Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement
from the entitlement-much? dept
The recording industry's massive sense of entitlement continues to spread. The latest is that PRS for Music, the organization that once sought license fees for playing music to horses in a stable, has suggested that Google start putting "traffic lights" in its search results, with red lights being used to indicate sites that the industry accuses of supporting copyright infringement. You can see what they think it should look like here:The whole system is modeled on Google's current practice of warning people about potential security problems with sites. Of course, that involves something that can be much more easily confirmed. In the meantime, I imagine that Google -- who spends a ridiculous amount of time and effort to test any UI changes to its search results -- is probably horrified by that graphic above.
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: copyright, search engines, traffic lights, uk
Companies: ifpi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Piratebay 4 reds
torrentsearch 3 red
EMI 4 green
50cent blog 2 reds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google should use something like awareness ribbons to flag sites. That way, almost every site will have some sort of colored symbol attached to it, and you'd need a cheat sheet to be able to see what each color means.
Even better is that some colors will mean several different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/07/stop-red-site-copyright-group-proposes-traffic- light-search-ticks.ars
Please note the last paragraph.
"Finally, we expressed some skepticism about the overall effectiveness of the idea. The PRS proposal posits the existence of a "Moral Majority" for whom Traffic Lights will work. The system will perform the crucial role of "establishing a distinction between good and bad in the minds of users, which we hope will be enough to deter 90 percent of users from accessing problem sites."
No doubt the right light tick would scare some consumers away. But what about rebellious types, we asked, who might see a red tick as a badge of honor?
"Oh yes," Hooper agreed. "I think there will be people that deliberately go for a red light. We're realistic about this proposal—this will not eradicate piracy. What it will do is signpost to the vast majority of people who want to find legal/licensed content a great way of doing so. It will help promote those sites that have chosen to go down the route of paying creators and performers and the more traffic they experience the better for content owners and also for their own sites in terms of search rankings."
The PRS document does point out that the red light/green light system will create a "vital" distinction will provide the "bedrock" for "an escalating series of measures to deal with the remaining determined offenders."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red lights on google sites
The Silver Conductor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Copyrights valid past the life of the author should be first to go. How can you give an incentive to produce to a dead person?"
Copyright = Life of the author plus ?70? years. How is this constitutional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perfect example,
in the movie "About a Boy",
the main character gets money every time a jingle his dead father wrote. Hence the main character gets free money.
So see it protects the children from having to do any work at all. 70 years of free income WOOT, sign me up.
Oh wait, that would be my children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Reality check; if I want my children to be looked after, I'm expected to save some of what I earn while I'm still alive and put it in a trust fund.
Reality check #2; It's not their children that end up being looked after when they're dead, it's their publisher (the same publisher that already creamed 90%+ of the profit while they were still alive)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gotcha. I'm sure that will catch on fast and soon be the law around the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gotcha. I'm sure that will catch on fast and soon be the law around the world.
It already has - it's called death duties. This would merely bring copyright (which currently escapes the tax) back into like with everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was something I heard about once. No idea if it's for real. If so, it seems crazy that inherited copyrights wouldn't be taxed in the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The constitution is the farthest thing from the minds of these thieves when they write and pass these laws. I know you didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and your name is not Pollyanna, but this is what drives the government of the US to do what it does. Bribes! By any other name, it is still bribes. And any member of these supposedly respectable bodies who disputes this is themselves a liar. And I would tell them so to their faces, should they ever chose to bare them, which they will not.
Frankly, the best thing that could happen to the government of the US at this time would be a 100 megaton blast centered on the Capitol dome precisely when they are voting on their next pay and benefits increase. I would probably weep with joy at that. So would most of the nation. It's really the only chance at freedom we have left. As it stands now, we are quite simply doomed. All government is in the hands of the corporations, and it's simply too late to do anything anymore. Glad I won't live to see the final act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More like: Google will block all infringing sites, then the labels will see their sales dip massively, and then lobby even more to stop the evil pirates.
It's not like these guys are *smart* or anything.
Copiepresse was different - the publishers knew that their sales would dip if they were deindexed, they just wanted Google to pay them for the privilege of providing traffic. They never for a moment wanted the traffic to go away, their attitude was "Google is making money off *our* content, they must therefore pay us for that privilege." It's the same batshit-fucking-insane publisher mentality of "I don't care if it makes me more money - I don't control it, therefore they should have the pay me whatever I want."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google blocks the labels from the internet?
That's even better buying one of them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This is that stupid thing the RIAA wants that puts a red mark next to sites in your search results that make them wet themselves. All it does is make your searches take slightly longer in order to display information you probably couldn't care less about. Don't bother installing this."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
They only thing this will do is make it easier to find infringing content. I say let them do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Browser Plug-In
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that worked out for the catholic church
Let me see if I can get this right, PRS wants to increase traffic to these sites. What self defeating idiots, no wonder the record labels are failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: that worked out for the catholic church
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infringing as defined by...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Infringing as defined by...
Us: Pot. Kettle. Black.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Infringing as defined by...
(Just an alt that doesn't insult innocent pots and kettles everywhere.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Infringing as defined by...
Consumers need to be educated that youtube is a site dedicated to infringement![/sarc] Yea.. good luck selling this plan to Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Infringing as defined by...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do I put this gently...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do I put this gently...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm thinking something like "prs_site_rating:green".
But seriously, Google can make the effort to put that in if they wanted to, or rather, think it's a benefit to their users. Of course, one could argue that their users are interested in search results involving "prs_site_rating: red"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Within a week...
It's high time these idiots got off the internet and turned their focus on making some quality music instead of "protecting" all the crap they've been putting out the last 2 decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Within a week...
Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Within a week...
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/07/no-wonder-we-watch-48-hours-of-footage-upped-to-y outube-daily.ars
Even music piracy has gone down but apparently no money increase in sales LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Within a week...
Snore."
Um, wow!! What an incredibly stupid reply.
Have we met?
No... didn't think so, but yet you still think you have me all figured out, though clearly you have no clue.
If you did, you'd know that I really don't appreciate people putting words into my mouth, making false assumptions about me, or spreading false accusations about me.
I do, however, thank you for reminding me why it is that I hate stupid people so much.
Perhaps some day you'll grow up and become a fully functioning member of society, until then... here's your bottle and blanky to help you snore your way back to sleep.
See? I can make assumptions too. How does it feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
consumers.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
to keep dust from collecting behind the keys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, Please!
You know, just so I can avoid them better . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone who supports violating the copyright laws warrants a red stoplight icon, wouldn't that mean that those who deny fair use would also rate such an icon? I can just imagine how much the RIAA would *howl* if their site rated such a warning...
"...this site has been found to promote violations of the copyright act, and therefore bears a red traffic light icon..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's missing
"The proposal follows the principle that sites are innocent until guilty..."
PROVEN... that's the missing word... PROVEN. But it's not part of the proposal... no proving, thanks.
I'd also wager that there's more missing language...
"If a site has ignored a number of takedown requests..."
ought to add, "... or finds them without merit..." But somehow, I don't think that's the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Playing devil's advocate...
Consider that in a truly free market, all market participants have total knowledge. Now consider that in a real market, knowledge is limited. This is an attempt to add knowledge to the market place, and more knowledge is not a bad thing.
What they want to do is put a scarlet letter on infringing sights, but that won't work out the way they intend. Other people rightly point out that the red light will act like a gigantic beacon, drawing in "freetards".
If they instead chose to put just green lights next to Certified Content Creator Friendly web sites, they would avoid drawing undue attention to infringing sites while simultaneously informing consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Playing devil's advocate...
How about they just advertise their special website like everyone else: buy an ad on TV.
Geez. It's not like they need to wait for the SuperBowl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Playing devil's advocate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Playing devil's advocate...
"hey google! change your layout and process this ever-changing list we will send you to make accusations about the legality of other people's content! What? why would we pay you to do this random thing we desire?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Playing devil's advocate...
You mean like questioncopyright's Creator Endorsed marks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red lighting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google should sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-legislative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical backwards-looking UK music industry still hasn't realised that the web is worldwide.
What's the point in spending millions implementing this ridiculous scheme on google.co.uk, if I can bypass the traffic lights entirely by acessing google in another country?
Also, browser plug-ins like MAFIAAfire or Gee! No Evil would easily remove these changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BOYCOTT ALL GREEN SITES !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube: Red site
Dailymotion: Red site
fanfiction dot net: Red site
DeviantArt: Red site
Wikipedia: Red site (They stole copyrighted material without permission)
Hulu: Green site
Netflix: Green site.
Copyright is nothing but protection of materialism. Get rid of your internet right now and start asking Jesus into your heart and read the bible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Netflix: Dead site
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If anything, the internet gives the comman person more power, people now know more about what their government is doing for example.
There are also more 'little' people making a good living without having to be a wage slave to some faceless corporation.
In my book, this adds up to a more powerful, more informed and wealthier populace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE RUN A RED LIGHT on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/07/stop-red-site-copyright-group-proposes-traffic-light-search- ticks.ars
And there you have it folks, things that wasn't suppose to do things get expanded to include more things. So when anyone tells you that COICA or ACTA or any other nonsense like that will not be used in some way you can bet it will be used in the future to do everything they said it wouldn't be used to.
Quote:
They don't want consumer advocates on that panel ever apparently since they forgot to mention those who try to protect the people.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/07/stop-red-site-copyright-group-proposes-traffic-light-search- ticks.ars
Quote:
Source: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/07/stop-red-site-copyright-group-proposes-traffic-light-search- ticks.ars
Translation "We are already thinking of ways on how to use that to block websites that are accused, without caring if the website is actually innocent or not, and we will use this to force ridiculously pricey contracts on others or they face being labeled illegal websites".
On the bright side who cares, I don't, most of music piracy happens on legal sites anyways since piracy for music have dropped dramatically is obvious that people found other ways to find that music and they are not paying for it LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is exactly why it's proposed. It's step one on the master plan towards censoring the pages.
If you can id them, it's not hard to censor them. You can hear it now, "Google knows which pages are hosting infringing content, just look at the red lights! It's their duty to prevent lawlessness and blatant disregard to IP on the interwebs!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simpler method
Just have a whitelist of approved sites, based on the PRS own knowldge of licensensing deals. All other sites are therefore unlicensed.
Or is that too simple for the idiots at PRS?
(Yes yes I know that all of this is secondary to putting in place a good business model, not sueing the fans etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm....
Also, I like how the traffic lights are to the left, while all other Google/AV icons are to the right. Don't want to get jumbled in with everyone else's information; this is important to know this arbitrary status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they know what sites are infringing
Why are they always so focused on links. Enablers. Facilitators. Why harm innocent people. Why not just go directly after the pirates?
Why extradite a kid who ran a site that is legal in his own country, just because he LINKED to some videos? How many other sites link to those videos? If you simply got rid of the site HOSTING the videos, then the sites that link to them wouldn't matter anymore.
It's like trying to get rid of signs that say "The Crack House is located on 123 Maple St.". If you get rid of the crack house, then all of the signs that direct people to it become irrelevant.
These people are not very bright.
Don't they have the draconian laws to just shut down the hosting sites? Don't they own enough governments that will do whatever they say? Oh, but it must be the links that actually matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]