A year ago, Google announced a new initiative to combat illicit file-sharing on its various websites. The Recording Industry Association of America has marked the one-year anniversary of that announcement with a new "report card" faulting Google for what the RIAA considers the search giant's slow progress.

In its December 2010 blog post, Google pledged to take four specific anti-piracy steps: respond to takedowns more quickly, remove piracy-related terms from autocomplete, make it harder for infringing sites to participate in AdSense, and make legitimate content easier to find in search results.

The RIAA grades Google's efforts to date as "incomplete," faulting the search giant's progress in all four areas. The industry group complains that phrases such as "lady gaga mp3 download" are still suggested by the autocomplete feature of Google search. It faults Google for refusing to explicitly "prioritize sites with authorized content over unauthorized sites"—though the report doesn't have much detail about how Google should distinguish the two. And it says Google "needs to be more proactive" about blocking infringing sites from using Google's AdSense advertising program.

But the RIAA pays the most attention to Google's promise to respond more quickly to takedown requests. Last year, Google said the first services to get faster takedowns would be Blogger and search. The RIAA tacitly admits that Google has kept its promise with respect to these two services. But the RIAA criticizes Google's management of the Android Marketplace, noting that Google "doesn't adequately screen apps" before accepting them in its app store. It also complains that apps removed from the Marketplace aren't automatically blacklisted from AdSense and Google Wallet.

Finally, the RIAA complains that, "the [takedown] tools Google has built have limits on the number of submissions rights holders can submit each day and they do not scale to the scope of piracy online." If the RIAA is describing the situation accurately (unfortunately, Google refused to speak to us about it) then this does seem like a legitimate complaint. On the other hand, the recent Megaupload and Hotfile takedown debacles illustrate the risks of abuse when copyright holders are given unlimited power to delete content from third-party services.

The RIAA completes its report card with a wish list of additional steps for Google to take: proactively block "pirate sites" from using its advertising networks, proactively screen Android apps for infringing content, proactively list sites with authorized content ahead of infringing sites in search results, and proactively remove from YouTube videos that advocate infringing activities.

Of course, the RIAA's complaints gloss over the important question of whether Google is obligated to proactively help the RIAA in the first place. To qualify for the DMCA safe harbor, a company must respond promptly to takedown notices and meet certain other criteria. But the DMCA clearly does not require companies to take affirmative, proactive steps to remove infringing content from its services. And while the RIAA didn't want to talk about the subject on the record for fear of prejudicing future litigation, the trade group drew parallels to other companies that have chosen to "work constructively on voluntary initiatives" to reduce piracy—tacitly acknowledged that it was asking Google to go beyond the letter of the law.

The RIAA closes its report by complaining that Google "raises alarmist, self-serving criticism to any legislative proposal to deter or thwart rampant copyright infringement." But it seems somewhat contradictory to be touting the value of "voluntary initiatives" while simultaneously trying to ram divisive copyright legislation through Congress over the objections of major Internet companies. The voluntary anti-piracy efforts Google has already undertaken do not appear to have bought the search giant any goodwill from major copyright holders. Which makes us wonder why the recording industry expects Google to make even greater efforts to help them when in many cases the law clearly doesn't require it.