Internet search engines that operate in the UK could stop publishing links to websites that are deemed to be substantially infringing copyright under plans proposed by groups representing rights-holders. The groups have proposed a voluntary code of practice for search engines in a bid to get them to engage more in tackling …
"any de-listings would be published "
Excellent, a directory of all the best free download sites.
Can I ask for a new icon that warns readers to put down their coffee before reading a comment to prevent keyboard damage!!
That was my first thought! Especially as if you were feeling really nasty, when you published a de-listing you'd use a hyperlink on the URL, and perhaps a link to the 'example' that was reported
I'm sure someone on Facebook, Twitter or any other site would post the addy of where they have been to download 'that' film, music etc. So a quick Google search 'where TPB gone' will bring a multitude of answers.
Unless of course they shut the whole internet down .....
Can they really erase it?
"To use the examples of BPI, MPAA or PACT, we would propose that prioritisation be enabled for searches that contain any of the following key search terms: 'twat', 'pillock', 'out of touch with reality', 'broken', 'numpties', 'clueless', 'cockwombles'.
"cockwombles'? Superb, that's my word of the day!
cockwombles - lol - literally!
Though I daren't Google that at work - I dread to think what would be returned.
You should be fine to Google that word, Top result is the Urban Dictionary ....
"Cockwomble. The best insult known to man! Don't speak to that guy, he's a complete cockwomble!" -- UrbanDictionary.com/define.php?term=Cockwomble
I already typed this: please don't reset the fields.
So will Google block access to YouTube? And if not, is the whole game a bogey?
It has a typo:
Its screwing with my OCD...
where a site has been found by a court to be substantially infringing
That's a step forward, from just being accused.
Not really - if the (probably foreign) web site fails to turn up to defend itself (which really it should not have to outside of its country or registration) then they get the default judgement in their favour.
Basically if you want to oppose any of their stupidity you will need DEEP pockets, a good way of keeping any small company's innovation out of their profit plans...
The good thing about this
Is it might hasten the development a decent distributed search engine for BitTorrent. Not just keyword searches (as KAD does), but all kinds of distributed services could sit on top of P2P and a discovery service to find them.
Yes, use the https-like connection (can't be blocked without stopping all eCommerce) with a P2P model (so no IP address and/or domain name to be blocked) to host an incrementally up-datable copy of TPB that you can search locally (fast & secure) and then they have BIG problem in blocking search of pirated stuff.
Can't be long in coming, showing that the way forward is to compete on convenience & quality, as even most 'freetards' are willing to pay something, even if its just 5-10 Euro//month VPN costs to avoid detection. Money that should be going to the creators, and not avoidance services or lawyers.
These "media groups" must be power-drunk with the favorable reception ACTA, SOPA and PIPA are getting from certain quarters. Just who the hell is supposed to pay for all the people and resources in government, search engines, cyberlockers, torrent sites and God knows who else they want to do their dirty work for them? They're on a roll and it's hard to blame them for making the most of their momentum, but it's getting beyond insane. If piracy is the disease, their "cure" is pathological.
they could still publish links to websites that link to websites that are deemed to be substantially infringing copyright. Which may become quite common if this goes through.
"We demand that the entire internet works solely for our personal profit"
Have a beer on me
"The proposals were drafted by the British Recorded Music Industry (BPI), Motion Pictures Association (MPA), Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television (PACT), The Premier League and the Publishers Association..."
....and not a single search expert, or anyone who understands how the Internet works.
Come, come, Mr Bond. Surely you don't expect me to believe you want us to have a balanced debate?
Because once anyone agrees to this arbitrary code of practice you KNOW the scope creep will begin based upon 'Well, they're already doing THIS, so it's just a small step for them to do THAT with their search engine, too'
Yet again Big Media is in denial and secretly punting the subconscious message of 'buy your media secondhand cos it's the same quality as new'
The dice are rollin' and the wheel turns once more.
Cut off a search engine, and a dozen will pop up in their place.
When will these todgertitwranglers understand that no matter how much money they throw at squashing 'piracy', there will be some geek in a bedroom somewhere who goes 'Hey, I've just had an idea on how to get round all that malarky they've just thrown up' and they're out stacks more money and are several steps behind once more.
Their business model simply cannot compete with an individual with a will to do something (and not just for money - it's usually for the challenge).
Time to see how far yacy has moved on... http://yacy.net/en/
This is only the start, soon governments and big business will own the web. It is up to us to oppose any pandering to big media giants or lose the web and the Internet forever.
It's really time the entertainment industry and the groups that represent them really need to stop telling other industries how to operate and sort their own industry out.
I know I and others repeat ourselves every time this kind of story comes up, but they need to stop criminalising people and asking ISPs and search engines to do their dirty work for them, and look at *why* people are choosing to pirate content instead of buy it. It's a mixture of factors including price, DRM that creates inconvenience for genuine customers but fails to prevent the content being copied, their insistence on milking the same content we bought over and over again - films and albums bought out again every time a new format emerges, albums with bonus tracks after we already bought the original, etc - and their insistence on not playing nicely with the likes of Spotify and Netflix who are trying to make the content available in a legal and convenient way.
Personally, I don't download much these days, only things that are hard to get/out of print. I'm signed up to Spotify and Netflix to get content legally and I buy CD's and DVD's if the album/film is something a consider worthwhile. I also spend quite a lot on games.
Back in the day where I did download things though, I genuinely did get led on to new bands by downloading their albums, and I did go on to buy a lot of albums that I would not have bothered with if I hadn't heard them. Spotify now provides that service for me.
Death to the old school
any content creators who don't want their stuff copied? please stop creating content, keep it in your head. Go get a real job instead, sponging parasites...
Privateers, stop mindlessly copying everything off The Pirate Bay and try creating content then posting it to pirate bay.
Then everyone will be happy (except the gatekeepers because their one reason for existence is now wiped out).
Coporate whores are saying that sharing is bad. Is that what you say to your two year old when he refuses to share his toys?
Cockwombles - excellent.
"Coporate whores are saying that sharing is bad. Is that what you say to your two year old when he refuses to share his toys?" -- I think each child is required to have a valid license for each toy they wish to play with.
"A value judgment on how "damaging" illicit material is to rights holders..."
I'd love to see this handled properly in a court case:
"...and the court finds that the plaintiff's work is a crock of shit that not even a deranged person would pay for, and therefore the damages to the plaintiff are ZERO!"
Joke or not, there's a serious point, which is that the law tends to accept the rights owner's valuation, hence some of the absurd damages awards. Also, it would be quite hard to lodge a defence that, in effect said: "I was so desperate to get hold of this that I had to download it illegally, but it's rubbish really."
"One man's meat, another man's poison."
Joking aside, sadly it's "art" so the value is subjective. They get an expert in who's paid shedloads and is a blind, deaf plank, they rate the "art" to be such and such, thus you're screwed!
How much time and money has been wasted dreaming this up when it can be avoided by simply going to another country's version of Google?
...or Baidu. Doubt they will abide by this even if by some miracle all the western search engines do.
When are these idiots going to run out of bribe money?
When are these idiots going to run out of bribe money
When we stop our kids from buying their crap.
"take down mobile apps where it is aware that they are designed or known to be used to illegally download entertainment content, either via p2p [peer-to-peer] applications "
Now how am I going to download full-blown Linux ISOs to my phone?
If I had to choose...
...between access to recorded music and films on one hand and the internet on the other, I would choose the internet.
If having that that choice forced upon us was ever a possibility the copyright monopolies wouldn't have to go cap in hand to the search engines.
Going on mass to beg for help to promote up their products under the guise of combating piracy really is low.
Reaklly!! I mean really?
I wonder if the BPI,MPAA, PACT et all are going to pay for the work the search engine providers will have to do to facilitate this rediculous idea, if it even got that far.
Will they fund the government department that will have to emply peple to monitor and report the work that has been done. Will they then cry unfaiur when the list poff prohibited sites is then published and instead off going to a search engion i'll just have a trueted source off illegal download sites provided by the government.
Would the government tghen not be complicit if i then downloaded from the illicit sites?
I love going to the movies, i dont but cd's or dvds very often and when i do most off teh cd'sa have about 5-10 percent good content and the rest is a load off ols tosh. Can i go back to the BPI and demand a refund off 90% off teh purchase price off the CD please as you have sold me goods not fit for purpouse. IT DIDNT entertain me.
How often have we sat through a hyped film just to be let down, all the good bits seem to be the trailers that are free anyway. Can i have a refund please. I dont think so.
When will these people wake up and smell the roses, the old modle is dead. work out a new modle for the 21st centiuary. everyone else has
"Can I go back to the BPI and demand a refund off 90% off teh purchase price off the CD please as you have sold me goods not fit for purpouse"
You may want to try that with you're spelling and grammar checker first!
The thing about global constants is they never change!
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of search engines having to block links to pirated content where possible. What I'm not so happy about is sites that pay a licence fee being bumped up search ratings.
I don't use Google because of the extent to which they interfere with search results, so I certainly don't like the idea of any search engine bumping search results based on whether they pay a licence fee. There's no mention of this licence being compulsory. So basically surfers would get directed to the sites of companies with enough cash to pay. Sites that don't have enough money to pay for the licence would find their visitor numbers adversely affected.
In other words these licence holders are looking at a way of directing surfers to their own sites rather than anybody else. This is very definitely anti competitive.
"In other words.... directing.... anti-competive"
My first thought was "No it's not" - if you haven't paid a licensing fee for the music then you aren't legally using it so can't actually complain.
But then..... what's the betting that this'll potentially be quite badly implemented. I search for "New Indie Music mp3" and the first few sites listed will be the ones that have agreements with PRS etc. Newer, unheard of bands may well lose out as a result
We don't need no steenkin' DNS
So, they want Google to find out what users actually use 3rd part apps for and then decide whether to list those apps on their app store?
Ignoring the ass-backwards nature of this requirement, have we not already had way too much of Google and the like snooping on our online behaviour?
PS. Writing those numbers at the top of this would be enough to get the whole of El Reg shut down under SOPA.
re: We don't need no steenkin' DNS
until ipv6 arrives
Epic Freetard Outrage Erupts - More at 11
Most of us accept some sites are 'undesirable' and that search engines should not link to those so it's not the practice at stake it's applicability.
That we cannot prevent undesirable sites from being found in other ways has never seemed good grounds to not try to do as much as we can. There's nothing wrong with trying to do the best we can; it may not be 100% successful but that doesn't make for unsound principles nor unsound law where that applies.
It seems some people are rejecting the proposals not on sound principles but because they want to have access to the material proposed as 'undesirable'. Once again it looks little more than freetards demanding entitlement to their pirated downloads along with the fallacious claims the internet will collapse unless allowed that.
To suggest, as one AC has, that producers of content must expect to have no rights (even though those rights are enshrined in law), and if they don't like that should not produce content, is simply incredible. I'd suggest trolling or agent provocateur but it seems some people do believe such things. I wonder when such freetards will wake up and realise they are aiding those they claim to be fighting?
How about you take those blinkers off and widen your search a little eh?
Most of us on here are probably anti-theft/piracy/infringement but the problem is that with every stupid suggestion from the stuck-in-the-past media corps comes another way to not only attempt to kill off "piracy" but also curtail our freedoms.
Do you really think that Sony, Universal, etc give a monkey's toss if you couldn't look up auto-parts, motherboards, how to stop and ingrowing toenail or a million other useful and free pieces of info in order to stop 3 sights from advertsing hooky movie downloads? Afraid they don't give a flying f***!
What's more the governments supporting these sorts of proposals love nothing more than to see our rights eroded, piece by piece, until there's one site left on the internet, [ mygov.com ] which will then split into your local language edition for your country.
So if you're happy to lose any number of useful sites swept up in the big purge, then be my guest, me personally I'd rather see a few free movies and MP3s slip through the net in order to safeguard freedom that millions died fighting to preserve over the last few hundred years!
> Most of us accept some sites are 'undesirable' and that search engines should not link to those
"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist."
Many of us do not accept your initial premise.
"Many of us do not accept your initial premise"
But as soon as you say that you will be faced with the, seemingly correct, accusation that you don't have a problem with any links to sites associated with paedophilia, child abuse, rape, promotion of terrorism or hatred, and other unsavoury subject matter deemed offensive and/or illegal.
That may well be correct, it may be your definition of "freedom", but it doesn't I believe fit the majority view of society at large.
We don't have a world which has unrestricted freedom, never have and likely never will. We have a world where we define lines beyond which we must not step, we have laws to control and enforce that. You may not like it, but that's what we have, and why should the internet be any different?
(even though those rights are enshrined in law)
I think you'll find that was a privalege given by the people to the creators -- not a right enshrined on them. Maybe it's time the people took it back because with the mickey mouse copyright laws and perpetual licenses the content creators are breaching OUR terms and conditions.
Burn them all I say -- good content gets paid for one way or another.
A "think of the children" rebuttal? How... original.
> you don't have a problem with any links to sites associated with paedophilia,
In common with a large number of people, I have no problem with a search engine indexing such sites.
The appearance of illegal sites in a search engine's results will have no measurable effect on that site's activity. Those that want to view it will find it, those that don't won't be looking for it. There will be few false positives.
However - and this is the important bit - I do not want those sites to exist. They can generally be removed under existing legislation, once found. And having a search engine index them will make that task much easier.
So yes - I do want the search engines to index such things.
> it doesn't I believe fit the majority view of society at large.
And I don't believe you represent the view of "society at large".
> we have laws to control and enforce that.
We do indeed. We do not need any more.
> why should the internet be any different?
It shouldn't. It should be regulated just like other aspects of reality. And that is why I would resist attempts to treat it differently. We do not need new regulations for the Internet.
A "think of the children" rebuttal? How... original, and very simplistic of you (and not very accurate).
Most of the sites you talk about are not the sort of sites you can find on a search, a lot of the really nasty stuff is distributed by private VPN and member only groups, this is why some paedo groups are hard to infiltrate, and when they are it usually takes a carefully co-ordinated international operation to nab all the pervs.
There is a subtle distinction between unrestricted freedom and freedom, for example The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect anyone falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The ultimate goal of the copyright mafiaa is to be able to say to an ISP that a particular IP is infringing copyright and that that user at that address should be banned from ever using the internet again.
A free and totally open internet may not be the best way to run the Internet, however I would be more concerned about the alternative of a highly regulated internet like that in China.
- Does Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- 166 days later: Space Station astronauts return to Earth