OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/25996/Google_details_copyright_removals_in_search Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Sat, 25 May 2013 19:21:40 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Comment by shmerl http://www.osnews.com/thread?519326 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519326 As someone pointed out, you can check search takedown requests for particular domain like this (change to whatever):

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains... Edited 2012-05-24 22:43 UTC Thu, 24 May 2012 22:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shmerl) Comments From the FAQ http://www.osnews.com/thread?519332 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519332 Quote:

"A content protection organization for motion picture, record and sports programming companies requested the removal of search results that link to copyright removal requests submitted by one of their clients and other URLs that did not host infringing content."

Sounds very much like The Pirate Bay was the target here ;) Thu, 24 May 2012 23:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abstraction) Comments Comment by RichterKuato http://www.osnews.com/thread?519343 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519343 "I think this is a very valid system, and, contrary to what some might think considering my posting history, I'm happy there's a working system where rightsholders can get infringing links removed."

I'm not. What benefit do I from censored search results? None what so ever. Also, it's a totally invalid system since it requires censorship to work. Besides, there was already system like this in place that didn't require censorship (Getting the website itself to take down the content). Fri, 25 May 2012 02:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (RichterKuato) Comments RE: Comment by RichterKuato http://www.osnews.com/thread?519346 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519346
Besides, there was already system like this in place that didn't require censorship (Getting the website itself to take down the content).

I agree. Google Search is the wrong place to block these things. Google does not host the content. If anyone has an issue with a website, they should contact the owners of that site instead and take them to court if necessary (and if possible). After all, how is Google able to determine what is legal and what not and how can we trust that Google is a neutral judge? They are showing plenty of goodwill now, but what in 20 years? Fri, 25 May 2012 02:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cfgr) Comments Workable? http://www.osnews.com/thread?519347 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519347 Not really, it is not the job or responsibility of a search engine to censor what results are returned on a search, the responsibility lies solely with the owners of the individual sites. Fri, 25 May 2012 02:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lorin) Comments RE: Workable? http://www.osnews.com/thread?519348 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519348 The only loophole I can see is that in the process of serving search results, google have to cache the content, thus hosting it. Fri, 25 May 2012 03:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gagol) Comments RE: Comment by RichterKuato http://www.osnews.com/thread?519349 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519349 So what?
Nobody's stopping one from using other methods to get links to pirated warez. Google's not obligated to help one pirate. And Google's not a government agency, so they, as a private entity, can censor whatever they want (until some govt declares them a monopoly, in which case they'd have to follow rules wrt what they censored, but I doubt they'd ever be forced to provlide links to warez). Fri, 25 May 2012 03:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MollyC) Comments RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato http://www.osnews.com/thread?519353 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519353
So what?
Nobody's stopping one from using other methods to get links to pirated warez. Google's not obligated to help one pirate. And Google's not a government agency, so they, as a private entity, can censor whatever they want (until some govt declares them a monopoly, in which case they'd have to follow rules wrt what they censored, but I doubt they'd ever be forced to provlide links to warez).


That's not really the situation here. Google just responds to the take down requests. They actually have an interest in keeping their search results uncensored (providing the best search service) but they also would risk punishiment if they didn't comply. The Government would be the ones handing out the punishment if they didn't comply.

I'm not telling how Google should do their results that's what the people sending the take down requests are doing. Fri, 25 May 2012 05:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (RichterKuato) Comments URLs http://www.osnews.com/thread?519354 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519354
to remove search results [...] Each request names specific URLs to be removed


I'm always standing confused at this. I know it's been debated long and hard several times, I'm still not convinced. I mean, if such content is out there to be found, with or without a search engine, then if a search engine indexes and returns such content, the "offended" parties should be thankful towards such search engine to be able to find such content, and then they should go after the ones who post such content, not the search provider. In my view, a search engine should provide all the answers it can find that are relevant to a query, and should never be held accountable for what it finds. After all, it's its main purpose to find those results. Yet it always seems that takedown req. submitters think of a search engine as a content provider, which it isn't (except when they actually provide some processed data that they compile from other sources, but I highly doubt those contain much infinging material).

Edit: I just saw Lorin's comment above, +1.Edited 2012-05-25 05:28 UTC Fri, 25 May 2012 05:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (l3v1) Comments RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato http://www.osnews.com/thread?519360 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519360
And Google's not a government agency, so they, as a private entity, can censor whatever they want

Excuse me but I do think this is a problem.

A problem already tackled elsewhere. None of the - private - phone companies are monopolies, but they have an obligation of neutrality (which is far older than net neutrality): they can't filter your phone calls or your text messages, whatever its content.

We are regressing. Fri, 25 May 2012 06:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Radio) Comments The cost http://www.osnews.com/thread?519393 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519393 Processing 250k requests a week (something that can't go without human intervention) must cost a fortune, another blow to Google.
Who's gonna pay for that? As MS is competitor to google in search space they could easily use this mechanism to abuse them and artificially make other se gain competitive advantage.
That's the huge loophole I see in this legislation, as it may potentially make the whole search business commercially non-viable. Just mentioning something even if it's illegal shouldn't be punishable, that a totalitarian measure.Edited 2012-05-25 10:28 UTC Fri, 25 May 2012 10:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dsmogor) Comments RE[2]: Workable? http://www.osnews.com/thread?519626 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519626 Caching just enough content to index and link to the original is
Textbook. Fair. use.

If the "orginal" happens to be infringing, there (at eh infringing site) your (you the copyright holder) problem.

Copyright aggregators want to use the search engine to find infringement and then prevent everyone else from doing what they did.

They should be rewarded with a system that just filters the results for them and their agents ;) . The pirate bay should be blocked from all MPAA ip addresses and youtube should be unreachable from Viacom! Sun, 27 May 2012 18:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (daddio) Comments Two issues http://www.osnews.com/thread?519848 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519848 There are actually (at least) two issues here:

1. Should Google even be required to remove links to illegal copies of copyrighted material?

2. How to avoid copyright holders spamming Google with invalid claims?

In an ideal world, the answer to point 1 should be "no": Referring to illegal content should not be illegal in itself. However, Google may have a moral obligation to remove links to illegal content such as child pornography, terrorist agitation etc. even though the links themselves are not illegal. It is, however, debatable how illegal something has to be before Google should be obliged to remove links. Presumably, Google is being overly conservative so as to avoid regulation.

The second problem could be solved if Google charged a fee from people or organisations that make clearly abusive or invalid claims. It is not uncommon for public agencies to demand a fee up front for complains, but where the fee is paid back if the complaint is found valid. If the fee is low enough that it does not prevent people from complaining if they do, indeed, have valid complaints, and it is possible to appeal the decision, it is not a major obstacle. But it discourages blatant abuse and groundless claims, which is the reason such fees exist in the first place. Whether Google would be legally able to charge such fees is another matter, though. I suppose they could always fall back on suing companies that make a large number of abusive claims for anticompetitive behaviour, but such trials could end up being very expensive. Tue, 29 May 2012 10:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (torbenm) Comments RE: Comment by RichterKuato http://www.osnews.com/thread?519858 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519858 It allows large clearinghouses of publishers and agents to strangle the smaller ones. Want to keep the little guy from gaining ground? File a complaint. It will take ages for them to sort through the red tape and by then the critical window for sales will have passed. Tue, 29 May 2012 11:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MadRat) Comments scientology http://www.osnews.com/thread?519864 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519864 actually, i thought church of scientology would have been #1 Tue, 29 May 2012 12:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zhulien) Comments proof or not? http://www.osnews.com/thread?519865 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519865 do the copyright holders need to prove that they own the copyright of something they submit a request for removal for, or do they just get acted upon without any proof? Tue, 29 May 2012 12:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zhulien) Comments