Jury Finds Two Officers Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Not Guilty

RIAA's Boss Thinks He Knows Better Than Google How To Build A Search Engine

from the so,-uh,-go-build-your-own dept

Tue, Jan 14th 2014 11:33am — Mike Masnick

Oh, Cary Sherman. Lately, the RIAA and its boss have gone back to whining about how the real problem for their industry is Google. There's almost no actual evidence to support this, other than the fact that the record labels that the RIAA represents have seen dwindling revenue, while Google is doing pretty well. So it must be Google's fault. Cary Sherman, head lawyer in charge of the RIAA (funny that they never seem to put business people or innovators in charge...), has written an astoundingly misguided and misinformed attack on Google over at The Hill, which seems to think that publishing factually false information is fine, so long as it's done by a high paid lobbyist.

The global music industry has now sent its 100 millionth music piracy notice to Google. That’s a staggering number and it is worth pausing for a moment to assess what it means and what it says about online music.

Yes. It would appear to mean that (1) there is a lot of music out there that people want and (2) perhaps your labels should do a better job getting it to people and (3) perhaps wasting time sending takedowns isn't a particularly useful strategy.

For starters, that’s at least 100 million times Google offered to direct users to illegal sources for music just within the last two years

Um, no, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that there were 100 million times that some automated crawler bot decided to send a link it found, which it believed was infringing, to Google to take out of its index. Whether it was an "illegal source" is a different question altogether. Whether or not Google offered to direct any legitimate user to that file is also something totally different.

That’s also 100 million times that an artist, songwriter, music label – or anyone else involved in the chain of creating and distributing music – was likely denied the opportunity to earn any royalties, revenues or sales.

That's also just blatantly false. First, any Google search result comes with a bunch of other links as well, many of which could lead to revenue for those in that chain. Furthermore, even if the file was unauthorized (not, as Sherman falsely claims, "illegal"), that quite frequently still does lead to opportunities to earn royalties, as multiple studies have shown over and over and over and over again. On top of that, if someone is really looking for a free MP3 of something, that's what they're looking for and they're not going to spend any money on the file anyway, so no revenue is "denied." That revenue never existed.

And 100 million times that innovative tech companies – like Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, Deezer, Vevo, and dozens more – didn’t benefit from a sale or a stream.

Here is Sherman's weak attempt at pretending he supports innovation. Again, if someone was looking to buy such a track or stream it, they likely know where to go. But that's not why they go to Google in the first place.

From there, Sherman goes on to explain how he'd like Google to work. Because spending decades working for record labels has taught him all about how search engines should work, and how the users of those search engines would like them to work. Or, more accurately, he'd like to change Google's search results in the mistaken belief that the kid looking for a free mp3 will suddenly buy it, if only he were told of places he could pay for it.

So the enforcement system we operate under requires us to send a staggering number of piracy notices – 100 million and counting to Google alone—and an equally staggering number of takedowns Google must process. And yet pirated copies continue to proliferate...

What's that Einstein quote about "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"?

The power of search and the predominant popularity of top-tier results are well documented – particularly in their capacity to steer users to illegal sites. A Wiggins study, for example, found that “65% of ‘pirates’ regularly use search engines to find infringing content.” Similar studies have found similar results.

Not quite. Most studies have shown something quite different. In fact, a study from the RIAA's best buddies, the MPAA, actually found that just 19% of visits to infringing content were "influenced" by search (note: not found by search). In fact, when you dig deep into the numbers, you'll find that a large percentage of searches that lead to content aren't people just searching for some artist or some song, but rather searching for a site -- so-called "navigational searches" such as someone doing a search for "the pirate bay." I'm not sure what Cary Sherman thinks, but I find it doubtful that some kid is going to do a search for "the pirate bay" and then be happy when the search results point him to Spotify or iTunes.

And this is Sherman and other maximalists' general confusion over search. They still think that search engines are supposed to be designed to show users what the RIAA wants them to find, rather than what the searcher wants to find. Directly changing Google's search engine to give results that users don't want won't make anyone suddenly go buy music again, no matter what Sherman wants.

But, hey, since he's so damn sure that he knows how to program a search engine, why doesn't he go and do it? He seems to think he can build a better search engine than Google, so why not have the RIAA build its own search engine and go compete.

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: cary sherman, copyright, dmca, search, takedowns
Companies: google, riaa

120 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 11:42am

Cary Sherman should just change his name to F. Hoff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Deranged Poster (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 11:50am

:wave: OOTB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 11:52am

"A Wiggins study, for example, found that �65% of �pirates� regularly use search engines to find infringing content.� Similar studies have found similar results."

Who are the remaining 35% that memorize links to every file on the web?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pegr, 14 Jan 2014 @ 11:52am

Wait a minute...
If the NSA doesn't "collect" my data until they look at it, then that song I downloaded doesn't count as pirated until I listen to it, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 11:59am

I'd love for Google to publish the statistics showing out of that "staggering" 100 million, how many of them were actually NOT bogus.

Because there's no way I'll believe the RIAA sent 100 million ABSOLUTELY CORRECT takedown notices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:11pm

Drum up some copyright support money
I am surprised Sherman isn't lobbying those bastions of copyright, the supermarkets of 'Murica to feed the RIAA some money to defend them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:11pm

F#CK OFF MAFIAA ASSBAG !
What you need to do is to join the World-Wide Boycott of all things MAFIAA Big Content.Stop letting your money drain to the vampires.Support the Non-MAFIAA & INDIE.Censor the MAFIAA from your Earnings now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:14pm

" so why not have the RIAA build its own search engine and go compete."

Compete? The RIAA doesn't know the meaning of the word.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Strawb (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:18pm

What's that Einstein quote about "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"?

I feel compelled to point out that this quote is bogus, since it's used everywhere. Sorry for straying off-topic.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Insanity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:20pm

Re:
Ironically, I'll sometimes use 'pirate' sites to see which games are popular/new than purchase them on Steam, GOG, etc. Google and other search engines don't really tell you the top 20, so it's just easier going directly to a 'pirate' search engine and I find them to be a better evaluator than MetaCritic by far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:21pm

Sure is trying to get everyone to latch onto that 100 million number, isn't he?

I'm sure that's all the politicians will be saying now. "100 million" "100 million" "100 million"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:21pm

Techdirts Boss Thinks He Knows Better Than RIAA How To Run A Music Company!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mmrtnt (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:22pm

Back the Day
They still think that search engines are supposed to be designed to show users what the RIAA wants them to find, rather than what the searcher wants to find.

When I was a kid, this would be the equivalent of going around the city and changing all the Swap Meet signs (where they sold new albums for $3.99) to Record Store signs where they sold for $7.99
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:24pm

Re:
Apparently with all the losses Cary Sherman's been bitching about, he doesn't know how to run one either, right?

Or is he just full of shit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blaktron (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:25pm

Re:
Especially since Einstein's crowing achievement was proving that you could get different results by doing the same thing over and over again, a la Quantum Mechanics / Uncertainty principle.

This one sticks in my craw too, because not only is it wrong but its fundamentally the opposite of what Einstein actually believed.

From what I gather it was originally attributed to Benjamin Franklin, where it makes a LOT more sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:28pm

Re:
I'm guessing they're not including pirate websites with their own internal search engine. So they other 35% would just be the ones that have found good torrent sites to bookmark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blaktron (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:30pm

Re:
Seeing as the RIAA isn't a music company, he just might! They are lawyers and lobbyists, but not actual Recording Execs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:34pm

I notice theres no mention of yahoo or bing there, so in order to get them to leave google alone, we should all use bing and yahoo, and that way, we, the users, can have the best of all worlds.
Google gets left alone to give the results we want, while the riaa finish deatroying bing and yahoo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:37pm

Computing is automation.
> Who are the remaining 35% that memorize links to every file on the web?

These are the people that have managed to learn how to use their web browsers and exploit the bookmarking features that have been present since the first release of Netscape.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sorrykb (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:38pm

Re:
Anonymous Coward wrote
Who are the remaining 35% that memorize links to every file on the web?

NSA contractors?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:40pm

After nearly two decades of ignoring search engines, why do the MAFIAA suddenly put so much focus on Google?

For most people, the only reason they might use Google is to find the web address of the Pirate Bay - which probably just about everyone on the planet has heard about by now.

And then once people have found and used the Pirate Bay, why would they even need Google for trying to find (copyrighted) media to download? Won't they just go back to the Pirate Bay again each time they're looking for something?

Apparently that simple logic seems to have been completely overlooked by the copyright enforcers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:43pm

"But, hey, since he's so damn sure that he knows how to program a search engine, why doesn't he go and do it?"

Because he knows that nobody would use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re:
Actually, when confronted by the varying results from quantum mechanics, he thought the results were wrong. - "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."

source of quote

Wikipedia search for Einstein.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:45pm

Re: Wait a minute...
It depends. Are you "collecting" songs because terrorism? If so, then you are in the clear, Patriot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:46pm

Re:
Google's a much easier target than TPB:

- Has US-based presence
- Has a shit-ton of money
- Needs to maintain some kind of positive public image

If they go after TPB, the best they get is "fuck you"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:48pm

Re:
Well, I probably would for a little while. I'm sure it would provide a good chuckle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zem, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:50pm

So why don't the RIAA build their own f.ing search engine? Unless of course they are lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 12:55pm

Re:
Sorry, but Google has already admitted that 97% of the takedown requests were legitimate.

Google does not have a valid repeat infringer policy. They are going to be sued out of existence. Stockholders beware.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:04pm

If they are a decent pirate site, they don't allow Google in to scrape the site. I'm sure this will have a dramatic effect when those sites commonly use robot.txt to keep Google out. No returns from those ever show up in a search engine. There are some search engines that don't obey robot.txt. Most sites dealing with warez, prevent them from scrapping the sites either with a premade blocking filter or manual block their domains and IPs.

Removing all links from Google will not prevent this as those people already know the address and won't need Google to find it.

What it will do is increasingly make Google irrelevant to any searches. Mainly because false DMCA claims take far more than just infringing links down.

Personally I don't use Google or any of its services. I have no account with them very much on purpose. Mainly because of ads and privacy issues. I get around on the net just fine without needing Google. So all their blocks and removal of links doesn't really have an effect on what I search for and seek.

Since Google continues to lose ground to the copywrong people, over time, fewer and fewer will use the search engine. Not because they are looking for infringing files but because of the collateral damage is removing more material every day that has nothing to do with infringement but everything to do with finding results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deranged Poster (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re: Wait a minute...
Yes, I'm searching all the songs for hidden messages.
(I'm just not good at finding the hidden messages, but that's not an issue is it? )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:06pm

the best thing to do here is let the idiot build a new mass search engine, comparable to Google, then see how he likes being blackmailed into paying for things that another industry doesn't want found via that search engine, to be removed!

sounds like a plan to me!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cpt kangarooski, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re:
Google does not have a valid repeat infringer policy. They are going to be sued out of existence.

And for web searches, the law does not obligate them to have such a policy. Here's the statutory language from 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A):

The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider�s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider�s system or network who are repeat infringers;

Google's web search engine doesn't, AFAIK, have subscribers or account holders. They simply index everything they can find, more or less. This means there's no one to have a policy about, and no one to inform of it.

Now if you were talking about YouTube or GMail, or Google+ or something where there are actual accounts and user-provided content, you might have something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
Google will be sued using the same language that Hotfile was.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re:
97%? Really - provide a references for it please. Given 30% + are known to be bogus (and many more are missed), you'll be hard pressed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:21pm

Re: Re:
A 97% removal rate simply implies that they removed 97% of the links - NOT that the requests were legitimate.

BIG, BIG, BIG difference there!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:21pm

Re: Re: Re:
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/#compliance_rate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re: Re:
Why would they refuse only 3% then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:22pm

The reason the unauthorised sites show up so much is because they are relevant. The reason that even with a lot of meddling that remains the case, is that there are so often no relevant links that are authorized. If RIAA and the labels would like to change that, they might want to start distributing their works in a manner that people want. iTunes has already shown it doesn't have to be free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
memphislimsan, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, no. Hotfile actually hosted content. You are a dum dum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:26pm

Mike, you failed to point out one thing. 100 million links doesn't mean 100 million hits. Some of those links maybe didn't get any traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:27pm

Re:
found that �65% of internet�pirates� regularly use search engines to find infringing content

and 100% of traditional pirates used boat to attack merchant ships. Therefore boats should be designed differently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure you're making up those numbers, just like Cary Sherman is.

Google received 235 million takedown requests in 2013. A lot of those requests came from BPI (41.7 million) and RIAA (30.8 million). So if you assumed that the "global music industry" was composed of nothing but BPI and RIAA, they sent 72.5 million takedowns in 2013 alone. The "global music industry", or at least the large organizations that lobby on behalf of music publishers, has sent _far_ more than just 100 million takedown requests.

Oh, and of those takedown requests in 2013, Google admitted that 91% of them were legitimate; the remaining 9% were either "inaccurate" or requests to take down content that they'd already taken down. Here's a source: http://torrentfreak.com/google-discarded-21000000-takedown-requests-in-2013-131227/

In terms of a "valid repeat infringer policy", Google's current policy complies with the law. There's no legal requirement whatsoever that Google stop indexing repeat infringers, and thus no grounds for a suit. In any case, the RIAA is unlikely to sue Google, because they _really_ don't want to have the public looking at the calculations they use for "estimating" damages.

Oh, and for all those stockholders out there:
Sony (including Sony Music Entertainment / BMG): http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=GOOG
Google: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=GOOG
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're twisting the numbers a bit there. If Google complied with 97% of the takedown requests, then that means that 3% were so obviously bogus that Google was willing to take the liability to *not* take them down. To suggest that the rest were "legitimate" is quite a stretch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re:
Sorry, but Google has already admitted that 97% of the takedown requests were legitimate.

Uh, no. Google reported (not "admitted") that they complied with 97% of the takedown requests for search results:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/google-releases-new-copyright-transparency-report

The fact that Google complied with them does not mean they're "legitimate." For instance, a 2006 paper by Jennifer Urban and Laura Quilter (PDF) claimed that over half of Google's search takedown notices were illegitimate - though Google complied with them.

Google does not have a valid repeat infringer policy. They are going to be sued out of existence.

If you're talking about Google search, then they don't need a repeat infringer policy under 17 USC 512(d). If you mean YouTube, then yes, they absolutely do have a valid repeat infringer policy.

I know you and your buddies like to pretend Google does nothing but launder pirate money, but that's simply a lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:27pm

Re:
If you think that there are only two options to finding a site on the web: google or memorization, then you are among the people who don't understand how the internet works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google is "hosting" links. If you are receiving millions of DMCA takedown notices and do not have a valid repeat infringer policy, you're screwed.

This is exactly what the recent barrage of takedown notices to Google is about: building an iron clad case to sue them with. It's what the public warnings as discussed in the above article are about. Google can either clean up their site or get sued out of existence. Their choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re:
Google has already admitted that 97% of the takedown requests were legitimate.

No, they have not. What they said was that was the percentage of requests that were properly submitted (all the i's dotted and t's crossed) and that resulted in a takedown.

They did not comment on if the request was actually legitimate or not -- because they have no way of knowing that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they were so obviously bullshit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:32pm

Re:
They did that. The old radio model (still running) had the con they called the chart. it was supposed to be a reflection of what was selling. It was actually a list made up by the labels... That is what they want for search
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re:
Let's also note for the record, that removing 97% does not imply that they stayed removed.

It's VERY possible that a significant number of them were put back up, after either the real content owner called "bullshit" and Google complied, or it was found that it was legitimate fair use.

Again, you're spreading incomplete information with that 97% statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure what you mean by my "buddies". Google has to comply with the DMCA. Like it or don't like it. I don't care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
You got the link to Sony wrong, BTW:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=SNE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:34pm

Re: Re:
Google does not have a valid repeat infringer policy. They are going to be sued out of existence.

and they will be replaced by something far more difficult for the RIAA to deal with - something like YACY where there is no-one to even send a takedown notice to.

It would be at best a Pyrrhic victory but most likely an own goal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So they judged the other 97% to not be BS then. That's exactly the point I'm making.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A link is not content.

No matter how much you want it to be, it isn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140113/10303125849/riaas-boss-thinks-he-knows-better-than-google -how-to-build-search-engine.shtml#c632
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it would. I don't care. I'm just telling you what the ulterior motive is for the takedown campaign that started last year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they complied with them.

However, what you do not (and cannot) show is how many links that were taken down were restored, because of a fraudulent DMCA notice.

I say "fraudulent" because the RIAA is free to file as many as they want without repercussions.

Got a wrong link? Tough shit for the person who has the link, not for the asshole who issued the bullshit notice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everything on the net is content. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then I'm sure the RIAA can display the copyright information they were assigned when they filed

http://insertlinkhere, right?

Because if not, then they are not the "content" owner. If you want links to be content, then you need to own the copyright to the link, right?

Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure what you mean by my "buddies".

Uh huh.

Google has to comply with the DMCA.

Which they do.

Though, technically, they don't need to comply. The law says that they automatically get immunity from all liability if they do; it does not say they are automatically liable if they do not.

Of course, since immunity from all legal liability is such a strong incentive, and there are no disincentives for compliance, everyone complies with the DMCA as if it were a legal requirement. The only times that companies fail to comply with takedown notices - legitimate or not - is when they're so obviously bogus, the companies feel they can securely risk liability by ignoring them.

That's why compliance is absolutely not an indicator of takedown legitimacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the RIAA doesn't have the right to pull links from Google's site, then why does Google comply?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple question, since you say "everything on the net is content" - does the RIAA OWN the copyright on a link?

Yes or no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everything you wrote here is incorrect.

Maybe try asking a lawyer to explain the DMCA to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
memphislimsan, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A link is not content. You are being deliberately obtuse in defense of a poor argument. A link is a pointer to content.
Legally distinct from the actual content. Google merely indexes the web.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea. And I don't care.

As an "information location tool" Google must comply with the DMCA to receive safe harbor. That means they must have a valid repeat infringer policy.

Which they don't. That is why they are going to be sued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re:
the uncertainty principle was not Einstein's achievement, that was Werner Heisenberg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re:
I don't see how they are his "crowing achievement" (I think you mean crowning), since neither come from Einstein.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 1:56pm

Re:
100Million takedown notices
100Million dollar movies
100Million times bullshit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I have an idea - they don't own copyright on a link.
And links are not content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and Einstein hated it and never quite really believed any of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Wait a minute...
Wouldn't research be fair use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:27pm

Let me correct you with some Hollywood math
Sir, you need to learn to do Hollywood math properly.

The contrary could also hold true. Each of those 100 million links could each have been hit 100 million times! Assuming those were all mp3's lasting 5 minutes each, that is 8.333 x 10^14 hours of music. That's over 119,000 hours of music for each of 7 billion people on the planet! Or more than 13 years of music for each person on the planet!

Think of the trillions of dollars of lost revenue to poor starving RIAA executives and their poor starving kittens! And think of their babies! (*) This makes the earlier figure of $75 Billion dollars look measly by comparison.

How could the world ever repay those RIAA executives! That's many times the total global economic output over many years -- lost, just lost I tell you!

* especially considering those babies are a primary food source
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:35pm

Re: Wait a minute...
"If the NSA doesn't "collect" my data until they look at it, then that song I downloaded doesn't count as pirated until I listen to it, right?"

No, silly, because only downloading music is illegal.

oh wait....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do yourself a favor: NEVER get into programming. Pointers to variables would drive you crazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
no u
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everything you wrote here is incorrect.

Prove it. Show me the statute that says I'm wrong, or a judge that has agreed with you.

Maybe try asking a lawyer to explain the DMCA to you?

I know quite a few lawyers, thanks, and I've talked with them about copyright law quite a bit.

But I don't need to. All I need to do is look at the explicit wording of the statutes:
Other Defenses Not Affected. - The failure of a service provider�s conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider�s conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense.
- 17 USC 512(l)

...or the Congressional record:
New Section 512 contains limitations on service providers' liability for five general categories of activity set forth in subsections (a) through (d) and subsection (f). As provided in subsection (k), new Section 512 is not intended to imply that a service provider is or is not liable as an infringer either for conduct that qualifies for a limitation of liability or for conduct that fails to so qualify. Rather, the limitations of liability apply if the provider is found to be liable under existing principles of law.
- 105th Congress HR. REPT. 105-551

...or the several court rulings that say so:
A service provider that qualifies for such protection is not liable for monetary relief and may be subject only to the narrow injunctive relief set forth in section 512(j). 17 U.S.C. � 512(a). If Perfect 10 demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits, Google must show a likelihood of succeeding in its claim that it qualifies for protection under title II of the DMCA.

[...] Perfect 10 argues that we are bound by the language and structure of title II of the DMCA in determining Google's liability for copyright infringement. We have noted that the DMCA does not change copyright law; rather, "Congress provided that [the DMCA's] limitations of liability apply if the provider is found to be liable under existing principles of law." Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1077 (emphasis and internal quotation omitted). As a result, "[c]laims against service providers for direct, contributory, or vicarious copyright infringement, therefore, are generally evaluated just as they would be in the non-online world." Id.; see also 17 U.S.C. � 512(l) ("The failure of a service provider's conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider's conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense."). Therefore, we must consider Google's potential liability under the Copyright Act without reference to title II of the DMCA.
- Perfect 10 v. Google (PDF)

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing RapidShare�s liability under the Copyright Act without reference to the DMCA, and that Defendants then have the burden of showing a likelihood that their DMCA defense will succeed.
- Perfect 10 v. Rapidshare

myVidster received �takedown� notices from Flava designed to activate the duty of an Internet service provider to ban repeat infringers from its website, and Flava contends that myVidster failed to comply with the notices. But this is irrelevant unless myVidster is contributing to infringement; a noninfringer doesn�t need a safe harbor.
- Flava Works v. myVidster

I'm sure I could dig up more if I wanted to.

Maybe you should have someone else explain the DMCA to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an "information location tool" Google must comply with the DMCA to receive safe harbor. That means they must have a valid repeat infringer policy.

The "repeat infringer policy" refers only to "subscribers and account holders of the service provider�s system or network." (17 USC 512(i).)

Search engines usually don't have subscribers or account holders. If that's the case, then they have no obligation to have a repeat infringer policy. Whose accounts, exactly, would they terminate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cpt kangarooski, 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazing that it took so many back and forth posts just to get back to what I had said earlier, sparking that whole exchange. Thanks, Karl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:10pm

Re: Re:
That would explain why all that formulaic pop crap keeps topping the charts, instead of original, high quality music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ottermaton (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazing that it took so many back and forth posts just to get back to what I had said earlier

My fault, I missed that you said it earlier.

It is pretty amazing that this guy is still going on about it, even after you corrected him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:12pm

Re:
Reminds me of the old greek myth of sisyphus http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:17pm

I have the perfect solution for the RIAA and MPAA ,stay off the internet ,you don't want to be bothered by it any other time , create your own web browser and os and keep rocking that dated business model that serves no one but yourselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:19pm

dwindling revenue
Stop wasting it on anti-piracy then you dolts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alana (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Everything you wrote here is incorrect.

I am going to say this and expect people to believe it while not actually saying a damn thing to back it up."

Troll argument. Dismissed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cpt kangarooski, 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
De nada. It's the astounding blindness of the guy who thinks that they must have a policy that gets me. He replied right to my earlier post, so he must've seen the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 14 Jan 2014 @ 3:50pm

A) Another search engine wouldn't stop Google's aiding crime.
B) Here's Mike's only standard for morally right: "There's almost no actual evidence to support this, other than the fact that the record labels that the RIAA represents have seen dwindling revenue, while Google is doing pretty well." -- It's ALL about money with Mike. Anyway you can get it, as with Google spying on everyone and stealing even YOUR privacy, that's great. But musicians: they just have to let anyone and everyone steal their products, especially so that Mike's grifter pals can "monetize" the content and not pay them at all.
Where Mike "supports copyright" -- except when he supports piracy.

11:49:54[m-402-0]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Cortright (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:00pm

Not an Einstein quote
Narcotics Anonymous actually.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Narcotics_Anonymous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately not. The lawsuit against Google will not be based on what the Perfect 10 case was.

As far as them only having to have a repeat infringer policy if they have subscribers or account holders, that's not what the law says. It says that after implementing a repeat infringer policy, they must notify subscribers or account holders. Not that they must have them.

Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Togashi (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:08pm

Re:
Why put so much focus on Google? Simple. Google has money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:08pm

This one time in 1997
I used a search engine to find pirated shit one time and I haven't needed one since.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:09pm

Where are the infringing files on Google's site?
I guess I'm missing a step in the process, but why is sending 100 million notices to Google something to brag about, like it's some kind of victory? Is Google hosting the illegal files? How much illegal content was taken down compared to how many links were removed? (Hint to the RIAA: there's a big difference.) Why weren't the RIAA's bots/ agents/ representatives told to follow the links and serve these notices to the offending sites who actually host the files?
Oh, right, because it's easier to shoot at Google than go one-by-one through the list of infringing sites, which might be hosted in Russia, China, North Korea, or some other place that's of reach of US laws.

Do the people at the RIAA even understand the concept of a search engine? Do they not realize it would be like removing a card from a card-catalog that lists an illegal book? Okay, this makes it slightly more difficult for someone to find the book and its content, but it's still on the shelves for anyone to find. Wouldn't it be better to remove the illegal book instead of the card (or link) that points to it?

Also, like other posters are saying, how many of these notices have the RIAA sent to Bing or Yahoo? Or do they not realize that (gasp) people could use another search engine to find the illegal content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:11pm

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

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:17pm

Re:
Techdirts boss also thinks he can be congress better than congress, be the president, be the NSA, be the copyright expert, create music and movies, make money from his inherent talents/skills better than EVERYONE ELSE.
Did I mention also preside over Court cases, prosecute and defend better than any lawyer.

AND

run a backwater, extremist web site for the past 16 years, (and sell more crystal ball than any Gypsy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cpt kangarooski, 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as them only having to have a repeat infringer policy if they have subscribers or account holders, that's not what the law says. It says that after implementing a repeat infringer policy, they must notify subscribers or account holders. Not that they must have them.

Well, assuming that that is a correct interpretation, I think you'd still lose your argument. Quoting from the statute, in order to enjoy the DMCA safe harbor, they must have "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider�s system or network who are repeat infringers." If, as seems likely, they have no subscribers and account holders, the requirement is moot. Indeed, the policy very may well be to never have subscribers or account holders to begin with, and thus have no one who ever needs to have their subscription or account terminated.

And even if it isn't moot, barring actual discovery in an actual case, how would you ever know that they don't have a policy, so long as they have no subscribers and account holders to whom the policy must be communicated?

Further, the DMCA was enacted very shortly after Google was founded. If you're right, why is it that in all this time, no one has ever attacked Google in such a fashion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 4:40pm

Re: Re:
Google complies with 97% of takedown requests. That doesn't mean 97% of takedown requests are legitimate.

Or have you not read any of the massive number of stories about Google or YouTube taking down legitimate content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're attacking Google now. That's what all the takedown notices are about. Establishing that Google is aware of the infringement of the sites they list but not terminating their listing despite them being repeat infringers. They're being set up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 6:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Wait a minute...
Sometimes it helps to play the songs backwards and hang upside down from the monkey bars ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 7:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your transparent lies are hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 7:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are wrong again.

"a policy that provides for the termination...of subscribers and account holders of the service provider�s system or network who are repeat infringers"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 7:41pm

Re: Re:
You have to keep taking the medication all the time, not just when you feel funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2014 @ 8:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Limitation for Information Location Tools
Section 512(d) relates to hyperlinks, online directories, search engines and the like. It limits liability for the acts of referring or linking users to a site that contains infringing material by using such information location tools, if the following conditions are met:

1. The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge that the material is infringing. The knowledge standard is the same as under the limitation for information residing on systems or networks.

The staggering amount of takedowns proves Google is more than aware.

2.If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.

Google receives ad revenue in various ways via pirate site listings.

3. Upon receiving a notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.

Google complies with the individual takedowns but allows repeat infringer's links to continue to show up.

Bye bye Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 10:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The staggering amount of takedowns proves Google is more than aware.

They must be aware of specific infringements at specific web locations, and furthermore take no action to remove the content.

Google is made aware of those specific locations only because of those takedown notices. They would be liable if they received those takedown notices and failed to respond. But Google does respond.

So, no, they are not liable because of this.

Google receives ad revenue in various ways via pirate site listings.

No, they don't. For one thing, the ad revenue must be generated from the infringement itself. Merely having ads that show up on a search for "Breaking Bad download" does not mean that their ad revenue is generated from infringement. They make just as much ad revenue if the user clicks on a link to iTunes or Amazon or wherever.

Google complies with the individual takedowns but allows repeat infringer's links to continue to show up.

The DMCA only requires that service providers terminate the accounts on the service provider's system that are used by repeat infringers. This is explicit, black-letter law:
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.�
(1) Accommodation of technology.� The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider�
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider�s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider�s system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.

The law says, explicitly, that the condition is that they terminate the accounts of repeat infringers, and only those that reside on "the service provider's system or network."

Neither the sites that show up in search engine results, nor the people who search using those search engines, have accounts on the search engine's system. The DMCA does not require that any search engine "terminate" anything else.

In fact, under your interpretation, no search engine would have DMCA protections. That's clearly not what Congress intended, nor what the law says.

Bye bye Google.

Keep dreaming. Even if - by some misreading of the law - search engines were not found to have safe harbors under the DMCA, then Google would still need to be found liable under some theory of contributory infringement. They're not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 10:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're being set up.

That's possibly true. Fortunately for Google, the people who are setting them up have a view of "repeat infringers" that doesn't jibe with what the law actually says.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2014 @ 2:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow.

The lawyers are stoked to see you as the voice of the pirates, that much is certain...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2014 @ 2:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No difference between google and Megaupload here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Jan 2014 @ 2:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah good old ad hom, 'When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2014 @ 6:04am

If he talks so much bullshit, then why is he allowed to say that he is a lawyer? Or why doesnt someone sue his ass?
Or the government could go after scammers like this guy instead of peaceful activists.
Its great that they can legally pay off politicians so they side with them. Guys your democracy is a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clownius, 15 Jan 2014 @ 6:18am

Re:
The fact Google doesnt have them indexed doesnt mean the MAFIAA cant or wont send take down notices to Google about them.....

In fact it happens regularly that the links requested for take down are not even indexed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 15 Jan 2014 @ 6:21am

And 100 million times that innovative tech companies � like Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, Deezer, Vevo, and dozens more � didn�t benefit from a sale or a stream.

I'm amused to note that now that an RIAA spokesman has said this, the rants against Spotify, etc., have ceased.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 15 Jan 2014 @ 6:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No difference between google and Megaupload here.

If you truly believe that, then you have no clue about either company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 15 Jan 2014 @ 6:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The lawyers are stoked to see you as the voice of the pirates

Defending search engines, the DMCA, and the law does not make me the "voice of the pirates."

But it is revealing that you think it does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Jan 2014 @ 8:42am

Re: Where are the infringing files on Google's site?
Haven't you heard? If you get the address of a crack house removed from the phone book, then the crack house doesn't exist anymore!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2014 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re:
He does have several points in what he writes. It is just a bit of a dream to think a that national systems can be protected without ridiculous rules in countries where taxes to an increasing degree are paid by selling "npn-physical" products of movies, music, books, software, stocks, bonds, patents, trademarks, licenses, councelling, consulting etc. etc. Education is a problem of its own in a free market (at the moment the brain-drain is going towards the above mentioned countries, but that could turn around very fast.)...

The result of slacking significantly off on protection of these things would be people moving to lower taxed countries and outcompeting the westerners in mashups and cheaper/better services. Since national states are so important for living standard (and will be for at least decades if not centuries in the future!), it is a losing battle to go too far in the direction of reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jack, 15 Jan 2014 @ 1:45pm

Re
Ironically, I'll sometimes use 'pirate' sites to see which games are popular/new than purchase them on Steam, GOG, etc. Google and other search engines don't really tell you the top 20, so it's just easier going directly to a 'pirate' search engine and I find them to be a better evaluator than MetaCritic by far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 16 Jan 2014 @ 8:20am

"And 100 million times that innovative tech companies � like Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, Deezer, Vevo, and dozens more � didn�t benefit from a sale or a stream."

So now a search = a lost sale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2014 @ 1:39pm

RIAA is a fucking joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2014 @ 6:45am

I own a toll bridge. A mile up river from me there is a public bridge people can use for free. The map makers are losing me revenue by including this free bridge on their maps, and they need to be stopped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 17 Jan 2014 @ 7:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is patently false. Megaupload paid members to post content encouraging the posting of infringing content. In addition, they received a direct financial benefit by selling memberships where members had access to infringing content. Google does not do this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]