Google - The new Internet police????

For general computer discussion & help, come here

Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k

Post Reply
pad152
Posts: 897
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:21 pm

Google - The new Internet police????

Post by pad152 »

While doing a search for game patches/Mods I got the following message in my Google search!
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
Take a look at the complaint, it wasn't just 1 site, see all the torrents sites!

http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=5008" target="_blank

Is Google starting to preventing pirate, Warz sites showing up in searches?

I don't support pirating software but, I don't like the idea of Google filtering results or acting like the internet police like they have in other countries (like China)!
User avatar
FishPants
Server WhOOre
Posts: 4661
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by FishPants »

Use google.ca? I entered a few of those supposedly banned items into google.ca and they came back..
No.
User avatar
ChuckB
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 5:36 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by ChuckB »

Well, Google is doing that to get under the protection of the DMCA (which would also explain why they handle it differently in Canada, since the DMCA is a U.S. law). If they do not comply with the request, there is a chance that they will be held liable for the infringing content, so from a legal perspective, they are doing the right thing. I wouldn't call it "policing" though, they do not have to do any investigation, complying with the DMCA from a service provider perspective should be a pretty mechanical process - someone complains, you take it down and inform the alleged infringer and have the complainant and the alleged infringer fight it our - done.
Dan_Theman
Posts: 4714
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 4:43 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Dan_Theman »

... and yet HOTU shows up? Interesting.
User avatar
ChuckB
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 5:36 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by ChuckB »

.. not really. Google will only react to DMCA notifications that fulfill all the legal requirements of the law. I assume nobody has sent one for HOTU (yet). The claimant also has to be either (a) the owner of the allegedly infringed copyright or (b) the agent of the owner.
User avatar
FishPants
Server WhOOre
Posts: 4661
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by FishPants »

I still don't understand how someone delivering content (and not the pirated content in question) can be charged under the DMCA. I am aware it's a draconian law; but is it that friggin nasty that you can nab a simple search engine? I'd bet the only way they found the original infringements in the first place was by using google.. Makes absolutely no sense.
No.
User avatar
ChuckB
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 5:36 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by ChuckB »

With respect to what we are discussing here, the liability does not come from the DMCA (it comes from general copyright law under the theories of either direct infringement or secondary infringement in the form of vicarious or contributory infringement), the DMCA actually offers ways for online service providers to limit their liability.

The DMCA offers some protection to online service providers who make third party content available through their services. The legislator accepted that the service provider would not be in the position to recognize infringing materials and remove it and the DMCA therefore shields service providers from such liability. This shield is pierced when the service provider gets knowledge of an infringement by content on its services (the DMCA notification would create such knowledge). If the service providers receives a proper notification, it has to follow the proceedings set forth in the DMCA (take content down, inform the claimant and the alleged infringer and have them fight it out). There are counter-notification etc. and there are some specific rules for search engines.

The foregoing is --of course-- a very simplified description of the whole thing.
pad152
Posts: 897
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:21 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by pad152 »

But it's Google who is doing the policing! DMCA should be going to ICANN to get the domains shut down, domain names are only leased (fact, no one owns their domain names, including domain name registrars) and not Google. Google should state any legal domain (legal domain name) should be returned in search results, and if some one has an issue with that, they should to get the domain names removed from the Internet through ICANN.

Why is Google the one doing the policing, are they just that dumb or do they really want to be the internet police, because once it starts there's no stopping it!
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55367
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by LawBeefaroni »

pad152 wrote:But it's Google who is doing the policing! DMCA should be going to ICANN to get the domains shut down, domain names are only leased (fact, no one owns their domain names, including domain name registrars) and not Google.
DMCA is a law, not a group. Copyright holders use the DMCA to protect their content. Actually they use the DMCA to force others to protect their content.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
grumpy
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:27 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by grumpy »

pad152 wrote:But it's Google who is doing the policing! DMCA should be going to ICANN to get the domains shut down, domain names are only leased (fact, no one owns their domain names, including domain name registrars) and not Google. Google should state any legal domain (legal domain name) should be returned in search results, and if some one has an issue with that, they should to get the domain names removed from the Internet through ICANN.
Removing the domain doesn't prevent a search engine from providing links to infringing material. The indexer is just as happy to offer results to http://199.199.211.35/" target="_blank as it is to http://www.torrentportal.com/" target="_blank. Removing the domain also has a high probability of collateral damage should there be other non-infringing services offered.
pad152
Posts: 897
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:21 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by pad152 »

Removing the domain doesn't prevent a search engine from providing links to infringing material. The indexer is just as happy to offer results to http://199.199.211.35/" target="_blank as it is to http://www.torrentportal.com/" target="_blank. Removing the domain also has a high probability of collateral damage should there be other non-infringing services offered.
But, that's my point, Google should return any legal domain name in it's search results, IP address are not legal domain names! I don't want Google to filter any legal domain in search results. Were the DMCA notifications filed against the offending web sites? I don't think so, because it doesn't work against pirates! They were filled against Google because they know Google will once again play internet police! As far as I know ICANN is the only official internet agency and any complaints/legal action should go through them. Those who filed the complaint likely used Google to find the content and pirate web sites in the first place.
Biyobi
Posts: 5440
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:21 pm
Location: San Gabriel, CA

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Biyobi »

Google has a tendency to bow down to whoever waves a big stick at them. The was a big blow up when Google started content filtering for China when their government threatened to block them (can't have any of those petty human rights violations showing up in searches).
Black Lives Matter
grumpy
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:27 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by grumpy »

pad152 wrote: But, that's my point, Google should return any legal domain name in it's search results, IP address are not legal domain names! I don't want Google to filter any legal domain in search results. Were the DMCA notifications filed against the offending web sites? I don't think so, because it doesn't work against pirates! They were filled against Google because they know Google will once again play internet police! As far as I know ICANN is the only official internet agency and any complaints/legal action should go through them. Those who filed the complaint likely used Google to find the content and pirate web sites in the first place.
RFC3986 disagrees with you on the precise definition of the host part of a URI. Address literals are legal. You can either omit those, or offer them verbatim; pick your evil.

DMCA notifications were probably not filed against the originating web sites because the originating web sites are not subject US law. US based sites violating the DMCA tend not to survive a takedown.

It's quite likely that DMCA takedown notices were also filed against MSN, yahoo, and other popular search engines. Google is the only one telling you that they've been compelled to offer inaccurate results. They even point you to a document that spells out precisely what's been elided. How are they the bad guy?

ICANN does have authority over the root of the DNS namespace. ICANN does *not* have any authority over ccTLDs and namespace therein; those are sovereign property of their respective governments. The sovereign owners of these domains have expressed little interest in enforcing the DMCA on their soil; I don't see why they'd treat their domains any differently.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82326
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Isgrimnur »

Google sues people who “weaponized” DMCA to remove rivals’ search results
Though most of the defendants are unidentified, Google said that "Nguyen is associated with a Gmail account that posted a video describing the scheme on YouTube in November 2022 titled '2022 SEO 3 minutes to take top 1 google by Fake DMCA complaints.'" The video's description said, "Make a fake DMCA for Compertier and you will get top 1 google in the 3 minutes, DMCA Takedown Notices please search it on google."

The tactic is used to "attack and fraudulently suppress competitors' websites and products in Google Search results, making consumers more likely to buy the same or similar products from the bad actors or their affiliates," Google said. "Such bad actors know that a fraudulent takedown request often has the same effect as a legitimate one; if a takedown request contains all the elements required under Section 512(c)(3)(A), it likely will trigger removal by Google."
...
In March 2022, game developer Bungie slammed YouTube's DMCA-takedown process in a lawsuit against defendants accused of sending fraudulent takedown notices against Destiny 2 videos. Bungie's lawsuit said the defendants "were able to do this because of a hole in YouTube's DMCA-process security, which allows any person to claim to be representing any rights holder in the world for purposes of issuing a DMCA takedown."
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63762
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Daehawk »

I got a similar message when I posted a racy text on YouTube. When I went to delete it I found it had already been deleted. And it wasn't that racy even.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43898
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Blackhawk »

Similar to...?
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63762
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Daehawk »

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2023 8:27 pm Similar to...?
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
To that but without the DMC.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43898
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Blackhawk »

Ah, that's what threw me off. It was a direct reply to a post from 15 years ago.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82326
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Isgrimnur »

Try to keep up.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43898
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Blackhawk »

It's my memory. These days I can't follow conversations if there's a gap of more than 11 or 12 years.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Punisher
Posts: 4091
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Punisher »

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:26 am It's my memory. These days I can't follow conversations if there's a gap of more than 11 or 12 years.
Lucky you,! I have trouble following conversations if there is a gap of 11 or 12 minutes...
All yourLightning Bolts are Belong to Us
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43898
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Blackhawk »

Punisher wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:05 am
Blackhawk wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:26 am It's my memory. These days I can't follow conversations if there's a gap of more than 11 or 12 years.
Lucky you,! I have trouble following conversations if there is a gap of 11 or 12 minutes...
I don't have the same issues that you do, but the chemotherapy ten years ago had done a moderate amount of damage to my brain.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Punisher
Posts: 4091
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Punisher »

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:53 am
Punisher wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:05 am
Blackhawk wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:26 am It's my memory. These days I can't follow conversations if there's a gap of more than 11 or 12 years.
Lucky you,! I have trouble following conversations if there is a gap of 11 or 12 minutes...
I don't have the same issues that you do, but the chemotherapy ten years ago had done a moderate amount of damage to my brain.
Curious if you dont mind. Realizing that there are differences in our causes did you ever get bavk to your normal or eben very close to it?
All yourLightning Bolts are Belong to Us
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43898
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Blackhawk »

Punisher wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 3:04 am
Blackhawk wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:53 am
Punisher wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:05 am
Blackhawk wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:26 am It's my memory. These days I can't follow conversations if there's a gap of more than 11 or 12 years.
Lucky you,! I have trouble following conversations if there is a gap of 11 or 12 minutes...
I don't have the same issues that you do, but the chemotherapy ten years ago had done a moderate amount of damage to my brain.
Curious if you dont mind. Realizing that there are differences in our causes did you ever get bavk to your normal or eben very close to it?
I don't mind, but I don't think I'll be of much help.

The chemo was almost 10 years ago, and (cognitively at least) didn't cause any issues right away. It wasn't until about five years ago that I started noticing problems. It was tabletop D&D that tipped me off first - I went from being able to run 10-12 hour games to getting severe mental fatigue after about five or six hours. Over the next few years that effect worsened to the point where activities with a heavy cognitive load (keeping track of complex process, keeping track of a bunch of different things at once, etc.) started giving me problems after only an hour or two. At the same time, it began to affect my memory. Sometimes I'd forget what I was talking about in the middle of a sentence, or be completely unable to remember a common word. You know the thing that happens to everyone where you walk into a room and forget what you went in there for? That sort of thing became common for me. It's significant enough that several activities that used to be favorites are pretty much out of my reach now.

Unlike yours where things got bad and then you began recovery, I was fine for years, and then it set in gradually. It seems to have stabilized and hasn't gotten any worse over the last couple of years (which is good, and normal for what seems to be causing it.)

I have taken steps to try and improve my cognitive function (paying better attention to my sleep, diet, exercise, etc.) It helps, but those are things that benefit anyone's mind, so they're not so much improvements in the condition so much as they're just general mental boosts.

Here's the disclaimer: I still haven't been formally diagnosed. I am still working on it, but I've been getting the runaround due to one quack giving me an obviously wrong diagnosis (blaming it on something that simply does not cause theses symptoms, and that said quack made some other absurdly incorrect statements about.) There is absolutely every reason, though, to believe that it's 'chemo brain', which is something that some people experience during chemo, and others experience years later. For some it disappears within a year of the treatment, for others its permanent. Every symptom matches, and similar problems from other causes (dementia, etc) have been medically ruled out by MRI (which does not detect chemo brain.) It's close enough, however, that had the onset been a year and a half later, I'd probably be wondering if I'd had COVID.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Punisher
Posts: 4091
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Punisher »

Thanks for the info.
Just one clarification.
While my physical issues have been slowly improving, my mental status has not. Not even a little. I start brian therapy this friday so im hoping that helps.
All yourLightning Bolts are Belong to Us
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43898
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Google - The new Internet police????

Post by Blackhawk »

Punisher wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 3:12 pm Thanks for the info.
Just one clarification.
While my physical issues have been slowly improving, my mental status has not. Not even a little. I start brian therapy this friday so im hoping that helps.
I've been wishing for something like that. The problem is that once I when I was given the bad diagnosis by a neurologist that had come up with his diagnosis without even speaking to me, my doctor took it at face value, and the recommended solution is both impossible (regular visits with a specialist that is a 200-mile round trip), and would be useless (autism does not cause this, nor, Mr. neurologist, can you develop autism at 30, nor, Mr. Neurologist, is it a fucking brain disease, which is just straight up insulting to anyone with autism.) I haven't been able to get an appointment to see her to discuss it, as Medicare doesn't let you make an appointment 'just because.'
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
Post Reply