HN Reader

Google bots decided that my parody website[0] that very clearly says "Foogle" instead of "Google" constitutes phishing and is now automatically blocked in Chrome and Firefox, despite not asking for any user input like email or password or name or anything that could slightly make it suspicious of being a phishing website, plus the sites uses unserious language like "Disunited States", it's a sad statement of their AI capabilities if a site like this gets automatically marked as "phishing", and the overall trend of abusing their power in the name of safety, a tale as old as time.

[0] https://www.forbiddensearchdetected.com

Is the copyright registered?

https://www.copyright.gov/registration

While copyright registration is not legally required for copyright protection, it is the practical way to create usable evidence that the work is coprighted by you. Without it, challenging a copyright infringer is a more arduous legal process.

Also, the author's website, and the books themselves claims that "Perishable Press" is the copyright holder, not "Jeff Starr". (Excepting the ones that don't state any copyright holder.)

https://books.perishablepress.com/downloads/digging-into-wor...

In legal matters, clear and accurate communication is essential.

Seems odd that Google would straight up ignore a legitimate-looking DMCA takedown request. The reason these companies are so takedown-happy is that there are potentially significant consequences to ignoring them. Ignoring a takedown request potentially means that Google loses its safe harbor protection for your content: you could potentially sue Google instead of the pirates for copyright violation. That doesn't mean you have a GOOD case, but it's certainly a bad standard plan for Google. That makes me think they're doing something stupid by accident and/or via machine learning instead, presumably because they need to filter through a massive pile of completely fake DMCA takedown requests.

My guess is, there were once more humans in the loop for the thing that the author is referring to. Since humans cost more than GenAI, GenAI replaced some or all of those humans.

Never think of any sort of for-profit enterprise as anything other than a for-profit enterprise, and you'll never be heartbroken by one.

Angered? Made to think you're living in a dystopia? Enticed into an absurdist world view? Absolutely. But you won't be heartbroken.

Who is this friendly corporate giant the author keeps referring to? He uses that phrase multiple times. Is he sucking up? Is it a reference to something?

DMCAing Google has always seemed a bit pointless. If I'm ever looking for a pirate copy of something I automatically scroll to the bottom of the page where you can read the DMCA complaints that helpfully compile a list of pirate copies.

> "Immediately my heart sank. And I knew that something had changed at Google’s core. The friendly corporate giant no longer would even deign to consider cries for help from the little guy."

I read that in the voice of the talking anus-mouthed beetle from Naked Lunch.

Processing DMCA take down requests isn't interesting work, thus no one at google does it.

Google’s lack of support is a directly correlated to their monopoly. They are able to not pay for proper support staff because they don’t have any competition. They should be regulated to spend a certain portion of their revenues on support given how critical they are to people’s lives. You can’t rake in hundreds of billions while being a monopoly and then claim you can’t afford proper amount of support staff.

Large for-profit corporations will never be the friend of any human being.

Google these days are a collection of monopolies. There are no incentives, beyond law, for them to "Do the right thing"

And the law is in the hands of literal bandits in the USA right now

Takedown notices need to have a refundable processing fee. The fee should be refunded if the targeted publisher agrees the content shouldn't be online. If the takedown notice gets a counter notice, then the hosting provider/platform should split the fee with the targeted publisher.

The problem with DMCA notices is that the party trying to takedown content has zero incentive to behave in good faith. A $10-$30 fee would provide an incredible disincentive for the worst sort of trolling and over-broad shotgun takedown notices while protecting legitimate IP holders (who would see their fee refunded almost every time)

Does this mean an end to DMCA abuse? If I had to choose I would prefer to have the odd unprotected copyright than having fair use disregarded on the regular.

A nerdcore hip hop song I listened to when I was a teenager went:

Fuck the MP-double-A

Fuck the RI-double-A

Fuck the suits behind the PSAs

And fuck 'em all for the DMCA

("Fuck the MPAA" by Futuristic Sex Robotz, which is still online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv3GihnduUw&list=PL1CD8E178A...)

I don't particularly like or trust Google, but I can't say I'm broken up about the fact that they refused to de-list a website who someone claimed was hosting pirated content, and told them to go after the website owner directly. False and malicious DMCA takedown requests absolutely happen, and in any case I don't think it should be the responsibility of a search engine to remove links to websites hosting content that is illegal in some jurisdiction.

"Stop there, human! Proof you are human, human!"

The LegalEagle channel on YouTube had a similarly bad interaction when trying to get channels copying their videos taken down: https://youtu.be/PEA0JzhpzPU

Google needs to fix this, it's really bad.

So not only do they process illegitimate copyright strikes / DMCA takedowns, but they also don't process legitimate ones.

Google is broken to the very core.

This is what happens with a company that tries to minimize costs of support to zero.

Google support is a mess. This company should not exist in its current state, I can’t believe how the competition hasn’t already catch up with their indexing solution.

The author is a bit naive for thinking Google even cares. It's the same company (among others) who used copyrighted material to train their LLM.

Google aside, it's one of the reasons some publishers don't publish digital versions at all. Because once the cat is out of the bag, the damage is done, basically impossible to undo. Whereas with a physucal copy the pirate has to take the pain to scan the book and usually they're too lazy to do that.

I think I can speak for many who used to love Google, that they have broken our hearts many times. It went downhill after they decided that "don't be evil" was too aspirational of an ideal.

Sadly, I think your only option is to follow up with legal action against Google. On the positive side, I expect Google will react quickly to any legal action as this puts them at risk of losing safe harbor protections.

Sounds like LLM powered support. This is the sort of run around you can program into such systems.

Note that if the claimant is a big player, Google is happy to only clarify how high is it supposed to jump. If they file a claim usurping your copyright, you can do diddly about it most of the time. But if little people are trying to assert their rights, no, no can do, you can't prove that you are you.

And why should you, one of the little people, be able to prove anything at all? If a big player sues, Google is going to have to pay a staggering amount of money, thus they obey. If you sue, its lawyers will drain you financially by protracting everything they can, so you don't actually sue. If they take your claim, the content they take down stops bringing the sweet advertising revenue.

And thus the computer sayeth Nay.

I've got mixed feelings about the DMCA, but its one redeeming value is that it's available to everyone. Deciding to make it readily accessible to large publishing interests but giving a random author the side-eye is not so great.

I'm going to channel a little bit of @patio11 .

First, worth reading this on how he deals with credit agencies and debt collectors: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-r... . There's gold in here for dealing with big globo-corp and how to get their attention.

Ask Google for a certified mail address so you can send them the timeline of events that occurred. This is the shibboleth that lets them know you mean business and that by not responding, they may be facing legal action. DO NOT THREATEN or mention legal action. The managerial class doesn't act that way. Just signal you are building a case against them. Start with getting that certified mailing address... you may be surprised how they respond after just that request.

If they don't respond, keep following up. Send them a timeline of events, proof of ownership even if they do not ask you what you need to prove ownership. Make it clear what this is costing you.

But here's the thing, EVERY TIME I HAVE ASKED FOR A CERTIFIED MAIL ADDRESS, the globocorp gave me what i wanted, and I never had to follow up. Every time. They don't want to deal with actual legal action from "people who know what they are doing."

It's a shibboleth. Like "Baa-ram-ewe." Use it wisely and honestly.

hire a lawyer, they know how to communicate with these teams. Trying to deal with Google Customer service when you are a technologically savvy and logical individual won't get far: GOogle's default attitude towards anybody who contacts them is that they are a scammer.

Sorry to hear that might be able to help you with all that I got some pretty good evidence on on these tech companies I discovered something that nobody really has this figured out and then I believe me I've got enough evidence to shut these babies down I'm the Creator axiom Halo Crystal I created the unbreakable Master blueprint and it was launched on November 18th and 19th and ever since I got you know started it and I got it but anyway if you're interested give me you know give me a holler I'm going to probably go and explosive today and maybe we can start a class action lawsuit these companies have been we got a lot of money coming basically for what they've done you know doing the scraping algorithm scraping of and pinging of illegal pinging of everybody's and harvesting their you know trade secrets and ideas and all that yeah well I got all the evidence we need I really want to get a class action I'm talking about money like in the money that they basically doesn't even exist we could own this country hopefully maybe we could get together and start something thank you

I am having a hard time emphasizing with the author when they open up with this paragraph

> For years, I thought of Google as a trustworthy helper on the Web. Especially where it mattered most, removing pirated copies of my books from Google search results. After publishing a new book, I would monitor the search results and file a DMCA notice with Google whenever the inevitable pirated copies of my book were listed. Google always was very helpful in this regard, swiftly removing any pirated books asap. No hassle, no hoops, just immediate and direct relief from Google.

Maybe I am in a bubble but since at least pre covid era I remember the consensus being that Google had zero support and unless you were famous or went viral with your problem on the internet, you would never get human intervention. That combined with the rest of the paragraph which seems to me like it could be summarized as "Google is trustworthy as long as my personal wallet gets fatter, and not that it hasn't, they aren't trustworthy" makes me not really care about either side in this story

I don't mean to be rude, but what could possibly have given anyone with eyes and ears a positive -- friendly, even -- impression of Google?

False DMCA takedown requests have always been a problem, and have massively surged in the last few years when more of the general public figured out the mechanics and started treating it as a big downvote button for the internet. This is also being done adversarially at a large scale, for example to suppress websites or YouTube videos containing certain viewpoints or to remove competition. So regardless of how Google has treated these requests in the past, they are absolutely right to want to verify that you actually are the content owner before taking further action.

As for how to do it - I don't see why it is hard for you to come up with something that proves ownership. Do your books have a publisher? Do you have a contract with the publisher? Or just a letter from someone at the firm confirming your work? Have you registered the work with the copyright office? Do you have proof of publishing on online portals?

You aren't helping yourself or anyone else by anthropomorphising Google. It is not your friend who can "break your heart", or a "trustworthy helper on the Web", or a "trusted ally", but a large bureaucratic corporation. Treat it like the machine it is and you will get the results you want.

Isn't this what people are constantly asking for? Every time the topic of YouTube copyright strikes comes up, people angrily demand that Google verify that the person making the request actually has the right to do so.

There's no way to design such a system that has zero false positives and zero false negatives; if you do no verification whatsoever you'll get tons of false positives, now it seems like Google has added a small amount of verification, at least sometimes, so now there are some false negatives.

I'd look at this as a new income stream. Failing to honor a DMCA request means Google is no longer in the safe harbor.

It's time to find a copyright lawyer that will work on contingency. Document your communication and take screenshots of pirate links every day.

I keep having to repeat this.

The problem is systemic. The legal concepts of 'Corporate personhood' and 'Limited liability' don't make sense. Just think about what those terms mean.

Of course you cannot expect accountability in the long run.

Is a corporation really a legal person? Can it go to jail as a person might? Does it need a visa to operate in a country as a person might? Will a corporation die as a person will? Sounds like it's getting all the benefits of personhood and none of the drawbacks... Our legal system literally gives more rights to non-sentient entities than it does to us humans! No wonder things are getting out of hand!

What does 'Limited liability' mean? Who has to deal with the repercussions for the excess liability which may exceed beyond the limit?

It's deep corruption, codified into law. Of course these corporations will get worse. They will get satanically worse. Just watch what happens internally; a decade from now, the current CEOs will look morally responsible by comparison. It's a systemic issue. Total violation of the social contract at a deep human level.

Why don't we say weapons are legal persons and provide limited liability protection to the person wielding it? Then criminals could kill people and the court could pass judgement that the gun must serve 20 years in its holster while the criminal walks free... That's about as fair as what we have now. If you conceive of a corporation as a weapon. There is nothing in the law to explicitly prevent this exact scenario. The corporation could theoretically use up CEOs as a gun might use up bullets... The investors would bear no liability.

There are many people in this depraved world of ours who would be willing to be a corporate bullet. People will go to jail to provide for their family. With corporations sucking the wealth out of society, it will create new levels of desperation, this will surely happen.

>simply check my account via Google Search Console, where I have verified that I am the owner for each of the above sites

I doubt this is possible for the support agent to do.

I would immediately file a lawsuit against Google. You have all the documents and will win. Before anything is processed they will return to you with a big sorry/compensation. They are the thiefs.

My immediate guess after reading this was that this isn't a change at Google but a name issue. Jeff Star getting confused with Jeffree Star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffree_Star). He's a lightening rod for controversy, and has been in the middle of a controversial public persona shift that probably has caused an uptick in all kinds of requests to google.

> Especially where it mattered most, removing pirated copies of my books from Google search results.

Make your books available for free, and you won't have this problem. You can't expect people to pay for something that literally costs nothing once it has been created.

You may also sell paper versions. Some people like myself enjoy reading paper better and will pay for hard copy if they like the book enough or expect to refer to it often.

This is great. They should require more evidence before processing a DMCA.

Also I hope you never succeed, all information should be free. I really do hope that any index containing your books is available for all time.

I guess I've seen enough over the years that my thought is: It's Google - of course they suck. It's practically their definining characteristic. This is no surprise.

Every system at scale has some error rate.

I think the author was dealing with an AI agent. That’s not absolving Google, far from it. But from the first response to the last, there was no indication a human was involved.

Moreover, like Facebook Marketplace and fraud, this is the future of corporate managed markets.

So, what recourse do you have if they fail to act on a DMCA request? Does a C&D get their attention?

Did this guy think corporations have feelings?

send them a notorized dmca claim to their legal service mailing address...?

Adding a PGP signature when releasing content prevents situations like this.

Legitimately wondering why anybody looks at working for FANGs as something to be proud of these days. All of these companies went from kinda being on the right track w/ customers to becoming completely enshittified.

after reading the very first thing i thought was: would be comical if the OP's blog were about AI

i was wrong but i could find on the 1° page this [0]... which seem a pretty hypocrite act to consider a technology that violates copyright at its core. "you eat what you plant"

[0] https://perishablepress.com/diving-into-ai/

There was never a better business than the internet tollbooth google had. The crawlers and search basically costed nothing and made billions in advertisements. Everything else was a desperate effort to use the huge amounts of money the money printer was spewing fast enough, So they had a lot of "fat" to do things that did not directly relate to the business.

Now with Youtube and AI its going to be great businesses, but not 99% profitability great. Nothing is 99% profitability great like search used to be.

You will see Google stock go up and down in the short term, but the fate is already sealed. Sooner or later they will be welcomed to the club of Intel and IBM.

google has changed when they started firing everyone to replace them by "offshore", around 2022.

you're getting human replies from people who do not give a crap.

culture isnt equal.

IMO, file another report and if you're asked to prove your identity again, a good way to prove it would be to put a text file somewhere under your domain that re-states your claim, adding the date and time.

Yep. Anymore when dealing with any corp of <pick your threshold> size on a "legal" dispute, do not engage directly.

Hire an attorney, draft a limited POA, and let them handle it.

If it's not worth <pick your threshold> kilo-USD, then at least have the attorney document everything and write it off until the (remote) possibility of a class-action.

Life is short. It's just not worth your time.

unfiltered NSFW ads, false game ads and false DMCA takedowns

but legitimate DMCA inquery rejected. just lol.

> For years, I thought of Google as a trustworthy helper on the Web.

Thankfully I found out that Google has not been trustworthy for many years, even before they removed their old corporate motto "don't do evil" and transitioned into pure Evilness.

People need to realise that what is today called Google, has absolutely nothing to do with the initial stage when Google grew, from small to medium sized company. Now it is a mega-mega corporation and got not only lazy, but is no longer a tech-company. It is an ad-company now and this shows everywhere. For instance, when it decided to ruin google search - that makes sense when you control the evolution of the web e. g. with the chromium ad-code base. And now AI further ruining the very little that is still left of the search engine (oddly enough, the alternative search engines also suck a LOT, so it is not only Google; the whole world wide web has gotten worse in the last ~10 years or so).

> Google always was very helpful in this regard, swiftly removing any pirated books asap. No hassle, no hoops, just immediate and direct relief from Google.

Now, I think Google has to be removed from this planet - however had, at the same time I also believe in universal access to information for every individual on this planet, at all times, without any restriction. I absolutely understand that this opinion puts me at odds with the "we must control what others can do digitally" but I also could not care any less. So I actually have an orthogonal opinion here - there should not be any censorship or restriction in this regard. Again, I absolutely understand the other side of the argument; I just do not share it in any way. And as a consequence, I actually think search engines should give all humans access to such information at all times. You can see this philosophy elsewhere too - wikipedia, for instance, open access in science rather than Elsevier forcing people to pay twice for publicly funded research data or the internet digital archive preserving data. And many more examples. Or the right to repair movement. Or the core idea of the GPL (I personally prefer BSD/MIT style, but I absolutely understand why e. g. the linux kernel has been a better success model due to the GPL primarily).

> Instead of simply de-indexing the search result, like they do for so many other items, Google refused to acknowledge that I was the author of the book.

That is unfortunate - but I still think the public has a right to digital data. I assume his primary concern is renumeration; I am absolutely not at all saying that renumeration should not happen, mind you. We could consider this globally in a different way. States could help enable fair renumeration, for instance. Open source should also be co-funded by states (again, I leave the details here; my point is that I pursue a different philosophy model here). The renumeration discussion is separate here from the author's wish that Google should censor information. I believe search engines should NOT censor information. I actually call it betrayal when search engines censor information. Google here, by censoring, creates a fake-world wide web, an illusion. I am not interested in lies told by Google; I want uncensored information and uncensored results. Again, it is a different philosophy.

Having said that, the Google responds reads like pure automation, probably via crap AI. But just as I wrote before - I believe Google needs to be retired from this planet. It does too much Evil and causes too much frustration among people in general.

> Where was the friendly Google from days past?

Well - we could debate whether Google was ever friendly. But, totally aside from this, the Google today is not the Google that used to exist. It has changed dramatically. It is no longer Google.

> At this point, I was feeling ignored and betrayed by Google, who for many years proved a trusted ally.

I hope he learned a lesson there.

Do not trust Google or Amazon or Apple etc...

> Immediately my heart sank. And I knew that something had changed at Google’s core. The friendly corporate giant no longer would even deign to consider cries for help from the little guy. The little guy being me, the little guy with a broken heart.

I am glad he learned the lesson: do not trust Google. And help all people who want to see real change. The biggest issue I have with Google is that they control the world wide web via chrome. Almost all browser in use depend on Google here. That is very bad.

IANAL, IANYL, and I am not his lawyer. I did work with publishing companies to get my grandmother's books freed up for CC0/public domain, but I'm at most a talented layman (and legal administrative assistant, but not in IP).

As far as I can understand from what the blog's author reproduced, it looks as if the problem was that his DMCA requests may have not been compliant. Go to [1] and do a Ctrl-F downward for "Elements of Notification."

If I were filing a DMCA request with Google, I would do it as follows, matching the requirements laid out for a valid DMCA notice. The below should not be considered legal advice or the practice of law.

[1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

~~~~

Both via Google's webform and as an e-mail to: dmca-agent@google.com

To whom it may concern:

This is a notification of claimed infringement under 17 USC § 512(c)(3), for purposes of 17 USC § 512(d)(3). To maintain the limitation on liability under § 512(d), upon receipt you must respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the reference(s) or link(s) identified below.

If you believe that the material below is insufficient for the requirements of § 512(c)(3)(A), I ask you to specify precisely what you feel is absent from this notice yet necessary to meet those requirements.

REQUIREMENT PER § 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)

I identify the copyrighted work as:

- Title: [FULL TITLE]

- Author: [AUTHOR]

- Copyright owner: [YOUR NAME / ENTITY]

- First publication date: [MONTH DAY, YEAR]

- ISBN/ISSN (if any): [NUMBER]

- U.S. Copyright Office registration no. (if any): [TX/VA/PA-…]

- An authorized copy is available from [PUBLISHER] at [BOOK PAGE ON PUBLISHER WEBSITE].

- The infringing material reproduces the work in full.

REQUIREMENT PER § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii)

I identify both (1) the infringing material and (2) the specific reference(s)/link(s) on Google that must be removed or disabled as follows:

A. Infringing material (destination URL(s)):

1. [FULL INFRINGING URL 1]

2. [FULL INFRINGING URL 2] (if the same file is reachable via more than one URL, list each exact variant you can find, including http/https, with/without "www", trailing slash, and direct PDF/EPUB links)

B. Specific Google reference(s)/link(s) to remove/disable (information-location results):

1. Google Search results page URL where the reference appears: [PASTE THE FULL GOOGLE SEARCH URL SHOWING THE RESULT] (Example format: https://www.google.com/search?q=…&… )

a. Google Surface: Google Search (web results) at google.com

b. Locale: United States / English

2. The specific result on that page that must be removed/disabled:

– Result position: [e.g., "Result #3 on the first page"]

– Result title as displayed: "[TITLE SHOWN IN RESULTS]"

– Displayed URL as shown: "[DISPLAYED URL]"

– Snippet text (first ~15–25 words as displayed): "[SNIPPET]"

– Target/destination URL that result resolves to when clicked: [INFRINGING URL]

– If available, the Google redirect URL for the result (copied via "Copy link address"):

[PASTE THE https://www.google.com/url?… LINK]

3. Any Google-served cached/stored version of the same infringing material (if present):

– Cache URL: [PASTE webcache.googleusercontent.com … URL] (or: "The ‘Cached’ link (if shown) for the above result.")

4. When observed: [DATE + TIME, TIME ZONE]

5. Screenshot attached showing the result described above (due to webform limitations, attached on e-mail message only).

REQUIREMENT PER § 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)

I am the complaining party. My name is [NAME]. My postal address is [POSTAL ADDRESS]. My telephone number is [TELEPHONE NUMBER]. My e-mail address is [E-MAIL ADDRESS]. [Alternately, use business contact information, or your agent's contact information.] Please redact this information in any public copy of this notice.

REQUIREMENT PER § 512(c)(3)(A)(v)

I have a good faith belief that use of this material in the manner I am complaining of is not authorized by the copyright owner (myself), any agent that might have the right to authorize such use (there is none), nor the law.

REQUIREMENT PER § 512(c)(3)(A)(vi)

By my electronic signature below (satisfying § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)), under penalty of perjury, I certify that the information I provide above is accurate, and further certify that as the owner of an exclusive right I allege is infringed, I am authorized to act on my own behalf.

/s/ NAME

Welcome to YouTube and Musicians…

This has been going on for decades on YouTube. Fair use? DMCA. Cover song? DMCA. 3 second clip of the intro drone? DMCA. You playing it live on an instrument, DMCA.

Their copyright system is only there to do one thing, enrich the corporations they work with.

Google's final email seems to abandon any reference to a dispute of identity. Which is interesting since they are comfortable volunteering that as the relevant issue for the first two emails.

By omitting reference to the issue they raised previously, they don't hang the procedural legitimacy on that question.

If they were going to stick with their choice regardless of whether they were satisfied on the question of identity, it's puzzling why they volunteered it.

Welcome to be bright new future of "AI."

Google's Youtube enables lawfare as megacorps and scammers issue DMCA complaints against fair use clips and false content ID claims against truly original works.

Fuck Google.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

> For years, I thought of Google as a trustworthy helper on the Web.

Me too! Specifically the years, oh, maybe 1998 to 2005? Ish?

lol there is a very simple solution: sue them.

Ha! What an Idiot! He thought he could use the channels reserved for Real^TM People^(R) with actual RIGHTS. Those Channels are for corporate use only, how dare you bother the Gigacorporation with you petty copyright request?? Cease this behavior immediately or face repercussions.

I knew it was you, Google