RIAA: Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough To Make Piracy Disappear From The Internet
from the but-of-course dept
When Google first caved in to the legacy entertainment industry's demands to start modifying search results to downrank sites that received a lot of DMCA notices, we quickly warned that the RIAA and MPAA would never think that it was enough, and would continue to whine and complain. Yesterday, we pointed out that the RIAA was bitching and complaining about how many DMCA notices they could submit (which turned out to be a case of the RIAA failing to RTFM). But that was just the prelude for today, when the RIAA would release a "report card" on how Google's new filtering was going. Guess what? They're not happy, and apparently they won't be happy until Google magically makes all infringement disappear (*poof*).Six months later, we have found no evidence that Google’s policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy. These sites consistently appear at the top of Google’s search results for popular songs or artists.For everyone else in the world, if they're not satisfied with how the sites they favor rank in Google, they learn a little something about search engine optimization. But, noooooooo, not the RIAA. They think that it is a requirement that Google be tailored to them directly.
Well-known, authorized download sites, such as iTunes, Amazon and eMusic, only appeared in the top ten results for a little more than half of the searches. This means that a site for which Google has received thousands of copyright removal requests was almost 8 times more likely to show up in a search result than an authorized music download site. In other words, whatever Google has done to its search algorithms to change the ranking of infringing sites, it doesn't appear to be working.Well, that's one interpretation. Another one (the right one) is that whatever the industry itself has done to raise the rankings of those sites by effectively competing in the marketplace "doesn't appear to be working." iTunes, in particular, is locked up in its own little walled garden with few people "linking in" (a big part of how Google determines relevance). Do people still use eMusic any more? The problem seems to be that those other sites just aren't where people look for stuff when they're searching Google for the music. That's not Google's fault.
Of course, what all this continues to demonstrate, beyond the fact that the RIAA will never, ever be satisfied until Google wipes out all infringement with the magic "piracyBgone" button, is that the RIAA still just doesn't understand search. The methodology here is suspect:
For this analysis we performed searches for [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download over a period of several weeks starting December 3, 2012First big mistake: the RIAA simply does not seem to know that Google does not deliver the same results to everyone. That change a while back. They try to tailor specific responses to specific users, based on what those users are searching for. So, if the RIAA is seeing those sites ranked higher, perhaps it says something about where the RIAA is commonly looking for stuff...
Also, here's the thing that the RIAA just doesn't seem to get. Google's entire business and algorithm are built, ground up, around the idea of understanding what people are looking for when they search, and then taking them to that place. The RIAA might not like it, but the simple fact is that when people are searching for [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download, chances are they're not looking to buy, but to download for free. So that's what Google is showing them. That's not Google's fault. That's what the person is searching for. Even if Google magically did show them Apple, Amazon and Emusic as the top results for every [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download, the people doing those searches wouldn't go there, because they're not looking to buy. If they did a search on "[artist] [track] buy" perhaps there would be different results.
If you actually compare apples to apples, and look at the kinds of sites that people are probably looking for, the RIAA's own "data" seems to suggest that Google is, in fact, demoting sites that receive a lot of takedowns.
Basically, this just reinforces two (completely unsurprising points):
- The RIAA will never, ever be satisfied, no matter what Google does. Which again, reinforces the idea that it was probably a bad idea to even cave in in the first place.
- The RIAA still doesn't understand how search works, nor does it seem to have any interest in learning. It doesn't understand that every single other website in the world has to work hard to lift themselves up in Google's search rankings. They don't get to specifically call out sites they don't like and automatically force Google to lower their rankings. The RIAA gets a massive headstart on every other site in the world... and they still haven't figured out how to take advantage of this.
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 infringement, demotions, filtering, piracy, search
Companies: google, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course Google does have to enforce laws that have already passed. However, lately it seems intent on trying to enforce laws that the MPAA dreams about passing.
It is sad that the entertainment industry has so many politicians in its pocket that it can effectively use the threat of new laws and government witch hunts to force companies to do its bidding without the bother of going through the legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I agree that Google should remain completely neutral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The RIAA is not working for the artists, it's working for the politicians and lawyers that own the artists and their works (yes, the artists themselves and every bit of creativity that comes out of them).
Check out the documentaries Strong Enough to Break (posted by its makers for free on YouTube) and Before the Music Dies. (posted for free by its makers on Hulu). Those films are eye-openers into the modern world of music! Those films are why I outright refuse to listen to any non-independent artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like I said before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like I said before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA still does not understand how the Internet works which, considering how long it has been around, is quite a statement.
They are dinosaurs longing for a return to the days when they had a nice, profitable monopoly on music. Those days are gone and they are not coming back. If they do not accept that and join the rest of the world, they will soon become extinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a hypothetical situation in which Google had the means to and complied with removing all traces of Piracy on the internet (not just linking to, but actually eradicating all forms of piracy), RIAA would find something else to complain about.
Google is displaying ads on music searches and making money that RIAA deserves a chunk of.
Google isn't doing enough to drive traffic to music purchasing sites.
Google isn't doing enough to make people want to buy music.
Google isn't giving RIAA free advertisement.
Google isn't returning music purchasing results first in unrelated search terms.
Google isn't doing enough to support RIAA's lobbying efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google isn't displaying our music over unsigned artists.
Google hasn't stopped unsigned artists from releasing music.
Google isn't complying with our takedown requests of unsigned artist music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
"First big mistake: the RIAA simply does not seem to know that Google does not deliver the same results to everyone. That change [sic] a while back. They try to tailor specific responses to specific users, based on what those users are searching for. ... Google's entire business and algorithm are built, ground up, around the idea of understanding what people are looking for when they search, and then taking them to that place." -- Google is based on SPYING, then.
Your implicit assertion is flat wrong: "Google's entire business [is targeted advertising]". -- That'd be bad enough, but first, it's trivially untrue as Google is into more than can reasonably list here, and second much worse it blithely understates by orders of magnitude just how much data on everyone Google is collating, and neglects entirely the uses of that data. No other entity has ever gathered so much information on people, and that's one of the many bad aspects of "teh internets" that you always ignore.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Ya say ya can't compete with free, Binky? -- It's easy! Just forget about "sunk (or fixed) costs"!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
I didn't read your post but how's the sunshine up there?
Don't ever change!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
Facebook.
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
Who said OOTB's name three times in a row and made him reappear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
Stores regularly track customers buying habits (walmart, eg) and send them mail based on recent purchases with discounts on probable future purchases (Ie, you buy baby food, you might get marketing sent to you with discounts on diapers) this happens, today.
That's spying?
Get out of the 1st world, lady.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
If you don't know they're doing it, you're not paying attention. It's not spying anymore than me walking up to you and saying "Hey, I'm going to spy on you."
Worst spying ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
By "without my knowledge" I don't mean knowledge that the spying is happening -- everyone knows that. I mean that I am not informed of exactly what data is being gathered, what information has been determined through subsequent analysis, and what specifically is being done with the data.
In my mind, "spying" is the gathering of information without the informed consent of the people the information is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
I rarely agree with our resident special olympics winner, but OOTB is on point with the spying allegation, albeit with an additional dose of zealotry. I also do what I can to minimize the information that Google can collect about me, because I have no idea who they are selling it to, and what those 3rd parties are doing with it. I think it's a shame that the average computer user has no idea that a lot of this data collecting is even happening much less the extent of how personal the information actually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
You agree with OOTB?
I just had one of these head explosion moments:
http://i.imgur.com/3cHNG.gif
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
Saying "he does make a good point there" about anything just encourages more of these fallacies of argument from the trolls. Now the conversation is about the ways in which Google is evil, rather than the topic of the article, which was... I forget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
So, admitting that this is correct isn't a bad thing. Any large corporation needs to be treated with caution, and you probably can't trust any of them completely with your personal data. However, this will fly directly over the heads of the resident morons here who pretend that Google is the be all and end all, and the only camps that exist are Google shills and whatever they consider to be "their side".
The best thing to really do is to discuss the intelligent nuanced stuff between ourselves in between the troll posts. These fools have already shown that they're not interested in real conversation - if an article doesn't provide them with an easy way to attack Google or Mike, they'll just try to derail an unrelated thread anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spying
Now you might not like that either, but it's very different from "selling information about me".
http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#nosharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
But hey, rationality doesn't compute for certain elements of the "Perceptional Property" industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
You can give away your music and still be successful. http://bt.etree.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja vu all over again: "Yesterday, we pointed out that..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Figure 1 - Average number of times class of site appeared in top 10 search results for the Top 50 Track Search
Queries on January 25, 2013"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't care about piracy any more then they care about the artists, it is just a convenient excuse to push for laws that increase their powers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what it's worth, the youtube result isn't necessarily a red herring. A lot of stuff I listen to (VG covers/remixes, vocaloid) will have the download link in the youtube video; I can't speak for what other types of music have similar setups, but I doubt it's unique. If "[artist] [track] download" returns a youtube result, it's almost guaranteed to be what I'm looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also easy enough to send the Youtube link to one of the many services which will rip the music from the video and let you download it.
Though I'm sure that's not what the RIAA had in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google, RIAA and MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linguistics, context, phraseology, weighting based on popularity.... yes, spies depend on these concepts too.
I'm beginning to suspect OOtB may not be Rhodes Scholar material...
Not to say I'm satisfied with Google's current product... the results keep getting looped up on ads and popular searches... its become a less useful tool for pure research IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(rf: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/02580813908/why-google-should-buy-recording-industry.shtm l)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think about it: buying the labels would mean taking over all their contracts with artists—a sprawling byzantine labyrinth of varying legal clauses dating back to the 60s and earlier, all obliquely written and regulating different forms of distribution and overseas royalties and all sorts of other obsolete details. Then it would be up to Google to figure out how distribute all that content while living up to all those agreements. They don't want to deal with that, nor does anyone else. They'd much rather wait for the labels to get either desperate or sensible enough that they will start sorting out their own mess in exchange for a chunk of cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Magnatune and Jamendo could use the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, Google would likely start stifling iTunes music stores because of the control of the artist contracts they would acquire from the RIAA....that is anti-competitive behavior beyonf "copying rounded corners and interfaces" that Google is quite capable of. The only real evidence that I could cite for my speculation is the simple fact that Google acquired Motorola Mobility for the same exact reason....to stifle the competition from Microsoft's developers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
sprawling byzantine labyrinth is one hell of a good term to describe the MAFIAA's practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just a search engine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's just a search engine
I wouldn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's just a search engine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's just a search engine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Good
Problem solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is simple...
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The answer is simple(r)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/13/02/21/1519235/white-house-petition-to-make-unlocking-pho nes-legal-passes-100000-signatures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not illegal. Even if they direct people to webpages that do illegal stuff, it's still not illegal. It may be morally questionable, but how many businesses these days are morally questionable?
It's the RIAA's job to make as much money as possible "for the artists". If they determine that means stoping piracy, then it's their job to stop piracy, not Google, the government or the artist. All these stupid MAFIAA rants are is them saying how bad they are at what they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to filter out all the actual sales portals and get to the proper pirate results i'm looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Search engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other Search engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other Search engines
if it's a box and it searches for things, it's a google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Search engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other Search engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The piracy lie
They'll continue to complain because the piracy lie almost got them review power over the entire Internet two years ago.
They want free stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, they then want to maintain tight control over who can sell that commodity rather than just set a wholesale price and let third parties buy and sell it.
If they just gave up control and set a wholesale price, there would be plenty of sites out there giving good search results and options for consumers to do it the 'legal' way.
You would get sites specialising and curating certain genres for certain tastes etc. As taste is so important with any art form, that would be great for consumers - companies that understand their fans in detail.
I can buy and sell baked beans or toys, so why not music?
Any commodity that isn't actually dangerous should be available for resale.
Copyright can't make up it's mind if it is about money or control. It needs to make a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will never allow the MAFIAA a way into my wallet ! They can all kiss some animals Ass.
I will actively Support my Local Art Scene and I will do the same for Non-MAFIAA Art.
MAFIAA you can stay away from my home !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
THE INTERNET EXISTED BEFORE GOOGLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What were the other sites that came up? Did they just ignore anything that wasn't one of those three (leaving out many more minor legal sources), or did they consider those too? I find it hard to believe that the ones listed were the only legal sources returned. What about searches that just included the track & artist without the mp3/download section? If they didn't try those, do they have evidence that people searching for downloads tend to use those words in searches, or was that just a handy way to game the results? "Well known" could mean anything - and why should a lesser known legal source who have managed to create excellent SEO be excluded from the listings?
"Do people still use eMusic any more?"
I certainly don't. When Sony came in, the subscription price raised beyond the point where it was useful/economical, destroying the main reason I used the site in the first place (discovering new music, which was incentivised by the low prices the subscription allowed). Instead of paying a guaranteed bargain price (with the condition that I still paid the money whether or not I used my credits), I was being asked to pay more than the iTunes prices per album in many cases. As a bonus, while the prices were raised across the board at Sony's behest, non-US subscribers weren't allowed to buy the Sony catalogue. So, I stopped paying.
Needless to say, I buy a lot less music now than I did with my subscription - yet another example of how the RIAA's action have *reduced* sales. Not that they'd care, since it was independent music I was originally buying, but I can't afford the same level of purchase at full retail prices no matter how much i want to. Oh well, my listening has shifted more to podcasts now anyway, although I do pay for Spotify for when I'm in a music mood. Less money for everyone, but they literally did ask for that in my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some people have not grasped the idea behing bookmarks, aand so Google is the Net. They can either search Google for the site they want, and then search that site, or simply search Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
itunes
itunes music store sells aac's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: itunes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: itunes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: itunes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: itunes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please don't talk about things you know nothing about. You look like a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Meanwhile everyone else moves onto other search engines or trade hard disk drives... so... what was the RIAA's point again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of greater concern
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Six months later, we have found no evidence that Google’s policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy. These sites consistently appear at the top of Google’s search results for popular songs or artists.'
Demoting sites...oh they finally caught on to the fact they cannot delete the links at all.
As for Google's efforts...the evidence of their efforts to make the process more efficient is the test run they already have implimented Google Image Search....you only get specific links when it is specifically asked for. Currently, that system is only in place on the image search pertaining to porn (which if I recall, porn was the most searched for thing on Google Image search since its inception as a part of Google's Search engine....no surprise there).
As an example....you type in Google search say "Batman Begins full movie"...you don't get much in the way of torrents:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Batman+Begins+full+movie+&oq= Batman+Begins+full+movie+&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.3295.20242.0.23321.30.17.2.11.11.0.192.1566.13j4.17.0.l es%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab.KQMbhCbMldc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644 ,d.dmg&fp=46c83184b0067790&biw=1197&bih=852
So when I type in "Batman Begins Movie ISO".....I now get maybe a few emulator websites for the PS2 Game.
This all being said the RIAA has not one reason to complain......wait that was the MPAA
Well interestingly enough....you ask for "torrent" on the end of your search....a few torrent sites pop up...because that is what you asked Google to look for.................
In conclusion, the RIAA seems to fail to grasp the basic concepts of a search engine.
For one, they tend to think Google is actively pirating music for people for providing links. The gap in this logic seems to stem from the fact that Google's search engine's parser is simply searching for what people specifically ask it to search for.
Two: They see the word BitTorrent and automatically think it an evil thing when in reality it is a simple peer2peer network distribution system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They will never be satisfied
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They will never be satisfied
Google has already admitted that 97% of the DMCA notices it processes are legit. If they want to ease their workload, they should just delist the sites they keep getting thousands of violations for. Otherwise they can expect to hire more people to deal with processing notices because the plan is to try and double the amount being sent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They will never be satisfied
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They will never be satisfied
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They will never be satisfied
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They will never be satisfied
By "legit," though, Google means "properly filed" and possibly "no counternotice was filed". They have never stated what percentage of DMCA notices actually represent copyright infringement. Which makes sense, because they have no way of knowing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They will never be satisfied
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They will never be satisfied
No lies, no fallacies there, sorry. Apparently reality is Paul's enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick whines about RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick whines about RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick whines about RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support making a fee for each and every take-down claim $5 from individuals and $25 for firms.
I support the lowering of the max limit from 10k to 100.
I support that a time limit of 100 per day
These steps would be a good way to reduce the staff manpower wasted on censoring, corruption and copyright nonsense. It is likely that every person employed in copyright can be considered a drain on the economy and the fines and jail terms are outright insanity. Every person who had his life ruined by bad legislation becomes a drain on society in so many way although I hope these good people can recover anyway.
Ahhh. The chance for another rant. This is such a fun site.
I don't buy the possibility that RIAA is clueless on this one (or any of the others). It is more likely they know how weak and nonsensical their argument is and that this is the 'best they can come up with' at the moment. These guys are being paid to do this and (its the classic) if they don't do something then their bosses will stop funding them.
Since I believe the RIAA knows they are doing is wrong in “Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough To Make Piracy Disappear From The Internet” and that they know that what they are purporting is not going to help anyone but themselves. Its another 'cigarette argument' (someone trying to convince you to buy something they know is bad for you).
more eloquent explanation for a 'cigarette argument':
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/02462421991/undisclosed-uspto-employees-write- report-saying-uspto-does-great-job-handling-software-smartphone-patents.shtml#c381
Sensible people would laugh at this but money has its own stench and this time it smells bad. From my viewpoint the RIAA uses the 'organized crime' business model. To be honest, as a voter this whole copyright thing is just pissing me off and even if it meant striking down the entire amendment regardless of any collateral damage wold be best. What I mean is that if the organizations that it has fostered seem indistinguishable from criminal organizations its too much for me to handle in any form.
I don't like it when Google or anyone tampers with search. Raw data untouched by anyone or any algorithm is best. Its dangerous to censor as it provides only a colored view of the world or the particular search you made. This color may be you own special tint as measured by your own data they collected but it is a colored lens nonetheless. Censoring is a slippery slope topic and how do we measure how far Google has slipped or been forced? Its good they publish their algorithm and lends some sort of transparency safeguard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]