Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

Posted by timothy on Monday October 20, 2014 @03:34AM from the sponsored-links-you-might-also-enjoy dept.

mrspoonsi writes Google has announced changes to its search engine in an attempt to curb online piracy. The company has long been criticised for enabling people to find sites to download entertainment illegally. The entertainment industry has argued that illegal sites should be "demoted" in search results. The new measures, mostly welcomed by music trade group the BPI, will instead point users towards legal alternatives such as Spotify and Google Play. Google will now list these legal services in a box at the top of the search results, as well as in a box on the right-hand side of the page. Crucially, however, these will be adverts — meaning if legal sites want to appear there, they will need to pay Google for the placement.

31 of 160 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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"
1. 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)
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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!
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
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?
1. 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.
2. 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.
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!
1. 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).
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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: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.
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.
1. 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.
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 !
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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: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
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
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.
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
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.
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?)