Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th May 2012 22:34 UTC
Google has released a treasure trove of data about takedown requests regarding possible copyright violations. What may surprise some - but is actually kind of logical if you think about it - is that most requests, by far, come from Microsoft. You'll be surprised about the total amount of requests, and looking at some of them in more detail, it becomes obvious just how much certain organisations would abuse takedown power if they had it.
Thread beginning with comment 519343
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by RichterKuato
by cfgr on Fri 25th May 2012 02:53
in reply to "Comment by RichterKuato"
Member since:2009-07-18
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?
RE: Comment by RichterKuato
by MollyC on Fri 25th May 2012 03:51
in reply to "Comment by RichterKuato"
Member since:2006-07-04
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).
RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by RichterKuato on Fri 25th May 2012 05:19
in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
Member since:2010-05-14
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).
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.
RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by Radio on Fri 25th May 2012 06:13
in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
Member since:2009-06-20
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.
RE: Comment by RichterKuato
by MadRat on Tue 29th May 2012 11:54
in reply to "Comment by RichterKuato"
Member since:2006-02-17
Member since:
2010-05-14
"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).