iTunes Chart-Toppers (a/o February 21st):
Why raid MegaUpload, block the Pirate Bay, and endlessly pressure Grooveshark? Isn't Google - which is oftentimes getting licensed by the majors - the biggest problem of them all?
Just this week, label group IFPI shared this with Digital Music News. It's a search survey involving some of the most popular, highest-charting artists in the world. Add 'mp3' to the search term, and this is what the infringing ratios looks like.
source: IFPI
So, why not just send endless takedown notices, and clean this picture up? After all, these are major, multi-billion-dollar companies that will play by the DMCA rules, and major labels have (some) resources to do this. Well, according to the IFPI, this is a rather hopeless pursuit. "Mass numbers of takedown notices are sent to search engines each month asking them to delist links to non-legal content," the group explained in its report. "However, response times vary and delays still occur."
But wait: it gets even more complicated than that. Apparently there are limitations on how much takedown noticing you can do. "There are also sometimes restrictions on the number of non-legal links that rights holders can notify. These need to be removed, and search engines should take measures to prevent notified infringing links re-appearing in results."
Beyond that, the IPFI wants more, including a clear delineation between legal and illegal results, or outright filtering. And, part of the SOPA push involved pressuring search engines and payment providers to disconnect from infringing sources. Which is one reason Google totally hated the idea.
Comments Closed
Aaron Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The phrase, "non-legal links," is unintelligible. A link is just a series of characters that point to a place on the internet. It is nearly impossible for a link to be non-legal. The series of 1s and 0s that make up "infringing content" are also completely legal. It might be an unauthorized use, but the existence of it isn't illegal.
At a maximum, the REPRODUCTION of the content infringes on the exclusive right to the work of the content owner. When content owners identify what they own, they abide by current law and send take-down notifications. The alleged infringer has an opportunity to serve a counter notification to get it re-instated. This system was designed this way for a very specific reason: To prevent illegal take-down notification that are commonplace in todays world. When a rights-holder serves a notification, they state under penalty of perjury that they have the right to remove. This is to prevent abuse of the process. While not perfect, the design is very elegant and provides checks & balances.
Search results are a map of the internet. If the internet contains links to content that someone will later identify as unauthorized, it will appear in the results. It is Google's sole discretion as to how to present their map of the internet; not some external party.
This is all to say that the IFPI's statements on this issue are jibberish to me. They are using words that don't mean anything.
Maxwellian Wednesday, January 25, 2012
OK, using that in analogy. Guy selling maps to buy contraband in a corner store. It lists weapons, drugs, anything not permitted by law with the pinpoint accuracy.
Do we let that guy sell those maps?
Aaron Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Not sure what the law says on that, but it doesn't matter what "we" should or should not let them do; it's a matter of law. In my opinion, I believe that the mapmaker is in a legal business. However, it is not for you or I to decide. I have a feeling that the authorities would buy up those maps to find the contraband.
But this is a completely different story. Copyright is nothing like physical property. That's why there's no such thing as theft when it comes; it's called infringement on the content owner's right.
Buck Wednesday, January 25, 2012
I'm pretty sure the law allows it, yes. Though its not exactly the same thing, the Anarchist Cookbook can be legally sold as information itself is not illegal.
giomakyo Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Of course, Google is profiting from the current situation in which they enable privacy, via advertising revenue. Their interest in opposing SOPA was certainly NOT Internet freedom but their own bottom line. For a good summary of that situation, go here:
http://popuppirates.com/
Easy stuff Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Ranking high *and* in various positions for "artist name mp3" is very important.
It's time artists (or their teams) learn what SEO means -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization
It is not that hard to do yourself, if you don't have a lot of money. Learn HTML, read the basics of SEO, bookmark some SEO blogs, learn from the pros. Learn what to do. Learn what not to do.
If I was running a "social network" profile for an artist called Paul Resnikoff, I would make sure there was a link on that profile, like this one:
tippysdemise Wednesday, January 25, 2012
when searching for one of my artist's albums on Google, the auto fill-in (which kicks in before I finish typing) goes, in order, like this:
Artist, Album Name
Artist, Album Name ZIP
" " Review
" " RAR
" " Download
" " Blogspot
" " Lyrics
" " FLAC
Easy stuff man Thursday, January 26, 2012
Set up a blog, make 1 post a day, build your links with those keywords, problem solved in less than six months.
dangude Thursday, January 26, 2012
Copyright holders who want to distribute on the internet must take the good with the bad. Maximum distribution = Maximum exposure + maximum infringement.
so confused Thursday, January 26, 2012
There is no such thing as "maximum exposure" in capitalism. Time for you to open a few books. You know, those things made of paper?
Visitor Thursday, January 26, 2012
SEO blogs Thursday, January 26, 2012
http://www.searchengineland.com
http://www.seobook.com
http://www.seomoz.org/blog
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog
http://www.bgtheory.com/category/blog
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com
Ken McAllister Friday, January 27, 2012
Clearly Google is one of the biggest enablers of copyright infringement in the world. They try and candy-coat their illicit profiteering with their pro-artist platforms, such the "artist hub", which no more than another façade for their global advertising machine -- that is heavily dependent on the exploitation of copyrighted creative works . From the top major label acts-- to the smallest artists, the Google Behemoth touts itself as a partner in monetization, and as a vehicle for "exposure" . In reality the trickle down of capital to the actual creators is miniscule and more of an insult. Yet, they continue to be pervasive because of the clout they have attained in Mountain View-- from the capital made from the spoils of artist plunder & those well-oiled revenue algorithms. Where are the honest royalty payments? Where is the infringement enforcement?
Lastly, does Google even have customer service for their youtube monetization portal --"AdSense"? The last time I checked AdSense did not, no number, no email, nothing.
I don't think Google even gives a damn about art, especially not independent art. Their paradigm is rooted in power and control, akin to the greedy multinational corporate giants of the past.... Standard Oil comes to mind, but the commodification is far more grandiose here in the information age.
Visitor Saturday, January 28, 2012
The take-down notice system is an ineffective joke. First of all, it is humanly impossible to send take-downs to all the cases of infringement. Second of all, delays occur, during which time illicit downloads are happening. Next, there is no real penalty to the site owners, uploaders, or downloaders. The material is just taken down, and reappears somewhere else.
It's too much work for rights holders, and with no real effect.
There must be a faster, cleaner, way to enforce intellectual property rights, with real penalties for infringers, and damages assessed at a reasonable reate payable to the rights owners.
- Versus
Whack a Mole Sunday, January 29, 2012
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us