'bout time... google punishes nughties...

[Papanate]

Originally Posted by rack gear

free and open VS fair and ethical...

uh oh...

Uh Oh is right...Google just got fined for screwing around with Safari. They could give two craps about music - they have something to gain economically so they do it. There is nothing ethical about that evil company.

Google Fined 22 Million for Safari Cookie hijacking

[rack gear]

here's how to remove links directly from google search, have fun!
Removing Content From Google - Google Help

if you are finding your stuff coming up on google search in places it shouldn't be, use the form above to have the link removed. the more links that are removed from that site, the lower it will rank over all in search listings.

a great step in the right direction... props to my people for making change happen!

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Papanate

Uh Oh is right...Google just got fined for screwing around with Safari. They could give two craps about music - they have something to gain economically so they do it. There is nothing ethical about that evil company.

Google Fined 22 Million for Safari Cookie hijacking

you'd think after the half a billion payout last year to pharma to keep the board of directors from being indicted on a non-prosecution settlement they'd start to realize they are in trouble, and it could get much more serious.

google is getting hammered from all sides, and all the full mounted attacks haven't even started yet... they can clean up their act, or be brought to justice to do so.

[Papanate]

Originally Posted by rack gear

google is getting hammered from all sides, and all the full mounted attacks haven't even started yet... they can clean up their act, or be brought to justice to do so.

While it would bug me to have Google taken down - they employ a lot of people and really do some good work - I would like to see the company be forced to refocus legally.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Papanate

While it would bug me to have Google taken down - they employ a lot of people and really do some good work - I would like to see the company be forced to refocus legally.

of course. google has done a lot of good - but we don't keep murders out of jail if they've helped an old lady across the street.

tech people want everyone to believe the internet in any form is ALL GOOD and any opposition to it is ALL BAD.

this is just not true. the internet and the businesses and people on it are just like the real world. when things are done fairly, legally and ethically - no problem, but where there is wrong doing it should be addressed.

all wrong doing should be unacceptable, online and off...

[Dappolito]

The article states "Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law."

This is ridiculous imho. They have over 32000 employees. If they had 1000 people looking out for illegal content sites, supported by good software algos, they could achieve already something. I mean, it takes 1 minute to see what a site is about ........... and then ban the site completely and not just a subpage.

edit: the artice mentions, that GOOGLE states "Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law."

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Dappolito

The article states "Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law."

This is ridiculous imho. They have over 32000 employees. If they had 1000 people looking out for illegal content sites, supported by good software algos, they could achieve already something. I mean, it takes 1 minute to see what a site is about ........... and then ban the site completely and not just a subpage.

yup... and that's where it's going, but it will be a fight tooth and nail the whole way there... this is but a step, but an important one to those who have insisted absolutely nothing could be done... just as they are now saying the same thing about determining if a site is involved in illegally activity (probably because if they did, they'd be liable for all the illegal ads they are serving) guess what, they're going to be liable for those ads anyway...

[Papanate]

Originally Posted by Dappolito

The article states "Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law."

This is ridiculous imho. They have over 32000 employees. If they had 1000 people looking out for illegal content sites, supported by good software algos, they could achieve already something. I mean, it takes 1 minute to see what a site is about ........... and then ban the site completely and not just a subpage.

Would you want Google to determine whether your page is 'legal' or not? I trust them about as far as I can throw the internet. <G>

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Papanate

Would you want Google to determine whether your page is 'legal' or not? I trust them about as far as I can throw the internet. <G>

youtube would probably be the first one to be delisted... I wonder how far google will drop youtube rankings based on this new policy.

[Papanate]

Originally Posted by rack gear

youtube would probably be the first one to be delisted... I wonder how far google will drop youtube rankings based on this new policy.

Can I assume you know that Google owns YouTube? Because that's quite funny to think about...<G>

[freetard]

Google keeps providing more and more reasons to not use their search engine.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by freetard

Google keeps providing more and more reasons to not use their search engine.

because you don't value your privacy or because you do?
http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/07/10...-apple-safari/

anyway... hahahahaha... and you think this is going to be limited to google? hahahahahahahaha... phew... you're funny.

google is only the expression of the problem, not the problem itself. this is systemic change happening, buckle up.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Papanate

Can I assume you know that Google owns YouTube? Because that's quite funny to think about...<G>

exactly my point.

[petermichael]

i, and others, said a while ago, to bring back the equity in music, they do not have to remove piracy, they just have to make it such a pain in the neck that the piracy goes back underground, and the common, typical user isn't interested in bothering.

add any development in that direction, to a nice lawsuit won against schmoogle, and you have a winning story!

[Dappolito]

Originally Posted by Papanate

Would you want Google to determine whether your page is 'legal' or not? I trust them about as far as I can throw the internet. <G>

I don't have a Warez or Music Download page. I see no problem, if Google employees delete complete websites from the search engine, that are only about illegal content.

People can still see all progressive, alternative, leftist webpages and share their political thoughts.

Oh wait, most don't do that, and just want to consume music for free.

[Dappolito]

Originally Posted by rack gear

youtube would probably be the first one to be delisted... I wonder how far google will drop youtube rankings based on this new policy.

I wonder how many employees google really has. Officially like 32000. But with all free employees that deliver free content to youtube.... it's more like hundrets of thousands... Perfect capitalistic exploitation. Minimum wages? No! NO WAGES HAHAHAHAHA! Genius. And it only works with brainwashed freetards.

[joelpatterson]

I wonder why they haven't thought of charging people for hosting their videos world-wide on-demand, and why doesn't Google charge us for providing links so people can find them?

Why don't they demand a percentage of the production fees? What kind of crazy theater are they running, anyway???

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

I wonder why they haven't thought of charging people for hosting their videos world-wide on-demand, and why doesn't Google charge us for providing links so people can find them?

Why don't they demand a percentage of the production fees? What kind of crazy theater are they running, anyway???

why charge for when they can profit from human suffering, human trafficking, money laundering, racketeering, and anti-trust?

they are chargind for it joel, they're just not charging you... they're just taking monitoring you and taking your privacy.

maybe you don't care about your privacy, but others do...

Google , FTC settle for $22.5 million #thecircuit - Post Tech - The Washington Post

again joel... the one thing you don't seem to acknowledge Joel is the enforcement of long standing laws to be used against long established crimes. the illegal exploitation of artists online is just a front from money laundering through ad networks, in other words, the "P" doesn't even have to be mentioned for this to be prosecuted under RICO... and if you don't know what that is, look it up.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this isn't just about music. this isn't about people "sharing". it's about mass scale, enterprise level, organized crime that includes human trafficking, money laundering, racketeering, and probably even more than I can think of... when all this finally shakes out it'll probably make enron look like disney land.

So keep living in the dark and making excuses for criminals (real criminals) not down loaders.

A New Meaning for Real Time Bidding: An artist’s guide to how the brands and ad agencies are in on advertising

and think all those "advocacy" groups are legit, think again...

Google and Facebook's new tactic in the tech wars - Fortune Tech

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by AyA

Ari Platnum?

I heard the stories..

Seriously, Hollywood is a rusting sign on the hill.

You can own it but it's shit.

I own (pretend to live in) Melbourne... We have culture... Like a petri dish.

don't need the hill for rico laws to be enforced.

and, it was ari emanuel who went to silicon valley (that's north of hollywood, the hill as in capitol hill is east)

WME's Ari Emanuel Calls for Hollywood, Silicon Valley to Come Together Over Piracy - Hollywood Reporter

Kick and Scream, but Google is changing it's way, for the better... and there will be more changes, many more changes that they have claimed were "impossible"... as per the OP a simple form now makes it possible for artists, creators and rights holders to de-list hundreds of infringing links at once, and the infringing links than cause those sites to drop in rankings (YouTube excluded of course).

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by rack gear

... and probably even more than I can think of... ...

Is there any way to, um... exaggerate the depths of depravity that Google and Youtube and Kentucky Fried Chicken are complicit in?

I didn't think so....

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Is there any way to, um... exaggerate the depths of depravity that Google and Youtube and Kentucky Fried Chicken are complicit in?

I didn't think so....

the truth is bad enough without the need to exaggerate it, keep making excuses for criminals joel.

I don't understand why you think crime is OK if it's done online?

If your bank account was hacked online and your money is taken how is that different than being robbed any other way?

[joelpatterson]

Mr. Gear... all these rhetorical questions and insinuations and moral high ground fanfares, they just seem to me to be drifting further and further afield from daily life as we know it-- but then, my whole scene would not benefit from squelching the dissemination of anything audio/video related I do. Perhaps that's the distinction? Should people be forced to pay to watch Youtube videos? In the world of 1975, that answer would be a resounding "yes," but in the world of 2012, with different considerations and priorities and the incalculable benefits of free exposure, a different calculus is called for.

I kind of accept it-- I have to and I do voluntarily-- that the Internet has come steamrolling into all our lives, and none of us got to specify exactly how it would function and what trade-offs it would involve.

I choose to look upon it as seething with wonders-- info at the fingertips, every singer or band I was ever remotely curious about available within seconds of the whim crossing my mind, a pipeline of my own to an eager audience of potentially zillions-- and then take messageboards. Please! I used to sit in the back of the class, spouting off sarcastic one liners, and what did it get me? It didn't get me any badges for five years of faithful service, I tell you that right now.

I can understand-- if your product, which once had a reliably controllable distribution system, can now be unauthorizedly stolen-- you'd be bristling with anger and rage. That's not quite exactly like a breach of your bank account, but philosophically it's close, I grant, but, I dunno, man. To lump that in with illegal arms trafficking and child prostitution... to see everyone as either comrade on the battlements or spy for the enemy... you lose me.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

I can understand-- if your product, which once had a reliably controllable distribution system, can now be unauthorizedly stolen-- you'd be bristling with anger and rage. That's not quite exactly like a breach of your bank account, but philosophically it's close, I grant, but, I dunno, man. To lump that in with illegal arms trafficking and child prostitution... to see everyone as either comrade on the battlements or spy for the enemy... you lose me.

How is it not like a breach of my bank account? Less money in it is less money in it. And not speaking just as an artist - speaking as a former touring guitar tech, the number of people employed in that line of work has plummeted. The drop in income is pretty much across the board, all over the industry.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

How is it not like a breach of my bank account? ....

It is not like a breach of your bank account in this way: breaching your bank account is taking money that you already earned from someone in some way, by doing something for them that they either (1) asked you to do, or (2) made some arrangement by which they agreed to compensate you for your labors.

Unauthorized file sharing is more like you propped up a yard full of trinkets and gizmos you had lying around the house on tables on your lawn, in preparation for a tag sale, and then in the early morning hours someone sneaks up and takes a picture of your set of tiki salad bowls. Not even stealing the bowls-- leaving you with the originals, for which you may have arbitrarily set a price you hope someone will pay-- making a data copy and scampering off into the dawn.

That, in all its permutations, is exactly the difference.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

It is not like a breach of your bank account in this way: breaching your bank account is taking money that you already earned from someone in some way, by doing something for them that they either (1) asked you to do, or (2) made some arrangement by which they agreed to compensate you for your labors.

Unauthorized file sharing is more like you propped up a yard full of trinkets and gizmos you had lying around the house on tables on your lawn, in preparation for a tag sale, and then in the early morning hours someone sneaks up and takes a picture of your set of tiki salad bowls. Not even stealing the bowls-- leaving you with the originals, for which you may have arbitrarily set a price you hope someone will pay-- making a data copy and scampering off into the dawn.

That, in all its permutations, is exactly the difference.

Bullshyte.

If my (or my friend's) music is distributed without payment the content owner is due payment. If that payment is denied that is theft.

That's why my lead guitarist is crashing on my floor despite the fact that several of his songs are widely distributed on the internet and should be earning him a living wage.

Check out The Lewd's "Mobile Home", I'm Not Pretty", and various other songs. Or any of the recent material from The Rubber City Rebels (who are in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame but still make ZERO money, even when they tour Europe and Japan.)

Of course, at the age of 55 he's given up and reconciled himself to being supported by me and his girlfriend.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

... should be ...

Living in the land of "should be" and "it just ain't fair!" and "by God, we'll get this straightened out and heads are gonna roll," good luck with that.

[chrisso]

And we're back with "nothing was really taken" again.

[Don Hills]

I believe that artists that produce publicly copyable works should be able to set a price for the copies and people can either pay it or go without. But I'm increasingly coming to the view that copyright (and its enforcement) as it has traditionally been known is not going to be a viable way to do it in the future. (And no, I don't have a viable scheme, and if I did I certainly wouldn't mention it here. I'd monetise it.)

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by chrisso

And we're back with "nothing was really taken" again.

As well as being back to...

"Free publicity/exposure that I would have died for a few short decades ago means nothing to me now-- furthermore, I'm just going to bury my head in the sand and act like nothing has changed and get all pouty when someone tries to tell me it has, baby."