I wish Google would use a strategy that a former colleague used in an upper year Physics course. While encouraging students to discuss problems, he informed them that plagiarizing assignments was not allowed. When he got the first assignment, he noticed that the solution handed in by one of the top students in the department was identical to the one handed in by a much weaker student. So, he gave zero to the top student and full marks to the weaker student. (It should be noted that the contribution of each assignment towards the final grade was likely less than 2%). As he expected, the student who got zero went to see him. My colleague told him that he had no foolproof way to show that it was the other student that plagiarized the assignment and that the best method to prevent another zero being given was to not allow other students to plagiarize his assignment - if indeed this is what had happened. This solved the problem for that year ... and for many years after as word got around.
So... I wish Google would selectively remove links that are clearly submitted erroneously (claiming that, since the studios own these sites, no third party is claiming fair use) whereas preventing links where fair use appear clearly reasonable (such as wikipedia and reviews from news outlets) from being removed.
Maybe Google indeed should make these companies stand in the corner for a while, but wouldn't that conflict with its interests? It's a quick way to make enemies with lots of money to spend in court.
I very much doubt that that actually happened. It seems more likely to be a story created to scare people.
But it seems that the problem here is that google accepts DMCA requests that are not signed by an individiual but mass produced by a computer. That really shouldn't be allowed and I don't know why it is (what other legal documents are mass produced by a computer with no human oversight? Deeds? wills? power of atterny? Didn't think so).
It did happen. I was there (Laurentian University in Sudbury Ontario), teaching in the Department of Physics and Astronomy and my former colleague, N.I. Robb now retired - and an extremely well liked prof btw-, did just what I described.
People get really annoyed when someone undeserving gets favorable treatment. So, stronger students will not take the chance to let weaker students copy their assignments. Penalize both equally, and a group mentality makes it more likely that they will take a chance again... at least, that's how I understand it worked out.
But, the students that do care about the course are dissuaded from plagiarizing their work. If my experience in uni is any telling, people who get caught copying/plagiarizing will do it again. If you cut the easy access of the more hard-working students, at the very least they'll have to do some research for those answers.
The nice thing about the zero to the stronger student without consequence to the weak student is that they didn't go down together, which tends to make the affected more likely to go confront the issue.
Sure, what I'm saying is not based on any hard data except my years at uni and the fact that a physics professor in my campus did the exact same thing.
wouldn't have made for as good or as memorable an example. the guy who let the other guy copy his work now has to feel bad both about getting a zero, and about seeing the other guy unfairly get 100%.
Unfortunately, there is nothing requiring that DMCA takedown notifications not be mass produced. In fact, the law specifically allows a "physical or electronic signature"[1] (emphasis added) on takedown notices.
The bigger problem is the "knowingly" in "any person who knowingly materially misrepresents...that material or activity is infringing...shall be liable for any damages". Enforcement has no teeth because that is a barrier that almost no discovery process will be able to overcome.
Actually, the "robosigners" were humans who would sign (and were encouraged / forced to sign) documents asserting facts for which there was no supporting evidence, or even where there was directly contradictory evidence. Signatures were by humans, not computers.
You're right, although in practice it was largely the same thing. Huge database contains home listings, computer spits out which are due for foreclosure, a bunch of ex-fast-fooders sign them as quickly as possible. There was a human in the loop but 0% of their judgement was employed - their job was to sign stuff, and that's what they did.
Naivety? He probably thinks that professors care about creating effective and fair anti-cheating schemes and therefore would never have gone with this one.
Doesn't seem terribly unfair, but in any case I don't see why this person would necessarily would care. As for the complaint, what's he going to complain about, that he got a zero for letting somebody cheat off him? Not a complaint worth worrying about.
Because such a harsh punishment doesn't fit a first time offense, especially if it's entirely possible both parties had innocent intentions?
In university I took advantage of a lot of my peers by having them critique/edit my assignments (of course, I'd offer the same in exchange). One of my editors could have a moment of weakness and plagiarize my work, but that's never happened in all those years. However, it was always possible. Would that merit expulsion on my part? Or should the punishment be a slap on the wrist and a reminder to exercise better judgment in the future?
On the other end, sometimes the person committing the plagiary isn't aware that what they're doing is wrong. I've seen a lot of it at the writing center, and this happens a lot with (especially east-asian) foreign students. Here in the US, we teach that individuals should have our own ideas, but in some places, they encourage adopting ideas from great thinkers (understand and make their ideas your own; stand on the shoulder of giants so to speak). And even with local students, some genuinely don't understand that copy-pasting 2 lines from the wiki is a breach of conduct.
In the end, it's much better for these students that you take the time to teach them the hows and whys of avoiding plagiarism. There are a few bad eggs that will never learn and will consistently plagiarize, and its at that point when expulsion is merited - and probably best for these students, since they probably weren't meant for academia. However, the majority of students (even the foreign ones) catch on and grow to be very successful academically.
Now, I don't know how it's possible any student could have completed all those years of school prior to college without having encountered this lesson. Our school system truly is dysfunctional.
A lot of learning takes place outside of the classroom. Times and times again, it has been demonstrated that peer teaching is one of the most effective way to enhance learning. In Physics, many profs (myself included) encourage students to discuss problems and help each other but without copying solutions. When you give one assignment every week with 5 to 10 problems to solve, and assignments count for 20% of the final grade, each problem is worth very little... which is why you do not penalize students strongly when you catch them for the first time copying a solution to a problem. Learning the difference between explaining the solution of a problem (similar to explaining an algorithm) and just giving a solution to copy may is not something that is immediately obvious for some.
> The company appears to present itself as a DMCA remover on the website yesitis.org but lists no address. Considering the many mistakes made by the firm, one has to wonder whether their “under penalty of perjury” statement that they represent the copyright holders above is accurate.
I think this has to be a prank. The website was generated with a GoDaddy website builder, filled with laughable plagiarized boilerplate, and doesn't include any information that would identify a particular company. All of the photos are stock photos. They include 'Adoption' and 'Personal Injury' under their list of services. I think someone is seeing if they can get Google to take down obviously legitimate websites when an obviously illegitimate source asks them to.
Strictly obeying someone's instructions is a well known technique for sabotage.
Google really should just comply with any validly formed DMCA request they're given, but put information links about that fact. (Which they do, to "chilling effects".)
And someone really needs to start tackling blatantly false requests too.
Google has already taken big steps to please copyright holders. Their detection stuff is remarkable.
Strictly obeying someone's instructions is a well known technique for sabotage.
Indeed. Rumor has it that American Airlines pilots have recently been engaging in a similar strategy in order to put pressure on AMR management. Apparently they simply follow the rulebook to the "t", phoning in maintenance requests for the most minor nit-picky problems, following every procedure in excruciating detail, etc., with a net result of causing American's "on time percentage" to drop precipitously as flights are routinely delayed.
This is partly a symptom of poor rules imo. American wants to have two things at once: 1) a bunch of very detailed CYA safety rules; but 2) not to take the financial hit that would be needed to actually implement those rules faithfully as written. This works so long as employees are willing to turn a blind eye to the rules, treating them as the not-really-intended-to-be-enforced CYA rules that they are, but runs into trouble once someone takes them seriously.
The solution, not that likely to happen, would not be to write rules that you don't intend to budget the staff/time to actually follow as written.
Interestingly enough, they above examples were all sent by an outfit called “Yes It Is – No Piracy!” which we’ve never heard of before.
Didn't stop you attributing the behavior to the rightsholders in the headline and most of the article, though, even though there's no way of knowing whether they were actually involved.
That's okay. Google can just show them the torrent links instead, which "normally" should appear in search results, but Google has been trying to downrank them more and more lately.
The solution should be pretty simple. Apply same damages rules currently used in IP infringement for any false claim that tries to apply ownership over someone else work.
So if a false DMCA is made over a news article or review, then who ever did it will have to pay damages as if he took exclusive ownership over the news article, and thus pay what ever the sell price is for complete transfer of copyright. If buying complete exclusive rights to a news article cost say, $1 mil, than that's the damages to be payed.
After all, that would just follow the same concept being pursued in court cases by the same companies filing those false DMCA's.
Google should just completely censor all MAFIAA content. Let's see how long it takes for these fuckers to back down. One week? Two weeks? I bet they'll never submit another DMCA complaint agian, legit or not.
As nice as the message would be (We don't need your content; get bent; kthxbai), Google is never going to do it. Part of their business is predicated on MafiAA content (movie and music store) and it would be suicidal for them to toss that.
So... I wish Google would selectively remove links that are clearly submitted erroneously (claiming that, since the studios own these sites, no third party is claiming fair use) whereas preventing links where fair use appear clearly reasonable (such as wikipedia and reviews from news outlets) from being removed.