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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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.

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.