RIAA: Google Failing To Demote Pirate Websites 165
Nerval's Lobster writes "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) claims that Google has failed in its attempt to lower the search-results rankings of so-called 'pirate' Websites. "We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy," read the report's summary (PDF). 'These sites consistently appear at the top of Google's search results for popular songs or artists.' Last August, Google indicated that it would start lowering the search-result rankings of Websites with high numbers of 'valid' copyright removal notices. 'This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed on Spotify,' Amit Singhal, Google's senior vice president of Engineering, wrote in a corporate blog posting at the time. Google, which receives millions of copyright removal notices every month, also offers a counter-notice tool for those who believe their Websites have been unfairly targeted for copyright violations."
Good for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA can fuck off.
A search engine is supposed to search and display what it finds. I'll be the one to do the filtering
Re:Good for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are looking for pirating sites, I would expect them to show up at the top of the rankings. Because if I was searching for [artist] [track] download, I am not looking for amazon.com.
What Google has done is reduced when these sites would show up when you were looking for legitimate sites. Just like they reduced the adult content you see unless you are looking for adult content. It's not Google's job to police what people search for, just to make sure they find what they are looking for.
Re:Good for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are looking for pirating sites, I would expect them to show up at the top of the rankings. Because if I was searching for [artist] [track] download, I am not looking for amazon.com.
What Google has done is reduced when these sites would show up when you were looking for legitimate sites. Just like they reduced the adult content you see unless you are looking for adult content. It's not Google's job to police what people search for, just to make sure they find what they are looking for.
Also, the "legitimate" sites RIAA is suggesting to Google (NPR's music website, Hulu, Spotify) would be useless for most users outside USA as they don't offer their services to much countries outside of U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
[Artist_name].[Album_name].[bitrate].[format].[group_name]
They are so out of luck.
Re:Good for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
"The RIAA can fuck off."
This.
They have demonstrably not done anybody any real good. They have been attacking the music industry's best friends. (People who download also tend to be those who buy more music and attend more theater movies). And they have made enemies of The People in general.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA is run by the music industry. Of course they're only representing the views of music industry experts.
Re: (Score:2)
"The RIAA is run by the music industry. Of course they're only representing the views of music industry experts."
Sure. But those "experts" have pretty obviously been telling it to do the wrong things.
I don't know which party or parties have been coming up with their ideas and schemes. I just know that those ideas and schemes have been backfiring on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Music industry expert ranks up there with the great oxymorons (emphasis on the moron) of our times with military intelligence and microsoft works.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to use the proper term 'shill' here, because those 'experts' are always going to arrive at the conclusions expected of them.
I highly doubt any music industry expert has ever reach an unbiased conclusion on this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
(People who download also tend to be those who buy more music and attend more theater movies).
Citation Needed
Unless you are trying to say EVERYONE downloads stuff illegally.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the beauty of it though, we can use google search filters to defeat their measures. For example "-buy -store -review -preview -promo -viagra" trims out enough to make the potential "pirate" websites turn up on more than half the results.
...but bad for Google's business, though. (Score:2)
The RIAA can fuck off.
A search engine is supposed to search and display what it finds. I'll be the one to do the filtering
You are half right. (100% right about the RIAA, btw, but only half right about search engines.) A search engine is a content delivery service, period. It is supposed to generate profit by delivering search results, the same way Netflix/Unbox/Hulu generates profit by delivering movies and TV shows. The minute you let your customers control their end of the delivery pipeline is the minute you've lost control of your business model and can start kissing your profits good-bye. Google makes money by selling
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse than this; The record label collectives have caused a lot of fuss for Google, singling them out as the "number 1 enemy for the up-and-coming artist", forcing them to fund some very expensive research showing Google wasn't really responsible in any way (which they then conveniently forgot about) and basically blackmailed (under the threat of forcing through new laws like SOPA) Google into putting in place these search restriction policies.
The RIAA have now turned around and said "this policy
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, when all my friends are recommending and linking to content on malware sites I'll probably want to check them out!
Re:Good for Google (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a pretty big difference between a seach engine hiding (or making more difficult to find) malware infested sites (something that can potentially break my OS) and being a nanny that prevents me from finding exactly what I want.
Let them index child porn, copyrighted material, etc. Their job is not to police the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, Google made RIAA's job of finding *real* offenders *easier*.
Not that I support them in this endeavor.
Re:Good for Google (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean like Itunes?
I can do without Apples fucking software everytime I turn around. Who knows what creepy crawlies those scumbags put in it?
Itunes = malware IMHO. If I wanted to be spied on, I would buy an Iphone.
The Music industry is just dying and convulsing and emitting death rattles.
Nothing to see here, music will not be harmed in any way. Just step aside and let it drop so musicians can thrive and prosper for a change. Free music & paid performance is the future of music. Music written for commission is the only feasible paid music writing without performance. The future holds a lot of promise for the musician and the listeners. Not so much for a contemptible criminal industry that highjacked a lot of money and lives for more than a century now. Bad business models won't live no matter how much legislation you pay for. Feels kinda like " Pepperland" after the Blue Meanies are dispersed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I do. It might be nice of Google to tell me "hey, this page could be infected with something, enter at your own risk", though.
Maybe we could meet half way where Google doesn't filter "illegal" sites but marks them with a similar warning?
Warning people that they might do something risky or illegal is quite fine and very welcome. Censoring content and taking the decision out of my hand is not.
Re:Good for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? Its not like I'm running Winblows. Pretty strange comment of yours considering the /. crowd mostly run Linux/BSD
2000 called, and wants you back. This place is full of Apple zealots and Microsoft shills now. The Linux/BSD crowd has moved on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for Google (Score:4, Funny)
Have to agree...
Ex- Microsoft shill posting in Ubuntu now.
Fuck windows 8
Re: (Score:3)
Have to agree...
Ex- Microsoft shill posting in Ubuntu now.
Fuck windows 8
Microsoft literally is spamming a wiki devoted to an open source project that only runs on Linux in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My role at Microsoft was to build relationships within the online advertising community by supporting & educating through the Microsoft Advertising Blog, evangelizing through social media.
Mel Carson, Digital Marketing Evangelist at Microsoft, 2005-2012
Slashdot web interest, 2005-2012.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=slashdot&cmpt=q [google.com]
Re:Good for Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft hating piracy lovers have a long history.
Bill Gates built an old kit computer and made a punch card input operating system for it.
He sold punchchards mail order to others who in turn made their friends punchcards for their hobby computers.
Bill was livid and this whole thing took off even before he bought DOS , let alone Windows.
This was the first shot fired in the war of intangible imaginary property rights as far as we're concerned.
Re:Good for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really fair for folks who don't even know about Linux (or think it's some kind of hacker thing... and there are still plenty of those). Is it fair for grandma to get a drive-by download because she got a new computer from Walmart that came with Windows? Is the web only meant for savvy users who build their own PC and sudo their way out of problems or into new functionality?
Your web oligarchy is a dystopia, with a twisted sense of survival of the fittest, that I'm glad I'll never see as long as level heads prevail. The /. crowd may run mostly Linux/BSD, but last I checked, a fair percentage are empathetic human beings that are all too aware the web is meant for everybody, savvy or not, technical or not, creative or not. I'd go as far as to say, the web is a fundamental right now that a significant portion of our ability to communicate is tied to it. If Google is doing its part to keep malware at bay, that's a plus.
Back on topic, RIAA is not protecting the world from malware and terrorism, so there's no reason for Google to give them the same level of respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, of all the OSs I've used (OSX included) Windows has been the longest to setup. With OSX you just buy a Mac and done. With Linux, you boot to disk, push next a few times, it runs and you're done. I honestly don't know what Windows does when it's installing, but it takes forever (Win7/8 included).
For most people Windows is just buy a PC and done.
I don't know what kind of magical Linux distros you've been using, but that has never been my experience on consumer grade hardware, every distro I've ever tried has had some oddball installer issue, usually related to either the network or video card. The short summary list of distros (less version information, since I don't remember) is: Linux from Scratch, Linux Mint, Ubuntu Linux, Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, Mandriva, and CentOS (so not very comprehens
Re: (Score:2)
Google SAID they would do it and the RIAA is the one claiming they failed.
The question is whether they failed or just paid some lip service to get the sponges to STFU.
No (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And even if, it certainly is none of YOUR country's business whether it's legal in mine.
And I.... (Score:5, Funny)
"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"
Re: (Score:3)
... have found no evidence that RIAA is working towards providing me with a $1,000,000 dollar stipend. So what?
"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
From the article that you didn't bother to read before offering an unimformed opinion.
"Last August, Google indicated that it would start lowering the search-result rankings of Websites with high numbers of “valid” copyright removal notices. “This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it’s a song previewed on NPR’s music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed on Spotify,” Amit Singhal, Google’
Re:And I.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost? Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
From the article that you didn't bother to read before offering an unimformed opinion.
It wasn't an opinion (um- or not uminformed), it was a question. And since the quoted para (thank you for it) doesn't answer it, let me repeat it:
from where and since when is there an obligation for Google to "please" RIAA?
It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.
In depending the answer, I'll be able to form an opinion (at least for myself) on whether or not Google has done enough in spite of RIAA wanting it to do much more.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see where they have any obligation other than reducing their exposure to a lawsuit that accuses them of facilitating copyright infringement. In truth, Google probably only announced this so they can say they're doing something. I doubt they expected RIAA to start spamming their reporting system with millions of reports using an automated reporting tool.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see where they have any obligation other than reducing their exposure to a lawsuit that accuses them of facilitating copyright infringement.
If that's the truth, then here's my opinbion: Google has done enough. Anything more than that and Google should charge RIAA for extra services (also in my opinion: it should have charge them even for processing the takedown notices: even a reasonable amount of 0.05 cents per request would have done wonders).
Re:And I.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather than charge, which would discourage real users from reporting websites they could implement simple measures to stop the automated reporting that they are being spammed with. 2.4 million reports a month from RIAA alone is nearly one a second. Rate limiting to a few complains a day per IP could help, or even simple CAPTCHAs. That would perhaps force a human to look at the content instead of using an automated tool to search for song titles and then spamming reports for any hits containing the artist and track number.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than charge, which would discourage real users from reporting websites they could implement simple measures to stop the automated reporting ...
Well, this would be a bad business stance
I mean: if "reporting copyright breaches" is such a "sought after" type of product/service, why not "expand you income channels" and aks money for it to a level it becomes profitable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAAs own report says they are using automated queries of song title, artist name, and track numbers. I doubt they are paying people to type those hits manually into the reporting form at state of 2.4 million a month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a "Verizon nickel", or do you really mean 1/20 of a penny?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.
Who says they should be obligated? The RIAA didn't say that, nor did they imply it. All they stated was that, in their opinion, Google has not done what they said they would do.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.
Who says they should be obligated? The RIAA didn't say that, nor did they imply it. All they stated was that, in their opinion, Google has not done what they said they would do.
Would I be in Google's shoes, my answer to them would be: "Tough luck, I tried. Would you like to pay me to try harder?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
They could have problem if they don't actively try to demote pirate sites, because then, they would be no different from the Pirate Bay and could be charged with copyright infringment support.
Yes, our copyright laws are stupid and should go away and be replaced with some form of support for IP creators which doesn't depend on artificial distribution restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"
Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost? Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?
They could have problem if they don't actively try to demote pirate sites, because then, they would be no different from the Pirate Bay and could be charged with copyright infringment support.
Yes, our copyright laws are stupid and should go away and be replaced with some form of support for IP creators which doesn't depend on artificial distribution restrictions.
If so, why not pay some lobbyist to advice changing the laws instead of caving to RIAA's potential "legal extortion" and implement half baked solutions to a wrong formulated problem?
Re: (Score:2)
In case you haven't noticed yet, the very LAST thing dinosaurs like the RIAA want is an unguided free market. Think about it: Who needs them? People wanting to sell music can easily find people wanting to buy music, they're the middle man that can so easily be eliminated entirely.
In a free market they'd have gone the way of the dodo ages ago.
RIAA ripping of artists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA ripping of artists (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't seem to understand. What makes you think the RIAA has to obey the same laws as people?
When you have legalized bribery in your federal government, these are the results you get.
Even worse, that's what gives them power over everyone else in the world too.
Re: (Score:1)
that's what gives them power over everyone else in the world too
Pfft, be your own power. You have the power, exercise it and disempower the ??AA's of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
by "contributing" more to elected officials campaigns? I'm sure elashish14 doesn't have the millions to do so.
How about by voting for officials who are against the practise of campaign contributions? If only they existed.
Re: (Score:2)
If only they existed.
QFT
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really agree. Their lawyers sure deserve something COMPLETELY different.
Test (Score:5, Insightful)
Anecdotal observation here.
Went to Google and typed in Mumford. Guess what, no pirate sites appeared on the first page.
But there was a Wired article complaining about the "no unauthorized copying lending public performance etc. statement on the back of their latest album.
Maybe the RIAA doesn't want us noticing that the 'no unauthorized lending clause' has no legal basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess our regulators won't be happy 'til everyone turned to Baidu because it censors less...
And that's because... (Score:1)
The pirate sites will be more popular (therefore more clicks, therefore higher rank; regardless of negations made on behalf of a dying business model) than the legitimate ones until the RIAA (et al.) stop reaming both consumers and artists alike.
Yes, pirates should only come up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On Google when you type the query "corporate executive" or "majority shareholder".
TFTFY.
Ban lobbying (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because everyone *else* in the world even remotely/tangentially having anything to do with digital media, has an obligation to spend considerable time and money protecting Sony, BMG. etc.'s business.
Search engines must hire additional coders to ensure that internet is censored as per Sony 's whims. Hardware manufacturing companies must spend significant extra money on ensure DRM compliance. ISPs must spy on their customers to ensure that no copyright-infringement happens. Police which is funded by public tax money(you and me) must spend valuable time and effort on catching the nefarious "music stealers". Senators who are elected by the people and paid by public tax money, must instead ensure laws favoring BMG/Sony that make copying files a worse crime than rape or murder.
Whereas, the same "victim" companies, move their headquarters outside to cheat the American public out of the benefits of any tax money they might have had to pay. We have all the obligations to them. They have none to us or even the actual creators of the said music etc.
Soon doctors will likely be required to ensure that they perform free deafening procedures on everyone who might end up listening to "infringing music".
The solution is simple. Realize that lobbying is equivalent to bribery and force your senator to pass a law against it.
Re: (Score:2)
force your senator
He's not your senator.
Re: (Score:2)
Does he becomes a senator without your and others' vote? I thought the idea was that no matter how rich you are, you still get only 1 vote. So why does a guy who uses the votes of Johnny public to get his position, ends up working for Johnny rich instead? If you hire a plumber to do your work, will you be okay if he spends the time instead, fixing the stuff of the rich folks across the street?
Why shouldn't sony, BMG etc. fix their broken business model, instead of asking everyone else to spend time and
Re: (Score:2)
Since a senator is a sort of a shared service, it's more like having the maintenance guy in your building spending most of his time in the rich neighbor's unit. But most of your other neighbors are ambivalent because they don't need any work done right now, so when you bring it up at an association meeting you're just ignored. Fix your own damn heater, our rich neig
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations buy politicians and put them up for public vote, but they can't vote on them. You in turn can vote on them, but you don't get to say what they should do.
And that we call the "separation of powers".
Google search broken in other ways too (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah? I searched for "useless twits", "thieving bastards" and "lying motherfuckers" and in none of the cases did "RIAA" appear near the top of the list. Clearly google has a lot of work to do to fix their search engine...
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY. Oh, for the days before rel=nofollow!
Say what you want about Google (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of all, they sure as hell won't shoot themselves in the foot. Think about it: What is the main reason something shows up on top in Google's searches? Well, one of the reasons is that a lot of people who used the search term considered this link useful. Which in turn means that it is most likely useful for others using the same search term. Which in turn means that using Google, one of the first hits is what you were looking for.
If those links that usually appear at the top now have to be lowered in ran
Thanks, RIAA! (Score:5, Informative)
The PDF has a very handy list of "notorious" sites, many of which were new to me. The RIAA should have Googled "Streisand Effect" before they released that....
RIAA -- Incompetent to the very last. (Score:2)
They left out piratebay.se
It doesn't matter. I and millions of people use google to FIND what WE want,
not what the RIAA wants us to find.
Hey RIAA, like the first response says - fuck off.
E
Re: (Score:2)
Weird list. They include zippyshare.com, a fairly new player, but omit uploaded.net (ul.to), much more established and possibly the current 'MegaUpload' of the scene... They include rlslog.net which has removed all download links but omit scnsrc.net (the alternative release log) which still has all download links, both torrent and file lockers, in both posts and comments...
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA are missing a business opportunity again. They should instead ask the judge to make Google forward to them any revenue made from such sites.
I mean, they claim it's their content. And they claim Google's getting fat on it (which is true -- ad revenues -- many times over when a downloader gets pwned). Just consider it sales instead. Let users "buy" their content by any means necessary (if they pay for it by getting infected with malware -- the RIAA shouldn't care as long as they get their pound of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because... (Score:3)
A black market will exist as long as there is a reason for it. The more money that is siphoned out of our pockets by the swine of an unproductive industry, the further we will go to protect our interests. I'd love to believe Hollywood helped better our education system or somehow improved our standards of living... and maybe it is anti-american to believe it has taken more then it has given... yet I pay a hidden tax on all my blank media and generate add revenue for the american music lables on my youtube video that happened to catch an audio clip in the background. I spend more than a meal or hour of minimum wage on a single album or movie screening. Oh... and I'm NOT an American. I am Canadian.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood, where the movie industry went to make movies cheaply far enough away from where copyright and patents were being enforced ....
They're asking Google to commit suicide (Score:2)
The day it becomes apparent to most users that google is manipulating results is the day a new search engine will take over. Let's not forget how google got so popular to begin with: they had the most relevant search results around. Water this down and they lose value. They're not invincible and their future is by no means guaranteed. Ain't that right AOL?
Google's obligation is not to the RIAA (Score:4, Informative)
It's to their users... no doubt their idea of "piracy" includes fair use content as well... observe how they list Youtube as separate from "authorized"....
They list mere counts of average number of times a site appeared that had 10,000 or more removal requests, or 1,000 or more remove requests.
Out of millions of remove requests received by Google; 10,000 pages at issue on a large site do not necessarily qualify as "a large number of requests".
RIAA's arguments are non-constructive, and they have offered no evidence that Google has not taken successful action to demote piracy results.
Well Duh! (Score:1)
If I google for "name of song/movie torrent" then the legit MAFIAA versions are hardly going to be in the top 10.
Ok Just in case you didn't know (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ [google.com] Google produces a report that includes a breakdown of all requests Google has received since July 2011 to remove copyright-infringing content from its search index. Google updates the information daily.
RIAA (Score:1)
Poor babies.
RIAA wants to sue everyone they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point I think they pretty much have to in order to justify their own existence.
Google a victim of it's own success? (Score:4, Insightful)
maybe the suits at RIAA are getting personalized results, just like everyone else.
think about it - if all they click on are pirate sites, that's going to fairly effectively override any pagerank tweaks that google can throw at them.
a RIAA lawyer is hardly going to click on spotify, hulu or itunes if they're looking to C&D someone.
The real source of the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
'These sites consistently appear at the top of Google's search results for popular songs or artists.'
Lets search for "The Big Bang Theory S06E17 720p download". Hm, only pirate sites. Why would that be? Maybe because there are no legal Sites to appear.
The real Problem is, that at the time people search for popular downloads of Music/Movies and Television shows, there are no legal alternatives to pirate sites. At least outside the US. Sure in 2 Years you might find it on a legal Streaming site or buy the DVD
Re: (Score:2)
Working as intended? (Score:2)
Last August, Google indicated that it would start lowering the search-result rankings of Websites with high numbers of 'valid' copyright removal notices. 'This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed on Spotify,' Amit Singhal, Google's senior vice president of Engineering, wrote in a corporate blog posting at the time.
Maybe it's just that even after demotion, the pirate sites are still the best possible result, ranking above the sites that the RIAA would like to see at the top...
how is that Google's job? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think I need a hug.
Re: (Score:1)
It's also possible that Google did exactly what they said. The only problem is that far more people were interested in looking for the pirated material than were interested in looking up the bands so the pirated sites were still near the top even after the downranking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It could just be... (Score:4, Funny)
...that Google realizes this is just a complete waste of time and put a couple of interns on it, so they could get the RIAA to stop calling them day and night.
Wouldn;t it be cheaper to buy some auto-response systems and put them in the "RIAA support lines" with the message of "Your call is important to us. An operator will be with you as soon as possible (a.k.a never). Please hold and jerk off"?
Re: (Score:2)
Do what I did with annoying callers, forward them to the fax machine.
Re:Heh pretty easy to see this (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps Google, like many an adult, dislikes being ordered about by spoiled children.
Make that spoiled, sanctimonious, amoral, dishonest, hypocritical, mentally skewed, ethically bereft children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more than this. The very fact that sites have been subject to a large number of takedown notices and position highly on lists of them attracts legitimate searches, traffic, news reporting, and links to those sites resulting in the search engine version of the Streisand effect and bumping them up the rankings...
Re: (Score:2)
Validation process:
1. Visit website
2. Infringing content or just a bunch of links to files refering to what may be infringing content?
3. Stamp 'invalid'.