for not verifying what they were removing. Luckly, google actually does its work and verify everything, so instead of being able to put the blame on google, they are just being portrayed as stupid, wich is nothing new to anyone.

      • Guest

        “google’s fault…”

        can anyone recommend a search engine that doesn’t comply with any take-down requests?

        what’s the point of me using google if it’s blacklisting most of the stuff i search for

        • Anyone

          it’s hard, US based sites are bound by the DMCA, so they have to censor

          Yandex is a russian search engine, I have no personal experience with it, but being russian it should be able to ignore DMCA (but is probably censored for political reasons)

        • joexxx

          Not google. DMCA safe harbor covers ISP providers where their customers are hosting copyrighted materials. The search engine part of google is not an ISP and does not host any copyrighted material, so DMCA does not apply, and if anybody argues otherwise, google has enough cash to keep this court forever.

    • Chuck

      I didn’t download the movie, my computer did.

    • Guest

      what a bloody awesome list of sites to look for file sharing goodness!

      http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/?r=all-time

      thanks, google! never even heard of half of these

    • ..not so distant past

      I knew it will come to this one day. I knew.

  • Sfsdsdsdfsd

    my ass stinks…

    • http://twitter.com/qwertyoruiop qwertyoruiop

      Take a bath, maybe?

    • Guest

      mine too

    • chronoss

      quit putting your dick in your mouth after sex with your butt .hollywood

  • http://twitter.com/qwertyoruiop qwertyoruiop

    According to the DMCA law, it is _illegal_ to send false DMCA takedown requests.
    But apparently law doesn’t apply to the MAFIAA.

    • http://twitter.com/Nexusflame Anonymous

      It’s also illegal in florida to drink alcohol out of a bucket… are you going to be arrested for it? =)

      • Dude

        I will drink on the seas for long as possible, come and get me.

      • http://twitter.com/Itr0ll Pat Patterson

        if you are in wrong place at wrong time, anyone can get caught by anybody. We live in police state. Don’t be naive. You can get throw in jail indefinitely for taking pictures of police officers in a public park.

    • Anyone

      that’s because they blame the computer, so they are not at fault

      so next time you are accused of copyright infringement blame your bittorrent program, clearly that is a valid defence

      • the dark knight rises x264.mp4

        google are idiots. if they had any sence, when a fuck up takedown comes for an official page of the actual ownder, they should respect thier wishes. if the arseholes sending them actualy cared, they’d check to make sure they didn’t include thier own legitimage pages. not taking the pages down is not helping the fight against the stupidity of it all.

        • Skyfall 2012 TS XViD UNiQUE

          I bloody love your name and see exactly what you’re up to.

          Jump on board everyone! DMCA takedowns for everyone!

        • meho

          Ever since Google started publishing a transparency report for the DMCA requests it receives, the number of notices being sent have shot through the roof.

          This goes to show that they just want to censor everything.

          “A major U.S. motion picture studio requested removal of the IMDb page for a movie released by the studio, as well as the official trailer posted on a major authorized online media service,’ they write in their FAQ.

          If thats what you want, then that is should be what you get, but they would just play into the role that piracy is killing them, because they cant find their content..
          For a DMCA request sent by Microsoft, 3% of the reported webpages were not removed. This notice “falsely” requested Google to censor AMC Theatres, BBC, Buzzfeed, CNN, HuffPo, TechCrunch, RealClearPolitics, Rotten Tomatoes, ScienceDirect, Washington Post, Wikipedia and even the U.S. Government.

          Where is the us govt in all this? Why haven’t they decided that mafiaa is gonig after them and raid them? And see above, they just want to censor everything.

          .

        • http://ericsuesz.com supereric

          Well said. You are clearly the only person here who gets it, dark knight. Google should hire you to get these idiots in line.

      • Who

        LOL now that’s a good one mate. I like it :)

      • Guest

        I will blame my gun. Your honor I did not shot this pederast. . . heu. . . I mean this movie executive. It was my gun. I have nothing to do with it.

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          Actually, some people actually do that. They say “Yes, your honor, that is my gun. However, it was left in a closet unloaded (though with the loaded clip nearby) and I don’t know how it go to this murder scene!”

      • sdf

        Computers make mistakes sometimes.

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          That is the main reason why these notices should NOT be automated or should have a secondary ‘confirmation’ by an actual living person.

        • BuddhaFacePalmed

          But they can’t do it because there’s too many similar ideas and creative products out there. Any sane human being couldn’t go through the entire internet fast enough without dying of old age or boredom. So, media corporations take the easy way out and use scorch earth tactics to deny us everything.

        • Lord of the Files

          Having to check every single link must cost Google a small fortune. I highly doubt they’ll just sit idly by, continuing to absorb these costs when it’s clearly the responsibility of the copyright industry to make sure the links reported are accurate.

          1) Create transparency to show just how seriously the entertainment cartels take their responsibility (ie not at all).
          2) Inform those doing the false reporting, reminding them of their obligation under DMCA.
          3) Watch as they continue to send false reports.
          4) Let the evidence build to epic proportions (and costs).
          5) Google sues the entertainment industry using the DMCA.

          And Google will win because they have proof the entertainment cartel was aware of the problem, but did nothing despite there being a law against it. That will be such a delicious irony, seeing the copyright industry smacked down hard by a law they demanded and love so much.

        • http://twitter.com/Itr0ll Pat Patterson

          its not about fact-checking or designing a proper scheme to deal with this. its about automating and pointing as many fingers as possible.

          I mean, look who is doing this, Google. They are probably the biggest ‘pirates’ of them all, stealing our internet and indexing it as they see fit with what mafia-stle adsense that make scat porn sites RICH.

        • TL;DR

          Computers do indeed make mistakes occasionally, but do you honestly want us all to believe that “sometimes” equates to “more than a dozen million” errors per month (as stated in the article you hopefully read and understood)?

          The entertainment industry seems to believe that tackling so called “piracy” is everyones responsibility but their own. Many articles over the past decade have shown this to be true, including the next TF article involving Marc Millers response to Fred Von Lohmann. Groups like the MPAA and RIAA also expect everyone else to shoulder the financial burden too, something Google must surely be getting tired of by now.

          The logic? Google is guilty of copyright infringement because people use they’re automated search engine to find sites the entertainment industry doesn’t like, regardless of whether copyright is being violated or not. If we’re to accept this, then we must also accept that the entertainment industry is guilty of violating the first amendment, as well as the bad faith clause of the DMCA, because of their own automated search engine which is falsely reporting millions of perfectly legitimate links every month.

          The entertainment industry wants everyone to believe piracy is financially damaging to their business, despite plenty of evidence that the opposite is true. If the MPAA could have their way, the internet would be a one way broadcast system under their complete control, just like the good old days of the pre-internet era. Failing that, their alternative would be to destroy it so nobody can use it. They’ve shown time and again that their most fervent wish is to turn back time rather than adapt to todays reality.

          I can’t stress the following fact enough; pirates want to pay and it’s been shown plenty of times now that they already do. More so than your average consumer no less. All the entertainment industry has to do is follow one of the most basic and fundamental truths of economics. Supply and demand! Unfortunately they steadfastly refuse for whatever bizarre reason I cannot possibly fathom. I have to assume their motivation is emotionally driven because no rational thinking person would turn down what is clearly an easy road to success and one where everyone wins. Hate and righteous indignation make wealthy people do all kinds of strange and highly illogical things I guess.

          All I can truthfully say with any certainty is that when they finally decide to offer a good legal alternative to what I currently have access to, at a price the majority deem as being reasonable (which is completely achievable), I’ll be the first in line to sign up. However if it’s war they prefer, well then I’ll still be the first in line… the front lines that is!

          Sorry but sharing is instinctual. You can’t stop it no matter how many laws you pass and enforce. You might as well be attempting to outlaw blinking for all the good that would do. Even the threat of a death penalty won’t stop folks from doing something that feels perfectly natural. I pray you entertainment moguls come to your senses and see reason before we get to that point though, because I guarantee it will be the last nail in your coffin if you don’t. That isn’t a threat by the way. It’s a fact based on a working knowledge of history.

    • glomzz

      I guess it’s okay when they do it. lol

      Google needs to start charging $50 per takedown notice. This should help keep MAFIAA and other dishonest assh*les from fraudulently abusing DCMA takedown requests. It’s the only way to make them stop.

      • Guest

        If Google started charging for takedown requests the MAFFIA will just accuse Google of profiteering from piracy.

        • Guest

          Why can’t we accuse the RIAA of profiteering from piracy, then? They keep all the money they got from suing kids!

        • joexxx

          No, they profit from all of the advertisement of their product that piracy makes.

        • http://twitter.com/Itr0ll Pat Patterson

          yes, they actually make money off this… and the ‘pirates’ as well. Its a nasty, ugly business that runs on piss and scat porn and worse.

        • guess

          Google don’t work for free sorting out this dmca crap.

        • chronoss

          they cant be called profiteering when you have to pay someone to verify
          you also cant be told that cause its work to remove it and you get paid for work last i checked….

        • Guest321

          Let the accusations fly. Its not like its gonna hold up in court unless the judge is bribed. Google is stupid for employing hundreds of people to process a dozen million DMCA notices per month and not charging anything for it. They are giving free service to the MAFIAA. I think even the torrent sites should start charging for DMCA notices.

        • joexxx

          How is that? Seems like google is profiteering from anti-piracy.

    • Who

      it might not even be the MPAA/RIAA all the time. any one can request a take down. its like the bull shit that youtube has when any user can report a vid or even flag it for that matter.

    • bobmail

      “According to the DMCA law, it is _illegal_ to send false DMCA takedown requests.”

      No, according to the law it’s illegal to send a DMCA notice that is not in good faith a valid takedown request. That isn’t to say that just because Google says it’s not valid that it wasn’t done in good faith or otherwise valid in some manner.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but the legal requirement for a DMCA notice to be illegal is pretty narrow, and hinges on a sort of “judgement call” or “feeling” that the claimant can have. It doesn’t take much to show good faith, the law really would require someone challenging a DMCA to show specific bad faith. That would mean they would need a smoking gun email or similar saying “let’s screw these people over with false DMCA claims”. Since you don’t have it, the DMCA notices are valid to that point.

      Just because Google doesn’t agree with the notice doesn’t make it an illegal notice.

      • Anyone

        it’s about time this censorship law is corrected with hefty fines for invalid takedowns at the very least

      • joexxx

        Smoking gun is evidence of wrong doing, not bad faith.

      • joexxx

        According to my brother, who is a lawyer, continuing to send out false DMCA requests is bad faith.

        • bobmail

          Your brother “the lawyer” is wrong.

          Bad faith must be proven in each individual case. If the system sends out 95-98% accurate take down requests, then there is no bad faith in using it. There are errors in any system, absolute perfection is not possible.

          I would suggest that “your brother” go back and study copyright a little more. He must have slept through that part of school.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        In short, you concur that the system is one which allows a third party to censor unrelated individuals and sites based on nothing more than a judgement call or a “hunch”.

        Then of course, all that is needed is a graphic demonstration that the DMCA takedown provisions need amending. It would seem google is allowing Warner to build a great case for that.

    • Ophelia Millais

      @twitter-346380319:disqus The DMCA says it is illegal to knowingly make a false takedown request. The threshold for this is high. It would have to be proven that the request was made by someone who knew, or should’ve known, that the material wasn’t infringing. You would think that “should’ve known” is good enough when the content is obviously not infringing, but it’s not; to identify suspicious content, they are trusting automated tools which have a greater than 99% “accuracy” rate. That is, almost all the content they complain about is pulled without argument. This is good enough to absolve them of responsibility for knowing that some are false.

      Now, let’s say the counternotice procedure was followed, with the copyright owner continuing to insist that the takedown is justified, and you have some proof that the copyright owner knew or should’ve known that the whole thing was bogus. Unfortunately, the only option the DMCA provides for dealing with this is for the uploader of the content to sue the takedown issuer for actual damages. This has to be done in a U.S. District Court. So… good luck arguing that you’re entitled to money just because Google removed your site from search results for a while. Even if you are entitled to money, this is the MAFIAA we’re dealing with here… despite their constant claims of poverty due to piracy, any losses you suffered are chump change to them; it won’t hurt them or encourage them to change their ways.

      In other words, the DMCA makes it very hard to force issuers of false takedown requests to suffer any consequences whatsoever.

      • joexxx

        According to my brother, who is a lawyer, continuing to use an automated system that sends out false DMCA requests is bad faith.

        • guess

          Set the trap using a new site. Create a blog titled ____ dvd rip……

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Bad faith has to be proven…and unless I’m mistaken, Google is currently allowing Warner, Sony and IMI to build a whopper of a case against themselves…

          Frightening, if true. If I were in the legal department of Warner and saw this I’d be running for the hills.

      • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

        There is no ‘knowingly’ in that law, Ophelia. It only says that ANY false takedown notices are illegal, period and done with.

        That means that should be doing proper ‘due diligence with these notices before you send them.

        • Ophelia Millais

          (f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
          (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
          (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
          shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        It’s telling that the same “reversed burden of proof” the MPAA & RIAA insist Google and the entire internet ought to be following does not apply to takedowns, apparently.

      • MadAsASnake

        They cannot know an automated takedown satisfies the requirements of DMCA. Not knowing it is false because you have no knowledge of it at all is bad faith in and of itself. A computer cannot believe and has no rights to submit takedowns.

  • The_Strawbear

    I’ll most likely be alone in this, but I don’t think 3% is a awfully bad error rate in what is still a relatively new system.

    • cgimusic

      That is just one notice, this one has a 100% failure rate across 670 URLs: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/152116/

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        Need to counter-sue these fuckers into financial oblivion…..

    • Anyone

      3% is for MS

      other “rightsholder” have a much worse track record
      for example WB: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/1949/Warner-Bros-Entertainment-Inc/
      error rates constantly in double digits, and most takedowns are for url-shorteners
      clearly the work of an automated system with no human oversight whatsoever

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      MS is one of the more stringent claimants – they do not issue takedowns frivolously.

      And even so, imagine what would happen if the error rate across the board was “just” 1% of 500,000 takedowns requested per week.

      Imagine, to put it in comparison, if the police would be making 15000 wrongful house searches per week.

      The end result given the volume of requested takedowns is unacceptable if the system contains ANY error rate at all.

  • SOPA_NOPA

    Wait, it sounds like they are just reporting them to the public. False DMCA takedown requests are a violation of US civil law, if this is happening en mass shouldn’t this be reported to state attorneys general, the FBI or DoJ? Or put into a lawsuit filed by Google against the offender?

    • Guest

      I doubt the DOJ will do anything due to the number of ex MPAA/RIAA members working for them. A case of we are not going to help you fight our brothers.

    • chronoss

      hollywood govt do you think they care …they do this to embarrass the jhollywood govt er obuma

    • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

      Absolutely critical point!

      No one loves a day spent in the court system; but, what most explains the ability of the Copyright monopolies to keep such morally and intellectually bankrupt Corporate control over Intellectual Property, is their willingness to litigate; and, their take no prisoners attitude toward political activism.

      So why aren’t issuers of millions of False DMCA Takedown notices up to their eyebrows in Appellate defense litigation already?

      If the only answer is that potential plaintiffs are too Constitutionally passive, then we should fear what’s coming with Six Strikes much more than we know.

      Why?

      Because Constitutional Passivity is just another word for Quiting; and, the Copyright monopolies aren’t about to give quitters any more civil rights than they are strong enough to take.

      • joexxx

        Don’t fight on their turf. Fight on your own – adopt take no prisoners approach to technology development to prevent identification of pirates. It’s easier, it works, and it’s a fight that you can win.

  • Montisaquadeis

    Now Google just needs to start forcing these companies to pay for the false takedown requests then we will see how many they get.

  • Guest

    Okay, this is a good first step. Now Google just needs to report these false DMCA takedown requests to the authorities and bring charges against the senders.

    • Abunchofgibberish

      Yes. Google should definitely spend more time, energy, and money on pursuing frivolous takedown requests rather than just ignoring them and allowing the content to continue existing online (which, by the way, would give the same result…just faster).

      • Masau Fuku

        Actually, in the long run using the courts to force takedown requests to be accurate would SAVE google money since they wouldn’t have to spend so much time/effort policing the requests they do get.

        Sure, google could instead ignore false claims that point to material legally released by the entity making the claim. However, that likely wouldn’t get the companies to actually improve their software, only add a whitelist for sites they own (or directly benefit them).

        Also…isn’t google legally obligated to take down anything that has a DMCA claim against it – even if it’s clearly false – until the entity who posted it makes a counter-claim in order to qualify for safe-harbor? That was my understanding of the DMCA.

    • Dude

      They should have a message.

      You have been denied for submitting too many false dmca notices. To resolve this, contact support and we will respond within 5 days.

    • Ophelia Millais

      Charge them with what crime? The DMCA doesn’t give them any legal options; the intermediary (Google or whoever) is not allowed to sue or bring criminal charges against the bogus takedown requesters. Only the user (e.g. person who uploaded stuff to YouTube) can sue, and even then, only for actual damages, and they have to have proof that the takedown request was made with knowledge that it was false. It’s not even clear how it works with search engines, since IMDb, TorrentFreak, etc. didn’t really “upload” their links to Google; they might not even have standing.

      • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

        Not quite. The DMCA does not say anything about the intermediary not having the right to sue or bring criminal charges in the slightest.

        You are reading something into the law that does not exist.

  • Dingo_RG

    It would be cool that the people don’t continue feeding these obsolete media industries.

    I have around five years without consuming TV and cinema, because I consider that both media products are completely irrelevant for me, at least in this era; the same happens with the actual commercial music, pure crap.

    There exist a lot of intellectual activies; as also sport, social and cultural activities which are a lot more gratifying that being brainwashed by commercial media products; mainly those from USA.

    I am convinced that these obsolete media corporations have that being eliminated, and the only way (at least, in my opinion) is putting them into bankruptcy.

    • Abunchofgibberish

      Right, because the big bad commercial media companies have never bothered to spend the time making entertainment that people would actually like watching. It’s all just propaganda being spoon-fed to the sheeple of the United States of Asshole to make them think their lives aren’t as miserable as they really are, because we all know that nobody that has ever owned a television set ever did anything with their life.

      And just don’t get me started on all the terrible music that people are listening to these days. Don’t they know that the “real music” isn’t on the radio? Amirite? I only listen to trve kvlt Indie music, not that for-profit stuff you hear on the radio. Record labels are just so dumb and obsolete, and artists that want to make a living playing music are just gonna have to suck it up and get a day job.

      Is their business model, “obsolete”? Perhaps. Is self-righteous idealism going to keep people from enjoying a good doctor drama? Probably not.

      • Lol

        Great post, completely agree.

      • Root

        i keep meaning to post this, so i’ll say it now. we all know that the great artists of the past sufferd for thier art. if artitsts are not prepared to suffer for it now, they are not artists, they are comercial whores who are only in it for the money.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIb34oA7Q-Q

        i don’t for a second believe tv companies care about the programs they make. they are just a vehicle to ‘legitimatly’ fill time between adverts where they make thier real money. if you ask me, once a program has been broadcast it is in the public domain. broadcasting is a one shot deal as far as i’m concerned.

        while i am at it, music tv, what a fucking gyp, the videos are adverts for bands (if you are lucky) and manufactured pop shite, insterpersed with more adverts for crap noone realy wants or needs. music tv is non stop advertising. companys like, sky, charge you to watch these fucking ads by choosing the music bundle. what a fucking con, how the fuck do they get away with charging you to watch adverts?

        • RoopertMurdokkk

          Regarding Sky. I can’t believe anyone really pays for a subscription service like Sky. You pay your monthly bill and then you’re advertised at MUCH MORE than you are on commercial terrestrial channels. Sky devote so much of their broadcast hours to advertising that they can only fit 2 episodes of The Simpsons into a 1 hour slot, but when the BBC were showing it (on BBC2 a few years ago) they were fitting 3 episodes into the same 1 hour slot (thanks to zero advertising). Can you imagine that, 33.3% of your Sky subscription is paying to watch adverts!?

        • Dude

          paying for tv is dumb imo, some of my family are subscribed to tv services and tv is full of adverts.

      • Pelham123

        “Is self-righteous idealism going to keep people from enjoying a good doctor drama? Probably not.”

        Self-righteous idealism appears to have kept you from enjoying Dingo_RG’s post.

    • Anyone

      I still go to the cinema from time to time, mostly 3D because I don’t have a 3D display at home

      other than that, I try not to support any MAFIAA related artists, I download everything I want, I buy stuff from artists with no MAFIAA connection

      the last time I watched TV was last year’s Football Euro
      the next time will probably be the Superbowl
      nothing else is on TV that I could not download, so what’s the point of watching TV?

      • guess who

        my little brother stopped watching tv years ago, he’s downloaded everything he wants to watch for the past 10 years.

      • Pelham123

        I pay for movies and TV all the time. My choice.

        • Anyone

          I pay for TV as well, it comes with my internet, I don’t really have a choice

    • http://gear-mentation.myopenid.com/ Gear Mentation

      Yeah, but nearly all sport is as bad or worse than even bad TV. And the best TV shows are WAY better than sports.

      • guess who

        not quite true. years ago eurosport used to have the best sports coverage on tv for unusual sports. as soon as they built up a big enough following, cunts like sky would buy the rights to that sport leaving eurosport with fuck all to show. sadly eurosport has not been worth watching for years.

  • Jacks.Pointless.DMCA

    sorta nice of the google to compile this list. go into the specified domains and find 10000 places you never knew about. thanks riaa!

  • Who

    and this is exactly Y I don’t use google anymore.

    • Masau Fuku

      Because they are being transparent about DMCA takedown requests (including the clearly false ones)? I stopped using google over privacy concerns, but their actions regarding takedown requests are largely good imo.

    • StupidPeopleShouldntBreed

      Then your dumbass best just disconnect from the interwebs…

      • Who

        perhaps you misunderstood? I meant because of DMCA take downs is Y I don’t use google now.

        • Anyone

          what are you using then?
          other search engines will probably be hammered by DMCA just as much, they are just less open about it

        • Who

          @Anyone: does it matter what I use? as far as I am aware, google is the #1 search engine that gets DMCA take down requests. and its because they link to just about everything. BUT were a take down is shown in google, in other search engines, the links still show up. by switching to a different search this traffic change is noted by google and that’s when they change there methods so they can get there traffic back. that’s how the popularity of a search engine works.

        • Anyone

          yes, it matters, I want to know alternatives

        • Who

          the 2 main alternatives are Yahoo and bing “aka msn aka Microsoft” most other searches just piggy back off google, like ask.com *aka ask Jeeves* and yep even dogpile.

        • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

          @Who

          It actually doesn’t matter which you you use.

          You really only have a few choices,
          either you search on Google, and risk not finding what you are looking for because of a DMCA, or you search on some other site, (e.g. yahoo, bing), and risk not finding what you are looking for simply because it hasn’t been indexed yet. Everyone’s relied on Google for so long, the other search engines haven’t really been able to keep up with Googles resources, there isn’t much choice in the matter.

        • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

          @anyone

          Try duckduckgo.
          Like i said there isn’t much in terms of options, a meta-search engine is your best bet.

          here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines#Metasearch_engines

  • Quaed

    why is Microsoft worried about movies?

    • guess

      they don’t want you to buy movies. they want you to buy windows 8

      • guess who

        maybe they heard on the internet 2 that michael moore is making a film about why window$ is so shite and thier nasty buisness practices?

    • Duq

      Because selling content through a connected device, like a 360, is a bigger market than selling software. Software purchases happen every couple of years on average, but content purchases can happen every day with some customers.

    • JG

      I would assume they’re requesting removals of links to pirated versions of Windows, Office, and any of their other programs… We’ve seen in previous posts here that copyright holders are not the most strict when it comes to their automated searches for violations…. Their scanners could potentially have nabbed a link to “The Office” or “The Secret Window”….

  • Abunchofgibberish

    The attention-grabbing picture at the top seems to imply that because Google is rightfully pointing out abuse of the system, they’re basically the Pirate Bay. Makes sense.

    • Anyone

      you got it the wrong way around
      the picture says that TPB is just the same as Google: a neutral search engine

  • alsfy

    Instead of charging for each takedown request, google should charge $50 for each false/incorrect takedown notice. The sheer amount of incorrect takedown requests is astonishing and very worrying. At least if there was a charge it might cause companies, especially this one, as pointed out earlier: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/152116/ to sort out their reporting tools!

    • Guest

      But then the MAFIAA would have to stop delegating their DMCA takedown work to shitty computer programs. And they’d have to do it themselves.

      Perish the thought.

  • Pingback: Google Starts Reporting False DMCA Takedown Requests | Best Seedbox

  • ndmushroom

    Am I the only one who’s wondering exactly what interest Microsoft had in removing a TF article about the most downloaded MOVIES? I mean, asking Google to remove a legitimate page is one thing. Asking Google to remove a page that allegedly violates a copyright YOU’RE NOT THE HOLDER OF is an entirely different one, and I’m pretty sure it’s a fraudulent one, too.

  • robthom

    “Again, Microsoft is one of the senders and they asked Google to remove our list of most downloaded movies. ”

    ms makes movies now.

    But how do you start the movie?

    • Guest

      It’s so easy, bro! Just press Ctrl-W-Backslash!

      - this post brought to you by the Metro Defense League

    • Justaname

      You press pause.

  • http://gear-mentation.myopenid.com/ Gear Mentation

    Well seriously, good for Google. They may not be doing as much as they morally should, but they are doing some passive aggressive resistance to the MAFIAA.

  • Pingback: Wikipedia, BBC, CNN uvm. auf Microsofts Copyright-Löschlisten

  • Anonymous

    showing the information on their ‘copyright transparency report’ is a complete waste of time! showing it to politicians and getting them to act on them is what is needed. let’s face it, the entertainment industries are on legitimate copyright infringement like a fly on a turd. only fair that things work as fast and as complete in the other direction!

    • Anyone

      maybe they are waiting for “critical mass”

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Currently Google are compiling and publishing that ever-growing list of takedowns which more or less paints a convincing picture of copyright trolls, extortionists, swindlers and hucksters trying to shut down every part of the internet where certain keywords are mentioned.

      That list will be read by journalists, academicians, ordinary people, and at long last politicians. A year from now, if anyone brings that list before Congress or Senate, anyone not voting to amend the DMCA post-haste to include more stringent criteria for takedowns will publicly look like a bought-and-paid for idiot.

      I think this is how Google operates: “Fine, if you want to be damn fools about it, we’ll do as you force us to. But we will make damn sure everyone knows exactly what you asked for”.

      • anonymous

        ‘anyone not voting to amend the DMCA post-haste to include more stringent
        criteria for take downs will publicly look like a bought-and-paid for
        idiot.’

        that is exactly what they are and why i am extremely doubtful of any politician doing what they should, what is desperately needed. they are terrified of the entertainment industries, they are afraid of the backlash from entertainment industries, they are afraid that the ‘incentives’ received from the entertainment industries will stop! the ones they are not afraid of, dont give a toss about, are the very ones they are in office to represent, ie, the people, until the votes are needed again,that is!!

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          That’s what everyone said about SOPA and PIPA as well. Not to mention ACTA.

          Hell, the copywrong trolls were literally dripping joy and cheer all over the place in sheer delight at the thought of ACTA, SOPA and PIPA.

          And then those got watered down. Then watered down again, until finally the remaining dried husks of PIPA and SOPA got tossed before congress as if launched by a skeet catapult. And with the same result.

          Added to the defeat of ACTA everyone suddenly realized that “hey, we CAN make a difference”.

  • Foff

    I can’t wait for the day when humanity looks back on this and is amused at how silly removing all the links are. For those of us that know where to get stuff and don’t use google all this effort means nothing. For those starting out within five minutes of searching you can have a list of sites that will fill most of your needs. The frustrating take downs for me are the cyberlocker takedowns. The life of many links on these services tends to be short. Usually the poster of links provides mirrors so where it becomes unavailable on one it is still available on another. Some cyberlockers change policy so much or they can’t keep up and wind up with slow speed so they take themselves out of the game. Just visit any site where links are posted and you will know what the cyberlocker of the day is. My advice is to buy a premium membership so you can dl quick but no more then three months. Most cyberlockers are popular lately for 3 to 6 months then they get aggressive and start deleting links or they get to many customers and they don’t have the capacity to handle it so speed suffers.

    I think the mafiaa must be living in dreamland because with everyone going broke eliminating all piracy will do much more harm then good. None of the efforts of the mafiaa will every make a difference in revenues as with or without piracy current revenues represent all the disposable income available and eliminating piracy won’t magically create more.

  • Mambojumbo

    google neeed to start attacking, as fast as possible.and involve in this fight with they politican friends and global mark. nothing good if they gonna wait to last minute.

  • guess who

    wouldn’t it be fun if google, one day, had only a message saying ‘sorry, we are turning off the intenets because the only web pages there are are for dling copyrighted crap. (a few seconds later flashes up) goodbye’ then a few seconds later the page goes completely black.

  • Thecommenterperson

    The real issue lies in the fact that the bloated hogs down in Hollywood feel that their advertisement laden bloated movies are worth destroying human lives, and stifling human progress for long enough to extort the last scrap of valuable material from the working class while also turning the world’s best free research, free resource, and free learning system (the Internet) into one big money sucking shopping mall where sharing is a life sentence, innovation is seen as a threat, REAL information is destroyed, and the word privacy is a new swear word that when used…imposes suspicion.

    However, I prefer to call a spade a spade and realize that this isn’t about movies at all. This is no different than the bully at school stealing lunch money from the weakest kid to prove a point about strength, and power. Tyranny is a pain in the butt, but you have a choice and I cast my vote by not investing a single dollar in media ever again. Its clear to me that my money is used to fuel more tyranny and destruction.

    I would like to thank the MAFIAA for showing me the wake of destruction they leave behind in their humble little campaign to “protect the artists”. In launching their brutal attack I find my priorities have completely changed. You can keep your movies laced with advertisements and social manipulation, and I’ll keep my money and my freedom far from your grasp!

    • Dude

      We the people will have new impossible monitoring filesharing methods in the future and then we will laugh as copyright holders find a way to monitor it.

    • Anon

      Paying for digital product created and intended for sale is “tyranny.”

      okay.
      lol

      • Anyone

        way to miss the point

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        No, “tyranny” would be when one third party usurps the right to censor massive numbers of individuals based on nothing other than a bad “hunch”.

        Such as, for instance, when Warned demands a takedown of even their own IMDB-page and anyone who mentions the words “The Dark Knight”.

        But as usual, don’t let facts stop you from going off topic with a big straw man.

      • Ardvaark

        I’m noticing a trend here.

        A few months ago you would actually try to answer back and prove a point, even tough you almost always distorted facts or used blatant lies.

        but now you simply copy a word or sentence from someone and add “ok, lol”.
        So I’m guessing you’re finally out of arguments and gone full defensive, in this case, by simply trolling.

        oh poor you…

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Either that, or there’s another reason he’s gone a lot less loquacious.

          I’m thinking the MPAA might not be paying 50 cents per troll post anymore…

      • MadAsASnake

        You actually have to sell it. Intent is irrelevant.

    • bobmail

      “The real issue lies in the fact that the bloated hogs down in Hollywood feel that their advertisement laden bloated movies are worth destroying human lives,”

      wow, what a load of horse shit, sorry to day.

      If the movies were crap that nobody wanted, piracy would be a non-issue. That you and your butt-buddies spend you entire lives trying to figure out how to pirate this “crap” makes me wonder about your sanity.

      • Anyone

        just because it isn’t worth paying for doesn’t mean it isn’t watchable if you are really bored

      • Guest

        I don’t pirate or watch the crap; yet I have to pay for laws that say I am, and listen to idiots like you who say I am. Why the hell would anyone pay if you’re going to call him a pirate regardless of what he does?

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        I could care less about the movies. What I do NOT care less about is the fact that the industry we’re talking about is infringing on the rights of privacy and trying to implement widespread censorship based on what you described as a “feeling”.

        In short, If “piracy” could kill the entertainment industry dead, abolishing every future movie to be made for the next 20 years, and turning the torrent scene void of any culture to up or download…I’d take that exchange gladly ,as long as it meant the preservation of our civil rights.

        Sadly, Piracy can’t impact the movie industry with even a single lost sale and so although we can circumvent you, we can’t HARM you directly.

        You keep harping about how everyone wants to download and you miss the entire point. Most of us aren’t even on board for that anymore.

      • MadAsASnake

        A lot of the movies are crap
        Piracy IS a non-issue (outside it’s use as a MAFIAA excuse)
        Most of us don’t spend our entire lives figuring out how to pirate stuff. It’s really quick and easy if we want to do it. I have better things to spend my time on…

  • Pingback: Wikipedia, BBC, CNN uvm. auf Microsofts Copyright-Löschlisten - YEPA NEWS

  • HoratioGonzalezPoco

    In the Google is gon hav fight aginst eevl mafiias if were make in future. Obvusly the no what mean if mafiia win better that kill mafiia with big gun now. Goggle make good in court to . In US America?

    • Anon

      Now HERE is an educated pirate.

  • Anon

    Obviously I am being sarcastic. I am much smarter than that pirate. He is uneducated, while I am educated.

    Also, if I like my own posts it still counts. I figured that out because I am smarter than a pirate.

    Come insult me if you dare. Then soon you will get your punishment, as will anyone who downloads anything.

    • Guest

      trolololol

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Really? In that case he makes a wonderfully accurate impersonation of that other “Anon”.

        Though this one takes less words to get his meaning across.

        • IDIOCRACY

          Or his brain….. oh forget it, I fully agree with you hehe

    • MadAsASnake

      You are a total prat. Thanks for the invitation.

  • http://twitter.com/kodabar kodabar

    Ah, LeakID. That’s the company run by Hervé Lemaire (although I’m pretty sure it’s a one-man operation, as his business number is a cellphone). He had some of my own files taken down from Mediafire and also tried to have links to my blog removed from Google.

    I had a fun time trying to phone him. The number on his website leads to a confused housewife who wishes he’d fix that. I eventually found a current number and he hung up on me when I asked him (in French) just whom it was he was representing when my files were my own creation.

    The DMCA notices he filed were incomplete, lacking much of the required information. Kind of curious for a guy who does this for a living. A Google search for Hervé Lemaire or LeakID throws up dozens of instances where he’s filed bogus takedown notices. I guess the “under penalty of perjury” bit just means nothing. How on earth is he allowed to still file these notices?

  • o-bla-dee

    so google should start doing what isp’s are required to do. After getting a DMCA takedown notice they should send an email to the “alleged” infringing site saying they have received a takedown notice from whoever and then takedown the url. If enough of the larger legit business’s find out they are being needlessly censored they will start kicking back and maybe able to put their own pressure to where it can do some good.

    Also,
    Google must be paying wages to a lot of people to go through 12 mil takedown notices per month.

    • Who

      that’s the way they used to do it.

  • Dude

    Boycott google. Here i come bing,ask,and other search engines.

    • Anyone

      those respond to takedowns as well, they just won’t tell you

      • Dude

        Google is probably faster to respond to dmca though.

  • Asdfth12

    In the scope of things, 3% of the takedown requests filed by a company being false/incorrect is actually a good number given the large amount sent and the reports being automated.

    Anyone want to take bets as to what the precentages are for the movie studios?

    @ O-Bla-Dee – Yes and no. They proably paid some programmers some very good money to make a highly accurate sorting system that can sort through all those requests and determine what requests are legitmate and which ones aren’t. For reports that the system can’t determine is correct or false, those are the ones that would need to be confirmed by a person.

    • MadAsASnake

      3% is just those detected and they will be only the most blatant ones. I think you would find that a proper review, the rates would be much higher.

  • Anonymous

    Ha! I knew it! That’s why TorrentFreak got blocked that one time! I totally called it. They must think that TF is linking to copies of the movies, and never actually checked and saw that it’s just linking to IMDB.
    …Wait, they sent IMDB takedown notices too. Maybe they think IT’S a pirate site? Good grief, just how incompetent are these guys?!

    • JordanKratz

      Totally incompetent MAFIAA lies and robs Consumers.
      Corrupts Governments as well.
      Die MAFIAA Scum !

  • Guest1234

    It amazes me how a couple of industries (Music and Film) have goverments and isp’s around the world acting as their lap dogs.

    • MadAsASnake

      … and despite this sharing continues unabated.

  • Pingback: Google Starts Reporting False DMCA Takedown Requests | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads

  • Foff

    Hey google do you like jacking off for the mafiaa to the tune of a million links a day. Having fun? Enjoy spending the money? Suckers!

    • Anyone

      as long as they are in the US they sadly have no choice
      this censorship is the law

      • Guess

        Google is big online, with most people connected online and using google services. The copyright holders will lose in court If google took a stance like verizon and stopped dmca,No one can “force” them do something.

  • JG

    I’m curious as to what method Google is using to detect these false positives. Are they just white listing certain sites & assuming any content on WashingtonPost.com, imdb.com, iTunes.com, etc are automatically legit… Or are they just filtering out sites that don’t match – like if MS sends a list for Office 2013 & they include a link to a blog titled “The Office 2013 Christmas Party”?

    • Guess

      It would be a false dmca and amazon would go after the company or person that sent the dmca. (riaa, mpaa,bpi)

      • JG

        But couldn’t Google be held responsible (to some degree) as well…. By filtering false positives they admit they know the list provided is not 100% accurate. If they remove the iTunes link, why then, did they not also remove the Amazon link?

        • Guess

          I wouldn’t think so due to they have to comply i think.

    • MadAsASnake

      It’s a minefield. US legislators clearly did not understand what they were doing with DMCA (largely written by MPAA), nor predict the abuses MPAA and others would put it to. While I would agree that copyright law and online law could do with better rule, DMCA is not a good model, SOPA, PIPA, TPP even less so.

  • Andrew Lee

    The people abusing them should be fined or arrested or both. They have no problem taking action against people extorting them. They use DCMA as a tool to shut people up which is illegal but they never get in trouble over it. Sure they get some negative media attention from it but that’s about the maximum.

    They’re not above the law and they should stop acting like it. Someone needs to bust their asses down a notch. It’s the only way they’ll ever learn a lesson. Once a few of them get to sit in prison for mass extortion and fraud they might change their tune.

    I’m sure before shit gets really out of hand which it’s going to we’ll see some cases of these companies leaking the products themselves just to sue. It’s a fact that piracy is making them a lot of money and the lawsuits we get to see publicly is most likely a small percent.

    The people are bound by NDA’s if they pay up so bitching about it is completely out of the question.

    A normal customer pays 20$ and a pirate ends up paying a few grand if they shut the fuck up and go along with the extortion. If they don’t they could be out of some serious cash.

  • ScrewEwe2

    I think them dadgum Disqus fellers dun gone and messed up the comment section again.

  • lulz

    That’s not “reporting”.. they should be doing something about all these false claims, legally. That will put an end to them.

  • Pingback: Google Starts Reporting False DMCA Takedown Requests – PiracyLab

  • Pingback: Aktuelles 14. Dezember 2012 — neunetz.com

  • JordanKratz

    Next time MAFIAA files DMCA on itself google should just remove it even if it is a Mistake.
    If they want their link back they can pay money to reinstate their MAFIAA Shit.
    And all False DMCA Takedowns should charge the Company or person who asked for it.Make them all pay money for it.You have to pay Workers to do the job.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.powell.54584 David Powell

    Google completely refuses _all_ DMCA requests for images never pblished before on the web, for which I own a registered copyright! They refuse to serve a takedown on the infringer, and they state “this material will not be removed due to our content removal policy.” I am far from the only rights owner served this illegal form letter and bald denial of DMCA rights and process.

    • MadAsASnake

      Is Google hosting it or linking to it?

      • Guess

        I’m assuming google is linking to it and david doesn’t want to go through the trouble of dmca for the site its hosted on.

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.powell.54584 David Powell

          wrong, the content in question is absolutely hosted on google+ servers!

  • Pingback: Hollywood and Google Square Off Over Pirate Search Results | TorrentFreak

  • Pingback: Hollywood and Google Square Off Over Pirate Search Results | We R Pirates

  • Pingback: Hollywood and Google Square Off Over Pirate Search Results | Best Seedbox

  • MadAsASnake

    It is my feeling that if a company submits a takedown that contains flawed entries, then the entire request should be returned unactioned. It is not for Google (or other parties) to triage these.

  • KrakOrJak

    Google should support disabled people.

    They should give an office to ONE guy in a wheelchair, and let him process all the DMCA’s, one at a time, at his own speed… and pay him a decent salary.

    Then they can say they’re responding to the requests… :) LOL

    • Guess

      A guy in a wheelchair can do the same work as a normal guy.

      Just give them longer breaks or limit how many they can process an hour, that will be equivalent to less workers.

    • xpmule

      lol i love it ..good one :)

  • horsemeat

    What they should do is charge them $1 for every false request they get sent. It’s insane that the RIAA and other expect Google to carry the costs of checking every single link they send them. They are being totally unfair and dishonest.

    looper.2012.720p.bluray.dts.x264-publichd.mkv

    • Bug Lord

      how about just reporting them to police or something? heard it’s not legal to make false requests.

  • fuizhu
  • Pingback: Hollywood and Google Square Off Over Pirate Search Results | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads

  • Pingback: the pimpest internet news site – Hollywood and Google Sq. Off Above Pirate Research Results

  • xpmule

    Google shouldn’t be censoring anything anyway.. As far as I’m concerned they should do their job. Index the web period. And after that some sites are deemed illegal or whatever the authorities that be should go after the individual site at hand. The story illustrates that in our day and age we suffer from rampant ‘automated’ censorship ..sad

  • eddietheblur

    The timing of this leads me to only one conclusion; the rapid increase in takedown notices in mid-spring of 2012 coincides with the release of Google’s latest Panda/Penguin updates.

    With duplicate content now a really big issue, webmasters found it necessary to take the time to do careful audits of their original content, and take appropriate action when violations were discovered.

  • suifui
  • shenxing
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Johnny-Cash/100002427462340 Johnny Cash

    I love you Google! People can say all the bad things in the world about you, I still believe you’re in it for the people!

  • Pingback: Hollywood and Google Square Off Over Pirate Search Results | The Illuminati

  • Pingback: Google Starts Reporting False DMCA Takedown Requests | The Illuminati

  • Pingback: Google now reporting false DMCA takedown requests | Reviews, news, tips, and tricks -- dotTech

  • Pingback: Kalex's Tome » | Kalex's Tome

  • Pingback: New Google Transparency Feature Highlights Dud DMCA Takedown Requests

  • http://twitter.com/Itr0ll Pat Patterson

    Still so cloudy as to what gets you on this list? What if you had complete torrents, seeding with the proper scene folder names and all, get the DMCA notice, then they realize the .mp4 you were sharing, was really a renamed zip and no video at all… What happens then? You get a summons or charged, then what? Just throw your harddrives out the window, and they literally have magnet links, and some spotty IP trail which means absolutely nothing. Their tactics are so juvenile its pathetic.

  • anon

    i love the fact if you didn’t know where to go for pirate content you now have 170,000 options giving to you by copyright owners

  • Pingback: Google Starts Reporting False DMCA Takedown Requests | That Eric Alper

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

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

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.