Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google 186
suraj.sun writes "Last month, executives from two music-industry trade groups, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), asked Google if it could provide a means to help them track down pirated material more efficiently. Typically, copyright owners are responsible for finding pirated links and alerting Google, which is required by law to quickly remove the links. But Google's response raised eyebrows at some of the labels. James Pond, a Google manager, wrote in a letter dated September 20, that Google would be happy to help — for a price."
Well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only evil if you're not getting paid for it.
Re:Well duh (Score:2, Funny)
Is that why all open source software is considered evil by big companies?
Re:Well duh (Score:2, Insightful)
You might want to read the article and think about it for a second before posting.
If Google does what is being asked of them then they have to give in to China too, and where does it stop.
I thought that Google's way of telling the labels to go away was appropriate.
Re:Well duh (Score:2)
didn't they give in to china already?
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well duh (Score:2)
I think his point is that Google still believes in the motto "Do no evil", unless the pay is really good.
It's kind of like in Animal Farm, whereby the rule "No animal shall sleep in a bed" was modified by the pigs to add "with sheets".
Re:Well duh (Score:2)
So your argument is that identifying people who are pirating music is... evil?
Not sure I buy that one. In the US, at least, this is best dealt with at the level of the legislature. If you don't like the way it is, (I guess you want music to be inherently free?) find enough like-minded people and change it. Or (and I know this is crazy talk, but...) just don't pirate music.
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
"So your argument is that identifying people who are pirating music is... evil?"
Identifying them? No. Claiming that they're stealing something or hurting someone? Yes.
Re:Well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Want has nothing to do with it. Data, including music, is inherently free. No deal with Google or any other business, nor any law is going to change that.
Anyone can potentially commit millions in copyright infringement in under a minute by simply giving a thumbdrive loaded with music to another individual. There is no practical way for 3rd parties to know of that, let alone prevent it. No evidence to cover up.
The industry can still get people for public uses. But chasing down individuals is hopeless. Except for those few lives messed up, it's amusing watching them try. Google surely understands this, so perhaps asking for money is their way of disingenuously saying no. The cartels should stop making such stupid demands. As it is, Google is being squeezed. If they outright refuse, they get sued. So they have to tread carefully, and give the cartels something reasonable that forces them to realize that they're asking the impossible. This is something the cartels won't be able to do much with, and they will have a hard time blaming Google for not being more cooperative. It would be better if we could stop pussyfooting around, and just laugh the cartels off.
Irony (Score:2)
I think its a bit funny the fact that they expected "free" service from Google to catch people that expect getting a "free" service.
If I was Google I would be asking for a fee per, as well as a percentage.
They are basically asking for a filtering service which Limewire, Napster, etc... all said was basically impossible and impractical to implement (and that was in terms of only their piddly ass applications, not all internet everywhere). Google is saying "Sure we can do whatever you want us to do, but your paying for it", which I don't think is an unreasonable demand considering the request.
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like the way it is, (I guess you want music to be inherently free?)
I don't pirate music, I just don't want commercial businesses actively involved in policing copyrights. It is that simple.
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Interesting)
So your argument is that when something is for a good cause, it should be done as a matter of charity?
No, can't really see that, either. The labels have an incentive, a financial one, to protect their IP interests. They want assistance from Google. Google is willing to do so, for a fee. So the whole thing is an economic arrangement. If the labels think they can recover X, while paying Google X-Y, then it should be a no-brainer. If not, then Google prices itself out of the market, and makes no money off the label's little problem. I'm a fan of IP law, personally, though I think it's a little out of hand, duration-wise.
Re:Well duh (Score:2)
Re:Well duh (Score:2)
How about you forget these ridiculous plans and just go work at a petting zoo?
Re:Well duh (Score:2)
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only evil if you're not getting paid for it.
Helping companies track down people depriving them of legitimate revenue is not really evil is it? I produce something, I should be able to get paid for it. If you do not want to pay for it: fine, do not use it then.
I think the RIAA's tactics stink. I think some of the law firms going round issuing threats to sue just as money making scheme are even worse.
I do however think that if I produce a product that I choose to charge for an you use it without making that payment then you are the evil one, not me. I am not under a civic duty to work for free any more than you are under a civic duty to feed me for free.
I know some people may make the argument that just by copying something you are not depriving the producer of anything so it is not really theft. Maybe they are right, but fact still remains that if nobody pays for something then the people who make that something are pretty quickly going to have to find something else to do for a living. If only some people are paying for something that is used by many people then how is that fair on the people who are paying when the freeloaders get the same gain for no investment?
I am certainly not saying the current system is perfect, but it still remains that many of us now are in a field where what we produce can be copied for almost no extra effort than that which was put into creating the original. We have to find a way as a society of spreading the cost of creating that original work around all the people who use it so that the creator gets rewarded and is encouraged to carry on producing what they do. That usually means charging per copy so that when you sell a certain volume you recoup the amount invested in creating the original.
So all this leaves is the age old gripe about things being too expensive for some of us to afford so we will not pay. While this is true in a great many cases it is unfortunate that we cannot really determine how expensive something should be unless we know the full costs incurred in its production and how many people are going to pay for it.
Re:Well duh (Score:2)
All the MAFIAA has to do is google for it. If they want Google to work for them let 'em pay. I see nothing evil here. That's not to say Google has never done evil, but this ain't it.
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no faux pas here. Pay enough and we will help you.
I only hope the price is sufficiently high.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Informative)
A music industry source estimated that such charges could add up to several million dollars a year.
Which, unfortunately, would be something, but better than they deserve.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Funny)
That's a bargain, considering with each link they lose billions and billions of dollars.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a bargain, considering with each link they lose billions and billions of dollars.
No, billions is a readily quantifiable value. They don't want that, because then people might ask them to prove how much they lose. So instead, they lose either gazillions or bazillions, whichever is greater.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Sorry, can't do that. It states clearly here in paragraph b) Section 14 that all the pussies have to go down below. Rules are rules.
Re:Of course (Score:2)
And *I* love people who love to eat kittens; they taste like long pig. Mmmmm, bacon.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Funny)
but... but... but they are used to getting what they want, at no charge (usually at the taxpayer's expense). They aren't used to paying for the protection of their outdated distribution-control based business model!
"I understand we charge a standard rate of $5 per thousand queries, which is charged to recover our costs in providing this service," Pond wrote.
A music industry source estimated that such charges could add up to several million dollars a year.
If you burn 5 million dollars, you get... [Dr.EvilVoice]ONE BILLION queries! [/Dr.EvilVoice]
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Smells like feigned suprise, or perhaps they were hoping for some way to force google to give them free access.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically Google want to offset the search cost because they loose the income for the ads when a 3rd party access the search engine directly. And the labels acts surprised that they have to pay for a service.
It's funny how the labels and all the rest of the copyright lobby want to move the policing of pirated material to ISP's and search-providers and not to pay for it. I guess it's a bit of a rude awakening to have to start paying for things when you have had a free ride for decades.
Re:Of course (Score:2)
I find it ironic that we have two extremes that seem clueless about how much they have in common. At one extreme are the pirates who wouldn't pay for music if it were offered to them at a penny per song*. They don't seem to see why they should pay for what they are getting (music).
At the other extreme is the music/movie industry that seems to want Google/ISPs/Government/etc to do their job of finding and prosecuting pirated content for them free of charge (to the music/movie industry). They don't seem to comprehend why they should pay someone to provide them with a service (finding the copyrighted content being shared online).
Both sides want to get something for nothing. (Meanwhile, most of the general public just wants to get good content for reasonable prices without being treated like they are criminals for wanting the content at all.)
* This isn't everyone who pirates, mind you, just the extreme edge of the pirating community.
Re:Of course (Score:2)
It's funny how the labels and all the rest of the copyright lobby want to move the policing of pirated material to ISP's and search-providers and not to pay for it. I guess it's a bit of a rude awakening to have to start paying for things when you have had a free ride for decades.
Exactly the same organisations complain about the "we want content for free" attitude of consumers. Yet they themselves demand everybody work for them for free. Oh the irony ... juicy, delicious irony.
Ironic perhaps, and definitely hypocritical. Not to mention sociopathic.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
It is common in business: if there is something that you don't want to do but can't risk saying so outright, then you ask for more than the person asking is willing to pay. The tricky part is deciding to be teasingly high (the diplomatic no) or ridiculously high (the barely concealed insult).
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Google's service (Score:2, Insightful)
Google's search engine only catalogs search results. If these companies want special features, it makes sense that they would be willing to pay for its development. And since such a service would rely on Google's servers, there would also be an additional fee to help Google defray the cost of the additional load.
Google isn't standing up to anyone here. They are simply doing business.
Re:Google's service (Score:2)
Furthermore they're doing business in helping a company protect its legal rights.
Google providing search engine technology to help another company do business? EVIL!
Re:Google's service (Score:2)
Blah blah blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that a law is being broken and it's not "evil" for a company to assist another company protect their business--even if that business is careening towards an abyss.
If Blockbuster video wants technology to better enforce its late fees--it's not evil--it's just speeding along the inevitable demise of an out of date business model.
OK, question time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK, question time (Score:5, Funny)
WTF is a pirated link?
Basically any Slashdot story.
Re:OK, question time (Score:3, Funny)
It's one of those shortened URLs that bypass the DRM of the original URL while containing the same content which is most likely illegal content.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OK, question time (Score:2)
Dog-got-me-bangers? ie Sausage theft, with menaces.
Re:OK, question time (Score:2)
Re:OK, question time (Score:3, Informative)
And the problem is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google will have to have employees spend many hours of labor doing this. Of course they should expect to be paid for it by the content owners. Only a group of idiots like the RIAA would expect them to do it for free.
Re:And the problem is? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And the problem is? (Score:5, Insightful)
You could call them "idiots" or you could call them "tyrants with a limited fief".
They're entirely accustomed to making outrageous demands and having others bend over immediately. Heck, this could be an opening salvo before lobbying the legislature to make it mandatory, no compensation to Google.
Re:And the problem is? (Score:2)
Evil or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know what? I'd trust Google a hell of a lot more than Id trust the other MAFIAA goons. I bet Google would at least make sure who the "infringing" material belonged to.
Re:Evil or not? (Score:2)
I didn't know links to pirated material had to be removed. Google taking down these links, even if required by law, worries me about an "official" internet coming soon.
Re:Evil or not? (Score:2)
I bet Google would at least make sure who the "infringing" material belonged to.
Why would they do that? More importantly, how would they do that? Email the site admin and ask nicely?
I really don't see that that's something that Google would want to get involved with. Something that we would want them to do, yes, but it's really not their problem or their area of expertise either.
Just Google it. (Score:5, Interesting)
If Google had a more efficient means of finding what you're looking for, they'd incorporate it into their search engine. If you're looking for copyrighted information, just google it.
Also, James Pond [slashdot.org]?
Re:Just Google it. (Score:2)
If Google had a more efficient means of finding what you're looking for, they'd incorporate it into their search engine. If you're looking for copyrighted information, just google it.
Also, James Pond [slashdot.org]?
I was thinking more along the lines of: James Pond [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Just Google it. (Score:2)
For only a 1% finder's fee! (Score:2, Interesting)
Same pricing model as RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
'Raised eyebrows'? Maybe Google used RIAA's pricing model and asked for $10,000,000 per infringement.
Re:Same pricing model as RIAA (Score:2)
Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google (Score:3, Funny)
And I want a pony.
Re:Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google (Score:2, Funny)
Great.... (Score:2)
Read between the lines (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
I propose that Google charge the RIAA slightly less than retail value per CD worth of infringing music that they discover. Using RIAA logic, every prevented CD download is a sale so, this seems like a very modest cut for Google to take if it helps recoup all those untold billions of dollars the RIAA is "losing".
HOLY CRAP! ARE YOU SERIOUS??? (Score:4, Funny)
Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google
This just in:
Cigarette companies want to downplay the harmful effects of tobacco.
(Insert party here) wants more control over the senate.
Religious officials suggest being religious is good for you.
I'd file this one under the No Shit category.
Google? (Score:3, Insightful)
So why are pirated materials now appearing in Google?
Well, it would seem partly because various fake torrent sites think it is a good idea to have their index indexed by Google. Which then leads to people without a clue clicking on links to all sorts of silly stuff.
Ever notice that no matter what you are looking for there are sites that have the exact keywords you are searching for in the exact order you are searching for them in? Oddly enough, it seems that these results always lead to another non-Google search page which is doing a search and showing some kind of results. With Google ads on it. Again.
If Pirate Bay has an index and it is not indexed by Google, then what good does it do for Google to be doing this? On the other hand, if this eliminates torrentsareus.biz, I'm all for it.
Re:Google? (Score:2)
I think they're talking more about finding infringing content such as what is easily found via http://g2p.org./ [g2p.org.]
The price... (Score:5, Funny)
...was set at THEIR SOULS.
The record industry executives immediately pointed out that they HAVE no souls of their own, and would the company accept souls they had collected from musicians and filesharers? They were told in no uncertain terms that third party souls would NOT be accepted.
those souls aren't worth anything (Score:2)
you can get pirated copies of those souls for free
that's what makes the devils so mad: people aren't really sacrificing anything anymore
James Pound (Score:2)
There, fixed for ya.
Re:James Pound (Score:2)
No, it's this guy [wikipedia.org].
Google gets paid by both sides! (Score:5, Interesting)
Google gets paid by the RIAA and the IFPI to put people on a list.
Then Google gets paid by those on the list to be taken off the list.
Note to self: buy more Google stock
I'm from the year 2058; let me tell you something (Score:2)
So many legal battles, so many livelihoods ruined, all these resources drained that could have been invested in other, more meaningful things than whether or not someone was entitled to see a film or hear a song...it's sad to see, really. And what a damned waste.
Re:I'm from the year 2058; let me tell you somethi (Score:2)
Re:I'm from the year 2058; let me tell you somethi (Score:2)
In our time, we view these organizations who are fighting to stop the spread of ideas the same way you might look at the mini-war caused by prohibition.
Mini-war? Is that what you call what's going on in Mexico in 2010?
Or, wait, is 2058 still so benighted that it's pretending prohibition ended in 1933, when only alcohol was removed from the list of mind-altering chemicals banned by the Progressives in the 1910s?
War Profiteers (Score:5, Interesting)
The telcos get paid rapacious fees by the government to "voluntarily" provide direct intercept rooms for the war on terror. Halliburton and Blackwater get paid highwayman prices for services in the war zones. Now Google is licking its lips over getting a taste of the copyright war booty.
In an America run by authoritarians who love war, war metaphors, getting re-elected for their positions on war, and getting campaign ads sponsored by war-enriched corporations, being anything other than a war profiteer is choosing to be second tier.
Good? Bad? Necessary but regrettable? Maybe all those things in various specific cases. But always: A big chunk of GDP.
Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex. The only thing he missed: That war and war spending is not limited to things involving soldiers and guns. The war metaphor gives us the opportunity to extend war-footing excesses to all our beloved oligarchs.
Re:War Profiteers (Score:2)
Re:War Profiteers (Score:2)
How in the hell is this related to war profiteering?
The post was quite clear. Try reading it without skipping every other word, and perhaps it will be more clear to you.
This just sounds like another excuse to hate the USA.
Rarely do I lower myself to feed the trolls, but your shallow jingoism is offensive to my deep and considered patriotism.
Note that the threat of the military industrial complex was, as noted in my post, highlighted by Eisenhower. Do you believe Ike hated the USA? The extension of the war metaphor to non-war activities suppresses considered discourse in favor of subjective and emotionalist reactionism. Such behavior is a threat to the foundations of intelligent, republican, democracy, not to mention a tremendous source of friction in our free market economy.
"My country right or wrong -- when right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." That is the position of the patriot. Your shallow jingoism is authoritarian rubbish.
Mis-Read Headline- (Score:3, Insightful)
I initially thought the headline said Big Media Wants More Privacy Busting From Google
I guess that's likely true as well.
Chump change (Score:2)
I don't get it -- RIAA claims to lose 12 billion dollars [riaa.com] a year due to piracy. If the Google API helps them recover a tiny fraction of that amount, then it's worth the few million dollars/year they are estimating the API costs would be.
It seems almost as if they think that there is not as much piracy out there as they claim!
Google is part of the problem (Score:2)
Google does a miserable job of vetting their advertisers. A huge number of junk sites, and some outright scams, are monetized using Google ads. As I pointed out yesterday, there are even sites that are on Google's "This site may harm your computer" list, yet have Google ads. [slashdot.org] They're clearly not trying very hard to purge their advertiser base of slimeballs.
Here's a rant by a woman in the "responsible" end of the SEO industry: "Dear Google...Stop Making Me Look Like a Fool!" [highrankings.com]
Pond.. (Score:2, Funny)
.. James Pond
Will Amaricans ever rise up? (Score:2)
It seems like everyday we read about the mega companies doing this or that. Putting pressure on a politician to adopt the law they have written which greatly limits the rights of Americans. Each one seems to be more egregious than the last.
More and more complain, yet less and less action is taken by the ruling class.
It seems these days, our politicians don't even try to hide the fact that they are owned by companies.
I am really starting to wonder, will Americans rise up again against oppression? Will the point come where we say, enough is enough! ?
I have thought for a number of years now that the US is headed for a 2nd revolution. Not from outside controlling forces, but from the corporate extension which our government has been allowed to become.
Who knows. I would have thought that at the point where our government is breaking 12 year old girls and grandmothers to protect the failed business models of media companies we would have stood up and said, no more!
Yet, we don't. I guess it's true what they say about things hitting rock bottom before they start to get better.
But, hey...we still have tons of people screaming about the government "wasting" money on energy research. The linchpin of modern society, and people complain about spending money to secure it's future. Makes me sad.
torrents (Score:2)
This raises the question if the pirate bay could have become legal when they included other internet search results, besides just torrents.
Of course there is a price (Score:2)
Why should Google have to pay it's employees and spend it's resources to track down the RIAA's problems?
It is not Google doing the pirating I don't see why they should have to clean up the mess.
How to Turn Down Business That You Don't Want (Score:2)
When someone offers you a deal that you really don't want, but for whatever reason, you don't want to be seen saying "no" or otherwise turning down business -- then say "yes" to the offer, but make sure that it will be so expensive that the deal is sure to be OBE.
To wit FTA:
The third was a paid product called Site Search, Pond wrote. "The only option for the IFPI/RIAA to access our Web search API will be the third option," Pond wrote, according to the source who had seen the letter.
"I understand we charge a standard rate of $5 per thousand queries, which is charged to recover our costs in providing this service," Pond wrote.
A music industry source estimated that such charges could add up to several million dollars a year.
Why doesn't MS use Bing? They own it, don't they? (Score:2)
Re:Search is what they do (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Search is what they do (Score:2)
This is like how purple is a flavour, yes?
Re:Search is what they do (Score:2)
Re:Search is what they do (Score:3, Insightful)
"It still feels kind of wrong though."
The only thing wrong is their broken business model, information was never designed to be propertized in an internet age. Tough shit for them.
Re:Search is what they do (Score:2)
"It still feels kind of wrong though."
The only thing wrong is their broken business model, information was never designed to be propertized in an internet age. Tough shit for them.
That's what all the dot-coms said a decade ago. About the only ones left after all this time are the ones that figured out how to successfully propertize their information.
Re:Search is what they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Their whole business model is designed around selling advertisements next to things you have found.
The RIAA and friends will not be purchasing things from the ads. Google need to recoup the losses of using the system somehow. Google choose to do this with a flat fee. There are some days when I'd pay for Google without the ads. I say bring on GoogleSubscriber. All the results, none of the ads.
Re:Search is what they do (Score:3, Funny)
There are plugins that already do that.
If you want to find them, use Google.
Re:Search is what they do (Score:2)
Actually google's business is advertising made possible by data mining and datacenter operation. Search just happened to be there first as a data mining tool ;)
The summary... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The summary... (Score:2, Informative)
Mod the parent up. I know they admit to having read the article and all, but what the parent is saying is actually informative! Whoda thunk reading the article might mean you knew more about the subject?! Surely not me.
Re:The summary... (Score:3, Funny)
According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, ....
Dude, you got out of breath typing?!
Re:The summary... (Score:2)
No, he got out of breath reading the article --- happens when you have to move your lips while you read.
[sorry, low hanging fruit and all that]
Re:The summary... (Score:2)
According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, ....
Dude, you got out of breath typing?!
Maybe he was using one of them IBM Model M Keyboards... someone used to the soft keys of today's keyboards would wear themselves out and out of breath from the strain. ;)
Re:The summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but if I have to choose between the summery, which is pure Flamebait material, and the article which actually makes sense, I would surely go with option 1. Why pass on an opportunity to laugh at the "Do no evil" slogan?
Re:akin to.. (Score:2)
Re:akin to.. (Score:2)
Its more like asking the publishers of the phone book to determine whether any individuals or businesses listed are engaged in illegal activity. Or asking the cab company to do the same for every address they are asked to deliver a passenger to.
There's no perfect analogy, but in every example, applying the same "logic" to a physical world parallel results in something ludicrous and impractical, and definitely something that a third party shouldn't be expected to do for free, or really at all.
Re:RIAA "haha" (Score:4, Insightful)
All I want to know is how much I have to pay Google to not be included? :D
Re:Carefully "Big Media", Tread Carefully.. (Score:5, Interesting)
They already had it, but the world changed while they were busy counting their beeelyuns and admiring their own incredibleness. Now they're desperately trying to make things the way they were, but to do it they have to try and enforce a kind of control that will require personal/consumer rights to take a monumental shit-kicking.
By now, it should be obvious to any lawmaker, businessman, and consumer, that the digital age has affected their business model significantly and fundamentally (not unlike any other market niche in the last hundred years). For the music industry, digitized media is now nothing more than advertising to draw people out to the live performances. And if the movie biz can't cope with the modern realities of the internet, then I assert the best compromise of consumer and supplier rights is that they withdraw from the home market entirely, and show their movies only in their supplied controlled environments (theatres) - y'know, just like before whole home market was ever conceived? The home market was great for a while, lucrative and exploitable, but that pocket of income has dried up.
That doesn't mean one can't *try* and sell a digitized product, but the idea of slapping one's own price on it is an unrealistic expectation. In an age of infinite supply, if we are to maintain an open market, then consumer-determined value, and a way to efficiently employ micropatronage, are the two keystones to keeping that market free.