Once Again: Just Because You Can Search For Infringing Content Via Search Engines Doesn't Mean Many People Do

from the weird-obsessions dept

Thu, Aug 15th 2013 9:50am — Mike Masnick

In case you've missed it, the legacy entertainment industry has a weird and almost entirely uninformed infatuation with Google. As far as I can tell, this is based almost entirely on the following correlation: "we used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, they must have taken "our" money." I've yet to see anything even remotely approaching a more reasonable explanation. A few months ago, at a conference, someone I know got to ask a lawyer representing a company that has sued search engines over copyright infringement just how much money he thought search engines made from infringement, and his answer was "around 50%." This isn't just wrong, it's delusional. Two years ago, we went through some internet traffic data to show that so-called "rogue sites" get very little traffic from search engines. About 15% of their total traffic came from search, and the rest via other sources. And, even when the traffic came from search engines, it was almost never for someone directly searching Google or Bing for a certain song or movie. Rather the top searches were... for the site itself. That is, lots of Google traffic to The Pirate Bay is based on people doing a search for "pirate bay."

The folks over at CCIA (disclosure: we've done some work with them and continue to do work with them and may possibly do work with them in the future) have taken our and some others' analyses and put out a document showing that this weird obsession with piling on search engines is, at best, counterproductive and, at worst, destructive. It is, in large part, a response to the RIAA's silly attack that Google isn't "demoting" certain searches fast enough. But, as the CCIA paper notes, much of the RIAA's analysis is based on the results of searches that include specific keywords like "free download." However, as CCIA's Matt Schruer's notes, those kinds of searches are very, very, very rare:

Consider an example used in the RIAA memo: “free bruno mars mp3.” While this result may return results that point to infringing content, data from Google Trends indicates that strikingly few people are actually running that search. A worldwide tally of search results through last week, comparing “bruno mars” (for reference) to “free bruno mars mp3” is available here. Bruno Mars is orders of magnitude more common, and at periods of time, no one seems to have searched for “free bruno mars mp3” anywhere on the planet. This is not entirely surprising: extensive research by BAE Detica indicates that the majority of infringement “business models” don’t depend on search engines at all. Sites like Isohunt and the Pirate Bay shrugged off [1] [2] the threat of search demotion, announcing that they receive little traffic from search engines.

You can see the search he discusses here: We had mentioned this same sort of thing a few months ago when Authors Guild boss Scott Turow freaked out about Google searches for "Scott Turow free e-books," and pointed out that it doesn't look like anyone is actually doing that search.

Schruers explains why he thinks the RIAA and others like to focus so much on the searches that no one does. Because it gives them something concrete they can point to, even if it's got nothing to do with the actual world they're dealing with.

Sometimes called the “lamp post effect”, this bias is usually attributed to researchers, and refers to biases resulting from data-gathering where the data is most easily gathered. The principle is best illustrated with a joke related by David Freedman in Discover Magazine:

Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the officer he’s looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he’s sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light’s better here, explains the drunk man.

We look where it is easiest to look. By definition, one of the easiest places to look for something online is a search engine. If one uses terms like “torrent” and “free download”, it is possible to find search results that linking to infringing content. Because search results are easily observed, the streetlight effect tells us, this is where the observation occurs. As a result, some will fixate – like this RIAA memo – on infringing search results, notwithstanding the fact that pirates tend not to use general-purpose search engines for finding infringing content.

I'm curious if all of those who seem to support the claims against search engines can point to even a single shred of evidence that search engines actually lead to greater infringement. We've yet to see anything that supports it at all. Yet the risk of putting increasing pressure of search engines to modify their results to please one particular industry or (much worse) to increase liability on them for not making their results appease certain industries, can be quite dangerous to a free and open internet. Search engines aren't responsible for what people find online. They're simply reflecting what people are looking for. If lots of people really are looking for certain kinds of content, it seems like the better response, rather than blaming search engines, is to look for better ways to deliver that content.

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: infringement, liability, search

58 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

S. T. Stone, 15 Aug 2013 @ 9:53am

OOTB comment in 3�2�
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 9:59am

It is about time for Google and Bing to do an opt in for music and film industry content. Each Website and also each page they want displayed should be the standard. This way they nothing to complain about anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 9:59am

Re:
Nope just little old me ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:00am

"Rather the top searches were... for the site itself."
"even a single shred of evidence that search engines actually lead to greater infringement." -- YES, it's right above your challenge, where you wrote what I put in this title. That's certainly a "shred", but I'm sure fanboys will go yapping about semantics.

Mike Masnick on Techdirt: "its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:01am

Re:
It would go a long way to proving that search engines do not cause infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:07am

Re: Unlike "S. T. Stone", I have to think about what to write.
>>> OOTB comment in 3�2�

Rather than a one-liner embiggening my effect. -- MAN, when are you kids going to QUIT giving me advance notice? -- It's embarrassing to me, if not to you to whom it SHOULD be!

The most influential, the most commented-at, the most mocked! And the only commenter honored in SONG!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Blue
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:16am

Re: "Rather the top searches were... for the site itself."
That's more of a shortcoming of address bars, which Firefox and Safari have already addressed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Guess Who, 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:21am

License Plate Readers at Malls
Mike Check out this! Anti-terrorism License Plate Reader installed at New Jersey Mall
http://www.app.com/article/20130808/NJNEWS/308080116
Police admit using for unpaid parking tickets and the like. Towing vehicles while people shop!
Just what the dying Mall Industry Needs! Amazon and ebay are cheaper ANYWAY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:23am

data from Google Trends indicates that strikingly few people are actually running that search

Yeah, RIAA employees run that search.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:24am

You use the search engine to find the site you want to go to or find discussion about the site you are looking for, not the specific download of interest. Doing it the other way is a sign of low proficiency with the internet. If I want a ubuntu .iso torrent I don't google 'ubuntu .iso torrent free'. I google ubuntu and maybe throw in the word download so I get Ubuntu's main website and maybe save myself a couple of clicks by having google pull up Ubuntu's download page. No way in hell am I going to be clicking some random download site. That is still applicable to acquisition of shadier data, reputation of the source and middle man matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:26am

Re:
Maybe they can charge 10 cents etc./view for the privilege.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:29am

Re: Re: Unlike "S. T. Stone", I have to think about what to write.
Unfortunately, infinity stupidity plus one stupidity is still infinity stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:34am

Re: "Rather the top searches were... for the site itself."
OOTB in Techdirt Comments: "its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."

FTFY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:50am

just like the lawyer in the post, most information is complete fantasy but it increases the chance that the stupid fuckers that make laws can be bribed that much easier to make some more new ones, favouring, of course, those that are providing the bribes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:56am

Re:
eh, that people don't search for 'free xxxxx' just means that currently the sites offering free xxxxx show up when I search for just xxxxx so they don't need to qualify it yet. It's not that people aren't looking for free :)

If they succeed in getting free sites demoted down the rankings, then people will start explicitly search for free.

of course, this also means that if the music/movie industry provided a good, efficient, user-friendly and economically sane service of their own, they'd push the free sites down themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 11:01am

Re: Re:
The thing is that the vast majority of the time, if you search for a song, movie, whatever without including "free", the pirate sites don't even appear in the first couple of pages, let alone at the top of the list.

This is why the search terms the legacy industries are using are a kind of lying: they're specifically looking for pirate sites to force pirate sites to the top of the search results in order to support a false argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 11:07am

"we used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, they must have taken "our" money."

I think it's actually worse. I think it's: "We used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, we must have their money."

As mentioned before, the copyright industry does not work in a free and open market. They don't care about competing or getting customers. They exist solely because the law says particular people have to pay. Because Google has money, the copyright industry has decided it should pay.

Think about it from the copyright industry's perspective. They're old men. They don't really understand the internet. And as far as they're concerned, Google is the internet. If that's true, well, make 'em pay, god damnit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 11:07am

Rather the top searches were... for the site itself. That is, lots of Google traffic to The Pirate Bay is based on people doing a search for "pirate bay."

I remember reading an article a few years ago discussing that one of the most popular searches on Google was the term Facebook, indicating that people were going to Google and then searching for Facebook in order to visit that site. I remember thinking that the most likely cause instead was people just punching "Facebook" into their address bar without the ".com." When I do that my browser automatically executes a Google search. I'd be willing to bet that the same thing is happening in instances of people searching for "piratebay." They're not searching for that site, they're too lazy to type out the name or to use the browser history drop down (or to use keyboard shortcuts).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 11:14am

Re:
I hate, hate, hate when browsers interpret things I type in the address bar as anything other than a URL, so I disable that functionality.

That said, I do often explicitly do a web search for a site name instead of typing its URL out. It's a lot easier than remembering and typing in the full URL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 11:25am

Re: "Rather the top searches were... for the site itself."
YES, it's right above your challenge, where you wrote what I put in this title. That's certainly a "shred",...

Please explain your rationale (if you can) of how this is any sort (even a shred) of "evidence that search engines actually lead to greater infringement."

Do you really think there's any difference to the overall quantity of infringement because "pirate bay" was typed into a search box for convenience instead of typing "thepiratebay.sx" into the address bar?

Any intelligent person can see that's just plain silly, Blue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 11:43am

RIAA goes after Google because Google has money.

It's a lot less productive/profitable/newsworthy to litigate against 12 year old Jimmy for downloading some top 40 albums.

P.S. Who bothers to pirate music anymore? Maybe in the 1990's, but today I can listen to anything I want at will, for free, through legitimate channels.
Youtube alone would put a serious dent in the money the RIAA was used to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 11:47am

If a search tool didn't find pirated content when it's there and someone like the RIAA doing their tests is searching for it then it would be failing. It's like blaming the microscope for showing something you don't like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:04pm

Re: "Rather the top searches were... for the site itself."
I wish I knew where to find free stuff on the internet but the internet is so big. I know, Google will help me. I'll just type in random phrases that sound related to pirates until something comes up. Shantytown? No. Showmethebooty? Oh that's interesting but not piracy, bookmark but no. Piratecove? No. Pirateship? No. Pirate...bay? OH LOOK I FOUND ONE YAY! A PIRATE I WAS MEANT TO BE TRIM THE SAILS AND ROAM THE SEA!

- How copyright infringement works in ootb's mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:04pm

There are pirate sites and then there are pirate sites. If you are interested in that, you don't need a search engine to find the site. You already know it and have it book marked most likely. No search engine involved in that process.

Lots of sites are public, mainly because they need a continual flow of new members and that means they allow the Google spider in to search the site and the offers. Once that is done, it is searchable on the net by title of work.

But many are private and concerned about security. Those don't allow Google spider in. No results turn up in major search engines from their sites. No de-linking will effect this site over what items are offered. DMCA over links has absolutely no results what ever with the content.

It's another failed tactic aimed at big search engines with hopes to drive eye popping numbers of DMCA requests in an effort later to get congress to make another law they'll be happy to pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:08pm

If this was true, then Google would simply delist sites that blatantly flaunt copyright law; does the phone book list numbers for entities that blatantly break the law?

Nope.

No, you're just lying for Google again, Masnick. As you're paid to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:14pm

Re:
Your assumption is completely wrong.

Google wants to make something that works properly. They would have to lie to not return sites you are searching when they are there.

I'm also not sure what the heck you are talking about with the phonebook... It will will list your number if it's registered (unless you ask for it to be unlisted), whether you are a criminal or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:27pm

Re:
does the phone book list numbers for entities that blatantly break the law?

Yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:30pm

Re: Re:
Citation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re:
Look under "U.S. Government"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re: Re:
Citation

You have a citation that they don't?

AFAIK phone books are based on the phone companies' databases of customers. I highly doubt that the phone book publishers spend resources to verify that everyone listed is a law abiding citizen.

Now the Yellow Pages, which are basically ads payed for by those listed, might be a bit different. But that's not what you said nor is it a valid comparison to a search engine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
And real people don't use those search times because most of the sites that end up on top when you search free download X are crap malware sites that just send you through a torrent* of shady third party ads and try to give you viruses. No real "legitimate" pirate site is going to SOE for illegal terms.

*pun intended
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
lol u dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 1:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The yellow pages are somewhat analogous to the ads that you see on Google's search... And they shouldn't be (and don't ifaik) advertize illegal stuff on either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 1:45pm

Re:
Of course they list your phone book - you're guilty of about a hundred crimes today alone. What are they? I don't know. Do you know? There's tens of thousands of laws on the books in the US. Can you honestly state you have broken NONE of them? Do you honestly want the fucking PHONE COMPANY of all people to be conducting investigations of all people in the phone book to make sure that only law abiding citizens are put in there? (That's what you're saying should happen, it's a little thing called logic, try it sometime).

No, you're just an idiotic retard, with no skills in logic, OOTB. As you're paid to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 15 Aug 2013 @ 1:54pm

Insular little opinions 'bout Google HERE, but not elsewhere!
Just compare here with comments on The Register:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/08/15/google_search_gets_even_more_personal/

Though ankle-biters outnumber me here, and yap their fool heads off, Techdirt is not representative of even nerd opinion. -- ARF!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 1:55pm

Re:
Or you find your favourite torrent tracker and use that. Google is not the place to search for warez and has never truely been so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 2:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
because if they did, they would get busted and shut down easily... who would have thought eh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 2:34pm

Re: Insular little opinions 'bout Google HERE, but not elsewhere!
The Register is not representative of the nerd opinion. Hell, in my opinion, The Register isn't representative of sanity. That's like saying the Daily Mail is a reputable news source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
The citation is the phone book. There are plenty of listings for prostitutes in the yellow pages. Hell, if you know where to look, you can find hitmen in the yellow pages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Insular little opinions 'bout Google HERE, but not elsewhere!
This. I read The Register because I find it snarkily entertaining, but there are two things I don't rely on it for: actual information, or to gauge what the IT community is thinking.

But I think it's kindof funny comparing the comments there with the comments here. There's a really huge, smack-you-in-the-face difference: the comments there tend be completely devoid of actual thoughtfulness, but here you can find intelligent commentary sandwiched between the trolls and troll-baiters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:22pm

Here you go.
pirated tv, pirated movies, kkk, white power

Yeah the results shocked me as well.

#1 KKK - The lowest point 63
#2 White Power - ^13
#3 Pirated Movies ^1
#4 Pirated Tv Highest point - ZERO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:26pm

Re:
ROFL add "free bruno mars mp3" to my search.

Damn I never knew there were so many people interested in the KKK. Da fucks up with that? :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:46pm

Re:
I had to read that first paragraph about five times before I realized what it is that makes it so incomprehensible:

You apparently don't know the difference between the word "flaunt" and the intended word, "flout."

Please look into that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
citation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:55pm

Re: Re:
The only retard is yourself; he wasn't speaking of individual people, Einstein. He said "entities", as in companies that are known to primarily engage in law breaking.

The phonebook analogy is perfect, and it's why you freetards are having such an epic fail with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:20pm

Re: Re: Re:
So you honestly think if there were, say, a mob front like a restaurant or a bar or a strip club that 'everyone' 'knows' is a front you would not be able to find their number in the yellow pages or a phone book?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:22pm

Re:
So your position is 0 law breaking companies are listed in phone books before they are convicted of breaking any laws. Furthermore your position is that if a company in the phone book is found to be breaking the law the phone book maker is liable. Both are ludicrous on their face, of course the phone book lists law breakers and of course the phone book maker isn't liable when it happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:23pm

Re: Re: Re:
An assertion presented without evidence requires none to refute. The onus is on you to prove your position not on anyone else to prove it false.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your position is that 0 'escort services' or 'massage parlors' engage in any amount of prostitution on the side? How naive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 1:37am

Re:
Actually, it's probably either that:

a) people are too lazy/stupid to remember whether TPB is currently a .com/.net/.org/.se/etc. and so just let Google remind them or

b) people actually still haven't worked out how to use a web browser and think they need to search Google in order to get to a website, not realising they can actually type the address directly (and, yes, I've seen far too many people who do this).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 1:47am

Re:
Oh, it's definitely still newsworthy when they do that. Which is presumably why they've been doing it less and/or claiming to target account holders rather than a specific individual - it backfired on them far too many times.

"today I can listen to anything I want at will, for free, through legitimate channels."

Bingo. People use whatever services that allow them easier access, and when legal channels are easier (as they are now), they use those rather than pirate sources. Making deals with YouTube, Spotify, etc. has put far more of a dent in piracy than any "enforcement" ever could.

Of course, they're still whining that these don't get them CD money (as they never could, for obvious reasons) but they'll never be happy as the world is not in 1996 any more and they've failed to adapt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 1:56am

Re: Re: Re:
The only fail is you. Why is basic logic so damaging to your claims, that ignoring it is the only way to make a point? Is it that it's based on lies, that like the childish namecalling you have to resort to, is there to shield you from the reality that you have always been wrong about your claims?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 2:00am

Re: Re: Insular little opinions 'bout Google HERE, but not elsewhere!
The Register used to be good, but I find their style increasingly grating. Maybe my sense of humour has changed, maybe I was just fed up of seeing Orlowski's inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory articles (with commenting always disabled to prevent corrections, of course!). I no longer read it, but even when I was there its biases were clear and usually not completely in line with people I know in the field.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 2:06am

Re: Insular little opinions 'bout Google HERE, but not elsewhere!
"Techdirt is not representative of even nerd opinion."

Citation needed that The Register is representative of anything other than The Register. Here in reality, no single source is representative of anybody, be that Slashdot, Reddit, Fox News, BBC or The Guardian. Only a moron would pick a single site and pretend that represents everybody equally, intelligent people recognise that every source has a bias. You're at least admitting that you're not willing to listen to differing opinions, only whatever matches your own assumptions.

Maybe that's why you're so obsessed with Mike and this site. You're not used to reading honest, thoughtful, measured opinions that don't match the fantasy strawman you've created. You can't handle the fact that more than one valid opinion exists, and you're incapable of articulating why yours is "correct". So you scream and whine and lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 2:23am

Re: Re:
There's a black man in the White House.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 9:34am

Re: Re: Insular little opinions 'bout Google HERE, but not elsewhere!
Here in reality, no single source is representative of anybody

Bingo. Not even Slashdot, and their motto is "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 11:10am

Re: Re: Re:
The only retard is yourself; he wasn't speaking of individual people, Einstein. He said "entities", as in companies that are known to primarily engage in law breaking.

Please show me where there is any requirement or law to remove a "company that known to primarily engage in law breaking" from the phone book or even the Yellow Pages?

It stands to reason that a company that is found guilty of breaking the law will get delisted from both, but not because of any requirement to do so. It's usually because they have gone out of business and no longer are paying the phone bill or the ad fees.

And as mentioned above, I don't recall any phone book publisher ever having been blamed for the actions of those listed in their publications. If you have some examples of this from any point in history, please share it with the rest of the class.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 17 Aug 2013 @ 4:53pm

Re:
Who bothers to pirate music anymore? I do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]