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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoff Taylor has more to add to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Music Industry Execs Debate Brokep From The Pirate Bay

from the and-who-wins? dept

Over in the UK, on Thursday evening, there was a music industry panel discussion that involved a massive number of panelists (ten -- which seems a bit too many) covering a wide variety of viewpoints from the music industry. Mostly they came from the traditional parts of the music industry, but the interesting participant was Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, aka brokep, from The Pirate Bay (and now Flattr), taking part in the discussion with a group of folks who regularly call him all sorts of unfriendly things. Stuart Dredge, over at Music Ally, ran a nice live blog of the conversation, which mostly went down about as you would expect. Dredge noted that it was mostly an "industry" audience, and he worried that "there’s a bit of a kick-the-Pirate-Bay mood bubbling" in the audience.

Thankfully, it doesn't look like things got that far. Mostly it was the typical back and forth. Industry folks whining that they can't compete with The Pirate Bay... even as they were talking about the variety of ways they were competing with The Pirate Bay. Basically, what becomes clear is they would prefer competition that they control, rather than competition that consumers drive. Tragically, innovation doesn't work that way.

Peter made the point that a lot of people were confusing the music industry with the recording industry, and mocked them a bit for not actually talking about culture or music:

"Most of the things we're talking about today are about the record industry, not about the music industry. Everyone is talking about percentages... nobody is talking about music. It sounds like most people here could be selling diapers instead!"

While technically true, the discussion was about the business of music, so I think it's fair to be discussing some numbers and the business angle. But there is a larger point to be made here. With studies showing that more music is being created, the complaints about the "death" of the industry are clearly misplaced. The real complaints from the industry types are that they aren't able to make money off of it any more -- but that doesn't mean the music industry is in trouble at all. Instead, it's thriving. In fact, Peter also made that point:

It's not a right for the record industry to make a profit.... Technology has come that has made most of the record industry less valuable. We need to just move on, it's sort of an evolution... It might not be good for people working in the record industry, but the music industry is better than ever."

The industry folks on the panel still seem to be living in a state of denial at times, talking about how they should milk the 40 and 50 year olds who are still buying CDs, rather than really understanding the changing marketplace. My favorite laughable quote came from Guy Moot, of EMI Publishing, who said:

"The joy of ownership is a very different thing from the joy of a digital download or stream..."

Sure, it is, but the record labels have worked very, very, very hard to make it clear to people that they don't get to "own" anything. How many times have been told "you just get a license." If we really got to own stuff, there wouldn't be so many complaints.

There were so many people taking part, it's difficult to cover them all. Will Page (whose interview we recently posted) made some good points, and Jeremy Silver, from the Featured Artist Coalition (who's also a very interesting guy to chat with about these issues) comes off as being quite sensible in saying that file sharing of unauthorized works is here and not going away -- and the industry should take some of the blame for sitting on the CD cash cow and never innovating. Rather than complaining about it, it's time to look forward.

On that note, it seemed like the most reasonable speaker may have been David Stopps, who spoke from the perspective of an artist's manager. He noted that the it's absolutely possible to "compete with free," talked up the importance of touring to make money and using the music to boost those revenues and also played down the "demise" of the record labels, by noting that "they still have the back catalogue" to milk for a long time and that their job has become a lot easier thanks to technology:

He says A&R is becoming easier for labels, because sites like Hype Machine and We Are Hunted are where A&R guys are looking to see "who's listening to what music". It's less about "taking a punt" than in the old days. "Artists are building up fanbases themselves… and that can be monitored."

He also brings up the band Metric as an example of a band that has "gone all the way" without a record deal, noting that they turned down a variety of major label deals with massive advances to "do it on their own" and that it's working:

"They're doing a fantastic job, they use Topspin to sell their music, and that seems to be very successful for them. We're gonna see more of that..."

Along those lines, he also notes that The Pirate Bay can be a really great way for people to discover new music, and monetize them elsewhere, pointing to Imogen Heap, who discovered tons of people in Indonesia downloading her music in an unauthorized manner... but when she went there, she was able to sell out a 4,500 seat arena, making "a lot of money."

Finally, he also knocks BPI and others in the industry for still thinking that DRM is a reasonable solution -- pointing out that it's totally anti-consumer:

"The problem is, nobody really asked the consumer," he says, about attempts to put DRM on CDs. "They absolutely hated it. You put the CD into the computer and it wouldn't play... In the future, we've got to bring the consumers into the business model. In fact, they already are part of the business model."

Geoff Taylor, the head of BPI (basically the UK's RIAA) comes off as about what you'd expect. He trashes The Pirate Bay repeatedly, claims that it's "destroying national cultures" (with no proof, of course) and says that there needs to be "disincentives" to dealing with unauthorized file sharing.

It's the same story as usual: they're so focused on negative incentives for people doing stuff they don't like, they never seem to care about creating positive incentives for those they should be targeting. That's BPI's problem. Not The Pirate Bay.

Anyway... given the participants, it was about what you would expect, and didn't seem to get quite as nasty as some feared before the event. I doubt anyone's mind was changed about anything, but it still sounded like a pretty good discussion.

Filed Under: brokep, david stopps, debate, geoff taylor, guy moot, jeremy silver, music industry, peter sunde, uk, will page
Companies: bpi, emi, the pirate bay

BPI Admits It Screwed Up Over Napster... But Why Should We Trust It Now?

from the leaves-that-part-out dept

It seems like it's become the "in thing" in the recording industry these days to "admit" that suing Napster, rather than working out a deal, was a "mistake" ten years ago. Of course, plenty of folks were telling them this at the time, but we were brushed aside as wackos who just wanted free stuff. The latest to make this claim is BPI's Geoff Taylor, who says he "regrets" that the industry didn't move faster to embrace online music. But, of course, Taylor and others still don't get it. They still want ISPs to police users. They still claim that piracy is a legal problem, and they still seem to get the facts wrong. Taylor claims: "There is simply no getting around the fact that billions of illegal free downloads of music every year in the UK mean that significantly less money is coming into the music ecosystem."

Except... that's not true at all. As a recent Harvard study showed, the amount of money going into the "music ecosystem" has grown -- tremendously. The only thing that's dropping is the sale of plastic discs.

In the meantime, considering BPI and others were so incredibly wrong 10 years ago, and they're only willing to admit it now, why is it that they think everyone should trust them now -- and that those of us who were actually right 10 years ago should still be brushed off as wackos who just want stuff for free? Perhaps it's time to start actually listening to those who have been pointing out new ways to embrace what consumers want to do with music in order to make more money. Otherwise, we'll be seeing the same thing in another 10 years, about how BPI's Geoff Taylor (or whoever replaces him) made a mistake trying to shut down The Pirate Bay.

Filed Under: copyright, geoff taylor, music, uk
Companies: bpi, napster