British Recording Industry Thinks 'Right To Be Forgotten' Proves Google Can Stop Piracy

from the a-tale-of-two-web-forms dept

Tue, Jun 3rd 2014 8:55am — Tim Cushing

As the discussion over the EU's decision to force Google to uphold a "right to be forgotten" continues, various industry heads have begun to weigh in on the subject, pointing to this as evidence that Google could do more to combat piracy.

This, of course, is exactly the expected reaction. With every obliging move, search engines such as Google move themselves further and further away from providing "agnostic" search results. But what these entities are seeking goes much further than web forms. They still think Google should be able to de-list entire sites at the behest of any number of self-interested parties.

A recent article at the Guardian contains a number of recording industry leaders pointing in the direction of Google's "right to forget" compliance as an admission by the search engine giant that it has the power to (almost singlehandedly) kill off "pirate" sites. There's some confusion as to what Google actually does expressed here, although the worst of it seems to be relegated to the headline itself: "If Google can get rid of personal data, why can't it purge the pirates?"

The lede handles the subject much more accurately before the head of Britain's recording industry attempts to turn this into another reason why Google isn't doing enough to protect his interests.

Google's decision to allow users to easily de-list certain personal information from search results has infuriated a film and music industry that argues the internet giant should act as decisively to help squash digital piracy.

After laying down the facts, the rest is filled with badly drawn conclusions.

Critics say that Google drags its feet over carrying out measures such as stripping pirate websites from its search results, yet the move to allow users the "right to be forgotten" proves it can take serious action if it is forced.

"It's 'Don't be Evil' 101," says Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the music industry's trade body, the BPI. "The principle at stake here is when you know someone is acting illegally, you shouldn't continue helping them by sending them business."

There are several things wrong with Taylor's assertions. To begin with, Google "sends" no one any business. Google returns search results. Critics often claim that search results for content return tons of illicit results within the first few pages, but in order to make this happen, you have to include the sort of terms that someone looking to pirate might use. With enough intent, you can wring anything out of a search engine. This is not a problem that needs to be "solved" by the search engine.

The industry's own preferred referral services are, if anything, worse than the industry's skewed perception of Google's search results. As we pointed out a few weeks ago, the combined force of the UK's movie and television industry has resulted in a website that can't even locate legitimate purchase options for highly sought after content, while a simple search at Amazon will provide plenty of DVD and streaming options.

While critics may be right that Google can do certain things if "forced" to by government bodies, is this really the sort of goal they should be encouraged to pursue? Using the government to force one industry to cater to another industry's whims? The recording and motion picture industries seem to feel they should be able to de-list entire sites, something Google isn't allowing with its "right to forget" web form, just as it isn't allowing it with its DMCA takedown request form. Taylor feels this is wrong and that his industry should be allowed to de-list entire sites, including content that doesn't belong to anyone under its purview, simply by pushing a couple of buttons.

Geoff Taylor has more to add to this:

Dealing with Google is often a fraught process, Taylor adds, and the illegal websites reappear in the same, or a slightly different, guise almost immediately after they are taken down.

Presumably, Taylor means URL addresses. Once again, Google doesn't have the power (nor should it) to "take down" websites. Again, the URL is de-listed and won't appear in search results. In order for the content to be removed, a takedown request must be submitted to the site hosting the content. People like Taylor want to lay the problem at Google's feet simply because Google has given them one of the easiest and most user-friendly ways to submit takedown requests. Rather than make an effort, the industry wants Google -- a search engine -- to do the legwork for it. And now it wants entire sites de-listed.

"We have been calling for a long time for Google in particular to be more proactive in dealing with the issue of illegal content in its search results," says Taylor.

Google is not in the business of policing the internet for infringing content. That job belongs to the rights holders. How Taylor arrives at this misconception is beyond me, but he's far from the only industry head calling for Google to save them from problems they ignored for far too long.

How Taylor decides a new web form ("right to forget") signals greater capabilities than a pre-existing web form (the DMCA takedown) is also beyond me. Taylor is correct in his statement that Google's search algorithm is far from neutral, but he fails to acknowledge that it's been governments acting at the behest of industries that have made the most noise about the company's failure to rewrite the code to the specifications of the RIAA, MPAA et al.

And for all that noise, there's seemingly very little realization that pirates don't really use search engines for piracy.

Just 13% of illegal downloaders use search engines, including Google, to access music sites, and 8% for film sites, according to snapshot research by Ofcom.

So, even if the industry gets its way, there will be little noticeable effect.

But the bottom line is this: the new "right to be forgotten" form is roughly interchangeable with the DMCA takedown form. Neither remove content. Both only de-list URLs. The content still exists, but anyone using Google won't be able to find it... and that number represents only a small sliver of web users.

Somehow, these similar forms with similar results signal something much bigger to industry leaders like Geoff Taylor when, in fact, it should signal the exact opposite. Nothing has changed. Google will de-list specific URLs if given a legal reason to, whether it's a EU directive or its own compliance with the DMCA in order to retain its safe harbors. The belief that this means Google can (and should) de-list entire sites and further screw around with its algorithm in order to make the recording (and motion picture) industry happy is simply delusional.

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: geoff taylor, piracy, right to be forgotten, search engines
Companies: bpi, google

75 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Richard (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:12am

What Google can do
While critics may be right that Google can do certain things if "forced" to by government bodies,

They are wrong.

What Google can do (has done) is to pretend to follow a legal indtruction to a sufficient level to convince those who ordered them to do it (for now).
Of course if a few months they will discover that what Google has done is in practice less effective than it appeared at first (to a naive observer).

And of course if Google really succeeded ( a big if) then there are options such as Yacy (which no-one can issue orders to for technical reasons) waiting in the wings to take over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:30pm
  
  The British Recording Industry is correct about this
  Google can stop piracy just as effectively as Google can make the Internet forget about you*.
  
  (* please note: removing something from google's index does not make it disappear from teh intarwebs! Other terms and conditions may apply retroactively. Void where prohibited or not prohibited by law.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:13am

The music industry is trying to tell people how to not be evil now? Really? Oh that one is rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:17am

Perhaps the search engines should require proof of copyright ownership for a DMCA notice, like they require proof of identity for the right to be forgotten. Note, that is real proof, not a sworn statement by a third party acting on the copyright owners behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethorad (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:18am

down the rabbit hole
So in the case where someone has an old court case they want forgotten google has to remove links to that old content.

However, how about a site like chillingeffects collating the right to be forgotten requests? Could google remove the link to the original material, but include a link to something commenting on the request - and thus reveal the old content?

Of course I guess someone could request that removal. Which would result in a link to another request on chillingeffects ... ad infinitum

Here's hoping server hard drives keep increasing exponentially ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:25am
  
  Re: down the rabbit hole
  Buy shares in disk manufacturers!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:36pm
  
  Re: down the rabbit hole
  Or more - what if the link is a to a government website that specifically posts public information? Is Google supposed to remove all links to government websites?
  
  Some local police departments post mug shots on Facebook of those they've arrested. Does Facebook have to come down to?
  
  Oh wait! That's not a bad idea!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:21am

Can you have justice without due process?
This is what happens when you cut the legal system out of the loop and replace it with a system that punishes accusations and suppresses information based on people's say so. First it's the DMCA, then it's three strikes and six strikes, then it's removing links because of an imaginary "right to be forgotten", and soon it will content as well. All of these have the same thing in common: administering "justice" without judicial involvement.

If it had an informercial, the motto for getting rid of content you don't like in the age of the Internet would be "Set it, and forget It!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re: Can you have justice without due process?
  > Can you have justice without due process?
  
  Isn't due process without justice good enough?
  
  The recording industry says it is an adequate substitute. Really, it is. Plus, you cannot then complain about not getting due process.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: Can you have justice without due process?
  Technically, you can have justice without due process. It just happens accidentally rather than intentionally.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:22am

I think the right-to-be-forgotten is ill conceived and a bad idea, but now that it's in place, I think the record industry people have a point. If I, as an individual, have the right to shape my online identity through search index editing, why don't copyright owners have similar powers? To be clear, I don't think anybody should have that power, but if Google is going to go down this path (willingly or not), I think it's hard to define what editing is acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:37am
  
  Re:
  "If I, as an individual, have the right to shape my online identity through search index editing, why don't copyright owners have similar powers?"
  
  What does "right to be forgotten" allow people to do with personal information that the DMCA doesn't allow copyright holders to do with infringing copies?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps this is what Google is going to have to deal with - a patchwork off confusing and conflicting regulations. DMCA in the US, right to be forgotten in Europe, state directed censorship in China, etc...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:58am
  
  Re:
  if they have a right to be forgotten, why not a right to be popular.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't be absurd! Don't you know that the right to be forgotten can only be obtained after the right to be popular?
    
    OH, wait, no, sorry. I thought you said Denied.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re:
  " If I, as an individual, have the right to shape my online identity through search index editing, why don't copyright owners have similar powers?"
  
  The whole point is that they do have that power, right now. What they want is beyond what the "right to be forgotten" gives. They want Google to actively seek out and suppress things rather than only doing it on request.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:23am

Don't be evil
"It's 'Don't be Evil' 101," says Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the music industry's trade body, the BPI. "The principle at stake here is when you know someone is acting illegally, you shouldn't continue helping them by sending them business."

No it isn't - - surely "Don't be Evil 101" would be the Sermon on the Mount which clearly enjoins us to be neutral in these circumstances

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
Matthew 5 -45
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jason, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: Don't be evil
  I'm pretty sure that Jesus' long history of fish copying and other unauthorized reproductions means that BPI/RIAA/MPAA would classify him as a pirate...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rabbit80, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:24am

Google should comply..
Say the MPAA want pirate links to Non-Stop to be removed under the "Right to be forgotten" - Google should simply REMOVE ALL LINKS to that movie. It will soon be forgotten then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:34am
  
  Re: Google should comply..
  Since most of them deserve to be forgotten, the world will be better off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:06am
  
  Re: Google should comply..
  Thats exactly what I was thinking, they can be forgotten and it will help piracy. I would enjoy watching MPAA/RIAA/ETC getting sliced by the double edged sword.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re: Google should comply..
  Google should remove not only links to the movie, but Google should remove all mentions of the movie. If someone mentions the movie in a blog post, perhaps a good review, then that post will not be indexed.
  
  Google should also help people to be forgotten. Good for privacy. But think of the disk space that could be saved and used for worthwhile purposes. Like remembering the accomplishments of people who have made a positive contribution to society.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rabbit80, 3 Jun 2014 @ 3:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Google should comply..
    Thats what I meant! I never put it quite so eloquently though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bt Garner (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:30am

Comment 1: What if a story happens, where one person is vilified, and another person is praised? Why should the right of the vilified person rule over the praised person to have the story removed?

Comment 2: Maybe google just needs to serve up a taste of these trolls old medicine in the form of new terms of use, "By using our site, you agree to waive your right to be forgotten..." I know it wouldn't hold any water in court, but still it'd be funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:33am

I'm still waiting on Google to end hunger and bring about world peace.

Get in line, BPI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  I'm still waiting for Google to shine my shoes. Fucking slackers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:37am

The only way for Google to censor the Internet effectively would be to shut down their search engine and fiber then bomb all remaining Internet service Providers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Groaker (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:49am

Perhaps Google and all other search engines need to take a more proactive stance. Namely to "forget" the existence of entertainment industry as well as all politicians who accept funds from that group. And to take down all other web sites that mention such companies or politicos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  Would be trouble as well cause the darn German publishing industry is already preparing for their third strike: claiming Google is an evil monopoly that just HAS TO list them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:56am

Welcome to our brave new world of adulterated search results. More incentive to decentralize perhaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:05am

'even if the industry gets its way, there will be little noticeable effect'
To
There is a strong suspicion amongst many, although it is not particularly supprtedin reliable studies, that piracy increases sales (reliable studies do suggest a very minor positive effect and fall to support a negative effect on sales).
Perhaps the industry shares this suspicion, but cannot bring themselves to publicly acknowledge this and so continue with piracy fighting policies so long as the impact on piracy is negligible.
Then at they can be the brave soldiers fighting the desperate battle against piracy , whilst still enjoying the benefits.
It's generally called having your cake and eating it too, and that is something the entertainment industry corporations have phenomenal experience of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  Their real target is not the piracy, but to kill of all of the competing content on the Internet that is not earning them money because it is self published etc. Its just they cannot do this directly, but they can make 'mistakes'. The less effective the anti-piracy measures, the more control over the Internet they can demand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    Close. It's not so much that they want to kill the content itself but rather the distribution methods that they don't control such that all artists have to go through them in order to have their work distributed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2014 @ 1:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are overlooking one characteristic of publishers, they have a limited capacity to publish new works. Therefore if the control all publication, far fewer works will be made available, so yes they will kill of the competition, by limiting who can publish.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:11am

could we..?
could we find the listings of all the sites google is de-listing (for copyright infringement purposes) and simply make a searchable database from that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jameshogg (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:01am
  
  Re: could we..?
  Such a thing is already happening with both a) news media's reporting of who is filling "right to be forgotten" requests and b) ChillingEffects.org keeping a list of the websites taken down from Google by DMCA.
  
  Both of which defeat their respective purposes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:31am

Stop your spending of money on anything that comes from MAFIAA BIG CONTENT ! Join the Boycott and do not let them get a dime out of you.
Fight them with your wallet ! The more who do so the merrier !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  um... if that idea hasn't reached critical mass by now, it's not going to happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No reason to stop pushing for it, the less money they have to throw into buying politicians and laws the better, and not giving the parasites money if it can be at all avoided is it's own reward.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:49am

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jameshogg (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:59am

Wasn't one of the justifications for "the right to be forgotten" that if Google can take down DMCA requested links, it can take down other things?

Now the claim seems to be the opposite.

Then again I'm not surprised two wishful-thinking forces have allied like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:10am

Mike Masnick censors comments on this website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  Nice try, but it's the community that sends you to time out, and if you've got a problem with it, stop slinging out insults like a child.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re:
  no, the users decide which drivel to hide.
  
  huge difference. And here, have my "report" that your drivel disappears
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nope, he censors. "Held for moderation" when no spam, profanity or hate speech is involved is pure censorship.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're being paranoid. I have this happen occasionally as well. It's just a spam filter making a bad call -- nobody is targeting you specifically.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh really? Hmm, I'll try again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope, he's still censoring it.
        
        This isn't going to end well for him...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        seems like the spam filter doesn't like you. I can't blame him, neither do we.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know what trying it again proves. If the spam filter flagged it the first time, it will probably flag it the second as well. You just have to do what I do when this happens: wait for someone to look at it and free it from the filter.
        
        Calling this censorship makes you look foolish, by the way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nah, it's censorship.
        
        Mike Masnick censors speech on this site.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just Another Anonymous Troll, 3 Jun 2014 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you fail to get past the spam filter, no one wants to see it. I suppose you will now simultaneously tell Mike you slept with his mom and threaten to DDoS Techdirt, neither of which you have done or will do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only return for you repeating the same bullshit is that people think you're even more stupid then you let on at first. Well done!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 4 Jun 2014 @ 12:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny, I can read your paranoid drooling just fine. Obviously, your messages have been released from the spam filter, as often happens on the odd occasions where my posts accidentally get caught.
        
        But, if it happens to you every time you post, there's a reason for that - and no, it's not because Mike is as obsessed with you as you are with him. Maybe if you stopped posting lies and idiocy to such a degree that the spam filter temporarily (and correctly) flags your IP as belonging to a spamming moron, you wouldn't have this problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2014 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You really couldn't be more of a fucking idiot, could you, Paul?
        
        Masnick is about to find out why creative people trump weasels like himself, every time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 4 Jun 2014 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ..and yet again, the self-proclaimed "creative" can't string a sentence together without depending on lies, childish name calling and throwing a toddler tantrum. No wonder you never show any of your supposed creative work here. If it's even half as laughable as your attempts to debate here, it's worth less than what I scooped out of my cat's litter tray this evening. No wonder you're a failure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clearly a troll. Don't feed it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 3:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're so convincing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "This isn't going to end well for him..."
        
        Really? How exactly do you think this is going to end? Clowns like you have been claiming this for years but I see no end in sight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So basically you spammed a spam filter and you're angry that it's working.
        
        Most people with a modicum of intelligence would realise that they're spamming and stop, but evidently that's beyond your meagre levels of comprehension.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2014 @ 6:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is what creative people do? Behave like a jackass and spam the same shit over and over?
        
        There's a weasel here and it's not Masnick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, by that logic, do you believe that spam filters are also censorship? Because that's what that is. It means that your comment triggered the spam filter for whatever reason(posting too many times in a short time period will do that I believe), and is being held in limbo until someone can make sure it isn't spam.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That is the spam filter. That means, you fail the turing test.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nope, you're full of shit. As usual.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re:
  Yawn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jameshogg (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:12am

It surely must make more sense for copyright holders to go after the source, namely the pirate websites themselves, instead of those linking to the source. Because that way it wouldn't matter if Google links to the site: the site will be blocked anyway. And Google becomes an effective tool for the copyright holder in spotting where the pirate sites are located.

The reason why this approach is not taken is because there is a great deal of cowardliness with respect to not admitting that this is a lost cause. They can't attack the sources because there are too many sources, also known as "I am Spartacus!", also known as a comparison to prohibition and the war on drugs. So instead of admitting their failures, they scapegoat the search engines that do nothing more than mention what the pirate websites actually are, in a hope that all piracy woes will miraculously vanish. Such logic would also mean preventing the BBC from mentioning anything about the Pirate Bay whatsoever. Or listing the websites that have been blocked through court orders. This is another form of the "super-injunction", which is something that quite rightly deserves hostility and ridicule in itself. You only need to look to Ryan Giggs to see how this idea is discredited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re:
  there is an even simpler reason, Google has money, the pirate sites don't. They haven't found a way to extract money from google yet, but not for lack of trying...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  Also, most pirate sites are not located in countries the copyright holders can affect. What's illegal in one country is not illegal everywhere, but you can still access it from just about everywhere, courtesy of the internet.
  
  Also, pirate web sites, in general, make virtually no money, so there's hardly any money in it. It's been well documented that removing piracy does little affect sales so it's not a matter of money. It's a matter of control, and the money that can be made by creating an imaginary problem (piracy!) so they can offer an imaginary service (copyright "protection"). Convince enough people you're doing the "right thing" and they'll pay you for it, whether or not it's effective or necessary.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:21am

So if a site contains the title of a movie/song then it can not show up in a search result?

There is a great difference between copyright infringement and the desire for an individual not appear in a search result.

Google seems to be going through great effort to follow the new rules? The rules say ANY search engine. How are the other search engines doing? Does this make the cost of being a new search engine startup so high there is no longer any business value?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:46am

Has anyone..
Has anyone Explained MAGIC to these children?
Making a person Disappear, does not mean they are GONE..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:48am

If I wanted to download a specific album or movie, Google would be the last place I would go. I'd go to the site that had deals with such and then search there. Google doesn't get involved at all.

All this is a waste of time though. Know why? The music out there isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to download. Maybe 2 movies out of an entire year are worth your time to watch. The rest are absolute money and time wasters. So what it comes down to is a total lack of interest in these products. Don't care enough to spend the time to download them.

Here's a clue.... Goggle ain't gonna fix that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:15pm

"Don't be evil" means allow us to socialize our costs while keeping our profits private. Hail Satan!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:18pm

"If Google can get rid of personal data, why can't it purge the pirates?"

hey if Google can make people and things disappear, why don't they start with the *AA's and their ilk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2014 @ 3:56am

So Google pulled a Philip Morris: they turned setback into business oportunity. Now they asking everybody sending request for removal to provide copy of ID and picture. Just to start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]