> They have a legal responsibility to respond to these copyright claims, with major penalties if they don't -- this is from DMCA and its successors
This wasn't just a DMCA take-down of specific material (which for it's faults, does have an appeal process and some legal remedies.) This was a complete account ban imposed by Google, where the only functioning appeal process is going viral on twitter. While we do need to change the DMCA to hold issuers of fraudulent or abusive take requests more responsible, in this instance we also need to hold Google responsible for choosing to create an automated copyright strike/ban system that is clearly ripe for abuse and that does not have a functional appeal processes for the average user.
> It would be fair to say google should put more work into vetting DMCA takedowns
They're effectively not allowed to, by the law, that forces them to assume every take down is good, or they end up at legal risk of being liable for the content. DMCA is just fundamentally broken.
> Google is already forced to judge the case. If someone fills enough bogus cases (bogus in Googles opinion) or a ridiculous one they (google) can stop processing them
Google can already do that if it judges that the risk that the complsinant has a legitimate case is low enough that they don't need a safe harbor against them. The only consequence for not honoring a takedown is that if you would have been liable to the company's for copyright infringement before considering the DMCA safe harbor, you don't eliminate that liability.
>It’s ridiculous that, with no evidence whatsoever, Google approves these types of suspensions on an app
> It’s absurd that Google seems to make no effort at all to verify the copyright claims being made
Unfortunately, the DMCA places no such requirements upon the hosting company to verify anything -- while simultaneously requiring they quickly remove the content lest they lose their safe harbor. They are required to take down the target, they are not required to validate the claims made in the request. That is why it seems they do nothing but take down the target -- that is all that is required of them.
> The Google process pre-empts DCMA, that's the real problem
The reference to federal law wasn't to the DMCA safe harbor, but to the repeat-infringer termination rule. The Google termination process fulfills that requirement rather than preempting it.
> Congress has already considered fraudulent claims, but Google has/will not.
Insofar as the first part is true, its only in the sense that Congress essentially gave carte blanche to fradulent claims since the only consequence for false takedown notices apply only to the assertion of ownership or representation of the owner of some asserted copyright, not the part where you claim that someone is using the copyright protected material in an infringing manner.
>The law is also pushing Google to do what it does. DMCA calls for expeditious removal of taken down content, and there is *very little penalties for bogus claims.*
I would have to disagree here. The penalty for knowingly filing a DMCA claim is perjury. Since it is typucally used as a weapon against the little guys though, we've never got to see this actually enforced.
But Google does cooperate with DMCA. The difference there is that that content deemed in violation of copyright is actually illegal for anyone to distribute; legal responsibility extends all the way to the website owner.
Unless content falling under "right to be forgotten" is ruled privileged and not legal for public distribution, any artificial roadblocks to their discovery will merely present a business opportunity for their circumvention.
I've read a bunch of sob stories lately from iOS and Android app developers, and they never say they've sent a DMCA takedown notice that's gone unanswered. Under US law, this is the way to respond to copyright violations. Sending a generic complaint means very little.
> The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do.
No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels.
> However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.
Can you give an example of someone they've sued for making false claims?
> What stops the Google's of the world from simply ignoring every dmca takedown request?
The same thing that leads them to make deals with big money copyright-based industries for copyright systems that go far beyond what the DMCA safe harbor requires for situations it covers: the fact that they are deeply and actually aware of the copyright violation they facilitate (putting them outside of the DMCA safe harbor to start with), and rely almost entirely on the fact that that is hard and expensive to prove (which the DMCA negates, but which forces them to go beyond the DMCA for industries for which the cost and expense of proving actual knowledge would otherwise be worthwhile.)
> Google and the rest run sophisticated copyright infringement detection not because they CAN or have the resources, they do it because they are obliged by US copyright law.
No, they are not obliged to do so. The DMCA obliges people to remove infringement on request of the copyright owner, i.e., it requires that websites be reactive instead of proactive. This is notable because Content ID is actually more restrictive than what the DMCA requires (particularly with regards to fair use exceptions).
> Note that this situation probably won't get that far. That's because the DMCA doesn't require Google or any other provider to comply with bogus takedown notices. And Google happens to have some smart attorneys (at least one ex-EFF lawyer, in fact) on its payroll who are well aware of that fact.
Google claimed a copyright violation and did a takedown. That's what DMCA counter-notices are for. They phrased it in other terms, but ask a lawyer if that matters.
Sorry, but no. Google deserves at least a portion of the blame here. By short-circuiting the DMCA process Google is removing the few protections the DMCA does afford the complainee. That's bullshit.
I'm not saying the complaint was legally valid, obviously Google can't return the necessary due diligence on every DMCA takedown request. But the reasoning was explicitly stated in that request.
> because handling them properly is a matter of federal law.
They can ignore them unless they have some legsl obligation outside of the DMCA not to take the content down, because the only matter of federal law applicable to handling counterclaims properly is the DMCA safe harbor, which:
(1) continues to protect against copyright liability to the purported rights holder so long as they do not restore the content without a proper counternotice, an
(2) protects against any liability they would have under any other law to the user for taking down the content unless they fail to restore it with a valid counternotice.
But, there is no separate liability for not honoring a counternotice, and Google (like most free content hosts) structurrs their relations with users so that there is almost possibility of liability for taking content down with or without cause, so #2 isn’t much of a concern.
This wasn't just a DMCA take-down of specific material (which for it's faults, does have an appeal process and some legal remedies.) This was a complete account ban imposed by Google, where the only functioning appeal process is going viral on twitter. While we do need to change the DMCA to hold issuers of fraudulent or abusive take requests more responsible, in this instance we also need to hold Google responsible for choosing to create an automated copyright strike/ban system that is clearly ripe for abuse and that does not have a functional appeal processes for the average user.
reply