Feeds

back to article Google in freetard-friendly copyright infringement update

The Friday before a public holiday is traditionally a great time to bury bad news. Google chose the Labor Day Lull to give the world an update on its copyright infringement measures. Funny, that. Since the RIAA ended its catastrophic strategy of suing end users in 2008 (although not everyone has noticed), copyright enforcers …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
FAIL

As usual.

It's a search company, I'd be much more annoyed that Google was editing my results in a huge way based on the word of big media alone. Harping on about infringement is only one side of the story, as usual...

19
1
Silver badge

what's the fuss about?

You can still go to Google and add dedicated torrent search engines and similar helpful add-ons.

I doubt if Google will be removing them -- or the intructions on how to make one's own.

2
0
Paris Hilton

They did what exactly?

"The Friday before a public holiday is traditionally a great time to bury bad news. Google chose the Labor Day Lull to give the world an update on its copyright infringement measures. Funny, that."

I've read the article, and re-read the article and then gone through it line by line.

I still have no idea what Google did in its update that is so offensive to rights holders, I know (from the article) plenty about how what they do makes no difference (apparently) but no idea how making no difference got worse today.

Paris because she's clueless too.

15
1
Trollface

Not doing much at all

I think the authors point was that Google have not really done much at all that will stop pirates, which is not great news as far as the content producers go. Hence the authors opinion as to why this news was aired on/before the weekend when everyone in the US is having lazy Monday prior to returning to work (not wearing any white).

<- That is what the author was trying to do... I think... but being anti-Google & anti-MFIDIAD (whatever the letters are) in the same article did water down the point a bit as he was not up in arms about either side and ended up being rather... meh!

2
0

@yeahyeahno

+1 for that

Surely, even if Google announced something so cunningly that it that didn't make it into any media outlet, there must be some kind of information exchange between Google and the relevant rights holder organisations which is presumably at least as informative as a press release, and if the rights organisations really didn't like what Google was doing and thought they could do anything about it, /they'd/ wait until a suitable good day for /not/ getting news buried to issue some opinion of their own about what a bunch of thieving bastards Google were?

0
1
FAIL

@yeahyeahno: Empathy failure

Nice wind up.

The copyright holders are sick of Google encouraging theft.

Simples.

0
9

@AC 8.37

Not "Simples".

Google is no more encouraging theft than the Yellow Pages encourages plumbing.

If you don't understand, try to avoid becoming involved in the debate, thanks.

0
0
Meh

To sum the article in few words

Google reacting as little as possible to MAFIAA.racketeering.

If only courts would see MAFIAA activity for what it is...

11
1
Anonymous Coward

Err...

Yeah, because poor little Google need to be protected from the big bad media companies.

0
3

Proof, if proof be need be

I'm not an apologist for Google, but really.. a poster from TorrentFreak says something and that's it ? Please.

8
1
Anonymous Coward

Surely...

You can't have expected impartial and/or professional journalism from AO on this subject.

5
0
Mushroom

Google can deploy weapons of mass copyright infringment

in 45 minutes.

We know because read it on the internet.

icon? Because the world will end if this madness doesn't stop

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Indeed - I saw it on youtube

'nuff said

0
0

Another option

Google should just buy out the MAFIAA members and then show them who is boss.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Google could shut down youtube

That would probably make some of the music and tv companies happier

0
0
Paris Hilton

Guns don’t kill people; Search Engines do?

I just did a test, based on three albums I’ve recently acquired (all legally and above board, mind, cos I’m cool like that).

The test was quite simple:

test1: Put the band name into Google and see what it spits out.

test2: Put the band name plus the word ‘Download’ into Google and see what it spits out.

test3: Put the band name plus the word ‘Torrent’ into Google and see what it spits out.

To mimic general interweb use, I only looked at the results on page 1.

The results were thus:

Band 1 – Red Seas Fire (Brand Spanking New UK tech metal – free EP released yesterday)

Test 1 – Top three results were their myspace page, their own website and their facebook page, followed by some YouTube clips and some blog entries.

Test2 – All results were from blogs announcing the EP download, with the last result on page 1 being their facebook page. Their actual website (where you can download the EP for free) wasn’t listed.

Test3 – Top result was their web site, then their myspace page followed by a slew of torrent sites (none of which had a live torrent)

Band 2 – Atari Teenage Riot (Digital Hardcore types who have just released a new album after a decade of not releasing new albums)

Test1 – Official site; Wikipedia page; myspace page; youtube clips; label’s site, last.fm page; facebook and some blogs

Test 2 – soundcloud page; blogs; itunes page, and then the pirate bay, rapidshare and a bunch of other dubious looking places offering free downloads

Test3 – Every torrent site I’ve heard of plus some I haven’t, all offering what looked like live torrents

Band 3 – Ellie Goulding (Non-threatening pop songstress for whom I have a hitherto unexplained sonic soft-spot)

Test1 – Official site; Wikipedia page; myspace page; youtube clips; last.fm page; fan sites, then stories from the Daily Mail, BBC and the Sun.

Test2 – Official site; Wikipedia page; a shady looking site called mp3raid.com; YouTube Clips; iTunes page; some blogs and the last result was the Pirate Bay with what looked like a live torrent

Test3 - Every torrent site I’ve heard of plus some more I haven’t, all offering what looked like live torrents.

I don’t really see what Google are doing wrong here; I search for the band and I get legitimate links to the band. I search for torrents and I get links to torrents. If I search for downloads, I get a mixed bag, some legit, some shady. Now, I must admit that I’m one of those old-skool crazies who still orders CDs so I’m not up to speed with all of the legal digital options, but outside of iTunes (which was listed) what else is there? Be fair to Google, it is quite hard for them to display results for sites which don’t exist.

8
1
FAIL

Freetard ... journalism

I decided to come back to read the Reg because I felt sorry for you guys being defaced the other day. Editorial shit like this is not only confirms that I made the right decision to stop reading this trashy tabloid but helps me understand the motive behind your defacement. Grow the fuck up, Reg.

8
1
Holmes

Traumatised

Maybe you should seek counselling for the emotional distress it's caused.

We're all victims.

1
0
Thumb Up

See, see!

24hrs without the Reg and you've turned into a raving angry loony! I suggest you have a lie down.

1
0
Devil

Torrents?

People who know where to look and how to get do not use torrents. Those are for newbies.

1
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

FAIL

Google Music?? Upload your music and have google turn it over to the Maffiaa

So with Google music allowing your music to be uploaded to their servers. What stops them from allowing the MPAA or RIAA to dumpster-dive from Google Music and subpoena the folks with copy write materials in their Google music libraries.

Because I am sure that everyone with softcopies of their files in MP3 format got it from a legit site. All it takes is one and the snowball starts down a very steep and slippery slope. Got an invitation myself and will not use it.

0
0
FAIL

"COPY WRITE MATERIALS"

"What stops them from allowing the MPAA or RIAA to dumpster-dive from Google Music and subpoena the folks with copy write materials in their Google music libraries."

Is TechCrunch down ?

0
1
Childcatcher

copying is the natural right not preventing copying

It seems reasonable for copyright owners to get a cut from profits made for copying by commercial entities - e.g. when you hear music played in a restaurant, a principle which extends to blank media etc.

But when I copied stuff in the playground 40-50 years ago there were no corporate lawyers invading our space preventing non-commercial reuse looking over our shoulders. But that's what they are trying to stop my grandchildren doing now. Sure the technology in the hands of kids is different: I used my memory, voice, musical instruments, pen and ink and a reel to reel tape recorder to copy content with as a child, my grandson uses a mobile phone, but the principle of letting individuals do the non-commercial copying we naturally have done since before recorded history remains the same.

So what the hell is wrong with copying anyway ? The seventh commandment "Thou shalt not steal" concerns depriving someone of physical stuff, not replicating an encoded idea or tune which deprives no-one of anything they already own. If a few corporate lobbyists want to start a mass behaviour modification propaganda campaign based upon the arrogant idea that they can redefine the concept of stealing, they'll need much better arguments than I have seen so far.

4
1
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: copying is the natural right not preventing copying

You've changed your username since your last mauling.

2
2
WTF?

talk about an ad hominem

That's fighting talk, besides which non-reuse of old handles once changed (even if for a single posting using a one time handle) is a policy of The Register, something you're presumably in a better position to change than I am.

Google for the site hosting PyLETS and its author if anyone else is that bothered about my identity.

0
0

@PyLETS

>>"But when I copied stuff in the playground 40-50 years ago there were no corporate lawyers invading our space preventing non-commercial reuse looking over our shoulders. But that's what they are trying to stop my grandchildren doing now. "

But I bet your playground didn't have countless millions of people in it who were potentially your mates and sharing partners. That's more than simply a minor difference.

And if you were copying to reel-to-reel tapes, that was a fairly slow business, and copies were often not of great quality.

Chances are you'd have known the original buyer of pretty much everything you had a copy of, and copying still wasn't effectively free - tapes of any quality cost enough that copying a dozen albums would have cost a decent fraction of the price of buying one

The restraints on who ended up with copies of what were to no small degree financial, practical and friendship-related.

These days there are few real restraints other than personal morality or fear of legal sanctions, so it's not hard (at least for *most* people) to understand why the issue is maybe of more concern to many content owners now than it used to be.

I really don't think your analogy is of much value - you're trying to equate two situations which are simply too radically different.

You say people have been copying by imitation since before recorded history, as if that means that any form of technology makes no difference as long as it's non-commercial.

Well, people have looked at each other and at each other's dwellings since before recorded history. Does that mean you'd have to be happy if I videoed you everywhere you went in the street, and set up cameras with long lenses and long-distance microphones pointed at your house from all angles, as long as I wasn't selling the resulting recordings, merely giving them away to my friends, or posting them on the internet, since the /principle/ is the same?

1
0
Bronze badge
Joke

If you can't search for it

how will the RIAA find people how are sharing it

(yes I know you can still search for it if you have even a little savvy)

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Non Sequitur

"The Chocolate Factory's new strategy is to make life difficult for the casual user – the hardcore pirate will easily find what they want, and would do so even if Google was 100 per cent free of any links to infringing material. You don't need Google if you know where to go."

Okay, frame of mind set: we're talking about the fact that Google makes it so easy to find stuff that casual users can easily infringe. Finally someone understands that piracy is a multi-faceted industry.

"But allow the hardcore pirates tell the story."

Wait, what? Hardcore pirate are, according to the earlier statement, a different class of user than Google is targeting here. Google can't stop the hardcore pirates; you said so yourself. So why rely on a post from someone you know is beyond the scope of the given changes?

"The relevant results still come up on Google"

Which is consistent with the stated proposals: "...filtering search terms a little, from Autocomplete but not the main search index..."

"The TorrentFreak audience still considers Google a friendly intermediary."

The TorrentFreak audience (generally) falls into the class of hardcore pirates, unless I've missed a trick.

So what you've basically said here is:

1. Google promised to make changes to deter casual piracy but not hardcore piracy.

2. Google has released a status update on those promises.

3. Hardcore piracy has not been deterred.

4. Therefore, Google has not succeeded in their promise (to deter casual piracy.)

See Title.

5
0
This topic is closed for new posts.