Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google

suraj.sun writes "Last month, executives from two music-industry trade groups, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), asked Google if it could provide a means to help them track down pirated material more efficiently. Typically, copyright owners are responsible for finding pirated links and alerting Google, which is required by law to quickly remove the links. But Google's response raised eyebrows at some of the labels. James Pond, a Google manager, wrote in a letter dated September 20, that Google would be happy to help — for a price."

Comments

Pond?

[Anonymous Coward]

James Pond? 'G' double o 'gle'

Re:Pond?

[ushering05401]

A good chuckle for conspiracy nuts.

Re:Pond?

[Anonymous Coward]

James Pond? 'G' double o 'gle'

Is it really a surprise that a NSA agent works for Google?

Re:Pond?

[ushering05401]

From the link:

James Pond 077 is an alter ego of Puffy, the OpenBSD mascot.

Those permissions are just funny in this context. I sincerely hope we find out that someone was pulling one over on the big uglies because it works really well.

Re:Pond?

[Bahamut_Omega]

Of course it sounds fishy when he's involved with the Mafiaa.

Well duh

[Arancaytar]

It's only evil if you're not getting paid for it.

Re:Well duh

[froggymana]

Is that why all open source software is considered evil by big companies?

Re:Well duh

[Kvasio]

rather: it's evil if the price you ask is too low.

If G asks for $1 million per user, the **AA guys are not overuse this channel

Re:Well duh

[Trufagus]

You might want to read the article and think about it for a second before posting.

If Google does what is being asked of them then they have to give in to China too, and where does it stop.

I thought that Google's way of telling the labels to go away was appropriate.

Re:Well duh

[aliquis]

Sure they will, to state examples.

Best area to burn money in, much better than stupid things such as film making.

Re:Well duh

[LordLimecat]

Am I understanding your drift right-- you think it is Google's responsibility to shoulder the burden of searching for pirated music, for free?? While we're at it, why shouldnt local police departments everywhere just ask Google to host a few virtual servers for them, free of charge? I mean, Google is against crime, right?

Re:Well duh

[Pharmboy]

I think his point is that Google still believes in the motto "Do no evil", unless the pay is really good.

It's kind of like in Animal Farm, whereby the rule "No animal shall sleep in a bed" was modified by the pigs to add "with sheets".

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, s/he's saying that, with all of Google's talk of "do no evil," the only reason they are considering doing this is because they might get paid, not because it would be for a good cause.

Re:Well duh

[fyngyrz]

So your argument is that identifying people who are pirating music is... evil?

Not sure I buy that one. In the US, at least, this is best dealt with at the level of the legislature. If you don't like the way it is, (I guess you want music to be inherently free?) find enough like-minded people and change it. Or (and I know this is crazy talk, but...) just don't pirate music.

Re:Well duh

[fyngyrz]

So your argument is that when something is for a good cause, it should be done as a matter of charity?

No, can't really see that, either. The labels have an incentive, a financial one, to protect their IP interests. They want assistance from Google. Google is willing to do so, for a fee. So the whole thing is an economic arrangement. If the labels think they can recover X, while paying Google X-Y, then it should be a no-brainer. If not, then Google prices itself out of the market, and makes no money off the label's little problem. I'm a fan of IP law, personally, though I think it's a little out of hand, duration-wise.

Re:Well duh

[cheekyjohnson]

"So your argument is that identifying people who are pirating music is... evil?"

Identifying them? No. Claiming that they're stealing something or hurting someone? Yes.

Re:Well duh

[Reteo Varala]

Oh, really? So, it's not evil if I point a laser at the earth and demand one million... I mean, one hundred billion dollars, because I'm getting paid to do things that would otherwise be... evil? If that's the case, does that mean the evil medical school I attended wasn't evil either? Perhaps I should demand my money back... once I place sharks with frickin' laser beams in their swimming pool...

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this pretty much.

If you've seen the kind of "we don't want to do proactive stuff" eBay management wields, it wouldn't surprise me to see google act the same way. eBay pays 6 people 15$ an hour each, to take down thousands an hour of listings reported by VeRO members. I won't say which country.

The fact of the matter is, this isn't as simple for google. Where eBay can rightfully suspend users willy nilly to keep them from selling that counterfeit shit on eBay, it's up to the end user to fight the rights owner. Google probably sees this as highly abusive and instead put the cost on the rights holders to search for the infringing content, thereby in theory preventing censorship ( or fair use) by carpet bombing take down requests for certain content.

It would do wonders if google would stop paying the piracy sites (and not just audio piracy, movie piracy, money laundering, counterfeiters, online game RMT) and stop accepting money from them as well to advertise through their network. It's against their ToS somewhere. Yet there is very little that can be done to combat it.

Re:Well duh

[bzipitidoo]

Want has nothing to do with it. Data, including music, is inherently free. No deal with Google or any other business, nor any law is going to change that.

Anyone can potentially commit millions in copyright infringement in under a minute by simply giving a thumbdrive loaded with music to another individual. There is no practical way for 3rd parties to know of that, let alone prevent it. No evidence to cover up.

The industry can still get people for public uses. But chasing down individuals is hopeless. Except for those few lives messed up, it's amusing watching them try. Google surely understands this, so perhaps asking for money is their way of disingenuously saying no. The cartels should stop making such stupid demands. As it is, Google is being squeezed. If they outright refuse, they get sued. So they have to tread carefully, and give the cartels something reasonable that forces them to realize that they're asking the impossible. This is something the cartels won't be able to do much with, and they will have a hard time blaming Google for not being more cooperative. It would be better if we could stop pussyfooting around, and just laugh the cartels off.

Re:Well duh

[zmollusc]

How about you forget these ridiculous plans and just go work at a petting zoo?

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA -- They are offering labels the same terms as anyone else. If you want to run a bot against the search API, it costs you $5/1k queries. What you are doing with it and who you are doesn't matter.

The labels are angry because they don't get a service (which costs Google money) for free.

Re:Well duh

[Reteo Varala]

Is it an... evil petting zoo?

Re:Well duh

[HungryHobo]

didn't they give in to china already?

Re:Well duh

[Pharmboy]

If you don't like the way it is, (I guess you want music to be inherently free?)

I don't pirate music, I just don't want commercial businesses actively involved in policing copyrights. It is that simple.

Re:Well duh

[trickyD1ck]

I suppose copyright infringement is a civil matter, so who other than businesses should police it?

Re:Well duh

[Ash Vince]

It's only evil if you're not getting paid for it.

Helping companies track down people depriving them of legitimate revenue is not really evil is it? I produce something, I should be able to get paid for it. If you do not want to pay for it: fine, do not use it then.

I think the RIAA's tactics stink. I think some of the law firms going round issuing threats to sue just as money making scheme are even worse.

I do however think that if I produce a product that I choose to charge for an you use it without making that payment then you are the evil one, not me. I am not under a civic duty to work for free any more than you are under a civic duty to feed me for free.

I know some people may make the argument that just by copying something you are not depriving the producer of anything so it is not really theft. Maybe they are right, but fact still remains that if nobody pays for something then the people who make that something are pretty quickly going to have to find something else to do for a living. If only some people are paying for something that is used by many people then how is that fair on the people who are paying when the freeloaders get the same gain for no investment?

I am certainly not saying the current system is perfect, but it still remains that many of us now are in a field where what we produce can be copied for almost no extra effort than that which was put into creating the original. We have to find a way as a society of spreading the cost of creating that original work around all the people who use it so that the creator gets rewarded and is encouraged to carry on producing what they do. That usually means charging per copy so that when you sell a certain volume you recoup the amount invested in creating the original.

So all this leaves is the age old gripe about things being too expensive for some of us to afford so we will not pay. While this is true in a great many cases it is unfortunate that we cannot really determine how expensive something should be unless we know the full costs incurred in its production and how many people are going to pay for it.

Re:Well duh

[mcgrew]

All the MAFIAA has to do is google for it. If they want Google to work for them let 'em pay. I see nothing evil here. That's not to say Google has never done evil, but this ain't it.

Re:Well duh

[Trufagus]

No.

They are not censoring their search results.

So now Google serves up uncensored results and the Chinese government censors them somewhere between Google and the end-user (and completely blocks Google new SSL search).

Not much of a practical improvement for the Chinese user, but a much more defensible position for Google for a number of reasons.

Re:Well duh

[zeroshade]

I believe he means that he wants the burden for gathering evidence/policing/actively enforcing copyright to stay upon the rights owners. That 3rd party commercial businesses should not be involved in it. I agree with this. ISP's should not police it, search engines should not have to police it. It should stay as the law states, the rights holders are the ones who must enforce, police, and send take down requests.

Re:Well duh

[zoward]

The industry can still get people for public uses. But chasing down individuals is hopeless. Except for those few lives messed up, it's amusing watching them try. Google surely understands this, so perhaps asking for money is their way of disingenuously saying no. The cartels should stop making such stupid demands. As it is, Google is being squeezed. If they outright refuse, they get sued. So they have to tread carefully, and give the cartels something reasonable that forces them to realize that they're asking the impossible. This is something the cartels won't be able to do much with, and they will have a hard time blaming Google for not being more cooperative. It would be better if we could stop pussyfooting around, and just laugh the cartels off.

Tread carefully indeed. The record industry might just go to Congress (or whatever lawmaking body presides over your country) and demand laws forcing Google (or, probably, "all search engines") to "freely comply", now that Google has come right out and stated publicly that it's within their technical prowess to do this. Alternatively they could take Google to court as a "willing accomplice" since they refuse to freely comply, although it would probably be more expensive and time-consuming than going for legislation. This could backfire on Google.

Re:Well duh

[zeroshade]

I doubt the labels see the irony in it. =P

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact remains that most pirates feel entitled to steal anything they can, so long as they are not caught. This in turn means anything which facilitates an increased likelihood of them being caught is evil because it clashes with their sense of self entitlement. Made worse is the white lie that no one has been harmed by their theft, which is ignoring the fact that you're going to be bed without food and will soon be evicted.

Made yet worse is the fact that their thefts are the central cause of so many questionable legal efforts which receives so much negative publicity. But it doesn't change the fact, they (example, RIAA) have no other choice as their course of action is completely decided and forced upon them by the actions of self entitled pirates.

Pirates complaining about the actions of the RIAA and other efforts to identify pirates is like bank robbers, who rob banks every day, complaining of higher taxes which are required to pay for much needed police protection of the banking industry. Basically, their complaints are completely unfounded and unwarranted until they actually stop robbing banks. Conversely, raising taxes, regardless of how undesirable, is completely warranted until bank robbers stop robbing banks.

In a nutshell, pirates are actually complaining about themselves and their selfish, free loading, anti-social impact it has on themselves and everyone else.

Re:Well duh

[zeroshade]

It's actually simple economics. Since the supply is infinite, the price goes to zero. Therefore there is one and only one reason to pay the artist, you want them to produce more music. I've spent more money on shows and merchandise than I ever would have spent on music. This is a direct result of downloading both legal and 'illegal' music. I know I can get music for free, and I may even have already downloaded the album for free. But if I'm at a show, it's entirely likely that I'll buy a cd (depending on the artist). The only time I'll buy the cd is when I know the money is going directly to the artist. No label in the middle.

The economic part of this is that more artists will die off quickly. You may find that to be a bad thing. Economics, however, dictates that the only artists who fail and don't get any money for their troubles will be the artists who society determined weren't any good. See, if tons of people download their songs because they are immensely popular and really good, then tons more people will go to shows, buy merchandise, buy albums just to support the artists. Will there be a bunch of people who manage to freeload and gain the benefits of everyone else supporting the artist? Of course, but that's life. We all benefit from culture regardless of who foots the bill for it. A few of the most successful artists I know of release all of their music under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. This means, for strange slashdotters who don't know, that it is completely free to download all their music and play it for personal use, you just cannot gain commercially for their music. People post youtube videos of their shows, put up their music. They even put up their music. Why are they so successful? Because as a direct result of embracing the culture of sharing, they gained tons of free publicity. They leverage the free videos, content, and stuff that people put online as a means to get people to come down to the show and buy tickets. As a way of getting people to buy shirts, posters, etc.

They survive because enough people have decided they are really good and deserve to continue making their music, and thus give them money either buy paying for the shows or donating. They chose a price that the market was willing to pay them and it has. The value for music is not in the recordings. The value for any person who enjoys and loves music is in seeing the artist perform live. It's in getting their autograph.

I'm a software engineer. I don't finish a piece of software for the company and relax on the sales and royalties, I need to continue to work to continue to get paid. Why should an artist be any different? Make one recording and make money on it forever? How is that fair? They should continue to work, whether it is to produce more music or just to perform in person often. I'm not saying it's easy, but everyone continues to say "there is no free lunch" in regards to the downloading of music. Why can't I tell the artists that there is no free lunch in regards to their music. They can't just make one album and expect to live off of it for ever. They shouldn't. They should have to continue to work to continue to make money. For those who ask, "what about recuping money for the time invested in coming up with the music?" that's what the live shows are for. The income someone gets from a live show is due more to the time they spent coming up with the music then the actual performance itself. If they hadn't spent the time to come up with it, then they wouldn't have anything to perform =).

Studies have shown that artists are making more money on average today than they ever have, yet music sales have gone down. The answer that most studies have shown is that live performance sales have gone up. Aside from the economic recession causing people to buy less and try to get more bang for their buck, as it were, this can also be attributed to music downloads getting more people than ever to hear about certain music. Then going and seeking out shows which get the artist money.

Sorry abo

Re:Well duh

[mcgrew]

No, the GP was right. What's evil here is the law itself. Google isn't claiming that they're stealing something or hurting someone, the law is.

Re:Well duh

[tehcyder]

Data, including music, is inherently free

Just give me your credit card details then.

Re:Well duh

[mcgrew]

if nobody pays for something then the people who make that something are pretty quickly going to have to find something else to do for a living

The biggest word in the English language only has two letters. If pigs had big enough wings they'd fly. But the fact that has been demonstrated by study after study is that music pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates. Another fact is that nobody ever went broke and had to get a different job because of people pirating their work, while many, many artists have gone broke and had to find other work because of obscurity. I'm not likely to buy your book if I've never heard of you. I'd never have bought an Isaac Asimov book had I not read some for free from the public library, yet I have an entire shelf with nothing but Asimov.

If "nobody would buy art if they could get it free" than how did Cory Doctorow manage to get on the New York Times best seller list? Note you can download his latest book from that link, and all his books are available for free download as well.

In short, your "if anybody could get it for free nobody would buy it" is tripe. Utter bullshit. DAMNED LIES.

Re:Well duh

[Ash Vince]

In short, your "if anybody could get it for free nobody would buy it" is tripe. Utter bullshit. DAMNED LIES.

Quite right, but I did not say any such thing so go and learn to read.

What I did say was that if nobody pays for something, then the artist makes no money and will have to do something else for a living. I was not actually saying that this was going to happen, I was suggesting that the current situation leaves those people who do pay supporting those who do not and that this is not entirely fair.

Why not find a method where everybody pays a more even amount for something so some of us pay less but those who currently pay nothing actually have to put their hand in their pocket?

RIAA "haha"

[Anonymous Coward]

ahahhaahhahahahahhahah RIAA stop taking away money from the artists, google is not going to do your "work" for free.

Re:RIAA "haha"

[aliquis]

All I want to know is how much I have to pay Google to not be included? :D

Re:RIAA "haha"

[denis-The-menace]

That "option" will be offered later once Google creates a quasi-related arm of itself that will do "evil" called Evoogle.

Via Paypal, yet another evil company, will take your money and Evoogle will covertly send your IP to Google for exclusion of the MAFIAA dragnet.

Re:RIAA "haha"

[SwordsmanLuke]

About $15-$20 (US) per CD. Cheaper if you can find them used.

Re:RIAA "haha"

[aliquis]

About $15-$20 (US) per CD. Cheaper if you can find them used.

Ah, that's nothing!

(15+20)/2 * num. of CDs = 17.5 * 0 = ~ 0

Too good I'm not buying CDs then!

Of course

[war4peace]

I mean, was there any shadow of doubt? It's a request for a service which Google can provide, but is not mandatory, either by law or by Google's internal rules and regulations.
I see no faux pas here. Pay enough and we will help you.
I only hope the price is sufficiently high.

Re:Of course

[aliddell]

From TFA:

A music industry source estimated that such charges could add up to several million dollars a year.

Which, unfortunately, would be something, but better than they deserve.

Re:Of course

[whoop]

That's a bargain, considering with each link they lose billions and billions of dollars.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time someone downloads a movie.. god kills a kitten. I just hope you guys know that. Think of all the cute little kittens.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

but... but... but they are used to getting what they want, at no charge (usually at the taxpayer's expense). They aren't used to paying for the protection of their outdated distribution-control based business model!

"I understand we charge a standard rate of $5 per thousand queries, which is charged to recover our costs in providing this service," Pond wrote.

A music industry source estimated that such charges could add up to several million dollars a year.

If you burn 5 million dollars, you get... [Dr.EvilVoice]ONE BILLION queries! [/Dr.EvilVoice]

Re:Of course

[ThanatosST]

So god wants some more kittens to play with up in heaven. Who are you to deny him cute little fluffy play toys?

Re:Of course

[Knightman]

Basically Google want to offset the search cost because they loose the income for the ads when a 3rd party access the search engine directly. And the labels acts surprised that they have to pay for a service.

It's funny how the labels and all the rest of the copyright lobby want to move the policing of pirated material to ISP's and search-providers and not to pay for it. I guess it's a bit of a rude awakening to have to start paying for things when you have had a free ride for decades.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time someone downloads a movie.. god kills a kitten. I just hope you guys know that. Think of all the cute little kittens.

Thank you, God. Pray, may you choose by preference the ferral kittens in Australia? I heard they are considered pests there.

Re:Of course

[LordLimecat]

Well, actually, Im pretty sure that no, they DONT get things for free. Pretty sure they pay for office supplies like everyone else.

Smells like feigned suprise, or perhaps they were hoping for some way to force google to give them free access.

Re:Of course

[SkeeZerD]

I love kittens...they taste like chicken.

Re:Of course

[fyngyrz]

And *I* love people who love to eat kittens; they taste like long pig. Mmmmm, bacon.

Re:Of course

[martin-boundary]

So god wants some more kittens to play with up in heaven. Who are you to deny him cute little fluffy play toys?

Sorry, can't do that. It states clearly here in paragraph b) Section 14 that all the pussies have to go down below. Rules are rules.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

All of them? Damn.

Well, I guess I'll just have to man up and go down.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how the labels and all the rest of the copyright lobby want to move the policing of pirated material to ISP's and search-providers and not to pay for it. I guess it's a bit of a rude awakening to have to start paying for things when you have had a free ride for decades.

Exactly the same organisations complain about the "we want content for free" attitude of consumers. Yet they themselves demand everybody work for them for free. Oh the irony ... juicy, delicious irony.

Re:Of course

[Saint Fnordius]

It is common in business: if there is something that you don't want to do but can't risk saying so outright, then you ask for more than the person asking is willing to pay. The tricky part is deciding to be teasingly high (the diplomatic no) or ridiculously high (the barely concealed insult).

Re:Of course

[war4peace]

I do that all the time when known shitty companies would call me for an interview.

Re:Of course

[ScrewMaster]

That's a bargain, considering with each link they lose billions and billions of dollars.

No, billions is a readily quantifiable value. They don't want that, because then people might ask them to prove how much they lose. So instead, they lose either gazillions or bazillions, whichever is greater.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. I'm sure that they'll lobby for some tax refund for it if they can't get it already.

Re:Of course

[ScrewMaster]

It's funny how the labels and all the rest of the copyright lobby want to move the policing of pirated material to ISP's and search-providers and not to pay for it. I guess it's a bit of a rude awakening to have to start paying for things when you have had a free ride for decades.

Exactly the same organisations complain about the "we want content for free" attitude of consumers. Yet they themselves demand everybody work for them for free. Oh the irony ... juicy, delicious irony.

Ironic perhaps, and definitely hypocritical. Not to mention sociopathic.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I love pussies... they taste like codfish.

Re:Of course

[Jason Levine]

I find it ironic that we have two extremes that seem clueless about how much they have in common. At one extreme are the pirates who wouldn't pay for music if it were offered to them at a penny per song*. They don't seem to see why they should pay for what they are getting (music).

At the other extreme is the music/movie industry that seems to want Google/ISPs/Government/etc to do their job of finding and prosecuting pirated content for them free of charge (to the music/movie industry). They don't seem to comprehend why they should pay someone to provide them with a service (finding the copyrighted content being shared online).

Both sides want to get something for nothing. (Meanwhile, most of the general public just wants to get good content for reasonable prices without being treated like they are criminals for wanting the content at all.)

* This isn't everyone who pirates, mind you, just the extreme edge of the pirating community.

Re:Of course

[rwv]

with each link they lose billions and billions of dollars.

And if there are millions of links, Google should be justified in charging them Trillions of dollars. Right?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bargain, considering with each link they lose billions and billions of dollars.

Please mod pp +6 "Fuckin' Backatcha RIAA".

Re:Of course

[cynyr]

If you want to run bulk searches, and use the API there is a cost, regardless of who you are(excpeting federal investigations, and other court orders, etc). I'm failing to see where the problem is.

Google's service

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Google's search engine only catalogs search results. If these companies want special features, it makes sense that they would be willing to pay for its development. And since such a service would rely on Google's servers, there would also be an additional fee to help Google defray the cost of the additional load.

Google isn't standing up to anyone here. They are simply doing business.

Re:Google's service

[im_thatoneguy]

Furthermore they're doing business in helping a company protect its legal rights.

Google providing search engine technology to help another company do business? EVIL!

Re:Google's service

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, the issue goes way beyond some teenagers thinking "I want music and I want it for FREE".

For instance, considering how long music downloading has been around, it's clear artists don't need the major labels anymore. An artist can open a website and publish his or her own work without the labels in the middle taking away most of the profits. In fact, some artists have done that.
Also, it makes more sense to go after the people who provide music instead of those who download it. There should be less up-loaders than down-loaders, and if you stop the up-loaders you should stop the problem. But when possible, labels go after down-loaders. Why?
Because they don't want to let artists publish their music themselves (that would be the end of labels). As long as you can be fined/imprisoned for downloading music, you won't download ANY music unless you are 100% sure a song is legal to download. As a result, artists who choose to make their songs available for free on the Internet or P2P networks won't get much downloads and this method of sharing their work won't be successful. They'll have no choice but to rely on labels.

Also, as a down-loader, it's sometimes difficult to check the legality of files you download. People should not be punished because some guy was offering them a copyrighted song/movie as if it was not copyrighted. The up-loader however should know what kind of files he's providing and whether or not they are legal to distribute. I should be able to connect to a P2P network, type "Action Movie", expect to get a list of non-copyrighted movies and download any movie I want without worrying about copyright issues (the movies should either be copyright-free, or the guy up-loading them should be entirely responsible for the copyright-infringement).
Not to mention the fact that some files are not labeled properly, and so you may accidentally acquire a copyrighted file while trying to acquire a legal file... You can prove that in court, but labels can make your life miserable for several years if they want to. They can make your trial last a long time, force you to get an expensive lawyer, and once the judge rules in your favor they can just appeal the sentence and start again. I don't think that ever happened, but they have that option available. They can't win if you fight until the end, but most certainly you'll end up settling out of court to get done with this and you'll pay the copyright-holders lots of money.

A few other things to consider:
- Why should labels own the work of artists? Shouldn't artists own that work? Artists don't have much of a choice... Either they give away their rights to their work, or they don't get their work published. Imagine pen manufacturers making you sign a contract that what you write with their pens is their property since their pens helped you publish your work... It sounds like a crazy because we're used to labels making claims to the work they publish, but the two situations are actually not so different.

- Labels were originally supposed to be recording music and movies on a physical support (i.e. tape, CD, etc) and selling that product. When a song is downloaded, they are not recording a CD, and thus are not doing any work. Which is why it's nonsense to consider that they are robbed of anything (Imagine doctors suing you when you advise a friend to take aspirin for her headache because your friend should had taken that advice from them instead)
However, labels own copyrights to works of artists, which is why they can consider themselves to be robbed. But as I said in my previous point, I don't think they should own those rights in the first place.

- In any industry, technological improvements lower the prices of products. Computers, cars, household appliances, etc... All cost less when they became easier and cheaper to produce and/or distribute. The music industry is the only exception. Despite the very cheap possibility to distribute music through the Internet (and thus removing the costs of recording CDs and shipp

Re:Google's service

[im_thatoneguy]

Blah blah blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that a law is being broken and it's not "evil" for a company to assist another company protect their business--even if that business is careening towards an abyss.

If Blockbuster video wants technology to better enforce its late fees--it's not evil--it's just speeding along the inevitable demise of an out of date business model.

Re:Google's service

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws were created/modified at the behest of those companies, for the benefit of those companies and largely to the detriment of society. When a company uses its power and money to bring about unfair laws and then egage another company to help them wield those laws against society, you can hardly say either party is without evil. I guess you also think it's fair that China imprisons, tortures and executes dissidents and that they deserve their treatment for breaking the law and Google was wrong to back away from the partnership?

Re:Google's service

[denis-The-menace]

RE: If Blockbuster video wants technology to better enforce its late fees--it's not evil--it's just speeding along the inevitable demise of an out of date business model.

And Blockbuster should pay for it just like:

-Warner Music Group
-EMI
-Sony Music Entertainment
-Universal Music Group
-EMI

Payed for useless copy protection that got thwarted by Sharpy markers.

Search is what they do

[BradleyUffner]

Google IS a search engine... Their whole business model is designed around helping people find things.
It still feels kind of wrong though.

Re:Search is what they do

[MichaelKristopeit 64]

evil is a kind of wrong

Re:Search is what they do

[MachDelta]

This is like how purple is a flavour, yes?

Re:Search is what they do

[blahplusplus]

"It still feels kind of wrong though."

The only thing wrong is their broken business model, information was never designed to be propertized in an internet age. Tough shit for them.

Re:Search is what they do

[MichaelKristopeit 64]

no?

Re:Search is what they do

[aliquis]

Purple is a fruit.

Re:Search is what they do

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

Their whole business model is designed around selling advertisements next to things you have found.

The RIAA and friends will not be purchasing things from the ads. Google need to recoup the losses of using the system somehow. Google choose to do this with a flat fee. There are some days when I'd pay for Google without the ads. I say bring on GoogleSubscriber. All the results, none of the ads.

Re:Search is what they do

[tkrotchko]

There are plugins that already do that.

If you want to find them, use Google.

Re:Search is what they do

[Shadyman]

I think it's more like how Brown is a delivery service.

Re:Search is what they do

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that such a system was proposed in the early days of Google (I think around 2000 or so).

Re:Search is what they do

[Rakarra]

"It still feels kind of wrong though."

The only thing wrong is their broken business model, information was never designed to be propertized in an internet age. Tough shit for them.

That's what all the dot-coms said a decade ago. About the only ones left after all this time are the ones that figured out how to successfully propertize their information.

Re:Search is what they do

[Skal Tura]

Actually google's business is advertising made possible by data mining and datacenter operation. Search just happened to be there first as a data mining tool ;)

Re:Search is what they do

[tehcyder]

The only thing wrong is their broken business model, information was never designed to be propertized in an internet age.

Did you use "propertized" because "monetized" just wasn't ugly enough?

Anyway, if you think that you can't make money off information, try talking to a fucking stockbroker.

James Pond?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a fish do anything about copyright?

Special price...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ordinarily, we'd like to help folks for free (it's kindof our thing)... but for you, we'll cut you a deal, you pay us, oh, ~1 million GBP for each song we find...

OK, question time

[the_other_chewey]

WTF is a pirated link?

Re:OK, question time

[Nethead]

WTF is a pirated link?

Basically any Slashdot story.

Re:OK, question time

[Psychotria]

It's one of those shortened URLs that bypass the DRM of the original URL while containing the same content which is most likely illegal content.

Re:OK, question time

[houghi]

http://5z8.info/autoinstall_d5c0p_russian-brides or http://5z8.info/olive-loaf-penetration.gif_j9z1b_snufffilms

Re:OK, question time

[nigelo]

Dog-got-me-bangers? ie Sausage theft, with menaces.

Re:OK, question time

[tepples]

According to this source, the intended meaning is a link to an infringing copy of a non-free work.

Re:OK, question time

[aliquis]

Slashdot stories is the only area where I dislike copies.

Re:OK, question time

[aliquis]

It's one of those shortened URLs that bypass the DRM of the original URL while containing the same content which is most likely illegal content.

Like http://tinyurl.com/09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0

Re:OK, question time

[troff]

Anything starting with "httarrh//".

Re:OK, question time

[ArsenneLupin]

You mipselled beef

Re:OK, question time

[Anonymous Coward]

not working, you probably thought of http://42.pl/u/2tPS_09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0

And the problem is?

[davmoo]

Google will have to have employees spend many hours of labor doing this. Of course they should expect to be paid for it by the content owners. Only a group of idiots like the RIAA would expect them to do it for free.

Re:And the problem is?

[MichaelKristopeit 64]

only an idiot would expect the RIAA expected them to do it for free... the real expectation was that google would not develop terminators.

Re:And the problem is?

[dcollins]

You could call them "idiots" or you could call them "tyrants with a limited fief".

They're entirely accustomed to making outrageous demands and having others bend over immediately. Heck, this could be an opening salvo before lobbying the legislature to make it mandatory, no compensation to Google.

Re:And the problem is?

[thenextstevejobs]

A naval force would be a better bet at battling piracy than a bunch of nerds.

Re:And the problem is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, this could be an opening salvo before lobbying the legislature to make it mandatory, no compensation to Google.

Most likely, but unlike most downloaders, Google can afford lobbyists too.

Evil or not?

[seeker_1us]

The Google response seems entirely appropriate. The MAFIAA runs around like spoiled, bullying children. Google's response is "yeah, you need a job done, maybe you should consider paying for it."

And you know what? I'd trust Google a hell of a lot more than Id trust the other MAFIAA goons. I bet Google would at least make sure who the "infringing" material belonged to.

Re:Evil or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Make sure"? Not unless they're paid to do that. If they jack the rates up high enough, maybe they can discourage the MAFIAA from trying it, since it will cut into their obscene profits.

Re:Evil or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet Google would at least make sure who the "infringing" material belonged to.

Yea because we all know google is good at that sort of thing.

Google is orders of magnitude worse for your health and well being than the MAFIAA.

Re:Evil or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote another MAFIAA "Fuck you. Pay me."

Re:Evil or not?

[rolfwind]

I didn't know links to pirated material had to be removed. Google taking down these links, even if required by law, worries me about an "official" internet coming soon.

Re:Evil or not?

[Tim C]

I bet Google would at least make sure who the "infringing" material belonged to.

Why would they do that? More importantly, how would they do that? Email the site admin and ask nicely?

I really don't see that that's something that Google would want to get involved with. Something that we would want them to do, yes, but it's really not their problem or their area of expertise either.

Just Google it.

[Hatta]

If Google had a more efficient means of finding what you're looking for, they'd incorporate it into their search engine. If you're looking for copyrighted information, just google it.

Also, James Pond?

Re:Just Google it.

[Anonymous Coward]

But could this herals a new era of anti-SEO?
instead fo trying everything to get indexed and ranked, try everything to hide your content....

Re:Just Google it.

[aqmxv]

His name is Pond. James Pond.

Re:Just Google it.

[binkzz]

If Google had a more efficient means of finding what you're looking for, they'd incorporate it into their search engine. If you're looking for copyrighted information, just google it.

Also, James Pond?

I was thinking more along the lines of: James Pond?

Re:Just Google it.

[delinear]

That already happens in the form of closed forums for filesharing. The **AAs probably still prefer that as it eliminates a lot of the casual sharing (you have to know the forums and then know people in them to get invites, etc) and it also makes those forums a juicier sitting target than people just throwing up a torrent link on some random site that might not even exist in a week's time.

Re:Just Google it.

[Hatta]

LOL, middle click buffer strikes again.

Re:Just Google it.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's really an anthropomorphic fish!

From Wikipedia:

The protagonist of the story and player character of the game is an intelligent, mutated anthropomorphic fish who is given the name "James Pond" (after the legendary spy James Bond) and hired by the British Secret Service to protect the seas and take out the bad guys in underwater areas.

I know Google hires strange people, but this is way too much.

Silver Lining

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as Google starts with **AA employees only, I'm cool with it.

For only a 1% finder's fee!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since this link has 1000 songs, we'll reveal its identity to you for only 1% of its total value: 1000 × $150000 × 1% = $1.5million. That seems totally reasonable, doesn't it?

Same pricing model as RIAA

[bakes]

'Raised eyebrows'? Maybe Google used RIAA's pricing model and asked for $10,000,000 per infringement.

Re:Same pricing model as RIAA

[Dwonis]

Brilliant! I approve!

Re:Same pricing model as RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's far too low! - That figure is only valid if a search on Google yields exactly one result and that only one person uses this to download illegally....

The correct figure can be estimated to be around $10.000.000.000.000.000 per infringement found on the first page of the result page for a suitably crafted query...

Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google

[Taibhsear]

And I want a pony.

Re:Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google

[Anonymous Coward]

And I want a pony.

Come back here in about 5 1/2 months....

Re:Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google

[rmm311]

Would you take a vat of industrial strength glue?

Re:Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google

[davester666]

He would if you formed it in the shape of a pony. It's his sexual fantasy...

akin to..

[Anonymous Coward]

expecting google to help find copyrighted material in its results is like asking a library to find plagarism in the books they lend out.

Re:akin to..

[Un pobre guey]

Not quite. It's like asking a library to detect photocopied books among those they lend out. Not difficult to do, for a human.

Re:akin to..

[Stanislav_J]

Its more like asking the publishers of the phone book to determine whether any individuals or businesses listed are engaged in illegal activity. Or asking the cab company to do the same for every address they are asked to deliver a passenger to.

There's no perfect analogy, but in every example, applying the same "logic" to a physical world parallel results in something ludicrous and impractical, and definitely something that a third party shouldn't be expected to do for free, or really at all.

The summary...

[Anubis350]

....and the article don't match. According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, Google is, in general, developing several APIs for direct access to the engine without scraping. Of the three mentioned, one of those options would work for the kind of searches the RIAA wants to do. Google politely pointed this out to the *AAs, but also pointed out they charge a fee for the queries - which, as the article says, could cost the *AAs a very large amount of money if they decided to use the API.

Re:The summary...

[Omnifarious]

Mod the parent up. I know they admit to having read the article and all, but what the parent is saying is actually informative! Whoda thunk reading the article might mean you knew more about the subject?! Surely not me.

Re:The summary...

[AnonymousClown]

According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, ....

Dude, you got out of breath typing?!

Re:The summary...

[tinkerghost]

According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, ....

Dude, you got out of breath typing?!

No, he got out of breath reading the article --- happens when you have to move your lips while you read.

[sorry, low hanging fruit and all that]

Re:The summary...

[Kilrah_il]

I'm sorry, but if I have to choose between the summery, which is pure Flamebait material, and the article which actually makes sense, I would surely go with option 1. Why pass on an opportunity to laugh at the "Do no evil" slogan?

Re:The summary...

[nschubach]

According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, ....

Dude, you got out of breath typing?!

Maybe he was using one of them IBM Model M Keyboards... someone used to the soft keys of today's keyboards would wear themselves out and out of breath from the strain. ;)

Great....

[neo8750]

Now the big media will actually have true legit #'s to show how much piracy has costed them shame those will just get added to the inflated BS #'s they say they already lose... Oh well guess cd prices can go up another $5 and drm downloads another dollar... not like i pay it. But that being said id like to make the point of if i couldnt download it i wouldnt id prolly never see it cause i wouldnt pay for it in the first place so im not making them lose money cause there wasnt ever going to be money spent.

RIAA vs. Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

"The record companies desperately want someone to loosen Apple's hold of digital music."

You're free to stop licensing copyrighted music to Apple anytime you want and launch your own damn music distribution service. But you won't do that, will you? You'll alienate your largest consumer base and lose millions. Realize that and stop your whining.

Read between the lines

[shoehornjob]

What he really said is "We don't want to fight your fight. Now pay me or fuck off."

Seems reasonable

[somenickname]

I propose that Google charge the RIAA slightly less than retail value per CD worth of infringing music that they discover. Using RIAA logic, every prevented CD download is a sale so, this seems like a very modest cut for Google to take if it helps recoup all those untold billions of dollars the RIAA is "losing".

Raised eyebrows? More like erupted an erection

[fkx]

Raised eyebrows? More like erupted an erection.

All it takes to assault our rights is money .. what a surprise.

HOLY CRAP! ARE YOU SERIOUS???

[SudoGhost]

Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google

This just in:

Cigarette companies want to downplay the harmful effects of tobacco.
(Insert party here) wants more control over the senate.
Religious officials suggest being religious is good for you.

I'd file this one under the No Shit category.

Google?

[cdrguru]

So why are pirated materials now appearing in Google?

Well, it would seem partly because various fake torrent sites think it is a good idea to have their index indexed by Google. Which then leads to people without a clue clicking on links to all sorts of silly stuff.

Ever notice that no matter what you are looking for there are sites that have the exact keywords you are searching for in the exact order you are searching for them in? Oddly enough, it seems that these results always lead to another non-Google search page which is doing a search and showing some kind of results. With Google ads on it. Again.

If Pirate Bay has an index and it is not indexed by Google, then what good does it do for Google to be doing this? On the other hand, if this eliminates torrentsareus.biz, I'm all for it.

Re:Google?

[garcia]

I think they're talking more about finding infringing content such as what is easily found via http://g2p.org./

Re:Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did a search for some obscure computer vision stuff, and I still got a few bizzare little spam sites (using excerpts from papers, strung together in a way that made it look relevant in the Google blurb). That's the only time I've clicked on one of those recently; I figured I was searching for something too obscure. Wrong. Always wrong.

Re:Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is indexing the pirate bay. Try googling "GNU site:thepiratebay.org". The pirate bay also doesn't mind being indexed by google either.

Disclaimer:
The pirate bay may link to unauthorized copyrighted content. Visit at your own risk.

The price...

[russotto]

...was set at THEIR SOULS.

The record industry executives immediately pointed out that they HAVE no souls of their own, and would the company accept souls they had collected from musicians and filesharers? They were told in no uncertain terms that third party souls would NOT be accepted.

Carefully "Big Media", Tread Carefully..

[enter to exit]

Be careful what you wish for or you might get it!

Re:Carefully "Big Media", Tread Carefully..

[Anonymous Coward]

They already had it, but the world changed while they were busy counting their beeelyuns and admiring their own incredibleness. Now they're desperately trying to make things the way they were, but to do it they have to try and enforce a kind of control that will require personal/consumer rights to take a monumental shit-kicking.
By now, it should be obvious to any lawmaker, businessman, and consumer, that the digital age has affected their business model significantly and fundamentally (not unlike any other market niche in the last hundred years). For the music industry, digitized media is now nothing more than advertising to draw people out to the live performances. And if the movie biz can't cope with the modern realities of the internet, then I assert the best compromise of consumer and supplier rights is that they withdraw from the home market entirely, and show their movies only in their supplied controlled environments (theatres) - y'know, just like before whole home market was ever conceived? The home market was great for a while, lucrative and exploitable, but that pocket of income has dried up.
That doesn't mean one can't *try* and sell a digitized product, but the idea of slapping one's own price on it is an unrealistic expectation. In an age of infinite supply, if we are to maintain an open market, then consumer-determined value, and a way to efficiently employ micropatronage, are the two keystones to keeping that market free.

Re:Carefully "Big Media", Tread Carefully..

[Anonymous Coward]

One flaw in your argument though: The traditional media model, for all the screaming of the producers, is still going strong. The Pirates of the Caribean franchise alone made three and a half BILLION dollars. Music sales are actually increasing right now (Probably due to the recession slowly ending), and were never severely affected at all - and the movie industry has never been making so much money, even accounting for inflation.

Re:Carefully "Big Media", Tread Carefully..

[cynyr]

it did, I thought it lost money... see: "Hollywood accounting"

James Pound

[microbee]

There, fixed for ya.

Re:James Pound

[Riktov]

No, it's this guy.

Google gets paid by both sides!

[PatPending]

Google gets paid by the RIAA and the IFPI to put people on a list.

Then Google gets paid by those on the list to be taken off the list.

Note to self: buy more Google stock

Re:Google gets paid by both sides!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to bash google from time to time, but in this case, I feel bad for them. Google has been put in a position as they need content, but the RIAA has a lot of money to throw around to make the law go their way. They have to at least appear to help even though free content is in Google's best interest. If there's nothing public to search, google can't make money on ads. Ads are their only real revenue stream. Dealing with the RIAA is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

I hate when things are no longer black and white. It makes life interesting, but complicated.

As for google stock, I'd avoid it. It's obvious to many that they're overvalued. If you think about how they make money and not all the hype of their products, it's clearly too much. This applies to other tech companies as well.

How much is enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone has their price, right?

Churchill : Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite : My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill : Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite : Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill : Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Surely the RIAA doesn't need to pay ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... everything on the internet is free, amirite?

I'm from the year 2058; let me tell you something

[mykos]

In our time, we view these organizations who are fighting to stop the spread of ideas the same way you might look at the mini-war caused by prohibition.

So many legal battles, so many livelihoods ruined, all these resources drained that could have been invested in other, more meaningful things than whether or not someone was entitled to see a film or hear a song...it's sad to see, really. And what a damned waste.

War Profiteers

[Bob9113]

The telcos get paid rapacious fees by the government to "voluntarily" provide direct intercept rooms for the war on terror. Halliburton and Blackwater get paid highwayman prices for services in the war zones. Now Google is licking its lips over getting a taste of the copyright war booty.

In an America run by authoritarians who love war, war metaphors, getting re-elected for their positions on war, and getting campaign ads sponsored by war-enriched corporations, being anything other than a war profiteer is choosing to be second tier.

Good? Bad? Necessary but regrettable? Maybe all those things in various specific cases. But always: A big chunk of GDP.

Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex. The only thing he missed: That war and war spending is not limited to things involving soldiers and guns. The war metaphor gives us the opportunity to extend war-footing excesses to all our beloved oligarchs.

Re:War Profiteers

[Black Gold Alchemist]

How in the hell is this related to war profiteering? This just sounds like another excuse to hate the USA.

Re:War Profiteers

[Bob9113]

How in the hell is this related to war profiteering?

The post was quite clear. Try reading it without skipping every other word, and perhaps it will be more clear to you.

This just sounds like another excuse to hate the USA.

Rarely do I lower myself to feed the trolls, but your shallow jingoism is offensive to my deep and considered patriotism.

Note that the threat of the military industrial complex was, as noted in my post, highlighted by Eisenhower. Do you believe Ike hated the USA? The extension of the war metaphor to non-war activities suppresses considered discourse in favor of subjective and emotionalist reactionism. Such behavior is a threat to the foundations of intelligent, republican, democracy, not to mention a tremendous source of friction in our free market economy.

"My country right or wrong -- when right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." That is the position of the patriot. Your shallow jingoism is authoritarian rubbish.

Re:War Profiteers

[Black Gold Alchemist]

I am not a troll. I misheard the tone of your pose and apologise for the comment.

Re:War Profiteers

[Bob9113]

I misheard the tone of your post

An unfortunately easy thing given the lack of inflection in text and the frequency of mindless USA bashing. It frequently leads to dissent being viewed as antipathy, which in turn leads people like me to be, perhaps, too sensitive to such implications. I am sorry if my reaction was stronger than appropriate.

Mis-Read Headline-

[no1home]

I initially thought the headline said Big Media Wants More Privacy Busting From Google

I guess that's likely true as well.

Re:I'm from the year 2058; let me tell you somethi

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Oh yeah, what is Black Gold Alchemy's renewable energy product?

Uhmmm, ...

[tqk]

It's a trap! Duh.

Chump change

[hawguy]

I don't get it -- RIAA claims to lose 12 billion dollars a year due to piracy. If the Google API helps them recover a tiny fraction of that amount, then it's worth the few million dollars/year they are estimating the API costs would be.

It seems almost as if they think that there is not as much piracy out there as they claim!

Google is part of the problem

[Animats]

Google does a miserable job of vetting their advertisers. A huge number of junk sites, and some outright scams, are monetized using Google ads. As I pointed out yesterday, there are even sites that are on Google's "This site may harm your computer" list, yet have Google ads. They're clearly not trying very hard to purge their advertiser base of slimeballs.

Here's a rant by a woman in the "responsible" end of the SEO industry: "Dear Google...Stop Making Me Look Like a Fool!"

Pond..

[db10]

.. James Pond

Ahh... Mr Pond, very fishy google!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pond_2

Honestly, why have no one made any comment about this? Are you all soo young that you barely stopped using diapers?

those souls aren't worth anything

[circletimessquare]

you can get pirated copies of those souls for free

that's what makes the devils so mad: people aren't really sacrificing anything anymore

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think you could put a little more spin on that headline? It might not be inflammatory enough yet.

Will Amaricans ever rise up?

[pablo_max]

It seems like everyday we read about the mega companies doing this or that. Putting pressure on a politician to adopt the law they have written which greatly limits the rights of Americans. Each one seems to be more egregious than the last.
More and more complain, yet less and less action is taken by the ruling class.
It seems these days, our politicians don't even try to hide the fact that they are owned by companies.

I am really starting to wonder, will Americans rise up again against oppression? Will the point come where we say, enough is enough! ?

I have thought for a number of years now that the US is headed for a 2nd revolution. Not from outside controlling forces, but from the corporate extension which our government has been allowed to become.

Who knows. I would have thought that at the point where our government is breaking 12 year old girls and grandmothers to protect the failed business models of media companies we would have stood up and said, no more!
Yet, we don't. I guess it's true what they say about things hitting rock bottom before they start to get better.

But, hey...we still have tons of people screaming about the government "wasting" money on energy research. The linchpin of modern society, and people complain about spending money to secure it's future. Makes me sad.

torrents

[StripedCow]

This raises the question if the pirate bay could have become legal when they included other internet search results, besides just torrents.

*The* James Pond?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pond

I remember playing that game, fun stuff!

Of course there is a price

[brunes69]

Why should Google have to pay it's employees and spend it's resources to track down the RIAA's problems?

It is not Google doing the pirating I don't see why they should have to clean up the mess.

How to Turn Down Business That You Don't Want

[smcdow]

When someone offers you a deal that you really don't want, but for whatever reason, you don't want to be seen saying "no" or otherwise turning down business -- then say "yes" to the offer, but make sure that it will be so expensive that the deal is sure to be OBE.

To wit FTA:

The third was a paid product called Site Search, Pond wrote. "The only option for the IFPI/RIAA to access our Web search API will be the third option," Pond wrote, according to the source who had seen the letter.
"I understand we charge a standard rate of $5 per thousand queries, which is charged to recover our costs in providing this service," Pond wrote.
A music industry source estimated that such charges could add up to several million dollars a year.

Re:How to Turn Down Business That You Don't Want

[delinear]

That's a pretty standard pricing model for Google Site Search and certainly not prohibitively expensive. I've worked on some big public sites that use this as their search technology - we're talking sites with millions of hits per month - and their costs were nowhere near "several million dollars a year". $2m would buy them 400,000,000 searches at that rate! Either the **AA is confused about how the technology works (here's a clue, it's per search, not per result!) or they just can't help themselves when it comes to massively over-inflating the figures to try and win sympathy.

Re:I'm from the year 2058; let me tell you somethi

[SEE]

In our time, we view these organizations who are fighting to stop the spread of ideas the same way you might look at the mini-war caused by prohibition.

Mini-war? Is that what you call what's going on in Mexico in 2010?

Or, wait, is 2058 still so benighted that it's pretending prohibition ended in 1933, when only alcohol was removed from the list of mind-altering chemicals banned by the Progressives in the 1910s?

"inherently free"

[Anonymous Coward]

thats if you don't differentiate "The Matrix" from a few gigs copied from /dev/urandom.

Otherwise, of course data isn't free.

Re:"inherently free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Copying it is free; the marginal cost of making a copy is (practically) zero.

Why doesn't MS use Bing? They own it, don't they?

[SargentDU]

Why doesn't MS use Bing? They own it, don't they?

Irony

[DarthVain]

I think its a bit funny the fact that they expected "free" service from Google to catch people that expect getting a "free" service.

If I was Google I would be asking for a fee per, as well as a percentage.

They are basically asking for a filtering service which Limewire, Napster, etc... all said was basically impossible and impractical to implement (and that was in terms of only their piddly ass applications, not all internet everywhere). Google is saying "Sure we can do whatever you want us to do, but your paying for it", which I don't think is an unreasonable demand considering the request.

Nobody else picked up on this??

[RivenAleem]

He's Pond, James Pond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pond

Nobody? I think Google is totally trolling the RIAA by signing the response as though written by James Pond.

I can play this too

[Anonymous Coward]

"gold is free" because it doesn't cost me anything to put gold cufflinks on in the morning.

content producers worried about their wallets...

[HasHie]

The media companies claim that they are losing quadrillions of dollars in lost sales to internet piracy.
Bottom line is that the content they are producing is mostly crapola.
With or without piracy, their revenue will decline drastically, since no one wants to buy their doodoo.
People might use the content if its easily available for free, but no one wants to go out and pay for content created without soul, with their hard earned bucks.
If the media companies would put some soul/passion into their content, maybe consumers would be willing to give up some of theirs in trade.

Personally i haven't downloaded any commercial music since the year 2001.
This is due to the fact that music created after said date is all garbage.
I do understand thats my opinion, but if you disagree, consider this...
Think about music from before 2001 and after... then ask yourself... does music created post-2001 have the same level of soul/passion/effort in it as pre-2001 music?
I can easily say it doesn't. Most of it feels like some algorithm created it, its that soul-less.

$ ./content.creator-2.0.1.0 -generate newmusic
=> Sending garbage to a.out

Same can be said of movie scripts and acting.

Instead of actually making stuff worth paying for, they use legal muscle to extort the weak, and financial muscle to buy politicians.
Essentially they are a mafia-type organization, yet they get mad when individuals bootleg.

They should spend less time harassing/annoying people, and more time working on a decent movie script.
Helping to get laws put in place that erode freedom of speech and a free internet makes them even bigger scumbags.

The gov'ts need to make it legal to copy commercial content provided its not being copied for profit.
That would put an end to this madness.