Why does Google make it so damn difficult to send a DMCA notice?

Why does Google make it so damn difficult to send a DMCA notice?

Google DMCA Takedown MazeGoogle sets up roadblocks at every step of the DMCA process, doesn’t provide DMCA agent’s email address, and requires senders to login to a Google account

As the U.S. Copyright Office solicits public comments for its study to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions contained in section 512 of the (DMCA) Digital Millennium Copyright Act it’s worth examining how Google–the Sugar Daddy of pirate purveyors– openly skirts the law to obstruct the process at every turn.

Of course Google would have you believe it’s the victim when it comes to enforcing the DMCA.  Its flacks regularly bleat about the millions of DMCA notices the company processes each week–a small price for profiting (indirectly) off the lucrative myriad of online exchanges it provides for pirated content.  As I’ve written before, Google’s millions of takedowns is a “mess of its own making.”

What about those on the other end of the pipeline–the victims whose only recourse is to send a DMCA notice in order to have their (stolen) movies, music, books, etc. removed from Google websites?  For these creators, Google’s DMCA process becomes a maze of twists and turns that, more often than not, leads back to the beginning.

Pity creators who have to send Google a DMCA takedown notice.

  • Google doesn’t provide the email address of its designated DMCA agent (as required by law)

  • Google requires users to send takedown requests via online forms

  • Google makes finding the correct form a laborious 9 step process

  • Once the correct form is found, Google requires DMCA senders to login to a Google account

  • Google doesn’t provide clear URL on pirated files forcing rights holders to drill down further into the abyss to find the correct URL to report the pirated file

Most websites–say for example Vimeo--post copyright or DMCA links at the bottom of each page.

Vimeo follows DMCA law

Vimeo makes it easy to find DMCA contact information and online form

Does Google, king of the internet,  follow Vimeo’s example?  Don’t be silly.

In sharp contrast to Vimeo’s example, Google’s apparent goal is to make the DMCA takedown process as onerous as possible. (Note the irony since, with its profitable products, Google has mastered the art of making user experience as seamless as possible).  

Unlike Vimeo, on Google sites there’s no handy copyright link at the bottom of every page and unlike Vimeo, there’s a myriad of online DMCA forms rather than one.  I realize Google offers a number of products, but for simplicity’s sake, why not use ONE form and direct users to check a box for the specific product involved? Of course that would be make the DMCA process too easy, an achievement Google has no interest in pursuing.

Instead, Google has a set up DMCA process that forces users to embark upon a time-consuming quest–a journey that only the determined will complete.

If you start you takedown efforts on Google by looking for an actual DMCA contact you’ll come up empty.  The Google contacts page merely drops you have at the first stop on its never-ending DMCA merry-go-round.

DMCA Google contact maze

Unlike Vimeo’s clean and direct approach, Google does everything possible to muddy the waters and make sending a DMCA takedown notice a difficult thing to do

At first glance, the cornucopia of options seems overwhelming.  Never mind the fact most links essentially lead to the same starting point.  Ironic that Google reps love to bandy the the word “transparency” about except when it comes to its own takedown process.  Again, those this seems an appropriate location for it, contact info for Google’s designated DMCA Agent, required by law, is not posted. (*See more on that later in post).

An example of what it takes to send takedown notice to report pirated movie hosted on Google Drive

To gain a better understanding of just how unnecessarily convoluted Google makes its DMCA procedure, follow along as I describe the the steps a filmmaker must take in to remove a pirated movie from a Google site.

Carol_movieAs an example I’ll use a stash of pirated films hosted on Google Drive I recently discovered.  More than 200 lesbian films have been uploaded to a private Google Group that boasts 1275 members.  Included among the pirated titles is a copy of the recent release ‘Carol,’ a film still in theaters by the way.  The pirated films organized alphabetically and can be streamed, downloaded or shared to another Google Drive.

To begin the process of removing one of these pirated films one has to find the correct online form to send. As I noted above, to do that you must first find (using Google search)  this “legal troubleshooter page for Google.  Again I ask–why not an easy-to-find link at the bottom of the web page?

From that page one must select “submit legal request.” Next, respond to a series of 7 questions before ending up at the proper form—But wait, Google requires that you have a Google account and login in order to access the form.  Can that really legal?

Is this legal?

Google makes you login in to access online DMCA form. Is this even legal?

Let’s say eventually (once you create a Google account and login) you end up at the right DMCA form, guess what? You’re still not finished.  You’ll need to have the correct URL to report. That seems simple enough…you already copied the URL from the address bar of the pirated stream so that’s the link to report, right?  WRONG!  That would be too easy.

If you did report that URL nothing will happen.  You must READ THE FINE PRINT on the DMCA form silly.  Apparently the  URL that appears in the address bar that appears–when you click a film to watch it in a new window– is NOT really the link to the pirated movie.  It’s actually the URL for the Drive folder and, as the fine print notes, this type of URL is “unacceptable.”

Pirated copy of movie hosted on Google drive

The URL on this pirated copy of Carol is not the URL to use in a DMCA notice

So how to you find the right URL to report?  Google doesn’t offer up any tips on that front.  To find an actual link specific to the pirated  movie requires some further detective work.  Return to the page with the pirated stream and poke around.  There’s nothing that says “here’s the video link” but after clicking various clickable things you may, if you’re lucky, eventually discover that by navigating to menu bar and sliding your cursor over the three dots–an option for more actions appears.

Pirated copy of Carol

Don’t follow your instincts and click “report copyright infringement” or you’ll end up back at the beginning of the DMCA maze

From there if you click  report abuse you’ll arrive at yet another page with a new URL.  You’re asked to click the type of abuse….Warning, if you select report “copyright abuse” then ruh roh, you end up back at the beginning the DMCA maze that Google has so conveniently created to impede and confuse you once again.

Don’t listen to your instincts or think logically…In this case you’d better just copy the URL on the page and head back to the online form you already found….Confused much?  Yeah, me too and that’s exactly how Google likes it.  Another way to find the real link is to click another not-so-intuitive menu icon that let’s you “pop-out” the video.  Basically nothing changes except a new window opens with a new URL (see below).

Google drive copy of pirated movie 'Carol'

Another way to find a hidden URL to a pirated movie it to click on this icon…who knew right? It’s beyond ridiculous.

It’s an absurd maze, but for Google, it’s clearly no accident.  The more confused and frustrated rights holders become, the less likely they’ll actually complete the DMCA process.  Even if you do finally send a takedown notice, it’s often a crapshoot as to whether the content gets removed in a timely fashion.

Google has designed cutting edge online tech, but its DMCA procedures are something out of the Dark Ages.  That’s no accident.

To say Google’s takedown procedures is an obstacle course is an understatement.  Circling back to the beginning, why can’t I just send an email to Google to report the illegal link(s) like I do with Vimeo?  Google’s response would most likely (again) be to pull out the whine machine and prattle on about the massive number of DMCA notices it receives.  So what?  There’s technology that can cope with pirate links report via email.  Kim Dotcom’s site Megaupload was able to, so does Vimeo, so did Hotfile and Rapidshare and….well you get the picture.  It ain’t that hard.

Does Google skirt requirements to qualify for “safe harbor” protection under the DMCA?

Since I began this piece with a mention of the Copyright Office’s ongoing review of 512c, it’s worth focusing in on a particular provision of it.  *The DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision exempts service providers from liability for infringements if certain requirements of the law are met, including publication (on its website) of the name, address, phone number and electronic mail (email)  address of its designated DMCA agent:

(2) Designated agent.—The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:

(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.

I’m sure Google has a massive team of lawyers at its disposal, but from my lay reading of the law it seems that something is amiss.  If Google has to provide this contact information in order to qualify for “safe harbor” from liability, shouldn’t it follow the law and provide an “electronic mail address” for its designated agent its website right?  Perhaps I’m not reading the law correctly?

Finding pirated movies via Google search is easy.  Finding contact information for Google’s designated DMCA agent isn’t.

Even though, from my lay perspective,  the DMCA  seems to be pretty explicit in requiring that contact information for a service provider’s designated agent contact to be readily available on “its website” Google fails to comply.   Try searching for Google’s designated DMCA agent and you’ll come up empty despite using several variations.  Google algorithms seem primed to offer up stolen goods….but for information pertaining to the DMCA, not so much….

Google doesn't make finding its DMCA agent info easy

Use Google search to find the email address for its designated agent and you’ll come up empty

If you search for Google and DMCA you’ll end up back at the beginning of the DMCA maze,  Google’s “Legal Removal Requests” page.

The law states an email address is required…does that mean its required for anyone BUT Google?  Perhaps its there somewhere, but hidden in a thicket of clicks or maybe Google’s lobbying largess has caused mass blindness.  Maybe folks at the U.S. Copyright Office should look more carefully at Google’s compliance with the letter of the law and not depend on the word of Google’s PR team.

For the record I did manage to find the email for Google’s copyright agent by using the U.S. Copyright Office’s index for designated agents.  Here’s a link to Google’s information and for the record, the official email is [email protected].  Note the caveat that says it’s faster to use the URL above which, by the way, takes you back to the beginning of the takedown maze.  Sorry, but I’ll take my chances with email from now on…..

Google designated DMCA agent info

The easiest way to find Google’s designated agent is via the U.S. Copyright office…not via the pages of Google

 

If we want to talk about updating the law for the 21st century, why not start with enforcing it and demand that Google develop a DMCA takedown system that is efficient, transparent, and follows the requirements of the law.

 

 

Google’s continued do-si-do around its piracy pledge

Google’s continued do-si-do around its piracy pledge

Google pretends to fight piracyGoogle continues to dodge responsibility for its role in promoting online piracy

This past week members of the House Judiciary Committee traveled to California to hold a pair of roundtable discussions on the future of copyright.  On Monday committee members were in Santa Clara, the heart of Silicon Valley, and on Tuesday traveled to Los Angeles to hear from a variety of stakeholders discussing everything from overhauling an out-dated U.S. Copyright Office to DMCA circumvention for tractor repairs.

As a participant in the Santa Clara event I offered up my observations on updating the copyright office and the need for a copyright small claims process.

Though I wasn’t at the LA event, I read with great interest a report in Variety by Ted Johnson that documented an exchange between Google’s legal director for copyright, Fred von Lohmann and Richard Gladstein, founder of Film Colony:

“Why couldn’t we find a way, in all of your wonderful genius, to prevent being directed to illegal activity,” Gladstein said…

“We are not in a position to decide what is legal and what is illegal online,” Von Lohmann responded.

Then Gladstein asked, “Is it legal or illegal to download a movie that you don’t own?”

Von Lohmann answered, “I agree. Downloading a movie, in order to watch it without paying for it, is infringing. That is not the problem. The problem is when you have over a trillion websites, you have hundreds of thousands of film titles, millions of song titles, not just in English but every language around the world … as a search engine there is no magic way for us to know in advance what is legal and what is illegal online. We rely on copyright owners to inform us.”

[Von Lohmann] noted that Google has been demoting sites based on the number of takedown notices they receive  from copyright owners. He also said that such sites don’t pop up when users simply put in the name of the film title without the word “watch” before it. [emphasis added] —Variety

Google DMCA takedown liesVon Lohmann’s posturing on Google’s piracy problem is nothing new, but it is worth pointing out how his statements are carefully crafted to dovetail with Google’s own (vague) propagandistic promises.

In 2014 Google announced that it had updated its “How Google Fights Piracy” report (first published in 2012).   In it, Google once again gave lip service to its down ranking (not removal) of pirate sites in its search results:

Google also factors in the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site as one signal among the hundreds that we take into account when ranking search results. Consequently, sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in search results. This ranking change helps users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily.

Note that in its glossy report Google didn’t mention exactly what types of search terminology would trigger a down ranking of results.  Apparently, if we are to believe Mr. von Lohmann, we should only expect pirate link demotions to take place when searching using the movie’s title only, not when using terms like “watch” and “download” in the hunt for pirated copies?

I did my own quick research today using a recently released indie film The Overnight.  When I searched using the title only, Google does offer up a page full of legit links.

Google search leads directly to pirated copies of movie

However, when I add the term “watch” to the mix and search for “watch the overnight” take a gander at what results lead the pack….The top result led directly to a notorious pirate site and 6 out of 10 gave me links to pirated versions of the film.  

I checked Google’s transparency report to see how many times this particular domain had been reported for infringement.  Note, the Solar Movie’s domain suffix has changed multiple times over the years. It’s latest incarnation, solarmovie.ac, seems to have come online only last month. Already its been reported for copyright infringement more than 600 times.

Why won’t Google down rank sites found in actual searches for pirated content?

I’d like to ask Mr. von Lohmann why Google can’t seem to manage down ranking pirate sites for ALL its search results–not just results found when using the film’s title.  After all, folks looking for pirated movies aren’t idiots….adding the term “watch” or “free download” to a search is standard operating procedure if one is seeking pirated copies.  It makes no sense for Google to ignore these search terms if it’s truly serious about how it “fights” piracy.

Sure, total searches for legit links may far outweigh overall searches for pirated ones, but in the end what we’re talking about when we are discussing “fighting piracy” are search terms like “watch” and “download free.”  Look what shows up at the bottom of the results for “watch The Overnight”search… Google continues to offer handy suggestions for other search terms users could use to find more (pirate) links.

Google search suggestions for pirated links

Google pretends to be working on its piracy problem, but when you drill down it’s clear that the tech giant is doing everything it can to avoid taking action or responsibility.  I hope those House members who sat and listened to Mr. von Lohmann will not take him at his word, but instead, examine actual facts.

Google still has a very long way to go when it comes to fighting piracy.

 

 

How many millions does Google pocket when YouTube scams advertisers?

How many millions does Google pocket when YouTube scams advertisers?

YouTube-ad-scams.002Youtube slaps ads on scam uploads and collects dough from advertisers who look the other way.

It’s not news that Google doesn’t take kindly to anything standing in the way of revenue.  Its business practices on YouTube are no exception.

In order to stuff the mother ship’s coffers, YouTube will monetize just about any crap upload, whether it’s a terrorist recruiting videos or scams linking to pirate websites.  When Google monetizes these uploads both it and the uploader make money from the ads.  Does anyone care about this dirty income?

Two years ago stories surfaced showing YouTube monetized Al Qaeda videos.  At the time a YouTube the Daily Mail quoted a YouTube spokesperson as saying:

‘We also have stringent guidelines regarding advertising on the site, and we may choose to stop placing ads against any video or channel if we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partners.’

Amazon ad links to scam pirate site on YouTube

Ad for Amazon Prime links to scam pirate movie website

As with most of Google’s dubious business practices the attitude is shoot first, ask questions later (if caught).  Is it really OK with advertisers that their ad budgets go to support YouTube and scam account holders (or terrorists)?

I wonder if the folks at Amazon Prime know where its YouTube ad dollars actually go?  Do they realize Amazon Prime ads pre-roll on scams for pirate movie websites?  It’s likely some of the productions pirated are Amazon Prime originals like Transparent.  Does Amazon, or any advertiser on YouTube, demand any sort of accountability as to where their advertising appears?

I’ve written more than one blog post about these shady YouTube monetization practices, but it’s like the movie Ground Hog Day--nothing changes.

Earlier this year Google/YouTube was again called out for ads on terror group videos.  This time ads played with ISIS recruiting videos.   Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Toyota and Anheuser-Busch were among those who ads played alongside terror videos and Google scurried to remove the ads once it was outed by the press.  Though clearly not pleased, advertisers didn’t say much, perhaps not wanting to draw more attention to an embarrassing situation.  According to a report on NBC News:

“Our ads should not have appeared and we’re working with YouTube to understand how it happened and to avoid it happening again,” Proctor & Gamble said in a statement to NBC News. Other companies whose pre-roll ads were spotted on since-removed ISIS-related videos — Toyota, Anheuser-Busch and smartwatch maker Pebble — didn’t immediately respond to an NBC News request for comment.

Of course ads on videos linking to scam pirate movie sites are clearly not in the same category as ISIS recruiting videos, but the underlying issue remains the same.  Where are the standards?

Why does Google depend on its community guidelines as a means to vet content for monetization rather than hire a staff to do it?

Why does Google allow YouTube to monetize uploads without checking them first?  Where are the gatekeepers?  Why doesn’t Google, with all its riches, hire staff to review content before ads appear on videos?  Google wont’ stand in the way of users uploading pirated movies or hate videos but certainly it could vet the videos to determine if they are appropriate for monetization.  Why don’t advertisers demand as much?

Google DMCA takedown liesThere’s a reason Google flacks pull out the same old rhetoric when any of its YouTube policies are scrutinized.  For Google, muddying the waters by mixing its protect free speech message with its unfettered approach to monetization is a savvy tactical move.   It’s a smoke bomb that provides political cover so YouTube can continue to rake in big bucks and avoid accountability.

It’s one thing to hide behind the shield of free speech by allowing unrestricted uploads, but making money off them is quite another.  The two are very different issues, yet Google gets away with treating them as one in the same.

Those with enough clout to force change seem either impotent, or unconcerned.  Despite the ad industry’s formation of the Trustworthy Accountability Group and its “Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy” there seems to YouTube_ad_scams.Unileverhave been little effort, beyond weak rhetoric, to call Google to account for its bad business practices.

Where’s TAG when it comes to Unilever’s ad promoting its sustainable business practices or the Weinstein Company promoting its upcoming movie No Escape on scam pirate uploads?  Why don’t industry representatives demand accountability from Google?
Do the advertising folks for Intel, Lexus, Sanuk Shoes, Oxiclean, Sandals Resort, the Weinstein Company and Disney care that their ad campaigns underwrite criminals?  Does anyone care?

YouTube Ad scams link to pirate websites

The advertising industry needs to take charge and force change.  I can write blog post after blog post documenting the myriad of ways YouTube scams advertisers (and the public) but unless those who send money Mountain View’s way demand accountability, nothing will change.

Digital Citizens Alliance Uncovers (monetized) RAT Infestation on YouTube

Digital Citizens Alliance Uncovers (monetized) RAT Infestation on YouTube

From the Digital Citizen's Alliance Report-Selling Rats

From the Digital Citizens Alliance Report-Selling Rats

Whether it’s ISIS recruiting videos or porn, it’s not news that the YouTube monetizes whatever drek gets uploaded to the site.  Now, according to a new report by Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA)*, YouTube is also infested with videos promoting RATS (Remote Access Trojans).

RATS are used by hackers to install malware that takes over computers of unsuspecting internet users.   According to the “Selling Slaving” report by the DCA, their targets are often the young:

…are actively looking to take over the computers, called “slaving,” of young girls and boys—and then selling that information online. In effect, they are selling access to our children’s bedrooms.

How does the growth of this illicit spying activity link back to YouTube?  As is the case with terrorist recruiting videos, YouTube also offers unsavory creeps a worldwide portal that makes it easy to spread their criminal wares via video.  To add insult to injury, these videos are often monetized, meaning YouTube and the hackers not only spread information on this unsavory activity, but also make money from it.

The tutorials included many that showed how to use and spread RATs; links where ratters could download the malware; and examples of RATs successfully deployed showing victims’ faces and IP addresses…Roughly 38 percent of the tutorials for the best-known RATs had advertisements running alongside the videos. The advertising we found included well-known car companies, cosmetics, and even tickets to New York Yankees’ baseball games. YouTube’s parent company, Google, is positioned to get revenue from the sharing of these malicious tutorials that target innocents. –DCA report

The fact Google is making money off garbage is nothing new, but lately a number of online businesses (like Reddit) have been forced to reexamine their “anything goes” policy when it comes to what content to allow online.  The question is to ask in the case of YouTube RATS is why can’t Google do a better with housekeeping?

In a recent New York Times piece, “Limits at Gawker? Rules at Reddit? Wild West Web Turns a Page,” Jonathan Mahler wrote about a maturing web.

There has been no shortage of discussion about how legacy media companies will find their way forward in the digital age. But in trying to recalibrate their identities, Gawker and Reddit are demonstrating that digital media companies are struggling to manage a difficult transition of their own — from financially underachieving, if popular, start-ups to thriving, mature businesses.

“This feels like a moment of reckoning to me,” said Vivian Schiller, the former head of news at Twitter who was previously an executive at The New York Times. “We’re moving from the early days of ‘We’re free to write or post whatever we want,’ to the reality of building a business.”

With this latest DCA report in mind, and the fact that other dubious YouTube users earn income off the filth they spread, one wonders if Google will make better business decisions going forward.  The DCA reports suggests a way forward for YouTube’s parent:

A solution exists, but it will require Google to change the way it approaches this issue. When Google is serious about solving a problem, it assigns a human team to do what an algorithm clearly can’t. Bringing in human teams helped block tens of thousands of search queries for child pornography and to ensure the quality of apps on Google Play. Hacking victims deserve the same concern and protection. Google should assign a human team to reviewing these videos and immediately cease advertising on such video platforms. These victims should not be clickbait and ad revenues from slaving tutorial videos can’t be worth the pain and suffering they cause. [emphasis added]

However, if past history is any indication, Google will likely continue to deflect and dodge. If they do, they risk further damage to its brand.  The DCA report ends with this observation and a quote from a Ratter’s victim asking that Google do more to eradicate this insidious infestation on YouTube:

If Google continues to sell ads beside slaving videos, can it claim Internet freedom as a defense? If one of the world’s most admired companies takes a stand against slaving, others will follow. Perhaps the best advice on how the company could handle that question came from Cassidy Wolf, who said she would tell Google: “They need to put themselves in (the victim’s) shoes… and imagine if it was their daughter that was being watched in their room and now its being promoted on YouTube and the people that are doing this are making money of this and Google is making money off of this. Honestly, I would just tell them to put themselves in the victim’s shoes and imagine if this was happening to them.”

Once again, the ball is in Google’s court.

*full disclosure-I’m a member of the DCA’s Advisory Board

Google lives on tech’s cutting edge–but in DMCA takedown Luddite-land

Google lives on tech’s cutting edge–but in DMCA takedown Luddite-land

Google piracy profits (voxindie.org)Google could learn a thing or two from VIMEO about how to run an efficient DMCA takedown system

Love it or hate it, for now the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)  is the law of the land when it comes to safeguarding creative content online.  The law, passed nearly 20 years ago, is woefully outdated, but for now, it’s the only tool creators have to protect their work from online thieves.  Unfortunately, not every company in the business of “user generated content” approaches DMCA compliance the same way.

Google, a company that makes billions each year in ad revenues generated via trafficking in dubious content, has set up a takedown system that ensures the sending of a DMCA takedown notice is an onerous and inefficient task.  After all, the harder Google makes it, the more discouraged creators will become, and the more money continues to flow into its coffers…

Anyone who’s made music or a movie probably has had experience with sending a DMCA takedown request to Google in some form.  Whether it’s removing pirated music on YouTube, or requesting the takedown of pirated movies off Blogger sites, creators must tackle a haphazard and convoluted patchwork of online forms in order to get their work removed from Google’s online products.

Not that Google will listen to me, but I’m going to offer some suggestions for simple ways the company could improve the takedown system.  Part I will focus on Blogger, Google’s online website platform that’s become the favorite of many pirate entrepreneurs due to its ease of use.

broken-blogger-dmcaAs a creator, when you discover a pirate website hosted by Google’s Blogger (on blogspot.com) is offering pirated copies of your music or movie, to get it removed you usually have to send a DMCA notice to Google.

Here’s where Google turns what could be a relatively easy task into a huge time suck.  First, in order to find the correct online form for Blogger you’re forced to click through a myriad of radio-buttons on Google’s Removing Content From Google page.  When you finally do manage to click your way through to the proper form (it takes 7 clicks)  you’ll waste more time carefully filling in each and every section.  Note, your browser’s auto-fill function won’t work particularly well here.  Finally, after you complete the form and click send, you can only wait (and hope) that the content will be removed.  It can literally take weeks and sometimes it never gets removed.

Vimeo_logoHere’s where it gets particularly annoying.  Many companies, take the video-hosting site Vimeo, for example, give rights holders several ways to send a takedown notice: email, a web form or snail mail.  When sending a DMCA to Vimeo (and many other sites) I use a template I created (with an attorney’s help) that makes it easy to copy and paste infringing links into a DMCA takedown email.  It’s not only quick, but I have a record of the notice in my sent email box.  For indie content creators fighting online piracy, email is by far the most efficient way to send and record DMCA notices. As far as I’m concerned, Vimeo earns a gold start for DMCA takedown efficiency.

Vimeo provides a shining example of good DMCA takedown practices:

  1. Vimeo accepts email submissions.  It’s quick and efficient–a godsend if you have to send notices routinely (as many musicians and filmmakers do).
  2. You have a copy of the DMCA notice you sent and proof of when it was sent.
  3. You receive an email confirmation from Vimeo that the material has been removed and their message includes a copy of your original DMCA notice.
  4. Vimeo provides a reference # so that if there are any issues with your notice, you can easily follow-up with the real person that signs the email receipt.

Meanwhile, over at Google, things aren’t so straightforward. Each time I send a DMCA takedown to Google via its web form, if I want to keep a copy,  I’m forced to create a PDF copy of web form. Even then some of the entries don’t show up.  For the rights holder it’s an imperfect and time-wasting process.  Google has intentionally created a takedown process that impedes creators at every step.

Google’s Blogger takedown procedure is a joke:

  1. Google requires users navigate through a series of buttons (7 clicks) to get to the DMCA web takedown form.
  2. Google requires you fill in the entire form each time you need to sent a takedown notice.
  3. Google does not give you a copy of the form you sent, only a brief acknowledgement that you sent something signed by the mysterious “Google Team.”
  4. Sender never receives notification infringing material has been disabled.

Because of their business practices, Google does have to deal with tons of takedown notices every day. It’s a mess of its own making and they certainly have the financial resources to deal with it responsibly.  Google reps insist a web form is the only way to make sure they receive the information required in a DMCA notice.  However, their refusal to accept emails (that could be read by a bot) forces indie artists who routinely send takedown requests to its web maze.

Since users are forced to use a DMCA web form, there’s certainly NO justifiable reason Google can’t respond with an email confirmation that includes the original takedown notice.  After all, that’s an automated process and would require ZERO resources on their part.  Google chooses not to do so because they want to make the process as opaque and complicated as possible.  While it complies with the letter of the law, Google has refined a system whereby creators are discouraged from exercising their legal rights at every turn.

Google’s DMCA practices are designed to impede rights holders every step of the way

Vimeo DMCA email

Vimeo quickly sends an email confirming removal

Vimeo DMCA

Along with the email, Vimeo includes the original DMCA notice

Google makes sending a DMCA notice difficult

Google makes users jump through hoops to send a DMCA notice, doesn’t provide a copy, and offers no confirmation that any action has been taken

Google includes a case number in the subject heading of the email, but don’t bother trying to contact Google using it.  The “Google Team” won’t respond.  So what’s the case number good for?  Not much.

As for turnaround time-when I send VIMEO a notice within hours the content has been removed (and I receive an email confirmation along with a copy of my notice).  With Google it can literally take weeks…and sometimes nothing happens…ever.

In order to improve the DMCA system on Blogger I would ask for the following:

  1. Offer a direct link to the Blogger DMCA takedown form
  2. Allow the form to be auto-filled and if one has a Google account information the form would be pre-filled with the appropriate information
  3. Send an email receipt that includes a copy of the DMCA notice
  4. Send confirmation when the infringing content has been disabled
  5. Remove content in a timely manner.  This means days, NOT weeks.

For a company like Google that can take us to the top of Mt. Everest with the click of a mouse it’s beyond comprehension as to why they can’t offer content creators a better way to utilize the DMCA process. Google periodically publishes puff PR pieces extolling the myriad of ways it supposedly tackles piracy, but in reality helps maintain the status quo where the rights of online thieves are held in higher regard than those of creators.  Of course for Google impeding the legal rights of creators is good for business.  Profits ahead of people is the key to Google’s success.

Next week-Part II-YouTube’s DMCA CMS takedown, another inefficient mess for rights holders.