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!

RIAA: Google Failing To Demote Pirate Websites

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the a-little-help-here-please dept.

Piracy 165

Nerval's Lobster writes "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) claims that Google has failed in its attempt to lower the search-results rankings of so-called 'pirate' Websites. "We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy," read the report's summary (PDF). 'These sites consistently appear at the top of Google's search results for popular songs or artists.' Last August, Google indicated that it would start lowering the search-result rankings of Websites with high numbers of 'valid' copyright removal notices. 'This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed on Spotify,' Amit Singhal, Google's senior vice president of Engineering, wrote in a corporate blog posting at the time. Google, which receives millions of copyright removal notices every month, also offers a counter-notice tool for those who believe their Websites have been unfairly targeted for copyright violations."

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

Good for Google (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975597)

The RIAA can fuck off.

A search engine is supposed to search and display what it finds. I'll be the one to do the filtering

Re:Good for Google (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975769)

What about malware infested sites? They're certainly out there in numbers, so I guess you want Google to give you those too so you can do your filtering.

Re:Good for Google (0, Flamebait)

technix4beos (471838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975803)

Why not? Its not like I'm running Winblows. Pretty strange comment of yours considering the /. crowd mostly run Linux/BSD ... Unless you -enjoy- having your hand held for everything...

Re:Good for Google (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975953)

Actually, sure. Give me a checkbox that says filter malware, viruses etc from search results. Any time. Please. But allow me to go and uncheck it.

Re:Good for Google (0)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977421)

Actually, sure. Give me a checkbox that says filter adult images, porn images etc from search results. Any time. Please. But allow me to go and uncheck it.

Oh wait, that is not possible, because Google has disabled that option. [slashdot.org]

Re:Good for Google (4, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976039)

Why not? Its not like I'm running Winblows. Pretty strange comment of yours considering the /. crowd mostly run Linux/BSD

2000 called, and wants you back. This place is full of Apple zealots and Microsoft shills now. The Linux/BSD crowd has moved on.

Re:Good for Google (1, Troll)

technix4beos (471838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976217)

Prove it?

Re:Good for Google (4, Funny)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976351)

Have to agree...

Ex- Microsoft shill posting in Ubuntu now.

Fuck windows 8

Re:Good for Google (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976921)

My role at Microsoft was to build relationships within the online advertising community by supporting & educating through the Microsoft Advertising Blog, evangelizing through social media.

Mel Carson, Digital Marketing Evangelist at Microsoft, 2005-2012

Slashdot web interest, 2005-2012.
  http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=slashdot&cmpt=q [google.com]

Re:Good for Google (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976423)

Yes, that's it exactly.
Or maybe the childish Microsoft hating piracy lovers just grew up.
Or at least, most of them...

Re:Good for Google (-1, Redundant)

Nossie (753694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976665)

I think most of them went to digg and then reddit.

All the best for slashdot me thinks.

Re:Good for Google (1, Troll)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976861)

Where to? I would like to find some intelligent conversation.

Re:Good for Google (5, Insightful)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976047)

That's not really fair for folks who don't even know about Linux (or think it's some kind of hacker thing... and there are still plenty of those). Is it fair for grandma to get a drive-by download because she got a new computer from Walmart that came with Windows? Is the web only meant for savvy users who build their own PC and sudo their way out of problems or into new functionality?

Your web oligarchy is a dystopia, with a twisted sense of survival of the fittest, that I'm glad I'll never see as long as level heads prevail. The /. crowd may run mostly Linux/BSD, but last I checked, a fair percentage are empathetic human beings that are all too aware the web is meant for everybody, savvy or not, technical or not, creative or not. I'd go as far as to say, the web is a fundamental right now that a significant portion of our ability to communicate is tied to it. If Google is doing its part to keep malware at bay, that's a plus.

Back on topic, RIAA is not protecting the world from malware and terrorism, so there's no reason for Google to give them the same level of respect.

Re:Good for Google (2)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975839)

Yes, when all my friends are recommending and linking to content on malware sites I'll probably want to check them out!

Re:Good for Google (4, Insightful)

KevMar (471257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975983)

If people are looking for pirating sites, I would expect them to show up at the top of the rankings. Because if I was searching for [artist] [track] download, I am not looking for amazon.com.

What Google has done is reduced when these sites would show up when you were looking for legitimate sites. Just like they reduced the adult content you see unless you are looking for adult content. It's not Google's job to police what people search for, just to make sure they find what they are looking for.

Re:Good for Google (4, Insightful)

pantaril (1624521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976979)

If people are looking for pirating sites, I would expect them to show up at the top of the rankings. Because if I was searching for [artist] [track] download, I am not looking for amazon.com.

What Google has done is reduced when these sites would show up when you were looking for legitimate sites. Just like they reduced the adult content you see unless you are looking for adult content. It's not Google's job to police what people search for, just to make sure they find what they are looking for.

Also, the "legitimate" sites RIAA is suggesting to Google (NPR's music website, Hulu, Spotify) would be useless for most users outside USA as they don't offer their services to much countries outside of U.S.

Re:Good for Google (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976033)

"The RIAA can fuck off."

This.

They have demonstrably not done anybody any real good. They have been attacking the music industry's best friends. (People who download also tend to be those who buy more music and attend more theater movies). And they have made enemies of The People in general.

Re:Good for Google (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976323)

The RIAA is run by the music industry. Of course they're only representing the views of music industry experts.

Re:Good for Google (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976719)

"The RIAA is run by the music industry. Of course they're only representing the views of music industry experts."

Sure. But those "experts" have pretty obviously been telling it to do the wrong things.

I don't know which party or parties have been coming up with their ideas and schemes. I just know that those ideas and schemes have been backfiring on them.

Re:Good for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976563)

Futuristic Sex robotz - F**K The MPAA (RIAA & BSA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLB8wysMbY

Re:Good for Google (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976821)

That's the beauty of it though, we can use google search filters to defeat their measures. For example "-buy -store -review -preview -promo -viagra" trims out enough to make the potential "pirate" websites turn up on more than half the results.

No (4, Insightful)

knapkin (665863) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975599)

I want my search engine to search the web for my query. Do not try to figure out what sort of legitimate use I have for my query, give me the results! Maybe I'm a copyright infringer trying to steal music, and maybe I'm a gun happy lawyer trying to sue the pants of the site owners.

Maybe it isn't illegal in your country to P2P. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977605)

See subject.

And I.... (4, Funny)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975605)

... have found no evidence that RIAA is working towards providing me with a $1,000,000 dollar stipend. So what?

"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"

Re:And I.... (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975941)

... have found no evidence that RIAA is working towards providing me with a $1,000,000 dollar stipend. So what?

"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"

Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?

Re:And I.... (1, Insightful)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976113)

Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?

From the article that you didn't bother to read before offering an unimformed opinion.

"Last August, Google indicated that it would start lowering the search-result rankings of Websites with high numbers of “valid” copyright removal notices. “This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it’s a song previewed on NPR’s music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed on Spotify,” Amit Singhal, Google’s senior vice president of Engineering, wrote in a corporate blog posting at the time.
slashdot (http://s.tt/1A3pv)"

Of course one issue is whether the copyright removal requests that RIAA is claiming Google received were in fact valid requests. That RIAA seems to have those numbers might imply that RIAA was the ones submitting all those requests. It's been demonstrated before that RIAA has been submitted take-down notices for stuff they don't have any jurisdiction over.

Re:And I.... (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976275)

Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost? Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?

From the article that you didn't bother to read before offering an unimformed opinion.

It wasn't an opinion (um- or not uminformed), it was a question. And since the quoted para (thank you for it) doesn't answer it, let me repeat it:

from where and since when is there an obligation for Google to "please" RIAA?

It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.
In depending the answer, I'll be able to form an opinion (at least for myself) on whether or not Google has done enough in spite of RIAA wanting it to do much more.

Re:And I.... (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976399)

I don't see where they have any obligation other than reducing their exposure to a lawsuit that accuses them of facilitating copyright infringement. In truth, Google probably only announced this so they can say they're doing something. I doubt they expected RIAA to start spamming their reporting system with millions of reports using an automated reporting tool.

Re:And I.... (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976433)

I don't see where they have any obligation other than reducing their exposure to a lawsuit that accuses them of facilitating copyright infringement.

If that's the truth, then here's my opinbion: Google has done enough. Anything more than that and Google should charge RIAA for extra services (also in my opinion: it should have charge them even for processing the takedown notices: even a reasonable amount of 0.05 cents per request would have done wonders).

Re:And I.... (3, Insightful)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976631)

Rather than charge, which would discourage real users from reporting websites they could implement simple measures to stop the automated reporting that they are being spammed with. 2.4 million reports a month from RIAA alone is nearly one a second. Rate limiting to a few complains a day per IP could help, or even simple CAPTCHAs. That would perhaps force a human to look at the content instead of using an automated tool to search for song titles and then spamming reports for any hits containing the artist and track number.

Re:And I.... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977301)

Rather than charge, which would discourage real users from reporting websites they could implement simple measures to stop the automated reporting ...

Well, this would be a bad business stance
I mean: if "reporting copyright breaches" is such a "sought after" type of product/service, why not "expand you income channels" and aks money for it to a level it becomes profitable?

Re:And I.... (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977355)

While I don't disbelieve it, where is the proof RIAA is doing this? Just curious.

Re:And I.... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976865)

It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.

Who says they should be obligated? The RIAA didn't say that, nor did they imply it. All they stated was that, in their opinion, Google has not done what they said they would do.

Re:And I.... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977313)

It doesn't matter if Amit Singhal "indicated that it would start lowering", I'd be grateful to know if Google is actually obligated to do so.

Who says they should be obligated? The RIAA didn't say that, nor did they imply it. All they stated was that, in their opinion, Google has not done what they said they would do.

Would I be in Google's shoes, my answer to them would be: "Tough luck, I tried. Would you like to pay me to try harder?"

Re:And I.... (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977039)

"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"

Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost?
Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?

They could have problem if they don't actively try to demote pirate sites, because then, they would be no different from the Pirate Bay and could be charged with copyright infringment support.

Yes, our copyright laws are stupid and should go away and be replaced with some form of support for IP creators which doesn't depend on artificial distribution restrictions.

Re:And I.... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977325)

"We have found no evidence that Google's policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy,"

Even more, from when or where did arise an obligation for Google to demote the sites with "large amount of piracy"? Will RIAA pay the extra cost? Or is somehow RIAA turning "pinky" (that is: suggesting that the "hand of free market needs guidance")?

They could have problem if they don't actively try to demote pirate sites, because then, they would be no different from the Pirate Bay and could be charged with copyright infringment support.

Yes, our copyright laws are stupid and should go away and be replaced with some form of support for IP creators which doesn't depend on artificial distribution restrictions.

If so, why not pay some lobbyist to advice changing the laws instead of caving to RIAA's potential "legal extortion" and implement half baked solutions to a wrong formulated problem?

Re:And I.... (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975971)

The MAFIAA strikes again. Think they will learn to do the right thing and fall on their collective swords?

It's Google's fault our stuff sucks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975619)

LOL.

Right. Whatever. Blame Google, they're clearly the reason why your content sucks so much these days.

RIAA ripping of artists (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975621)

when does the riaa hollywood accounting get some action? Ripping off hard working artists with manipulative deals is fraud in other businesses.

Re:RIAA ripping of artists (4, Interesting)

elashish14 (1302231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975691)

You don't seem to understand. What makes you think the RIAA has to obey the same laws as people?

When you have legalized bribery in your federal government, these are the results you get.

Even worse, that's what gives them power over everyone else in the world too.

Re:RIAA ripping of artists (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975829)

that's what gives them power over everyone else in the world too

Pfft, be your own power. You have the power, exercise it and disempower the ??AA's of the world.

Re:RIAA ripping of artists (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976087)

by "contributing" more to elected officials campaigns? I'm sure elashish14 doesn't have the millions to do so.

How about by voting for officials who are against the practise of campaign contributions? If only they existed.

Re:RIAA ripping of artists (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977365)

If only they existed.

QFT

It could just be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975643)

...that Google realizes this is just a complete waste of time and put a couple of interns on it, so they could get the RIAA to stop calling them day and night.

Re:It could just be... (3, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975973)

...that Google realizes this is just a complete waste of time and put a couple of interns on it, so they could get the RIAA to stop calling them day and night.

Wouldn;t it be cheaper to buy some auto-response systems and put them in the "RIAA support lines" with the message of "Your call is important to us. An operator will be with you as soon as possible (a.k.a never). Please hold and jerk off"?

Test (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975661)

Anecdotal observation here.

Went to Google and typed in Mumford. Guess what, no pirate sites appeared on the first page.

But there was a Wired article complaining about the "no unauthorized copying lending public performance etc. statement on the back of their latest album.

Maybe the RIAA doesn't want us noticing that the 'no unauthorized lending clause' has no legal basis.

Re:Test (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975979)

I now think that the RIAA won't be satisfied until they are given a government-backed monopoly on search engines. I imagine it'll look like an old AOL portal. Want to be listed? Pay out the nose just like on TV.

Re:Test (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977383)

What if you put Mumford (I must be old I have no idea who that is) +download +free... I bet they want those to go to paid sites too.

Please sabotage your credibility to protect me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975681)

Search results are supposed to reflect what is out there. Deal with it.

Re:Please sabotage your credibility to protect me (1)

mindwhip (894744) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976905)

It's more than this. The very fact that sites have been subject to a large number of takedown notices and position highly on lists of them attracts legitimate searches, traffic, news reporting, and links to those sites resulting in the search engine version of the Streisand effect and bumping them up the rankings...

I think they have a point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975687)

Though I dislike their point. Google said it was going to make a good faith attempt to list these types of sites lower if they were providing unlicensed copyrighted materials and Google knew about it. Personally, I think Google shouldnt have bothered unless they HAD to but I digress. They claimed their policy would be that they would make it their goal to accomplish this if they were made aware of these sites as repeat offenders. I would say if the RIAA's claim of sending thousands of take downs for these same sites to Google is sincere then the RIAA's examples do make the case that Google may be disingenuous about the extent of their attempts to try and lower list pirate sites.

Re:I think they have a point (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975869)

You're right, if the RIAA's figures aren't outrageously skewed ... (...) Google might be acting in bad faith.

I think I need a hug.

Re:I think they have a point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975945)

It's also possible that Google did exactly what they said. The only problem is that far more people were interested in looking for the pirated material than were interested in looking up the bands so the pirated sites were still near the top even after the downranking.

Re:I think they have a point (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977415)

That, and if you wanted to download a song, who doesn't know you go to amazon or itunes? I don't think anyone is "searching" for legitimate downloads. It is in your face were legitimate downloads are.

And that's because... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975697)

The pirate sites will be more popular (therefore more clicks, therefore higher rank; regardless of negations made on behalf of a dying business model) than the legitimate ones until the RIAA (et al.) stop reaming both consumers and artists alike.

Re:And that's because... (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976941)

I confess. I download episodes of elementary. That's because CBS reception sucks in my area. So what do i do to find those episodes? I search for: elementary S01 Exx 720p. where xx is the episode number. If that doesn't get me something in the first two pages, I add rapidshare or putlocker. I don't see how any legitrimate search engine can not return pirate sites. Since most algorithms increase the rank of sites that people visit from searches, the rate these sites get visited offsets the downrankjing Google gives. Not much can be done about that, getting the results you want from a search is not rocket science.

Yes, pirates should only come up (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975707)

On Google when you type the query "politics" or "government".

Re:Yes, pirates should only come up (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976549)

On Google when you type the query "corporate executive" or "majority shareholder".

TFTFY.

Ban lobbying (5, Insightful)

thej1nx (763573) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975725)

Yes, because everyone *else* in the world even remotely/tangentially having anything to do with digital media, has an obligation to spend considerable time and money protecting Sony, BMG. etc.'s business.

Search engines must hire additional coders to ensure that internet is censored as per Sony 's whims. Hardware manufacturing companies must spend significant extra money on ensure DRM compliance. ISPs must spy on their customers to ensure that no copyright-infringement happens. Police which is funded by public tax money(you and me) must spend valuable time and effort on catching the nefarious "music stealers". Senators who are elected by the people and paid by public tax money, must instead ensure laws favoring BMG/Sony that make copying files a worse crime than rape or murder.

Whereas, the same "victim" companies, move their headquarters outside to cheat the American public out of the benefits of any tax money they might have had to pay. We have all the obligations to them. They have none to us or even the actual creators of the said music etc.

Soon doctors will likely be required to ensure that they perform free deafening procedures on everyone who might end up listening to "infringing music".

The solution is simple. Realize that lobbying is equivalent to bribery and force your senator to pass a law against it.

Re:Ban lobbying (2)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975883)

force your senator

He's not your senator.

Re:Ban lobbying (1)

thej1nx (763573) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976255)

Does he becomes a senator without your and others' vote? I thought the idea was that no matter how rich you are, you still get only 1 vote. So why does a guy who uses the votes of Johnny public to get his position, ends up working for Johnny rich instead? If you hire a plumber to do your work, will you be okay if he spends the time instead, fixing the stuff of the rich folks across the street?

Why shouldn't sony, BMG etc. fix their broken business model, instead of asking everyone else to spend time and money on their behalf?

Re:Ban lobbying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976933)

The Trillion Dollar Coin: What You Really Need to Know
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article38581.html

Captcha: conserve

Heh pretty easy to see this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975735)

Beach Boys Free MP3 [google.com]

You can see some takedown notices at the bottom of the results page, but Google is also letting in quite a few pirate sites too. The takedown notices seem like window dressing. Hmm, you would think that the search engine geniuses working on self-driving cars could figure out a way to filter out mp3skull, mp3lemon, mp3juices, etc etc. And this half-assed compliances continues for page after page of results. Substitute any other popular recording artist for Beach Boys, same thing.

I'd be pretty pissed off too if I was a businessman relying on the Google VP's promise to filter out the pirate sites.

I'm thinking that Google is afraid of losing part of their audience to specialized search engines flying fast and loose on the IP front.

Re:Heh pretty easy to see this (3, Insightful)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976105)

Perhaps Google, like many an adult, dislikes being ordered about by spoiled children.

Make that spoiled, sanctimonious, amoral, dishonest, hypocritical, mentally skewed, ethically bereft children.

Re:Heh pretty easy to see this (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977435)

But you put "free" in your search. What happens if you put "buy" instead. Someone putting free in there on purpose is not looking to buy.

Google search broken in other ways too (5, Funny)

tippe (1136385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975747)

Oh yeah? I searched for "useless twits", "thieving bastards" and "lying motherfuckers" and in none of the cases did "RIAA" appear near the top of the list. Clearly google has a lot of work to do to fix their search engine...

Re:Google search broken in other ways too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976233)

Oh yeah? I searched for "useless twits", "thieving bastards" and "lying motherfuckers" and in none of the cases did "RIAA" appear near the top of the list. Clearly google has a lot of work to do to fix their search engine...

You should report this to google.

Re:Google search broken in other ways too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976593)

Really old now but still awesome (RIAA):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=S0eNa85qDZs

Say what you want about Google (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975809)

But Google really is a monolithic corporate which knows what it's users want, how to deliver it to them and how to make money from that. In short, Google knows how to use the internet to it's advantage rather than wasting all of it's resources trying to find the off switch.

Re:Say what you want about Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977147)

Here, have this. [its-not-its.info]

Thanks, RIAA! (5, Informative)

PapayaSF (721268) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975831)

The PDF has a very handy list of "notorious" sites, many of which were new to me. The RIAA should have Googled "Streisand Effect" before they released that....

  • 2shared.com
  • 4shared.com
  • aimini.net
  • airmp3.me
  • audiko.net
  • banashare.com
  • beemp3.com
  • codemymp3.com
  • dilandau.eu
  • downloads.nl
  • emp3world.com
  • filecrop.com
  • filestube.com
  • freemp3box.com
  • freemp3x.com
  • isohunt.com
  • kat.ph
  • loudtronix.me
  • mp3.li
  • mp3bear.com
  • mp3chief.com
  • mp3juices.com
  • mp3lemon.org
  • mp3oak.com
  • mp3searchy.com
  • mp3skull.com
  • mp3ye.eu
  • musicaddict.com
  • myfreemp3.eu
  • prostopleer.com
  • rlslog.net
  • searchmp3.mobi
  • torrentreactor.net
  • viperial.com
  • zippyshare.com

Re:Thanks, RIAA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975915)

Just google any popular artist and add "free MP3" to the search bar and you can quickly put together the same list on your own.

Re:Thanks, RIAA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975929)

*woosh*

RIAA -- Incompetent to the very last. (1)

gavron (1300111) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975995)

They left out piratebay.se

It doesn't matter. I and millions of people use google to FIND what WE want,
not what the RIAA wants us to find.

Hey RIAA, like the first response says - fuck off.

E

Re:Thanks, RIAA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976325)

I fail to understand why Google would take action against a company in Florida like mp3skull... if the Mafiaa want to take action they should do it themselves directly and not expect Google to do their police work for them. If the company is not American then Google, as a international company, should respect the rights of a foreign company to act as is appropriate in their own country and expect the relevant authorities in that country to take action if required. Please stop trying to export American stupidity abroad.

Re:Thanks, RIAA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976551)

Soon they will. You know of the "Police"? They'll just hire their very own version. SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ATCA, etc., are all attempts at doing just that. But because they had huge backing, and because they'll continue to try until they succeed, it's not going away. It may sound grim, but knowing how these companies will act can allow us to earn our own capital, and eventually protect our futures.

Re:Thanks, RIAA! (1)

disi (1465053) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976959)

This was the same I thought when reading the report. /. might the on the index now as well with your post :)

Re:Thanks, RIAA! (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977155)

Weird list. They include zippyshare.com, a fairly new player, but omit uploaded.net (ul.to), much more established and possibly the current 'MegaUpload' of the scene... They include rlslog.net which has removed all download links but omit scnsrc.net (the alternative release log) which still has all download links, both torrent and file lockers, in both posts and comments...

Re:Thanks, RIAA! (1)

dhavleak (912889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977211)

The RIAA are missing a business opportunity again. They should instead ask the judge to make Google forward to them any revenue made from such sites.

I mean, they claim it's their content. And they claim Google's getting fat on it (which is true -- ad revenues -- many times over when a downloader gets pwned). Just consider it sales instead. Let users "buy" their content by any means necessary (if they pay for it by getting infected with malware -- the RIAA shouldn't care as long as they get their pound of flesh). As long as Google sells ads on those sites, the RIAA can make money here. Google certainly doesn't care about user's getting botnetted as long as they make money. The RIAA cares even less.

Of course, the interesting part would be the legal machinations involved in convincing the judge to order Google to forward that revenue. There would have to be some small % (maybe 5%) that they could allow Google to keep. What would also be interesting is how quickly Google changes it's ranking of such sites once they are no longer a revenue stream. Also problematic -- if Google forwards $xx.xx to the RIAA saying that's how much is owed, the RIAA has no way of verifying.

Proof required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977639)

" And they claim Google's getting fat on it (which is true -- ad revenues -- many times over when a downloader gets pwned)."

Proof required.

Their ad revenues come from everything, not just the site you happen to be looking at.

And Google should get paid for their work to capture revenue for RIAA labels, shouldn't they? After all, they did this work.

Maybe because... (2)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975947)

A black market will exist as long as there is a reason for it. The more money that is siphoned out of our pockets by the swine of an unproductive industry, the further we will go to protect our interests. I'd love to believe Hollywood helped better our education system or somehow improved our standards of living... and maybe it is anti-american to believe it has taken more then it has given... yet I pay a hidden tax on all my blank media and generate add revenue for the american music lables on my youtube video that happened to catch an audio clip in the background. I spend more than a meal or hour of minimum wage on a single album or movie screening. Oh... and I'm NOT an American. I am Canadian.

Re:Maybe because... (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977117)

Hollywood, where the movie industry went to make movies cheaply far enough away from where copyright and patents were being enforced ....

They're asking Google to commit suicide (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975965)

The day it becomes apparent to most users that google is manipulating results is the day a new search engine will take over. Let's not forget how google got so popular to begin with: they had the most relevant search results around. Water this down and they lose value. They're not invincible and their future is by no means guaranteed. Ain't that right AOL?

Google has done exactly what it said (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975977)

"Last August, Google indicated that it would start lowering the search-result rankings of Websites with high numbers of 'valid' copyright removal notices."

Emphasis mine.

Re:Google has done exactly what it said (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976925)

Validation process:
1. Visit website
2. Infringing content or just a bunch of links to files refering to what may be infringing content?
3. Stamp 'invalid'.

Google's obligation is not to the RIAA (3, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975999)

It's to their users... no doubt their idea of "piracy" includes fair use content as well... observe how they list Youtube as separate from "authorized"....

They list mere counts of average number of times a site appeared that had 10,000 or more removal requests, or 1,000 or more remove requests.

Out of millions of remove requests received by Google; 10,000 pages at issue on a large site do not necessarily qualify as "a large number of requests".

RIAA's arguments are non-constructive, and they have offered no evidence that Google has not taken successful action to demote piracy results.

Re:Google's obligation is not to the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976307)

No it's not. Unfortunately, Google's obligation is to its shareholders, not its users.

Well Duh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976051)

If I google for "name of song/movie torrent" then the legit MAFIAA versions are hardly going to be in the top 10.

Ok Just in case you didn't know (4, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976061)

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ [google.com] Google produces a report that includes a breakdown of all requests Google has received since July 2011 to remove copyright-infringing content from its search index. Google updates the information daily.

RIAA (1)

balise (82851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976203)

Poor babies.

RIAA wants to sue everyone they can (4, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976273)

Ever since RIAA realized they can sue grandmothers for millions and people with open WIFI access points, they've gotten super sue happy. The bar down the street got sued for $100,000 for doing karaoke. I mean everyone is getting sued. The radio stations online are sued to do tribute. The Canadian government got influenced so they impose taxes on CDs to give tribute to RIAA. RIAA probably realizes there is more money to be had in suing people than actually producing something now since everything goes in their favor. Now they're weighing up a big whale and seeing if they can take it sounds like it. Someone needs to stop the RIAA, they ruin lives because they're just plain greedy and have no morals to stop them. They started with screwing artists, now they're trying to sue everyone possible. It's just sick.

Re:RIAA wants to sue everyone they can (1)

rajafarian (49150) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976541)

At this point I think they pretty much have to in order to justify their own existence.

Google a victim of it's own success? (3, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976297)

maybe the suits at RIAA are getting personalized results, just like everyone else.

think about it - if all they click on are pirate sites, that's going to fairly effectively override any pagerank tweaks that google can throw at them.

a RIAA lawyer is hardly going to click on spotify, hulu or itunes if they're looking to C&D someone.

RIAA can suggest sites! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976343)

The RIAA can just provide a list, mapping from "pirate site" --> "legitimate site".

Every time a naughty link is found, they can update the list and Google can display both. At least this will help the everyone see just how easy it is to get legitimate content...

off topic but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976521)

.. google has everything it needs to become a mega media company. Leverage youtube to be a permanent American Idol, sign up REAL talent with an established following, bam.

The real source of the problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976875)

'These sites consistently appear at the top of Google's search results for popular songs or artists.'

Lets search for "The Big Bang Theory S06E17 720p download". Hm, only pirate sites. Why would that be? Maybe because there are no legal Sites to appear.

The real Problem is, that at the time people search for popular downloads of Music/Movies and Television shows, there are no legal alternatives to pirate sites. At least outside the US. Sure in 2 Years you might find it on a legal Streaming site or buy the DVD/Bluray half Season box, but today? Piracy is your only Option.

Re:The real source of the problem (2)

DKlineburg (1074921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977473)

I think this is a big issue. I tried to follow CBS shows, but there website is so hard to utilize for streaming. Hulu is kinda there, but still lacking. I don't know why I need to pay to watch ads? Hulu plus did not remove ads. And hey, I'm trying to do it the legit way. Netflix is ok, but so slow to get content. I just don't see a legit easy, good option. Until they get there it isn't changing.

Google don't work for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977103)

Neither does the rest of the world.

You stick to what you do best, exploiting musicians, RIAA and leave the internet to the REST OF THE WORLD.

Perhaps if you're feeling all "moral" you could sue of few of your members selling compilation albums of songs they don't have the rights to sell. There's a clear-cut case of someone taking money from the artist.

The only option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977479)

Search for MP3 download options:

Before:
TPB: 90 points.
Some other torrent site: 80 points.
Yet another torrent site: 70 points.
Legal sites: Yeah right.

After:
TPB: 9 points.
Some other torrent site: 8 points.
Yet another torrent site: 7 points.
Legal sites: Yeah right.

RIAA: Those pesky torrent sites are still coming out on top. Our big expensive site where you can buy a DRM-infected version that won't play anyway, are still not on top, unless you search specifically for "Sony root-kit buy waste money too rich".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?