Why did Google's DMCA defenses fail?

Hidden costs of legal mechanisms

Google wanted to rely on DMCA to crawl its own searches this year to circumvent the copyright trap-but the court directly rejected it. It is not that technology is useless, but that the legal mechanism itself has become an efficiency black hole. Copyright law originally protected originality, but in the hands of platform giants, it became a defensive shield. The cost of efficiency shifted from technology to system, but everyone rarely counted on this account.

engineers don't want the law, but faster grabbing

Let's talk about the scenario first: Google engineers do crawls and refuse access to copyrighted sites when encountering them. Technical means can circumvent it, but companies cannot take legal risks. So the executive decided to go through the DMCA process and apply for an exemption. As a result, the court slapped the table: you can't use DMCA to block demand for your content.

Google is not incapable, but afraid of being countered by others with DMCA . This is not a technical problem, but an efficiency constraint of the legal mechanism. Engineers look at "can catch", legal affairs look at "can be accused", two sets of systems each other, finally become "who can spend more money to run the process, who can grab more efficiency".

To put it bluntly, Google is not guarding against technological thieves this time, but against legal sticks. But when he was on guard, he was also trapped.

DMCA becomes a negative example of efficiency

The DMCA (Digital Rights Millennium Act) was originally designed to protect content creators from being infringed by unscrupulous platforms. But by 2024, giants will instead regard it as a "anti-grabbing barrier". Put your content on the DMCA, and whoever catches it will send a lawyer's letter first. As a result, the court said that this was not the original intention of the DMCA and you cannot use it as a firewall.

This is interesting. The platform was originally meant to allow information to flow freely, but now it has become "using laws to trap others and allow yourself to earn more efficiency premiums." The cost of efficiencyism is not that it cannot be done, but that it is done too well, leading to systemic waste.

Google is not the first company to do this. Facebook, Amazon, and even Tencent in China all use similar mechanisms-not technical barriers, but "legal barriers." Whoever can hire more lawyers and run more processes will have more control over resources. In the end, efficiency is not compared to technology, but to "legal operation speed and legal budget."

The picture above is not funny, it is true. In 2023, the total legal budget of global Internet giants will exceed US$2.5 billion, and the efficiency premium will be eaten by lawyers.

legal mechanism creates efficiency black holes

Many people only look at the technical level-whether AI crawling can avoid DMCA and whether web pages can be anti-crawler. But the real question is not "whether we can catch it", but "whether we can withstand legal risks after catching it."

The hidden cost of efficiencyism is that everyone is fighting for efficiency, but in the end, efficiency is wasted on the system itself. If you hire one more lawyer, I will hire one more lawyer. If you run one more program, I will set up one more process. In the end, the technology did not change, and the legal process became a new point of friction.

This has happened long ago in the financial industry. After the 2008 financial crisis, compliance costs once exceeded business growth. It is not that banks cannot innovate, but they are afraid of being punished by supervision. The Internet industry is now also embarking on this path-not in a competition of technology, but in a competition of who can run the system.

After taking a look, you will understand that it is essentially the legal mechanism that is consuming the efficiency dividends brought by technology. Everyone wants to be fast, but in the end they all get slow.

steelman: The opposition says it is protecting originality. Is it really useful?

Opponents will say: DMCA is to prevent platforms from abusing content and protect original rights and interests. Letting Google not grab other people's content is reasonable copyright protection.

I thought so before. It was later discovered that copyright law does not protect originality, but protects process. If you want to prove that you are original, you have to go through a lot of processes. If you want to bid farewell to human infringement, you must prepare a lot of evidence. In order not to be accused, the platform has to do a lot of compliance. In the end, the original creator did not benefit, but both the platform and lawyers made money.

A counter-intuitive one: Real originators are often the most vulnerable because they don't have the resources to run the process. Instead, giants can use legal mechanisms to counter small players. DMCA has become a negative example of efficiency-not protecting innovation, but protecting process.

Copyright infringement litigation in the United States takes an average of 18 months, and the average cost exceeds US$500,000 (Source: Stanford Law Review, 2022). Who can bear it? It is not a small creator, it is a big platform.

legal mechanism is not always effective, efficiency drags down innovation

If you regard DMCA as a technical barrier, you will feel that "as long as the system is strict enough, innovation will be safe." But this matter is not complicated, and the efficiency and cost of legal mechanisms far exceed the technology itself.

China's Internet also has similar problems. Tencent used "anti-crawler"+"compliance statement" to block external crawls, and as a result, everyone slowed down. Zhihu, Douyin, and Station B all use similar legal defenses. It is not that technological innovation is getting faster, but that everyone is running the process. In the end, it is not the product, but the legal budget.

The more processes there are, the lower the efficiency. In the end, everyone is "innovating within the process" and can only do what the system allows.

Zhang in ## Data Center

Lao Zhang is the operation and maintenance officer of a big data company. His daily routine is not optimizing algorithms, but processing "compliance reports." Every time you want to catch a new site, you must prepare a "legal risk assessment". It is not that the technical difficulty is high, but the process is complex. Every time you catch it, you have to go one more way to comply with regulations. After completing the investigation, an "internal compliance approval" must be done. Finally, grabbing efficiency becomes "whoever can endure more processes can grab more."

Lao Zhang said: "Algorithms have long been no longer the bottleneck, the legal process is." It is not that the company cannot innovate, but that it is afraid of "the defendant's death." Everyone knows that efficiencyism is not technology itself, but the system itself.

This happens repeatedly in large companies. The process does not protect innovation, but protects the process itself. The price of efficiency is to let smart people do stupid things together.

Cross-border Analogy: Institutional Friction in Medical Insurance Claims

After all, this is not unique to the Internet. Medical insurance claims are also a "negative example of efficiency." You spend 30 minutes seeing a doctor, but you spend 3 hours running the procedure. It is not that medical care itself is complex, but that the system itself creates friction. In the end, whoever can endure more process will be able to repay more money.

The Internet's copyright defense is essentially the same as medical insurance claims-the longer the process, the lower the efficiency. Everyone is running the process, and in the end, innovation is dragged down by the system.

QKPFX7 The business accounts behind QK technical decisions

Google wants to use DMCA defense this time, not for technological innovation, but for commercial interests. Whoever can block others from grabbing more can earn more money from search traffic. DMCA does not protect originality, but protects its own traffic pool. In the end, everyone is doing an "efficiency premium", and real innovators are not benefiting.

To put it bluntly, technical decisions are not technology itself, but business accounts. Whoever can block others more will earn more traffic premium. Legal mechanisms have become a new efficiency black hole.

Ends: Smart people do stupid things together, and systemic waste has become the norm

This is not complicated, but the costs of efficiency are well hidden. Everyone wants to "use systems to protect innovation", but instead creates systemic waste. Smart people do stupid things together, and the process becomes the ceiling of innovation.

Put the golden sentence here--"The trap of efficiency is that everyone is struggling with the process and ultimately there is no efficiency."

Thinking along this line of thinking, the real question is not "how to defend against grabbing", but is the "friction between the system itself" cost-effective? If innovation is slowed down by processes, both the platform and the originator lose, and only lawyers and process departments win.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but will this matter become "institutional innovation is more important than technological innovation"? If you have calculated this score, you are welcome to come and chat-I bet that no one will win in this efficient game.