Ironically, the article points out that the original authors publisher actually put out two DMCA notices to google last year, apparently with no effect.
I guess DMCA takedowns are only for the big fish fighting the good fight against car pirates.
Ironically, the article points out that the original authors publisher actually put out two DMCA notices to google last year, apparently with no effect.
I guess DMCA takedowns are only for the big fish fighting the good fight against car pirates.
Why aren't they suing Google in court? Now is the best time to do this politically, the site doesn't mention what state they live in but I'd doubt that you wouldn't be able to get a state AG to listen to you if you reached out.
edit to add: Google has ignored all safe harbor protections, they would lose this protection and be held liable for all damages. This seems like a pretty solid win for the author here if they're telling the truth.
There are a lot of really solid reasons someone might choose not to sue one of the world’s most powerful corporations over their core business practices, even being completely in the right. Pretty similar to reasons someone might not call the cops on some mafiosos that are blocking your driveway while fencing a truckload of stolen electronics.
I disagree, state AGs are taking any opportunity to attack big tech for easy political points. If you want justice, now is the best time to try and get it.
Filling a complaint with the civil division of your AG so they can take legal action vs suing a giant powerful corporation and hoping the AG’s civil division steps in are very different things. I’ve also known numerous people who’ve filed multiple complaints with the MA AG with easily provable and well documented cases of repeated, ongoing wage theft as restaurant workers, at a time where service industry labor abuses were a popular hot button issue, and they didn’t even get a callback. Not exactly what you’d call a slam dunk. Not having support from the AG would be one of the very solid reasons I was referring to.
[dead]
then DMCA the entirety of google and alphabet, and tender class action for direct and contributory violation, with the option to back it off to the literary work in question when goog takes a seat at the table and takes it seriously
That costs money
so does loosing a business.
Losing*
both spellings, while having differing implications, tend to be true.
Simon & Schuster is a small fish?
Eventually almost every other regulation turns out to be one that benefits big players and doesn’t help smaller ones.
Usually it’s easy enough to see who’s pushing for the regulation to figure out who will benefit from it.
Eg https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/06/16/congress/me...
The entire purpose of the DMCA is that it’s a bludgeon that the rich and powerful can use to beat the poor and powerless. It was never meant for individual copyright owners to use against giant infringing corporations.
DMCA is no longer valid as the courts ruled that stealing literally everything on the internet was OK and a valid business practice.