Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
Fluffeh writes:
"In a written statement to a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the DMCA takedown system, RIAA CEO Cary Sherman informed lawmakers about the ongoing struggle against online piracy. 'All those links to infringing music files that were automatically repopulated by each pirate site after today's takedown will be re-indexed and appear in search results tomorrow. Every day we have to send new notices to take down the very same links to illegal content we took down the day before. It's like Groundhog Day for takedowns,' Sherman says.
Google, however, clearly disagrees with the RIAA, Katherine Oyama, Google's Senior Copyright Policy Counsel said 'The best way to battle piracy is with better, more convenient, legitimate alternatives to piracy, as services ranging from Netflix to Spotify to iTunes have demonstrated. The right combination of price, convenience, and inventory will do far more to reduce piracy than enforcement can.'"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dale on Friday March 14 2014, @09:46AM
They complain about the work they have to do to protect their own interest? Isn't their whole argument for why they are needed is for their "value-added" services?
Google is not the internet police. They have automated systems that scan what is being made available by others. They are not responsible for filtering or doing the work for other groups' censorship goals.
(Score: 1) by deathlyslow on Friday March 14 2014, @10:09AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday March 14 2014, @10:13AM
The RIAA wants to shift the costs of defending their business model onto others: Google, the taxpayer, doesn't matter who. What amazes me is that Google is absorbing the costs to keep processing takedown requests, and the RIAA has the nerve to bitch about their small share of the costs.
Dear RIAA: if you don't like playing whack-a-mole, you can stop any time. When it costs too much to continue the fight, that is called "defeat." Deal with it.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight who is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday March 14 2014, @10:22AM
Google aren't doing this by choice, they're doing it because they lost the lawsuits the RIAA filed against them alleging complicity with the file sharers. Whether or not they are compelled do by the verdicts in those cases is open for argument, but I'm guessing the costs associated with their (token) attempts to do the RIAA's bidding are somewhat lower than the cost of fighting off another round of legal trolling.
As much as I hate the RIAA, you have to admire their ability to get other people to do all the work for them.
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday March 14 2014, @11:26AM
Literally:
“Google places a numerical limit on the number of search queries we can make to find the infringing content and, as a result, we can only take down a tiny fraction of the number of infringing files on each pirate site, let alone on the Internet generally,â€
I read that as "Waaaaaaah, they won't let us use 4509TB/sec of their searching servers to do our bidding! WAAAAAAAAAH!"
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 1) by Rune of Doom on Friday March 14 2014, @01:26PM
But the MAFIAA has a right to make a profit from their business model! That's why they spent years buying legislation!
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Friday March 14 2014, @11:08AM
RIAA, not getting its way in the play ground goes running back to Mummy and Daddy Congress.
"Mummy, Daddy, they're not being nice to me,"
"Who my dear wateringhole..I mean child?"
"Google Mummy. They wont do exactly what I tell them to do. Fix it!"
"Suger Baby, it's not that simple, it is still somewhat a free country"
"I don't care. if you want me to still be nice and keep giving you my sugar, you better fix this"
RIAA is a sloit little child and they ran right to the people who will take care of them. I could just see those sage fonts of Bullshittery nodding their heads saying, sure we will. You still have that check for me..I mean for our campaign funds?
I remember some time back there was a P2P file sharing system that somehow hid the originators (seeders?) by bouncing the flow via multiple routes. I wonder what happened to that for it seems to me torrent is to vulnerable to detection.
I wonder if there could be a P@P distributed system that works similar to DNS. It maintains simple tables of file locations, hashed and encrypted. When I put out a request it gets passed to local tables and if it is not there they pass on the request till the file(s) are found, then the data is split, sent back via the hashed/encrypted address information such that the sender and the receiver have no idea who is who.
Not an advocate of infringing copyright, but I am also sick of seeing pricing that is piracy, and the attitude that what is yours is really mine. I'd prefer to pay, but I've also stopped buying music, movies, or anything digital but for rare occasions.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday March 14 2014, @11:38AM
In fact what should google do if somebody makes a song named "tiananmen square" or "putin is a dictator" or "NSA spy scandal"? bring down all sites with those phrases?
Being Google I'd have replied "if you want to protect your stuff from piracy, just distribute it for a fee only, once you shove it into people ears with payola radio, movies and product placements you don't have any moral right to complain."
(Score: 1) by MrNemesis on Friday March 14 2014, @12:31PM
RIAA clearly wants google to become the internet police. Well, maybe not google necessarily, but someone has to be.
Perhaps google can shift to a whitelist model instead of a blacklist - every page they spider should be sent to the RIAA for vetting before it makes its way into the publicly available search index. This would have the colossal advantage that consumers would only be able to access the right kind of information, something that search engines are meant to do in the first place - the introduction of content whitelisting, combined with the neutralisation of connections that accept incoming connections, will effectively render obsolete peer-to-peer until it becomes impossible to conceptualise.
It's a win-win all round.