Hacker News Reader

Comment by greyface- | Hacker News Reader

The Lumen "DMCA removal request" linked from the Google search results page:

    A Removal Request Sent To Google - Notice in Process
    Re: Unknown
    NOTICE TYPE:Other
    ACTION TAKEN:Unspecified
    Explanation of complaint
    This is NOT a notice.
    It is a PLACEHOLDER for a notice that is not yet available for viewing. 
    Do not request to view the URLs associated with this placeholder, there are none.

    Lumen has recently received, from Google, notification of a removal request
    originally sent to Google. Once that removal request has been processed by
    Google, it will have its own unique ID number, URL, date and other
    associated information, and a copy of the request will be present within
    Lumen's database.

    Thank you for your patience.

https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/15710816

View on HN

In general it seems Google honors all DMCA requests immediately, and only rejects them after they're able to review it.

Wonder if this could be used maliciously for stuff closer to Google's chest, eg. blacklisting youtube.com/premium or store.google.com/product/pixel_6_pro (of course, this would be illegal, however IIRC there haven't been any cases involving punishment for issuing false DMCAs)

They’re required to.

The DMCA safe harbor provisions require claims to be taken as true by default, and then if the victim responds with “this is false” the original claimant has two weeks (iirc) to respond, during which the recipient is meant to keep the content unavailable.

Doesn't the DMCA allow hosting providers a reasonable time (e.g. 24 hours) to respond to takedowns?

Possible, but if you're running a fully automated company... what difference would that make? If anything it'd be a liability... a risk of your "cron job" being a bit late or something.

Delaying the takedown by 23 hours or so could prevent this exact kind of screwup.

Alas it wouldn’t in the case that it doesn’t get press.

Because the person who made the original claim has like two weeks to respond and the content can’t be returned until they respond or two weeks is up

My recollection is that the recipient of the claim could also voluntarily waive DMCA immunity over that specific claim by consciously deciding not to honor it. I don't know how to substantiate that recollection, though, and even if that's right, it would definitely be a heightened risk for the service provider to choose to take on.

> My recollection is that the recipient of the claim could also voluntarily waive DMCA immunity over that specific claim by consciously deciding not to honor it.

This is another way of saying if you don't follow the DMCA you become liable for the infringing content (if the content owner sues and is successful, of course), which is indeed what the DMCA says :)

But another intuition or worry people might have is that they will completely lose the safe harbor for all of their activities if they refuse to honor any takedown. I can see why people would have that fear, but I don't think it's right.

It’s also not real. This is civil law. One claimant has nothing to do with the other.

If you look at how it's described in, say,

https://www.copyright.gov/512/

there's a fair amount of ambiguity because they're talking about the ability to qualify for safe harbors in general, presumably mixed together with the ability to qualify in a specific case, without drawing that distinction explicitly.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent.

I think you're allowed to ignore requests if they are obviously false or missing required info.

I know wikipedia ignores 75% of the dmca notices they get (source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/transparency/2021-2/dm... )

Such a takedown would be reviewed and reversed within minutes, of course.

DMCA complaints against Google's own property are sure to get special review. They're not involved as just an index or host, you're directly accusing them of copyright infringement.

Yes, that is the reason for the special review, and not that it hurts them instead of a 3rd party. (/s, in case it isn't obvious)

for a moment I thought this lumen and URL was in some way related to the giant amalgamated telecom/ISP entity Lumen, the combined centurylink/Level3.

not a bad name for a project to shine light on things but could be confusing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com