Entertainment Industy Back To Demanding That Search Engines Censor The Web... Through 'Voluntary' Measures
from the if-at-first,-you-cannot-sopa,-try-try-again dept
We've pointed out before that the short-term troubles of some legacy media players appears to have more to do with their own mistakes, rather than piracy. But they just keep on lobbying for more laws (none of which have actually worked). We've also pointed out that while defeating SOPA/PIPA was a good thing, the supporters of the bill, undoubtedly, were already hard at work trying to get similar efforts through elsewhere -- however possible. TorrentFreak has news of the IFPI submitting a list of proposals for search engines on how they should run their business -- which includes all sorts of extra efforts designed to help the entertainment industry by magically making it more difficult to find infringing content. I always find the hubris of such demands odd. It's really not proper for the entertainment industry to insist that search engines need to run their businesses in any particular way. In what other business does an entire industry demand a different industry protect them from having to adapt?The recommendations & data themselves don't make much sense. The report claims that search engines send lots of traffic to infringing sites, but we've looked at the data pretty closely and there's no support for what they claim. The data showed that search engines definitely sent some traffic to infringing sites, but it was a very small percentage of their business. It's difficult to accidentally find infringing music to download these days. I realize that the industry claims otherwise, but the methodology there is suspect. They're claiming that if you search on the names of certain songs, unauthorized sites show up relatively high in Google searches. But there isn't evidence that that necessarily leads people to click on those infringing files. As the click-through evidence we saw showed, it's a relatively small percentage of people who do that.
While the industry has some good ideas for ways to improve business, blaming the tech industry (or insisting that all of their users act like criminals) has become an all too common refrain around here. It's counterproductive. The tech industry is providing all sorts of useful tools and services for the entertainment industry to thrive. I'm still at a loss as to how blaming the tech industry helps anyone. Punishing them just makes them less willing to design the next iTunes, the next Netflix or the next Spotify.
It's time for the industry to start focusing on real business model opportunities... not whining about everyone who it feels the need to punish.
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, demands, entertainment industry, search, tech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah, those filthy pirates at dajaz1.com, and every other site given promotional music, need to be shut down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But here's something even worse. When Google's googlebot visits your website to build and maintain Google's index, the googlebot makes a copy of your web pages !!!
That's stealing!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everybody!!!
Expect us! We don't need to take any responsibility for our own success or lack of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everybody!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everybody!!!
It made them sound like Anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everybody!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120127/10005717568/mpaa-exec-admits-were-not-comfortab le-with-internet.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The tech industry isn';t demanding that the major entertainment outlets adapt: it's consumers who spend their money on these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Entertainment Industry: I've got money. I want to be entertained. I'm willing to part ways with my money to have entertainment. However, you keep insisting that you don't want my money. I've got money burning a hole in my pocket, just dying to be spent on some movies. The first company that can offer a DRM-free-mine-to-keep high quality movie wins. I know Netflix is available. I don't watch enough movies to justify the subscription. I know Redbox is available. Good luck finding a Redbox with Toy Story 2. Chariots of Fire is right out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Either you want to buy the product as presented, or you buy someone else's product. Don't pirate it just because you didn't like the terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the terms are being distorted by an anti-competitive cartel then measures need to be taken to break up the cartel.
We KNOW there is a cartel - because otherwise the prices would reflect the marginal costs of producing copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should they change? Not because of the tech industry's demands. If they want my money then they should change because of my demands. If they don't want my money or don't want to change, then fine, they won't get my money, but that's their decision. Again, no piracy is involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously - as you wouldn't like the terms, you wouldn't buy a car, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To quote a line from Captain America:
Abraham Erskine: Do you want to kill Nazis?
Steve Rogers: I don't want to kill anybody. I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't.
If the entertainment industry want to fail - well that's their choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't believe that to be the case. Sure, the tech industry has suggestions for the entertainment industry to succeed, but the tech industry is by no means trying to force the entertainment industry to do anything. The opposite isn't true at all, the entertainment industry has been trying to force the tech industry to police for infringement at every turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not any more so than anyone is demanding that dinosaurs stay out of tarpits.
It's just a friendly suggestion.
Oh, why does the entertainment industry demand that the tech industry run its business in a particular way?
And finally: do you know the difference between "Google" and "the Internet"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The entertainment industry on the other hand is complaining that they are not making as much money as they want and telling the tech industry it must change to support them. Why should the tech industry throw away something that is working for them in order to help someone who is failing?
It is like two restaurants running in the same town. One is doing great and the other struggling. The one doing well has been nice and suggested some changes to help save the failing restaurant. The owner of the failing restaurant though insists that instead of him changing his business the one doing well needs to change what they are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a good analogy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sadly, unfortunately, FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can run their business however they want, if they want to fail that's their problem, so long as their business isn't predicated on government assistance (ie: copy protection laws and govt established broadcasting and cableco monopolies).
How they choose to run their business is their business, but the moment they ask for laws that affect others is when it becomes the business of others like myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it gets annoying to the point that you just want to throw them a bone to get them to shut up and stop screwing the law up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or do what they did to Old Yeller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And it suffer a quite noticeable level of shoplifting. Despite the laws against it. Despite the technologies and personnel dedicated to preventing it. And unlike the content industry once a product is actually stolen, it can no longer be sold over and over and over again (once the DVD is gone, it's gone, unlike a digital file).
Yet Walmart still makes money. In fact, in an era where large chains like Food Lion, Kmart and Sears are announcing store closings (or going out of business) Walmart continues to flourish. So much so that in recent years they actually changed some policies and/or eliminated personnel that actually has made it easier for shoplifters in some cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But the main thing is all these "tech companies" that the mafiaa claims are their "opponents" that are supposedly supporting piracy are software companies that, according to the mafiaa have no chance of succeding because piracy is guarenteed to do them in unless the mafiaa gets their free ride laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Entertainment (Big Content)[I miss you Bob] industry has asked: What are we supposed to do? The tech industry answers: Have you tried approaching business differently with all these great tools we have created? Big Content starts crying, and sobbing uncontrollably about all the money they are loosing, and they don't think its fair that they should need to change anything and how all of us just need to pretend like its 1993.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> . . . how all of us just need to pretend like its 1993.
Hey, 1993 might be a good year to pretend it is.
The web didn't exist, but the Internet did. Before the web, one of the major internet applications, apart from email, ftp, and telnet was . . . ta da . . . usenet! And it wasn't even on the entertainment industry's radar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet pre-web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The entertainment industry is DEMANDING changes to the tech industry, mostly through harsh litigation and buying the passage of new laws. They refuse to adapt to an ever-changing marketplace but insist that everyone else must stand still.
The tech industry, in reverse, has not DEMANDED changes to the entertainment industry. It has advised and notified that such changes would be necessary yes, in today's world, but they have not tried harsh litigation or tried to buy new laws to force the entertainment industry to suit their needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and tech industries by their very nature have to embrace new ways and new tech in order to stay competitive by offerring inovation
inovation for me in this instance, is the creation of something that offers something new or just an extremely easy way of doing "bloody hell i cant beleive i did'nt think of that" things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
Yes, they find things are are infringing.
Here's the good news! YOU TOO can use the search engines to find infringing content. You can go after the actual infringer rather than an actual third party. Once the infringing content is removed, the link to it from the search engine will disappear -- and meanwhile, the link from the search engine is useless because it now links to nothing.
Oh, wait. You would prefer to punish innocent third parties. You think it is another innocent third party's responsibility to protect your content. What about other search engines? Yahoo? Bing? Others you don't even know about? Oh yes, I forgot: you don't like that pesky due process thing either. And collateral damage? Who cares!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
It's easier for them to force search engines to cut off access than it is to actually pursue the people doing the infringing. It's all because they think that without the search engines, people seeking infringing content won't have access to it anymore, which is just plain ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
It's easier and they can get someone else to pay for it.
Bonus!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
That is a big fat lie. Why do you insist on perpetuating that myth?
The idea only is that if the average consumer is presented with 10 choices in a search engine, and 9 of them are "free" because of piracy, the consumer will likely choose free unless they have some moral reason not to.
All you guys bitch about the industry not adapting, but really, even if they cut prices in half and half again, they will still be competing against their own products for free. Why do you think things would be any different?
"It's easier for them to force search engines to cut off access than it is to actually pursue the people doing the infringing."
That is the failings of the law and the legal system, which is the reason things like SOPA were proposed. It just takes way too long to get illegal content taken down, there are all sorts of jurisdictional issues, all sort of anonymous issues, and so on. It took years to get enough information to take down megaupload - how many billions of pirated movies were download from there before they were done?
"It's all because they think that without the search engines, people seeking infringing content won't have access to it anymore, which is just plain ignorant."
It are the one being ignorant. It's not about that at all, rather it's about making it LESS available to the average consumer. Nothing more and nothing less. The rest is lies made up by people like yourself to justify piracy. How nice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
It will never be any harder to copy than it is now. They're fighting gravity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
You say that it's about making illegal content less available. Why do that? Why not make legal content more available? It's been shown many, many, many, many times before how to do that (and it's not just about price).
Let me give you a little bit of advice. Once you get this threw your head, you can move on. Piracy is not a problem. It's just that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
You can try "free movie downloads" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
Got any logical arguments or are you just going to spout fallacies all day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
Yeah it's those pesky concepts of fairness and due process when you just know instinctively which sites are infringing - and if you do de-list some innocent sites by "accident" well that doesn't matter because they were "just a sideshow" anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
A big reason for the levels of piracy is that copyright is way to broad and the term is way too long. In order for law to be respected, it must be reasonable. And it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Entertainment Industry -- here is a free clue
All you guys bitch about the industry not adapting, but really, even if they cut prices in half and half again, they will still be competing against their own products for free. Why do you think things would be any different?"
A myth? I don't think so. You're creating a false dilemma to prove your point. It's not simply about cutting prices either because you can compete against it with more than just prices. It's about providing something that the peer-to-peer networks can't. People like you fail to see that and that's why you keep hitting a brick wall. You're still foolishly assuming that you can only make money if you control access to works. Instead you should be leveraging the social connections you make with those works, but you'd rather piss and moan about all the "theft" while you miss real opportunities.
"That is the failings of the law and the legal system, which is the reason things like SOPA were proposed. It just takes way too long to get illegal content taken down, there are all sorts of jurisdictional issues, all sort of anonymous issues, and so on. It took years to get enough information to take down megaupload - how many billions of pirated movies were download from there before they were done?"
I'll let you in on a little secret: All laws are impotent arbitrary rules that don't do a thing. Laws are a bandage thrown on a problem they couldn't effectively solve. That said, there isn't a damn law in existence that's going to uphold your foolish wet dreams of maintaining a distribution monopoly. The polls are in, the internet owns the power of distribution, the people own the internet, and there isn't a thing anyone can do to change that, nor should they. Oh, and that's a nice leading question you have there. It doesn't deserve an answer.
"It are the one being ignorant. It's not about that at all, rather it's about making it LESS available to the average consumer. Nothing more and nothing less. The rest is lies made up by people like yourself to justify piracy. How nice!"
Well that was barely cognitive.
And you're sooo right. Making works less available is so much better than being more available! I'm sure the added obscurity will work wonders for the proliferation of works! /sarc
The infograph "The Sky is Rising" makes one thing very clear. The existence of the internet has made content more abundant and more accessible, which is the whole fucking goal of copyright. Whether or not copyright industries are profitable is not the government's problem and it's not the public's problem. It's the industry's problem and they don't have one damn right to change the laws of reality because it doesn't fit their business model. The business model is wrong. They need to fix that and stop asking for legislators for protection for something they can solve without government mollycoddling. If they don't, too bad. They don't get to change the laws to suit their tiny little segment of the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How exactly do you think that people found the infringing sites to bookmark in the first place?
That people don't use Google AFTER finding a pirate site doesn't suggest for a second that the Google SERPs didn't help them find it to start with. Nice way to play with numbers Mike, rather than addressing the real issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Censorship? Due process? Asking for unreasonable or sometimes flat out impossible things? Imposing costs onto third parties to protect an industry that refuses to change?
A search engine doesn't put things on the internet. It just finds them for you. If you got those things taken off the internet, then they wouldn't be there for the search engine to find. Also, the search engine is a tool that can help you find the infringing material.
But you don't want to do anything yourself. You seem to think that Google should fix the problem for you -- even though they don't put up the infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google? They don't put things on the net. Yet, just like a phone book, they publish a list of those things. Exactly how many entries in your local phone book do you have under "dvd pirates" or "crack dealers"? I am guessing zero. So even with an entire city to index, a small phone company can still figure out not to list clearly illegal activities. Why can't Google do the same? They made, what billions of dollars last year? Don't you think they can afford to hire a few people to check and eliminate the "dvd ripz" listings and torrent sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: crack dealers
Oh... wait. The phone book is one of those "opt in" indexes... shoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
With the phone book, DVD Pirates would have to obtain a listed number.
With the internet, Google (and others) come along and find you and add you to their index.
The phone company doesn't go looking for businesses. It has an active relationship with them. And yes, fraudulent businesses have obtained phones and directory listings before.
Why can't the entertainment industry afford to hire a few people to check for "dvd ripz" listings and torrent sites? After all, it's them that wants to find it?
It's a slippery slope. Should Google have to hire a few people to find every single thing that anyone demands they find? Why can't google hire a few people to check for anything that hurts Jane Doe's feelings? Or anyone that looks at me funny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not a legal concept, it's an engineering concept. And lawyers didn't build YouTube, engineers did. Stick to your last.
"The arguments of lawyers and engineers pass through one another like angry ghosts." -- Bohm, Gladman, Brown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> one another like angry ghosts."
I think you may have meant angry birds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Guess what happened when Viacom tried to check Youtube for their stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Numbers?! We don't need no stinking numbers!!
Nothing lends credence to one's expressed opinion like having a registered, recognizable user name.
Here's a short list of available user names you might try:
NotATroll
lobbyingrocks
AnonCoward1337
OpinedRemarker
...and many more! Be creative, go wild!
You may even gain a fan-base/cult-following.
Remember, you've got do what you want to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember kids, if its on "the internets", its de facto illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix
They hate Netflix and new technology. Killing it is their goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"At a behind-closed-doors meeting facilitated by the UK Department for Culture"
http://search.slashdot.org/story/12/01/29/0351206/copyright-industry-calls-for-broad-sea rch-engine-controls
an FOIA requst has released some of the demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another search engine will pop up (headquartered in a country outside of the US and other ACTA puppet nations) that won't censor their results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or a distributed search engine that is controlled by no one and has no "headquarters" per se.
YaCy - The Peer to Peer search Engine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Creates a firefox addon to censor all the RIAA/MPAA/Entertainment industry owned websites*
There, problem solved! If I can't see the entertainment industries websites then I couldn't possibly pirate them! Google should take this approach whenever a copyright holder demand any search results be removed, it's double protection for them! You can't steal what you don't know exists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congrats. You broke the internetwebthingie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like Transformers 3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually I'd welcome them disappearing completely off the internet so maybe they would stop with all the horrible laws. I actually broke down and watched a Hollywood movie with the wife last night, it was horrible. Your description of "watching horrible movies from people you would never want to know about" sounds exactly like my experience last night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that the point. They don't want anything new built unless they say so. Not that that is going to increase revenue/profits that the new tools allow, but what do those matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prioritise websites that obtain certification as a licensed site under a recognized scheme
... they are asking that the rankings of their own companies be automatically improved. Essentially, they are demanding free, or at least subsidized, advertising from Google.
Lovely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
websites that obtain certification
Certification? From who? They are already making it tougher to register/pay for a website anonymously, now you would have to register it? under a recognized scheme? Out of their freaking minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.dailytech.com/Impeachable+Offense+Obama+Takes+Bribe+Institutes+SOPAs+Evil+Twin +ACTA/article23882.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
prioritise websites that obtain certification as a licensed site under a recognized scheme
... they are asking that the rankings of their own companies be automatically improved. Essentially, they are demanding free, or at least subsidized, advertising from Google.
In other words: The Entertainment Industry just want to get stuff for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't we ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why don't we ...
2. Make said works available for steaming in high quality.
3. Charge Netflix-ish levels for access to said works.
4. ???
5. Profit!!
Seems simple doesn't it? I would also allow substituting step 1 with "license entire catalog to Netflix for reasonable rates."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why don't we ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are also either ignorant to or purposely ignoring the fact that a tons of the returns are fake. Searching "song name torrent" is a great way to get your self a virus or a clip of a 80s era foreign porno.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They get nothing.
They realize the defeat SOPA got. But they still don't understand it. They think it's Google. They don't understand that about a Billion people with a B are pissed off at them.
They really don't understand the magnitude of it. It reminds me of Swartzkopf's comments about Saddam's generals after the first gulf war. He said they really didn't even comprehend the magnitude of their defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is Google supposed to know what content is infringing?
As documented numerous times on TechDirt, even the entertainment industry cannot seem to tell what content is infringing, and what content they uploaded themselves for their own promotional reasons. So how exactly is Google supposed to tell?
Is Google supposed to use a Blacklist of things not to index?
Or maybe Google is supposed to use a Whitelist of things approved for global consumption by the entertainment industry?
Even if the Whiltelist or Blacklist approach were a reasonable request (which it is not) then who is supposed to maintain that list? And how? Is the entertainment industry going to hire a million people at minimum wage (what's that about $7.25 Million / hour?) to filter the internet?
Will they really keep the Blacklist / Whitelist up to date? Or will they just sit back and think everything is now fine, even as the world moves on and the internet content continues to change at a massive rate?
If the entertainment industry doesn't like the whitelist / blacklist approach, then exactly how do they propose that Google knows what content is actually infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voluntary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those places don't rely on Google or any search engine for traffic. The only ones this prevent from finding the material they seek are the clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big content has never ever focused on the next big thing, it has always focused on it's current biz model.
Big content always has to be forced into the next biz model.
They will never change, they will never adapt, it is the way they are, it is the way they have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good idea
I like the 6th search result best, it's a list of all the top torrent sites, file-hosting sites, streaming sites, linking sites and much more. It's a bit verbose, using pirate jargon like "Special 301 out of cycle review of notorious markets" instead of a simple "top lists", but you'll get used to it.
Anyway, the list is made by a pirate group called "MPAA", those should be censored or have their tubes taken away, the facilitating bastards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unsubstatiated Claims
"The growth of the UK digital economy is presently held back by the pervasive nature of online infringement of copyright, particularly for digital entertainment content."
[Citation needed]
"Innovation in new digital content services is hampered by the fact that such sites have to compete against large numbers of unlicensed, free competitors, some of which have become well-known brands themselves while continuing to evade the law."
[Citation needed]
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- Carl Sagan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow!! Just like CwF + RtB?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]