Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the lend-a-hand dept.

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."

cancel ×

186 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pond? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33888744)

James Pond? 'G' double o 'gle'

Re:Pond? (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | about 4 years ago | (#33888762)

Re:Pond? (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | about 4 years ago | (#33888798)

From the link:

James Pond 077 is an alter ego of Puffy, the OpenBSD mascot.

Those permissions are just funny in this context. I sincerely hope we find out that someone was pulling one over on the big uglies because it works really well.

Re:Pond? (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about 4 years ago | (#33889554)

Of course it sounds fishy when he's involved with the Mafiaa.

Re:Pond? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33888768)

James Pond? 'G' double o 'gle'

Is it really a surprise that a NSA agent works for Google?

Well duh (4, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 4 years ago | (#33888764)

It's only evil if you're not getting paid for it.

Re:Well duh (2, Funny)

froggymana (1896008) | about 4 years ago | (#33888836)

Is that why all open source software is considered evil by big companies?

M$ wants to pay for window$ and not get your os fo (-1, Offtopic)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#33889148)

M$ wants to pay for window$ and not get your os for free and even your dell comes windows and we make it a big deal to get your $20 - $30 refund.

Re:Well duh (1)

Kvasio (127200) | about 4 years ago | (#33889208)

rather: it's evil if the price you ask is too low.

If G asks for $1 million per user, the **AA guys are not overuse this channel

Re:Well duh (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 years ago | (#33889362)

Sure they will, to state examples.

Best area to burn money in, much better than stupid things such as film making.

Re:Well duh (2, Insightful)

Trufagus (1803250) | about 4 years ago | (#33889312)

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 (2, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 years ago | (#33889816)

Am I understanding your drift right-- you think it is Google's responsibility to shoulder the burden of searching for pirated music, for free?? While we're at it, why shouldnt local police departments everywhere just ask Google to host a few virtual servers for them, free of charge? I mean, Google is against crime, right?

Re:Well duh (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 4 years ago | (#33890116)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890122)

No, s/he's saying that, with all of Google's talk of "do no evil," the only reason they are considering doing this is because they might get paid, not because it would be for a good cause.

RIAA "haha" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33888766)

ahahhaahhahahahahhahah RIAA stop taking away money from the artists, google is not going to do your "work" for free.

Re:RIAA "haha" (4, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 years ago | (#33889368)

All I want to know is how much I have to pay Google to not be included? :D

Of course (4, Insightful)

war4peace (1628283) | about 4 years ago | (#33888770)

I mean, was there any shadow of doubt? It's a request for a service which Google can provide, but is not mandatory, either by law or by Google's internal rules and regulations.
I see no faux pas here. Pay enough and we will help you.
I only hope the price is sufficiently high.

Re:Of course (4, Informative)

aliddell (1716018) | about 4 years ago | (#33888786)

From TFA:

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 (5, Funny)

whoop (194) | about 4 years ago | (#33889062)

That's a bargain, considering with each link they lose billions and billions of dollars.

Re:Of course (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889238)

Every time someone downloads a movie.. god kills a kitten. I just hope you guys know that. Think of all the cute little kittens.

Re:Of course (3, Funny)

ThanatosST (1896176) | about 4 years ago | (#33889328)

So god wants some more kittens to play with up in heaven. Who are you to deny him cute little fluffy play toys?

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889810)

Every time someone downloads a movie.. god kills a kitten. I just hope you guys know that. Think of all the cute little kittens.

Thank you, God. Pray, may you choose by preference the ferral kittens in Australia? I heard [environment.gov.au] they are considered pests there.

Re:Of course (1)

SkeeZerD (972760) | about 4 years ago | (#33889956)

I love kittens...they taste like chicken.

Re:Of course (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889256)

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 (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 years ago | (#33889840)

Well, actually, Im pretty sure that no, they DONT get things for free. Pretty sure they pay for office supplies like everyone else.

Smells like feigned suprise, or perhaps they were hoping for some way to force google to give them free access.

Re:Of course (5, Interesting)

Knightman (142928) | about 4 years ago | (#33889348)

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.

Google's service (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33888778)

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 (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 4 years ago | (#33889664)

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!

Search is what they do (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about 4 years ago | (#33888788)

Google IS a search engine... Their whole business model is designed around helping people find things.
It still feels kind of wrong though.

Re:Search is what they do (2, Funny)

MichaelKristopeit 64 (1920340) | about 4 years ago | (#33888832)

evil is a kind of wrong

Re:Search is what they do (1)

MachDelta (704883) | about 4 years ago | (#33889064)

This is like how purple is a flavour, yes?

Re:Search is what they do (1)

MichaelKristopeit 64 (1920340) | about 4 years ago | (#33889356)

no?

Re:Search is what they do (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 years ago | (#33889378)

Purple is a fruit.

Re:Search is what they do (1)

Shadyman (939863) | about 4 years ago | (#33889998)

I think it's more like how Brown is a delivery service.

Re:Search is what they do (2, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 4 years ago | (#33889110)

"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 (4, Insightful)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | about 4 years ago | (#33889454)

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 (2, Funny)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 4 years ago | (#33889826)

There are plugins that already do that.

If you want to find them, use Google.

James Pond? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33888792)

How can a fish [wikipedia.org] do anything about copyright?

Google would be happy to help... (-1, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | about 4 years ago | (#33888808)

Google is rapidly getting to the flash point where they will cross over to 'evil conglomerate', if they haven't already.

The summary... (5, Informative)

Anubis350 (772791) | about 4 years ago | (#33889040)

....and the article don't match. According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, Google is, in general, developing several APIs for direct access to the engine without scraping. Of the three mentioned, one of those options would work for the kind of searches the RIAA wants to do. Google politely pointed this out to the *AAs, but also pointed out they charge a fee for the queries - which, as the article says, could cost the *AAs a very large amount of money if they decided to use the API.

Re:The summary... (2, Informative)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 4 years ago | (#33889076)

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... (3, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33889142)

According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, ....

Dude, you got out of breath typing?!

Re:The summary... (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | about 4 years ago | (#33889242)

According to the article which I ::gasp:: read, ....

Dude, you got out of breath typing?!

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... (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#33889542)

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... (4, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | about 4 years ago | (#33889438)

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?

Special price... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33888822)

Ordinarily, we'd like to help folks for free (it's kindof our thing)... but for you, we'll cut you a deal, you pay us, oh, ~1 million GBP for each song we find...

OK, question time (5, Insightful)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about 4 years ago | (#33888824)

WTF is a pirated link?

Re:OK, question time (4, Funny)

Nethead (1563) | about 4 years ago | (#33888884)

WTF is a pirated link?

Basically any Slashdot story.

Re:OK, question time (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 years ago | (#33889394)

Slashdot stories is the only area where I dislike copies.

Re:OK, question time (2, Funny)

Psychotria (953670) | about 4 years ago | (#33888890)

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.

Re:OK, question time (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 years ago | (#33889422)

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.

Like http://tinyurl.com/09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 [tinyurl.com]

Re:OK, question time (1)

nigelo (30096) | about 4 years ago | (#33889042)

Dog-got-me-bangers? ie Sausage theft, with menaces.

Re:OK, question time (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33889288)

According to this source [wikipedia.org] , the intended meaning is a link to an infringing copy of a non-free work.

Re:OK, question time (3, Informative)

troff (529250) | about 4 years ago | (#33889458)

Anything starting with "httarrh//".

And the problem is? (4, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | about 4 years ago | (#33888828)

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? (2, Funny)

MichaelKristopeit 64 (1920340) | about 4 years ago | (#33888996)

only an idiot would expect the RIAA expected them to do it for free... the real expectation was that google would not develop terminators.

Re:And the problem is? (5, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | about 4 years ago | (#33889916)

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? (1)

thenextstevejobs (1586847) | about 4 years ago | (#33890218)

A naval force would be a better bet at battling piracy than a bunch of nerds.

Evil or not? (4, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | about 4 years ago | (#33888846)

The Google response seems entirely appropriate. The MAFIAA runs around like spoiled, bullying children. Google's response is "yeah, you need a job done, maybe you should consider paying for it."

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33888900)

"Make sure"? Not unless they're paid to do that. If they jack the rates up high enough, maybe they can discourage the MAFIAA from trying it, since it will cut into their obscene profits.

Re:Evil or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889132)

I bet Google would at least make sure who the "infringing" material belonged to.

Yea because we all know google is good at that sort of thing [google.com] .

Google is orders of magnitude worse for your health and well being than the MAFIAA.

Re:Evil or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889680)

To quote another MAFIAA "Fuck you. Pay me."

Re:Evil or not? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 4 years ago | (#33890108)

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.

Just Google it. (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#33888896)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890226)

But could this herals a new era of anti-SEO?
instead fo trying everything to get indexed and ranked, try everything to hide your content....

Silver Lining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33888916)

As long as Google starts with **AA employees only, I'm cool with it.

For only a 1% finder's fee! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33888926)

Well, since this link has 1000 songs, we'll reveal its identity to you for only 1% of its total value: 1000 × $150000 × 1% = $1.5million. That seems totally reasonable, doesn't it?

Same pricing model as RIAA (5, Funny)

bakes (87194) | about 4 years ago | (#33888928)

'Raised eyebrows'? Maybe Google used RIAA's pricing model and asked for $10,000,000 per infringement.

Re:Same pricing model as RIAA (1)

Dwonis (52652) | about 4 years ago | (#33888956)

Brilliant! I approve!

Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google (2, Funny)

Taibhsear (1286214) | about 4 years ago | (#33889018)

And I want a pony.

Re:Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889056)

And I want a pony.

Come back here in about 5 1/2 months....

Re:Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google (2, Funny)

rmm311 (1550631) | about 4 years ago | (#33889124)

Would you take a vat of industrial strength glue?

akin to.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889032)

expecting google to help find copyrighted material in its results is like asking a library to find plagarism in the books they lend out.

Re:akin to.. (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | about 4 years ago | (#33889162)

Not quite. It's like asking a library to detect photocopied books among those they lend out. Not difficult to do, for a human.

Great.... (1)

neo8750 (566137) | about 4 years ago | (#33889054)

Now the big media will actually have true legit #'s to show how much piracy has costed them shame those will just get added to the inflated BS #'s they say they already lose... Oh well guess cd prices can go up another $5 and drm downloads another dollar... not like i pay it. But that being said id like to make the point of if i couldnt download it i wouldnt id prolly never see it cause i wouldnt pay for it in the first place so im not making them lose money cause there wasnt ever going to be money spent.

RIAA vs. Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889092)

"The record companies desperately want someone to loosen Apple's hold of digital music."

You're free to stop licensing copyrighted music to Apple anytime you want and launch your own damn music distribution service. But you won't do that, will you? You'll alienate your largest consumer base and lose millions. Realize that and stop your whining.

Read between the lines (4, Insightful)

shoehornjob (1632387) | about 4 years ago | (#33889144)

What he really said is "We don't want to fight your fight. Now pay me or fuck off."

Seems reasonable (4, Interesting)

somenickname (1270442) | about 4 years ago | (#33889158)

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".

Raised eyebrows? More like erupted an erection (1)

fkx (453233) | about 4 years ago | (#33889166)

Raised eyebrows? More like erupted an erection.

All it takes to assault our rights is money .. what a surprise.

HOLY CRAP! ARE YOU SERIOUS??? (4, Funny)

SudoGhost (1779150) | about 4 years ago | (#33889286)

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? (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | about 4 years ago | (#33889376)

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? (1)

garcia (6573) | about 4 years ago | (#33889490)

I think they're talking more about finding infringing content such as what is easily found via http://g2p.org./ [g2p.org.]

The price... (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | about 4 years ago | (#33889456)

...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.

Carefully "Big Media", Tread Carefully.. (1)

enter to exit (1049190) | about 4 years ago | (#33889552)

Be careful what you wish for or you might get it!

Re:Carefully "Big Media", Tread Carefully.. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889698)

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.

James Pound (1)

microbee (682094) | about 4 years ago | (#33889560)

There, fixed for ya.

Re:James Pound (1)

Riktov (632) | about 4 years ago | (#33889584)

No, it's this guy [wikipedia.org] .

Google gets paid by both sides! (4, Interesting)

PatPending (953482) | about 4 years ago | (#33889600)

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

How much is enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889718)

Everyone has their price, right?

Churchill : Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite : My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill : Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite : Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill : Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Surely the RIAA doesn't need to pay ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33889724)

... everything on the internet is free, amirite?

I'm from the year 2058; let me tell you something (1)

mykos (1627575) | about 4 years ago | (#33889746)

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.

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 (1)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | about 4 years ago | (#33890000)

Oh yeah, what is Black Gold Alchemy's renewable energy product?

War Profiteers (5, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 years ago | (#33889752)

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 (1)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | about 4 years ago | (#33890010)

How in the hell is this related to war profiteering? This just sounds like another excuse to hate the USA.

Mis-Read Headline- (2, Insightful)

no1home (1271260) | about 4 years ago | (#33889838)

I initially thought the headline said Big Media Wants More Privacy Busting From Google

I guess that's likely true as well.

Uhmmm, ... (1)

tqk (413719) | about 4 years ago | (#33890172)

It's a trap! Duh.

Chump change (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 4 years ago | (#33890204)

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 (1)

Animats (122034) | about 4 years ago | (#33890232)

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.. (2, Funny)

db10 (740174) | about 4 years ago | (#33890272)

.. James Pond

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?