TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

RIAA Set For Historic 10,000,000th Google URL Takedown

From humble beginnings in 2011, last year the RIAA amped up its efforts to have allegedly infringing URLs removed from Google’s public indexes. Fast forward to today and the RIAA is about to hit a historic milestone. During the next few hours the music industry group will issue orders to the world’s largest search engine to take down the 10,000,000th URL on its behalf.

The popularity of Google’s search product, the most prominent tool the company offers, means that Internet users all around the world have a central and free point from where to seek, find and discover information.

Of course, due to the nature of the web that means access to both legitimate and unauthorized content, a situation of which the entertainment companies are well aware.

As a result the music, movie, TV, gaming, software, adult and dozens of other less mainstream industries have been bombarding the search giant with DMCA takedown notices in an attempt to stop Google’s users finding illicit content. Over the past 18 months the scale of the effort has gone from manageable to verging on the unbelievable.

Last month alone 2,362 copyright owners and 1,482 reporting organizations ordered Google to remove 13,665,695 URLs across a total of 43,980 domains. And very soon indeed a group of music rightsholders, who together accounted for 1,721,058 of last month’s takedowns, will reach their own personal milestone.

In the next few hours Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, Warner Music and EMI – together the four largest member labels of the RIAA – will ask Google to remove the 10,000,000th allegedly infringing URL on their behalf.

The first RIAA takedown request listed publicly by Google took place on May 26, 2011 but it took until July 25, 2011 for the takedown numbers to really start adding up. During the week that followed a record 12,447 URLs were filed by the RIAA. By Nov 7 that same year takedowns had reached more than 30,000 URLs per week but it wasn’t until around 10 months ago that the music group really put its foot on the gas.

By the end of April 2012 the RIAA was asking for more than 200,000 URLs to be delisted every week, a level it largely maintained for the following four months. Then in August 2012 the labels opened the floodgates reaching more than 666,000 removal requests in a single week. While requests numbers have been diminishing ever since the numbers are still impressive, amounting to more than 1.7 million last month.

In total the RIAA has targeted 7,041 domains but who exactly are their main enemies? The world’s biggest torrent sites? Or maybe the world’s biggest file hosters? Well, perhaps a little surprisingly it’s none of those. What the labels appear to be doing is ordering Google (a search engine) to remove links that connect to yet more search engines.

downloadsnlWith a total of 593,928 takedowns the RIAA’s primary concern seems to be a site called Downloads.nl. The site currently has a worldwide Alexa ranking of 5453 and is particularly popular with Indians. Without wishing to be too insulting it is a graphically bland affair, but type in the name of an artist along with a song title and the content appears – quickly – and can be played or downloaded in an instant. The site also derives at least 30% of its traffic from Google searches.

Second on the list of foes with 403,831 takedowns is MP3s.pl who appear to have the same frugal graphics approach as Downloads.dl. Nevertheless, the site delivers the goods on the MP3 front despite having an Alexa rating of just 44,073. This site also relies heavily on Google for its traffic to the tune of around 32%. Interestingly, through affiliate links MP3s.pl drives around 10% of its traffic to iMesh, an apparently legal P2P network supposedly approved by the RIAA.

In third place is Filestube, a site dedicated to indexing content on file-hosting sites. The search engine, which has a worldwide Alexa ranking of 267, has been reported to Google for a total of 377,236 links, despite not hosting a single file.

The top five takedown targets are completed with MP3Searchy.com (358,334 URLs, Alexa 43,143) and Weblagu.com (347,039 URLs, Alexa 8,699), both of which provide near instant access to music of just about any description.

But the big question remains – does the takedown strategy work?

While it’s obvious that there will be fewer Google links to these sites considering all the takedowns, go over to the sites themselves and search for any popular music and it’s all still there. Even if these top five sites were completely delisted by Google all one needs to do is type in “free mp3 search” into ANY search engine and dozens more MP3 search engines appear.

It is quite possible therefore that another 10,000,000 takedowns still won’t have the desired effect so one has to wonder if there is another strategy at play here. Will there be some kind of attempt to target one of these engines in future based on its “terrible” record of alleged infringements and use the ruling to batter the rest into submission? Time will tell.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Der

    People still use Google?

    • Brandon Hope

      theirs not really a better alternative. Google gives me the best results, Bing is horrible in that regard and Duckduckgo is slow and its results are the same as Google’s (yet)

      • Guest

        ixquick
        startpage

      • Andrew me

        for most things google is great but for music searches , well there are three mentioned in this story,lol.

    • ScrewEwe2

      Bob, try Ask Jeeveseses or Ask.spam

  • Mr.

    People from Google = Pussies

    • Andrew me

      10 million take downs and i can download any song and almost any movie i would ever want within 5 minutes of thinking about it with any number of search engines available around the world.
      I cannot wait for the court case, cos there is going to be one, the monopolists will not care that Google have spent a lot of money trying to help them, they will take Google to court and sue for billions of Dollars.

      • Tightasslowlife

        Wow! Mommy and Dadyy must be so proud of you!!!!
        Hey mom Dad look at me I can download any film in 5 minutes of thinking about it…..Don’t dat make ya feel proud ma? Don’t it? Your son grew up to be a thief….Don’t dat make ya feel proud ma???? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Millions of years of evolution and all we have is low life fish eggs like this fucking no mark. FUCKING THIEF!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • jdjdjdjd

          I’m proud of him so F off. Sociaty structure is so backwards meant to control the masses. Proud to be a pirate you corperate muncher.

        • Ardvaark

          Please tell me how much you have achieved and how fulfilled your life is and how proud of your achievements you are. I can tell by such a comment how well educated and a logical-thinking human being you clearly are.

        • puddipuddi

          My dads proud of me because I burn the movies that I download for him. And I don’t call him daddy I’m in my late 20′s there bud.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Let me see.

          You can’t spell, overuse caps, and the rest of your post boils down to that of a five year old blowing a fuse.

          Your parents must be proud. Or they should ask your school for their money back.

        • niceasshighlife

          millions of years of evolution and I still couldn’t give a rats ass about you or your opinions. fuck off.

        • Sharecare

          And how proud does that reply of yours make your parents? If you’d even thought about the issue for 5min you’d know that copying is not the same as stealing.

          You fail at the most basic hurdle.

      • Guest321

        I don’t know what they are taking down either. Every song I have ever searched for I have found through Google. Downloading a song is still as easy as pie even after 10 million takedowns.

    • xpmule

      agreed. they seem like hopeless wimps.
      shit or get off the pot google.. stop being a coward pussy bitch !

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        I’m not so sure they are “hopeless wimps” here.

        Recall, these are some of the smartest and brightest people on the planet. Used to being creative and thorough in their work.

        From one perspective their steady documentation of the takedown efforts, notably their statistics on the invalid notices, seem nonsensical…

        …and yet, from another angle it looks almost as if they are, with the patience and attention to detail of an Aspberger patient, massing all the necessary data needed to drown a judge with manifest and obvious evidence for a massive fraud case.

  • Guest

    The headline should read “RIAA set for historic 10,000,000th futile act”.

    • Pyrotek85

      Took the words out of my mouth. Ten million takedowns and they’re still losing.

      • lll

        its obvious they can not run a business… they try to eliminate people who give things away as gifts… what assholes

  • salvagesalvage

    And that’s why its now impossible to download music for free off the Internet!

    • Guest

      I see what you did.

    • xpmule

      ya lol
      places like Myzuka.ru are long gone ;)

  • NewClear

    Heres so more notable RIAA milestones:

    10th senator bribed
    100th new technology deliberaty suppressed and sued off the market.
    1,000th lawsuit against an innocent open wifi network owner.
    10,000th court order to sieze a website because it can* be used for piracy.
    100,000th wage garnished of an individual who only downloaded one song.
    100,000,000,000th dollar spent to lobby for tyrannical censorship laws.
    1,000,000,000,000th dollar ripped off and stolen from a real arists.

    * the simple capability to be used for piracy. Never mind any legal use, websites must automatically filter and police everything their users post.

    • Brandon Hope

      Just add a Capcha. That will stop the bots and make them be more picky about which sites to take down.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zak-Kirkpatrick/22906930 Zak Kirkpatrick

        That is a fantastic idea!

        • Andrew Lee

          I don’t mean to sound negative here but it would not matter while services like decaptcher exist. It’s dirt cheap as well 1000 for $1.38 and if it was for a big company I’m sure they would get them much cheaper.

          If they want to send that many out fine but they should be held liable for false DMCA notices when they do not hold copyright for any of the material on the link listed & website as a whole.

          People need to open their eyes when it comes to the fact of sending false DMCA request which happens all the time and it’s illegal.

          17 U.S.C. § 512(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.”

          Even if it’s a mistake they’re required by law to compensate the victim.

        • bobmail

          The law requires that there is proof that there person knowingly made the false claims. Basically, you would have to show that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were sure that it wasn’t theirs and they sent a DMCA anyway. That is an incredibly high hurdle to pass. Anything that suggests that the file in question might have been theirs is enough to show good faith.

          “KNOWINGLY” is the key. You have to prove it, even if it’s a mistake.

        • lll

          seems like guilty until priven innocent, as the law states othewise…

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “The law requires that there is proof that there person knowingly made the false claims.”

          Logically, this is an impossibility. You can not prove a negative.

          What you can do is point out to a judge that the automated system does not work and is confirmed to have generated a large percentage of errors. That this has been pointed out to the stakeholders, and for the judge to make a ruling that continuing to use such a system constitutes bad faith.

          But for each notice, if the criteria of good faith is to be upheld then the criteria of proof also must be. Which it is not. And that leads to the automated takedowns de facto operating under a “guilty-until proven innocent” paradigm.

        • bobmail

          What do you consider a large percentage? If they issue a million takedowns and a few hundred are incorrect, is that too high an error rate for you? Legally, you would have to show that the small error rate is in fact knowingly negligent, rather than just unavoidable error of an automated system, as an example. Again, it’s a question of showing bad faith, which would be perhaps operating an automated system with 75% error rate, as an example. Judges are not going to rule against systems that work most almost all of the time.

          “that leads to the automated takedowns de facto operating under a “guilty-until proven innocent” paradigm.”

          Actually, if you had half a brain, you would realize that the use of copyright material without express permission is specifically “guilty” from the get go. It is on par with security throwing vagrants out of a locked building. They don’t have to wait for the courts to decide they were trespassing to take action. They know that the basics are there, unless specifically given permission, they have no right to be there. Copyright infringement is the same, without specific permission, you are in fact guilty. Yes, you can try affirmative defenses under fair use in the US, but DMCA claims in this area are in good faith, like it or not.

          Basically, in violating copyright, you have made yourself guilty. It’s up to you to prove that you have the rights, not for the rights holder to have to prove the negative that you don’t. They just have to state “we didn’t license it to you” and they are in the clear.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “What do you consider a large percentage? If they issue a million takedowns and a few hundred are incorrect, is that too high an error rate for you?”

          That is completely irrelevant as in this case the actual RATE is the limiter.

          Try this one on for size; Assuming ten million police busts of which roughly 1% results in the death or incarceration of an innocent man, you already end up with a death toll of 100,000 dead innocent civilians.

          Similarly a measly error rate of 1% means ten million DMCA notices result in 100,000 innocent people having their right to free speech temporarily suspended.

          Now, Google tallies the invalid DMCA’s at far, far more than just one measly percent.

          And since this is known, “bad faith” becomes evident as soon as the fraud defendant in this case gets asked one question: “Did you know one hundred thousand of these LEGAL NOTICES were, in fact, invalid?”.

          Try it on for size, just allowing 1% of parking tickets to be invalid. Go right ahead and see where and how well that flies.

          “Basically, in violating copyright, you have made yourself guilty. It’s up to you to prove that you have the rights…”

          Wait, so someone who must, according to every law be presumed innocent is, according to you, GUILTY and must prove his innocence, even when it turns out that the DMCA notice sent was invalid?

          OK, bobmail, you just said, exactly this: “If anyone claims you are guilty, you are, and you must prove you are innocent

          This is a first. I’ve never seen a troll lose track of exactly where his frantic attempts at dodging the core issue was leading him before.

          For that, you get another one-handed applause. And I officially hand you the title of “Baghdad bob” since you finally decided to come out of Anon’s closet on fascism.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          “Basically, in violating copyright, you have made yourself guilty. It’s up to you to prove that you have the rights…”

          Wait, so someone who must, according to every law be presumed innocent is, according to you, GUILTY and must prove his innocence, even when it turns out that the DMCA notice sent was invalid?

          This is a major flaw and one I would like to see clarified. I have heard it said that copyright infringement is a regulatory offense (in some countries perhaps) which, along with safety concerns like jaywalking and speeding, assumes the guilt of the party by simply the act occurring. In other words, you are seen jaywalking, you are guilty, full stop. You are “caught” infringing on copyright, you are simply guilty, and it removes the mens rea as a requirement to prove guilt.

          The problems I see are twofold: one, why is it regulatory when everything else is for the public safety, because how is copying a file or record or book a safety concern? And two, how exactly do you prove that someone has committed copyright infringement? While you don’t need to prove intent for personal infringement (as opposed to criminal infringement), you still need to identify the guilty party, and an IP address doesn’t do so. Short of that IT crowd commercial where the FBI is standing behind you with a loaded gun pointed at your head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg how exactly do you prove it??

        • xpmule

          ya lol
          now apply that to when you prosecute a suspected file sharer ;)
          funny how the law works to your advantage when it’s convenient for you lol

        • Bobmule

          It’s irrelevant. They’re irrelevant. DMCA doesn’t stop anything. The only people it really affects are very large legitimate businesses based in the US. The only economy it hurts is the US.

      • dude

        robots.txt?

      • lll

        google already has a google timeout if you download so much content or etc. just try to rip google chche and you will see…. why this is not effective for the bots, I would call on google to investigate because that would be computer fraud, bypassing security system, etc as seen in the mit student who killed himself as what he was charged with…. i would do some major investigating on how these companies are getting past the timeout and persue criminal charges for disrupting the network

  • Pissy

    RIAA be trying to take piss out of the ocean…

  • http://wp.me/Igbc Prattle On, Boyo

    The MAFIAA set to hit the 10 millioneth mole in the biggest game of whack-a-mole ever.

  • Trustnoone

    Hi guys, I have an idea about this whole take down thing. Feel free to scrutinize it as I wouldn’t be surprised if this idea is dumb but basically it goes like this.

    Firstly if you want a url link taken down from a page you need to pay a one dollar administrative deposit for EACH url. BUT since sites like google end up doing most basics checks for takedown IF the take-down request is found to be valid that dollar is refunded since its a deposit after all :P.
    BUT if the take-down request is found to be wrong then the company filing the request MUST give extra information in why the take-down should go ahead for example some way to prove they are allowed to. If again not proper evidence is given then that dollar is kept by the the website owner instead of returned.

    The point of this idea is to allow legitimate requests plus due to the refund it would still be free BUT it would lower the amount of illegitimate requests sent. It also has other uses such as for small companies sending out a 4 dollar deposit for 4 URLS isn’t much of a problem plus there money will be returned if their claim is legitimate, but it will also stop spamming as no company will send for 1000000 URL requests looked up by random bots, unless their sure they will get their $100000 bucks back!!

    Its just an idea though wouldn’t be surprised if there is problems with it

    • DiD

      I like the idea, but it is gonna create a lot of bureaucracy. It is definitely time that search engines (well anyone affected for that matter) start charging for bogus takedown notices.

    • Donutsssss

      Fail. You cannot legally charge to process dmca notices. They are legsl notices not some sort of business transaction.

      • RIAA Winnings

        Think thats where most people lost the plot. Charging for a legal notice, while the notice itself costs 500 USD to make.

      • Trustnoone

        Hi, I know what you mean and thats why I tried to make the area more grey :P. The dollar isn’t for processing the DMCA notice, which is why its returned at the end. It’s simply a deposit.The way I see it, if the request is found to be illegitimate then it is no longer a proper DMCA take down request as the company has no right to take down the specific URL and thus the dollar I hope can be kept :P. Or even sent to a donation place of some sort. I don’t know if its possible but maybe they could put it as a 1 dollar donation for each url with all funds going to say anti cancer or something if the request is found to be illegitimate. That way you still have the desired effect and help something!!
        I guess I’m just trying to find ways around it a little to stop the curb of all the RIAA bull. Unfortunately I am no lawyer :(.

        • Bobmail

          You cannot make people pay a deposit to serve you a legal document, sorry.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          No, but any company knowingly issuing hundreds of thousands of invalid legal notices per month makes for one whopper of a fraud case.

          Now if I were Google I’d just document every takedown and collate the statistics on how many of them were proven invalid, and in a transparent manner bring this to everyone’s attention, including that of the company issuing the takedowns, robbing them of any deniability in the matter.

          Damn. Google is doing exactly that, aren’t they…?

          I believe the phrase “providing enough rope” is apt for use here.

        • Guest

          New Zealand ISPs disagree with you there, bobfail.

          I’m also pretty sure that the MAFIAA can be charged a processing fee to submit DMCA takedowns anywhere, but sadly not many places have the balls to do this.

        • bobmail

          Umm, we are talking US law here (DMCA) not the laws of other countries.

          Sorry, you fail fuckwad.

      • dude

        Would you process hundreds if not thousands of dmca notices for free?

        • ScrewEwe2

          I’d do it for free, in the next door apartment buildings dumpster.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “legal notices” means they have to fulfill stringent criteria or be prepared to pay a penalty in court.

        Now since DMCA takedowns are automated, where is the “stringent criteria”? They are so random HBO even issues takedowns for HBO’s own webpages.

        If the DMCA takedowns really count as legal notices, whoever is issuing them is heading for a world of hurt – Google has documented the proportion of invalid claims extensively and transparently, which means that we have companies out there issuing hundreds of thousands of invalid legal claims – knowingly.

        That, in most laws, constitutes fraud.

        • bobmail

          Sorry, but again you fail.

          If they issue millions and have a few hundred errors, that isn’t bad fatih. Sorry!

          There is no legal requirement in DMCA for any “stringent criteria”, just good faith statements. You really should read the law before you comment on it and make yourself look like an idiot.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          According to the statistics Google collates, it’s several percent.

          Try sending out a few hundred thousand supposedly legal notices, knowing this was the likely result. I dare you to try this with parking tickets, for instance.

          And every week that passes, google keeps right on letting Dtect.net and others build their case for them.

          But let me see, I sound, according to you, like an idiot because I think a few hundred thousand invalid legal notices have been sent by a company which knew that many would be invalid?

          Sounds like many judges might be similar idiots.

    • JG

      Or, to take @54b5f94624183bd4e9b660e2a0611e13:disqus ‘s concerns into account…. Since the copyright industry loves “x-strike” type programs…. Why don’t we set up some independent agency to have the DMCA take down requests sent to first (as an added benefit it’ll create more jobs,thus lowering the unemployment rate). Here an actual human checks to make sure each individual request is a valid claim. If valid, it gets forwarded to Google or whomever. If it’s not valid, it counts as a strike against the company issuing it. After each 100 strikes, say (after all, they’re only ‘bot, they can make an occasional mistake), the company gets a perjury charge levied against them. If I’m not mistaken, I believe that is the assigned threat for issuing invalid requests as stated in the law. Let them explain in OPEN court why they issued a take down notice to Stanford University for the “50th anniversary Keynote address” claiming it violated their copyright on the movie “Episode 50″. Or why HBO wants HBO.com censored….

      • bobmail

        Sorry, you cannot change the law just because you don’t like it. There is no provision in DMCA for third party investigators. Claims are made on a good faith basis and that is all that is required.

        Sorry!

        • xpmule

          http://www.dumblaws.com/

          jeez bob why do you even open your mouth holy fuck buddy lol

          i gotta admit i’ve never seen some guy come back for more like you do.. no matter how many times you get pwned and put in your place you just bounce back with more idiotic “facts”

          the crap you push out of your mouth on a daily basis make me believe with no doubts that you are 101% completely insane. devoid of the capability to see reality in the slightest. I shudder to think what it might be like in your twisted world you live in (inside your head)

          but hey.. say more crap ..i’ll shut down every bit of it with a fleeting half ass attempt.. it’s not hard to make you look like your full of shit because you do so well at it for us all.

          bottom line:
          Keep up the yapper flappin many of us tune in to the show for pure entertainment purposes and your one of the star performers. Now run along and do me a little dance ..amuse me ! lol

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Sorry, you cannot change the law just because you don’t like it.”

          Damn, you can still own african people in the US?

          How many do you have, bobmail?

          And booze is illegal too. As is protesting against your rightful king or his taxes on tea.

          “Claims are made on a good faith basis and that is all that is required.”

          Judge: Did you know you would send a thousand INVALID LEGAL NOTICES every week?

          MPAA/RIAA: Um, yes, your honor, we did.

          I think “good faith” will be rather a hard dodge to pull off unless the presiding judge is blind, deaf AND dead.

        • JG

          I can’t change the law because I don’t like said law…. OK… Um… Rosa Parks didn’t much care for the law mandating she give up her seat on the bus to a white man…. I think she managed to get that law changed…. Oliver Brown didn’t like state-sponsored segregation and managed to get the law changed so black students could attend white schools…. I’m able to go out on the weekends with my mates and have a few drinks because people didn’t like the 18th amendment to the US Constitution (the highest law of the land I might point out) which prohibits the consumption, purchase, possession or transportation of any alcoholic beverage [which I might add was the result of people changing the then-current alcohol laws they did not like]. The UK (the US likely to soon follow) just allowed same sex couples to wed, because people didn’t like the laws defining marriage as strictly between a man & woman.

          On a more personal note, I’ve helped to change policies/rules/laws I did not like at several levels – as a student at both my High School and University, as well as a resident in my local community. And thanks, in part, to my actions against the proposed federal law I didn’t like, we do not have to suffer through the disaster that would have been SOPA (which would have changed laws the Media Empire did not like).

          And yes, the DMCA does not call for any third party investigators but it also doesn’t prohibit any, nor disallow the requirement to be added when it comes up for renewal (much like how, when the PATRIOT ACT came up for recent renewal, some aspects were dropped, some were modified, etc). And while claims are made on good faith, you must also swear “under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate” [Yes, the threat of perjury is actually mentioned in the DMCA, I didn't make that up myself]. Further, the DMCA does provides that you may be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys fees) if you falsely claim that an item is infringing your copyrights. So there is some hint that we should not assume just because a take down notice was issued that it has to be 100% without a doubt totally accurate.

  • jnunes

    so much censorship :

  • Trustnoone

    10,000,000 URL’s taken down and it hasn’t made a bit of difference in the amount that has been downloaded I bet :P

  • anonymous

    give them an inch and they take a mile! greedy arse holes!

    • slimebag

      greedy??? says the slime bag that sneaks around stealing stuff! Get real cunt.

      • anonymous

        a) i dont sneak around, unlike yourself who is obviously an industry troll, visiting this site simply to try to spread your own type of crap and untruths

        b)i may be a lot of things, but a cunt is definitely not one of them. if i were, i would be letting pricks like you fuck me, and i can assure you, that is never gonna happen!!

      • platyourpus

        @e9cf0d2c2dc698a18d1b7496a404b984:disqus

        Cunts are useful,you’re not,now piss off back to your troll hole,and sniff some more arse.

  • JordanKratz

    We wish to see Google get payed for having to do this 10,000,000 times.

    Looking forward to the 20,000,000………..think I will hewlp the cause and download some really bad RIAA Stuff.I will just download and seed for a day then press DELETE.
    One less equals 9,999,999 more times.
    Will anyone else help the cause ?

    • ghnonst

      We should have a pool as to when 20,000,000 will hit.

      It’ll be soon – they’ve got bogus takedowns down to a fine art now.

      I reckon, this time next year – bold, but I’ll wager a $ on it.

  • Anon22

    Proof of the Streisand effect again. All those takedown notices to those sites has lead to more knowing about them. Just bookmarked 3 of them that I didn’t know existed. Thanks RIAA! :)

    • xpmule

      What does Babs have to do with it lol

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Streisand effect – the concept that trying to keep something secret makes people curious, turning the obfuscation effort into viral mass marketing instead.

  • Shogunreaper

    All this does is cause people to visit the sites directly, google doing this is just increasing those sites hits.

  • Pingback: RIAA Set For Historic 10,000,000th Google URL Takedown | Best Seedbox

  • x

    Fuck the RIAA how about that.

  • Anonymous

    Google’s doing a good job on transparency, but I’d also like to see how much it’s costing them to respond to all these DMCA notices. Specifically, I’d like the cost of dealing with over 50,000 notices daily to be public information.

    I want to know just how much in arbitrary costs the **AAs are able to force companies like Google to pay. And the next time they say how “easy” it is for companies to comply with their demands, I’d like to have a weighty counterargument.

    • RIAA Winnings

      It’s all automated, so it doesn’t cost them anything. They don’t have people sitting around viewing millions of take down notices.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Actually, they apparently do. Google is taking the effort to collate and assemble statistics on the takedowns meticulously. One guess as to why.

        I’m thinking the *IAA’s finally kicked the big bear hard enough to wake him up.

        • bobmail

          yeah, they are looking to figure out how much this all is costing them, so they can justify cutting off the domains that are costing them time and money to deal with.

          Google’s stats so far show that the vast majority of DMCA notices (especially those sent from the big companies) are in good faith, and most of the take downs declined involve either fair use claims. Most of the other declines are from smaller groups or individuals over reaching and attempting to use DMCA for other ends, such as getting speech stopped that they do not like.

          The last set of Google numbers showed very, very few cases where bad faith might even come into play.

          Sorry to burst your bubble and kill your conspiracy theory, but then again, actually paying attention to the data might change your view.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “yeah, they are looking to figure out how much this all is costing them, so they can justify cutting off the domains…”

          Domains?

          Dafuq did I just…oh, bobmail, that takes the cake it does.

          You know, bobmail, I would have thought that when ICANN and the fucking OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY proved domain seizures were as “useful” as tits on a boar, your kind should have learned a valuable lesson.

          See, my little troll. Google USES the internet. They do not control it.

          Today’s million-notice entity is tomorrows “Welcome to Port Royal, Mr. Smith”.

          Google hasn’t one fucking chance in hell of changing this. They are, however, smart enough to know this as well.

          At the end of the day Google has one of two choices.

          1) Keep knuckling under to demands of the type you envision. The equivalent of that is called seppuku. Every service currently offering similar indexing without being based in the US is immediately granted the keys to the kingdom, once Google becomes second-best.

          But why am I not surprised that you fail to even know basic market rules dictates gutting the service you provide is a bad thing?

          2) Google finds a way to drop the mother of all hammers on the entire “copyright infringement farce”.

          Google is definitely smart enough to realize that as long as there is leverage for you to have, you will keep costing Google money.

          So what you are telling me, bobmail, is that we have the piddly little “entertainment industry” willfully stealing the big grizzly bear’s food while smacking it on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

          And this you state with ill-conceived glee, obviously without ANY idea of just how much muscle Google can flex in legal venues were Google to determine there was cost-benefit in flexing.

          My god.

          And you even call the likely theory that a company will defend it’s business a “conspiracy”.

          “…but then again, actually paying attention to the data might change your view.”

          Oh, I have. Unlike you however, I understand the most obvious and simple use for it.

  • dondilly

    Probably the biggest pointer to the RIAA et al harrassing google with pointless takedown notices is that many info files associated with downloads and even files or directory names contain the name of at least one, prob more p2p sites or trackers.

    Many people dont search google for specific files esp when try8ng to locate meta search engines. They are far more likely to pick the name of a now obscure band unlikely to generate non media related results and way below 5e takedown radar. It is done not to locate that artists files but to locate the meta search engines. One of my fav search terms is a 70s glam rock era doo wop band from the uk, showaddywaddy, not a name likely to appear in non music results and as uk/europe only, never on the riaa radar.

  • http://www.thedallemagnes.info Angel

    I think it’s funny that these guys actually think take-down notices will work. The internet is so massive that what you can’t find in one place you can pretty much always find in another.

    • fuckingscumslut

      Imagine when they stop making stuff for you to steal! Imagine when the small independent decides there is no money in it and has to stop producing stuff for you to steal!!! Someday the law is going to change and slam a few of you scum bags right up the ass with a jail term. Someone has to teach you shithouses the fucking rules and that day is coming.
      The saying you make me sick!!!! I never knew the true meaning of that phrase until I started to observe the pathetic, low life, greedy grasping behaviours on here of the lower forms of life.
      You lot really are just dirt! Dog shit on the shoe of the earth.
      Your day will come-you ain’t getting away with shit!!!!!

      • http://www.thedallemagnes.info Angel

        Who said I steal anything, I just said their tactics didn’t work. Your a bad troll.

      • puddipuddi

        I don’t even…… Trolololol

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        As if anyone listens to some idiot who obviously couldn’t even master basic english.

        Since when is one person making a copy of information from another “theft”?

        Now back under the bridge with you, Mr. “Scumslut”. Nice nick, by the way. tells us all about you.

      • platyourpus

        fuckingscumslut,HaHaHa that name really does fit you well,like a pair of smelly socks.

        PS: copy NOT steal.

      • Ophelia Millais

        Piracy is flourishing, yet there’s more music and movies being produced than ever before. Explain that.

  • Violated0

    Welcome RIAA to the World’s biggest game of whac-a-mole where you are armed with a slow heavy mallet. Each time you take one down two more pop up to replace it.

    Instead of taking down the infringing media they only censor a link to it in their “out of sight, out of mind” policy.

    The dam has burst, the flood is here and they are really trying to hold back the unstoppable. Sweet, 10 million juicy infringing links… good job you kopimism loving pirates.

  • Christopher Kidwell

    How much do you want to bet that 50% of those takedowns are false takedowns?

    10 million in 12 months? No goddamned WAY that they were doing the proper verification on those before sending them into Google.

  • Pingback: Piracy Lab | RIAA Set For Historic 10,000,000th Google URL Takedown

  • dlovin123

    I don’t get why the music industry would give two shits about “infringing files”… I can go to youtube and find ANY song EVER recorded.. and its 100% FREE and uploaded by the artist and or label!

    I can even make a fucking youtube playlist of 1000 songs and stream it on my 4g phone all day and never pay a fucking dime.

    So why on gods green earth would any logical person think that removing some URL somewhere in pixel land is going to make two fucking shits of a difference in the fight against piracy?

    Music Piracy doesn’t exist….

    • bobmail

      The difference is when you view them on youtube, that includes advertising and such around the videos in question – and sometimes interrupting your listening. Youtube pays a fee for every “view” of the material.

      Understanding that goes a long way to understanding the difference.

      • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

        Youtube pays a fee for every “view” of the material.

        you really are fucking retarded. you’re hopeless. You just have no clue whatsoever.

      • icec0ld

        Yeah, you lost me when you suggest YouTube pays a fee. You have no fucking clue about how anything works and adequately demonstrate it every. Single. Day.

        • bobmail
        • puddipuddi

          see my reply to you. You tube still makes money off of other peoples work, (just like record companies). They just push a little advertising revenue their way.

          Oh yea and we can download anything from you tube and put it on our ifags.

        • ScrewEwe2

          Boob, I think you need to go sit in the corner for some time-out son. Your attitude is becoming very abusive towards people.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          That “licensing deal” says absolutely nothing and hasn’t in the least affected what’s available either on youtube or elsewhere.

          All efforts notwithstanding. It’s so much useless ink on paper which means some middleman gets a nickle thrown his way and the artist gets nothing. If even that.

      • Andrew me

        i have never seen an add on youtube, the wonders of abp

      • Guest

        youtube doesn’t pay any fees (and that’s why German MAFIAA analog GEMA is unhappy)

        but yea, if you wanted a song to be on your iPad (or another hipster device) and you are not a technie you couldn’t download it from youtube and have to use some of the mp3 downloading sites

      • puddipuddi

        Youtube doesn’t pay a fee. In fact, they MAKE money off of other people’s music with ads (and so does the person that posted it). I don’t see the adds though because I use addblock. I also download music and videos from youtube. Youtube has THE BIGGEST collection of music in the world, all free to download. I have downloaded music from youtube that I couldn’t find legally as a cd or a pay for download, and also couldn’t find it on the 2 biggest music trackers.

        Eat that shit bitch.

      • Ardvaark

        Actually you’ll find youtube pays the owner of the channel.
        That owner is usually the same person who owns the copyrights, not the artist.

        Also you’ll find there’s ways to even block the adds.

        But you seem to support the add-supported business model, which seems ok. Problem is you’re probably not aware of yet again the MAFIAA’s corrupting hand on this issue. You’ll be glad to know that some “Artists’” Channels were stripped of a huge amount of views because the MAFIAA was using bots to inflate the view counter so gain some extra cash. Talk about being corrupt.

        Let’s not forget GEMA’s regional lock to “Support the artists” which only leads to increased piracy (and more tech savy average joes) on Germany.

        Going quite rebel there loving add-supported stuff when your masters kind of hate it.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Once again, these comments from you where you show everyone you haven’t the faintest clue as to how things work.

        Before embarrassing yourself further, go back and hit google up for some facts.

      • xpmule

        oh you mean because google (youtubes owner) is making money off of the tracks ? ooooooh i see lol

      • Sharecare

        You don’t have to view them on YouTube, you can just download the video and convert it to mp3. It’s very simple to do. So you’d have to ban YouTube to stop piracy.

        In fact you’d have to ban every video site because there will always be a way to download the video, including the audio. The data is always sent to your PC, it’s just a matter of creating the right tool to “fetch it up”.

  • Bobmail’s Retarded Brother

    I’m still confused by the whole DMCA thing. They request sites that LINK urls, much like ALL search engines do. They claim piracy is the cause however most don’t host the infringing content. Yet, they don’t take said search engines to court for LINKING urls.

    Someone really needs to point out the difference between hosting and indexing.

  • Pingback: RIAA Set For Historic 10,000,000th Google URL Takedown | The Illuminati

  • Guest

    Meanwhile file-sharing is growing everyday.

    • suxkdatcockbitch

      until there is nothing left to steal coz no one is making any decent content!! Get a grip you slimey little cock sucker.

      • Guest

        There already exists more than enough content most people will have access to in their lifetime. Personally I play my games several times over.

        Do you really think changing your anonymous nickname will prevent people from knowing who you are? Yes, you are a bitchy little cocksucker.

  • bobmail

    So, let me tell you what the real prize is here.

    Enigmax sort of hit it, but failed in a many ways. The concept (I think) is to keep making tons and tons of complaints and valid / accepted DMCA notices about a given site, and then to move with legal action against the site, with all the records of things removed from Google as “proof”.

    Further, I think that the **AAs will also use their long list of removals as pressure on Google and other search engines to “delist” certain sites which are chronic abusers. Say if they get 1 million notices against piraterus.pl, then they notify Google that the site is a chronic abuser, file legal action against the site in question (even if it will never play out) and at the same time seek an injunctive relief to have Google stop listing the site altogether.

    There is a point where Google has to agree that a site appears to be generating more pain than it’s worth, and then they shitcan the site. With some of these sites working on 30% or more Google traffic (and however much of the rest of it came from an intial Google search visit before the site was bookmarked), you can see where this would play out.

    The rights holders appear to be patient and more than willing to keep whacking the moles. I also think they are collecting and indexing these takedown notices for future use. Get ready for some serious legal action later in 2013, I think!

    • Guest

      In other words, keep throwing piles of shit on the wall and hope something sticks. Sounds exactly like what the RIAA is used to: sue enough kids and dead grandmothers; someone’s gotta pay up.

      I think Andrew Crossley tried this strategy once. Operated well within the law, didn’t he? And he managed to get himself arrested! Makes your dick sad, doesn’t it bobby? Don’t worry, I’m sure Robert King’s got a huge pile of jizz to reward you for being such a compliant little cocksucker.

    • icec0ld

      hilariously, as hard as you and your shrill crowd try to convince themselves, removing someone from Google will not remove infringement from the internet. No more than removing an English word from the dictionary will stop it being said.

      Who in this age Googles for pirating results? All this does is drive traffic else where. Not eliminate it.

      Keep whacking away. You’re wasting time and money.

      Good luck using DMCA’s evidence. The fact the notification is acknowledged and reciprocated means they are eligible for safe harbor protection.

      Have fun suing Google and it’s billion dollar legal shotgun. I’m sure they have more ammo than you.

      • bobmail

        “hilariously, as hard as you and your shrill crowd try to convince themselves, removing someone from Google will not remove infringement from the internet.”

        you know, this is why I think you are such a jackass, because it’s clear you don’t read, and instead filter things through your fantasy world.

        NOBODY SAID GETTING A SITE OFF OF GOOGLE MAKES IT DISAPPEAR. Can I say that any clearer?

        “Who in this age Googles for pirating results?”

        read the fucking story, jackoff. These sites are getting upwards to 30% of their traffic from search. That’s not me saying it, that is one of your pap feeders saying it. Can’t you read?

        “Good luck using DMCA’s evidence. The fact the notification is acknowledged and reciprocated means they are eligible for safe harbor protection.”

        Again, you suck at reading. It’s not about if they have or do not have a safe harbor. There is a point where for Google, continuing to index and list a given domain becomes too costly (because they have to keep processing these DMCAs). Also it raises the issue of “red flag” knowledge. If a site has a million pages, and 750,000 DMCAs, perhaps the best solution to avoid problems is to no longer list it.

        You may not like it, but it could very well be the basis for an injunction against Google, Bing, et al to removed certain domains, as they are repeat offenders – and with all of these notices, it’s clear that Google would be aware of this fact.

        “Have fun suing Google and it’s billion dollar legal shotgun. I’m sure they have more ammo than you.”

        Umm, idiot, I have no ammo. I am not fighting this, I don’t work for anyone in the music or movie industries. Clearly you are an idiot, putting your preconceived notions in place of actual facts.

        • Ardvaark

          “NOBODY SAID GETTING A SITE OFF OF GOOGLE MAKES IT DISAPPEAR.”
          Then you just described insanity.
          Knowing that something does not remove content, and yet keep doing that something in hopes content is removed is the very definition of insanity.

          “You may not like it, but it could very well be the basis for an
          injunction against Google, Bing, et al to removed certain domains, as
          they are repeat offenders – and with all of these notices, it’s clear
          that Google would be aware of this fact.”

          Again I explained to you how very unlikely this is but still there’s also one thing you forget. Given that it does NOT remove the content and that, were such an injunction to happen, the news about this would spread like wildfire. Then due to the Streisand effect I’m pretty sure no one else would need to google the site.

          Again, shooting yourself on the foot.
          Now you’re out of ammo.

        • bobmail

          “Then you just described insanity. ”

          Not at all. Not being able to remove the content (because the website in question is in a different jurisdiction, subject to different laws, or is just plain ignoring copyright notices) is an ongoing issue. However, making that illegal content harder to find (remember, 30% search traffic to these sites and you can bet much of the other 70% came from people who searched in the past and then bookmarked) is really key.

          They aren’t doing anything hoping the content gets removed, if you think that is the goal then you missed the point entirely.

          “Then due to the Streisand effect ”

          Fuck Mike Masnick and his “effect”. Short term, people might know more. Long term, 30% of the traffic is from search engines. No Google traffic, the site slowly dies as people forget to go back and can no longer find it. Such an injunction might also not really be news, beyond the scope of the usual anti-copyright choir sites. You place too much importance on the little community here.

        • Guest

          Then people fall back to trading disk drives and computer memory. Hey, good luck legislating against those bobby.

        • icec0ld

          “Not at all. Not being able to remove the content (because the website in question is in a different jurisdiction, subject to different laws, or is just plain ignoring copyright notices) is an ongoing issue.”

          US law is not international law. No nation has any obligation to follow US law within their jurisdiction.

          “However, making that illegal content harder to find (remember, 30% search traffic to these sites and you can bet much of the other 70% came from people who searched in the past and then bookmarked) is really key”

          Switch “torrent” for “download”. Blam. Search results now show me what I’m looking for again.

          “No Google traffic, the site slowly dies as people forget to go back and can no longer find it. Such an injunction might also not really be news, beyond the scope of the usual anti-copyright choir sites. You place too much importance on the little community here.”

          Forget the site? Tell me, how do you find your way around the internet cause you must really suck at it having to Google sites because your browser is so ancient as to not have a history of previously visited sites and a self erasing bookmark system.

          You can’t starve something that doesn’t need feeding. .

        • bobmail

          Fuck you are an idiot.

          You don’t think that almost every country on the planet has a copyright law? Are you that ignorant?

          “Switch “torrent” for “download”. Blam. Search results now show me what I’m looking for again.”

          Umm, sorry. It’s not blocking the word torrent. Again, you suck at reading, and have no grasp of what is going on. Why do you keep prattling on?

          “Forget the site? Tell me, how do you find your way around the internet cause you must really suck at it having to Google sites because your browser is so ancient as to not have a history of previously visited sites and a self erasing bookmark system”

          Fuck, you are an idiot. Plenty of people bookmark stuff, but many, many more do not. They rely on memory, on the short history in their browser, etc. Over time, they lose track of sites. Maybe they forget to visit, or go somewhere else instead.

          We aren’t talking about me personally, idiot. We are talking about people in general. Again, at your age, you clearly have no grasp of social dynamics and how things ebb and flow in the real world.

          “You can’t starve something that doesn’t need feeding.”

          Clearly they need feeding, because without feeding, the sites tend to wane and disappear. It’s amazing how it goes.

          Again, are your young age, I am not surprised you can’t grasp it. Your limited life experiences must make all of this so confusing!

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Clearly they need feeding, because without feeding, the sites tend to wane and disappear. It’s amazing how it goes.”

          Again with the looking angry and shouting because the bad bad grownups refuse to believe the moon is made of cheeze?

          On the internet any site viewers won’t look at simply sits there until the operator gets tired of it and shuts it down.

          TPB however, has double-digit number of million hits each week, as does any other site big enough for ANYONE to find it interesting.

          Getting Google to de-list such sites is much akin to the domain name seizures and ip-blockades in the past.

          What you are saying is that something which did not work at any time when you tried it in the past will now somehow work?

          Congratulations, you once again fulfill Einstein’s definition of insanity.

          And prove to just about everyone that your entire premise is based on a fever dream which should by rights only have come from a pipe full of real bad meth.

          “Again, are your young age, I am not surprised you can’t grasp it. Your limited life experiences must make all of this so confusing!”

          You mean as with most of us, half again your age or more?

          Typical bobmail, failing every chance at presenting anything factual, he’s once again reduced to feeble attempts at marginalization.

          And wouldn’t you know it, he’s piss-poor at that as well…

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          didn’t he say he was 24?? Christ, I have socks older than this fuckhead.

        • Ardvaark

          “However, making that illegal content harder to find”

          I can assure you this makes very little difference in how content is found.

          To confirm this, I did a little test.

          I picked a random 100 songs form my music library and using google was able to find them for free for about 70 of them. And for 15 or so something else happened. I couldn’t find the individual file itself but i could find the whole album, containing the music. So in effect, I ended up downloading about 14 more songs than I wanted, per file. (Thanks MAFIAA!) Also of those 70 or so songs, a nice part of them were available on the “removed links” list from chilling effects.

          So It is indeed insanity, trying to make content harder to find when indeed it stays the same, or ends up increasing piracy (those cases where I got 15 songs looking for 1).

          “Fuck Mike Masnick and his “effect”. Short term, people might know more. Long term, 30% of the traffic is from search engines.”

          Well, as you can see from the pirate bay blockade, no traffic is lost. So you can assume that censoring google, a much more mild action than ISP blocking, would wield an even lesser effect on traffic.

          Also, may I present you to the bookmarks! Once a site is found, hardly any people forget it if the site is worth it. No site would die because of that. Again look at the pirate bay, censored by google and still going.

          You’ll also find that there are other ways people find sites. For example reading this article, i found 3 new ones (I already knew one of them). Word of mouth plays an important role in spreading this information.

          Finally, the Streisand is very real regardless if you want to ignore it or not. Seeing how more and more media attention is being given to copyright issues, I’d very much doubt a google-wide blocking and an injuction order aimed at google wouldn’t be newsworthy.

        • Guest

          “They aren’t doing anything hoping the content gets removed, if you think that is the goal then you missed the point entirely.”

          lolno. Removing infringing content is the entire goal of the DMCA.

          But because it fails miserably at this, you’re trying to make up an imaginary new goal for it to save face.

          “the site slowly dies as people forget to go back and can no longer find it.”

          fucking bookmarks how do they work

          Of course the real result of Google taking down links is people gradually leaving Google and switching to Yandex or any other search engine that laughs in the face of the DMCA.

          Or Google getting tired of it and letting the copyright monopoly know the party is over.

        • bobmail

          “lolno. Removing infringing content is the entire goal of the DMCA.”

          You clearly don’t understand all of the implications of the DMCA law. Where content cannot be easily removed, you can make it harder to reach, harder to find, and so on. Read the law and understand it’s implications.

          “Of course the real result of Google taking down links is people gradually leaving Google and switching to Yandex or any other search engine that laughs in the face of the DMCA.”

          Your assumption (incorrect) is that people will leave Google. Some will, in the same manner that some people will pay for double VPN’s and use Mega style encryption on everything they do. Some will, MOST PEOPLE WON’T DO IT. When the free lunch requires too much work to get… people stop chasing it.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Your assumption (incorrect) is that people will leave Google.”

          Because a service which proves itself piss-poor at indexing everything you ask it to find will not be – mildly put – hindered in the marketplace.

          I seem to recall the last great big hope of indexing…Yahoo, or something. And there was something called Netscape navigator…

          Amazing how quick an online giant will die as soon as a competitor gains just ONE little edge over it.

          But hey, please lay out your argument why Google would be magically exempt from any of the most basic market effects.

          Especially when a vaccum in that niche will leave baidu and just about everyone else scrambling madly in order to cover it.

          Bobmail, go find a marketer. Have them explain to you, in short and simple words, how the market works. Then go read up again on that internet history you managed to live through while missing most of it.

          And while we’re at it, consult your previous “successes” in marginalizing much of anything on the internet. Short term or long. Last you tried was napster and kazaa. Worked out really well for you, did it?

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Actually, with Google’s multitude of services that they offer, it might be easier for them to simply stop offering web searches. Not ideal, but I would assume they could privately index for the purposes of their Adsense and keep the rest of their services. Google seems to slowly be broadening their reach outside of the internet search market anyway…robot cars, internet glasses and the like.

        • ScrewEwe2

          “Who in this age Googles for pirating results?”

          Apparently, The RIAA, The MPAA, Trident Media Guard and MarkMonitor, just to mention a few.

        • ScrewEwe2

          “Umm, idiot, I have no ammo. I am not fighting this, I don’t work for anyone in the music or movie industries.”
          Are you a male escort for fat bitches with riches who suffer from genital itches?

        • icec0ld

          “you know, this is why I think you are such a jackass, because it’s clear you don’t read, and instead filter things through your fantasy world.”

          Projecting again? Maybe you need to see a therapist.

          “NOBODY SAID GETTING A SITE OFF OF GOOGLE MAKES IT DISAPPEAR. Can I say that any clearer?”

          Then the intended result is what? This is no different than a book burning event. People are attempting to control the way public gets information.

          “read the fucking story, jackoff. These sites are getting upwards to 30% of their traffic from search. That’s not me saying it, that is one of your pap feeders saying it. Can’t you read?”

          Despite Google actively censoring? Bravo. You’re doing an excellent point of showing just how useless it is to target pirates through Google.

          “Again, you suck at reading. It’s not about if they have or do not have a safe harbor. There is a point where for Google, continuing to index and list a given domain becomes too costly (because they have to keep processing these DMCAs). Also it raises the issue of “red flag” knowledge. If a site has a million pages, and 750,000 DMCAs, perhaps the best solution to avoid problems is to no longer list it.”

          Your implication was that the DMC notifications would lead to a lawsuit. I was pointing out how retarded that is.

          RIAA and MPAA btw, stamps these things without looking allot of the time since they try often on a regular basis, to DMC themselves. When this idiocy gets too costly, I doubt they’ll respond by de-indexing the site. They’d be more likely to stop taking requests from people clearly abusing the system and costing the most money.

          “putting your preconceived notions in place of actual facts.”

          Stop projecting bob. You need help. Bad.

        • bobmail

          “Then the intended result is what? This is no different than a book burning event. People are attempting to control the way public gets information.”

          Wow. Are you 12 years old? Seriously, you come off like a kid with plenty of big words and absolutely no understanding. Copyright doesn’t stop the flow of information. Where the fuck do you get that idea? Did you suddenly stop getting the news because of copyright? Did your radio stop working, did the internet break because of copyright? Nope. At most, it can in a VERY small way limit your access to something because you are unwilling to pay for it, or that it is not available in your area yet.

          Google is not actively censoring (except in China, from what I can see). They are however respecting the laws under which they operate (US law for the US company).

          “Your implication was that the DMC notifications would lead to a lawsuit. I was pointing out how retarded that is.”

          First, it’s DMCA. Second, your understanding of “lawsuit” is certainly childish. The point is that if a domain has 100,000 listings, and 75,000 DMCA notices, it would not be unreasonable for the rights holders to ask Google to block the entire domain. I could picture them heading to court to get such an injunction at some point in the future. Please read up on injunctive relief to understand how it operates.

          “Stop projecting bob. You need help. Bad.”

          I am certainly not going to get it from a 12 year old with no life experience and no grasp of reality. If you think I need help, it’s mostly because you don’t have a clue. A name like “icecold” tells me you are probably a WoW addicted child. Perhaps you should spend more time in the real world instead.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “These sites are getting upwards to 30% of their traffic from search.”

          And if Google fails to deliver those searches, other indexing agents already exist who will provide that use. Decentralized and outside of DMCA control.

          We’ve seen this happen before, remember?

          “There is a point where for Google, continuing to index and list a given domain becomes too costly (because they have to keep processing these DMCAs).”

          Not only does this make for a great case for Google – I can imagine what SCOTUS would say about ordinary indexing becoming an impossibility while retaining the first amendment.

          It also gives Google one whopper of a fraud claim. Assuming they tally all the DMCA takedowns proven invalid. Surprise, surprise, they do.

          Push comes to shove, the legal and factual muscle Google can deploy in a pinch makes the *IAA’s looking like small toddlers going up against a grizzly.

          “You may not like it, but it could very well be the basis for an injunction against Google, Bing, et al to removed certain domains, as they are repeat offenders…”

          How the fuck would GOOGLE “remove certain domains”?

          Try it out for size if google decides to block .com, .org or .net?
          Yea. I certainly hope this is the *IAA’s game plan because if it is, we win on walkover.

          “Umm, idiot, I have no ammo. I am not fighting this, I don’t work for anyone in the music or movie industries.”

          You mean your clown act is a vocation and not a profession. I guess we’ll have to respect that.

          “Clearly you are an idiot, putting your preconceived notions in place of actual facts.”

          After your presentation of the *IAA’s “master plan” you are not in a position to call anyone on fact since what you said was tantamount to claiming the *IAA’s were threatening to club everyone to death with dandelion fluff.

        • Guest

          bobmail

          There’s a point when Google is going to have enough of the copyright monopoly’s relentless spam either start either start charging a processing fee per DMCA takedown request, or refuse to acknowledge automated takedowns and take the monopoly to court if they have a problem with that.

          They can’t keep processing millions of takedowns for free.

        • bobmail

          By law, they are obligated to. That is a cost of doing business. I personally think it’s why they are documenting everything, because push comes to shove, Google will start to remove whole domains that reach a certain level of infringement notices, to avoid any further issue with the sites. That would protect their bottom line and fulfill their legal obligations.

          Remember, it’s not optional, it’s a legal obligation.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “…because push comes to shove, Google will start to remove whole domains that reach a certain level of infringement notices,…”

          You mean like the US government, with physical hardware access and unlimited powers of enforcement failed to do?

          Aside from that, pray tell, how the fuck would Google be able to “remove” jack shit? Domain names? De-listing .com, .net, .org?

          I would like to see what they had to say about your idea, because I’m laughing so hard it hurts.

    • Ardvaark

      “There is a point where Google has to agree that a site appears to be
      generating more pain than it’s worth, and then they shitcan the site.
      With some of these sites working on 30% or more Google traffic (and
      however much of the rest of it came from an intial Google search visit
      before the site was bookmarked), you can see where this would play out.”

      Because clearly if 30% of google’s traffic is comming from these sites tit means there’s something wrong with the users and it’s not a trend that shows what people really want.

      And obviously any company will just let go of 30% of their resources because some other unrelated company asked to.

      It’s not google’s concern to fix a broken business no matter how hard you shout. Addapt or die the world (or google in this case) has no business adapting to you.

      It’s crazy how you even consider such things as plausible, especially when you consider using DMCA claims as proof. The same claims which seem to have a high degree of false positives, misuses and where sometimes the complainers even report themselves as infringing.

      Go ahead, shoot yourself on the foot again. Maybe the pain will awake you from your delusions.

      • bobmail

        Umm, please re-read. The infringing sites get 30% of their traffic from Google, not Google getting their traffic from them.

        Google gets absolutely fuck all from these sites.

        • icec0ld

          How many would skip Google if they removed all links to the site?

          Interesting note. They only remove the page to “infringing content”, not the entire website. It’s very easy to google the site itself and find the content with the sites search engine.

        • Ardvaark

          Fair enough, once people can’t have the commodity of writing “TPB” or any other name on the browser’s search-bar because of corporate blindness they’ll then use the commodity of bookmarks.

          Even I sometimes write TPB on the search engine instead of going to the bookmarks because I can, when I can’t I switch.
          And so will most of those 30%.

        • bobmail

          False assumption. You are thinking that the 30% magically know where to go. They are getting their because they are searching, not because they know.

          The 70% is made up of people who were in the 30% who searched originally… you know, search –> site –> bookmark. Most sites get enough search traffic & new bookmarks to make up for user depletion on the other side. Once you remove the source of fresh users (Google), user depletion will generally erode the traffic on a site over time, and thus kill it off over the long run – or at least seriously lower it’s profitability for the owners.

          Again, just like the child Icecold, don’t confuse your personal technical abilities or ways of doing things with the ways of the general public.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          And to your other confirmed blind spots we now also place “sociology”.

          Honestly, bobmail, you’re a Whitman’s sampler on educational deficiency. A wonder to behold.

          See, that’s not how it works. NONE of the initial filesharing tools had hefty advertising or required searches on what was, then, a rather primitive internet.

          They were coded, released in the wild, and then just exploded. Because they were suddenly on every BBS and their relative merits debated by all and sundry.

          Just as today there are thousands of forums, IRC channels, and twitter feeds where the crowd continually debates which filesharing client, which web adress, which cyberlocker and which VPN is the current best and brightest.

          You appear to live – fully – in Anon’s little la-la land now, making assumptions about society for which history is already calling you a bold-faced liar.

          And speaking of Anon, I almost miss the poor little sod. Almost. Because with the little gem below you’ve lost it to the point where it’d be mighty hard to tell any difference.

          “Once you remove the source of fresh users (Google), user depletion will generally erode the traffic on a site over time,..”

          I hope some raging lunatic has managed to sell that idea to the *IAA’s. I truly do.

          Because that’s not how it works. Is Google going to de-list every facebook group, tweet feed, or forum where filesharing is discussed? I’d like to see an attempt made, actually. Because by then we truly DO have a very clean cut-and-dry case for SCOTUS.

          See, information distribution on the internet can be summarized by the words ad-hoc networking. Google is as powerless as anyone else to prevent or hinder that. It becomes particularly laughable when you consider that anyone who even asks “where can i find this…” invariably has at least three suggestions on the url or ip addy of a filesharing site posted in minutes.

          So what you claim is again flat-out that the tide will stop because you’ve found a bigger megaphone than King Canute had.

        • Ardvaark

          Again, nope.

          Not all of those 30% are new users.

          Of those 30% some are new users but you can’t be sure how many and there’s also some new users on the 70%.

          If you take the number of visits at 2 different points in time, the difference between them might show the number of new users (but not entirely because some people might visit more often and there’s still new users even if traffic declines) but it’s still more accurate than assuming 30% of the traffic is new users because it comes from google.

          Why?

          Because of those 30%, there’s a portion (and not a small one) who has maybe 10 sites of the kind mentioned on the article bookmarked and who write the name of a song on google and then click on the first known site. Because it’s faster than going through all 10 and because the MAFIAA’s censure is failing terribly at even stopping such a low-level piracy attempt.

          That portion will the cycle through all those 10 sources if (big if!) what you propose was ever going to happen. So of those 30% only a small portion of the traffic will disappear (the remainder will go to the 70%). The portion of new users on the 70% group would increase though since, again, there are other ways to find these sites and people would use these more as a way of discovery.

          Also, in such a scenario, I wouldn’t be surprised the first page for a search “Nice sites to download music” would lead to a forum-post with a list and an answer to someone asking that question.

          Of course a small minority would stop trying, just like a small minority is overwhelmed by how torrents work. But the decline (if any) would be so low that one has to wonder how “kill it off over the long run “ will really take.

        • Guest

          Google removes all infringing links

          Filesharing sites only lose 30% of traffic

          Still have 70%

          Site owners shrug, laugh

    • Lordhoff31

      Unfortunately he may have a point, seems to have been an awful lot of DVDSCR released this year, i smell a honey pot!!

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “So, let me tell you what the real prize is here.”

      You mean you won’t be guessing wildly about things you don’t know anything about (such as copyright, IT, history or Law)?

      Sounds promising.

      And reading on….did someone steal bobmail’s nick? Because this post hits the nail on the head, i think.

      The conclusion isn’t that hot however.

      Problem with that being that while the *IAA’s may be preparing tally lists of “chronic” abusers, those lists are null and void instantly in the great game of internet whack-a-mole. Today’s million-notice abuser is tomorrow’s “Welcome to Port Royal, Mr. Smith”.

      Google, however, is sitting on a rapidly growing list which informs everyone that certain named legal entities knowingly pound out hundreds of thousands invalid legal notices each month.

      It’s pretty given who will lose that legal battle, in any fair court of law.

    • Ophelia Millais

      It will be interesting to see if you’re right. This does seem to be their m.o., as demonstrated by their shenanigans in the Megaupload case (“don’t delete those files; they’re evidence!” / “Your Honor, Megaupload doesn’t delete infringing files!”).

      Millions of businesses would love to gaining any kind of leverage they can in search engine results. Using legal threats to manipulate search results against your competition, ethically speaking, falls somewhere in between publishers buying outward-facing placement on bookstore shelves and repressive governments censoring the phone book.

      If someone asks me where to buy crack, and I’ve got a map that says “crack dealers” on it with an arrow pointing to a particular neighborhood, I’m probably going to tell them that neighborhood might be a good place start. I didn’t force them to go there, buy crack, rob a liquor store, buy more crack, and die face-down in the mud. So why should I be held responsible for not giving them directions to Starbucks?

      Well anyway, removing a site from Google’s search results doesn’t remove the site from the Web. So there’s a limit to how effective it will be.

  • RIAA

    We’re hoping to hit 10,000,000 valid takedowns sometime this year. Or at least by the end of next year.

  • RIAA Winnings

    Doesnt matter if its the 10th millionth or billionth…The links were immediately replaced.

  • Pingback: GNC #833 Ready for Home! | GNC Show Notes

  • puddipuddi

    Why can’t disqus just copy reddit’s discussion system? Please disqus fix this shit.

    • puddipuddi

      WTF and I can’t even ctr+f my screen name to see if anyone replied to me.

  • Goo Smoo

    This is very symbolic. Takedown request # 10,000,000 will truly reflect the incredible effectiveness the RIAA’s efforts have had on combating piracy.

    (assuming you remove the leading 1 from that number)

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Not necessarily true. Add the “1″ to the back and keep the comma right after the first zero and we might approximate, in percent, what impact this has had on “piracy”.

      That being mainly less downloading done because some pirates are shaking their heads and/or facepalming in disbelief for a few minutes before looking up the next file.

  • lll

    i have a great idea, since google does not host the material, tell them to fuck off, and do not remove the material because they can not because they do not host it. the law says you can’t host it right, so them all these 10mil shit are false after all

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005069441277 Chuck N Dies Last

    Copyright my brown nugget. Hey who’s pirating my shit?!

  • xpmule

    people look at the exact url’s they are reporting. probably close to have are not even valid ! this is censorship and harassment.

    at least they are smart and are picking on a corporate giant PUSSY that does not have the balls to stand up for themselves.

    At what point does Google grow a pair ? 10 Trillion take down’s ?

    This is the reason i don’t like google, it’s not because of privacy issues its because they are willing participants in the piracy game.. if they weren’t they would have started fighting all this LONG ago..

    If google isn’t gonna stand up for them selves then screw em..
    drown in your dmca notices for all i care

  • xpmule

    Google should try a new policy for a while..

    Any brand that gets enough take down’s should be blocked by Google.
    They should say hey you know what HBO if your gonna complain then we’re gonna block ALL HBO crap.. piracy or not.
    Then lets see how they like that lol

    Google should not correct them either.. if they put legit sites in the take down then fuck it ban them all.

    Best case scenario Google needs a world wide awareness day at least once a month where they shut down all search related service for about an hour or more and instead put a page up saying hey we’re getting harassed and we’re sick of it and we want help from the public.

  • http://twitter.com/MidoThePirate Ahmed Omar

    you are not stopping piracy …you are destroying those sites …because no one will use it any more when you can’t find anything on it ….and I don’t know why Google doesn’t defend it self agianst these take downs …can’t they understand that Google is a Search Engine ..not a piracy site …Google must stop this shit

    • dude

      People will realize that you can skip the middleman (google) and go straight to the site itself to find torrents and other links.

      • xpmule

        ya and i will teach kids to sneak into the back door at school to avoid the bully’s.. it’s better to be a sniveling coward and hide while people rob you of your rights and victimize you !
        or but a VPN service lol
        when they are in trouble then what ?
        cowards are gonna run out of places to hide at some point.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          From what I recall from school bullies are cowards which run in packs. Standing up to one of them simply means another one kicks you in the back.

          Unless there is a handy woodcutter’s axe to throw at the nearest one, it is doubtful standing defiant alone will get you anything but bruises.

          So sneaking is what you do, up to the point where you and the rest of the picked-on kids can dish out an object lesson in why pissing most of the school yard off is a bad, bad idea. Usually by beating the bully-boys into quivering jelly on a daily basis, burning their school books, and dropping their bikes in the ocean.

          Which is what has, in some cases, happened.

          You don’t get points for self-destructive courage. All that nets you would, in this case, be the *AA’s not believing their luck.

          So sneak. Until you can change the game.

  • anon

    Google…lol

  • Pingback: RIAA set for historic 10,000,000th Google URL takedown - Limpt Inc. Blog Wim van Limpt

  • dwpbike

    tanks for the links

  • Wade R

    If Google was based in another country, they wouldn’t have do URL takedowns?

  • Darkhog

    They’ve made 10,000,000 takedown requests too much.

  • jesus

    Do people get off reading these articles. Like the folks at the MPAA and RIAA? Do they physical touch themselves or cum? No seriously. Nobody really cares except people that work these entities.

  • joexxx

    Who cares?

  • Pingback: RIAA incrementa su presión contra la piratería en Google

  • Pingback: Aktuelles 7. Februar 2013 — neunetz.com

  • Fandangos

    Didn’t knew downloads.nl thank you RIAA :)

  • chunda

    kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • 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...

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.