U2 Manager Paul McGuinness: Google Should 'Take Down' Sites And 'Keep Them Down'

from the be-careful-what-you-wish-for,-www.u2.com dept

Paul McGuinness, U2's manager, ("World's Richest Band Seeks Handout") has been a longtime critic of Google, whose search engine he views as being nothing more than a portal for pirates. That's when he's not blaming pretty much everyone else (ISPs, any tech company connected to the internet in general) for not making U2 incrementally richer. But Google is never far from his mind, not even when accepting an Industry Icon award from Billboard Magazine for his 35 years as the band's manager.

McGuinness (again) thinks he has a quick fix for the piracy problem, and it all revolves around Google.

What needs to be done is simple, take the sites down and keep them down. If the pirates can manage to replace their sites instantly with legions of bots, Google, with their brilliant algorithm engineers can counter it. We need the technology giants like Google to do the things that labels, the publishers, the artists, the writers repeatedly ask them to do. They need to show corporate and social responsibility. Take down the illegal sites, keep them down and clear the way for the legal digital distributors like iTunes, Spotify, Deezer, the new Jimmy Iovine Beats service, which promises to be a very serious competitor.

Yes. It's all so "simple." Just "take sites down" and "keep them down." Like many people who frequently confuse "Google" for "the Internet" (see also: many people in the UK government), McGuinness overstates the simplicity of his request while granting powers to Google that it simply doesn't possess.

Let's tackle the "simplicity" aspect first. If McGuinness is only referring to delisting sites (and that's somewhat unclear), it's not nearly as easy as he (or the RIAA, MPAA, UK government) thinks. There are several ways this could go wrong (see also: site blocking/web filters), not the least of which is that it puts internet access in the control of agencies and entities that can't even seem to issue DMCA notices without taking down legitimate content sources. So, if labels and studios (and those represented by them) can't even send out failure-free DMCA notices, they're hardly in the position to tell a company that indexes millions of sites how "simple" it would be to "block" or "take down" pirate sites.

Then there's what's actually in Google's power to do. McGuinness does mention "algorithms" but shortly thereafter he's deploying wording that sounds suspiciously like a call for Google to take down sites, as in do a private ICE job and lock up the domain, thus keeping it out of searches and "clearing the way" for legitimate offerings. That's something Google simply can't do, and even if it could, certainly shouldn't do. Google's main product is a search engine. It crawls and indexes sites. It is not in the "internet police" business. That's not what it's product is intended to do and that's not what a majority of those using the search engine want Google to be doing.

But the RIAA, MPAA and others insist this is Google's job -- to sniff out infringing content and remove it from the web (or at least, its search results). Google processes millions of DMCA notices per year, but this is always viewed as a sign of failure on the company's part. If it was "better" at the job McGuinness and others think it should be doing, it wouldn't be receiving so many notices.

Somehow, it always comes back to the claim that Google "owes" millions of content creators something for indexing the web.

I would like to see them open their hearts a little and be more generous to the ecosystem that started their success a few years ago. Google talks a lot about Internet freedom -- that's fine, we all support Internet freedom don't we* -- but let's not confuse freedom of speech with the freedom to steal pirated stuff.

*Note: Paul McGuinness does NOT support internet freedom.

I don't think anyone confuses freedom of speech with piracy, but just like the above situation, it's not nearly as simplistic as McGuinness and others believe it is. Shut down a whole site because it hosts or links to pirated content and you're also shutting down everything that surrounded it, a lot of which greatly resembles "free speech."

McGuinness likely won't be happy until every search engine is completely subverted by IP-heavy industries, but that's apparently acceptable collateral damage if it results in incremental sales increases.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, engineering, open internet, paul mcguinness, search engines, u2
Companies: google

Our Broken Patent System: Company That Does Nothing May Get Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars From Google

from the that's-not-innovation dept

The patent system is completely broken. Towards the end of 2012, we wrote about how a patent troll named Vringo, using some patents (6,314,420 and 6,775,664), had won a lawsuit against Google. Vringo was a failed ringtone company that had bought those highly questionable patents from the failed search engine Lycos and then sued basically everyone who ran a search engine. Microsoft agreed to settle (with a bizarre stipulation promising to pay 5% of whatever Google finally had to pay), while Google agreed to indemnify a bunch of the others that were all using Google's search under their own. The jury found that Google's AdWords product infringed, and gave an award much lower than what Vringo had asked for.

However, there was a further dispute about how much Google should have to pay for "ongoing" infringement. Google had argued that it had changed the way AdWords worked to avoid infringement, but Vringo disagreed. A judge not only agreed with Vringo, but has now awarded Vringo effectively 1.36% of all AdWords revenue -- which represents the majority of Google's revenue. No one's exactly sure how much, but it's probably in the range of $250 million per year until the patent expires in 2016.

This is silly. There's nothing in the patent that was key to Google doing what it does. There was nothing in the patent that taught anyone anything. In fact, Vringo flat out concedes that Google didn't "copy" anything. It just built its own product in a manner that best served its users. And Vringo, which did nothing at all, may now cash in for hundreds of millions of dollars. For doing nothing.

In a true capitalist system, when a company fails it goes out of business. Patents like this are a joke on the free market. They allow failed companies to sue those who succeed and get hundreds of millions of dollars out of them. They let companies that failed cash in for doing nothing -- for failing in the market place. It's a tax on companies that build something consumers want, paid to companies that could never correctly figure out what the market wanted. It means the companies that improve the world have to pay off the companies that have done nothing to improve the world. How is that possibly a fair or reasonable result?

I'm honestly curious for the usual crew of patent system defenders to explain how Vringo deserves ~$250 million a year for not doing anything at all to improve search.

Filed Under: adwords, losers, patent trolls, patents, search engines, shakedown, winners
Companies: google, lycos, vringo

UK Politicians Think They Can Write Google's Search Algorithm Better Than Google

from the because-they-don't-know-what-they're-talking-about dept

Last week, we wrote about the UK Parliament debating a new IP bill in which they seem not just woefully uninformed, but poised to do stupid things, like throw file sharers in jail and blame internet companies for not pretending it's still 1995. It appears that process has continued, and TorrentFreak has a further report concerning debate on the new Intellectual Property Bill that suggests the MPs are not only completely uninformed about the internet, but seem to think they know how to program Google's algorithms better than Google.

The biggest problem, it seems, is that UK politicians continue to fall for the completely false claims by some that if you search for various artists or movies, the top results are infringing sites. That's almost never true. What is true is that if someone specifically searches for artists and things like "free download" or other such terms, that some of the results may point to unauthorized sources, and the people doing those kinds of searches aren't the folks looking to pay in the first place. They're clearly looking for free downloads, and Google is giving them what they asked for. But, it appears multiple politicians in the UK don't understand that, and think that Google is presenting unauthorized sources based just on searches on artists' names.

“When you search for the name of your favorite band..[..]..you will be directed to illegal sites. Something must be done about that,” said Pete Wishart MP. Untrue of course, but it gets worse.

“[Another MP] mentioned an astonishing statistic…[..]..to the effect — I hope I have this right; he will correct me if I am wrong — that for the top 20 singles and albums for November 2013, 77% of first page search results for singles and 64% for albums directed the consumer to an illegal site. I have to say to the Minister that that surely cannot be allowed to continue,” said MP Iain Wright.

That statistic isn't even close to true. It's laughably false. But, armed with such bogus information, these MPs suddenly believe they know how to better write search algorithms, and seem prepared to start editing Google's search results for the company. A new clause is being added to the bill called "online copyright infringements: technology companies." It basically proposes that the government will now have a mandate to edit search results:

"The Secretary of State will, within three months of this Act coming into force, report to both Houses of Parliament on proposals that will have the purpose of ensuring technology companies hinder access via the internet to copyright infringing material."

Right, because that's worked so well in the past. Given how uncreative politicians are, the end result of this bill will almost certainly be increased censorship and blocking in the UK, while putting a ridiculous level of liability on internet companies for merely doing what their users ask them to do. Over the past few years, the UK keeps positioning London as a new startup hub, but with laws like this, the UK is basically making sure that it's impossible to do any real internet innovation in the UK without facing massive liability.

Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property bill, links, pete wishart, search engines, uk

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Thinks Google Is To Blame For Infringement On The Web

from the because-Google-uploads-infringing-material-and-whatnot-*eyeroll* dept

Mississippi state attorney general Jim Hood has returned to his old punching bag, Google, for another workout. Back in June, Hood decided it was Google's fault that he could find copyright infringement and counterfeit items on the web. Back then, he complained that Google "gave" him "easy access" to illicit goods and then wondered aloud why it could work its magic with Nazi photos and child porn but somehow couldn't rid the web of infringement as well. He then threatened to issue subpoenas if Google didn't scrub the web clean by his next irate press conference.

Not much has changed, apparently. Hood is again blaming Google for copyright infringement and is using his familiar standard rhetorical props. In a letter to Google counsel Kent Walker, Hood asks why Google "allows" bad things to happen to good people (MPAA, RIAA, etc.).

Hood accused Google of being “unwilling to take basic actions to make the Internet safe from unlawful and predatory conduct, and it has refused to modify its own behavior that facilitates and profits from unlawful conduct.” His letter cites not just piracy of movies, TV shows and music but the sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals and sex trafficking.

He also pointed out several instances in which Google has screened out criminal content, like child pornography. Nazi-related content, he noted, was removed from search results in Germany, and spam and malware are blocked because they can be damaging to users.

“Google can and does take action against unlawful or offensive conduct — when Google determines it is in its business interests to do so,” Hood wrote.

While a lot of what Hood claims is mostly wrong, the last sentence is especially disingenuous. The Nazi content he's referring to was taken down in order to comply with German and French laws, not because Google felt doing so would be good for the bottom line. Its efforts to curb child pornography are also adding nothing to its profits. It's a collaborative effort done mainly as a public service, but it also is the result of considerable political pressure from various politicians.

Google would presumably take other content down as well if ordered to by a court. As it stands now, Google does make an effort to curb infringement, but despite the fact that it removed 57 million web pages last year (with an average turnaround time of 6 hours), the MPAA (in particular) continues to claim it's not doing enough. What goes unacknowledged is the fact that Google neither encourages infringement nor contributes to infringement. It simply indexes the web.

Google has also made efforts to alter its algorithms to give so-called "rogue sites" lower rankings and it deploys ContentID at YouTube to help filter infringing content out of the 100 hours of video uploaded every minute.

But it's still not enough for critics like Jim Hood. Because Google can filter out child porn (still not 100% -- nor will it ever be), certain people feel filtering out infringing content should be just as "simple." But infringement isn't like child porn and there's simply too much of it out there to expect Google to handle with its human verification system that sorts the child porn from the "kids taking a bath" pictures. Copyright enforcers can't even build a list of rogue sites without grabbing a few false positives. (Hood makes a mention of this in his letter, building off the clearly wrong assumption that defining a rogue site is a simple task.) How's Google supposed to handle 57 million+ allegedly infringing pages without plenty of others sneaking past the detection systems?

Hood also makes these demands in his letter:

— Tailor search results to make websites providing illegal goods or services disappear or appear much lower.
— Program its auto-complete function to prevent suggestions related to illegal activity.
— Promote sites authorized to provide content, including possibly giving them an icon in search results.
— Not sell ads to illegal businesses.

Some of this Google has already done, including altering its search algorithms and stripping certain terms from autocomplete. (I assume Hood's use of the word "tailor" in this context means tailoring search results to make him happy -- rather than, say, adjust weighting, etc.) While I'm sure the MPAA, et al would love to have their preferred sites given preferable ranking, actually doing so would make a mockery of Google's ranking system. As for the ads, Google has taken steps in that direction as well.

When it comes to rogue sites that specialize in online piracy, other anti-piracy strategies will have limited effect so long as there is money to be made by their operators. As a global leader in online advertising, Google is committed to rooting out and ejecting rogue sites from our advertising services, to ensure that they are not being misused to fund these sites. In 2012, we disabled ad serving to more than 46,000 sites for violating our copyright policies, the vast majority detected through our proactive efforts.

What Hood is proposing is to turn Google into a search engine that's only as good as politicians and certain industries will allow it to be. When it starts altering rankings based on political pressure, its flagship offering will become worthless. The danger of allowing a foot in the door is that it encourages the body behind it to follow it inside.

The problems Hood sees in Google are present in all search engines. If it's on the web, it can be indexed (unless instructed otherwise by sites themselves). Sites rise and fall based on algorithms that (supposedly) reflect popularity and trustworthiness. Hood and others like him want a search engine to present a sanitized 'net -- one free of everything that might infringe, offend or cater to illicit tastes. What Hood wants is commonly called "censorship," but his letter attempts to lay the blame for everything that's "wrong" with the web at the feet of the world's most popular search engine. Google's job isn't to make sure everyone with an axe to grind is satisfied with their search results. Its job is to provide a useful, searchable index of the web. Period.

Filed Under: attorney general, jim hood, liability, mississippi, search engines, secondary liability
Companies: google

Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement

from the wave-that-magic-wand dept

Every so often it seems like a completely, technologically (and basic concept of properly applied liability) ignorant court does something like what a French court did last week. The High Court of Paris says that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo need to completely delist 16 full sites from their index -- even to sites hosting perfectly non-infringing works. This, of course, was the dream of SOPA: that search engines would have to make sites completely disappear based on their say-so that the sites were "pirate" sites. But reality doesn't work that way for a variety of reasons. Sites that have significant infringing uses at one time, also have significant non-infringing uses, and as the technology develops, they tend to increase the non-infringing uses. The VCR, for example, was mainly used to copy works in unauthorized ways when it was first launched -- but part of the problem was the refusal of the industry itself to embrace the new technologies. Yet, now the court is killing even that possibility -- so creators who want to make use of these platforms to promote themselves are completely out of luck, because the more powerful legacy industry lobbyists got a court to basically kill off those platforms.

As we noted last week, this SOPAfication of the world is increasingly the goal of the entertainment industries, and they've been having a lot of success in Europe, where sympathetic lawmakers and courts don't seem to recognize how they're propping up an industry that doesn't want to adapt, while striking a blow against two important things: disruptive new innovations and the concept of secondary liability.

Search engines aren't there to help people find what the legacy industries want them to find. They're designed to help the searcher find what that searcher wants. Telling those search engines they can't do that, and that they have to point to what some other industry wants, sets a very dangerous precedent. Letting legacy industries effectively program search engines to their liking pretty much guarantees limited innovation, both by stopping those innovative new platforms from gaining traction, while at the same time convincing the legacy players that they can continue to rest on their laurels.

Filed Under: blocking, censorship, europe, france, intermediaries, search engines
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo

French Court Orders Google To Magically Make Max Mosley Orgy Pictures Disappear

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about a troubling set of cases in Europe filed by Max Mosley, the former head of the motorsports organization FIA. As you may recall, a few years back, Rupert Murdoch's News of the World newspaper published some photos of Mosley's "rendezvous with five sex workers," who were dressed as prison guards, while he was dressed as a prisoner. NotW described the photos as a "Nazi orgy," which Mosley was extra-sensitive to, given that his father, Oswald Mosley, had been the head of the UK Fascist party, and a friend of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels (who both attended Oswald's wedding to Max's mother). Mosley sued on a variety of claims and won narrowly over the "Nazi" claim. Basically, while the images are apparently accurate, they were supposed to represent a generic German prison, rather than a Nazi prison. The court also ruled that the release of the pictures violated his privacy.

Since then, Mosley has been on a campaign of censorship. He went to court trying to argue that newspapers should need to alert famous people before publishing anything about them, giving them a chance to try to block such stories. Thankfully, that failed. He also sought to influence the UK review of journalism (in the wake of that other, more well-known News of the World scandal, involving hacking into voicemails).

He's also been suing Google in various European countries, arguing that they need to somehow magically block out any instance of the photos of that orgy. Yes, Mosley thinks it's all Google's fault that these images still exist. He argues that:

if somebody were to stop the search engines producing the material, the actual sites don't really matter because without a search engine, nobody will find it, it would be just a few friends of the person who posts it. The really dangerous thing are the search engines.

Of course, it's not the search engines "producing the material." It's the search engines finding the content that others have posted. Unfortunately, a French court has sided with Mosley and ordered Google to magically try to make those images disappear from the internet. This is both close to impossible technically, but also a restriction that will have significant unintended consequences. It will almost certainly block out legitimate content, including news coverage related to this story. For example, much of the news coverage of the lawsuits have included the images. Take, for example, this Gawker story. Under the ruling in France, Google will now be forced to figure out how to censor links to such legitimate journalistic stories.

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable for Mosley to be upset about how all of this went down. And he appears to have received a large sum of money from News of the World about this. But going on this crusade won't stop the pictures from appearing on the internet (in fact, each time there's news about this, it only calls more attention to it), and worse, it will inevitably lead to false positives that censor legitimate content.

Google has already announced its intent to appeal, noting that it's wrong to hold a search engine responsible for policing the work of others. While the release of the original images may be illegal, blaming Google for the fact that such images can be found is supremely misguided.

Filed Under: france, max mosley, orgy, search engines
Companies: google

London Police Order Registrars To Shut Down A Bunch Of Websites Without Any Legal Basis; Threaten Registrars If They Don't Comply

from the due-process-matters dept

Just a few months ago, the City of London Police announced that it had set up a special " Intellectual Property Crime Unit" -- which was immediately, and gleefully, welcomed by the legacy record labels. The whole thing seemed fairly bizarre, given that copyright should generally be a civil issue, and even when it's a criminal issue, at best it should be a federal issue, not a local police issue -- especially when you have local police who almost certainly don't understand the basic nuances of copyright issues. However, in what appears to be an effort to justify their existence, the City of London IP Crimes Unit has jumped into the deep end without looking. Beyond quickly arresting some folks, this week they demanded that EasyDNS take down a website for a BitTorrent search engine, claiming copyright infringement, based on their claims alone. They did not present a court order. They did not present a conviction. They just told EasyDNS to do it -- and (worse) threatened EasyDNS with punishment for not obeying, claiming (falsely) that it could lose its accreditation as a domain registrar. EasyDNS's Mark Jeftovic, who is incredibly well-versed in these issues (having spoken out previously on bogus domain name seizures) posted a fantastic response, which we're going to post at length. There's more than this, but it's worth reading the whole thing.

Who decides what is illegal? What makes somebody a criminal?  Given that the subtext of the request contains a threat to refer the matter to ICANN if we don't play along, this is a non-trivial question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it was something that gets decided in a court of law, as opposed to "some guy on the internet" sending emails. While that's plenty reason enough for some registrars to take down domain names, it doesn't fly here.

We have an obligation to our customers and we are bound by our Registrar Accreditation Agreements not to make arbitrary changes to our customers settings without a valid FOA (Form of Authorization). To supersede that we need a legal basis. To get a legal basis something has to happen in court.

The request also suggests we look at the whois contact information for the domain (which looks perfectly valid) and go ahead and suspend the domain based on invalid whois data. Again, there's a process for that, you have to go through the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint process and most of the time that doesn't result in a takedown anyway.

What gets me about all of this is that the largest, most egregious perpetrators of online criminal activity right now are our own governments, spying on their own citizens, illegally wiretapping our own private communications and nobody cares, nobody will answer for it, it's just an out-of-scope conversation that is expected to blend into the overall background malaise of our ever increasing serfdom.

If I can't make various governments and law enforcement agencies get warrants or court orders before they crack my private communications then I can at least  require a court order before I takedown my own customer.

Furthermore, Jeftovic notes that the police ordered him to redirect all of the traffic to a different site that promotes some content services that the entertainment industry likes, and noted that this was a fairly obscene form of intimidation for the sake of local protectionism of favored industry players:

In other words, they are ordering us to take down competing websites, with no legal basis, hijacking the traffic, and redirecting it to competing commercial services, all of which are based out of (guess where?) London, UK.

This whole thing is fairly stunning, and Jeftovic even suggests he wasn't sure it was real at first, though the headers from the email suggest that it's legit. Furthermore, it appears that this was not a one-off situation. TorrentFreak is reporting that the City of London Police sent out a bunch of these letters to various registrars, targeting a variety of sites -- with no evidence that there's a court order, or indeed any court case at all, with all of them. And while EasyDNS isn't complying, it appears that many other registrars did get intimidated into shutting down these sites.

The thuggish behavior and lack of due process isn't that surprising. Combine a "respect my authority" law enforcement mentality, with people who don't have much (or any) experience with the nuances (or history or purpose) of intellectual property issues, and you're going to get this kind of overreaction. Add to that the likelihood that the legacy industry helped provide the extreme (and wrong and misleading) version of copyright law, and is it any wonder that the police seemed to just start demanding websites be pulled down willy nilly just because the police think they're illegal?

If you only were to hear the legacy movie studios' and record labels' version of things, copyright is about establishing their very important business model, and anything that threatens that must be illegal. If you see a service that enables some form of infringement, well, that must be illegal, too, right? Of course, they won't realize that copyright is not about establishing a business model for those gatekeepers, that blaming tools & services for the actions of their users is a recipe for killing innovation, and (most importantly) that these things are rarely black and white. And that's why you have due process.

The City of London IP Crime Unit has only been around for a little over three months. One hopes that they'll actually learn something before pulling these kinds of censorious, abusive and thuggish stunts in the future. And, while we're at it, it seems reasonable to call for shutting down the whole unit in the first place. IP crimes are not an issue for an ignorant metropolitan police force. The unit never should have been set up in the first place, and this little cowboy censorship action highlights why the unit deserves to be quickly retired.

Filed Under: city of london, city of london police, copyright, domain seizures, due process, london, search engines, uk
Companies: easydns

RIAA Whines To Congress That It Doesn't Like Google's Search Results

from the also,-it-doesn't-play-nice-in-the-sandbox dept

We already noted that the first "punch" of the legacy entertainment industry's new attacks on Google was a silly and self-contradictory study from the MPAA blaming Google for leading susceptible people straight to infringing content. Of course, the details of the study didn't really support the inferences the MPAA is throwing out there, but, you know, that's the MPAA. The second "punch" also is pretty weak, and comes in the form of RIAA boss Cary Sherman testifying before the House Judiciary Committee's IP subcommittee. The hearing is supposed to be about "voluntary agreements," and much of Sherman's piece talks up various "voluntary" (and I use the term loosely, since nearly all were "coordinated" by the White House, and many came with the implied threat of legislation if an agreement wasn't made) agreements like the "six strikes" agreement, which studies have shown is unlikely to help the legacy entertainment industry players.

But then he turns to the "what's missing?" section, and front and center is... Google.

If ISPs can be considered the gateway by users to rogue sites online, search engines may be considered the roadmaps or, more directly, the turn-by-turn directions and door-to-door service to these sites. There can be no doubt that search engines play a considerable role in leading users to illicit services and can be a key part of addressing infringing activity online.

Actually, there can be tremendous doubt. Because as we've shown (and the MPAA's own study confirms), search engines are very rarely used to find infringing materials. Furthermore, there has yet to be any evidence that search engine blocking actually helps "address infringing activity online." In fact, as with the MPAA report, the RIAA first claims that changing search results can help, but on the very next page admits that Google did change its search results, and it didn't help. The RIAA, of course, relies on its own "report card" for Google, which has already been shown to be laughably flawed.

The problem is a basic one. The RIAA and MPAA would like sites they like to be listed higher in Google's search. Most companies that want that learn how to optimize their sites for search. It's called Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Only the legacy entertainment industry would think that, rather than doing what every other website does, they get to go to Google (and Congress) and demand that Google change its algorithm to pump up their preferred sites.

The RIAA also has an astoundingly dangerous idea for how to "fix" Google:

We believe it would be useful to see voluntary initiatives by search engines that take into account whether or not a site is authorized to provide the content at issue in determining search result rankings for searches to consume that content. This could take into account not only the absolute number of copyright removal requests sent about a site to trigger demotion of that site, but also whether the site is authorized to provide the content to trigger a higher search rank for that site.

This idea clearly comes from people who don't even have the slightest clue how search works, or what the unintended consequences of such a change would be. Let's take a basic example. If I do a basic search on the title of a movie, it doesn't necessarily mean I want to watch the movie online right away (either via authorized or unauthorized means). I might just want to know who acted in it, when it was released or whether it had good reviews. But, under the RIAA's proposed "solution," Google should demote all the perfectly legitimate websites that provide that kind of information, and instead push sites that have licensed the movies to the top. That's not going to help. It's going to piss off information seekers.

Furthermore, this doesn't take into account how things change, and how sites/technologies that are initially attacked by the industry later turn out to be important. We've talked plenty of times about the MPAA's well covered attacks on the "Boston strangler to the movie industry" that was the VCR. Of course, it was just four years after Jack Valenti made those comments that Hollywood was making more money from home video than from the box office. So, along comes the next VCR... and the RIAA and MPAA get to whine about how it's "not authorized" and pushes down the search results. Suddenly this tool that could be a tremendous boon to the industry can't get the attention necessary to grow and succeed. It's not far fetched. Viacom is still suing YouTube, even as basically the entire legacy entertainment industry relies on YouTube as a tremendous marketing and distribution tool. Imagine if the RIAA's plan was in place in YouTube's early days?

Google has announced that it intends to develop and deploy technology to eradicate links to child pornography images from the web. Certainly similar technology can be used to remove links to other illegal content.

The legacy players have trotted out this line for years, and it's no less ridiculous than it's been every time in the past. There is no "fair use" for child porn. There is fair use for copyright-covered content, and the ability to build up tools (like YouTube) that take advantage of fair use is shown to have a tremendous impact on creating useful and innovative new tools and services for the industry and the public alike. The RIAA's belief that Google can magically stamp out infringement shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how copyright works -- or (more likely) a general condescending attitude towards fair use.

Also, Google has tools in its Chrome browser to warn users if they are going to sites that may be malicious. Shouldn’t that technology be used to warn users of rogue sites?

Except there's a major difference. People don't want to go to malicious sites. Google is doing its users a favor there. When users want to go to access unauthorized content, putting up a warning page goes against their wishes and pisses off users. I recognize that the RIAA has spent decades believing that pissing off users is a viable strategy, but that might also be why they've shrunk so much, while companies that respect their users have grown.

Or better yet, can Google use similar technology to highlight or identify sites that are authorized? Imagine if links to content on legitimate sites were labeled – directly in the search result –with a certification mark indicating that the site is licensed and actually pays royalties to creators. That educational message could have a profound and positive impact on user behavior.

Again, not the problems above concerning perfectly legitimate search results that are not about getting access to the actual content. They would get punished under such a system. Furthermore, this assumes that the problem is "education." That people just don't know where to go to get authorized content. There's little indicating this is true.

Finally, beyond the issue of annoying clutter on Google's interface at the behest of a single industry, you have to wonder where heading down that path lies. If the record labels and movie studios get it, what about luxury brands? I'm sure Louis Vuitton would love to be able to get a special mark on search results it likes. Or, how about the Associated Press? Perhaps it wants a special mark on news publications it "approves." Suddenly lots of other legitimate sites are left out in the cold.

Either way, we've been running around seeing the RIAA and MPAA do the same damn thing for a decade and a half now. It's always about blaming others for their own failures to give consumers what they want. Yet, when they finally do give consumers what they want, infringement tends to go down. Magic. Perhaps instead of continually looking around at who else they can blame for their own failings, they should spend a bit more time trying to innovate.

Filed Under: cary sherman, judiciary committee, search engines, search results, secondary liability
Companies: google, riaa

MPAA & RIAA Return To Blaming Google For Their Own Inability To Innovate

from the not-this-again dept

Remember how back after SOPA ended, the MPAA's Chris Dodd kept going on and on about how he was going to take a more conciliatory and partnership-based approach to the tech industry (which he mistakenly seems to believe is defined by "Google")? Apparently that's out the window. Today both the MPAA and the RIAA have launched a one-two punch on Google, which is clearly designed to do one thing: get Google to start censoring its search results so that it no longer returns what people are looking for, but instead returns what the MPAA and RIAA think should be the right search results. The fundamental problem, of course, is that the MPAA and RIAA both seem to think that Google is supposed to deliver the answers they want the public to see, when everyone else recognizes Google's role is to return the results its users are searching for.

The "one-two punch" consists of the MPAA releasing a study that blames Google for piracy, followed by the RIAA testifying before Congress that everyone else is bending over backwards to help stop piracy, but Google is failing to do enough. Let's cover these in two separate posts. This one will focus on the MPAA's joke of a study which does everything it can to pin the blame for piracy on Google, but fails pretty spectacularly as you dig into the details. Amusingly, even the MPAA's own "talking points" on the study (which a friendly bird in Congress passed along) more or less admit that the study is incredibly weak.

The key number, which the MPAA does its best to bury is that search engines "influenced" only 20% of the times when consumers accessed infringing content. This is only slightly higher than the results of our own study, and it shows that the impact of search on infringement is fairly minimal. Of course, rather than focus on that, the MPAA trumpets a different number: claiming that "74% of consumers surveyed cited using a search engine as a discovery or navigation tool in their initial viewing sessions on sites with infringing content."

Note the careful choice of words: "discovery or navigation tool." This fits with our own findings (linked above), which found that a very large percentage of the traffic to sites commonly associated with infringement are people simply using Google instead of the address bar. That is, when we looked at the data, here were the top eight search terms that sent traffic from Google to The Pirate Bay:

1. pirate bay
2. the pirate bay
3. piratebay
4. thepiratebay
5. tpb
6. piratebay.org
7. pirates bay
8. thepiratebay.org

Those are unlikely to be people really "searching" for TPB. Rather, it's just the lazy way of using Google as a "navigation" tool. If that failed, it's highly likely that most of those people would simply try again by using the actual URL. In fact, studies have shown that tons of people use searches as a navigation tool, rather than as a discovery tool. So, it seems unlikely that forcing, say, Google to return something other than TPB when people search on "pirate bay" is going to prevent infringement. It just leads people to go directly to TPB, rather than using the "short cut" of typing something faster.

Also, the 74% number came from a "survey," and we know how reliable those are, or how they can be heavily influenced by the wording of the question. Hard to take that number as anything particularly enlightening even though it's the one the MPAA is so focused on.

In the talking points the MPAA is passing around, it claims "Search engines bear a huge responsibility for introducing people to infringing content." But that's ridiculous. People know there's infringing content out there. They're not magically discovering it because of search engines. And then there's this:

Take Google's algorithm change as an example -- they held this up last summer as a step that would have meaningful impact and unfortunately we see in the data here that it hasn't.

Um, duh? That, of course, cuts against what the MPAA is arguing elsewhere in this very same release: that Google can have a meaningful impact. Except now they're admitting that it hasn't had an impact even when it did exactly what the MPAA asked it to do. The point should be clear to pretty much everyone: changing the search algo to favor Hollywood's preferred sites doesn't stop infringement, because people who want to infringe will find a way to do so. It's not that the search engine magically turns people into infringers. The MPAA, not having gotten the results it wants, just wants to do more algo changing, not recognizing that the end result is going to be the same. There's a word that describes doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Update: Matt Schruers digs deeper into the report and finds out that, indeed, 37% of the "searches" are "navigational" meaning it was just someone typing in the name of the site they wanted rather than doing a search. It also points out that the methodology is that if someone accesses infringing content within 20 minutes of doing a search, that access is blamed on the search. Dodgy methodology at best.

The report, titled “Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy”, asserts that 19.2% of visits to infringing content were “influenced” by a search engine (which MPAA rounds up to 20%, not down, because Hollywood accounting).

What does “influenced” mean?  It does not mean, apparently, that the user conducted a search and then clicked on a link presented in the search results.  According to the study’s methodology, such an approach would be too “narrow,” thus necessitating a “hybrid” approach that includes any instance where the user visits an infringing site within 20 minutes after conducting potentially incriminating searches.  Although the report itself makes no specific policy recommendations, MPAA personnel have complained [1], [2] to officials that search providers’ existing voluntary efforts are no replacement for government regulation.

Less prominently stated is that 37% of searches for infringing content involved a “navigational search.”  “Navigational searches” is a term of art (or a euphemism) for typing a domain name into the search bar instead of the navigational bar of the browser.  (Most Internet users have probably done this at one point or another, either by accident or out of laziness.)  This means that the study’s 19.2% figure disguises the fact that more than a third of the searches that precede a user accessing infringing content via (e.g.) MegaUpload were searches where the us

Filed Under: blame, liability, search engines, studies
Companies: google, mpaa, riaa

Prime Minister David Cameron: Google, Bing and Yahoo! 'Enable' Child Porn

from the look-how-furrowed-my-brow-is,-dammit! dept

"I'm going to try to regulate [insert concept or technology here] because I really have no idea how it works," said no politician ever. "Bad things are happening and we're going to do something about it!" said too many government officials to count.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron is at it again, fretting about child porn and saying grumbly things about holding search engines responsible for the actions of others. This is one of Cameron's favorite hobby horses: porn on the internet, both legal and otherwise. He's pushed for mandatory porn filtering on every new computer and insisted any business offering open wi-fi block access to the nasty stuff.

Child porn is the new focus, thanks to the recent high profile trial (and conviction) of Mark Bridger for the kidnapping and killing of a 5-year-old girl. Bridger's computer showed he had viewed pictures of child sexual abuse shortly before the kidnapping.

Despite the efforts already being made by search engines and ISPs (including Google's new child porn database that it's sharing with competitors and law enforcement), Cameron is insisting these just don't go far enough.

David Cameron will tell internet companies including Google they have a "moral duty" to do more to tackle child abuse images found by using their websites.

In a major speech on Monday he will call for search engines to block any results being displayed for a blacklist of terms compiled by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop).

Strange. I would have thought the "moral duty" lay with those creating and viewing the exploitative material, not the inadvertent go-between whose job it is to index web content. Complying with a blacklist seems like a good idea, but there are two problems with that idea: determined people will get around the blacklist and blacklists tend to inadvertently block legitimate searches.

Why these search engines need to comply with the blacklist in Britain is a mystery, considering every major UK ISP already filters the web using this list, according to the head of the CEOP.

Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), said the blacklist currently used to filter the vast majority of UK internet connections had been a "fabulous success".

At that point (2009), only small "boutique" ISPs had yet to adopt CEOP's filtering and the Home Office estimated roughly 95% of internet users were covered. But Cameron insists that more needs to be done, even as ISPs voluntarily comply with most government recommendations -- like "splash pages" that warn users they are attempting to view illegal material.

[T]he prime minister will call on firms to go further, with splash screens warning of consequences "such as losing their job, their family, even access to their children" as a result of viewing the content.

Everything already in place just isn't good enough. Apparently, it all needs to be bigger and bolder and subject to brand new laws created in the climate of panic and paranoia that usually follows high profile criminal activity. Cameron won't be satisfied until he tames the Wild West.

"I'm concerned as a politician and as a parent about this issue, and I think all of us have been a bit guilty of saying: well it's the internet, it's lawless, there's nothing you can do about it.

"And that's wrong. I mean just because it's the internet doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws and rules, and also responsible behaviour."

But, when Cameron says "responsibility," he means it in the governmental sense, which has nothing to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with the government acting as a national conscience and finding someone to hold responsible for the child porn problem. It won't be child pornographers or their audience, however.

"There is this problem ... that some people are putting simply appalling terms into the internet in order to find illegal images of child abuse.

[W]e need to have very, very strong conversations with those companies about saying no, you shouldn't provide results for some terms that are so depraved and disgusting...and that, I think, there's going to be a big argument there, and if we don't get what we need we'll have to look at legislation."

Do it or we'll make you do it.

"So it's about companies wanting to act responsibly. If you think about it, there's really a triangle here. There are the people uploading the images. We've got to go after them. There are the people looking at the images. We've got to go after them. But there is also in this triangle the companies that are enabling it to happen, and they do need to do more to help us with this."

Hi, I'm a seach engine. I index the web and bring you the results you ask for. I don't create child porn, nor do I consume child porn, but please, hold me responsible for the actions of others. The legal team at Google, Bing or any other search engine is always easier to locate than a child pornographer. It's the path of least resistance and taking on "tech giants" on "behalf" of the people makes government officials feel big. Win-win.

Cameron wants the search engines to return no results in response to CEOP's blacklisted terms. It seems like such a little thing to ask, and Cameron is certainly pitching it that way. They just need to "do more to help us." But what happens when law enforcement, intelligence agencies or the government itself decides other search terms are a problem, perhaps coming from an angle of "combating terrorism" or "preventing hate crime?" Almost everyone agrees those are "bad," but do they really want their search results censored and filtered and sorted according to secret blacklists? Probably not, but it likely won't matter. Agreeing to this allows the government to get a foot in the door.

On top of the collateral damage, there's the fact that filtering search engine results is going to make a lot of headlines but do very little to curb the trafficking of child pornography. Jim Gamble of CEOP feels we've already maxed out the effectiveness of web and search filters -- something he pointed out back in 2009.

At the frontline, web filtering is now viewed as a peripheral issue. Gamble agreed with the charities that filtering is useful, but added it was ineffective against "hardcore predators" who swap material over peer to peer networks and for whom "the internet has moved on".

"I believe filtering is good to avoid inadvertent access that will disturb or damage a young person, or deliberate novice access," Gamble said.

The pros don't bother with public web sites and search engines. They go P2P and circumvent every filter put into place by government intervention. Gamble realizes this and has already shifted the agency's focus to peer-to-peer networks. Unlike Cameron, Gamble doesn't waste time constructing stupid "triangles of responsibility" in order to pin the blame on the biggest, easiest target.

Gamble, a former intelligence chief in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, was however keen to head off accusations of an attack on peer to peer technology itself. "We can't blame technology - it's people," he said.

"Peer to peer is a valuable resource for the online community. Our focus is on child protection."

Maybe Cameron should spend a little time actually discussing his plans with CEOP before using the agency's name in vain in order to attack search engines for being search engines. CEOP seems to have a handle on the problem -- the real problem. It's too bad Cameron's more interested in publicly displaying how deeply concerned he is than making actual progress against child pornographers.

Filed Under: blocking, child porn, david cameron, filters, search, search engines, secondary liability, uk
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo