It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites

from the give-'em-an-inch-and-they'll-ask-for-a-foot dept

Mon, Aug 13th 2012 7:58am — Mike Masnick

If we've learned one thing in watching the RIAA and the MPAA over the years it's that nothing will ever be enough for them in their neverending war against providing people what they want. With Friday's surprise announcement that Google would start filtering searches based on the number of DMCA notices sites got -- something both the RIAA and MPAA have been asking for for ages -- both organizations made it clear that, while they appreciated this step in the right direction, they wanted more.

First, the RIAA's statement:

"Today Google has announced a potentially significant change in its search rankings that can make a meaningful difference to creators: sites that are the subject of large numbers of copyright removal notices may be ranked lower in search results than before. This should result in improved rankings for the licensed music services that pay artists and deliver fans the music they love. This change is an important step in the right direction -- a step we've been urging Google to take for a long time -- and we commend the company for its action.

"As Google itself has acknowledged, this is not the only approach, and of course, the details of implementation will matter. Moreover, there are many more actions that we hope Google will take. But by taking this common-sense step and treating copyright in a way that's consistent with the search firm's approach to other forms of activity on the Internet, Google has signaled a new willingness to value the rights of creators. That is good news indeed. And the online marketplace for the hundreds of licensed digital services embraced by the music business is better today than it was yesterday."

And the MPAA's statement:

"We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites, and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe. We will be watching this development closely -- the devil is always in the details -- and look forward to Google taking further steps to ensure that its services favor legitimate businesses and creators, not thieves.”

Google may think that such moves will quiet down the complaints from legacy companies who don't want to innovate, but they may find that, like feeding trolls, it just brings out even more requests...

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, filtering, search
Companies: google, mpaa, riaa

346 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:02am

"We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online,so we can crush them and sue them out of existence.
If this does not work we will 'invest' in them and gut them from inside."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nathan F (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:09am
  
  Re:
  I don't think even all of the major music labels and movie studios combined have the funds to 'invest' in Google to any meaningful amount. To make matters even more fun Google, Facebook et al, are forming up their on PAC and I foresee a lot of political lobbying going on in the coming years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think he meant that the MAFIAAs want to crush the legitimate ways to access content online, not Google.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    Exactly. While the clueless around here like to believe that Google is the little guy, it has a market cap that's several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest content creators. Seriously. It's one huge market cap.
    
    So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube or when Google blithely links to the pirate sites, it's the huge bully kicking sand in the face of the little guy.
    
    But no one around here will ever believe that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Exactly. While the clueless around here like to believe that Google is the little guy, it has a market cap that's several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest content creators. Seriously. It's one huge market cap. "
      
      What does that have to do with anything? Google isn't a content creator. It's not in the same market as the record labels/Hollywood.
      
      "So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube or when Google blithely links to the pirate sites, it's the huge bully kicking sand in the face of the little guy. "
      
      So even with Google going far and above what the law says they must do...you're still not happy. They're still evil. Even though all of this copyright policing costs Google a ton, the RIAA/MPAA are still not happy and will not contribute a single penny towards the cost of policing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm just responding to the point that the content creators don't have the money to "invest". They're too small.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm just responding to the point that the content creators don't have the money to "invest". They're too small."
        
        If by "creators", you mean individual artists, then you're (mostly) right.
        If you mean the studios (who are actually owners, not creators), then you're dead wrong, boy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jaerys, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The MPAA and RIAA "invest" in politics.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You could probably make the same argument as AT&T. Are they 'facilitating' piracy by 'not doing enough'?
      
      What about Seagate etc?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        as > against
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google doesn't have common carrier status and it doesn't want it. If anything, Google is trying to claim that their search results are full of their own editorial genius and thus eligible for 1st Amendment protection. In other words, they don't just connection everyone to everyone, they decide what is best for you.
        
        And if they're decision is constantly showing piracy then they're complicit in the same way that a business might be if they were constantly reselling items that "fell off the back of a truck."
        
        Face it. It's a RICO suit waiting to happen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DannyB (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Leave it to you to mischaracterize.
        
        Google's argument against the 'SEO' companies (those who want to manipulate search results, as does the RIAA/MPAA) is that Google's results are protected by 1st amendment. Although mechanically generated, those search results are why people come to Google -- because they value Google's opinion on what is relevant to what they were searching for.
        
        The 'mechanically generated' part means that they do not exercise editorial control. In fact, the lack of editorial control is why people trust Google.
        
        When Google starts exercising editorial control is when they will lose that trust. Look at Bing when it first started. It favored Microsoft and disfavored competitors to Microsoft, even if that was what the user was searching for.
        
        I find it amusing that you (mis) describe Google's argument for why others should not be able to manipulate its results, as a reason why your dark masters should be able to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So your argument literally IS that AT&T is 'facilitating' piracy by 'not doing enough' you're just willing to give them a pass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DannyB (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Any comment on that Bob? Should AT&T exercise editorial control?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bob only hates Google.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's a RICO suit waiting to happen.
        
        Keep dreaming, skintube.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        at&t is no more a common carrier for internet than your cable company
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I could make the same argument for windowing, outrageous royalties for streaming content, and any number of other insane practices by the media industry. They insist nobody should be allowed to induce infringement except them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's against seagate too. Call hard drive companies 'big storage' all the time. Yes it's as ludicrous and hysterical as it sounds.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Danny (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Isn't big storage what the big yellow box company does?
        (UK company specialising in storage in a yellow warehouse)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey, bob, how ya doing?
      
      Being a shill again?
      
      Yes you are! Yes you are! Here's a treat! *Waves treat* Now, beg for it. Come on, boy, beg for it. Yes! Awww! Look how cute you are...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rapnel (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No Bob. We're the fucking little guy. Got that? Not Google, not the artist and definitely not the MAFIAA folks. Us. You, me and your sister's nephew's cousin.
      
      Quite simply - they're not making readily available the things that are readily available - in a manner consistent with technology.
      
      To hell with ALL the middle men. They're all a little last decade. Put it up, charge reasonable admission (FROM ANYWHERE, ON ANY PLATFORM, AT ANY TIME) and ... profit??
      
      Pirate "sites" are, how do I put this.. obsolete. Not entirely unlike some folks' thinking on matters of entertainment and educational media.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "While the clueless around here like to believe that Google is the little guy, it has a market cap that's several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest content creators."
      
      Studios and labels aren't "creators".
      They're "owners".
      Artists are "creators".
      Get your facts straight, boy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trollfinder General, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:20am
      
      Next troll please.
      So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube or when Google blithely links to the pirate sites, it's the huge bully kicking sand in the face of the little guy.
      
      And like all old bullies, the mafiaa thinks it invented bullying and can scream "prior art!".
      
      Meet the new bullies - same as the old bullies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If by 'content creators' you mean 'copyright owners' which aren't the same thing thanks to adhesion contracts and copyright law which allow copyrights to be transfered to individuals and corporations who played no part in the creation of the works.
      
      Lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube? ContentID? Maybe you've heard of it? I guess not. When it blocks legitimate content created independently on bogus copyright grounds that's as close as anything gets to 'kicking sand in the fact of the little guy.' The little guy being the actual creator, not the groups you mistakenly identify as creators above who are the ones doing the sand kicking.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      While the clueless around here like to believe that Google is the little guy
      
      Find one person here who thinks Google is the "little guy". I dare you.
      
      So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube
      
      You mean the same Google who is so heavy-handed about policing for copyright violation that they take down legitimate content?
      
      Google blithely links to the pirate sites
      
      Please. First, not every agrees as to what a "pirate" site exactly is except for a handful of clear-cut cases. Aside from that, neither Google nor anybody else has figured out an automated way to determine what sites are "pirate" sites or not.
      
      That's not being "blithe" at all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Google needs to stop negotiating with terrorists.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Digitari, 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Delist the Terrorists from Google.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    " To make matters even more fun Google, Facebook et al, are forming up their on PAC and I foresee a lot of political lobbying going on in the coming years."
    
    "lobbying", you say that like its a good thing?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      " To make matters even more fun Google, Facebook et al, are forming up their on PAC and I foresee a lot of political lobbying going on in the coming years."
      
      Leveling the playing field is never fun for the one who HAD the advantage...until now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lobbying still isn't a good thing. They might be on the right side of some issues for the time being but time changes things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I don't think even all of the major music labels and movie studios combined have the funds to 'invest' in Google to any meaningful amount."
    
    Oh, please.
    Disney could easily buy Google, but other studios would cry "foul" (and rightfully so), believing that Disney would skew search results to favor their properties.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, I would much suspect that is the other way round, that Google could simply buy Disney (and a flock of the other legacy players) and make it *the* biggest place on the internet for accessing content along with silencing the constant whining of these players. Instead, the giant folds to the smaller guys. Go figure.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Actually, I would much suspect that is the other way round, that Google could simply buy Disney (and a flock of the other legacy players) and make it *the* biggest place on the internet for accessing content along with silencing the constant whining of these players."
        
        Really?
        They why doesn't it simply do so and end all this mishigas?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, mostly because it's not entirely sure how to run a studio or label without biasing its acquired products without someone yelling "Antitrust!!!"?
        
        The fact of the matter is that, were Google to actually turn all its assets into cash, it could buy outright the entirety of the RIAA's major contributors. From a business perspective, that's the rational thing to do. However, doing so would in all likelihood destroy its core business: searching the web and displaying rsults in order fo significance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The fact of the matter is that, were Google to actually turn all its assets into cash, it could buy outright the entirety of the RIAA's major contributors."
        
        And if any one of the RIAA's major contributors were to "to actually turn all its assets into cash, it could buy Google easily", boy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really?
        They why doesn't it simply do so and end all this mishigas?
        
        Buying or investing in Disney would go against their corporate creed of, "Don't be evil."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh that ship sailed long ago.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That ship may have sailed, but there's a difference in buying a ticket as a passenger and owning the ship, captaining it to underdeveloped countries, and enslaving its people.
        
        In the navy of evil, Google occasionally passes on the wrong side or drops a beer can in the water. Disney drops nuclear waste into international waters, blows up oil rigs for fun, and drains the waters from the worlds oceans to fill its private aquariums so it can charge you to look at it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:05am

Crowd funding campaign....
Ok, lets all target major media with DCMA notices (doesn't matter if they are legit, or just 'accusations' they still count the same for pushing down google search rankings....)

This won't end badly at all.... (anyone want to buy this bridge before I jump off?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:05am

And of course, the RIAA and MPAA will not pay a cent towards Google's costs of policing THEIR copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:33am
  
  Re:
  Actually the folks filing the DMCA notices are doing the policing. Once again Google doesn't do much at all. They just have some automated system because Google doesn't invest in people. (Heck, they're firing 4000 today. They bought Motorola just to gut it.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    ContentID: A system that polices Youtube for copyrighted content, at great cost to Youtube/Google, and yet "Google doesn't do much at all".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      At great cost? It sure works well. Every time I look, it seems like YouTube is full of tons of pirated material.
      
      Given how ineffectual it is, I think it's fair to say they don't do much at all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It doesn't have to do it at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At great cost? It sure works well. Every time I look, it seems like YouTube is full of tons of pirated material.
        
        Yeah, but it (ContentID) lets your shadow industries take to task culturally devastating pirates like NASA and ornithologists the world round.
        
        At least Google hired a few humans, which is more than we can say for the former content industries whose automated takedowns illustrate very well the true formula behind their plan for "dealing with piracy":
        Loose content match + hits = Corporate Ownership
        
        Add that now well-known fact of transparent abuse of DoJ connections in the Megaupload case, and we can pretty much go ahead and turn Burbank into a virtual parking lot for independent creators.
        
        Hell, this past weekend my faux news reading brother was bitching about DHS copyright cops and DoJ abuse by the content industries.
        
        In case they don't already suspect, that's a very, very gloomy anecdote if you're a legacy gatekeeper.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yup. When Fox News calls you on your bullshit and agrees with HuffPo, you know you're in trouble.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Base Rate Fallacy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you prove it's pirated? Neither can Google.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At great cost? It sure works well. Every time I look, it seems like YouTube is full of tons of pirated material.
        
        Once again your lack of knowledge as to what Google actually does is tripping you up bob.
        
        When YouTube's content ID system finds something it recognizes as copyrighted by a known rights holder it pays the rights holder ad revenue, regardless of who uploaded the video.
        
        So even though you see "tons of pirated material" which may have been uploaded without authorization, YouTube is automagically paying the rights holder for those anyways. This is all above and beyond anything legally required of them.
        
        But, yeah, Google doesn't do much at all, do they?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mind if I "pirate" this comment so I can throw it back in bob's face later on? I had actually completely forgotten the part about Youtube paying out revenue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't mind at all. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    The MPAA/RIAA have automated systems that file DMCA notices, which is illegal, because automated systems cannot swear under oath that their DMCA notice is valid.
    Pot, meet kettle.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Google might take that step but they don't because they realize just how preposterous it would make them seem. If anything, the content creators could simply ask that Google treat the YouTube uploaders in the same way and ask them to turn in signed affidavits proving they're the copyright holder.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So in other words, screen all user-content.
        
        We've already established that something like that simply CANNOT be done. Youtbe gets what? more than 60 hours of content uploaded every minute? Who's going to check all of that?
        You're seriously arguing for someone to go to a lawyer, pay for an affidavit before speaking online.
        No bob. No.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First of all, it's not something Google would take as a step it's something the law already requires but Big Content isn't actually doing. They're violating the law as it was written. Second, Google already asks that of content posters.You must digitally sign such a thing every time to post a video.
        
        Try again, bob.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because you have to be the copyright owner to upload a video? That's a scary view of the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ask them to turn in signed affidavits proving they're the copyright holder.
        
        You don't necessarily have to be the copyright holder or have permission from the copyright holder to legally use copyrighted material.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey! Bad bob! Bad! *Whaps you with a newspaper* No biscuit for you.
    
    Now, go sit in the corner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    DMCA notices are often generated by automated systems too, bob...
    
    Yeah, firing 10% of the work force, starting with the VPs, of sections that haven't been profitable for several years is 'gutting it.'
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AzureSky (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    bob, you are, without a doubt one of the biggest idiots I have ever come across, and that saying alot, I have worked at computer shops that catered mostly to mac users.....
    
    google bought motorola because it was for sale, the wanted a way to make their own handsets since HTC nolonger is making handsets for 3rd parties.
    
    motorola as a company is crap, they do not update their phones properly(support on many of their android phones was 1-2 updates then abandoned.)
    
    they are patent trolls(something your in favor of)
    
    the way I and many others see it, google should have taken direct control of motorola operations and forced them to stop the patent nonsense as well as forcing them to properly update their devices, they however didnt do that and instead let motorola keep running itself into the ground....
    
    I hope this leads to google producing their own line of android devices to show most other makers how it should be done!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MahaliaShere (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "as well as forcing them to properly update their devices"
      
      Hell, they don't even have to do that much, just unlock the bootloaders of the devices that are only few years old. Then let the independant developers do the rest (Cyanogenmod, for example).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AzureSky (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well, being that google owns moto, you would think they would want moto owners to have the android experience that google envisioned, rather then moto's out dated, buggy locked down version.....either way, I hope this helps get some moto devices unlocked/updated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathan F (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:06am

" But by taking this common-sense step and treating copyright in a way that's consistent with the search firm's approach to other forms of activity on the Internet, Google has signaled a new willingness to value the rights of creators."

Google has already been taking a "common sense" and "consistent with other forms of activity on the Internet", if a search term is being used more often by users then Google tends to push it to the top. If you want your result to always be displayed at the top of the results you can take out an advertisement slot for a sponsored link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:11am
  
  Re:
  But, but the pirates. They don't click on our adverts to premium region locked services. Google needs to do more!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:11am

Make the Internet more like cable TV
What this will do is put usefully sites that have user generated content down while giving an advantage to read only sites that mainly just spoon feed information and services. This is one step closer the the RIAA/MPAA's main goal of having the Internet be a one way communication like cable TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:12am

"Moreover, there are many more actions that we hope Google will take"

Such as? Seriously, what can Google do that the RIAA can't do more effectively in the first place? Hiding "pirate" sites doesn't do a damn thing to stop them. They can completely delist every site that even mentions MP3s and free downloads, and that wouldn't suddenly stop piracy. If the legal options remain restricted, overpriced and poor quality, what exactly can Google do?

"We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online"

You'd have to allow them to be offered to the majority of the online population to begin with, morons. Then stop trying to make them a 3rd tier quality solution in terms of the catalogue size and other aspects. Maybe then people will start using them instead of looking for better alternatives. As it stands, the legitimate ways to access content are either crap or completely unavailable, and that's by your design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:25am
  
  Re:
  Precisely. Hulu is blocked in Ireland, Netflix has a tiny library and anything else is obviously of even poorer quality otherwise I would have heard about it already.
  
  Now, Megaupload, there was a service I was willing to pay for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  Then why is Google so devoted to defending these pirate sites? They blacklist sites all of the time when it suits their needs. They have no trouble blacklisting innovative sites that hurt their bottom line. So why are they so devoted to these scuzzball sites that add nothing to society but bleed the content creators dry?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    The answer to that was ad revenue and boosting the overall popularity of their brand. Now they want to become content distributors and ultimately produce original content themselves. This is the price of admission. Google does what's good for Google. They've done the math and determined that what's good for Google is becoming a player in content delivery and ultimately creation. Does anything think they care who they have to shit on to do this?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yup. That must be it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    "...scuzzball sites that add nothing to society but bleed the content creators dry?"
    
    This sort of statement rings hollow when films like Batman or The Avengers are breaking all sorts of records in terms of money made.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    "So, why am I working for the RIAA and MPAA, who are scuzzball copyright holders, that bleed content creators dry and add nothing to society?"
    
    Gee bob, I don't know. Maybe you should look into a new line of work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      My company isn't laying off 4000 people today. It's the googlers who need to look for work.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rapnel (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yah Bob, nobody but big, bad google would ever do such a thing.
        
        Are you just playing at this idiot thing or not?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So Google is the only company ever that has laid off people?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's right Bob, your company is laying off 800 000 people per year, based upon the upper echelon from a 1986 counterfeit worse-case estimate report applied to the entire US economy (which was not a per-year number).
        
        Gotta love how your bosses get their information, distort it and pump it like it was the truth.
        
        Hell, we should stop death because what will florists do? If no one dies then florists will be out of money. Just like they are used in the numbers, along with caterers, when Hollywood claims jobs would be lost.
        
        Because we all know caterers only cater to Hollywood studios, no one else, no other companies. Just like florists only cater to funerals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You will just twist anything to suit your insane agenda won't you? Get it through your thick, Luddite skull: Motorola's phone business has been unprofitable for 14 of the last 16 quarters and lost $233 million in its first six weeks under Google. They weren't a profitable company before, they need to be restructured. They did it the right way but starting at the top and working their way down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Neither is Google. All Google employees are safe and working. The ones who are being laid off are Motorola employees. Which is because Motorola has really dropped the ball as far as making smartphones goes, and now they're going to restructure and cut back and focus on making quality products.
        
        This happens with any and all businesses. But because Google owns Motorola (mainly for patent reasons) you're barking up a storm trying to make it into something bigger and more sinister.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hold on, so if you assert that google is failing so badly that they're laying thousands of people off, how can you also assert that they're making massive profits from piracy? It can't be both.
        
        Even though you're mistaken about your argument when facts are presented (as always - see the comments above mine), it's not even logically consistant with your other claims.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trollfinder General, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:25am
    
    Next Troll Please
    Then why is Google so devoted to defending these pirate sites? They blacklist sites all of the time when it suits their needs.
    
    Citation please.
    
    Or are you just making things up as you go along in order to suit your troll?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - zanny (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Do tell, what innovative site have they blacklisted?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - zanny (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Do tell, what innovative site have they blacklisted?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Straw man, Hasty Generalization, Ad hom, and straw man. It's like every sentence in your post is its own logical fallacy. Congratulations!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Then why is Google so devoted to defending these pirate sites?"
    
    Citation needed, your usual conspiracy theories don't count.
    
    "They blacklist sites all of the time when it suits their needs."
    
    Delisting or downgrading a site that's abusing either their own algorithms or ad system is slightly different from acting as a police force when their search results are inconvenient to another's business model, don't you think?
    
    "They have no trouble blacklisting innovative sites that hurt their bottom line."
    
    Citation needed.
    
    "So why are they so devoted to these scuzzball sites that add nothing to society but bleed the content creators dry?"
    
    They're not. Why are you so devoted to the scuzzball corporations who would rather destroy free speech and useful technology than accept that 1992 business models don't work in 2012?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:09am
  
  Re:
  " Hiding "pirate" sites doesn't do a damn thing to stop them"
  
  Paul, you are the master of ignorant, short term thinking. As always, you have your nose pressed firmly into Mike's ass, to the point that you can't see a thing past his virtual cheeks.
  
  Plain and simple, if consumers are presented with two options (pirate and non-pirate), they may choose either one. Presented with more of one choice than the other, they are more likely to choose that over the other.
  
  The widespread "acceptance" of piracy is in part built on ubiquity - there are plenty of indications out there that people "trust" Google, and if they think piracy is okay, then this must be the acceptable way to get this content.
  
  No, Google's change won't STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of "undecided" consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google.
  
  Don't think of it has trying to slam a door shut. Think of it more as the campaign against smoking. It's taken a long time to get to the current results, and still, there are people willing to kill themselves for a smoke. No, piracy won't go away... but changing public acceptance of it is the point.
  
  Perhaps you need to get out and think for yourself for a while. Does being locked up in Spain screw you up that bad?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Three decades of "education" are what got you into the current mess.
    
    And you still think that will work? Ok...just don't be surprised if some people call you insane.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    "if consumers are presented with two options (pirate and non-pirate), they may choose either one. Presented with more of one choice than the other, they are more likely to choose that over the other."
    
    Wrong, boy.
    
    If offered five "legitmate" choices that take six steps each and result in poor quality
    or
    a so-called "non-legitimate" choice that takes two clicks and a vastly-superior product
    guess which one they'll pick, even if the so-called "non-legit" one costs more?
    
    Quality counts.
    Provide it and we'll buy it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or just start to show people they are getting in bed with Big Media (Like AOL and Yahoo before them) and people will switch, see the nice thing about Google...i have no cost to switch, so with any incentive to do so, people will...
    
    Why is this so hard for you all to get?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're assuming without any cause at all that the reason consumers choose one source of content over another is based on how much of each choice is presented instead of the differences between the choices. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
    
    You're also assuming without cause that the cause of some significant portion of copyright infringement is some kind of metaphorical stamp of approval from Google. That also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
    
    And you continue to ignore the main reason individuals resort to copyright infringement in the first place. Just to refresh your memory they are: Ease of Use, Quality of Service, and Availability. When legit sources compete on those three points they usually do quite well (unless big content prices them out of the market with stifling licensing costs that is).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You're also assuming without cause that the cause of some significant portion of copyright infringement is some kind of metaphorical stamp of approval from Google. That also doesn't make a whole lot of sense."
      
      If I am your average informed surfer, and I want a copy of Cars2, and I am willing to pay - but the first 20 links all take me to free downloads, perhaps I am going to take the free download just to see. Right there, Google has cause some portion of the population to move from paying customer to piracy. I don't think it's their intention, but more and more it's becoming clear that this is what happens.
      
      Pirates will be pirates. Smokers will be smokers. You don't think the smoking rate would be higher if it was glorified, and we essentially stuck a pack in ever teenagers hand and lit the first one for them? Oh wait, that's what the 30s, 40s, and 50s looked like. See what happened? When we stopped glorifying it, and started pointing out the ill in it, things changed. It might take a couple of more generations, but I wouldn't be shocked to see smokers as rare as can be within my lifetime.
      
      Changing piracy from easy and glorious to harder work and grubby may change the way SOME people look at it. Will it be a trend?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're comparing the scientifically proven health hazards of smoking...to Google supposedly glorifying copyright infringement?
        
        You've lost the argument.
        
        "Changing piracy from easy and glorious to harder work and grubby may change the way SOME people look at it. Will it be a trend?"
        
        The only way that can truly happen is if all computers and computer like devices are extremely locked down, user content generated sites don't exist, and as bob suggested, you have to get an affidavit to post a video online. That is why I am against copyright, because the cost of enforcing it would damage society far more than the trumped up harm parroted by the copyright cartel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's an interesting read on smoking and teens. It has stats for you.
        
        http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/for-teenage-smokers-removing-the-allure-of-t he-pack/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RadialSkid (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but the first 20 links all take me to free downloads, perhaps I am going to take the free download just to see. Right there, Google has cause some portion of the population to move from paying customer to piracy.
        
        You're aware the ranks are based on popularity, right? The pirate sites aren't listed at the top because Google puts them there, they're listed at the top because they're what people want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Woah woah, careful how you swing around that tech talk. "Ranks"?! "Popularity"?! "What people want"?!...that's crazy talk! Google can just wave a magic wand and make everything better.
        
        /ari emanuel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 12:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If I am your average informed surfer, and I want a copy of Cars2, and I am willing to pay - but the first 20 links all take me to free downloads, perhaps I am going to take the free download just to see"
        
        You're missing the reality of the situation, of course, but god forbid you should base your arguments on that. Reality is too complex for your ilk.
        
        Go on, try a tiny piece of research before typing for once, and you'll see. Search in Google for Cars 2. Go on. What do you see? No illicit downloads are there? There's trailers, copies of the DVD and Blu Ray, iTunes downloads, official merchandise, the video game, even other companies unrelated to the movie that happen to have those characters as part of their name. I just tried, and I don't see any illegal downloads in the first 10 pages. The very first result is Disney's official movie site.
        
        You won't see easy links to pirate downloads until you start modifying the search to include them. Do you see the problem now? People aren't suddenly downloading movies for free because Google tell them to - Google is telling them that they exist AFTER they start looking for them. At that point, Google simply returns the most relevant sites for their search - they aren't instigating the search itself.
        
        There's your problem. Instead of finding why people are searching for the illegal downloads, or offering additional ways for them to obtain the movie legally, you wish to make Google's search results less relevant and try to trick them into consuming the content in the way you want them to. That's just not going to work until you address why they're looking for alternatives in the first place. That, of course, would involve something other than scapegoating a 3rd party and might even involve real work as well as addressing the reality of the marketplace, so no surprise you won't do that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 2:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't get it - why do people assume that we (as netizens) search for torrent on google? There are other search engines that are a lot better at finding torrent files than google. Ranking google results badly will just drive me to DuckDuckGo or some other search engine...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 2:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only explanation is because Google is the biggest player. They seem to have real tunnel vision when dealing with this kind of issue, and they presume that if they remove the biggest player that they can perceive, then the problem will go away. That's why they keep playing whack-a-mole - if only they can get rid of Napster/Limewire/Kazaa/Suprnova/Mininova/Pirate Bay/whatever then piracy will also go away. If only they can control Google, then people won't be able to find the pirate sites...
        
        Of course, they miss the fact that there's serious underlying problems that lead to infringement in the first place. People don't pirate just due to convenience (although that's part of it, and something they could offer if they chose to). If they manage to get Google to play their game, they'll just find another scapegoat when that fails to reduce piracy in any meaningful way, and the game will continue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 2:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let's take a look at those 20 first links shall we?
        
        disney.go.com/cars/
        www.imdb.com/title/tt1216475/
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_2
        
        pixar.wik ia.com/Cars_2
        trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/cars2/
        www.amazon.com/Cars-2/dp/B001HN6922
        www.d isney.co.uk/cars/
        
        www.facebook.com/PixarCars
        movies.yahoo.com/movie/cars-2/
        www.moviefone.com/m ovie/cars-2/33555/main
        www.fandango.com/cars2_119583/movieoverview
        
        Now what do you see when you look at these? Not a single pirate site and not a single legal site. The downranking of dmca'd sites might be in effect but why the hell is there not a single site I can go to and buy the movie from? -.-
        
        Untill there is the mpaa has no right to complain about piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Changing piracy from easy and glorious to harder work and grubby may change the way SOME people look at it."
        
        Gee, that explains why there are so few alcohol drinkers now, after Prohibition...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Making piracy harder to do--if that's what Google pushing down some search results actually does, which is far from proven--might reduce piracy.
        
        But unless there are legitimate offerings that are as fast, easy, and simple to use, they won't increase use of legitimate sources. Because you know what else piracy is? A remarkable laboratory for content delivery. The sites that make it onto the MPAA & RIAA's myopic radar are the ones that have risen to the top of an enormous stack because they have the best interface or the widest selection.
        
        Absolutely nobody cares whether an artist is signed to one major label over another. We just want to be able to easily find the music we want. Same with movies and studios, or TV shows and networks. If we have to jump from one service to another to another to yet another for the same media, just because none of the rightsholders will give up an iota of control for the chance of actually getting a sustainable customer base, we'll give up and find what we want on a convenient torrent site.
        
        But that's not even the real horror scenario for you lot. For that, ask your local phone company how many twentysomethings--not living with mom & dad--pay for landlines. The only thing I watch on TV anymore is sports, and all the games I care about are also streamed on the web. That means no cable bill for me, either. So what do I do for my entertainment? Games, mostly. Steam, you see, makes it easy to get what I want, when I want it. So much so, in fact, that I've hardly gotten time to play half of my Steam library.
        
        So you can take your movies, and your music, and your TV shows, and follow the landlines and buggywhips into oblivion, while I play my war-themed hat simulators. Or you can quit whining and actually compete for our precious ears and eyeballs. The choice is yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Paul, you are the master of ignorant, short term thinking. As always, you have your nose pressed firmly into Mike's ass, to the point that you can't see a thing past his virtual cheeks."
    
    Wow, direct with the attacks and an irrelevant attack on Mike to top it off. Sorry, dumbass, I'm quite capable of formulating my own opinion. Why not try addressing that rather than your usual ad hominems and lies?
    
    As for short-term thinking? No, I'm just repeating the same argument I've been making for the last decade and a half while you assholes have failed so miserably at even reducing overall piracy rates. If only you're get it through your thick skulls that you have to address the demand end of the curve before you attack the supply....
    
    "No, Google's change won't STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of "undecided" consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google."
    
    Yes, because nobody thinks anything without Google telling them to. Is this really what you believe? That nobody would find The Pirate Bay if Google didn't tell them it existed? That piracy only happens because of search engine results? How stupid are you?
    
    "No, Google's change won't STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of "undecided" consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google."
    
    Piracy existed decades before Google existed, and will exist decades afterwards. The only way to reduce it is to offer people acceptable legal solutions. If you're convinced that all modern piracy has something to do with Google, you're as stupid as you are arrogant, which is not something to be proud of.
    
    "Perhaps you need to get out and think for yourself for a while. Does being locked up in Spain screw you up that bad?"
    
    I do get frustrated at people like you lying about me and others instead of offering legal solutions to the 60 million people who live here without any such options. I only tell you what reality's like. But you are a total idiot who can't listen to any sort of fact not paid for by some corporation, and apparently a xenophobic one at that. What difference does it matter what patch of dirt I reside on? My arguments have been exactly the same in the past when I've lived in other countries.
    
    Try laying off the personal attacks and listen to reality. It will help you stop failing miserably at every argument you attempt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of "undecided" consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google.
    
    Pure speculation. My opinion is different -- I don't think it would affect piracy rates one bit.
    
    The biggest factor in making piracy seem OK to the average person is the MPAA, RIAA, etc., themselves more than Google.
    
    These groups are widely perceived as being (to use the parlance) evil. Although it's not correct, a huge percentage of people justify piracy by the "two wrongs make a right" argument.
    
    Another huge percentage of people justify piracy because they have a choice between piracy or not being able to access the content in a manner that is remotely useful to them. Again, this is not ethically correct, but the thinking is that even if they don't pirate, they're still not going to buy the movie (or whatever) because there is no acceptable alternative.
    
    If the industry actually addressed just those two points (i.e., if they stopped being evil and they started making the content widely available in a convenient manner), piracy rates would plummet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 1:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I thought "most" people justified their copyright infringement on the basis of precisely no harm occurring to anyone as a result of it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think that's the more general case that covers the two I mentioned, so we can both be right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 5:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "The widespread "acceptance" of piracy is in part built on ubiquity..."
    
    I would strongly argue that the ubiquity of piracy is in part built on widespread "acceptance".
    
    People have realised the artificial limitations are no longer in place, and have defaulted back to mankind's millennia-old position on sharing culture.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps you need to get out and think for yourself for a while
    
    And look how well that worked for you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:13am

DMCA abuse
How about lowering the rankings of sites who abuse the DMCA - almost everyone has a site these days, that is, everyone issuing DMCA takedowns. So if you submit too many takedowns, your own site gets a lower ranking.

That way when people search for RIAA/MPAA/CRIA/IFPI/etc.. they'll find articles exposing them for their true nature first.

If you're going to lower rankings of sites receiving lots of DMCA's, you clearly know who's sending them, so lower their own site rankings if they are abusing/trolling with DMCA's.

Can we add a new term? Takedown Troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: DMCA abuse
  Sure. I'm fine with that too. Do you really think there's much abuse? The last time I spoke with folks from Google, they bragged about taking down millions of pages a day from DMCA requests. Yet they could only point to a few difficult edge cases.
  
  DMCA abuse is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests.
  
  Not that you want to hear this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:46am
    
    Re: Re: DMCA abuse
    "DMCA abuse is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests. "
    
    Yeah, I don't get that. It's like Nuclear bombs. One nuclear bomb is just a tiny, tiny fraction of a country's arsenal, and yet, people get all anal when, say, North Korea threatens to use one.
    
    /end sarcasm
    
    One erroneous DMCA takedown can do a lot more damage than 1000 pirate sites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse
      What planet are you living on. Many pirate sites distribute thousands if not millions of copies. Filing a counter-DMCA notice is just as difficult as filing the original DMCA notice. If a takedown is wrong, a site/link can be back online in minutes.
      
      (And I'm sure that Google is aching to have more examples of these.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse
        " Filing a counter-DMCA notice is just as difficult as filing the original DMCA notice."
        
        Uh...no, its not. To file a counter-DMCA notice (especially on Youtube) you have to be willing to fight it in court. Very few people wish to do that, because the people filing the original DMCA notices have more or less unlimited legal funds to draw upon. Famous artist Dan Bull released a video explaining just that
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-pT1CMy0EU&list=UU1hkAIJnb2CSmm7SPJaPR-A&index=4& feature=plcp
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse
        no, there is a one-to-many relationship between a file and torrenting. One set of bits goes to many people, who receive another set of bits, until the file is completed.
        
        Moreover, you forgot that part where, in the counter-notice, you accept liability and open yourself to lawsuits. If that isn't an effect designed to reduce counter-notices, I don't know what is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse
        Your world is quite fantastic. Do you have ponies there? It takes some basic searching to find quite a few examples on how it's amazingly hard to counter a dmca notice and how it can take weeks to get stuff back online (unless there's public outcry). Sometimes it takes months as we've seen from dajaz1 case.
        
        Oh bobby, you are still our favorite moron even though you are a moron ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re: DMCA abuse
    "Sure. I'm fine with that too. Do you really think there's much abuse? The last time I spoke with my bosses from the MPAA, they bragged about sending out thousands of DMCA requests a day."
    
    Wow, bob, good thing you admitted to it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re: DMCA abuse
    How very anecdotal of you, have you any data to back up the "millions" of takedowns?
    
    A few difficult edge cases? I've heard a lot more than a few just with YouTube alone. I wouldn't call a label taking down a band's own video a "difficult case" as in the case of Roger O'Donnell. His solo work isn't even massively popular but his label issued a DMCA takedown, meanwhile it was HIM uploading HIS song on HIS YouTube channel.
    
    Right, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests.
    
    Here's Google's take on that which counter's your claims:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml
    
    Oh right, it's from TechDirt, so how about Google themselves?
    http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7
    (since I doubt you'll follow the links provided by TechDirt).
    
    Here's the actual numbers since 2011:
    http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/
    
    *NOTE: Letters, faxes, YouTube, not included! What was the most common form of contact from lawyers to accused infringers? Electronic? No, letter!
    
    So even this data is incomplete.
    
    However here's a nice report for you, refer to Figure ES-4
    
    Examining the characteristics of the targets of the notices�the alleged infringers�we found that 41% of all Google notice targets can be classed as competitors of the complainants. Fig. ES-4. This is particularly significant for Google 512(d) complaints regarding links in the index, where 55% of all notices relate to competitors. A significant percentage of the 512(c) and (d) notices sent to Google�21%�target hobbyists, critics, and educational users.
    
    So the majority of the DMCA's have been against competitors.
    
    And even more interesting:
    
    A surprising thirty percent of the notices present claims that fall into this category.10 As a rule of thumb, we tried to capture notices where a genuine dispute related to copyright infringement or defenses would clearly arise. Examples range from the clearly problematic�for example, recipes, prices and metatag information, which are unlikely to be covered by copyright�to instances of very thin copyright claims, such as website HTML �structure.� We also included notices where the target was likely to have a fair use defense. A much smaller number of notices in this category were counted due to other substantive concerns, such as questions regarding the ownership of the copyright in question: for example, a small number of notices appear to be sent not by the copyright holder or a representative, but by a party with some other interest in the material, such as the subject of a photograph. Among notices sent to Google, at least one type of flaw was apparent in 220 notices, or 30% of the Google set. Among the self-reported notices, 43, or, again, 30%, had at least one flaw.
    
    In other words Bob, your data is not as simplistic as you, or the RIAA/MPAA/David Lowery/etc... would have it be.
    
    Happy reading!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re: DMCA abuse
    "The last time I spoke with folks from Google, they bragged about taking down millions of pages a day from DMCA requests."
    
    bob, you're full of shit. If you've EVER spoken with any folk from Google, then I'm actually a well known author with a vast amount of best sellers under my belt. (Hint: I'm not.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re: DMCA abuse
    So your hypothosis is that, since 2005, DMCA abuse has droped from ~30% to 'a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests?' I'd like to see your source on that precipitous drop in invalid notices. Or perhaps it is it that 30% IS a tiny fraction in your opinion?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta** (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:21am

Giving it up
"Google has announced that further steps were taken by handing over the entire company to the RIAA and the MPAA. The two will now be taking over the entire company along with all assets and complete control. From here on out, the RIAA and MPAA now fully own, operate, and control the company."

"While this may sound like a lot, the two expect Google and its employees to go a step even further to combat piracy by handing over their homes, bank accounts, fillings from their teeth, hard drives, laptops, electronic equipment, video game consoles, cars, SUVs, farm animals, donkeys, shaved yaks, farming equipment, CDs, phonographs, wheel barrows, wives, husbands, children, furniture, organs, and anything else the two organizations deem necessary to combat piracy."

Yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: Giving it up
  They will pry my shaved yak from my cold dead fingers!
  
  Seriously, why is Google even bothering to placate these unyielding, tiny-minded asshats? Why even take their calls? They need to be ignored into adapting, not coddled or catered to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
adamj (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:21am

Who is the dumbass at Google who decided to give in to this request? Has this fucktard ever heard the saying "give em an inch and they will take a mile?" Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  All I can say to this is: Danegeld.
  
  Or as Kipling put it (from the article):
  "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
  No matter how trifling the cost;
  For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
  And the nation that plays it is lost!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  Also known as the 'about tree fiddy' saying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:22am

Creating Bigger Pirate Sites
"With Friday's surprise announcement that Google would start filtering searches based on the number of DMCA notices sites got -- something both the RIAA and MPAA have been asking for for ages -- both organizations made it clear that, while they appreciated this step in the right direction, they wanted more."

I can't believe they haven't thought of the unintended consequences of a move like this. All this influencing of searches is going to do is make the already most-popular torrent sites even MORE popular. You're no longer going to search Google for what you want, you're going to search your torrent site of choice. This will create a few big players, who will only gain more power and influence. Those sites will then be even more difficult to deal with than they are now....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:25am
  
  Re: Creating Bigger Pirate Sites
  That sounds lovely, I just changed my mind about this 'filtering'. Google can keep doing it =D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:24am

A modest proposal
Google downranking sites with too many "valid" DMCA notices is a fantastic idea! We must protect valuable IP. Here is my proposal.

Google should not just downrank them, but really seriously downrank them practically into non-existence. Now if you search for something like the name of a song or movie, the authorized versions would appear at the top of the very first page. Yea!

The non-authorized versions would appear at the bottom of the very last page. Just click the "last" page button to get to the end of the list of 158,390,194 zillion search results. As you can see, by downranking the non-authorized sites, they will become impossible to find. :-)

Problem solved. Everyone happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim K (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:26am

This should result in improved rankings for the licensed music services that pay artists and deliver fans the music they love.

So the *AA sites should be pretty low since they hardly pay the majority of artists right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:26am

Licensed...
" improved rankings for the licensed music services that pay artists and deliver fans the music they love."

Too bad those services are ranked lower than pirate sites because pirate sites work better, maybe? Yah think?

Do pirate sites include region locking? Nope.

Do pirate sites display "We're sorry, this video is not available in your region"? Nope.

Do pirate sites make it easy to access content, anywhere, any type? Yup.

Will the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/Etc... ever clue in and give consumers what they want? Nope.

Hey RIAA/MPAA, you've heard of wheels on mice right? Know what they are for? Scrolling over things, especially non-consumer friendly services. (Trolls: that does NOT necessarily mean "free", it means free of restrictions on use).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:38am
  
  Re: Licensed...
  Actually, both Apple and Amazon sell nice versions with few restrictions if any. So your claim is moot. You can now start paying for things again through them instead of holding up this long false argument.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re: Licensed...
    Apple's iTunes has no video store in Ireland.
    And as far as I can see, Amazon UK don't have an online video store, apart from Lovefilm, of which not all their catalogue is online: a brief glance at at is mostly DVDs/Blu-rays.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re: Licensed...
    Few restrictions, where at in the world?
    
    Other than the U.S., of course.
    
    Try other parts of the world, bob.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:00am
    
    Re: Re: Licensed...
    Actually, bob, "few" is always more than "none." Doesn't that simple fact make the "long false argument" not so false? It sounds like your claim is moot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sonja (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re: Licensed...
    Really? I think his points are still valid. Why do I have to jump through hoops to get them to take my money. Its nice within the US bubble, not so nice outside, especially if you are in an insignificant country. But alas. I have to admit that I am finding very good indie people to support lately which I might not otherwise have looked for. Indie people 1. Archaic content creators 0
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rapnel (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re: Licensed...
    Stop completely missing and misconstruing the point.
    
    Apple and Amazon both suck - they're band-aids, stop-gaps and "this will do - this is all we can do" distribution. They're just another brand for sale accompanied and encumbered by the same old restriction sets with the same catalogs licensed from the same people for the same, approximate, costs. Yeah, sure, we win.(/s)
    
    They're squeezing the teet and, yet, there is no more milk that's going to come out of it - cow is dead.
    
    I wonder what the future holds.
    
    In other words - the only "casualty" from Google's actions are those having their legit shit squashed. (Gee, I wonder who cares)
    
    Google is just an index - filter it however you please - any way you can - put alll the good shit up top. So.. what now?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re: Licensed...
    Well Bob, perhaps if in 2003/4 when I WANTED to purchase what I WANTED (ie song not album) where was iTunes for me then? Oh right, only in USA, not in Canada, right across the f--king border buddy, we've even had Free Trade and yet they can't negotiate a fair license?
    
    When music from the US is labeled "import" and charged 1.5-2x the regular price, I call bullshit price fixed cash grab.
    
    So sorry, there ARE restrictions up the ying-yang and there will be with "licensed" services until the labels/studios get it through their heads that people will pay when it works, no restrictions, no price differences.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dionaea (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re: Licensed...
    I WILL NOT contribute a single penny to a demonic company like Apple. And last time I tried to buy MP3's from Amazon UK I got the well known 'this service is not available in your area'. You can stick it BOB.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AdamBv1 (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re: Licensed...
    Actually, both Apple and Amazon sell nice versions with few restrictions if any. So your claim is moot. You can now start paying for things again through them instead of holding up this long false argument.
    
    Yeah, try again.
    
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/download/ref=atv_sr_download2
    
    "Download to a Windows PC
    
    Install the Amazon Unbox Video Player to download movies and TV shows to your PC. Then you can watch your videos on the go--whether you're online or not."
    
    So in other words I have to use either their crappy streaming service or their crappy video player to watch a movie. Plus it only works on Windows so Linux, Android and Mac are out in the cold. How on earth can you actually say that right there is "few restrictions"?
    
    Until I can download a DRM free copy that will work in any media player on any OS I want then there is no reason I should give them my money. I'm not paying for a crippled product.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:27am

A great day for democracy, this is how you get things done. Sneaky under handed tactics that cause more damage than solve problems.
We look forward to further developments by google to assist the RIAA and MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  This is what happens when piracy apologists whip up mass hysteria and kill off a bill that would have added components of due process and judicial oversight to things like this. But you didn't like it so you got this instead. Suck it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    And broken the internet to do nothing. Plus the 'due process' was pretty useless. So stop pretending you brought anything good to the table.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fine by me. Now you have six strikes, payment processor industry agreement, ad network best practices and Google's burial at sea policy for serial DMCA notice recipients. None of this has any judicial oversight built in. Seems to me you lost your right to snivel.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - surfer (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And with all that, I still get all my content region free, restriction free, and, well, just free... Keep writing them laws...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No law or policy will ever deter a hardcore, self-entitled freeloader like you. However there are billions that with the proper mix of access and deterrent will not freeload.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        surfer more than likely is referring to the artists who make their work region free, restriction free and, well, free...deliberately. Several come to mind: Dan Bull, EpicMealTime, the list goes on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        surfer (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, and ty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah true colors, you just hate the hippies. No wonder you wanted them locked down with SOPA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        However there are billions that with the proper mix of access and deterrent will not freeload.
        
        Who told you that, the tooth fairy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rapnel (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        translated:
        six strikes : anonymous encapsulation
        payment processor industry agreement = wait, people payed?
        ad network best practices : click and win?
        burial at sea : we never saw the body
        judicial oversight : sovereign immunity
        
        Nobody has lost anything of any consequence.
        And the only thing missing is your boat.
        
        Is it just me or have you completely over-fucking-looked just who is doing the fucking sniveling?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        there's also nothing to stop a competitor from offering a superior service to these neutered ones.
        
        id rather have them self-regulate than have government dictate
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All of which does NOT hurt pirates, but legitimate consumers.
        
        Hmm...
        
        Good job, China.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And broken the internet to do nothing.
      
      Broken the internet? Who told you that, the tooth fairy?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Broken the internet? Who told you that, the tooth fairy?"
        
        The people who created the internet and understand what DNS blocking would have done.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 4:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DNS? Surely you mean series of tubes (and not a truck). If you don't understand - these tubes can be filled and when they do, your messages will have to wait in line. DNS blocking would solve that waiting like Homeland Security solved US, well, homeland security! And why not mess with the Internet - it is property od USA! (Al Gore made it by himself.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    "added components of due process"
    
    Uh, no. If you're talking about SOPA, that bill was all about AVOIDING due process. It was all about a site receiving multiple accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement, and then being blacklisted from payment processors. And all without a way of fighting back.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That is simply untrue, but not surprising that you parrot it that way. My biggest beef with the opposition is that they lied about what the bill said and stooges like you accepted it and never actually read the bill themselves. Any sanction (such as severing from payment processors) was entitled to judicial review and could ONLY be ordered by a court. An accused rogue website operator had the same rights under the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure as any other litigant.
      
      READ THE FUCKING BILL!!!!!!!! It's all in there.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rapnel (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The bill's gone man. We've moved on. Funny how your (apparently) side never really does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dajaz1.com
        
        Taken down by ICE for a whole year on the say-so of the record labels, with no evidence.
        
        Oh, and its great you say to read the bill. Funnily enough, the new bill, TPP, I'm not allowed read. The MPAA can though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And it still would've been yet another ineffectual, unenforceable, expensive, pointless, taxpayer funded turd of a law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And how many deceptions would have been made in order to get that result in court?
        
        Geven the mathematics involved by the RIAA/MPAA, I'd say...YES.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well this is what YOU GET FOR LYING ABOUT ALL THE FUCKING BILLS ANYWAY... WRITE THE BILL EXACTLY AS INTENDED, INSTEAD OF YOUR BULLSHIT WEASEL WORDS and then maybe we will FUCKING LISTEN.... YOU DONT GET TO SCREAM that anyone played unfair when you are the ones doing it bigger and more than anyone else... you lost a round (which should tell you your ideas where SO OUT OF FUCKING PLACE that nobody would support you, even if the truth was stretched)
        
        STOP FUCKING BITCHING
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "READ THE FUCKING BILL!!!!!!!!"
        
        Oh, I did, and it had some HORRIBLE wording to it.
        
        It was too broad, too dangerous, and it had to go.
        
        Which it did.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bratwurzt (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 4:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When said "READ THE FUCKING BILL!" it's meant as reading the bible - you get to cherry-pick what you want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    Which bill?
    
    SOPA, PIPA?
    
    Uh, no.
    
    *Ahem*
    
    Excuse me, I need to sing like Dr. Cox now...
    
    "WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNG!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rapnel (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Riiight.
    
    "got this instead"... that's kind of the point. nobody is actually "getting" anything. Certainly not who you think will get something. They've achieved enough getting something for nothing for quite some time now don't you think?
    
    Everything they're doing, apart from actually making media, is imposing they're outdated will on said media. Not gonna work anymore. Technology has rendered such an attempt as untenable. What once was hidden is now seen.
    
    I'm a pirate apologist because pirates do it better. The way you appear to prefer these things get done is to subscribe/submit/remit to "Copyright Authority" a.k.a. cunts anonymous.
    
    How about some authorization? Seems a bit overdue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 5:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You're delusional if you think SOPA would have granted any sort of enforced due process, or "freedoms" as you like to say.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're delusional if you think SOPA would have granted any sort of enforced due process, or "freedoms" as you like to say.
      
      .....says the douchenozzle who never read the bill.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Enlighten us of how SOPA would have provided enforced due process...if you've actually read the bill?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Enlighten us of how SOPA would have provided enforced due process...if you've actually read the bill?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    But you didn't like it so you got this instead.
    
    And it won't stop piracy either. Suck it!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:31am

Are the RIAA/MPAA paying for the top spot on search results? No? Then they're obviously pirating Google's services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simon, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:34am

The great thing is that as people flock to the myriad of legitimate ways to access content, they will talk about how good they are and what a great experience the media corporations are providing. As they do this, the legitimate sites will naturally rise in the search rankings.

Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  Wrong, but that's mostly because these hives of scum and villainy demand ever-spiraling "license fees".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keroberos (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:35am

We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites, and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe.
This is their problem right here. They already think that there are "myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online". There isn't. You can't just go to Hulu or Netflix and watch any movie or TV show you want when you want, they don't have them all, or they are region restricted or windowed. Until this happens the "rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites, and other outlaw enterprises" will always provide the better service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  This is their problem right here. They already think that there are "myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online". There isn't.
  
  Au contraire. The mafiaa have indeed myriad legitimate ways for them to access their own movies and TV shows.
  
  They don't see any problem at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Plotkin (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:35am

Hold on a minute
I agree that the RIAA and MPAA will likely never be satisfied with the anti-piracy measures taken by anyone...That said, Mr. Masnick, I don't think you're very fair in your characterization of the RIAA and MPAA as being the forces of evil engaged in a struggle against the forces of good:

"...their neverending war against providing people what they want."

Come on now Mike...

I agree that the MPAA and RIAA are seriously misguided, even stupid at times in the way they try to stem piracy.For example, suing thousands of your customers is a pretty terrible excuse for a revenue stream. But just because they're fools with tunnel vision, doesn't mean you can accuse them of being pure evil...

They aren't in a war with providing people what they want. They just want to get paid and for their members to be paid. Again, when you say that their methods of achieving this are ridiculous and ineffective, I agree with you 100%.

There's just too much hyperbole and not enough honest discussion about how to solve the broken music industry model. A paradigm shift is required if the industry is ever to know it's former glories. I'm of the opinion that the major label model is toast. Some good ideas have been put forward such as a broadband fee.

Why don't we talk about solutions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: Hold on a minute
  Mr. Masnick doesn't want to talk about solutions-- his only solution is to let Big Search do whatever it wants. If a clever web site comes up with a neat, new DRM solution, that's always horrible because it cuts Big Search out of the loop. DRM is never considered "innovation" even though it takes much more sophisticated science than the repurposed FTP servers run by Techdirt heroes like Megaupload.
  
  And don't waste your breath arguing. In other contexts, Masnick and Co. love to slag off Hollywood for producing too many big budget movies that play to the crowds by giving them exactly what they want. Hollywood is rarely right -- unless it's the part of Hollywood where Kevin Smith runs his paywall.
  
  Remember that Mr. Masnick is just part of Big Search's astroturfing corp. I'm waiting to see if he comes clean when Google has to report their paid blogging staff to the Judge in the Oracle/Google case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re: Hold on a minute
    "And don't waste your breath arguing."
    In other words, you've already made up your mind, and no matter how evidence anyone shows you to the contrary, you're going to stick to your beliefs.
    
    It's not enough in 2012 to make a movie that people want. You ALSO have to deliver it in the way people want. Hollywood could release the greatest movie of all time, one perfect in every way, but it would still be hampered by being forced to be in the cinema first, then a delay before home video release. And don't get started on online availability - if you're not in the right country, then too bad.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      What makes you feel like you are entitled to another country's export?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        I'm here, credit card in hand, wanting to pay for at the very least a stream if not a downloadable copy of Dark Knight Rises...and for some reason, you have the balls to call me out for feeling like I am entitled?
        
        That comment you just put up proves everything Mike says. Here I am, a customer willing to pay, and you DON'T want to fulfill that demand?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Tough titty. Wait, you'll live. It's just entertainment asshole not a blood transfusion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        All right then, Hollywood can wait to get my money.
        
        In the mean time, since I don't wish to waste my hard earned cash on crappy music or movies, I'll try out the media through torrents, and if I like it enough, I'll buy it off of itunes or purchase the DVD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        "Tough titty. Wait, you'll live. It's just entertainment asshole not a blood transfusion."
        
        And thus, you prove WHY piracy continues to exist.
        
        Guess what?
        
        The people paying for the entertainment also pay the bills for those who make the entertainment.
        
        If they don't want to make it available...
        
        Well, then they don't need my money, do they?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        This comment is proof that your argument has nothing to do with making money or being financially successful. To you it's all about the control and your obsessive need for it. Given the choice between receiving money (profit!) or making people wait (no profit!), you choose the path of stupidity. If the company I work for repeatedly made the same brainless choice it'd be dead in months.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        It's just entertainment asshole
        
        Really? We thought that was you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 12:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Seriously, what other industry tells their potential customer to get lost when the product is there to sell?
        WTF?
        This is why piracy exists!
        What kind of arse-about-face, fucked-up fantasy world are you living in when it makes sense to stick it to your customer?
        That's what kills businesses!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rapnel (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Hm. I actually like this question. It indicates quite clearly that not only are folks petulant on "both" sides but one side, exporters, are only interested in making money their way. They're implying that they have every right in the universe to "do things their way". Fact is, they do and they do. The other fact is they seem to be the only ones that like it. Heat and pressure.
        
        Once you can get out of your silly little heads that control is not, any longer, where the good money is then I think we'll be on a better path towards mutual satisfaction.
        
        Set the bar lower, not higher. Be your own partner for once and perhaps you can learn to please yourself on the path to discovering how to please others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        I'm here, with payment ready and available, for the entire The Booth at the End series. the entire Nickolodeon Avatar franchise and the entirety of a numb er of animated series.
        
        Which aren't available due to geo-locational bullshit. I can't watch two of ym favourite shows without resorting to things that are apparently criminal offences, because these things are not evailable due to geo-locational bullshit (for reference, the Daily Show and the Colkbert Report).
        
        So, remind me again how I'm supposed to get these programmes legitimately?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Maybe you can't. Too bad. Watch Benny Hill run around slapping Jackie on his bald head instead. It's not my fault your country produces dogshit no one wants to see. And it doesn't entitle you to illegally obtain the creative output of another country just because you want it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Steal any Korean or Japanese films lately there USA?
        
        What you said has nothing to do with quality and if you were running a store you'd be losing customers.
        
        What you totally miss is these people are PAYING customers who WANT to buy (ad supported or actually pay for it at a reasonable price), but your country's infinite wisdom prevents people from legally accessing it. So you try to stop them rather than provide an affordable means to do so.
        
        Way to alienate too, you MUST be a douche at Hollywood.
        
        I've got news for you, just because you have more TnA and explosions than anyone else (not just your military attacking countries for corporate control)does NOT mean you get to police the world.
        
        You sir, and the way your laws are written, are a prime example of ignorance and stupidity.
        
        I would NOT generalize all US citizens to be like you, just the ones who work for entertainment industry lobby groups, some corporate execs, and a large number of your Members of Congress.
        
        And let's not forget the UK's influence on US culture!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        And your response just proves Mike Masnick and us here at Techdirt completely right - whenever a person comes up, money in hand, saying they are willing to buy, they are instead turned away and accused of being criminals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Guess what, I can't buy fireworks in my home state. I've been to towns where I can't buy a drink. Here I am, money in hand willing to buy but I can't buy it. So I do without and/or wait.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Wrong analogy, are you restricted against buying fireworks in another state and bringing them to your own? Are they 3x the price in your state compared to other states?
        
        Were those fireworks locked up because they could not negotiate an extortive price or was it for safety reasons?
        
        When you go to another state or town to buy them, does your own state come after you and arrest you? When you drink in another town, does the dry town police come after you and charge you?
        
        No, again, wrong analogy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Actually, you can't bring fireworks into the state- they are illegal to possess, but they're perfectly legal across the state line a half hour away. And, though not in my state there are other states that stake out wholesale liquor/tobacco shops near their (higher state tax) border and follow them back into their home state and arrest them for importing more than the legal amount. So it's close enough dipshit. The point which raced right past you is that I'm not entitled. If I can't get something I want, when I want it I substitute or do without. You really should look at your sense of entitlement and fixation on US entertainment. It can't be healthy. Fortunately for you, I believe your country has socialized medicine and you can probably get needed psychiatric treatment for free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 4:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        You are comparing tangible goods with untangibles? And dangerous fireworks with copyright infingements?
        
        And can't you be more civil? All of your dipshits and dogshits... you do love your shit.
        
        Let me introduce you to Reality - what Hollywood produces lately is not what we PIRATES (Argh!!!) download. We find quality content through other means and I surely wouldn't waste my bandwidth (hint, it's broadband in real sense of the word, not "broadband" you have in US, so yeah, I can only waste time) on some hollywood remake of some shitty remake of some dudes getting drunk.
        
        The only entitlement is coming from industry of middlemen. Come on - in US you made "taking a cut that's bigger than cake" into an art form.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        You find sparklers dangerous? That's pretty pathetic. Hollywood motion pictures are the most pirated video files, so I don't know what it is that you are stealing... or why.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Hollywood movies are the most pirated because people are tired of wasting their money on crap.
        
        Hollywood continues to lose favor with their consumer, which is not dependent on what the consumer does, but what Hollywood does to bring the consumer in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 20 Aug 2012 @ 1:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        You see - I'm not stealing - I am copying. It is hard to get that through your skull, I know, but bear with me while I try to explain astrophysics of sharing:
        1. I find something I like
        2. I share it
        
        You see - education is not a democracy. Ideas that are most popular are not necessarily the best. So just because some stupid Hangover movie is most downloaded movie - that does not make it the best. Most of these movies suck hairy balls of ebola infested monkeys. Now THAT is pretty pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 5:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        The point was not raced by anyone except yourself. Your analogy does not work in the digital realm.
        
        And your ad-hominem attacks really form solid arguments, way to go!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Clap clap clap.
        
        No, wait, I shouldn't be congratulating you. What you just said is completely retarded, and I would say is more indicative of what a Down's Syndrome person would say if I didn't actually have Down's Syndrome friends & relatives and didn't want to inadvertently insult them.
        
        The reason the sale of fireworks and alcohol is restricted in certain US states is because they are DANGEROUS. Physically dangerous, as in, if you misuse fireworks or alcohol, you could end up hurting or killing someone.
        
        You just spewed that out without thinking through it.
        
        Dumbass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 3:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        You're completely missing the point. For example, some states repealed blue law to satisfy consumer want and boost the economy (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39404735/States_and_Cities_New_Stimulus_Strategy_Booze_Sales).
        
        Hollywood has the opportunity to do the same things and they won't do it.
        
        That's stupidity and bad for business when you can take advantage of a bigger market and won't. For the fact that you support that, makes you an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Togashi (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        No, nobody in your home state can sell fireworks. You've been to towns where they can't sell you a drink. There is an important difference.
        
        If the (MP|RI)AA were forbidden by law to sell to people outside of the US, you would have a point. Instead, you have people coming up to them on the internet, where it is perfectly legal to sell their goods and physical location does not matter for distribution, and being turned away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        You miss my point entirely. I note that for WHATEVER reason a product is unavailable to me at a given time and place. My response is to do without or substitute. Your response is to say that unavailability is an excuse to obtain the product illegally. That is called entitlement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Holy crap you are one hardcore troll. Congratulations.
        
        Comparing items forbidden by law with creative content is by far the dumbest analogy I've seen.
        
        It's not called entitlement. Entitlement is what the copyright industry feels when they put artificial barriers around their content. And frankly, I'm glad there are ways to destroy those barriers that end up harming many artists and creators, depriving the public of the ability to enjoy their productions.
        
        It's comparable (in a much, much smaller scale) to medicine. There are artificial barriers and overpricing issues that made the Governments revoke the patents in many places around the world. Sure entertainment content isn't nearly as vital but if you put artifical barriers around content ppl want, they will break those barriers down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        "Your response is to say that unavailability is an excuse to obtain the product illegally"
        Not an excuse, a reason why some people do it. Especially given that the legal alternative may a) never be available and b) may be a worse product due to DRM or similar restrictions.
        I note you're still unwilling to consider why depriving your potential customers might be a bad business model in the first place?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Togashi (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 6:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Wow, where did I ever say that piracy is OK? All I said is that your example was completely bass ackwards.
        
        If I had fireworks, and someone came up to me to buy them, I could not sell them by law. That is a valid reason to answer them in the negative.
        
        However, say I've written an original story. I've already sold copies of the txt file to other people in my state for $10 (yeah, we're assuming it's a DAMN GOOD story). If someone in California wants to buy a copy of the txt file for $10, I'm free to sell it to them. I'm also free to tell them no. But if I do answer them in the negative, all I'm doing is depriving myself of money. No matter whether they do without or go find someone else who I did sell a copy to to tell them the story, I'm out $10 that I could have had with little effort.
        
        Personally, I wouldn't want them to pirate my story. If they don't value it that much, I'd rather they found something they did value enough to pay for. But if they're willing to pay me for it, then they might also be willing to try to get it for free, whether I think that's wrong or not. So why not go ahead and sell it to them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        "Maybe you can't. Too bad. it doesn't entitle you to illegally obtain the creative output of another country just because you want it."
        
        Yes it does.
        
        Free market, boyo.
        
        If it doesn't provide what I want, I'll get it, whether by hook or crook.
        
        And since I can't get it legally, I'll get it illegally.
        
        THAT is the truth of the free market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        most of the time i don't like to respond to questions like this but i have a question to you, do you want his money ?, if you do want it what is needed to give the service he/she wants and get his money ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RadialSkid (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Because access to culture is an entitlement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Because access to culture is an entitlement.
        
        Bullshit. We live in a world where food, clean water, medical care and education are not viewed as entitlements and you make a statement like that? And as often as not, this claim is being made by foreigners who are largely talking about access to American culture because their's is so numbingly dull. It sure reveals how pathologically obsessed you freeloaders are. It's mind-boggling that so much is made of free access to entertainment with all of the legitimate want in this world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        "their's is so numbingly dull" or maybe you don't appreciate it, but you mean it's not your cup of tea.
        
        I find it rare when the US releases something in the theatres that's unique and interesting, then I find out it was stolen from one of those "numbingly dull" countries you refer to. Or written by an author from one of those countries.
        
        Yes, you've created lots, just like everyone else, but you've overhyped it. Sorry to break it to you.
        
        And stop coming off like an arrogant ass, it's really doing the decent people in your country a huge disservice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        So if the material or creator has been appropriated from another country, why are most other countries film industry largely moribund or commercial failures? Why isn't that product made in that country. What is so wrong with foreign motion picture economies that they drive creative people to Hollywood? And what does that do to that country's own culture?
        
        Maybe you should be more concerned about that than why you have to wait to see Dark Knight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        So rather than address my point, you're going to ask a completely unrelated question?
        My point still stands, whether or not its the Dark Knight Rises specifically I want to see. Even if a film service were to appear tomorrow, with non-Hollywood movies and offering them to deliver them in ways I and others want, Hollywood would still go thermonuclear war on it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        You define commercial failure because it has not "made it" in the US? Perhaps you have not investigated manifest destiny much? Just how respectful has the US been towards other cultures?
        
        They don't "drive" people to Hollywood, Hollywood buys them on the promise of lots of money and "making it" in the US. They promote bullshit lifestyles of Hollywood's rich and famous and tell them "that could be you."
        
        And that's not reality, with the exception of a select few.
        
        It says NOTHING about the country's own culture, only that Hollywood was successful at exploiting someone else's work for greed, by lighting a greed fire inside that person. Then reality comes into play and for most cases, those exploited artists/producers/writers are tossed aside and have to travel back to their homeland TO MAKE MONEY TO LIVE.
        
        That's assuming Hollywood even bothered to give the creators anything or even invite them for the "lottery" that is Hollywood.
        
        I've already seen The Dark Night and The Dark Night Rises, thank you very much.
        
        I've also seen the subtitled versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, My Sassy Girl, The Lakehouse, Dark Water, The Ring (this one they actually brought the guy over because we know Hollywood would have fucked it up), etc..
        
        I guess for Americans like you it needs to be Americanized without subtitles because reading is just too much work?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 4:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Reading while watching a movie? Are you crazy?! That's for those elitist book readers!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Bullshit. We live in a world where food, clean water, medical care and education are not viewed as entitlements
        
        Says who? You?
        
        It sure reveals how pathologically obsessed you freeloaders are.
        
        I'm not a "freeloader," you arrogant ass. The culture I enjoy is already free. But I am a sympathizer with those you do classify as "freeloaders." Why? Because, quite simply, they're the enemy of my enemy.
        
        Make the materials available worldwide to those who wish to see it. Stop whining because someone has the AUDACITY to view it for free, instead of having the "morals" to say, "Gee, even though it's right there on the internet available to me and I really want to see it, I should just not watch it because the retail system will never offer it here."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        And I nearly forgot....
        
        It's mind-boggling that so much is made of free access to entertainment with all of the legitimate want in this world.
        
        Then why ARE you making so much of it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Actually, those are viewed as entitlements in my country. Constitution expresses that every citizen has the right to access those. And education, which includes culture =)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:56am
    
    Re: Re: Hold on a minute
    DRM...
    
    Oh! You mean that stuff that doesn't work, pirates don't bother with and only punishes paying customers?
    
    Ah, yes, bob's solution to everything...
    
    Punish legitimate customers for the actions of others.
    
    It's like, if someone took a cookie from the cookie jar, instead of going after the kid with crumbs on his lips, all the other children get spankings and get no cookies later.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:56am
    
    Re: Re: Hold on a minute
    Remember that Mr. Masnick is just part of Big Search's astroturfing corp. I'm waiting to see if he comes clean when Google has to report their paid blogging staff to the Judge in the Oracle/Google case.
    
    I think there's little doubt that Masnick slops from the Google shill-though along with lots of other little piggies. The question is how he spins it and whether he pre-empts the announcement with one of his own.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      If Mike is being paid by Google, then why does he write articles CRITICISING Google?
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120810/10465419988/google-caves-to-hollywood-pressure- will-now-punish-sites-that-get-lots-valid-dmca-notices.shtml
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201 20808/12301619967/how-googles-contentid-system-fails-fair-use-public-domain.shtml
      
      Those are just the articles from this month.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Same reason mega-benefactors like EFF, CDT and PK occasionally take positions opposite Google- it maintains an air (albeit a false one) of separation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        So Mike either writes articles criticizing Google because he's being paid to do so, or he writes articles praising Google because he's paid to do. He can never write articles criticising Google because he genuinely believes they have done wrong?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        I guess that extra chromosome makes this difficult to follow, so I'll type slowly in hopes that you can follow along. It is not uncommon for Google benefactors to occasionally take a position critical of Google. Million dollar Google donation recipients like EFF have had occasion to criticize Google as well. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes I think it is to provide evidence of their so-called "independence" from their paymaster, but it is not uncommon. We good now Derpsley?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        "Sometimes it's legit, sometimes I think it is to provide evidence of their so-called "independence" from their paymaster, but it is not uncommon."
        
        "sometimes I think it is to provide evidence of their so-called "independence" from their paymaster."
        
        "I think"
        
        He's not lacking a chromosome, he is just confused, like the majority of us, that you would represent your opinion as a fact about Google.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        No, because you have not shown us proof that Mike has been bought by Google. You just accuse and never back it up...much like certain four letter lobby groups that come to mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        And no, I don't have Down's Syndrome (that's what having an extra chromosome is, Down's), so your ad hominem attack sure worked well, didn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Are you sure you don't? Because only a complete imbecile would have taken the bait the way you just did. Your derp is showing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Uh, yes I'm sure. I've looked in a mirror recently. In case you don't know, Down's Syndrome people have very distinctive facial features, which I lack.
        Oh, and I'm not in the UK. Close though.
        
        So, wanna try again at hurling an insult my way that actually works and makes sense?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 5:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        It seems troll just found out trolling can be harder than on 4chan or youtube. Damn you, rational thinking, damn you!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        You man, bro?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        She's pbviously a ho rather than a bro.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Colin, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        "They're all in cahoots! Except for when it looks like they're not, then it's just so people don't think they're in cahoots!"
        
        Your tinfoil hat is coming loose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      Yup. He's already announced the funding of his future of journalism conference and one of his other platforms for examining innovation. I wonder what will be forthcoming.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:58am
    
    Re: Re: Hold on a minute
    "DRM is never considered "innovation" even though it takes much more sophisticated science than the repurposed FTP servers run by Techdirt heroes like Megaupload."
    
    That's a very interesting argument.
    
    I've used (and implemented) quite a few DRM solutions, and I am definitely interested in hearing what kind of bleeding edge technology you think is involved in such a system.
    
    I'll be waiting for your reply with heightened interest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James Plotkin (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re: Hold on a minute
    I agree that DRM shouldn't be considered synonymous with "bad". Unless you're a copyright abolitionist and believe that intellectual property rights shouldn't exist (a growing club) then DRM should be viewed as a valuable tool.
    
    I think what most people rail against- and here I agree with them- is the abuse of those technologies and the lack of safe harbors in the law. Yes the DMCA provides for exceptions and the case law that has developed in the United States over the past decade or so had enriched our understanding. However, here in Canada, our government has just enacted a law that prohibits the circumvention of TPMs, even for lawful purposes. The exceptions tot he rule are incredibly narrow (dealing with things like encryption research and reverse engineering for product compatibility).
    
    Events like the Sony Rootkit fiasco don't help either. Fact is that DRM has acquired a bad name, not because it's inherently bad, but because it's abused by the content industry and over-protected by legislation.
    
    Bottom line, DRM has to get a little friendlier.
    
    Masnick has to tone down the opinion and strive for a little more objectivity. You're borderline distorting facts...as was the case in your assessment of the 7th circuit decision in MyVidster...A LITTLE OBJECCTIVITY...PLEASE
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AzureSky (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      http://cdn.thenextweb.com/files/2010/08/drm-500x476.png
      
      that pretty much covers drm....
      
      drm is never good, it never does what it says it does(stop piracy), it only punishes those foolish enough to support it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Simple Mind (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      DRM should be viewed as a valuable tool.
      
      The problem with DRM is that it can always be circumvented. Thus, the only people that have to put up with the restrictions imposed by a DRM scheme are legitimate paying customers. Your paying customers should be the ones getting the best experience from your product, not the worst. Thus, DRM is in fact synonymous with "bad".
      
      What needs to replace DRM is trust. Media companies should make everything as freely available (ie. no DRM) as possible and trust that people will pay for it if they find value in it. They also need to create ways for people to pay that include varying cost. When I was young, I valued music very highly and was willing to pay a lot for it. When I hit 30 something switched off in my brain and I stopped listening to music or caring much about it. Now I might value a song a 5 cents that they want me to pay $1 for, so they get $0 from me and I do without.
      
      On the other side, in exchange for media producers trusting us, society needs to adopt an attitude that it is not ok to get something you value and pay nothing for it. ie., We need to replace law enforcement with a social stigma. Those that have the means to pay but choose not to need to be ridiculed for it. They are being nice, so we should be nice. Everyone should be good to eachother and stop fighting.
      
      We can continue down the DRM, control, fight, enforce, restrict, greed, closed, path or the free, trust, cooperate, open, share, fair, path. The first path seems futile given the technology, and painful for everyone as it leads to anger, hatred, and conflict. While the later path leads to happiness, peace, love, and harmony among human species all over the planet. Choose!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      Bottom line, DRM has to get a little friendlier.
      
      Actually, it has to go away cause it offers NO benefit to the customer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 4:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      Dude. It's an opinion and discussion blog, not a news service. Still, get more objectivity than the news networks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am
    
    Re: Re: Hold on a minute
    Solutions like Hulu - wait a moment, that's not available outside the US. Netflix is barely available in the UK. HBO and numerous other channels aren't terribly available either. Where's the 'effort' to make these things available?
    
    And once again, it's really not Google's job to prop up legacy players any more than it is Apple's. DRM is a poor technological fix that is simply a waste of time. How long did DVD DRM last? Blu-Ray? It's nothing to do with your BS 'big search' and everything to do with technological progress and human innovation.
    
    Ever since region-coding on DVDs (and even some release windows on movies), a 'war' on customers has been evident. Virtually no other industry plays these games or ignores customers to this extent, let alone the people generating their content. The legacy players reap what they sow...
    
    Maybe they aren't actually 'evil'. For instance, they aren't starting illegal wars or removing people's ability to survive without jobs or have affordable healthcare. But they appear to be wilfully blind to what they are doing, more than happy to make up vastly wrong numbers that they keep spouting, and the annoying habit of blatantly buying laws and politicians. So while they may not be Satan himself, they do qualify as one of his boils ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gary, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      I have never pirated since 1999 but one more thing from those
      guys and I start!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
      Why is it incumbent on US entertainment companies to fix your problems in the UK? Outside of Harry Potter you have shit, but whose fault is that? Why do you think you are entitled to access to US culture in the same manner/timeline as US citizens?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - drew (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 1:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        oh FFS! Here we go again, customers, millions of them, wanting to pay for your content. But you don't want to serve them?
        Oh look, there's a free alternative with no restrictions. Hmm, maybe I'll just try that instead.
        It's not about entitlement, it's about making customers of your fans - rather than enemies, which appears to be your objective?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bratwurzt (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 5:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
        Whay is it incumbent on ISPs to fix US entertainment companies problems?
        
        FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re: Hold on a minute
    Nice strawman there Bob, with your ad-hominem attacks.
    
    "You don't offer solutions" is like walking into Tim Horton's and complaining they don't sell coffee and donuts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hak Foo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Hold on a minute
    "Innovation" when it comes to DRM is a rather academic use of the word. Yes, you're advancing the state of the science, but it's a science that most consumers fundamentally don't want. It's like trying to get the Nobel in Medicine for advancing the spread of genital warts.
    
    As a consumer, copy-prevention technologies rarely present clear and direct value to me. One of the few prominent exceptions is Steam, which actually offers a legitimate and comprehensible convenience. In contrast, every flyer and explanation I ever saw about UltraViolet just made me more confused and more wondering "why exactly can't I just rip this on my PC like an audio disc?"
    
    Sure, the industry shills will say "without crippling DRM, we couldn't sell $foo...". Bullshit. It's not that you can't sell it, it's that you won't because you think you can grab more out of the customer. Notice how media companies had to handle China-- without being able to effectively swing the club of the law around, they actually had to re-price their products to the market.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Hold on a minute
  Check out the case studies and there have been many, many articles on how to resolve the broken industry model.
  
  That discussion has been dismissed by the MPAA/RIAA repeatedly, there are many articles on that (not just on TechDirt either).
  
  They don't want help, they just want to go back in time to regain control over everything, what's created, how/when it is consumed, and exploit it for maximum profits.
  
  Funny how Hollywood rose from the ground as almost a grassroots power against patent/copyright abuse that was coming from Edison's MPPC. Amazing how quickly they forget where they came from once they become wealthy beyond belief.
  
  MPPC had shit films the public didn't enjoy, Hollywood created new and unique films, the public loved it. Now what are they doing, trying to destroy the only means of distribution for small players, while remaking films and generating sequels in an attempt to grab as much cash as possible.
  
  They don't want to talk solutions, they've said "we want to talk" but that's it, them talking, everyone else listening, that's all they want. In old terms, they don't want bidirectional communication (full duplex), they just want half-duplex, without the ability for said end device to send anything back, just hold it's "CTS" (clear to send) pin low and listen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:28am
  
  Re: Hold on a minute
  "Some good ideas have been put forward such as a broadband fee"
  
  A Broadband fee!!
  Are you fucking nuts, thinking this is a good idea?
  They already have these type of fees all over the place and yet piracy still exist.
  
  You want to solve the piracy problem and the best you can come up with are fees?
  
  The only way to stop piracy is to do away with the people that think piracy is a problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pahosler (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:35am

I don't use google to search for songs, tv shows or music.
I'm sure a lot of people do, at least until they find the sites they know they can reliably return to that have the content they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:36am

Clank!
That's the sound of Google hitting the ceiling, it's all downhill from here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colin, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:38am

Google just needs to learn to ask the **AAs for a list of what they want, decide what they can/will do, and bill the **AAs for the rest of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:38am

File this under reasons to start using bing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  I guess you were asleep when Microsoft came out in favor of SOPA. How long before Bing matches Google or goes one-up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    I guess you were asleep when Microsoft came out in favor of SOPA. How long before Bing matches Google or goes one-up.
    
    Microsoft never came out in favor of SOPA, and was the primary reason why the BSA changed its official position on SOPA from in favor to neutral.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/18/apple-microsoft-sopa-support/
      
      As the article suggests, Microsoft quietly supported SOPA until it became clear that it was DOA. And like so many Congressmen and Senators, jumped ship and joined the list of opponents when the outcome was clear. But you already knew that, didn't you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So they supported by proxy, instead of directly?
        
        Interesting how Microsoft had "no comment" about SOPA when they were asked.
        
        Doesn't really sound like they "came out in support."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Too busy trying to secure Windows and didn't know what SOPA/PIPA was?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As the article suggests, Microsoft quietly supported SOPA until it became clear that it was DOA. And like so many Congressmen and Senators, jumped ship and joined the list of opponents when the outcome was clear. But you already knew that, didn't you?
        
        No, that article was wrong. The BSA supported it -- which got some people, like the VB writer to falsely suggest that Microsoft supported it. But Microsoft did not support it, which is why the BSA changed its mind. The publicity from bogus articles like the VB one hastened the process of MS telling the BSA to back down.
        
        The BSA backed down way way earlier than "when the outcome was clear."
        
        But you already knew that, didn't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's your delusion, go with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look who's talking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's interesting Masnick. When no citation is offered, you make a federal case of it. When a citation IS offered, then your response is "No, that article was wrong".
        
        Denial- not just a river in Egypt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2012 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57330078-281/surprise-microsoft-quietly-opposes-sopa-copyright-bil l/
        
        For that matter, BSA retracted their support.
        
        http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/bsa-microsoft-join-sopa-opposition-47043
        
        http:// www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/244501/business_software_alliance_withdraws_support_for_stop_ online_piracy_act.html
        
        What was that, again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The BSA backed down way way earlier than "when the outcome was clear."
        
        When Lamar Smith recessed the markup instead of making everyone sit through each of the 75 amendments (mostly) authored by Google's hired gun, Marvin Ammori; that was the moment the outcome was clear. He calculated correctly that Smith wouldn't read the shifting sands until it was too late. The antics of January 18 were grandstanders abusing the corpse of an already-dead bill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 4:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://youareanidiot.org/ That's an appropriate link for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We got a case of anti-copyright extremist here. Well to go Mike, you are now hated in both ends!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        way*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  I like DuckDuckGo best at this point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yep.
    
    I'm gonna sound (read?) like an advertisement, but Interested parties should probably read this:
    
    http://donttrack.us/
    
    and this:
    
    http://dontbubble.us/
    
    Or just try it:
    
    http://duckduckgo.com/
    
    It's free. If you like it, good. If you don't, it's still good.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AdamF (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:42am

Where's this myriad?
So from now on, query "watch dark knight rises online for free" will pop up a bunch of legitimate licensed service?

Or, I'll be less greedy and try "watch dark knight rises online in Canada for any price sometime this century". Could MPAA please direct me to the myriad legitimate links that they claim are out there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:45am

Try this one
That movies not out yet, but it will be soon. In the meantime, you can buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/Christopher-Directors-Collection-Insomnia-Inception/dp/B0085D3I3K/ref=sr_1_12? ie=UTF8&qid=1344872666&sr=8-12&keywords=dark+knight+rises

Pay the creator. It's only fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: Try this one
  And why isn't it out yet? There's clearly market demand for a home version of Dark Knight Rises. Why must Hollywood stick to the old formula of saying for the first X amount of weeks, the only legitimate viewing is one done in a big building with hundreds of other people you don't know?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re: Try this one
    The studios have contracts with the theaters. Theaters are also a major way to "advertise" your film. Seriously, would it kill you to either watch it in the theater or just wait? Are you really so entitled?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Zakida Paul (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Try this one
      What about the entitlement of the entertainment industry who still think they should be able to control what we watch and how we watch it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Ummm they own it. Just like what ever business you're in, the owner of said business is free to market his product as he sees fit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Yeah and the consumer is free to point out how shitty said business is marketing especially if said business expects us to hand over our money for shitty media.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        The owner of said business is not free to market his product in a manner that every sane economist and technologist is telling them is a terrible long-term economic strategy, while at the same time bribing the government to write terrible laws to assist them with their failing strategy, and strong-arming private companies to change the way they run their very successful business because they actually offer their customers what they want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        the owner of said business is free to market his product as he sees fit.
        
        As is the customer in not buying it. So what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 2:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        And if we all close our eyes, and wish really hard, the internet will just disappear!
        Windows made sense when the movie industry was physically shipping the movie reels around the theatres. They don't make sense now. If your contracts with the theatres require this, re-negotiate. The theatres need the content, the content doesn't need the theatres.
        
        "the owner of said business is free to market his product as he sees fit."
        
        And the owner of said business is free to see it go to the wall because he refuses to serve his potential customers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 3:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        "Just like what ever business you're in, the owner of said business is free to market his product as he sees fit."
        
        ...and potential customers are free to tell them they're doing it wrong, which includes the option of not buying. That some people opt to "pirate" rather than simply not buying does not undermine this point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Try this one
      I actually have already watched it in the theatre, thank you very much, but why is it wrong for me to have a demand to watch it at home NOW? I don't care what contracts the studios have with theatres. I'm a guy who wants to watch a movie and if you do it right, will pay you for it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - loaderboy (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Why don't they sell a DRM free copy in the lobby on the way out of the theater? $15-$20. I bet you would have bought one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Yep, I'd have happily bought the box set on the way out, at a premium.
        Instead I'll wait until it's in the bargain bin at the supermarket.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Try this one
      F*** the theatres then. It's not like I can get the time to go, or raise a mortgage every time I want to in order to pay for the 'experience'...
      
      Infinite goods, why should I wait? Provide me something affordable now, which wouldn't 'cost' you anything, and might gain you something you wouldn't have had. Or keep whining and losing out...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Try this one
      So, remind me again why I should wait for months after the films come out before I can even see them in the fucking theatres?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Go watch a British movie instead. Odd, I don't hear people in the States crying that the latest British cinematic tour de force is unavailable for a period of time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        It's called protectionism, just like the US automotive industry. Too bad the Japanese were smarter than the US companies and decided to build them right in Canada and the US and people bought more of them, rather than pay for bullshit tariffs because competition is dangerous.
        
        Man, you really don't know much about US policy do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Dumbass, (yeah, that's what you are and what I'm calling you) there was a huge amount of US demand to be able to watch the London 2012 Olympics. London, as in the capital of Britain. And people in the US couldn't, if they didn't have NBC.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        add to that Sky1 with Battlestar Galactica, uploaded months before released in US by UK fans, US fans watched, then the show became the most watched Sci Fi show in the US in history!
        
        So I guess not all shit coming out of the UK there AC
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Odd, I don't hear people in the States crying that the latest British cinematic tour de force is unavailable for a period of time.
        
        No surprise there. They happily wait for the dumbed down remake of successful British shows.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: Try this one
  Okay, how do I pay the creator?
  
  What's his home address?
  
  I'd like to send him money directly.
  
  And skip the studios.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re: Try this one
    Try writing down the names of all of the people listed in the credits and paying every one of them too. Whether the director, producer or studio it's only a pass through for all of those people whose creative input it took to make the film.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Try this one
      The only way to do that efficiently would be to aim a video camera at the screen in the theatre...oh wait, we're not allowed do that.
      
      Seriously? That's your suggestion?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Seriously? That's your suggestion?
        
        Dear God, are you ever slow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        "Dear God, are you ever slow."
        
        Why are you saying such bad things about yourself?
        
        Think happy thoughts, man.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        He's slow? Man, do you even know how to sense sarcasm?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Try this one
      I'm happy to purchase a streaming copy if you like. All legal and such. Please point me to this source and I will cheerfully pay for the movies I want to watch.
      
      Thank you so very much for this. I have been waiting to pay of Avengers and DKR since I saw them in the theater.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - egghead (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Try this one
      "Try writing down the names of all of the people listed in the credits and paying every one of them too. Whether the director, producer or studio it's only a pass through for all of those people whose creative input it took to make the film."
      Haven't all those people already been paid for their work? Does the best boy really get royalty checks for all the movies he's been involved in making? Perhaps I should send some money to the waitstaff, cooks, hostesses, bartenders, janitors, managers and owners of the local restaurant 24 hours after my meal when it re-emerges; after all, they helped make this shit possible.
      
      Look, I get that the studio has already paid for the movie and is trying to re-coup their investment, but they seem to be too entrenched in their ways to see the massive demand before them. Maybe some accountant is too focused on using fuzzy accounting to make it look like they never make back their investment that they are concerned about making too much money too quickly. They wouldn't want it to look like a success; they might just have to fork over some of their haul.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
        Haven't all those people already been paid for their work? Does the best boy really get royalty checks for all the movies he's been involved in making?
        
        Actors, directors and some producers get residuals. Crew residuals are paid into their health and retirement benefit plans.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Try this one
  Who wants some plastic disks?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:06pm
  
  Re: Try this one
  "Pay the creator. It's only fair."
  
  Only if I want to watch it, which I don't.
  
  Besides...
  
  Blu Ray.
  
  I don't support that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 3:17am
  
  Re: Try this one
  No, sorry, I already own those films on DVD. I don't want them. I want the new film, which I've already seen theatrically and will not see again until the DVD release.
  
  So, I'll wait. Maybe I will decide to buy another DVD in the meantime from someone who's offering me the product, then pick up TDKR in the bargain bucket after it's dropped in price following their decision to actually offer me the product. Their problem if they couldn't be bothered to offer me the product when I was willing to pay full whack for it.
  
  See how that works? Warner have failed to collect my money when it was being offered to them.
  
  "Pay the creator. It's only fair."
  
  I do when they decide to take my money. Not my problem if they refuse it in search of something else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:45am

Yet again
A company from one industry has to act in the protectionist interests of another industry. The entitlement of the entertainment industry never ceases to astound me. Instead of standing on their own two feet and innovating new ways of getting content to fans, they expect everyone to protect the industry's interests at the expense of their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:55am

sites that are the subject of large numbers of copyright removal notices may be ranked lower in search results

Translation:

Woohah! Now all we have to do flood google with more false copyright notices to make competition completely vanish! God bless pseudo-monopolies like google - I can feel a new Cadillac limo coming on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 8:59am

The only way to make the RIAA and MPAA happy is to remove the Internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wallow-T, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  Truer than you realize. Google, in the view of Big Content, should have every search result legally reviewed.
  
  To the degree that user-generated content is too great a volume for legal review, it needs to be shut down completely; we need to return to the Compu$erve/GEnie/AOL model where content flows primarily from approved, centralized sources.
  
  Big Content needs to take away the opportunity for infringement, no matter its effects on the opportunity for speech and expression. And, it needs to be able to do this at minimal cost: due process and accuracy are not cost-effective and they do not scale.
  
  To Big Content, the Internet (as we understand it) is acceptable collateral damage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    RIAA/MPAA would like it if all searches had to be reviewed and approved first before the searcher gets any results.
    
    Submit your search and wait until you get an email with a link to the search results.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MahaliaShere (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  I would settle for Google delisting all content made by those represented by RIAA and MPAA from its search engine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RatMan, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:00am

No way this will encourage more DMCA filings!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:10am

Movies on your Thumb Drive
MGM is launching they're own version of Movies to go.
Check it out at digiboo (yes, digiboo).com

I give them an A for brilliant stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:13am

Rope rope give them more rope...
The MPAA is doing exactly as predicted, they are demanding more and more and more, until they destroy the Search Engine, that is when the might of Google will rise up and either purchase all the studios and Close the MPAA or arrange a nice court case where the Industry has to defend there action's, where they they have removed content when they had no right to,where it is illegal and corrupt and fraudulent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another AC, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:28am

Good One!
"...the online marketplace for the hundreds of licensed digital services embraced by the music business"

Had me laughing there for a second...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: Good One!
  Oh there are hunderds, but the legacy crippled most of them to the point of uselessness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re: Good One!
    *legacy industry
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trollfinder General, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:40am

Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
Unless you like the smell of pure b.s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:44am
  
  Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
  I am going to have to disagree with you on this.
  
  I think we should all respond to Bob's posts, but in a polite, fact-based manner, or at least point out his argument fallacies.
  
  The reason? There are still many politicians and artists who believe as strongly as he does that the RIAA/MPAA stats are 100% true and the industry as a whole (not just the label's subset) has been devastated.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
    Robert?
    
    Nice try bob
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
      I doubt that Robert = bob. Robert has a Techdirt Insider badge, and you have to pay to get those. bob would never pay a cent to Mike.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Robert (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
      Uh, no, it IS Robert, not that Bob guy.
      
      I know too many people who think the same as Bob does, so maybe, just maybe, if they read bob's comments and see the responses (with minimal ad-hominem attacks) it might help the readers who feel the same as bob see how they are not 100% correct (and neither are the doom and gloom industry stories).
      
      I'm thinking of one particular musician who's music is very important to me, but he has similar conceptions of reality that match Bob's. People like Barry Sookman or Graham Henderson, well, those guys are being paid to feel as Bob does, so I don't care.
      
      But the more I read bob's stuff and the more responses I see, the better I am able to try to convince musicians and people who's opinion I actually care about to see other information and see through the lies/tricks/misinformation provided by the RIAA/MPAA groups.
      
      I am simply trying to be fair.
      
      If we just dismiss Bob, ignoring him, well... others who feel as bob does will continue to do so, instead of being influenced by the responses to bob's ignorance and stubbornness to continue in their belief.
      
      I've found through a2f2a.com (now gone) that many are like bob, but many are not so stubborn when they realize bob's views are based on less than accurate information.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AzureSky (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
    I think we should flag them all funny......even and espically the non-funny ones.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:58am
  
  Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
  I think hes one of the better trolls ive seen, certainly more coherent than TAM (assuming he isnt TAM.. ). Just look at how he keeps the posts coming, bad trolls push too far, bob genuinely seems to comes off as that one ignorant guy you just cant stop trying to explain the realities of the world to
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:41am

Thing is, making pirate sites harder to find is not the same as getting people to buy.

1. You're not going to "steer towards legitimate ways" fpr pproducts that a pirate cannot buy. For example, that are not legally available in the region the pirate is in or they want things they cannot afford.

2. you're not going to get more sales when piracy is the RESULT of a sale you already made. For example, those that buy the game only to be fucked over by the DRM and go for the pirated version. Or it's an old game you already own and you want to download a digital copy to do things not possible on the game system was not designed to do.(online pley, custom textures)

3. you will not get more sakes where a pirate is pirating because it's so bad they only pirate it just to see the terribleness and would not want to spend money on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  "1. You're not going to "steer towards legitimate ways" fpr pproducts that a pirate cannot buy. For example, that are not legally available in the region the pirate is in or they want things they cannot afford."
  
  - That's me, iTunes Video Store is unavailable in Ireland.
  
  "2. you're not going to get more sales when piracy is the RESULT of a sale you already made. For example, those that buy the game only to be fucked over by the DRM and go for the pirated version. Or it's an old game you already own and you want to download a digital copy to do things not possible on the game system was not designed to do.(online pley, custom textures)"
  
  - That's me. I've bought legit copies of all the Assassin's Creed games, only to learn recently that UPlay, the DRM, left me vulnerable to hackers. I've also bought Baldur's Gate twice, so if my hard drive dies and I download a fresh copy off Piratebay, how is it infringement? Where's the harm?
  
  "3. you will not get more sakes where a pirate is pirating because it's so bad they only pirate it just to see the terribleness and would not want to spend money on it."
  
  -That's me, I've downloaded things only to watch/play them and find they're terrible. If I had paid, I would have been ripped off, the quality is so bad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    For every "that's me" I read it in butters vioce from south park.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Count me in. Same story, different places.
    
    And the MAFIAA could die a fiery death soon and let the world flourish.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  "Thing is, making pirate sites harder to find is not the same as getting people to buy."
  
  Honestly, while they think they are making the sites harder to find. This is only effecting one search engine of the myriads that exist today. Google is heavily used today, but the public opinion could just as easy move on to another less accommodating search provider.
  Some alternatives: DuckDuckGo, StartPage, IXQuick, etc
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Simple Mind (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re:
  All games should be freely downloadable with no DRM. (or a nominal DL fee that could be bypassed by DLing from a torrent site) Then, on the main menu should be a button "Pay for this Game". When you click on the button it says "You have paid $X for this game so far." with another set of buttons: "Use Paypal", "Use Amazon", "Use itunes", ... You get where I am going with this.
  
  All digital media should be, pay what you want, when you want. They can give you suggested price and/or what others have paid as a guideline or just leave it up to you. This is easy to implement for games because they have a built-in UI. It is tougher for mp3s or AVIs. But if they gave us a website to easily get anything we wanted that website could also be used to keep track of payments. That website would put itunes and netflix out of business shortly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:55am

At least now Google knows there's no end to the whining, even if you cave in to their demands. Except that now that they went down this slippery slope they probably can't go back.

Time to move from search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 13 Aug 2012 @ 9:59am

Why make such a fuss. Just change search providers to someone who won't do the take downs or fall to corporations. Google is not the only fish in the sea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  "are are plenty of fish in the sea, but you're the only one I want to mount over my fireplace"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 10:41am

I think Google is smart to do this, now before you throw me in with Bob, remember that Google is trying to deliver relevant results. If you are looking to download the latest Chart topping #1 song do you want to get directed to a site that has tons of dead links from DMCA notices, or a site still has the content you are looking for?

Downgrading sites that have lots of DMCA notices (and hence probably many dead links) I think can yield better results, as long as sites the MAFIAA's are pushing don't get unwarranted promotions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh THAT Brian, 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:22am

Youtube and Google
OK - since YouTube probably has one of the largest number of DMCA takedowns counts, Google will have to push it down.

Result: Thousands of legitimate artists (including those from the Big Labels) will suddenly suffer from a loss of popularity, mainly due to the number of people who won't come across their legitimately posted videos on YouTube.

Big artists suffer from loss of exposure and suddenly garage bands rule the Internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:46am

they may find that, like feeding trolls, it just brings out even more requests...'

dont know why you say Google MAY have more requests put to them, it's a definite and they will be orders, not requests! Google are going totally against the consumer now and falling willingly into bed with the entertainment industries. the supposed 'myriad of legitimate services' offered by the industries are 'a wealth' for them because they are trying to charge the same as for a physical medium. not all things are available from one place and people cant pay for all of them. the reason they want cyberlockers, p2p and torrent sites shut down isn't because of the amount of money those sites are making (nothing for the files!) but because the service given knocks the arse off of what the industries are offering. as for getting the US government involved, they did that years ago. instead of continuously going against customers requests, they ought to be taking note, then they would make more money instead of wasting it. what they also need to remember is that any threats against the EU (TPB being in the EU, not in the USA 'we are the most important nation on the planet, so do as we tell you!) wont be taken kindly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:56am

There's a reason why Google did not meet the original demands to just completely de-index pirate sites. The system they built is essentially run by the consumer. Consumers create inbound and outbound links that can determine the level of trust a site has (basic SEO). You couple that with the content of a specific page or the way it's been optimized and you have a site that stays pretty far up on the list for certain keywords.

Also, the biggest problem with what Hollywood is asking is that Google could not only lose millions of dollars in having to re-write the code, but also piss of millions of consumers (look at what happened with Panda) who end up losing their rank in search.

What Hollywood wants is unrealistic and due to their half-assed attempts at PR, they've literally driven their own legitimate download links to the bottom of the page because the majority of people do not want to pay exorbitant prices for DRM-riddled media.

On top of that, some shill earlier on the thread mentioned looking up a legal download link for Cars 2. I tried the same with the words "cars 2 legal download" and still got a bunch of torrents. It's ridiculous that Hollywood can't even put forth the effort to dominate that set of keywords and provide legitimate alternatives to torrents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:59am

Hollywood I so wish you would die already.Your whole Industry is nothing but a Plague on Civilization.Over and over again you try to stop or hinder Technology.I want to see more local and INDIE Art.I do not care what you MAFIAA put out as I am sure to ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GlynskyandPete, 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:19pm

You all are missing one point:

The US government has/claims copyright for the cables.
(And any government for any "leaked" material).

A few of the millions of government employees sending DMCA take-down notices, and cablegate sites (or other leaking sites) are gone from result pages.

This is a government censorship tool.
Forget pirating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Togashi (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 11:57pm
  
  Re:
  Isn't that less copyright and DMCA notices, and more classification and threats under the Espionage Act? Pretty sure the US Government can't hold copyrights, as everything they produce goes into the public domain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GlynskyandPete, 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:19pm

You all are missing one point:

The US government has/claims copyright for the cables.
(And any government for any "leaked" material).

A few of the millions of government employees sending DMCA take-down notices, and cablegate sites (or other leaking sites) are gone from result pages.

This is a government censorship tool.
Forget pirating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:33pm

And they do exactly what everyone would predict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:34pm

I wish google would say you know what MPAA RIAA we were going to help you but since you got greedy you blew it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 2:57pm

well
Step 1. Get google to move "pirate" ranks downward

Step 1b. Get google to ERASE "pirate" links entirely

Step 2. Declare anyone who insults the RIAA/MPAA (i.e. techdirt) declared as a "pirate" site, and therefore removed from google.

step 3. ?????

step 4. Profit (when magically somehow everyone starts buying vinyl records/CDs etc again)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 3:00pm

I remember
A few years back, the CEO of British Telecom (Sir Peter Bonfield) pretty much summarized the entire attitude of the RIAA/MPAA.

HE said (this is a quote) "Computers are a passing phase, soon everyone will go back to pencil and paper"

He erased BILLIONS from BT's share price...and he's exactly the type of luddite that the RIAA and MPAA etc have on their board of directors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re: I remember
  Can you get a link to that?
  
  Speaking of memories from the past...
  
  I recall, just as I was about to graduate high school...
  
  How a local newspaper said "the internet is just a fad, like the CB Radios that people were putting into their cars, it'll die out in a few months."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HackThePlanet, 13 Aug 2012 @ 5:07pm

Pirates dont use Google...WTF
Your grandma uses Google. Stupid...and if they f-up the code. Google's fault. If it doesn't work. Google's fault. If it works...can't tell....Google did it wrong. Google's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riii, 13 Aug 2012 @ 7:28pm

Really hope TPB doesn't go down. Lots of anime I want to dl in 2013 and can't do that if the biggest file locker dies (I don't use TPB but I assume the fansubbers do).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 7:56am

AC claiming only good comes out of the US?
http://www.imdb.com/list/TB56Gm1AqRw/#lb-1

Ever see the original?

They must be desperate if they are remaking this, not to mention the tag line "unaware of the forced that threaten our freedoms." Ha ha, yeah, keep that 9-11 fear that everyone is out to get you bullshit alive, while ignoring the reason WHY some MIGHT WANT to take away your freedom (duh - foreign policy).

And North Korea? The country with barely enough food to keep their army alive, let alone their citizens, is going to somehow develop a more advanced weapon against the US? Oh and who will support them? China? Russia? Yeah, they know how reactionary the US is and they also know how many Ohio class nuclear subs the US has (with 24 Triden II's, each with 5-8 warheads, each warhead is 475kilotons of TNT equivalent) - yeah that's realistic.

It's nothing but explosions and likely TnA. Nothing original.

I can't wait until they remake the National Lampoon Vacation series. Or better, they'll remake Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Or even better how about the Deathwish Series? Who will replace Charles Bronson? Maybe they can CGI Arnold's face like they did for Terminator Salvation (using footage from the original 1984 movie)?

Yeah, that's creative. So don't bitch when people download to determine whether it is worth seeing, or they already know the price is NOT worth it and just download it and watch it at home while doing dishes or cleaning.

This film isn't worth the huge budget for the explosions and CGI and I am sure North Korea will sit there in shock at how pathetic this film is, not to mention demeaning and insulting to their country. Not that Hollywood cares right, as long as the USA wins?

Please, you call this talent and worthy of protection with asinine laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frank, 9 Oct 2012 @ 1:07pm

Yacy anyone?
Soon we all will be searching in Yandex or even better, Baidu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]