“For over two decades, we have observed that unmet consumer demand is a key driver of piracy. If demand is unmet by legitimate supply, users will seek pirated content. That is why one of the best ways to combat piracy is to provide better, more convenient, and legitimate alternatives,” Google writes.
Children will be childed by Google. Define: "piracy". Now, who should enforce ... piracy.
Google is a search engine and some other stuff - they should never, ever be involved in enforcement, let alone unilaterally involved in it and allowed to trumpet the same.
Law enforcement does law enforcement and not Google. If I was a policeman I would be absolutely incensed at this overreach into my domain.
> I think the definition is pretty clear in the DMCA, no need to play with words.
Corporations think the definition is applicable to anything under the DMCA. They play with words all the time.
> Sure, Google should keep linking to completely illegal content, correct? Scams, CP, drugs, all belongs to Google indexes, you say.
Sure, Google should keep taking down content on behalf of corporations, correct? SymPy docs [1], EFF tweets [2], product reviews [3], political speech [4], films of police [5], all targets for enforcement, you say.
There are abuses, pretty blatant abuses of DMCA in every corner of the internet. Most monopolistic platforms don't even get an actual human being involved to resolve issues.
Corporations might love the DMCA, but don't act like criticisms against it are unfounded.
I don’t think that blocking torrent downloads of movies is in any way interpretable. It’s illegal. Period. The rest can be debated, I’m not talking about that.
> on behalf of corporations
Who said that? I’m talking about illegal content. It’s on behalf of the government.
The items you mentions fall into the gray area. CP and pirated movies are not in the gray area, they are not debatable. The decision has been taken and confirmed in the court of law and Google has to follow it. It’s as black and white as can be.
> I don’t think that blocking torrent downloads of movies is in any way interpretable.
You can't do proper enforcement without interpreting. That's logically impossible. When it comes to interpreting, Google and others have a terrible track record.
> > on behalf of corporations
> Who said that?
That's what is happening right now under the current legal framework of big platforms being the judge, jury, and executioner. The legal framework you seem to support.
> The items you mentions fall into the gray area.
It's not gray. The things I mentioned, they should never have happened at all.
That's not a "canonical" site either. That's the domain name of "Digital Millennium Copyright Act Services Ltd.", a company which deliberately (and annoyingly) takes the same name as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for SEO purposes. They don't want you to file your own DMCA requests, even though you can. They want you to fall for their trick of searching for "DMCA", and to use their services.
The canonical location to find the DMCA is the United States legislation, specifically the Statues at Large. On the other hand, the best place to find the DMCA online would probably be https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ304 , which offers downloads in multiple formats. This is also linked from the Wikipedia article that was offered before.
Always check the "External Links" and "References" sections of a Wikipedia article if you're looking for canonical sources like this!
Self-correction: I meant the "Statutes at Large". (I'd edit, but HN doesn't let you edit comments after a certain amount of time, and I only just noticed this mistake.)
Children will be childed by Google. Define: "piracy". Now, who should enforce ... piracy.
Google is a search engine and some other stuff - they should never, ever be involved in enforcement, let alone unilaterally involved in it and allowed to trumpet the same.
Law enforcement does law enforcement and not Google. If I was a policeman I would be absolutely incensed at this overreach into my domain.