Sometimes people decide to file frivolous lawsuits that are illegal in many jurisdictions. To find a shady lawyer for such a suit many of these criminals use a search engine such as Google. Unfortunately, the Bar Association is recalcitrant - they claim they are powerless to stop these lawyers before the suit is filed and the damage is done.
Consequently, I propose instead that Google is empowered to decide which law companies can be found on the internet based on how many complaints we send them.
You missed a point. "... based on how many __successful__ complaints we send them."
The consequence of a frivolous lawsuit is a "contempt of court" prosecution. Would it were feasible, would you be in favour of lowering the Pagerank of an attorney based on the number of times he has been found guilty of contempt of court when searching for representation ?
I think the key here is that it isn't Google that decides which music can be pirated -- there are laws that require them to comply with these kind of requests. Such requests do not exist for the example you mention (law companies), and as such, Google is not required to comply with our requests.
The fallacy underlying your claim is assuming a minority of the people who were directed to a pirated copy still wouldn't buy the song, if they weren't able to pirate it.
What if someone searches for "Avatar torrent" or "Avatar free download". Shoudn't Google give them those results that are most relevant to the query made? Why should Google offer them a link to Ultraviolet.com or whatever, if the user searched for Avatar torrent?
I can't see how what you are asking is related to what I wrote.
I am not looking for a pointless, chaotic debate. I made a very clear point - assuming none of the people who downloaded the song will buy it, if the first link wasn't to megaupload or w/e is equally stupid to assuming everyone who downloaded the song will buy it.
Even if 0.1% of the downloaders (one in a thousand!) would have otherwise bought what they pirated, that is 8 or 9 figures in lost revenue.
> that’s at least 100 million times Google offered to direct users to illegal sources for music just within the last two years
What a terrible article. I'm in the administration of a website that regularly gets takedown notices and in the vast majority of cases they're bogus. Their claim here is pure conjecture and willful misrepresentation.
Not to mention that they use some terribly user-hostile javascript to add on more lines to content copy-pasted from the site.
--
Linked from the comments of that article, a well-written rebuttal:
If the purpose of a search engine is to provide an index of everything that's on the Internet, why do they expect the index to be biased?
I propose that Google should adopt the policy of removing references to people and organizations who attempt to influence the integrity of that index - wouldn't it be funny if there were no results when you googled RIAA?
And yes, I realize this might alter the profitability of their advertising business.
> That’s also 100 million times that an artist, songwriter, music label – or anyone else involved in the chain of creating and distributing music – was likely denied the opportunity to earn any royalties, revenues or sales.
The fact that someone downloads something ilegally from the internet DOESN'T mean they'd otherwise pay for it. For how long we'll keep hearing that?
It also is not a direct correlation with the number of times someone found or downloaded a song. It's just how many times a takedown notice was issued.
Yes that also caught me out, and while reading I wondered who this was because the tone was somewhat arrogant as well as slightly blaming google for music piracy...
I can't remember the last guest opinion piece I read which put the bio line at the top. It's almost always the author's name up front, then the bio at the bottom. Here's one from the Times just this morning:
"Surely there must be a better way for users to be directed to legitimate sources of the music they seek instead of illegal ones, a way that preserves the integrity and genius of Google’s search algorithm but also protects the rights of creators and the businesses that invest in them."
There may be, RIAA. Are YOU going to pay for it?
Perhaps the better solution for Google would be to simply blackhole all searches for RIAA artists. After all, wouldn't want anything illegal sneaking through...
22 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 65.0 ms ] threadConsequently, I propose instead that Google is empowered to decide which law companies can be found on the internet based on how many complaints we send them.
I can't see a single problem with that.
The consequence of a frivolous lawsuit is a "contempt of court" prosecution. Would it were feasible, would you be in favour of lowering the Pagerank of an attorney based on the number of times he has been found guilty of contempt of court when searching for representation ?
In other words: blame lawmakers, not Google.
I am not looking for a pointless, chaotic debate. I made a very clear point - assuming none of the people who downloaded the song will buy it, if the first link wasn't to megaupload or w/e is equally stupid to assuming everyone who downloaded the song will buy it.
Even if 0.1% of the downloaders (one in a thousand!) would have otherwise bought what they pirated, that is 8 or 9 figures in lost revenue.
What a terrible article. I'm in the administration of a website that regularly gets takedown notices and in the vast majority of cases they're bogus. Their claim here is pure conjecture and willful misrepresentation.
Not to mention that they use some terribly user-hostile javascript to add on more lines to content copy-pasted from the site.
--
Linked from the comments of that article, a well-written rebuttal:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140113/10303125849/riaas-...
I propose that Google should adopt the policy of removing references to people and organizations who attempt to influence the integrity of that index - wouldn't it be funny if there were no results when you googled RIAA?
And yes, I realize this might alter the profitability of their advertising business.
The fact that someone downloads something ilegally from the internet DOESN'T mean they'd otherwise pay for it. For how long we'll keep hearing that?
Usually the byline goes at the top so the reader can understand upfront the point of view and any biases of the writer.
The article comes off as very misleading, unsurprisingly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/opinion/dont-ask-your-doct...
Wasted effort in a bid to protect an outdated business model eg. cd and dvd distribution, massive mark up on digital sales.
There may be, RIAA. Are YOU going to pay for it?
Perhaps the better solution for Google would be to simply blackhole all searches for RIAA artists. After all, wouldn't want anything illegal sneaking through...