Google Continues To Try To Appease Hollywood, Though It Is Unlikely To Ever Be Enough

from the because-of-course-not dept

Fri, Oct 17th 2014 1:44pm — Mike Masnick

Google has come out with the latest version of its "How Google Fights Piracy" report (pdf link), going to great lengths to show how the company goes above and beyond what is required by law to try to drive people to authorized copies of content while also increasing opportunities for content creators to monetize their own content. There really aren't too many surprises in the report -- it just looks like an extension of what they've said in the past. The company is apparently about to roll out an update to its program that "downranks" certain sites based on how many DMCA notices it gets -- something that's been a huge point of contention from the RIAA and MPAA. In effect Google is basically saying to the major music and movie companies: you guys still haven't figured out how to optimize your content for search engines (like nearly everyone else online) so, fuck it, we'll do it for you if you'll just stop these ridiculous accusations. Of course, it's unlikely to work.

Just this week James Murdoch insisted, incorrectly, that search engines love piracy because it brings them revenue. This has never made any sense at all, but it's a myth that flows through the legacy entertainment industry. How Google actually makes any money from those links is never explained, because there isn't an answer. And the question of why the industry doesn't do a better job getting its own content more highly ranked is ignored as well.

And, of course, there's a real risk that by strengthening the "signalling" power of DMCA notices, what Google is really doing is giving the legacy players a tool for search engine "de-optimization", so that rather than improving their own offerings, they now have every incentive in the world to just file a bunch of DMCA notices against sites they don't like. This is why there's reasonable fear from many that this new move by Google will actually lead to an increase in bogus DMCA notices that result in legitimate content being censored.

But, here's the thing: as we said when Google first came out with this report, it will never be enough for the legacy guys in Hollywood. That's because they incorrectly blame Google for their own inability to adapt to the changing market. They blame their diminishing revenue on Google, and even as Google makes it harder and harder to find unauthorized content, that revenue isn't going to come back... so they'll still blame Google. But Google was never the problem. The legacy entertainment industry and its political supporters will continue to point to search results that don't exist and search terms that are never used as some sort of "proof" because that's what they do. Rather than adapt, they really just want Google to do things for them. And for whatever reason, Google is doing more and more... and it's unlikely to ever please the likes of James Murdoch, because Google "not doing things" was never the real problem.

HowGoogleFightsPiracy 2014 Web (PDF)HowGoogleFightsPiracy 2014 Web (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, hollywood, piracy, search engines, takedowns
Companies: google

85 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Geno0wl (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 1:50pm

Confirmation Bias.
Look at the list of top grossing movies of all time. Notice how there are tons from the last decade?
Yeah me too.
So if google is leading to more piracy and Hollywood is hurting so badly then how exactly are those movies doing so well again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re: Confirmation Bias.
  You forget that none of those films will ever make a net profit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Median Wilfred, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Confirmation Bias.
    > ou forget that none of those films will ever make a net profit.
    
    Yeah, man! Right on! No profit because of Evil Big Search allowing the skiddies to find stolen copies of movies. It'll be real sad to see Universal, and Warner Brothers and 20th Century Foxes' quarterly earnings reports, because of Evil Big Search doing contributory copyright stealing! Right on! Preach it, dude!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 5:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Confirmation Bias.
      I think it was a reference to Hollywood Accounting.
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2014 @ 7:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Confirmation Bias.
        I'm sure Median Wilfred was being sarcastic with his post and understood the reference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re: Confirmation Bias.
  ...top grossing movies...how much did you pay to see that movie? What did you pay 10 or even 20 years ago? That's right: ticket prices went up. Did the number of people patronizing the theaters go up too? Or is that number stagnant or even declining?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Confirmation Bias.
    GenoOwl is talking about top grossing movies of all time. That is not limited to theaters. It includes home viewing options. While theater patronage may be falling (not due to piracy, but shitty experiences), home viewing is on the rise. Even to this day, DVDs and BluRays make a killing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 1:51pm

they are destroying their own search engine. Its a shell of what it once was. There are better ones out there now that actually search the internet and actually return what you are searching for good or bad or in between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 17 Oct 2014 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re:
  The same thing will happen to them once they are popular.
  
  The mafia will bring in their thugs and chip away at the next big thing until it is nothing again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  The quality of google's search results has been declining over the past few years, there's no question about it. I've been trying out various alternative search engines, though, looking for one that is even close to as good as Google's, but have been unable to find one even with Google's fall in quality. Which ones do you suggest?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 18 Oct 2014 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  Thanks for the list of superior search engines that prove your rant wasn't just you talking out your ass. Good work!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:03pm

Google could give every last penny to Hollywood and they'd be after them for ten times that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:12pm

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/10/continued-progress-on-fighting-piracy.html

free advertising for the mafia!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:14pm

Hollywood won't be happy until...
Google just throws up its arms, and sends out the following press release:

"As of Noon PDT tomorrow, Google will shut down all operations. All servers will cease accepting HTTP requests. This means the immediate cessation of all of Google's services, search, Drive, GMail, Docs, YouTube, Google+, and including all services operated by Google, either linked from the home page, or hosted as 3rd party services.

We now understand the folly of operating on the Internet, given that the Internet has afflicted untold harm on the Entertainment Industry. The loss of hundred of billions of dollars of lost sales to that industry, and our recognition of how wonderful Hollywood is, has led us to this momentous decision. We regret any inconvenience that this may cause. We will also liquidate all assets to be distributed amonst shareholders.

If there are any questions, please e-mail us at PR@gmail.com, but you better get them in quickly. Thank you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jack Valenti, 17 Oct 2014 @ 5:21pm
  
  Re: Hollywood won't be happy until...
  We will also liquidate all assets to be distributed amonst shareholders.
  
  Thieves! That Google cash belongs to the entertainment industry, not to your shareholders. A lawsuit is being filed as we speak.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LukeA, 18 Oct 2014 @ 9:52am
  
  Hollywood won't be happy until...
  The loss of hundred of billions of dollars per hour of lost sales.....
  
  Fixed it. : P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Oct 2014 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: Hollywood won't be happy until...
  Yes, but I'll bet that Google would just buy a major studio or two before that happens.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:24pm

Does anyone believe ANYTHING james murdoch says?

All I can say on the matter of the murdochs is that rebecca brooks had to be screwing rupert AND james and had to be really REALLY filthy in bed for them to justify risking their entire business just to keep the stupid vapid moron out of prison....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re:
  There are some trolls that lurk around here that appear to at least get paid to pretend to believe (and repeat) ANYTHING just about any IP maximalist says.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:42pm

Oh look, there's Mike Masnick pretending he doesn't understand how ad-funded piracy works again. Oh Mike, you're such a hoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re:
  You're a hoot to, claiming there is any real money in ads. The reference to not understanding infers you do. Plainly you do not and show your idiocy and arrogance once again.
  
  No wonder you continually get reported into oblivion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 5:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No money in ads? Hmm, better not tell those Google stockholders, because officially 97% of Google's revenue comes from ADS.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 6:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Great, now how much of that comes from ads related to, or profiting off of, copyright infringement?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 7:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google UK policy manager Theo Bertram: "Most people doing piracy are not some guy in his bedroom altruistically sharing music with his friends. It’s people making money out of piracy, and it’s big business: some of these sites have 2m visitors regularly, and they’re not doing a bad business from advertising.”
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 7:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Source?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 8:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Found a quote myself, from another article on TD, with the quote itself from a report done on the subject.
        
        The Swedish trial of The Pirate Bay trial in 2009 became an occasion for all sorts of competing estimates of revenues. Record industry group IFPI estimated the site’s revenues at $3 million per year. The MPAA described $5 million in revenues. But prosecutors endorsed a much lower number: $170,000 from advertising (against what the defense characterized as $112,000/year in server/bandwidth costs and $100,000 per year in revenue). This is for a site that appears consistently among the top 100 visited sites in the world.
        
        Take those numbers and throw them together, and the profits aren't that big at all. $170,000 is a hefty sum, but subtract $112,000, and you're left with $58K over the course of a year, or $4800 per month. For one of the most visited sites on the internet.
        
        Assume for the sake of the argument that all of that is due to piracy(while the Pirate Bay is obviously used for piracy, that's very much not all it's used for, but just for the example...), if a site as massive as the Pirate Bay is 'only' making $58K in the course of a year, the idea that smaller piracy sites are raking in the cash really doesn't seem to match up
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Reality bites, 18 Oct 2014 @ 7:54am
        
        Reality never enters the room with the RIAA an MIAA
        You are talking about true criminals, they steal from the artists, they steal from the general public, just parasites sucking on the neck vein of mankind.
        
        Joe Rogan, Louis CK etc are all taking the correct route with media distribution, direct to the consumer, no blood sucking parasite stealing from everyone in the middle.
        The sooner the riaa and miaa are stomped out of existence the sooner the artists start making more and the consumer pays less.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2014 @ 1:27am
        
        Re: Reality never enters the room with the RIAA an MIAA
        +1
        
        It's amazing. The publishers have *one* job: get content to users. Yet, somehow, they spend most of their time and money preventing that very thing, and it's a downwards spiral; the more they try to cut illegitimate use, the more people will turn to illegitimate sources. People like Louis CK and Cory Doctorow have realized this, let's hope more of them will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 8:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Almost forgot to include the source for that one:
        
        Do Pirate Sites Really Make That Much Money? Um... No
        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/04532617525/do-pirate-sites-really-make-that-much-money -um-no.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Oct 2014 @ 5:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google UK policy manager Theo Bertram: "Most people doing piracy are not some guy in his bedroom altruistically sharing music with his friends. It’s people making money out of piracy, and it’s big business: some of these sites have 2m visitors regularly, and they’re not doing a bad business from advertising.”
        
        As someone who runs a site that "has 2m visitors regularly" I can tell you that advertising at that level doesn't pay very much at all.
        
        I find it amusing that people who know nothing about the online advertising business pretend they're experts in it.
        
        Yes, Google makes money from advertising, but from *search* advertising, which is quite different from low level network advertising that appears on file sharing sites (no high level advertising program is allowed on those kinds of sites). Network display advertising pays shit. You're lucky if you can get 10 cent CPMs these days.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2014 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The entire non-retail web economy is based on selling ads. Google, Facebook, everything.
        
        Please post your site visitor stats, and the gross revenue to your site from anything ad-related.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 18 Oct 2014 @ 10:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please post the Google, Facbook stats to back up your claims.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Oct 2014 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The entire non-retail web economy is based on selling ads. Google, Facebook, everything.
        
        Google makes nearly all of its money on *search* ads -- which are ads that work, because it's relevant information when people are looking for something. Facebook makes money from knowing a ton about people and now from it's "promoted" stories. They're also massive, so even at low rates, they still make tons of money.
        
        Anyone running *network* ads -- which is the case for most everyone else, makes very, very little unless they're massive in size.
        
        If you don't understand the difference between network display ads (all that the sites in question can get) and direct sales ads, you shouldn't be commenting on these issues.
        
        Our *network* ads (what we run when we can't sell direct) nets us less than our servers/bandwidth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2014 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So yes, the entire non-retail web economy is based on ads, and no, you're not going to post any of your numbers to back up your assertions. Gotcha.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Oct 2014 @ 7:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So yes, the entire non-retail web economy is based on ads, and no, you're not going to post any of your numbers to back up your assertions. Gotcha.
        
        Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just not understand basic facts? Most sites do NOT make money on advertising. We among them. A few big sites do. That's it. Lots of sites have advertising on them, but I assure you the money made from advertising is limited unless you're doing direct sales. The companies in question are not doing that.
        
        I'm not sure what you think you're demonstrating here, but I assure you it's just your own lack of understanding of the nature of internet advertising.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2014 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you just deliberately avoiding the request or just being the kind of person that hurls insults when cornered?
        
        You haven't posted one single fact to prove what I said was incorrect.
        Is that because you're an intellectually dishonest coward that can't admit you're wrong?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 20 Oct 2014 @ 3:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, you are being the moron here. Why don't you publicly disclose all your finances? Because, you know, most of us want those finances to be private. And let's be honest, e3ven if he gives all the details you'll just single Techdirt out as an exception. You morons from the MAFIAA always do this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2014 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not the one here claiming there's no money in advertising. Are you such a doltish sycophant that you swallow that bullshit?
        
        Masnick says things and then doesn't back them up. He is nothing but a bullshitter. And I don't work for the "mafiaa". I'm someone that thinks Masnick's lies and the notion that they are then promoted on Google is disgusting. These are horrible people you're defending. All because they back your piracy habits? Fix your life, dude.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 21 Oct 2014 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For all the accusations of lying that I see thrown at Mike, I have yet to see a single instance when such lying was actually demonstrated. So, until someone can provide proof, it's fair to call the people throwing those accusations liars themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This site is covered in ads. Masnick claims they make no money. Why have them here then?
        
        He's lying. He's a liar.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 3:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This site is covered in ads. Masnick claims they make no money. Why have them here then?
        
        This is why discussing these things is so ridiculous when you don't even understand the basics.
        
        1. There are many different kinds of ads. There are network display ads and direct sold ads (those are just two of a longer list).
        2. Network display ads pay shit. Tiny amounts, but are generally what sites will use as what's called remnant inventory, when you've got nothing else.
        3. We run display ads when we can't sell spots directly.
        4. Those display ads -- which are not "all over the site" pay very little, less than the cost of running our servers.
        5. Without them, though, it's more difficult to sell direct ads, because advertisers can't see what your ads look like.
        
        I'm not lying. I'm just a hell of a lot more knowledgeable about this shit than you, because I run this site, and you don't know shit about internet advertising.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I don't know anything about advertising. Uh huh. Post the numbers, you coward.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I don't know anything about advertising. Uh huh. Post the numbers, you coward.
        
        1. It would clearly go against the terms of the agreement with our advertising partners to post any numbers -- as you would know if you actually knew even the tiniest bit about how online advertising works.
        
        2. Even if we did post our numbers, you wouldn't stop your crusade against us.
        
        3. I've already told you exactly the truth, which is that our network display ads pay for less than our servers.
        
        You still don't seem to understand the differences in the types of ads that appear on sites. I'm curious why you have this comprehension problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't reveal your aggregate income from ads? LIAR
        
        Keep digging, you sociopathic douchebag.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "LIAR", "douchebag", "coward", "bullshitter", "horrible people". "disgusting"
        
        Just in this thread, those are words you have used. Then you have the audacity to call someone else "sociopathic".
        
        Hilarious. Simply hilarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't reveal your aggregate income from ads? LIAR
        
        I'm not lying. The terms of service for basically all ad networks prevent it. You would know that if you knew how ads work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "9. Confidentiality
        You agree not to disclose Google Confidential Information without our prior written consent. "Google Confidential Information" includes: (a) all Google software, technology and documentation relating to the Services; (b) click-through rates or other statistics relating to Property performance as pertaining to the Services; (c) the existence of, and information about, beta features in a Service; and (d) any other information made available by Google that is marked confidential or would normally be considered confidential under the circumstances in which it is presented. Google Confidential Information does not include information that you already knew prior to your use of the Services, that becomes public through no fault of yours, that was independently developed by you, or that was lawfully given to you by a third party. Notwithstanding this Section 9, you may accurately disclose the amount of Google’s gross payments resulting from your use of the Services. "
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 3:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those aren't the terms we're under, so, not sure what to tell you other than I've told you accurately everything and you still don't believe me. So, really, what are you proving?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 5:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Post these special "terms" you have with Google AdSense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 7:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        fuck off
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 7:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        post your bank account details
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2014 @ 10:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're not curious about Masnick's just-admitted special secret relationship with Google?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 4:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're not curious about Masnick's just-admitted special secret relationship with Google?
        
        We have no special secret relationship. The point was that our ads are from a mix of providers. You assumed it was all Google.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Oct 2014 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm someone that thinks Masnick's lies and the notion that they are then promoted on Google is disgusting. These are horrible people you're defending. All because they back your piracy habits? Fix your life, dude.
        
        Ahhh, I'm guessing you must be Lowery or one of his sycophants.
        
        Still freaking out about the big, scary Google-man, I see. And still claiming that anyone who holds an opposing view to yours is nothing but a slimy pirate to boot.
        
        At least Techdirt isn't so afraid of dissenting comments that they delete them and ban users like that silly Trichordist site does.
        
        Oh, by the way, Karl has put up a blog to counter the bullshit spewed on the Trichordist since any dissenting argument isn't allowed over there:
        
        http://tritonester.wordpress.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2014 @ 4:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it's because *you* are "an intellectually dishonest coward that can't admit you're wrong", remember?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2014 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Stop using your wife's laptop, average_joe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 6:06pm
  
  Re:
  And here's you being an asshole.
  
  Any surprise why no one listens to you than your circle of cocksucking boy toys of Chris Dodd?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 18 Oct 2014 @ 3:52pm
  
  Re:
  Oh look, there's another AC not providing any evidence that he understands better than anyone else how ad-funded piracy supposedly works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dpaus (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:42pm

Congrats, TR!
This story just made it to the top level in the Google News Feed under 'Technology' - yay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 6:33pm
  
  Re: Congrats, TR!
  You're surprised Google promotes their propagandists in their search results? Ok.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2014 @ 4:12am
    
    Re: Re: Congrats, TR!
    "propagandist"? So according to the RIAA/MPAA shills, telling the truth is now propaganda.
    
    Riiiight.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:45pm

What pirate would go to Google to look for stuff? About the only ones this effects are the clueless. Those that go to pirate sites use the software at that place to find what they are looking for and most of them don't use Google.

Personally I long ago left Google. I dislike their non-privacy TOS and their penchant for loading everything with ads. There are ways around it. I find most everything I seek without Google's assistance. I am not a fan of Google nor it's services. Unlike the trolls that come here I don't beat that drum; it's a personal choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

bob, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:47pm

Bull
Please. All it takes is one look at YouTube to understand how GOOG feels about piracy. The artists have three choices:

1) Get short changed on the ad revenues by partnering with the big company that's given them a deal they can't refuse.
2) File endless DMCA requests because GOOG can't seem to use their cool automation to stop people from uploading the same clip again and again
3) Ignore them.

Notice that none of the options actually include sharing many revenues with the people who did the work.

Imagine if GOOG used the same tools to police YouTube as it does to stop scammers from using the Google Compute Engine. On that platform, they want to double check your real identity and so they insist on linking your account to a cell phone which, not surprisingly, tracks your every movement. They're not going to let idiots have free rein on their computing platform.

But when the idiots are uploading content and making money for GOOG, there are zero impediments. And if we file jump through all of the hoops to file a DMCA request, the piracy appears again. They brag again and again about using their content ID system to pay a fraction of the ad revenue, but somehow they can't use that same system to file DMCA notices automatically.

Now-- all you file "sharing" suckers out there -- be prepared for a change. As GOOG starts to get more revenue out of Play, they're slowly going to start seeing the piracy as a net loser. When that happens, I'm hoping that GOOG will finally start seeing the light and building real partnerships with the hard working artists who create the content that fuels their revenues. But I may be overly optimistic. That revenue at Play may never come along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re: Bull
  Continue to live in your dream world. It fits your ideas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 3:22pm
  
  Re: Bull
  I reported you just because of "GOOG"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 5:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Bull
    That's Google's stock symbol, Einstein. But of course you choose to censor rather than become an educated and contributing member of society...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 6:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bull
      Wipe bob's baby batter off your face. No one needs to know about your torrid affair.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 18 Oct 2014 @ 3:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bull
      We all know that, and we all think you sound like a pompous ass every time you use it. Nobody is impressed by your attempt to look like you have half a clue about the stock market.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 3:38pm
  
  Re: Bull
  1) Get short changed on the ad revenues by partnering with the big company that's given them a deal they can't refuse.
  
  Funny, swap out 'ad revenues' with 'sales revenues' and that sentence would seem to be a perfect match with the recording industry(somewhat less so now, with more alternatives giving artists more bargaining power, but historically...).
  
  'Sign over all your rights to us, or never have anyone beyond a handful of people in your area hear your music.'
  
  So come on then, where's your angry condemnation of their 'take it or leave it' deals?
  
  2) File endless DMCA requests because GOOG can't seem to use their cool automation to stop people from uploading the same clip again and again
  
  Tell you what, you program, on your own dime, and your own time, an algorithm that can accurately and without significant error, monitor countless hours of uploaded data in real time to check for matches to reported videos, is able to tell the difference between file A(the original reported video), and file B(same video with a slight tweak), and file C(same video, put up by the artist themselves this time), is able to tell what is and is not 'authorized'(something that you lot consistently insist is 'easy', despite the fact that the only people who can reasonably know the authorized/unauthorized status of a file is the rightsholder themselves)...
  
  You do all that, and then maybe people will take you serious when you act like it would be easy for Google to do the same, and they're just choosing not to out of greed or laziness.
  
  On that platform, they want to double check your real identity and so they insist on linking your account to a cell phone which, not surprisingly, tracks your every movement. They're not going to let idiots have free rein on their computing platform.
  
  Tell ya what bob, as one who apparently believes that giving up your real name and phone number to use a service isn't a big problem, I have only this to say:
  
  You First.
  
  Post under your real name, with your real phone number. If you really believe that people should be forced to hand over that kind of information to use a service, back up your words with action, and provide an example for others to follow by providing your personal information. Show that you believe that doing so is an acceptable cost of using a service through your own actions.
  
  Or show your hypocrisy by admitting that while you see no problem with others being forced to hand over their personal information in case they might be accused of copyright infringement, you don't believe the same should apply to you. Either works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re: Bull
  but somehow they can't use that same system to file DMCA notices automatically.
  
  Um... Only the righstholder can file DMCA notices. How is Google going to swear under penalty of perjury that they own the copyrights to the content they're removing from their own servers?
  
  And anything "automatic" means without human participation beyond pressing start. How does a script or a program swear anything under penalty of perjury?
  
  Do you even read the laws your shillmasters bought?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 2:48pm

It's really very simple
As long as Google continues to exist, they will be blamed for piracy.

You'd think by now they'd realize this, and understand how appeasement is just making things worse for them in the long run, by making it clear that if enough pressure is applied, they'll cave each and every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 3:23pm

The only problem with Google and Hollywood is that searching for a movie brings up Rotten Tomatoes, which tells you just how bad most of their movies are. They're not even worth pirating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 17 Oct 2014 @ 5:11pm

Just close Hollywood down, they bring nothing to the world. just remakes and part 3, crap, nothing worth buying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 5:42pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, that must be why you're so hopelessly addicted to their content that you have to steal it. Uh huh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 6:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You're projecting AC, just because you do something, it doesn't automatically mean everyone else does as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 9:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's the same asshole who thinks that healthcare shouldn't be provided to people who can't afford it. What were you expecting? Civility? Rationale?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 5:52pm

Funny how some ill informed think google is the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2014 @ 11:58am

It will never be enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2014 @ 1:45pm

Someone needs to monetize DMCA takedown requests they would be swimming in money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TwelveBaud (profile), 20 Oct 2014 @ 5:48am

From page 5:
Piracy often arises when consumer demand goes unmet from legitimate supply. As services ranging from Netflix to Spotify to iTunes have demonstrated, the best way to combat piracy is with better and more convenient legitimate services. The right combination of price, convenience, and inventory will do far more to reduce piracy than enforcement can.
Hmm, where have I heard that before? 😉
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Oct 2014 @ 7:22am

Sad I missed reading this last week, but I have a different take on this. I think Google is playing the long game. I don't think you're giving Google enough credit.

Google is giving the studios enough rope to hang themselves with (as they've been doing with the newspaper publishers). As you mentioned, they are basically asking for a flood of bogus DMCA notices. And when there are so many bogus notices coming in - they have a case on how unreliable they are, how much of a burden it is, and how something needs to be done to fix the law.

Also, Google has repeatedly shown they are experts (in the long run) of preventing people from messing with their rankings. Whenever a SEO figures out some way to manipulate rankings against the good of the end users, the tactic is found and killed off - we have semi-regular stories on Techdirt of just this, don't we?

There probably will be unforeseen consequences and causalities, but I think Google can withstand them better than the studios and knows exactly what they're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 8:54am

"The terms of service for basically all ad networks prevent it. "

Except of course, the biggest one in the world.

You really can't admit when you've been caught lying. Says everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 23 Oct 2014 @ 10:53am
  
  Re:
  You really can't admit when you've been caught lying. Says everything.
  
  But nothing has been proven with this silly line of questioning.
  
  Only a moron would compare Google's AdSense boilerplate TOS, which is mainly for low traffic, soccer Mom blogs, with an advertising contract for a site that consistently gets over a million pageviews a month.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2014 @ 6:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Are you retarded? Read his responses again. He got caught lying. Stop wasting your life defending this douchebag simply because he defends your addiction to stealing content.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 24 Oct 2014 @ 7:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you retarded?
      
      Nope. Nice way to start a comment with an ad hom, though.
      
      Read his responses again. He got caught lying.
      
      I have read through this thread. Like I stated above, I don't believe anything has been proven. You have compared a boilerplate TOS with a contract you are not party to and claim they are the same. That only makes you look foolish to me.
      
      Stop wasting your life defending this douchebag simply because he defends your addiction to stealing content.
      
      Too funny. Once again, anyone who disagrees with you is a slimy pirate whose opinions are to be disregarded. That's the debate playbook of someone arguing from very weak position, you know. I'm guessing when you debate in real life you also think you win if you yell the loudest too.
      
      For record, I don't pirate content because I believe that creators should be compensated, but I also don't think that current copyright laws are benefiting society as they should and in some cases are eroding the inalienable rights I hold dearly. Those are not mutually exclusive philosophies.
      
      If you are even slightly interested as to why I comment on Techdirt, I have stated it here for all to read:
      
      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110603/21143914551/gwizs-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]