Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Google Media Piracy The Almighty Buck United States Entertainment News Your Rights Online

Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting From Google

Comments Filter:
  • Just Google it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @07:24PM (#33888896) Journal

    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]?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @07:30PM (#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?
  • Seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by somenickname ( 1270442 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @08:13PM (#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".

  • Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Knightman ( 142928 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @08:41PM (#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.

  • by PatPending ( 953482 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @09:28PM (#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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @09:51PM (#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.

  • War Profiteers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @10:05PM (#33889752) Homepage

    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:Well duh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @12:11AM (#33890336) Homepage Journal

    So your argument is that when something is for a good cause, it should be done as a matter of charity?

    No, can't really see that, either. The labels have an incentive, a financial one, to protect their IP interests. They want assistance from Google. Google is willing to do so, for a fee. So the whole thing is an economic arrangement. If the labels think they can recover X, while paying Google X-Y, then it should be a no-brainer. If not, then Google prices itself out of the market, and makes no money off the label's little problem. I'm a fan of IP law, personally, though I think it's a little out of hand, duration-wise.

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.