Last month Google announced a new addition to its website’s Transparency Report.
Google has decided to release information on the number of requests it recieves from copyright owners (and the organizations that represent them) to remove Google Search results that allegedly link to infringing content.
Google’s senior copyright counsel Fred von Lohmann writes on Google’s blog, “We believe that openness is crucial for the future of the Internet. When something gets in the way of the free flow of information, we believe there should be transparency around what that block might be.”
It’s no surprise that entertainment giants are at the top, notably, Microsoft Corporation, NBC Universal, British Recorded Industry and the RIAA. According to Google, the number of removal requests appears to be growing, with the company receiving notices to remove about 350,000 offending URLs per week now. This is more than double what Google was receiving at the end of 2011.
Google’s bold Transparency Report move recalls the spirit of Chilling Effects, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting lawful online behavior from legal threats. In 2001, Chilling Effects began posting “cease and desist” letters online with the goal of educating recipients of their rights, and also embarrassing overly aggressive lawyers and companies by shining a light on their coercive behavior. By disclosing these tactics, Chilling Effects hoped to put a damper on groundless legal threats and free-up the “flow of information,” thereby reducing the “chilling effect” on communication.
While Google claims its information released is all in the spirit of transparency and increasing the flow of information, some companies are not happy. The RIAA claims Google’s data is misleading; especially given that DMCA notice requests represent a small fraction of the illegal content found on law-breaking websites. RIAA and other industry players also criticize the Transparency Report for failing to include one particular site notorious for copyright infringement and, suspiciously enough, a Google subsidiary: YouTube. The Hollywood Reporter poses this question, “If the company believes in openness, why not publish take down data from its popular video-sharing website?” Some are skeptical of Google’s professed good intentions. Is this really a step in the right direction of remedying a pervasive piracy problem (and calling attention to over-zealous behavior) or is this more of the data-collecting, anti-competitive-type conduct that Google gets accused of? Inevitably, some are asking what the Transparency Report is hiding. Perhaps with a company as pervasive as Google, no good deed goes unpunished.
Lizbeth Hasse
Latest posts by Lizbeth Hasse (see all)
- Creative Industry Law Mentioned in The Hollywood Reporter - September 18, 2015
- Work for Hire and the Significance of California Labor Code Section 3351.5 - June 2, 2015
- Why Lawyers Should Not Sign NDAs with Clients - April 7, 2015
- What makes a good trademark? - March 4, 2015
- Business Entity Types — What Are They? - February 25, 2015