Google's View On the Whac-a-Mole of Blocking Pirate Sites

jones_supa writes "During a debate in London last night, the game of whac-a-mole related to blocking pirate sites was discussed by artists, labels, the BPI, and Google. Most interestingly, Google's Theo Bertram brought to the table the idea of going after the sites as a business, which in practice would mean strangling their (often voluminous) advertising budget. A test performed by musician David Lowery confirmed that a search for Carly Rae Jepsen's 'Call Me Maybe' conjured up a list of unlicensed sites, some of which have an advertising relationship with Google. Geoff Taylor of the BPI said that Google has the both the information and technological ability to directly stomp infringing sites, but at the same time noted that somewhat oddly iTunes has not arranged itself a prominent position in the results to promote legally-purchased music, which can't be completely Google's fault."

Comments

Nevermind the blocking

[fustakrakich]

The question is how to circumvent it..

Re:Nevermind the blocking

[Hatta]

Darknets. Tor, Freenet, Waste, Retroshare. Something along those lines.

Re:Nevermind the blocking

[Bearhouse]

Here's the Sex Pistols!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Never+Mind+the+Bollocks%2C+Here's+the+Sex+Pistols+torrent

Google has power to render Google worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey guys lets uh turn off porn and uh might as well kill pirated files and anything that might infringe on a copyright.

Let's see..... all that we got left is sports scores and taxidermy blogs.

Search engines

[Endimiao]

Google should thread lightly on this path. Too much censorship and suddenly some less restrictive search engine could make it go the way of Yahoo..

Re:Search engines

[king neckbeard]

Once the mechanism for blocking is in place, it will be used for other purposes. It will also be used for gray or edge cases as a means of further stomping out innovators that would compete with the status quo. Frankly, the threat to free speech and stifling of technology is orders of magnitude more important, even from a purely financial perspective.

Re:Search engines

[Jockle]

That's exactly their logic in wanting to destroy these websites, yes.

Re:Search engines

[reve_etrange]

Especially because the "financial perspective" is that piracy results in a slight increase in label profits. Unfortunately, folks like David Lowery have "financial" confused with "ideological."

Re:Search engines

[Hadlock]

See also: Slippery Slope Argument
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Re:Search engines

[Jockle]

It also appears to be our logic in wanting to destroy these new technologies.

No. History has proven time and time again that people with power will most likely abuse it, so allowing people with power to have unchecked power is just foolish.

Re:Search engines

[rwise2112]

Why should Google have to maintain a list of which site has permission to host content legally? How do they know what content is distributable or not? We certainly know that the RIAA/MPAA have certainly not been perfect in their identification of media.

Also, I'm pretty sure Google would be required to do this at their own expense.

Re:Search engines

[jedidiah]

Except it's no fallacy. In Common Law, we have another name for the slippery slope. It's called precident. Slippery slopes are how our entire legal system works.

Re:Search engines

[sjames]

Accurately determining who has a legal right to distribute something is apparently too hard of a problem. We have seen companies laying claim to birdsong recorded in the forrest and other people's lectures for example. We have seen media companies upload videos themselves and then threaten legal action if they aren't removed.

Unless or until we can figure out how to make sure that only the legitimate licensor is making the decisions and that those decisions reflect reality and the law, we should not have anything like an automated system.

Re:Search engines

[tlambert]

How is blocking ad revenue from sites distributing content without the appropriate license "too much censorship"? It's the correct approach. Or would you argue you should be free to profit from the operation of planes, trains, or automobiles ( or truck) without an the appropriate license?

Pilots licenses were not mandatory in the US until 1917, following a Massachusetts state law in 1913, so for planes, at least, the answer was "yes", for 10 years.

For trains, it's controlled by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which is a division of the teamsters union, and it's handled through an apprenticeship program, starting with conductor, then brakeman, ... all the way to engineer. The first railroad, the B&O (Baltimore and Ohio) was opened in 1830, and it wasn't until the 1880's that certification was enforced (after the strikes against the railroads and the Pullman Palace Car Company). Certification was adopted as a defensive reaction to the Pinkertons hired to put down the strikes (violently, with man deaths), since it meant that non-union "scabs" might be brought in, but they would still not be able to legally operate the trains. So for 50 years, the answer for trains was "yes".

Automobile licenses were not required from 1886, when Benz created the first internal combustion engine, until 1888; this was mostly because the people of Mannheim complained about the noise and smell, and the license was technically from the Dutchy, and not actually a license. In North America, there were state laws in 1910 (New York) and 1913 (New Jersey - the first state to require passing a test). So in the US, the answer was "yes", for over 20 years.

So, licenses serve two purposes: (1) prevent other people from entering the field, so as to raise the relative value of the labor allowed to operate in the field, and ensure collective bargaining power for those allowed to participate, and (2) as a revenue mechanism for the state.

The public safety argument is relatively moot, as raising the speed limit from 55 back to it's pre-Jan 2nd 1972 limits (or higher in some areas) has demonstrated (the limit was imposed due to the "energy crisis" at the time, not for public safety, and kept because it was a pretty nice cash cow for a lot of local governments). Highway deaths are inversely proportional to the effectiveness of vehicle safety systems, and not speed limit.

Practically speaking, you're better off letting people get into accidents, and then penalizing them after the fact for causing the accident. Several studies on red light cameras have demonstrated this, since people see a yellow light and slam on their brakes to avoid a red light camera ticket -- which in California can not be appealed unless you can demonstrate that the yellow light at the intersection in question lasts less than 4.8 seconds. This because some municipalities were speeding up the yellow lights to increase red light camera ticket revenue.

So yeah, there's a lot of things you should be able to do without a license, like operating a hot dog cart, for which licenses are required, but actually do nothing.

I'm reminded of when my driver's license was stolen; I went to the DMV to get them to reissue a new on, and asked for a different number. They wouldn't give me one, even with a police report, until I squawked up to a supervisor. It's the same number with a 'B". But considered in retrospect, did their issuing the new number and invalidating the old one stop the thief from using the license as identification? No. They got someone who looked like me to place a mail hold at the post office, with the intent of picking up my mail, including credit card and other statements, as well as credit card issued based on identity theft at a later date. I missed getting my mail two days in a row when I was expecting a letter, which is how I found out. The point of this story is that a driver's license does nothing for me, including legally identify me, unless the

Re:Search engines

[AmiMoJo]

So, licenses serve two purposes: (1) prevent other people from entering the field, so as to raise the relative value of the labor allowed to operate in the field, and ensure collective bargaining power for those allowed to participate, and (2) as a revenue mechanism for the state.

In the case of cars and aircraft it is to ensure they are operated safely. If you want to fling tonnes of metal around at high speed society requires you to demonstrate your ability to do it without injuring others first.

iTunes

[AmiMoJo]

The reason iTunes isn't up there is that the iTunes music shop isn't accessible through a web browser. You can see what is on there but all the links just try to make you download iTunes. Google indexes the web, not iTunes.

Re:iTunes

[John Napkintosh]

Sure, downloads happen through iTunes, but it would still behoove Apple to point searches for songs to iTunes in some way, even if through some intermediary that launches iTunes to actually make the download.

Which is probably why Google were surprised that Apple is not already doing so. Not that that has anything at all to do with copyright infringement.

Re:iTunes

[dkf]

the dam song(s)

What?

"I'm big and wooden, yo ho ho,
Made by beavers, in the snow,
I hold back water, now you know,
I'm a happy dam, restraining the flow!"

Not quite a top ten hit I think...

You can't block it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you remove every one of them at the same time. As well as the people.
Good luck. You already lost that battle.
How about you stop with your greed and abusive ways, then people might care.

Radio never killed anyone, the internet won't either.
Adapt or actually just seriously die already.
I'm sick of hearing your whining, BPI.
I don't even buy music associated with you, but shut the fuck up already.

Really?

[Maximum Prophet]

Geoff Taylor of the BPI said that Google has the both the information and technological ability to directly stomp infringing sites...

Everything is possible if someone else has to do it and pay for it.

Re:Really?

[Score Whore]

Quite often in society people are told that they cannot engage in certain lines of business because the associated externalities cannot be mitigated. The question that should be asked, and may be trivially answered 'yes', is whether what Google provides outweighs the negative impact on third parties. If it turns out that Google can't mitigate the negative externalities then perhaps Google should be shut down. Or perhaps they should just have to pay a portion of their revenue to the people who are harmed by Google's practices. It wouldn't be the first time such things had to happen, for example power plants, oil drilling and refining, farming (fertilizer run-off), etc.

Re:Really?

[Jockle]

You bring up a good point. To prevent the unauthorized copying of certain information (which results in certain companies not gaining money when they believe they should, which is just horrible and sad), Google and the Internet must be destroyed. Collective punishment is good, and your comparisons are even better. Such genius!

Re:War Profits

[SuperTechnoNerd]

They will try to control it.. Or kill it.. With help from our bought government.
What do you think?

Extra-judicial action

[Okian Warrior]

Okay, so here we have a group of self-interested parties who suggest banding together so that they can

a) Determine by themselves whether someone is acting illegally, and

b) Take action against them by withholding services

c) Without judicial oversight, and with no discussion of due process whatsoever, including: warnings, appeal, or handling mistakes.

So we now have the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which allows companies to make virtually anything a federal offense just by putting it in their TOS, they can pick and choose who they do business with at their whim, and are themselves historically immune from prosecution.

Of course, they will only use their power for good.

I think we need to enforce a "customer bill of rights" which states that a company cannot just cut off customers at will. It should be enforced by the government as a condition for being granted a business license. If a service is available and the customer can pay, then the company has an obligation to make the transaction. (Glossing over some details for brevity)

Are you against such a regulation? Under what circumstances can a company refuse to serve a customer? Race? Gender? Marital status? Sexual orientation? Ethnicity? What is the difference between any of these and arbitrary black-listing?

David Lowery, panderer

[reve_etrange]

David Lowery's role in all this is similar (though less evil) to that of women who go into rural Thailand to convince families to give up their daughters, under the false pretenses that they will have comfortable housing and gainful employment in the city.

Do not trust label scouts.

Cheapskates?

[benjfowler]

So I suppose the music business is too cheap and nasty to just stump up the money to advertise music through AdWords (and pay more for words than two-bit pirate sites), so they'd rather abuse the courts and legal system to legislate to save themselves money?

Classy.

Re:Maybe they'll finally realize...

[reve_etrange]

The war on drugs was extremely successful. As planned, it created a massive free labor population, funneled drug money directly to law enforcement and created more business for lawyers and gun dealers. Ruining the lives of dissident youth was just a happy coincidence.

Own site?

[devent]

How about the Music and Movie Mafia* create their own music sites, which Google can index, and users can buy and download music and albums? *http://mafiaa.org/

They want to know why mp3skull.com comes up first (after Youtube)? Because they offer a useful service.
Without any trouble I can just download the song. Why can't the MAfia do a site like that?

You know, I would be somewhat compassion to the music artists and the Mafia, if they would not be such greedy asshats.
The copyright protected were expanded and expanded; payments for blank media introduced; DRM strengthened;
If the Mafia would actually try and not to be greedy asshats, like not sue private citizens.
Or like the GEMA (the German Mafia). I saw some weeks ego a video on Youtube that was posted here in Slashdot. But instead I get a "Sorry you can't see that song because the GEMA have not licensed any rights to it". I used a proxy to see the video nevertheless and then there was 4 seconds of a song at the beginning and 4 seconds of the same music at the end of a 5 minutes video! So for 4 seconds of a song, which should be well in fair-use rights, I can not see the video because of the GEMA.

So now I have no compassion with the Mafia and associated artists.
Put down copyright protection to about 20 years; remove the levy on blank media and pull down the DRM laws. Then we can talk again.

Re:War Profits

[wisnoskij]

No, SuperTechnoNerd is right.
The world is different now. The consumer recording VCR, or DVD "backup" regulations and software are simply something that could never be invented in this society. Corporations are on the lookout for inventions and laws and would take control away from them and they are 100% in a position to stop every single one.

In 20 years not only will there not new a more freeing inventions that invalidate labels or take control away from them, but it is likely that it will be impossible to pirate a song, movie, or game.

Re:iTunes? What's that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please paste a link to the iTunes web page that has this song available for sale.
Oh you can't?
Why not?
Oh.. iTunes isn't a website?
No wonder a WEB search engine doesn't have a WEB result for iTunes.

so far, the only solution seems to be Microsoft

[swschrad]

everybody else wrings their hands, or chases after users with no evidence but plenty of pistols blazing, but Microsoft actually is making some progress in taking down botnets. perhaps MS could sell their services to the MafIAA and shine a light into the darknet. it would probably cost them $1500 a song, but...

Re:the era of people paying gatekeepers is over

[neminem]

Funnily enough, sites like bandcamp and cdbaby profit from the creative process but have no hands involved in the creation of the product, too. Yet, I have absolutely no issue buying from those sites, nor even occasionally from itunes (which is far less indie). The difference being that they aren't skeezy or anti-consumer, and don't take the vast majority of the cut that should go to the artist.

A certain small amount of middle-manning is often necessary (an artist isn't necessarily good at non-artist-related activities, and in any case should only spend so much of their time doing those things if you want them to continue giving you the art you like.) I am always the happiest when I can contribute 100% of the profit directly to the person or people who created the work, but even if *most* of the profit goes to those people, I'm happy enough. (Which is good, since I usually pay by credit card, and I gather they generally take a couple percent off the top, too...)

Advertising, too, is not always bad. It's just bad when artists are *forced* to pay for advertising, have no say in what kind of advertising is being done where, or the worst, when they're promised advertising (with the money they're being forced to pay to the label they signed to), but never even receive any of note.

You're kidding, right?

[Overzeetop]

Maybe it's time for Google to be more symbiont and less parasite.

You can really say that in the same conversation which includes the "content" organizations who feed exclusively off the works of artists?

Re:iTunes? What's that?

[Score Whore]

https://itunes.apple.com/au/tv-season/game-of-thrones-season-1/id441216387
https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/call-me-maybe-single/id465744617

Know how I found those? I used bing and searched for "itunes call me maybe" and "itunes game of thrones". I imagine google could do the same.