Google broke my heart

2026-01-0521:52542288perishablepress.com

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…

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.

Welcome to 2026..

Recently, I asked Google to remove a pirated copy of my book from their search index. As usual, I filled out the obligatory DMCA report and sent it in, hopeful that it was just a matter of time before the copyright infringement was dealt with by the trustworthy and very capable Google search team.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened. 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. After receiving my DMCA complaint, they replied:

We are unsure whether you are authorized to submit a copyright removal request for the content in question. Only the copyright owner or their authorized representative can submit a copyright removal request. Please note that you could be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) if you falsely claim that content is copyright infringing. […]

Okay, so ..not the response I was hoping for.. basically a complete denial of my identity and thinly veiled threat of legal action for having the audacity to report the pirated content in the first place. But no problem, maybe they have a new process for validating DMCA requests. So I replied back asap asking how to prove my identity:

Yes it is me, Jeff Starr. I am the author of the book in question. Please let me know if any further information is needed, thank you.

I didn’t expect that email to do much, other than prompt Google to explain how to prove my identity, so that they would take action and stop promoting the pirated copy of my book in their search results. After a couple more days of waiting, The Google Team replied back:

It is unclear to us how you came to own the copyright for the content in question, because you do not appear to be the creator of the content. […] please explain further the basis for your claim of copyright ownership.

Without acknowledging my previous reply regarding identity, now they are questioning my copyright ownership. Without explaining how to prove copyright ownership, they simply throw another hurdle at me, asking me to “explain further the basis for your claim of copyright ownership”. At this point, I am stressed, exhausted, and feeling very frustrated. Where was the friendly Google from days past?

Holding out hope..

Okay I thought, gotta really step this up and prove to The Google Team that I am who I claim, and that I am in fact the author of the book and thus own the copyright. But I wasn’t sure how to do this, because again they did not explain “how” to do so. Did they want a scan of my driver’s license? Blood sample? DNA test results? I mean, why the mystery? If some sort of identity or proof is required for Google to take action, shouldn’t it have been required on the DMCA form?

Feeling frustrated and stressed about the apparent run-around and lack of concern, I replied back with plenty of evidence and clues that yes, I am Jeff Starr, and yes, the book belongs to me, and thus I own the copyright. Message truncated for clarity.

My name is Jeff Starr. I am the author of the book […]. As explained in the filed report, Google is promoting copyright infringement of my book in its search results.

How can I prove my identity? Please explain what I need to do in order to get help with this copyright infringement. Surely there must be some protocol for proving identity/ownership, please let me know what that is, what are your requirements for taking action against someone who is violating my copyright?

If it helps, here are my book-related websites, which are all owned and authored by me, Jeff Starr: [..List of like five websites, including the site for the pirated book..]

You can verify that these sites are owned by me, simply check my account via Google Search Console, where I have verified that I am the owner for each of the above sites. My Search Console is associated with this same email account from which I am replying to your email. […]

I am a well-known author and web developer in the WordPress community. You can find me on social media, I have a list of my social-media channels pinned on my X account (first displayed post): https://x.com/perishable

The reported copyright infringement is costing me money and time. I am very frustrated and stressed because of Google’s apparent lack of concern. Please help, let me know what you need from me in order to remove the stolen book from your search results.

At this point, I was feeling ignored and betrayed by Google, who for many years proved a trusted ally. Apparently something has changed, as the friendly corporate giant who once helped small publishers and content creators now refused to even acknowledge their existence. As if, surely you could not be who you claim, an author and small book publisher looking for our help. After all, We are Google — a massive organization that uses your content to fill our search results and pay our salaries.

Heartbroken..

Even after spending much time and heartache trying to get Google’s help, I held out hope. Hope that Google was still the benevolent helper that I once knew, years ago.

Finally after two more days of nervous anticipation, Google finally replied to my lengthy probably desperate sounding email that was full of personal details and proofs of my identity and copyright ownership. A small surge of adrenaline as I clicked to hear back from The Google Team (emphasis mine):

Hello,

Thanks for reaching out to us.

At this time, Google has decided not to take action on the following URLs: […]

We encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the owner of the website in question. Visit https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9109 to learn how to contact a site’s webmaster and request a change. If you pursue legal action against this site that results in the removal of the material, our search results will display this change after we next crawl the site.

If the webmaster makes these changes and you need us to refresh outdated content, please submit your request using our Refresh Outdated Content Tool.

Regards,

The Google Team

And there it was. A simple DMCA request trying to remove copyright infringement from search results completely and utterly shrugged off by Google.

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.

About the Author

Jeff Starr = Fullstack Developer. Book Author. Teacher. Human Being.

Read the original article

Comments

  • By gorbachev 2026-01-0522:5513 reply

    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.

    • By oefrha 2026-01-064:285 reply

      I have some experience in this regard, and Google, even though it’s known for nonexistent human support, isn’t even the worst. I helped a Chinese creator friend DMCA takedown a bunch of accounts on YouTube/Instagram/TikTok straight up stealing her content / impersonating her. TikTok’s response was fastest, one account was taken down within eight hours (to my pleasant surprise), another was taken down in three days. YouTube was all right, accounts were taken down in a week or so. Facebook/Instagram was the worst. They asked for the least info upfront in their takedown form, sent a bunch of follow up emails, then eventually just ghosted me. I initiated new email chains referencing the case ID but never heard from anyone. I had to negotiate with the account holder but that went nowhere either since my threat to take down the account turned out to be a joke. To this day the infringing account is still up.

      • By wisty 2026-01-065:392 reply

        IANAL but if you send a DMCA notice and they ignore it, they are (partly) liable. That's the point of DMCA.

        File in a small claims court (or notify of your intent to do so) and see how long it takes to get a response ...

        I wonder if you could probably even suggest a fee for damages, wasted time, etc due to their slow response and hope it's cheaper than them getting a lawyer to assess it ...

        You would need to be the owner, and would know where to file though. If it's not your content, and you're "helping a friend" (but not actually legally representing them) then my guess is they haven't received a valid DMCA.

        • By dangus 2026-01-066:501 reply

          Not small claims court, big boy court. Copyright infringement fines are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per incident as in per download.

          OP needs to get a real lawyer and stop putzing around emailing a machine.

          If you want a human at Google you need to send letters from a law firm.

          • By Animats 2026-01-067:01

            > Not small claims court, big boy court.

            Right, it's federal, not state law.

            Also, register the copyright, assuming that's still working under the current administration. (Trump is trying to fire the head of the Copyright Office, which is part of the Library of Congress and doesn't report to Trump.)

        • By oefrha 2026-01-067:091 reply

          I was legally representing them. I had their photo ID and a signed legal authorization letter and screencasts of their private creator portal showing infringed works and dossier of side-of-side comparison of infringing URLs and original URLs with publishing timestamps highlighted. All the submitted documents were signed. It hardly gets more concrete than that.

          • By wisty 2026-01-069:341 reply

            Other replies say it isn't small claims but a federal case, with large potential damages.

            Either way, ignoring dcma is asking to be sued. And you can't just block or ignore a court summons.

            • By lazide 2026-01-0614:20

              I mean, you can block or ignore them if you’re sufficiently good at bullshitting, and they lose steam before figuring out your weak spot.

              Which statistically for the insurance industry happens with 90% or so of all claims.

              If you give yourself just enough plausible deniability to work around the penalties (or even if you don’t, if the math is in your favor enough!), at a minimum it can give you a boost for the next quarter, which is key.

      • By randomQ11333 2026-01-0613:46

        yeah regarding facebook account takedowns...

        my wife had an FB account registered on her old phone number. she had that account deleted (but FB 'deactivates' them by default, instead of actually deleting it). her old number then got reassigned after a few years to a new person by the carrier.

        that person reactivated her account and started video-calling her relatives. aunts, cousins etc. and exposed himself to them. like literally all of her aunts have seen his dick by now.

        she submitted a takedown notice for impersonation. didn't get a reply. went to file a police report, sent that along with a new takedown application. no response.

        after some time we just gave up. we're not in the US, so i guess facebook just doesn't give a fuck and has these requests routed straight to the bin.

      • By user_7832 2026-01-0610:17

        Did you contact Facebook/Instagram legal? Very often, companies suddenly start caring when they're concerned about lawsuits and legal exposure.

      • By alex1138 2026-01-064:541 reply

        • By alex1138 2026-01-0610:211 reply

          Downvoters: I am suggesting that the lack of care by a CEO in his younger years translates directly in his older years as the company grows and reaches global proportions

          Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719

          Use your brain for once, or else don't (please) work for any FAANG companies

          • By duskdozer 2026-01-0710:17

            I'm for believing that people can change, but thinking that someone has changed requires some actual indication that they have changed

      • By kazinator 2026-01-066:021 reply

        Fake DMCA requests that harass creators are far worse than not taking action in legitimate cases.

        The whole copyright policing thing should basically just die.

        Or have it be crowdsourced. If enough thousands of (distinct, genuine) viewers flag something as being a rip-off, then take action.

        • By jbstack 2026-01-0610:023 reply

          I have a crazy idea... how about we take action on legitimate cases AND don't take action on fake ones?

          • By esrauch 2026-01-0613:20

            Every system has some type 1 errors and some type 2 errors. The notion that they could just have neither if they cared a little more is just kind of absurd and doesn't at all reflect the messiness of the world we live in.

            Even if Google paid Harvard JDs to read every DMCA notice (of which there literally aren't enough of them), even then they would sometimes be tricked by adversaries and sometimes incorrectly think someone was an adversary some of the time.

            I worked at YouTube in the past and I can tell you copyright ownership isn't even fully known by the lawyers. Concretely there's a lot of major songs where the sum of major companies affirming they have partial ownership sums to more than 100% or less than 100%. Literally even the copyright holders don't actually know what they themselves own without lots of errors, and that's without getting into a system that has to try to combat adversarial / bad-faith actors.

          • By TuringTest 2026-01-0613:002 reply

            What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale? That's the crux of the matter.

            • By b112 2026-01-0613:161 reply

              It is not the crux!!

              Large companies don't get to say they're too big, so therefore it is hard.

              Too damned bad!

              They can take advantage of scale, but not at the cost of breaking the law, or just doing their job improperly.

              If it makes service at scale difficult, well that's just too bad. Sucks to be them. Maybe a competitor will do better.

              No excuses because "oh poor widdle me, I'm too big"

              • By TuringTest 2026-01-0616:291 reply

                Who is going to stop them when they do the current shenanigans, and how are they going to enforce it?

                • By samat 2026-01-0619:45

                  Legal system supposed to…

                  Too bad it’s working only for the powerful.

                  Marx was right about some things…

            • By jbstack 2026-01-0614:453 reply

              Why does scale matter?

              If I have 100 customers and I have to spend 1 hour a week dealing with legal compliance requests then if I have 200 customers I have to spend 2 hours a week dealing with legal compliance requests, but I also have more resources to do it with.

              In fact, scale usually makes it easier rather than harder because you can take advantage of economies of scale to streamline the process.

              And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale.

              • By SR2Z 2026-01-0615:001 reply

                The only way to guarantee compliance with the DMCA is to remove any content the moment a complaint is submitted.

                Copyright can only be determined in court. The fact that not all copyright complaints lead to a video going down is because Google is willing to take on some liability when they believe a complaint is not legit, and leave the video up.

                • By jbstack 2026-01-0615:351 reply

                  I'm not sure how this is a reply to my comment. What you said applies whether you are hosting 1 video a month or 1,000,000 videos a month. My point was that scale isn't an excuse. What applies to large applies to small and vice versa.

                  • By SR2Z 2026-01-0619:261 reply

                    The point is that regardless of the size of the company, copyright is such a shitshow that there are only less bad ways of handling it. The only way for a company to guarantee that they never violate copyright law is to do a takedown every time there is a complaint.

                    Obviously, this is not something they can do, because offering random people the ability to take down random videos with only the courts as recourse would be a disaster. Neither do these companies want to be in the business of deciding if a complaint is valid or not, because if they decide one way and then a judge decides the other, they get screwed.

                    Google tries to take a measured stance and evaluate complaints for obvious issues, but otherwise they do generally just act on them, and if the other parties involved can't agree on whether or not there is infringement, they just throw their hands up and tell them to take it to court.

                    Copyright is so complicated and fraught that it's virtually impossible to manage it in a way that satisfies everyone, regardless of how big or small a player is.

                    • By jbstack 2026-01-078:53

                      That's not the debate we're having here. See the comment I originally replied to:

                      > What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale?

                      The suggestion is that scale makes a difference. I was refuting that.

              • By TuringTest 2026-01-0616:271 reply

                > And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale.

                Again, you're talking from a moral standpoint, but it's not practical. Who's going to stop Google or other corporations from tracking DMCAs the current way?

                > Why does scale matter?

                Because of resources. Any defined process needs resources to be implemented; law enforcement is no different.

                Google provides services at scale by means of automating the shit of them. The only way to identify legit from fake claims at that level is to also create an automated resolution process, with the results we see.

                You may want to limit Google size by forcing them to perform human reviews for all their customer service interactions; but again, how are you going to force them into compliance? You'd need a US judiciary system the size of Google to do it.

                • By jbstack 2026-01-0618:17

                  > You may want to limit Google size by forcing them to perform human reviews for all their customer service interactions

                  You've inferred that, but I didn't make this claim. A sensible strategy would involve automating as much as possible while allowing for the ones that matter (e.g. OP's example) to be escalated.

                  Clearly you can't do that if, as in OP's case, you don't even perform any automated ID checks before telling the complainant that their ID hasn't been verified.

                  > Again, you're talking from a moral standpoint

                  Not at all. I'm taking the legal standpoint. I say nothing about whether this particular law, or any other law, is moral or not. Complying with the law is a basic requirement that any company has to satisfy. Why should Google be any different just because it's big? You seem to be suggesting that laws should only apply to small entities and that once you go above a certain scale, you are above the law.

                  Again, if you simply cannot comply with the law for some reason (as you seem to be suggesting applies to Google) then you shouldn't be running that business at all because, after all, doing so implies doing something illegal.

              • By kazinator 2026-01-0620:221 reply

                If you have 100 customers, they are all authentic. If you have 100,000,000 customers, 15,000,000 are bad actors racking their brains on how to game your system.

          • By kazinator 2026-01-0620:20

            The problem is telling them apart. Do you leave it to some LLM decision? Or one moderator's judgment?

    • By BiteCode_dev 2026-01-0611:111 reply

      All web providers do this, not just google.

      I have hosting that regularly shut down my servers based on legal demands from jurisdictions that should have no reach my service whatsoever, or on total bogus claim.

      If I refuse to act, they shut me down. If I'm late in acting, they shut me down.

      Zero check on the legitimacy on the claim, zero trust in my debunking the claim.

      The reality is, it's not economically viable to do so. I'm not giving them enough money to be worth it. So as long as I'm a small actor, anything that looks remotely legit is just processed as-is with no recourse.

      The entire world can basically impose its view on me as long as they find a convincing way to tell my hosting "you are at risk".

      And it's not one single provider either. Most of them do that: domain name, vps hosts, proxies, caches, etc.

      The system is broken.

      • By owebmaster 2026-01-0611:45

        This post is about Google, not all providers. Don't astroturf, create a post about all providers

    • By baranul 2026-01-0614:31

      A major part of this problem appears to be that there is no identifiable humans in the loop to bring complaints to. Many of Google's responses are automated and black box algorithms.

      When a Google response to a problem is outright bonkers, there is often not much that can be done, but to keep hitting the head on the wall (hoping something different happens) or be the lucky few that can get or has a human contact at Google. From what I've read and heard, those with human contacts, often have been identified as needing special attention. Where they are persons who are making significant money for Google and the businesses they own or can create problems in court.

    • By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-066:49

      Do the e-mails sound like an AI?

      I wonder if PDF’ing some random nonsense and referring to them authoritatively would get through. The author’s e-mails are friendly. What it might be looking for is corporate legalese.

    • By hsuduebc2 2026-01-062:251 reply

      The times when google was the good guy of the internet is over. Now it's basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities.

      • By bschwindHN 2026-01-063:291 reply

        > Now it's basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities.

        At first I thought you meant "Now, [the good guy of the internet] is basically Microsoft with much higher product qualities."

        I see what you meant now, in that google is reaching microslop levels of shittiness with slightly shinier shit.

        • By hsuduebc2 2026-01-0611:47

          Oh, damn. That’s the last way I’d want it to be interpreted. :D

    • By jonas21 2026-01-0523:439 reply

      You're getting at the crux of the issue: it's very hard to distinguish legitimate DMCA takedown requests submitted by individuals from illegitimate ones, and occasionally, they're going to make mistakes. Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else who was trying to take down the content illegitimately.

      At the end of the day, the best option is to use an attorney who knows the right procedures and would also run the risk of professional consequences if they submitted false claims.

      • By digitalPhonix 2026-01-0523:566 reply

        > Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else who was trying to take down the content illegitimately

        Ok, but then Google needs to say what would convince them that the author is who they say they are. The author asked multiple times how they prove they’re the real author and Google’s replies never even acknowledge the question.

        • By ghurtado 2026-01-060:111 reply

          > Anything that the author said in his emails could have just as easily been said by someone else

          That's not true. He mentions that he is the owner of the books official websites, which are registered with Google, presumably with all of his personal and billing information.

          It would take 2 seconds for anyone at Google to confirm this.

          • By znhll 2026-01-060:342 reply

            > It would take 2 seconds for anyone at Google to confirm this.

            Not really... Google is literally too big, and the fact that they've offshored and/or automated support away and compartmentalized it all where no single IC employee could possibly do much.

            I had a billing/tax issue come up with my small biz Google Workspace, and I was getting nowhere via the normal support channels... So I asked my brother in-law who literally works at Google (but not in that team) for help. He could not help me as he had no idea who or what department could handle that and neither did his team members, and it would take weeks apparently to find the right person. I'm not the only paying Google customer with that experience. Google products are great, until you run into an issue you need to talk to a human.

            • By MichaelZuo 2026-01-060:545 reply

              If googlers dont have an internal org chart they can check, then how do they verify who is on what team?

              Something doesnt add up. Because that seems like a bare minimum to collaborate at all.

              • By znhll 2026-01-060:592 reply

                > Because that seems like a bare minimum to collaborate at all.

                Now you're getting a clue why Google had like 3-4 competing communication tools at some point lol

                • By strbean 2026-01-061:09

                  Bring back Google Wave!

                  They could have been Slack if they didn't transmogrify it into a social media platform (Google+) and then throw out the baby with the bathwater when it failed.

                • By MichaelZuo 2026-01-061:061 reply

                  I’m talking about something much more fundamental, the entire company would pretty much implode within 24 hours (or at most a week) if they couldnt verify who is who.

                  So it clearly cant be the case.

                  • By mulmen 2026-01-061:421 reply

                    You're really giving credit in the wrong areas. Google is impressive for its ability to exist beyond the point of dysfunction. It's simply not the case that any Googler would need to verify the identity of any other any more than it is necessary for every server to verify the identity of every other. They only need to verify the identify of the tiny subset they are communicating with at any given time. This doesn't mean everyone has access to a coherent org chart, or that one even exists.

                    • By MichaelZuo 2026-01-062:331 reply

                      And how do they verify those of the subset they are in communication with?

                      Ask their managers? But then how do their managers verify?

                      • By mulmen 2026-01-062:491 reply

                        > Ask their managers? But then how do their managers verify?

                        It's a hierarchical org chart. If you're really not sure ask Sundar.

                        It's likely any Googler can verify the identity of any other by looking up their username but it's unlikely that the same tool would do something like tell you how the YouTube recommendation algorithm works or who would know that.

                        They will know the names of frequent collaborators and something about the scope of relevant work but it's not like everyone at Google needs intimate knowledge of every workstream. At that scale it's unlikely anyone has the full picture.

                        • By MichaelZuo 2026-01-0617:061 reply

                          Okay so we agree Google has a full org chart then somewhere.

                          • By mulmen 2026-01-0619:241 reply

                            We agree an org chart of some kind probably exists. We disagree on the capabilities. For example I am not confident that it has a concept of a team and if it does that a team would map to a product or feature.

                            • By MichaelZuo 2026-01-2018:16

                              You seem confused, I never claimed it would have such attached concepts? just a name and superior/subordinate relations

              • By dingaling 2026-01-068:13

                > If googlers dont have an internal org

                > chart they can check, then how do they

                > verify who is on what team?

                Having worked at some very large companies, none of which published org charts, it's done by word of mouth and making informed guesses.

                "Alice, I saw you were the last editor of this document. Are you still on that team, or can you point me to the best PoC?"

              • By omoikane 2026-01-066:221 reply

                Going from person to team is fairly easy, but going from team to person is hard. That is, you can often confirm a person is a member of a particular team or organization just by looking up their email address, but the reverse direction of finding the right point of contact for a particular team or organization can be difficult.

                Searching for the tree root starting from a tree leaf is easy, but searching for the right leaf starting from the root takes a lot more effort.

                • By MichaelZuo 2026-01-0617:08

                  Finding the correct team seems to be all that’s needed?

              • By nitwit005 2026-01-063:02

                Google presumably has hundreds of support teams.

                Aside from the huge array of stuff they've built in house, the "List of mergers and acquisitions by Alphabet" wikipedia page has 264 entries. Some of those bought other companies.

              • By gruez 2026-01-063:29

                >If googlers dont have an internal org chart they can check, then how do they verify who is on what team?

                You really think some guy in some offshore office for low pay, with his boss hounding at him about his KPIs, is going to go out of his way to bother with this?

            • By themaninthedark 2026-01-0613:18

              If Google is so big that it can't figure out how to communicate from one department to the other, perhaps it needs to be split apart.

        • By heavyset_go 2026-01-063:272 reply

          I don't like it, but the solution here is to hire an IP lawyer to handle the rights process.

          Google won't talk to us normies because 1) it's a cost and they don't have to 2) they've convinced themselves that if they tell anyone anything, then the unwashed masses will take advantage of their process/get the service we're owed under law

          • By worik 2026-01-063:402 reply

            > Google won't talk to us normies because

            They really should....

            > ... it's a cost and they don't have to

            There are much bigger costs looming for Google if they continue to ignore DMCA

            Google are in the hands of the Money Monkeys. Short term gain and get out before the pain.

            What a shame.

            • By SR2Z 2026-01-0615:04

              Google settled a massive lawsuit with Viacom many years ago. The details of the settlement are hidden, but it seems pretty clear that it involves extraordinary deference to large rightsholders who in exchange won't threaten to blow YouTube to smithereens every year.

            • By bitfilped 2026-01-063:56

              I mean I don't disagree but "should" won't make next quarters line go up until it becomes an expensive enough problem to threaten that trend.

            • By heavyset_go 2026-01-0621:421 reply

              Sounds like they need to spend some of those billions of dollars on fixing the process and complying with the law, then.

              I don't get to ignore the law just because if I follow it, someone who doesn't might get one over on me.

              All of this nonsense because Google wants to automate their DMCA takedown process and not hire anyone to deal with real cases as they come, as is their duty to copyright holders.

              • By breppp 2026-01-0710:00

                I have a different reading, the author is reminiscing to the times where trust worked on the web.

                A company like Google could trust you for being really the author because who would lie? and those that lie about these things usually couldn't spell or use technology.

                The world changed and now Google can't afford to trust someone that says he's the author, because people take advantage of that.

                So if you ask me what's worse, this guy having to contact his publisher to get his book off the web, or someone being blackmailed to keep his youtube channel, imo they are right to require a proper lawyer

        • By tossaway0 2026-01-062:51

          I wonder if they just prioritize big companies who they either have agreements with or are scared could actually cause them serious legal trouble, and deny everyone else as much as possible because they’ve calculated the risk/reward/cost of getting it wrong.

        • By kevin_thibedeau 2026-01-065:38

          Google doesn't need to verify anything. They just have to pass along the takedown request and provide a flow for prompt reactivation with a counter notice. After that their responsibilities end and the two disputing parties can litigate.

        • By a123b456c 2026-01-060:32

          It seems like we will need either legislation or litigation, if we want things to improve.

        • By dekhn 2026-01-060:013 reply

          Google won't tell you this because they believe it would reveal information to scammers.

          • By digitalPhonix 2026-01-063:111 reply

            That’s like saying the DMV won’t tell you how to prove your identity because if they did people would use that info to get fake driving licences

            • By dekhn 2026-01-0618:481 reply

              The DMV is not a private company with enormous amounts of fraud/scam.

              Anyway, it's what I was told when I joined Google Ads a long time ago and it seems consistent with their philosophy and behavior.

              • By digitalPhonix 2026-01-0714:56

                > The DMV is not a private company with enormous amounts of fraud/scam.

                So it sounds like their policy of having a high bar for proving identity but still publicising what is required to meet that bar works for preventing fraud?

                If anything, your argument is an indictment against Google.

          • By tempestn 2026-01-060:091 reply

            That's Kafkaesque. We're not talking about SEO here, just simple proof of identity. If they require something sane like ID, they could simply say so. If they need something insane, or have no process at all for proving identity, then this is no excuse.

            • By thaumasiotes 2026-01-0611:171 reply

              In this case, a more likely explanation might be "Google won't do this because it would put you in a position to obligate them to do something else". There isn't really a risk of enabling scammers to issue false DMCA takedowns; as you note, that issue is resolved by requiring proof of ownership.

              • By SR2Z 2026-01-0615:051 reply

                The only way to demonstrate that you own copyright to a piece of content is by going to court.

                • By thaumasiotes 2026-01-0615:091 reply

                  If that were true, how would the judge know who to rule for? Are you saying that anyone can become the owner of any intellectual property simply by filing a lawsuit?

                  • By SR2Z 2026-01-0619:17

                    Not all intellectual property is the same. Trademarks have to be registered, patents have to be filed, but copyright is automatically granted by law whenever someone creates a work.

                    Trademark issues are therefore really simple: is the user of the trademark the one who has it registered or not?

                    But copyright holders don't have any standard, obvious evidence they can point to that shows it's really their copyright. They can file a DMCA, in which case companies normally just assume the complaint is accurate - but if the party on the other end objects, the case has to go to a judge who will determine who actually has the copyright and if infringement occurred.

          • By ipython 2026-01-060:171 reply

            but then why have a process at all?

            • By pixl97 2026-01-061:03

              So they don't get sued again by record companies.

      • By rcxdude 2026-01-0523:592 reply

        Also, the ones abusing the system tend to know it better: often it's their jobs to figure out how to work it to get what they want. The people who just want to use legitimately often it don't have the time and experience to learn it.

        (You see a similar thing with benefits and healthcare: often attempts to crackdown on people abusing the system just make it harder for legitimate users)

        • By sayamqazi 2026-01-064:34

          If you are from US I want to let you know about a scam. Here in asian countries people with good enlgish accents are recruited to pretend to be US citizens and claim benifits that are unused by the real people. There is a whole proper process of how this works. The recruit is given full identity information and a software to make the call appear from the US. The officials on the US side are in on this and get a share for each successfull claim.

        • By HPsquared 2026-01-060:22

          It's almost a law of nature.

      • By ChrisMarshallNY 2026-01-062:191 reply

        I suspect the author is self-published (I don’t know him well, but his emails seem to indicate this).

        One of the things that you get, when dealing with a publishing house, is a bunch of IP lawyers on speed-dial.

        If you register works with the LoC, it might help in these situations (it isn’t required, but this is exactly the type of thing that it’s supposed to address).

        • By vintermann 2026-01-066:26

          That's little more than corruption. Yeah sure, you can free your issue from the AI-washed auto-reject script if you know the right people. But it's nothing to do with what those people know. It's about who they are.

      • By ndiddy 2026-01-064:59

        The whole point of the DMCA takedown process is that it's rubber-stamp on the part of the service provider and all decisions regarding validity are left up to the courts. That's why there's a provision built into the law for the person receiving the claim to file a counter-notice to get their content reinstated. If Google is inserting themselves in the middle and denying claims because they don't believe that the person filing them is authorized to do so, I'm not sure whether that's proper procedure under the OCILLA.

      • By 7bit 2026-01-061:02

        You are completely missing the point. Mistakes can be made. But OP asked repeatedly what he must provide so Google can validate his identity. They didn't answer his questions, even after OP asked multiple times.

        This is not a "mistake", that is negligence.

      • By thayne 2026-01-062:51

        I also suspect those responses were all generated by an AI.

      • By cebert 2026-01-060:541 reply

        > At the end of the day, the best option is to use an attorney who would at least run the risk of professional consequences for submitting false claims.

        What if folks signed their work with a private PGP key and published their public key? If you wanted to submit a DMCA request, simply sign a message to prove you’re the content owner. It seems like that could work.

        • By mulmen 2026-01-061:441 reply

          How does that prove I am the original author? Can't I just download a work and sign it as my own?

          • By cebert 2026-01-063:241 reply

            Let’s consider a scenario where you’ve published a video with a public key, and you have a history of using that key for publishing your work. If someone else were to download that video, they wouldn’t be able to sign it because they lack the key. I believe the same principle applies to PDFs and ebooks.

            • By mulmen 2026-01-0614:57

              They wouldn’t be able to sign it as me but they could sign it as themselves, taking credit.

              My question is what mechanism proves the video is signed by the rightful owner?

    • By emsign 2026-01-068:27

      Google would be left by the wayside and quickly be gone if it hadn't embedded itself all across the web.

    • By reactordev 2026-01-0523:19

      Google has only cared about one thing for the last decade, being number 1. They were willing to sell their soul to beat meta and they’ll sell their skin to beat OpenAI.

    • By hackerbeat 2026-01-069:50

      Yes, same for search. Results are useless and site owners suffer.

    • By wslh 2026-01-066:27

      And when applying the law is so expensive.

    • By CuriouslyC 2026-01-062:552 reply

      It's not just goog, friend. It's capitalism down too the root.

      Piracy is more a moral and political statement than an economic one.

      • By dmix 2026-01-063:051 reply

        This is a copyright law invented in 1998 from the UN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty These things predictably always have ways for moneyed players to abuse them and for organizations to half commit. Even China signed up.

        • By gruez 2026-01-063:261 reply

          >This is a copyright law invented in 1998 from the UN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty

          Copyright law existed long before 1998, so it's hardly something "invented in 1998 from the UN". There might be some aspects it standardized, but so far as I can tell I can't see how it's relevant to this particular case.

          • By dmix 2026-01-0615:142 reply

            We’re discussing a post about DMCA in this thread which is a policy pushed by the UN and adopted by the US as DMCA. Not sure what your point is.

            DMCA is one of the worst parts of the internet and for some reason capitalism is the boogieman in this thread. IP law has become hyper restrictive/excessive, with little oversight, and favours large companies with teams of lawyers.

            • By gruez 2026-01-0617:19

              >We’re discussing a post about DMCA in this thread which is a policy pushed by the UN and adopted by the US as DMCA. Not sure what your point is.

              So far as I can tell there's nothing to do with takedowns? From wikipedia:

              >The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM). It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself

            • By CuriouslyC 2026-01-0616:10

              Capitalism is the boogieman because greasing the wheels to enact anti-consumer legislation is 100% in the spirit of modern capitalism.

              Capitalism had moral authority from the invisible hand (with empirical support), but absent that, it's just another system of power, and clearly not a just one.

      • By socalgal2 2026-01-066:211 reply

        oh yea, because no other system has ever had a kafkaesque resolution system. Maybe look up the origin of those "kafkaesque".

        • By CuriouslyC 2026-01-0612:57

          Please take the snark and condescension to Reddit where it belongs. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I'm wrong, and assuming that it does makes you ignorant.

    • By ycombinary 2026-01-0523:21

      [dead]

    • By ptdorf 2026-01-066:28

      Gotta cut on support to buy those AI GPUs.

  • By QuercusMax 2026-01-0522:313 reply

    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.

    • By verdverm 2026-01-0522:48

      Not bad enough for the profits and investors to care, perhaps even work against

    • By maximinus_thrax 2026-01-060:58

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

      Do they really? It seems the incentives are aligned so that they continue making the big bucks regardless of 'petty grievances' such as these..

    • By lifetimerubyist 2026-01-0523:201 reply

      they won't, they don't care in the slightest

      • By baby_souffle 2026-01-0523:39

        At least legal eagle has nebula as a fall back.

        Many other creators don't have a platform with any word near the reach YouTube has... And until that changes, there's almost no incentive for YouTube to change.

  • By AmbroseBierce 2026-01-0523:452 reply

    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

    • By shakna 2026-01-062:383 reply

      Huh. And I can't even report a false detection.

      The form just errors out, in Google, Firefox. Privacy things disabled.

      > Something went wrong there. Try again.

      [0] https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_error/?t...

      • By dormento 2026-01-0614:041 reply

        I removed the protocol and last slash from the URL and it worked.

        "False positive. Site does not ask for info and is clearly comedic in nature."

        • By hnarn 2026-01-078:48

          > I removed the protocol and last slash from the URL

          So effectively making it not a URL anymore despite being what the form asks for, that’s just great

      • By DDR0 2026-01-063:29

        Odd, I couldn't report it as a false positive the first time either, but then I tried again with dev tools open and it worked.

      • By rgun 2026-01-068:241 reply

        I think you have to fill in "additional details" field for it to work. I did it and it worked alright

        • By shakna 2026-01-069:45

          Oh, I wouldn't have thought to submit the report without filling that in.

          The console has: "service error: RpcError"

          The POST hangs up before it completes, and it seems to be because the JS can't lift a auth token for my Google account, maybe.

    • By 0x073 2026-01-0523:581 reply

      I think it's ok, that there is a warning on a parody site than looks like Google.

      • By AmbroseBierce 2026-01-060:05

        This is a full block not a warning in any conventional sense of the word, and it resembles Google but it very clearly says "Foogle" so it's not pretending to be Google, and no email or anything at all is asked from the user, so yeah it's just plain abuse of their power and very little space to argument that they are just being "overly cautious", but just like abuses by the state or the police there is always people in favor of such abuses in the name of safety.

HackerNews