I know this forum is about curious conversation, but in this case, fuck Google and the system it uses. It’s overreaching and again the classic “you don’t talk to humans Google, unless you are a rich or famous company/person.”
And yes, I'm aware that Google doesn't currently seek to be in a position where they could lock you out of your own records, but the octopus's tentacles only grow. I'm also aware that Google Health is quite old... it was around back when I worked on Google's indexing system a decade ago.
Edit: This month, expiration of Google's legacy free tier of whatever they now call Apps For Your Domain is forcing me to get off of my butt and migrate my vanity domain away, and start moving the keys to my digital life off of Google's "free" services. It'd be rather painful if I got locked out of GMail today, and I don't have any financial leverage to get back in.
They made the change fairly late in the process, and supposedly there was a way to undo the paid migrations by opening a support ticket, but I saw lots of posts about people being unable to migrate back and get refunded.
Google needs to err on the side of caution with DMCA because it's the immediate response to the requests that provides the safe harbor to Google under the law.
You had Disney (et al) lobbying like crazy decades ago to get the most insane laws passed when it came to digital IP.
Now we live in a world where those lobbying efforts were successful, which of course sucks for everyone that didn't have millions of dollars to spend on lobbying their interests and far outnumber those that did.
Minority rule through corruption causing a pseudo-oligarchy is sucking more and more every day, and DMCA takedowns are simply a small part of that larger sucking.
One of the great ironies about the rise of corporate fascism in the US is that the democracy does function on a technical level. If enough people worked together to do the right things, ballots could be cast and there is no dictator to prevent the will of the people from being heard.
Of course, that does not happen. The people have proven ineffective at self-governance.
At this point I'm wondering if we should just hand all governance over to a consortium of industry leaders that are accountable to shareholders. If we're going to do an oligarchy, let's at least be efficient about it.
That seems better to me than the current system of an easily brainwashed public electing whoever has the best disinformation campaign.
Do you think we'd have all these crazy IP laws if the big IP holders and big tech companies had to get in a room together and actually figure out what the law should be?
They might at least make the trains run on time.
All the fascist stuff is pretty bad -- nationalism, strongman leaders, isolating an "other" with violence, grifters selling out the people's interests to corporations -- I'm not down with any of that.
But maybe we could have some kind of system where corporations are forced to vote on governance that applies to all other corporations for the collective good of capitalist progress?
There needs to be some kind of unified governing principle to make everyone's lives better.
We can't go on with BIG_CO hiring lobbying firms to most efficiently snake their legislation through the system unchecked.
In my thought experiment here, most corporations would want to enact policy responsibly for the public good. Cooperation between corporations would happen, but the default position would be for more happy consumers.
So far we've tried letting representative democracy work out hard issues and that hasn't gone well. We've also tried deferring governance entirely to the courts with poor results.
I'm open to suggestions.
The takedown notice should come with a verifiable address. Google has a business directory for crying out loud! Just make it mandatory you have a business listing account.
If I release a video about election results during an election and it takes weeks - hell let’s be generous and say 72 hours - to go out because of a bogus DMCA claim, that’s a huge financial loss for me.
90 days? No way. In the world of online content creation that’s a death sentence. That’s not even remotely a solution.
I got a notice that I used licensed music and they took my video down, I appealed and my video immediately went back up during the appeal process. This all took place within about half an hour of my posting it. I sent them the email showing the artist gave me permission, and a few days later the notice was lifted. All through this process my video was only down for about 15min.
For YouTube: Freeze the transfer of the revenue on that one video until it’s resolved but keep the video up and let it still collect revenue. It’s not great if you depend on the income but it’s a hell of a lot better than losing the income entirely. This solution is much better, if still imperfect.
I think it’s working exactly as intended.
Which, unsurprisingly, is terrifically easily to abuse.
> (f)Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1)that material or activity is infringing, or (2)that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee...
In practice, as far as I know nobody has ever been prosecuted or civilly sued under this section of the DMCA. Maybe this will be the first case to do so.
Google is making content you own available online and monetizing it through subscription fees and ads.
Then when you ask them to stop, they require you to start with law suit before doing anything. That costs money and takes time. Meanwhile there might be already couple more channels with the content, requiring more lawsuits.