| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Google details copyright removals in search |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-05-24 22:34:11 |
| 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. |
|
| Comment by shmerl |
| By shmerl on 2012-05-24 22:42:57 |
|
As someone pointed out, you can check search takedown requests for particular domain like this (change <somedomain> to whatever): http://www.google.com/transparen... Edited 2012-05-24 22:43 UTC |
 - Score: 5 |
| From the FAQ |
| By abstraction on 2012-05-24 23:41:16 |
|
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 :) |
| - Score: 1 |
| Comment by RichterKuato |
| By RichterKuato on 2012-05-25 02:04:38 |
|
"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). |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by RichterKuato |
| By cfgr on 2012-05-25 02:53:49 |
|
> 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? |
| - Score: 5 |
| Workable? |
| By Lorin on 2012-05-25 02:55:42 |
| 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. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: Workable? |
| By gagol on 2012-05-25 03:14:05 |
| The only loophole I can see is that in the process of serving search results, google have to cache the content, thus hosting it. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by RichterKuato |
| By MollyC on 2012-05-25 03:51:35 |
|
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). |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato |
| By RichterKuato on 2012-05-25 05:19:01 |
|
> 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. |
| - Score: 3 |
| URLs |
| By l3v1 on 2012-05-25 05:27:27 |
|
> 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 |
| - Score: 8 |
| RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato |
| By Radio on 2012-05-25 06:13:09 |
|
> 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. |
| - Score: 7 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |