Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

Is Google Losing It? by Forgefather · 2014-10-20 03:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

The more I see this kind of stuff about Google being forced to modify search results based on dumb things like 'right to be forgotten' the more I can't help but feel that Google's results just might not be reliable enough anymore. I know that right to be forgotten is only a European thing but I still can't help but get the feeling that I am no longer getting the best results for my search.

Although it brings bile to the back of my throat I think it may be time to see how Bing lines up against Google.

--
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"

Re:Is Google Losing It? by ameen.ross · 2014-10-20 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

And what makes you thing Bing doesn't have to obey EU laws when it does business in the EU? The situation with Bing could in fact be even more dire than with Google. Duckduckgo will be closer to the real thing.

--
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Njorthbiatr · 2014-10-20 04:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google isn't modifying their search results.
They're adding advertisements for legitimate content at the top of searches and on the side... For a price.
It's brilliant. I love you Google.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by alex67500 · 2014-10-20 04:35 · Score: 1

Don't you think Bing is doing the same?
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 04:46 · Score: 1

Duckduckgo is really improving lately. They now have a number of features such as auto complete search terms, image search, etc. that I missed from Google. Plus I like how they present results when searching for an obscure term or TLAs (three letter acronyms). For a while I had Duckduckgo as my default search engine, but found myself drifting back to Google more and more. Now I'm doing that less and make a conscious effort to use Duckduckgo exclusively. They've come a long way. No I don't work for them, but if you checked them out before and didn't like something about them, try them again.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by pjt33 · 2014-10-20 04:48 · Score: 1

If they're highlighting Google Play then I can see a new anti-trust investigation in the near future.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by MozeeToby · 2014-10-20 04:51 · Score: 2

Yep, the judge understands that the internet is global but he has totally forgotten how international law works. You cannot prevent a company from doing something outside of your borders just because it is illegal inside your borders. What if China decided that if Google wanted a Chinese presence they had to filter all results for all users globally? How is that any different other than the subject matter being blocked?
Re:Is Google Losing It? by davester666 · 2014-10-20 05:54 · Score: 2

It doesn't sound like Google is being "forced". It sounds like Google found some companies willing to cough up a bunch of money to be promoted when the user searches for online music/video [not that Google Play will have to pay, but they needed another company to pay so Play could also be promoted, otherwise it's more of pushing their services over competitors].

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-20 06:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

What if China decided that if Google wanted a Chinese presence they had to filter all results for all users globally?
China really wants to be able to do this. Whenever you see UN statements about taking control of the Internet away from the US and putting it in the hands of a UN committee, what they really mean is "We want China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, etc to be able to say 'This website violates our laws so it must be removed from The Internet even though it is located outside our borders."
This isn't to say that US control is a great thing, but when you get into a "lesser of two evils" choice of US or UN (i.e. China/Iran/etc) control, I'll pick US control every time.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Richy_T · 2014-10-20 06:21 · Score: 1

China already could do this. Likely Google would decide in that case that it simply wasn't worth having a presence in China and China apparently doesn't care or doesn't think the trade-off is worth it.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Richy_T · 2014-10-20 06:24 · Score: 2

Just like the other search engines were doing when we all decided we liked Google more. What goes around comes around.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by MozeeToby · 2014-10-20 08:59 · Score: 1

How would this work exactly? Should I be arrested for drug charges if I smoke pot while visiting Amsterdam? Should I be arrested upon entering Iran for drawing a picture of Mohamed while in the UK?
Extradition has rules and requirements, one of which is that the charges being extradited for have to be valid in both countries.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Em+Adespoton · 2014-10-20 10:46 · Score: 1

S/could do/does/.
Google only has a presence in Hong Kong; it has no presence in Mainland China. The two already went through this in the past. Eventually, with the way things currently look in HK, we'll likely see Google vanish from HK as well.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-10-20 13:06 · Score: 2

Google isn't modifying their search results.
Yes, they are. According to OP, they'll be putting what THEY deem to be "legitimate" sites at the top. And asking for pay to be listed as "legitimate".

If that isn't "modifying search results" for money, I don't know what is.

Google just found a new way to be evil.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Neil+Boekend · 2014-10-20 19:32 · Score: 1

Google doesn't really change anything. They just check the ads against a supplied list of providers that bought the searched content and won't place an add for a site that hasn't legally got the content.
Just like now. The illegal content providers didn't pay for ads anyway.
It's genius!

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-10-21 09:57 · Score: 1

Google doesn't really change anything.
YES, they ARE! It's a search engine. Changing the order of the search results changes EVERYTHING.

And by their own admission, they're doing based on [A] payment, and [B] their subjective perception of whether the content is real.

I repeat: that *IS* modifying search results, and they're doing it for money.

When I search, I'm not searching for the highest bidder.

This is why I am using Google less and less now. I have actually started using Bing (which in some ways isn't much better), and I'm giving DuckDuckGo a serious try.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Neil+Boekend · 2014-10-22 18:26 · Score: 1

They ALREADY put ads on top. They have for years. This is the same. They just check the ads against that list (which doesn't change anything because the illegal content providers don't have the money to pay for the ads.
Now you may argue that the ads are wrong. OK. That is arguable. But that is a different discussion.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-10-23 13:31 · Score: 1

They ALREADY put ads on top. They have for years.
No shit, Sherlock. Figured that out, did you?

This is the same.
No, this is NOT the same. The ads they put at the top are separated from the rest of the search results, and clearly marked (as required by law... at least it is for newspapers) as advertisements or "sponsored" content.

This is different. The claim is that they will rearrange based on some subjective measure of the "legitimacy" of the content. That is not the same at all. It's not just advertising, it's changing your search results according to endorsement by Google.

I don't give the slightest DAMN what Google thinks about the contents of sites I search for. I just want honest search results, not "paid distortions" of their order.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Neil+Boekend · 2014-10-23 19:06 · Score: 1

They ALREADY put ads on top. They have for years.
No shit, Sherlock. Figured that out, did you?
What I haven't figured out yet is why you seem to have that figured out but you still argue like this changes anything. It doesn't.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Is Google Losing It? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-10-26 07:34 · Score: 1

What I haven't figured out yet is why you seem to have that figured out but you still argue like this changes anything.
Yes, this much is obvious.

google is a search engine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 03:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

And if it exists on the web, google should be able to find it.

By all means, go after (Via legal methods) sites hosting content illegally, but stop fskering with my search results. Half the damn web is now unsearchable for one reason or another.

Time to look at distributed, un-censurable search tech?

Re:google is a search engine by meustrus · 2014-10-20 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google is not an agnostic search system. Google is the king of search, and everyone is trying to hack around their algorithms to boost their search rankings. Is it really so terrible that Google itself should be outright asked to prefer search results that are "better for society"?
Don't get me wrong. I want a truly agnostic search engine. Badly. I want to be able to find the best source for what I'm looking for, not a couple dozen support forums with great SEO and an actual honest-to-goodness answer buried on page 47 of the search results. Google used to be the closest we could get to that, but that was a long time ago. Now they're basically a public utility, much like the internet itself. Although since so many people are stealing from it and its customers, I'd say it's more like cable TV.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:google is a search engine by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-20 06:03 · Score: 2

Is it really so terrible that Google itself should be outright asked to prefer search results that are "better for society"?
Who gets to decide what is "better for society"? Also, do these decisions happen on a country-by-country basis without affecting other countries? Because I'm sure China would love to censor search results world-wide for "the good of society." I'm also sure that the RIAA would love to make sure that their member organizations get more Google ranking than Indie labels for "the better of society."

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:google is a search engine by mattack2 · 2014-10-20 12:21 · Score: 1

Who gets to decide what is "better for society"?
Society does. Society makes laws, and people are expected to follow those laws, whether or not they believe in them personally, or face the consequences. If they disagree, they should get the laws changed, and not simply break them.
Re:google is a search engine by meustrus · 2014-10-21 08:44 · Score: 1

Notice the air quotes around "better for society". I would rather avoid discussing whether that's true, because that discussion is happening elsewhere.
What I want is a a "truly agnostic search engine". That would mean nobody can mess with the search results, not by law and not by hacking. Perhaps I didn't make this clear, but I don't expect Google will ever be that again.
I feel like musing a bit on what would satisfy this desire. There are a few problems with search results: 1) They lack context; 2) They are easily manipulated; 3) They aren't good at translating what we say we want into what we think we want. These three problems are usually alleviated in society by human minds being context-driven and by getting multiple opinions from multiple sources. The natural solution would seem to be for the "search engine" to engage us not with a simple text box, but in some sort of conversation. The search engine would then consult a network of other search engines and try to deliver what looks like the best result. What's the best result? Depends on the conversation, the context, and the value of the results.
All three of those things seem to be beyond the grasp of Google. For one, the closest you'll get to a conversation is its asinine suggestions that are based on what query the other meatbags thought would get Google to spit out the right result, and is just as likely to include pop culture references as whatever you are actually looking for. For two, Google may warn you when a link has been paid for, but otherwise it provides no context about where that page came from, what other things it's good for, what perspective informs it, and how credible it probably is (which is a shame, because I'm pretty certain Google does usually know these things). And for three, while Google might know certain measures of value (but won't tell you because it it doesn't provide context), it has no idea exactly which measure you're interested in right now.
Say you look up the term "global warming". Are you interested in an objective history of the concept? Are you looking for pure data and research? Are you looking for the politics surrounding it? Are you looking for a place to start a fight? Are you looking to join a community of people who think like you on the issue? Knowing how to get what you want means knowing the measures of value yourself. Maybe you know by now that Wikipedia is the most likely place to find objectivity. It usually takes a college education to know where to find (and how to read) good scholarly material. Politics is even trickier: since every author has a viewpoint (and Google either has no viewpoint, an SEO-hacker biased viewpoint, or your viewpoint, and it won't tell you which), the only way you can get an unbiased view is to somehow survey all viewpoints and figure out for yourself how they fit together and which are most common. Community is even harder. How is Google supposed to know the best places to troll? If you're lucky you'll find a laser-targeted clickbait titled "Top 11 Places to Troll Global Warming Believers/Deniers". Even worse, how is Google supposed to know if you will like any particular community? It's easier to find places ripe for conflict than places you'll actually fit into.
Web search is a hard problem. Google took a shortcut that got us most of the way there: they take the entire internet and filter the results according to your query, then they order them by a search ranking determined by how many other web sites link to that web site. In essence, Google's shortcut to human-like social intelligence is to crowd-source the intelligence to actual humans. Because those humans have motivations other than helping Google, that leaves Google vulnerable to manipulation. Ever since Google became the de facto standard of finding shit on the internet, they've been contending with that manipulation every day. It works...usually. Or at least sometimes. At least it's better than not having Google. But n

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:google is a search engine by meustrus · 2014-10-21 08:49 · Score: 1

Who gets to decide what is "better for society"?
Society does.
This. Notice my "scare quotes" around "better for society". mattack2 has hit on the head exactly what I would have said if it wouldn't have distracted from my point. There's no way to perfectly determine what is best for society, but we do have mostly-good-most-of-the-time ways.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re: google is a search engine by meustrus · 2014-10-21 09:06 · Score: 1

Same reasoning behind doing things like removing ext3 support in chrome.
Why would a web browser have ext3 support in the first place? Are you one of those people that like to make everything confusing by dropping random words from otherwise meaningful statements? Like "Free as in [Free] Beer"? Um, does that mean freedom because beer is liberating? Well, don't "let the cat out [of the bag]" on that one. It might bring home a mouse. Anyway, maybe I shouldn't "judge a book [by its cover]". As in, never judge a book, ever, for any reason, because clearly your English is better than mine. Why, I could hire you to write my Slashdot comments for me and "kill two birds [with one stone]". Not sure what I would do with the two birds, but then I could at least be an asshole on the internet without ever needing to read what the other assholes have to say.
Anyway, as we all know, once you go Boolean, you never go back. Amen brotha.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.

So really what's happening is that... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2014-10-20 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google isn't going to change anything, just charge legal sites to place their ads on piracy searches.

Good on you Google for exploiting this for profit. 'Murika!

Re:So really what's happening is that... by johanw · 2014-10-20 03:52 · Score: 2

Yes, a browser plugin that removes the first boxed ad results would be sufficient (for now).
Re:So really what's happening is that... by JonahsDad · 2014-10-20 03:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

What I want to know is: If a piracy site wants to pay to place their ads in this box, will Google allow it?
Re:So really what's happening is that... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 04:22 · Score: 1

Piracy stopped being about morality long, long ago. It's about profit and nothing but profit.
Google is merely doing the same. In fact it makes perfect sense considering their main business model.
Also, debating the morality of an advertisement company?
Re:So really what's happening is that... by c · 2014-10-20 04:27 · Score: 2

Google isn't going to change anything, just charge legal sites to place their ads on piracy searches.
Seems reasonable. How else is Google supposed to know the difference between honest content providers and those dirty pirates?
The whole DMCA takedown debacle shows us that you clearly can't take someones word that they're a copyright owner; they frequently lie about it. But we've been told time and time again that those dirty pirates expect everything for free, so you'd expect that charging money for listings will obviously let the legit operators bubble to the top.

--
Log in or piss off.
Re:So really what's happening is that... by Alumoi · 2014-10-20 05:53 · Score: 2

You mean something like adblock? I haven't see ads in gogle for quite some time.
Re:So really what's happening is that... by Sparton · 2014-10-20 13:23 · Score: 1

What I want to know is: If a piracy site wants to pay to place their ads in this box, will Google allow it?
Probably, but I guess those on the anti-piracy side figure they'll now have more of a paper trail to follow to find and deal with those paying to get those ads up.

Re:Maybe fighting piracy by johanw · 2014-10-20 03:51 · Score: 2

Fortunately The Pirate Bay has its own search function. As have most other torrent and warez sites.

Re:Google is just creating an entry... by johanw · 2014-10-20 03:55 · Score: 2

Yes, I'm also switching to more privacy-friendly search engines. It can go quickly - remember AltaVista when Google came up?

That new search engine has to be in a free country however. The US gives in too quickly when bribes, I mean campaign money, is offered by media companies.

Do the Right Thing by ZipK · 2014-10-20 03:55 · Score: 1

Shareholders wave your hands in the air!

alternatives by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 03:56 · Score: 1

"legal alternatives" to torrents reminds me abstinence-only sex education where they list "healthy alternatives" to sex for teens. Bake a cake together! Go on romantic walk on the beach! Have a pillow fight!

Re:alternatives by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 04:21 · Score: 4, Funny

1. Bake a cake together
2. Go for a romantic walk
3. Have a pillow fight
4. Shag like animals
Re:alternatives by Stormwatch · 2014-10-20 05:54 · Score: 2

Good grief. "Abstinence-only sex education" is like swimming lessons where they teach nothing but how to stay out of the water.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:alternatives by Rande · 2014-10-23 21:20 · Score: 1

Certainly, sex education where you figuratively got into the water and taught how to do the various strokes would have been a lot more fun.

And if no legal option exists? by damn_registrars · 2014-10-20 04:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

What if I am looking to download a ROM from an 8bit NES game? What if I want to watch a movie that isn't available to stream anywhere and hasn't been on DVD for years (yet still has a valid copyright which the owner is exercising and yet not selling copies of said movie)? What if I want to see episodes of TV shows that have never ben on DVD? What will google highlight for options then?

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:And if no legal option exists? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 04:20 · Score: 1

It would not be the end of the world. I'm sure you could easily find some other entertainment.
And guess what: the situation of the 8-bit ROMs not being available on every warez site might actually encourage the copyright holders to republish them as part of retro compilations by legal means.
Re:And if no legal option exists? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 05:04 · Score: 1

You do know that the only reason that copyright holders are re-releasing as retro games, is that the success of the warez sites have showned to those thick headed copyright holders that there is a market for it.
Re:And if no legal option exists? by tepples · 2014-10-20 05:22 · Score: 2

Or rather, you should cough up the cash to purchase current legal offerings that are similar
Until the copyright owner of the original successfully sues anyone else who produces something similar.
Re:And if no legal option exists? by tepples · 2014-10-20 05:29 · Score: 1

If MPAA is a problem, then stop buying MPAA movies.
But is there a viable alternative? I thought U.S. theater chains had a policy of showing only movies rated by MPAA. And I thought all free-to-air television that isn't PBS was MPAA. (NBC shares a corporate parent with Universal, ABC with Disney, CBS with Paramount, and Fox with, well, Last Century Fox.)
Re:And if no legal option exists? by tepples · 2014-10-20 12:09 · Score: 1

Or you could dump the ROM from the integrated circuit on the mini console and play that, which should be lawful under 17 USC 117(a) and foreign counterparts.

Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by UnknownSoldier · 2014-10-20 04:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

When "piracy" became hijacked from meaning the naval context, copying was rampant. In the 80's as kids we couldn't afford all the games so we (illegally) shared them. Hell, I got into computers simply because it was a fun challenge to "krack" software. In the 90's In college/university we used BBS's, FSP (how many know about _that_ protocol!!), FTP with hidden directories containing control characters, IRC with XDCC, binary newsgroup with split .RARs., in 2000's we used Torrents and/or P2P such as Emule, etc. It wasn't until years later did we learn that piracy = lack of respect for the author's distribution. As adults we buy things because we want to support the author(s) to produce more. And if it is crap we vote with our wallet -- and tell others to not buy it.

What is kind of ironic and completely counter-intuitive is that those who pirate tend to spend more but that is a discussion for another day. (Part of the problem is that certain "assets" are not even available to be legally purchased, etc.)

IMHO Piracy begins AND ends with education. Futurama's Bender made fun of this "archaic philosophy" that "Sharing is illegal" by joking "You wouldn't steal X, right? Or would I !" meme along with the popular "You wouldn't download car?" Because most people are able to separate the issue from money vs freedom. i.e. Artists want to share their creations. Consumers want to share those same creations -- that is what culture does -- preserves "popular" art in whatever medium. Unfortunately the context behind those same reason's don't always sync up. You have bands like The Who who don't care about "bootlegging"; other sellout bands like Metallica that only care about the money and could care less if fans help "market" the band.

Kids these day's aren't stupid. They are questing the status quo that: "Why is illegal sharing illegal? Because of arbitrary financial reasons??" id software created the shareware model -- give part of the game away for free, customers can spend money to buy the rest. These days Humble Bundles let people pay what they want. IMHO this is the correct way to do things. Compromise between 2 conflicting ideals. Open Source or Creative Commons is another approach.

Google making it harder to find digital goods is not going to change a dam thing. Google wasn't around when we were kids and piracy was rampant. Removing a search engine will only drive the process back underground when it peaked with The Pirate Bay in the mid 2000's.

Piracy has existed since the beginning of the network. Any technological means to try to remove it is like pissing in the ocean. Yeah good luck with that !

Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by UnknownSoldier · 2014-10-20 05:31 · Score: 1

Incorrect.
As a kid for the longest time I couldn't see or reason how simply copying a number* was illegal.
* Where on the Apple ][ //e this number was 2 nibbles / byte * 256 bytes * 16 sectors * 34 tracks = 278, 528 hex digits.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by UnknownSoldier · 2014-10-20 05:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Correct. The dirty secret of Copyright is that it was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit !!
I've posted about this in the past ...

"The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books."
and

"Pope Alexander VI issued a bull in 1501 against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time."
and

"The first copyright privilege in England bears date 1518 and was issued to Richard Pynson, King's Printer, the successor to William Caxton. The privilege gives a monopoly for the term of two years. The date is 15 years later than that of the first privilege issued in France. Early copyright privileges were called "monopolies," ...
and

"In England the printers, known as stationers, formed a collective organization, known as the Stationers' Company. In the 16th century the Stationers' Company was given the power to require all lawfully printed books to be entered into its register. Only members of the Stationers' Company could enter books into the register. This meant that the Stationers' Company achieved a dominant position over publishing in 17th century England"
History of Copyright Law
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by aaaaaaargh! · 2014-10-20 05:59 · Score: 2

The vast majority of piracy is a necessity for the majority of the world's population. In most parts of the world a student cannot even afford half of the textbooks he needs and certainly cannot afford to buy video games for 60 USD each. Modern economy spends billions on advertising to create artificial demands, so it is not suprising that people who cannot afford all these shiny things copy them if they have the opportunity.
When I was a poor student many years ago (in the 90s), I pirated everything, every productivity software and every game I wanted to play for the simple reason that I could not possibly have afforded them. I had difficulties to make ends meet at the end of each month, often couldn't pay my phone bill and often had to 're-shuffle' credits to keep heating and warm water. It would have been outright crazy to buy, say, a copy of Adobe photoshop or protools for my hobbies or even for professional education, I would have literally had to starve in order to afford any such software.
Now that I have a reasonable income I almost never pirate and buy the stuff, if that's possible. (There are surprisingly many things you cannot buy in smaller countries, affordable streaming of TV series being on top of the list.) Sure there are also some people who copy content even though they could buy it, but I'm pretty sure these are a minority. Many companies deliberately do not make the correct calculations, though, they don't ask "How much does all the software this guy puts on his computer cost in total, including all upgrades?", they instead whine that "this guy could have bought our product X but instead pirated it" ignoring the fact that if you'd add up all the stuff people want because of their ads or really need, you'd end up with an astronomical bill in comparison to which hardware costs would be neglectable. Thank good we have gratis open source software now, so it is indeed possible to go without pirating nowadays unless you're in a specific field like graphics or audio engineering where it still hard to do everything with gratis software in a competitive way that you can also put on your CV.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-20 06:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

At the time, there was a very good reason for Copyright. I'd argue that the same reason still exists. If we didn't have copyright, what would stop someone from taking some big content item (be it a movie, book, song, etc), repackaging it (ripping the song and burning it to DVD, scanning the book and reprinting it, etc) and selling it without giving the creator any money? Creators could find that their hard work yields someone else getting rich while their copies don't sell.
The big problem with copyright isn't that it exists, but the length. When copyright was 14 years plus a one-time, optional 14 year renewal, it was fine. Under that system, an item released in 2014 would enter Public Domain in 2042 (assuming renewal took place). Under the current system, that same item would enter Public Domain in 2134 (assuming the author doesn't die before 2039 and that copyright terms aren't lengthened more). The former system means that I could enjoy something and live to see it enter Public Domain. The latter system ensures I won't live to see this happen. This effectively kills Public Domain and destroys the balance that we had with copyright: Limited monopoly granted over the work in return for giving it back to the Public Domain when the copyright expired.
If we put copyrights back to a 14 year + 14 year one-time renewal system, many of the problems with Copyright would go away.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by UnknownSoldier · 2014-10-20 06:24 · Score: 1

Yes, the ridiculous length is indeed a problem.
The "evils" of copyright was debated back in 1841 !!

"The easiest form of parochialism to fall into is to assume that we are smarter than the past generations, that our thinking is necessarily more sophisticated. This may be true in science and technology, but not necessarily so in wisdom."
-- "Macaulay on Copyright"

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/...
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by Richy_T · 2014-10-20 06:39 · Score: 2

It was peer pressure. Sure, you start with a C-15 but before you know it, you're on to C-60s and then it's not long before even a C-90 just isn't doing it anymore. It's only when you catch yourself writing out the third page of play codes that you know you've hit rock bottom.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by metrix007 · 2014-10-20 11:35 · Score: 1

Piracy has been used to mean copyright infringement since the 1700s.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by s0nicfreak · 2014-10-20 11:55 · Score: 1

Honestly, when I first started pirating - really until Don’t Copy That Floppy came along - I saw it as the same as lending a book to a friend. It was just that now with the wonders of modern technology, we could both have it at the same time!
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by s0nicfreak · 2014-10-20 11:57 · Score: 1

If we didn't have copyright, what would stop someone from taking some big content item (be it a movie, book, song, etc), repackaging it (ripping the song and burning it to DVD, scanning the book and reprinting it, etc) and selling it without giving the creator any money?
Uh, even though copyright exists, this is happening.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by naich · 2014-10-20 21:49 · Score: 1

FSP (how many know about _that_ protocol!!)
I remember FSP. You'd set it going on a file, log out, go on holiday for a couple of weeks, survive a nuclear war that reduces man back to the stone age, rebuild society and rediscover lost technology, rebuild the internet, and FSP would start downloading it again as if nothing had happened. Slow as hell, but you couldn't kill it with a bad connection.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-21 00:28 · Score: 1

Yes, but there is legal recourse for the creator when this happens. If you toss out copyright, then anyone can do this with impunity. And if you think this will hurt the big companies, think again. Who do you think will do this more than anyone if copyright is tossed out the window? If you make an indie film, you'll find it suddenly "re-released" by a dozen movie companies all hoping to make a buck off of it without giving anything back to you.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by s0nicfreak · 2014-10-26 04:35 · Score: 1

Why would customers buy the "re-release" rather than buying from the creator - unless the creator is stupid and releasing it in a way that is less accessible than the big companies? Copyright was a necessity in a world where only the big companies could get things out to the public, and where they could do it much easier; where you had to press a fuckton of DVDs to sell your film, where you had to get a major publisher to release your film in theaters and get it on cable tv. But now, when every Tom, Dick and Harry can distribute his film via the internet, and customers prefer it that way vs DVDs, theaters and cable, and all the "big companies" are doing is fighting a battle long ago lost to keep DVD, theaters and tv alive; copyright is silly.

I'm not saying there should be NO laws. Maybe just a major revamp of copyright would work. But copyright as it stands, in today's world, is both silly and non-functional. I say change things before the last people get over the idea that "violating copyright is wrong because it's illegal" and "Since it's illegal, I could be punished for violating copyright." Because THOSE are the reasons that the majority of people who don't violate copyright don't do it. And even a lot of those people have violated it one time or another without even realizing it, because it's so archaic.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-26 13:02 · Score: 1

Imagine if we abolished copyright tomorrow and Walmart could stock Walmart-brand DVDs of all TV shows/movies. Plus, a Walmart streaming service where all of your favorite shows/movies could be viewed for half the monthly price of Netflix. Of course, none of the money would go to the people who actually made the shows. Just to Walmart. And it would be priced intentionally low so that it would make financial sense for people to buy them from Walmart and not from anyone else. (Just like how Walmart does to other stores when they open up.)
Just because every Tom, Dick, and Harry *can* distribute his film on the Internet doesn't mean he can beat the big companies. They still have huge divisions dedicated to marketing films - i.e. convincing people that THIS is the film they should spend their time watching, not that other film. Without copyright, those big companies could grab any promising film that Tom, Dick, or Harry makes and distribute it on their own without giving Tom, Dick, or Harry anything.
If anything, the reasons for copyright are more alive than ever. It's the copyright term length that's messed up - not the existence of copyright itself. 14 years + a one-time 14 year renewal would be more than enough for anyone to make whatever profit there is to be made off of a work. Sure, there will be the odd work that still makes profits 30 years later (e.g. Star Wars, Mickey Mouse), but that's the exception, not the rule. Right now, we're setting copyright terms based on profitability of a minority of works, locking all the others up until all of the other ones stop making money. How many works from 1986 (28 years ago) could be freed up for new creations if copyright were brought back to its original limits?

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) by s0nicfreak · 2014-10-26 15:34 · Score: 1

Plus, a Walmart streaming service where all of your favorite shows/movies could be viewed for half the monthly price of Netflix. Of course, none of the money would go to the people who actually made the shows. Just to Walmart. And it would be priced intentionally low so that it would make financial sense for people to buy them from Walmart and not from anyone else. (Just like how Walmart does to other stores when they open up.)
Unless Walmart has some magical way to get all new movies before they are released, people will get them from the creators first; and if there's no DRM on there, they'd have no reason to re-buy them from Walmart. What would happen is that some popular creators would sign deals with Walmart, saying that they give all new content to Walmart. But then once Walmart releases them, they'd be put up on torrent sites and such.

And even if it did turn out the way you say, why would that be bad? That would encourage competition. If anyone can stream all the same shows, they have to lure customers in with other things - interface, speed, video/audio quality, etc. Netflix pretty much has a monopoly on streaming American shows right now, Crunchyroll on Japanese shows. And that's not good because there is little reason for them to innovate. Amazon streaming video has Nickelodeon shows, but I only watch stuff that is free with Prime - if not for the other features of Amazon Prime, I'd do without. Two shows I watch stream on their own websites the day of airing, and I watch them on there rather than Netflix to see them faster.

If anything, the reasons for copyright are more alive than ever. It's the copyright term length that's messed up - not the existence of copyright itself. 14 years + a one-time 14 year renewal would be more than enough for anyone to make whatever profit there is to be made off of a work.
Then we'd just live in a world where everything is revamped every 14 years, so that companies can keep their copyright. All those horrible movies based on 70s & 80s cartoons that have been released in recent years? Imagine nothing but that, forever.

Yay! by Opportunist · 2014-10-20 04:21 · Score: 1

Let's just hope you can filter for those legal sites.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:So I have to go to Page 2 now for illegal sites by linear+a · 2014-10-20 04:22 · Score: 1, Redundant

Think of the children!

wrong headline by whyAreAllNicksTaken · 2014-10-20 04:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google Monetizes 'To Fight Piracy' By Charging Legal Sites

Fixed that for you

Re:wrong headline by thegarbz · 2014-10-20 09:34 · Score: 1

This is a good thing. Private companies unrelated to piracy should not have to foot the bill for implementing the hopes and dreams of another company.

Gasp by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 04:34 · Score: 1

The worlds most profitable advertising company has agreed to sell advertisements? Color me shocked.

Re:Gasp by KozmoStevnNaut · 2014-10-20 08:17 · Score: 1

Cats and dogs living together!

--
Eat the rich.

Great idea by qbast · 2014-10-20 04:37 · Score: 2

Most people are already conditioned to not even notice adverts. So pulling 'legal sites' from normal results (where they would be close to top anyway) to advert box will have exactly the opposite result.

no more - THX by AndyKron · 2014-10-20 04:51 · Score: 1

I used to listen to music, but I hate the music industry so much I just don't care anymore. I spend my money elsewhere.

Out of Google's dictionary: by American+Patent+Guy · 2014-10-20 05:19 · Score: 1

Legal: adj.; the ones who pay us money.

Tested by tepples · 2014-10-20 05:21 · Score: 2

I tried six queries on Google from a PC running Firefox for Windows in a U.S. state bordering Lake Michigan. One produced ads alongside a bunch of bootleg organic results:

song of the south download brought ads for a bootleg DVD and another bootleg DVD

The rest produced a bunch of bootleg organic results and no ads:

song of the south torrent
spartakus and the sun beneath the sea download
spartakus and the sun beneath the sea torrent
pinocchio and the emperor of the night download
pinocchio and the emperor of the night torrent

There are illegal sites?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-20 06:08 · Score: 1

Why are google even indexing them if they are "illegal"?

Huh by StripedCow · 2014-10-20 06:56 · Score: 1

If they can tell legal from non-legal, why do they even show the illegal stuff?

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.

Re:Huh by LessThanObvious · 2014-10-20 10:29 · Score: 1

They should index them because it isn't the job of a search engine to censor the internet. If the site is illegal, it is the job of legal authorities to take it off line. It is a dangerous road to take to let Google edit what content is findable. I want a free and open internet, not the internet according to Google. How long before they start taking suggestions from the government about hiding anything they don't want you to see? After year years of consolidation in search our options are Google, Bing and a short list of also-ran search engines that offer shitty results.

Control of visibility of product ads by tepples · 2014-10-20 08:20 · Score: 1

"If only [the product ad display] worked when [clicking the link marked] shopping but not [when otherwise] searching the web," then clarifying which link: "that little [shopping] button at the top of the Google search page." It appears AC wants to see "product ads" only when following a link to search the product ads, not when searching for a generic term.

Derivative works by tepples · 2014-10-20 08:25 · Score: 2

The amount of corrupt stuff they have done over the years is shocking. That includes [...] suing INDIES FOR RELEASING THEIR OWN STUFF FOR FREE.

Perhaps the indies being sued are producing work that's derivative of or otherwise substantially similar to one or more works whose copyright is owned by a major incumbent publisher. This is especially likely in music, where it can be proven that there are only about 105 million possible distinct musical hooks. (Want me to clarify?)

Re:Teh G shoots! $core$! by weilawei · 2014-10-20 08:35 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Really? Troll?

Stuff like this is one area where commercial companies are providing a lower quality of service. If you provide better service than the pirates, purchasing suddenly becomes a much more attractive option.

Myself, I either prefer to pay an artist directly, go see a show, or listen to Pandora or the radio. Purchasing DRM'd music isn't on my todo list.

How does it promote progress? by tepples · 2014-10-20 08:35 · Score: 1

How does this dog in the manger attitude "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by forcing the public to go without a film that has won an Academy Award and been placed on major lists of historically significant films, such as Song of the South?

Re:How does it promote progress? by Archfeld · 2014-10-20 10:55 · Score: 1

I've got Song of the South, on one of my hard drives somewhere. I downloaded it a few years a go and kept it. Try the torrents, particularly in Spain.
Briar Rabbit Rocks...

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

Re:Teh G shoots! $core$! by metrix007 · 2014-10-20 11:30 · Score: 1

Your comment wasn't a troll at all. Sorry to see the ignorant have mod points yet again.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Impressively smart move, indeed... by Optali · 2014-10-21 23:08 · Score: 1

I heard it yesterday on TV.
I was thrown aback by such an incredibly smart and useful move. Impressive.

Now instead of googlig for "free porn pictures to download" we will have to actually type in "www,thepiratebay.info" or "www.torrentz.com"... this will no doubt deter so many people that it will render all the P2P networks useless.

Google = Evil geniuses!!

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast

Slashdot Mirror

Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

82 of 160 comments (clear)