RIAA's Boss Thinks He Knows Better Than Google How To Build A Search Engine
from the so,-uh,-go-build-your-own dept
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 yearsUm, 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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who are the remaining 35% that memorize links to every file on the web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computing is automation.
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 chronology ]
Re:
NSA contractors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and 100% of traditional pirates used boat to attack merchant ships. Therefore boats should be designed differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait a minute...
(I'm just not good at finding the hidden messages, but that's not an issue is it? )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute...
No, silly, because only downloading music is illegal.
oh wait....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because there's no way I'll believe the RIAA sent 100 million ABSOLUTELY CORRECT takedown notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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):
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No matter how much you want it to be, it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
Which they don't. That is why they are going to be sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And links are not content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legally distinct from the actual content. Google merely indexes the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BIG, BIG, BIG difference there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=SNE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe try asking a lawyer to explain the DMCA to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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:
- 17 USC 512(l)
...or the Congressional record:
- 105th Congress HR. REPT. 105-551
...or the several court rulings that say so:
- Perfect 10 v. Google (PDF)
- Perfect 10 v. Rapidshare
- 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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, that much is certain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you truly believe that, then you have no clue about either company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Drum up some copyright support money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Compete? The RIAA doesn't know the meaning of the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
source of quote
Wikipedia search for Einstein.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure that's all the politicians will be saying now. "100 million" "100 million" "100 million"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
100Million dollar movies
100Million times bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or is he just full of shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Back the Day
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 chronology ]
Google gets left alone to give the results we want, while the riaa finish deatroying bing and yahoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
- 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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because he knows that nobody would use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
In fact it happens regularly that the links requested for take down are not even indexed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sounds like a plan to me!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me correct you with some Hollywood math
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dwindling revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A) Another search engine wouldn't stop Google's aiding crime.
Where Mike "supports copyright" -- except when he supports piracy.
11:49:54[m-402-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Einstein quote
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Narcotics_Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This one time in 1997
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are the infringing files on Google's site?
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 chronology ]
Re: Where are the infringing files on Google's site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now a search = a lost sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]