Good news. Hopefully they will be able to make a living from selling t-shirts with their sites' logos printed on them.

Time for them to adapt. Don't be a dinosaur, eh?

ahhhhhhhhh

Yeah, you killed it. 

+1

Perfect.

"Hopefully they will be able to make a living from selling t-shirts with their sites' logos printed on them." Yes.

ROFL.

Onward!

YouTube n'est pas dans la liste ?

#ohwait

Well said. MOST of our copyrights show up on YouTube and we spend a great deal of time sending in takedown requests to YouTube.  It would not surprise us if YouTube were among the Top 10 violators.

Top 10? More like top 2!

 Google owns Youtube. Youtube won't be affected as Google "trusts" themselves.

Iebukmarkojiet šo sarakstu, var noderēt! ;-)

Dont be fooled by Google's PR stunt...Youtube and Blogger are some of the biggest violators but you dont see them on that list do you? Why is that? is it because Google owns them?

To me, this little stunt looks like Google is trying to wipe out a few of their competitors so they can look good to the labels and maybe work on getting more content from them. They don't give a f%#k about artists copyrights unless if they can benefit directly from them.

In addition to that, check out how Google is already starting to backpedal from their original claim -

http://searchengineland.com/google-many-popular-sites-will-escape-pirate-penalty-130289

Majors and Labels are monetizing videos from YouTube, so it would be ridiculous to see it in that list.

-----------------------------

www.lostindigitalmusic.com

So every video that has music on youtube is authorized by the rights holders and is being "monetized"? 

Potentially yes, the google algorythmn thats scans and matches the audio of uploaded videos is suprisingly sucessful. Once a song (or part of a song) has been matched the rightsholder is notified via the youtube CMS and they can choose to take the video down, or monetise it, or do nothing. If preferences for a song are already set then this can be automatic.

Of course it is up to the rightsholders (usually the majors in this case) to log into the CMS system and keep a check of everything.

re "Blogger":  the domain for Blogger is "blogspot.com" which is also on the list.   This is Google's service offering blogs for anyone.

"blogspot.com" is also the domain for thousands or millions of other blogs which have nothing to do with sharing copyrighted entertainment materials, including a large number of political blogs which are, in the USA, entitled to the highest degree of free-speech protection.   (digbysblog.blogspot.com for one well-known leftist example.)   Anyone can set up a blog under the "blogspot.com" domain.

OK, now that we've established that Google owned properties (youtube and blogger) are basically immune to this penalty, whats going to stop pirates from publishing on them? There's clearly a lot of money being made pirating, so do you really think they will take this penalty lying down or will they use Google properties to funnel traffic back to their sites?

Google is only shifting a TON of pirated content onto their servers...and make no mistake, they will monitize this illegal traffic. It's already happening on Youtube. If you don't belive me do a search for almost any song you can think of on Youtube. I bet you will find unauthorized copies of it, which Vimeo (the BIGGEST music video publisher) doesn't even have access to yet.

And I bet those same illeal tracks are pimped out with Google ads next to them. Why is that? Could it be because Google has an invested interest in making money from the same tracks they claim to be trying to remove from their search engine?

The only people that are going to win from this new penalty are spammers, pirates, and Google. Record lables and artists will continue singing the same sad song...

The path "Visitor" describes means that opportunities for self-publishing on the Internet must be destroyed:  everything which becomes available must be reviewed by persons with legal training.

Under this view of the world, we must retreat to the Compu$erve/GEnie/AOL models where content flows from approved, centralized sources.   (These are the business models which failed when confronted with the Internet.)

Free speech should again be limited to those who own a printing press: or, in the modern world, those who can run a large media corporation.   We can't allow the general public to speak: some number of those who are empowered to speak will infringe copyrights, and targeted enforcement is too expensive.

Hey Willow....im all with you on free speech. People are always going to publish what they want. But the point im stressing here is Google it's self is blocking free speech. The smaller sites on their black list will probably take a beating in the search results, while Youtube rises in popularity...sadly on the backs of illegal copyrighted content.

If Google is genuinely trying to do the right thing, they should punish ALL sites with illegal content (including theirs). It makes no sense to punish smaller publishers and let the bigger pirates get away with murder. By doing that, they prove that they want the internet to be controlled by big companies like themselves, only.

Also, why does "Visitor" say that Blogger is immune to these penalties?  Blogger's domain "blogspot.com" is on the list of domains to be penalized.

Fine Wallow...forget blogger then (even though I will only believe Google when i see them take action here). So, lets stick to Youtube then....the site that is clearly white listed.

PS...sorry for bolding my last comment. couldn't edit it while writing

say goodbye to your favorite music downloading site...

interesante - worde!

Google's own Blogspot makes 5 of the top 100.

So now people include the word filestube or other favorite "sharing" site with the search term?

Have a look at another site on the list:  scaminformer.com

31,000 takedown notices: they must be bad pirates, arrrr!

Hah.   After I looked at the site,  I'd be surprised if even 1% of the takedown notices received by scaminformer.com relate to copyrighted material.

Scaminformer.com is a site for customers to bitch about ill treatment from stores and professionals, and the take-down notices are used to suppress the negative comments.  There are no copyright implications here.

One could not find a more perfect example of how the DMCA takedown process is abused to suppress legitimate speech.

It is election season. I like the political applications.

Here are a few slogans for my next candidate either "conservative" or "liberal" because it really doesn't matter.

The DMCA doesn't kill free speech, people kill free speech.....or

If we criminalize music, only criminals will share music (my personal favorite)....or

DMCA takedown notices are a slippery slope to.......or

The DMCA is a job killer or creator...depending on the political wind that season.

Remember, soon everyone will be under surveillance for political purposes

Yes please! I want monitoring software on everyone's computer. I want every packet going through every router in this country to be inspected by the government. Anything to stop the theiving freetards from stealing my music.

Naive question(s)-

With these new guidelines, is Google making any distinction between a site like downloads.nl, which doesn't host any of the allegedly infringing files and therefore just points to other places where the files actually are, and something like Rapidshare which does actually host the files?

I mean, in this regard, downloads.nl isn't all that different from Google itself, is it? They're both search engines that point to a third party site that hosts the files.

And if it's just a simple matter of 'who has the most DMCA takedown notices', why would downlods.nl recieve any of those notices if they don't host any of the infringing files?

Makes perfect sense. Google should put itself on the #1 of the list since they linked to all these pirate sites which in turn linked to other pirate sites, which linked to pirate sites that held copyrighted content.

Fuck it all, just shut down the Internet already. It's obvious that THE INTERNET is the cause of all the piracy. As long as people can transfer arbitary data, they are going to steal from artists.