Wait, So The RIAA Is Offended That Google Won't Do Work For Free?
from the i-thought-free-was-bad? dept
The RIAA and the IFPI have been going on and on for years about just how ridiculous it is for people to suggest music should be "free." They will go on, at great length, to talk up the "value" of music and how it should be paid for. But, apparently, they don't think that applies to anyone else. They're apparently screaming angry at Google because Google (gasp) responded to their request to provide them tools to help them track down unauthorized copies, by quoting their standard prices for how much it costs to use Google's API. So, RIAA, please explain: why is it sacrilege for you to demand people pay up, but it's even worse if Google asks you to pay to use its resources?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: apis, copyright, fees, policing, search engines
Companies: google, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
""Section 230" is 14 years old and way out of date. You're hiding behind a clause in a law that was written before the vast majority of the Internet was born."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"What this means is that Google isn't a big enough copyright headache to prevent some in the entertainment world from doing business with it." What it actually means is that there is no way for the entertainment world to get a fair share of the profit Google makes from pirated material, or prevent them publishing pirated material. The Viacom case has shown that under current law Google can freely pirate material, make a profit from it, then just take it down if it is found. The entertainment industry is forced to work with Google, on Googles terms, to make any money of this. Unfortunately the results are obvious, less content and less quality. Thanks Google, for driving evertone to the lowest common denominator. Thereis nothing more pleasing that mountains of trash, as long as Google can funnel ads with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are more and better movies released EVERY YEAR.
There is more and better music released EVERY YEAR.
We're currently in entertainment Nirvana. I could quit my job and just listen to music, watch TV or movies, or read books all day long for the rest of my life and I would never run out of enjoyable media.
Just because some parts of the entertainment industry had a free ride for a few years (remember when musicians actually had to PERFORM LIVE to make a living?) doesn't mean that's the way it should be (or should HAVE been).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you referring to the Holocene/Paleolithic epoch through the 1900s? Because the RIAA can explain to you how that 99.975% of human history was irrelevant in forming human customs of idea or content ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because Google doesn't publish copyrighted material, or make profits from it.
What Google did was to have a good idea and find a way to make money from it,
This is just envy politics.
There was absolutely NOTHING to stop those huge entertainment companies from doing what Google has done - apart from their own stupidity.
They could have had that revenue and they passed on the opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The industry have been doing that for years and you didn't mention that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or for Google to know which of its many, many AdSense customers are involved with "pirated" material.
Here's a hint: If you watch the video at the bottom of the CNET article, all of the sites with advertising are not the ones actually offering the infringing content.
Google can freely pirate material, make a profit from it, then just take it down if it is found.
Google doesn't offer any third-party content themselves, so it isn't possible for them to "pirate" anything. Where it does provide content, it does so only as a third party. That is, its users are offering content, with Google acting as a provider - the same way that phone sex lines used Ma Bell as a provider.
Holding Google is responsible for piracy, is like holding Verizon responsible for sexting.
The only websites Google publishes are through Blogger. And Google recently took down a whole slew of music blogs, without notice, for hosting "infringing" content - despite the fact that most of the content was provided by the labels themselves.
The other area of contention is YouTube. But they not only will take down videos without an actual DMCA notice, they have their "ContentID" system that will digitally analyze any media hosted by them, and delete it if it is found to match copyrighted material (if that's what the copyright owner desires).
If anything, Google is being too "helpful" to the music industry.
Of course, neither of these are what is being talked about here. The article seems to think Google should track which of the billions of websites out there are "pirate websites," and block ads to them. Never mind that all the "file locker" websites mentioned in the video are perfectly legal, and are themselves third parties (who don't provide content, but only host it for users). So, this is essentially "fourth party liability."
And, furthermore, the music industry thinks that Google should do this for free. From the original article:
A music industry source estimated that such charges could add up to several million dollars a year.
So: the music industry is asking Google to spend several million dollars per year, to fight a problem it's not responsible for, and doesn't directly benefit from.
How can this not be seen as insane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple explaination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple explaination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple explaination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@3
think about a bully saying MINE MINE.
and gollum saying "my precious" and you have them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @3
An appropriately-lowbrow caveman standing over a comically-dead and beaten horse trying to defend it with a club and keep representations of the future away from his meal.
Any cartoonists reading this... take it! just send me a copy for my fridge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd.
If the RIAA is going to bitch and moan about how much money Google is "making" from "pirated goods", they should start a search engine/Ad service and wait for all that money to start flowing in.
Unless, of course, they're really making money hand over fist right now and are just greed personified-- then, yeah, they should keep doing what they're doing: Lying through their collective teeth and buying the laws they need to patch up their broken business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cue Goofy's signature song
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For a group so determined to make sure they are paid for everything, they sure don't seem to care about paying others as much. Not too surprising I guess when you consider who we are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuckhead! Plain and
Simple.
Just for that Ill download another million songs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm still waiting for the *free* lawyer service that's not court-appointed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm still waiting for the *free* lawyer service that's not court-appointed
Those who demand something for nothing will inevitably offer nothing for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sentence doesn' make much sense ...
Wouldn't it be "sacrilege" for google to demand payment not... shouldn't it read something like this ...
RIAA, please explain: why is it sacrilege for you to be asked to pay for Googles services, but not when you demand people pay up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Google is paying to run ads on these pirate sites?
I didn't notice any screaming specifically directed at the standard charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Google is paying to run ads on these pirate sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waste of Resources...
Then, when the healthcare bill was passed, people lined up to get their free healthcare.
I see the same cluelessness in the non-technical people in the article.
Google supplies ads to webmasters. I'm sure in their terms, there is something about illegal sites, etc. The webmasters hosting infringing content (not just links to content that are already out there), then the webmasters are guilty of violating the ToS for the ads and should be removed once it's brought to the ad suppliers.
As far as LINKING to infringing content... that's just ridiculous to call that a pirate site. It's like YOU pointing to the monkey in a bank vault and saying "Look, there's a lot of money there" and someone goes and robs then bank and the police arrest YOU.
You didn't ROB the bank... you just POINTED to the money...
Same thing really.
Only even MORE ridiculous, since no one actually ROBBED the bank... they just took a picture of the money in the bank. The bank still has the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waste of Resources...
Wait...did you misspell monkey or money here? =p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Waste of Resources...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Waste of Resources...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Waste of Resources...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best commenter
Great comment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Google
You know it is only a publicity stunt when they start attacking only Google. Google is not the only search engine, but it is the biggest brand in the search engine market. If we assume that CNET is correct then we should also be adding Bing and Yahoo into the mix.
Has the RIAA/MPAA approached them?
Have Bing/Yahoo offered to do things for free for them?
I would have to say that the answer is "no", otherwise the RIAA/MPAA would have loudly trumpeted their successful negotiations with them when talking about Google. This is a publicity stunt, nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Site search carries a charge with it for all businesses, why should they be any different?
Or maybe they should hire a coder to create their own search engine...really, there's people who actually do this kind of stuff.
And I really think they don't know much about the advertising program - lots of those sites don't actually collect their earnings (meaning, neither does google).
hmmmm, maybe they could resurrect the defunct Miss Dewey and put her to work for free...
http://webmiracles.org/2007/01/microsoft-lady-new-interactive-flash-search-engine.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any kid today can make one, ask here how many people have programmed a website scrubber LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why not? Google expects the artists to work for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why not? Google expects the artists to work for free?
Let's say this ad hom were true (it's not, every artist's site gets paid for activity on the ads it hosts). How would this be relevant to RIAA's begging? The RIAA are not artists, they are a trade group protecting the 'holdings' of a middle-man industry which is rapidly being outmoded by technology. Big difference.
Artists no longer need a middle man. That's what the protectionists (mercantilists) are really in an uproar about. Independents actually have a chance at standing on their own again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA is done.
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
America Deceived II (book)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting point of view
They seem to be trying to make it a law to enforce a perceived morality just because you're in the position to do so. This makes the system move from a malfeasance (or misfeasance if you like) being punishable by law, to a system where NONfeasance is punishable. I find this very very interesting... and a little scary.
Would it be good if Google decided to say "you know, we're here so we're going to do this..."? Sure, why not. Should that be enforceable by law? I really hope not.
Now, if what Rick says about Google making money off of piracy is true, then yes, that could be a misfeasance and should be stopped. Making money off of other's illegal actions is just as wrong (in my opinion, at least). But what is his opinion of "fair and just", and why is his definition any better than anyone elses? I think in another 50 or 100 years, ethics classes are going to have some interesting talks about the history and origin of Internet Ethics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]