> Luckily, Google spotted most of these errors. The search engine rejected most of the takedown requests but two Sonyliv.com URLs were actually removed.

If Google can ignore DMCA takedown requests just because they were issued in error, without risking their overall safe harbor status, then why don't they ever do so when the error is harming a little guy?

Because the little guy is not worth sh* and if "you" put your trust in a "good-will" company sooner or later you will find out how much you are worth to the said company. Hint: not much

sounds like a manifestation of worthless eaters, untermensch psychology

It's actually just economics. These big companies make the systems usable for the majority of the users so if a small percentage needs support the economics say it's better to ignore them because the support costs more than ignoring them. It's a kind of tyranny of the economy.

So how do we build a similar self surveillance system for the people in positions of power (judiciary, law enforcement, etc)?

This is one of the best jokes we ever saw. Regards, The CIA.

>Luckily, Google spotted most of these errors. The search engine rejected most of the takedown requests but two Sonyliv.com URLs were actually removed.

I thought google could never solve the problem of false takedowns, according to googlers here. And the little guy must always start a HN thread for a solution.