Google's View On the Whac-a-Mole of Blocking Pirate Sites 182
jones_supa writes "During a debate in London last night, the game of whac-a-mole related to blocking pirate sites was discussed by artists, labels, the BPI, and Google. Most interestingly, Google's Theo Bertram brought to the table the idea of going after the sites as a business, which in practice would mean strangling their (often voluminous) advertising budget. A test performed by musician David Lowery confirmed that a search for Carly Rae Jepsen's 'Call Me Maybe' conjured up a list of unlicensed sites, some of which have an advertising relationship with Google. Geoff Taylor of the BPI said that Google has the both the information and technological ability to directly stomp infringing sites, but at the same time noted that somewhat oddly iTunes has not arranged itself a prominent position in the results to promote legally-purchased music, which can't be completely Google's fault."
Nevermind the blocking (Score:5, Funny)
The question is how to circumvent it..
Re:Nevermind the blocking (Score:4, Insightful)
Darknets. Tor, Freenet, Waste, Retroshare. Something along those lines.
Re:Nevermind the blocking (Score:5, Funny)
Here's the Sex Pistols!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Never+Mind+the+Bollocks%2C+Here's+the+Sex+Pistols+torrent [google.com]
so far, the only solution seems to be Microsoft (Score:3)
everybody else wrings their hands, or chases after users with no evidence but plenty of pistols blazing, but Microsoft actually is making some progress in taking down botnets. perhaps MS could sell their services to the MafIAA and shine a light into the darknet. it would probably cost them $1500 a song, but...
Google has power to render Google worthless (Score:4, Funny)
Hey guys lets uh turn off porn and uh might as well kill pirated files and anything that might infringe on a copyright.
Let's see..... all that we got left is sports scores and taxidermy blogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see..... all that we got left is sports scores and taxidermy blogs.
You mean like this [thebloggess.com]?
Search engines (Score:5, Insightful)
Google should thread lightly on this path. Too much censorship and suddenly some less restrictive search engine could make it go the way of Yahoo..
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough censorship or campaign dollars will make the feds stomp on google and look the other way at everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft and it's proxies [fairsearch.org] say hello.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's strength is in their gigantic database, there's no other search engine that can replicate that.
Re:Search engines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So no one should develop technologies for legitimate applications because they could potentially be used for nefarious purposes?
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly their logic in wanting to destroy these websites, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
It also appears to be our logic in wanting to destroy these new technologies.
No. History has proven time and time again that people with power will most likely abuse it, so allowing people with power to have unchecked power is just foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
See also: Slippery Slope Argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Except it's no fallacy. In Common Law, we have another name for the slippery slope. It's called precident. Slippery slopes are how our entire legal system works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your point being what exactly?
Guns don't harm me. Idiot neighbors harm me. It doesn't matter if it's guns, slavish devotion to the idea of an HOA, or the fact that they don't train their dogs.
While mildly annoying, my current neighbors are nothing nearly as bad as the kind of idiots that inhabit the crime ridden neighborhoods where you're actually likely to get shot.
Poverty breeds much more dangerous idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Search engines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, the threat to free speech and stifling of technology is orders of magnitude more important, even from a purely financial perspective.
Free speech? Mmmh if someone could monetize on that... Just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
See also: slippery slope argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Search engines (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I'm pretty sure Google would be required to do this at their own expense.
Re: (Score:3)
Accurately determining who has a legal right to distribute something is apparently too hard of a problem. We have seen companies laying claim to birdsong recorded in the forrest and other people's lectures for example. We have seen media companies upload videos themselves and then threaten legal action if they aren't removed.
Unless or until we can figure out how to make sure that only the legitimate licensor is making the decisions and that those decisions reflect reality and the law, we should not have any
Re: (Score:2)
Unless or until we can figure out how to make sure that only the legitimate licensor is making the decisions and that those decisions reflect reality and the law, we should not have anything like an automated system.
Enforce that whole "under penalty of perjury" clause.
That won't solve the problem, but it'll sure as shit remove any incentive for the **AAs to blast out mass notices with no human oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
There are way too many ways to weasel out of purjury to permit an automated system. For example, an "honest mistake" is an out and terribly hard to disprove unless you require a specific human legal review and specify minimum checks that must be performed (actually download the offered file and view it for example).
Re: (Score:2)
How is blocking ad revenue from sites distributing content without the appropriate license "too much censorship"?
How should the determination of "appropriate licensing" be made ?
Based on the country the website is in ?
Based on the country the searcher is in ?
Based on the country the search engine is in ?
Re:Search engines (Score:5, Interesting)
How is blocking ad revenue from sites distributing content without the appropriate license "too much censorship"? It's the correct approach. Or would you argue you should be free to profit from the operation of planes, trains, or automobiles ( or truck) without an the appropriate license?
Pilots licenses were not mandatory in the US until 1917, following a Massachusetts state law in 1913, so for planes, at least, the answer was "yes", for 10 years.
For trains, it's controlled by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which is a division of the teamsters union, and it's handled through an apprenticeship program, starting with conductor, then brakeman, ... all the way to engineer. The first railroad, the B&O (Baltimore and Ohio) was opened in 1830, and it wasn't until the 1880's that certification was enforced (after the strikes against the railroads and the Pullman Palace Car Company). Certification was adopted as a defensive reaction to the Pinkertons hired to put down the strikes (violently, with man deaths), since it meant that non-union "scabs" might be brought in, but they would still not be able to legally operate the trains. So for 50 years, the answer for trains was "yes".
Automobile licenses were not required from 1886, when Benz created the first internal combustion engine, until 1888; this was mostly because the people of Mannheim complained about the noise and smell, and the license was technically from the Dutchy, and not actually a license. In North America, there were state laws in 1910 (New York) and 1913 (New Jersey - the first state to require passing a test). So in the US, the answer was "yes", for over 20 years.
So, licenses serve two purposes: (1) prevent other people from entering the field, so as to raise the relative value of the labor allowed to operate in the field, and ensure collective bargaining power for those allowed to participate, and (2) as a revenue mechanism for the state.
The public safety argument is relatively moot, as raising the speed limit from 55 back to it's pre-Jan 2nd 1972 limits (or higher in some areas) has demonstrated (the limit was imposed due to the "energy crisis" at the time, not for public safety, and kept because it was a pretty nice cash cow for a lot of local governments). Highway deaths are inversely proportional to the effectiveness of vehicle safety systems, and not speed limit.
Practically speaking, you're better off letting people get into accidents, and then penalizing them after the fact for causing the accident. Several studies on red light cameras have demonstrated this, since people see a yellow light and slam on their brakes to avoid a red light camera ticket -- which in California can not be appealed unless you can demonstrate that the yellow light at the intersection in question lasts less than 4.8 seconds. This because some municipalities were speeding up the yellow lights to increase red light camera ticket revenue.
So yeah, there's a lot of things you should be able to do without a license, like operating a hot dog cart, for which licenses are required, but actually do nothing.
I'm reminded of when my driver's license was stolen; I went to the DMV to get them to reissue a new on, and asked for a different number. They wouldn't give me one, even with a police report, until I squawked up to a supervisor. It's the same number with a 'B". But considered in retrospect, did their issuing the new number and invalidating the old one stop the thief from using the license as identification? No. They got someone who looked like me to place a mail hold at the post office, with the intent of picking up my mail, including credit card and other statements, as well as credit card issued based on identity theft at a later date. I missed getting my mail two days in a row when I was expecting a letter, which is how I found out. The point of this story is that a driver's license does nothing for me, including legally identify me, unless the
Re: (Score:3)
So, licenses serve two purposes: (1) prevent other people from entering the field, so as to raise the relative value of the labor allowed to operate in the field, and ensure collective bargaining power for those allowed to participate, and (2) as a revenue mechanism for the state.
In the case of cars and aircraft it is to ensure they are operated safely. If you want to fling tonnes of metal around at high speed society requires you to demonstrate your ability to do it without injuring others first.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, if I were a small indie artist, and I wrote all my own music/songs/stories/whatever, will Google et al pay attention to me as well as the big media cartels? I doubt an infringement notice sent from a
Accidental infringement (Score:2)
Further, if I were a small indie artist, and I wrote all my own music/songs/stories/whatever
Then some member of the music publishing cartel could sue you for having accidentally infringed on one of their songs. See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.
Re: (Score:2)
They could call it google +
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many such search engines already. The technology certainly exists to both make them close to free to run through partial or full distribution. And the free copying crowd certainly is vastly beyond large enough to finance a whole ecosystem of services and sites without a large economic input from outside sources. With the expansion of cryptographic currencies it's also certain that applying any pressure through the payment systems will only result in a more rapid expansion of uncontrollable credit
iTunes (Score:5, Informative)
The reason iTunes isn't up there is that the iTunes music shop isn't accessible through a web browser. You can see what is on there but all the links just try to make you download iTunes. Google indexes the web, not iTunes.
Re:iTunes (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, downloads happen through iTunes, but it would still behoove Apple to point searches for songs to iTunes in some way, even if through some intermediary that launches iTunes to actually make the download.
Which is probably why Google were surprised that Apple is not already doing so. Not that that has anything at all to do with copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, downloads happen through iTunes, but it would still behoove Apple to point searches for songs to iTunes in some way, even if through some intermediary that launches iTunes to actually make the download.
Which is probably why Google were surprised that Apple is not already doing so. Not that that has anything at all to do with copyright infringement.
I am not sure Apple would gain anything buy paying to push iTunes. They have a pretty good market already with users predisposed to going there for music so as dollars would add no revenue hike raising costs. Since iTunes is device specific to a large extent the chance that someone who doesn't know about it becoming a customer is also small, so advertising makes no sense to draw in customers. So it is not surprising Apple ignores Google searches.
Re: (Score:2)
> I am not sure Apple would gain anything buy paying to push iTunes.
Considering that YouTube is already starting to show links for music to iTunes, Amazon, etc. one would assume that they are simply tapping into another market -- the ability to just purchase the dam song(s) used in the video. There have been many videos that have interesting music but I have no clue who the artist is/was.
Re: (Score:3)
the dam song(s)
What?
"I'm big and wooden, yo ho ho,
Made by beavers, in the snow,
I hold back water, now you know,
I'm a happy dam, restraining the flow!"
Not quite a top ten hit I think...
Re: (Score:2)
Just needs a looped trance beat and you might have a shot. Hell, it worked for the Gummy Bear song ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=astISOttCQ0 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Google's aim is to give you what you want as quickly and easily as possible. They can give you an Amazon page where you can click to listen to samples of tracks immediately or simply buy the MP3s/CD in a few clicks. Alternatively they can give you the iTunes store page where you can see an artist and track name with a link to download iTunes next to it.
What I'm saying is that it's no wonder you rarely see iTunes store results on Google because they are rarely what you were looking for when searching. You do
iTunes costs $88 according to Wine AppDB (Score:2)
Alternatively they can give you the iTunes store page where you can see an artist and track name with a link to download iTunes next to it.
Last time I checked a database of how applications behave in a freely licensed reimplementation of the Windows API, iTunes would always fail to launch, complaining that it needed to be reinstalled [winehq.org]. So Google would also have to give a link to buy a copy of genuine Microsoft Windows 8 [saleszones.com] on which to run iTunes in VirtualBox. Otherwise, the Whac-a-Mole game of blocking illicit music downloads would just be replaced with the Whac-a-Mole game of blocking illicit Windows operating system downloads.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that it would behave better when installed on a genuine copy of Windows 8.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the trolling submitter or /.'s so-called "editors" needed to put an "Apple bad!" slant on what amounts to a "'Google isn't helping us', cry music industry shills" non-story?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Annoyingly, it's PAINFULLY similar with web searches that lead you to the android app store...
I manage several android devices but only one has my google account. To download additional copies of free App X through my PC, they won't link me to the file to redistribute at my leisure. Naaah! the site asks for my google ID. This gives concrete knowledge to google to examine my ID's* and devices as a cluster. Success here means that they push the App UP thru the cloud rather than down to me. I must root the pho
Re: (Score:2)
Not just iTunes - I don't see any sign of Amazon, 7-digital or Google Music in the first few pages of search results either.
Re: (Score:2)
The truckload of validation errors in iTunes web pages (to continue down the Call Me Maybe path, I checked the page for the album [w3.org]) don't help. The page has all the keywords it would need and is fairly well structured, so any search-placement improvements would have to come from valid HTML and fetid SEO.
But yeah, Google and friends can treat that problem by calling up Apple and negotiating to link iTunes directly to the crawler, something like how Google and Adobe got all loveydovey and *wham* now Google ca [searchengineland.com]
what's the point of itunes in search results? (Score:2)
most music for sale is already on itunes. just go in there and search for music, why do it through google first?
or amazon if you don't like itunes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i don't know, i never buy via itunes for my iphone. my wife likes it because you buy and it automatically adds it to your library
i usually buy via Amazon but with spotify there is very little reason to buy music anymore
Re: (Score:2)
> my wife likes it because you buy and then you sort of have it.
wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't block it now. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you remove every one of them at the same time. As well as the people.
Good luck. You already lost that battle.
How about you stop with your greed and abusive ways, then people might care.
Radio never killed anyone, the internet won't either.
Adapt or actually just seriously die already.
I'm sick of hearing your whining, BPI.
I don't even buy music associated with you, but shut the fuck up already.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks a bloody lot for getting that song stuck in my head. (Well, getting an awesome old mashup [www.last.fm] of it stuck in my head, anyway. So actually, thanks! It's an excellent mashup.)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geoff Taylor of the BPI said that Google has the both the information and technological ability to directly stomp infringing sites...
Everything is possible if someone else has to do it and pay for it.
You're kidding, right? (Score:3)
Maybe it's time for Google to be more symbiont and less parasite.
You can really say that in the same conversation which includes the "content" organizations who feed exclusively off the works of artists?
Re: (Score:3)
Quite often in society people are told that they cannot engage in certain lines of business because the associated externalities cannot be mitigated. The question that should be asked, and may be trivially answered 'yes', is whether what Google provides outweighs the negative impact on third parties. If it turns out that Google can't mitigate the negative externalities then perhaps Google should be shut down. Or perhaps they should just have to pay a portion of their revenue to the people who are harmed by
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up a good point. To prevent the unauthorized copying of certain information (which results in certain companies not gaining money when they believe they should, which is just horrible and sad), Google and the Internet must be destroyed. Collective punishment is good, and your comparisons are even better. Such genius!
Extra-judicial action (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, so here we have a group of self-interested parties who suggest banding together so that they can
a) Determine by themselves whether someone is acting illegally, and
b) Take action against them by withholding services
c) Without judicial oversight, and with no discussion of due process whatsoever, including: warnings, appeal, or handling mistakes.
So we now have the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [wikipedia.org] which allows companies to make virtually anything a federal offense just by putting it in their TOS, they can pick and choose who they do business with at their whim, and are themselves historically immune from prosecution [google.com].
Of course, they will only use their power for good [theregister.co.uk].
I think we need to enforce a "customer bill of rights" which states that a company cannot just cut off customers at will. It should be enforced by the government as a condition for being granted a business license. If a service is available and the customer can pay, then the company has an obligation to make the transaction. (Glossing over some details for brevity)
Are you against such a regulation? Under what circumstances can a company refuse to serve a customer? Race? Gender? Marital status? Sexual orientation? Ethnicity? What is the difference between any of these and arbitrary black-listing?
Re: (Score:2)
David Lowery, panderer (Score:5, Insightful)
David Lowery's role in all this is similar (though less evil) to that of women who go into rural Thailand to convince families to give up their daughters, under the false pretenses that they will have comfortable housing and gainful employment in the city.
Do not trust label scouts.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, the issue isn't AdWords - it's searches that yield pirate sites as top hits, pirate sites that happen to display Google advertising. (Which may, or may not be music ads as the displayed ads are a combination of page related and user specific ads.)
That being said, it's ridiculous to expect rights holders to have to pay pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, the issue isn't AdWords - it's searches that yield pirate sites as top hits, pirate sites that happen to display Google advertising. (Which may, or may not be music ads as the displayed ads are a combination of page related and user specific ads.)
That being said, it's ridiculous to expect rights holders to have to pay pirates.
very few of those sites actually use google advertising because google advertising bans them.
so it's kind of a moot point. that's why torrent sites tend to have whack-a-mole adverts(literally!) because they have to go with the 3rd tier advert providers.
Own site? (Score:3)
How about the Music and Movie Mafia* create their own music sites, which Google can index, and users can buy and download music and albums? *http://mafiaa.org/
They want to know why mp3skull.com comes up first (after Youtube)? Because they offer a useful service.
Without any trouble I can just download the song. Why can't the MAfia do a site like that?
You know, I would be somewhat compassion to the music artists and the Mafia, if they would not be such greedy asshats.
The copyright protected were expanded and expanded; payments for blank media introduced; DRM strengthened;
If the Mafia would actually try and not to be greedy asshats, like not sue private citizens.
Or like the GEMA (the German Mafia). I saw some weeks ego a video on Youtube that was posted here in Slashdot. But instead I get a "Sorry you can't see that song because the GEMA have not licensed any rights to it". I used a proxy to see the video nevertheless and then there was 4 seconds of a song at the beginning and 4 seconds of the same music at the end of a 5 minutes video! So for 4 seconds of a song, which should be well in fair-use rights, I can not see the video because of the GEMA.
So now I have no compassion with the Mafia and associated artists.
Put down copyright protection to about 20 years; remove the levy on blank media and pull down the DRM laws. Then we can talk again.
Re: (Score:2)
Without any trouble I can just download the song. Why can't the MAfia do a site like that?
You may be in the wrong country. These complaints are coming from the British Pornographic Industry, not the Music And Film Industry of America.
Extrajudicial Takedowns by Plutarchs (Score:2)
the idea of going after the sites as a business, which in practice would mean strangling their (often voluminous) advertising budget.
So this would be another avenue of extrajudicial shutdowns of businesses accused of harming some other, more privileged business, that also has a financial relationship with the largest market-share search engine company, which would be executing the takedown. That doesn't sound like a just and free market to me. That sounds like plutocracy.
And before you say, "But maybe pluto
It's that easy (Score:2)
...iTunes has not arranged itself a prominent position in the results ... which can't be completely Google's fault.
Apple must have forgot to tick the "Place my website prominently in Google's search results" check box on Google's mega-corp-website-settings.html page.
Since we call them pirates ... (Score:2)
... I think it's time to bring back the concepts of privateer, and letters of marque and reprisal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, SuperTechnoNerd is right.
The world is different now. The consumer recording VCR, or DVD "backup" regulations and software are simply something that could never be invented in this society. Corporations are on the lookout for inventions and laws and would take control away from them and they are 100% in a position to stop every single one.
In 20 years not only will there not new a more freeing inventions that invalidate labels or take control away from them, but it is likely that it will be impossible to
Reperformance hole (Score:2)
it is likely that it will be impossible to pirate a song, movie, or game.
I memorize a song and perform it in public. Or I memorize a song, record my performance of the same song, and distribute copies of the recording. Under current law, I have pirated the song. This reperformance hole goes even deeper than the analog reconversion hole. How would technology prevent it without giving absolute control to labels?
Re: (Score:2)
And what makes you think that they will not have Youtube like (but 100 times more advanced) software that monitors all consumer recording devices?
And what makes you think that the government does not listen to every single word you utter in public, if not also in private?
Re: (Score:2)
And what makes you think that they will not have Youtube like (but 100 times more advanced) software that monitors all consumer recording devices?
You mention a 20-year time frame for this to take effect. As a hobby, I develop software for a 30-year-old video game platform. So good luck stopping the trade in pre-ban consumer recording devices. And good luck storing the entire database of every song ever published on a device with no cellular subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it would obviously have to follow the trend of always online, upload everything to a server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Having money" is not realistic - you always need (Score:2)
How much money you have is not relevant to how much money you WANT or think you need. If anything, it is highly likely somebody who has a lot of money has an ADDICTION to the acquisition of money. Take some away and they'll be extremely upset but their addiction (greed) will not be cured, they'll go right back to trying to make as much as possible - just like smokers, drinkers, and other addicts. If anything, taking the addicted item away motivates them MORE.
Re: (Score:2)
If all you're selling is the bits, you're right.
They need to figure out some sort of value added, which probably involves something physical.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't a comment by google, but instead by BPI, the British version of RIAA.
It helps if you actually know more than a 20 second glance of the topic before commenting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please paste a link to the iTunes web page that has this song available for sale.
Oh you can't?
Why not?
Oh.. iTunes isn't a website?
No wonder a WEB search engine doesn't have a WEB result for iTunes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://itunes.apple.com/au/tv-season/game-of-thrones-season-1/id441216387 [apple.com]
https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/call-me-maybe-single/id465744617 [apple.com]
Know how I found those? I used bing and searched for "itunes call me maybe" and "itunes game of thrones". I imagine google could do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't very accurate in cases like itunes where most of the access of the content is done not through a stand alone application, rather than a general purpose web browser. It ranks pages based on (amoung other things) their popularity on the web, which may well be different than their popularity through some other access method.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like the phone directory.
If you don't publish your number in the appropriate services section, you can't complain when other plumbers get all the business, can you?
Re: (Score:3)
Funnily enough, sites like bandcamp and cdbaby profit from the creative process but have no hands involved in the creation of the product, too. Yet, I have absolutely no issue buying from those sites, nor even occasionally from itunes (which is far less indie). The difference being that they aren't skeezy or anti-consumer, and don't take the vast majority of the cut that should go to the artist.
A certain small amount of middle-manning is often necessary (an artist isn't necessarily good at non-artist-relate
Re: (Score:2)
How about the hard work to setup a site and offer those works?
It's hard enough as it is, as only iTunes and Amazon done it yet.
It's hard work to create the music; it's hard work as well to distribute and promote the music. Otherwise artists wouldn't sign up with publishers. The MAFIAA and other associations for example are unable to create such sites.
It would be very easy for the MAFIAA to create a download site with music and movies and get the ads revenue and subscribing revenue and distribute that revenu
Re: (Score:2)
> It would be very easy for the MAFIAA to create a download site with music and movies and get the ads revenue and subscribing revenue and keep 99.99% for themselves.
Fixed that for you... I'd rather they didn't. That way maybe eventually they'll actually die eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That is pretty dumb. I knew about the Mac thing (which is dumb by itself; Cracked made fun of them a few weeks ago for that), and the "you can't sell singles if you don't have albums" (a musician I love recently arbitrarily broke his large catalog into chronological "albums" solely for the purpose of putting them on itunes, and then complained about it), but not all of that. I prefer buying on bandcamp or cdbaby just because it's easier for me, too, as someone who doesn't use itunes for anything other
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think in general about the torrent sites making money through advertising? It seems to be quite lucrative for some of them.
Plastered full of ads != lucrative.