Top iPad Music Apps (a/o May 23rd):
(
I've yet to see an adult or explicit video on YouTube, even though tens of thousands of hours of content are uploaded every day. Granted, I'm not diligently looking for this stuff, but the point is that filtering is effective. And when it comes to mainline search results, Google's SafeSearch seems impeccable - and totally safe for kids.
So, why are results totally unsafe for artists and content owners? And why are labels forced to play by the DMCA, and get vilified when they remove content or refuse to license? "We play the wack-a-mole problem just as much as the content industry does, and it frustrates us," Google attorney Kent Walker told members of Congress last month. "We are in the best position to rapidly remove content... the content industry is in the best position to let us know what's authorized and what's not. The music industry is a very complicated place."
But is this really so complicated? Or, could Google clean up illegal music results overnight?
('Strict' SafeSearch still active.)
Comments Closed
@Repojay Sunday, May 15, 2011
Jay Frank
Wow...a smart argument...
Chris Castle Sunday, May 15, 2011
How about this--we've never licensed the Pirate Bay, Isohunt, Mininova, Megaupload, Megavideo, Hotfile, Limewire....
Google "accidentally" blocked the Pirate Bay from search results about a year ago and fell over themselves assuring users that it would get right on fixing that "problem" so they can't say it's not possible. All they have to do is to do intentionally that which they did accidentally.
They don't want to because they make too much money at it.
Sandeep Sunday, May 15, 2011
wrong, google wants to keep consumers happy, if consumers search for torrents and it is available on the net, why should google block it ? you see safesearch is not on default, user has to choose safesearch. If you want torrent sites to be blocked, ask your ISPs, else pay money to Google to change its algorithm or better yet try to get a law passed. Google is not in the business, to please content owners, it is in the business to please end users or consumers. I doubt Google would change algorithm to please content owners even if money is paid, simply because users will lose trust and trust is paramount to google's success. But if law is laid down that search engines should remove access, then google will do it , as it is obligated under law. You know why ISPs are not able to block all torrent sites, because it is an impossible task, sure they blocked piratebay, but a new site comes up to take its place, ou want google to continuously remove torrent sites without ponying up, google is not a charity, it is a business. Pay up or get law passed
Eric Monday, May 16, 2011
"Google is not in the business, to please content owners, it is in the business to please end users or consumers"
Wrong... Google is in the business of pleasing itself. They just hide behind the guise of being 'consumer friendly' in order to do that.
Jay Monday, May 16, 2011
Google is not in the business of policing the internet. In the case of content that they themselves host with Youtube, they take down unauthorized content, per DMCA. For the sites that they index with search, Google does not verify the accuracy or ownership of the content that it is indexing.
If Google was responsible for verifying ownership of content across the sites that they index, music torrents would be a very small part of this. Is Google supposed to verify whether text that it indexes is plagiarized, libelous, or, even worse, accurate? Is Google supposed to verify that porn sites own the right to transmit their content? Is Google responsible for verifying whether or not content is harmful?
Although I believe that music torrents and download sites are very harmful to the music industry, I believe censorship is far more harmful. Google is certainly more than capable of not displaying results for torrents or other search terms, but that is a dangerous precedent.
Leroy Harrington Monday, May 16, 2011
@Jay
I really think that you might be missing the point. It's that in order for Google to be a good search engine parents and everyone else have to know its clean. So if you're searching porn without filters you might get results that are not by the actual copyright owner --- but that's another problem entirely. But music stuff can be scrubbed out fairly effectively because Google has proven it on millions of adult videos and results.
@enzomazza Monday, May 16, 2011
enzomazza
if you want you really can fight piracy
@Industrialpope Monday, May 16, 2011
Robert de Jong
could google clean it's act. Yeah sure, let's filter the web and watch how someone else takes over that #1 spot.
@digitmissile Monday, May 16, 2011
Yann Godbout
Y'a pas a dire, les filtres de Google sont bon pour la porn, pas pour les musiciens.
wallow-T Monday, May 16, 2011
I propose that, analogous to child porn, Google should block all search results related to music keywords, such as artist names.
A total block will eliminate any chance that Google refers to unauthorized sources for music files, and isn't that really the goal, to have music treated the same as porn?
@Artistmcgill Monday, May 16, 2011
Kyler McGillicuddy
1. I don't want anyone filtering my access to the internet.
2. It should not be up to Google in the first place
@musicregistry Monday, May 16, 2011
Stephen Trumbull
And how does it affect musicians?
Doug Monday, May 16, 2011
Which torrent users are going to physically shut off their ability to search torrents? Like 14 year old boys are censoring their Google results.
Step one is the key. Google lets users decide what they can/ can't see.
Lee M Monday, May 16, 2011
I operate a legal download store...yeah what was I thinking! Anyway...I have used a service called Link Busters and the service has been highly effective at getting takedowns of illegally uploaded content. From their site "98,5% of all links detected by our service have been taken offline, 75% within the first 24 hours". I am in no way affiliated with Link Busters other that to say it's a such a straightforward solution, it staggers me that the industry at large is not encouraging/embracing/expanding this type of service. To the majors I say: Sure, battle it out in the courtrooms but stop your moaning and get creative in your thinking on how to tackle the issue.
formerpromusician Monday, May 16, 2011
Google and Youtubes' profits in the main come from advertising.
Much of their income from their ad sense programs comes from the file locker and torrent sites which host illegal uploads of music, books and movies. Their own site YouTube alone has plenty of illegal music uploads.
Google is the biggest profiteer from piracy. Google have not interest at all in cleaning up their actions. Google care about their profits not about content creators and artists. They will do everything to ensure their income continues to rise, they will not slash their income by 2/3rds, by not advertising or supporting these sites.
Could they change their current modus operandi? Yes. Will they? Unlikely. Could legislation force change? Unlikely. Google have deep links on Capital Hill and plenty of lobbyists. Their initial funding came from the CIA-based sources (In-Q-Tel. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Sequoia Capital) and they have established relationships with the NSA and various agencies in the US Intelligence Community. Google and Capital Hill employment is like a revolving door, former Google employees go to Capital Hill and Capital Hill employees end up at Google. Don't look for any change anytime soon, Google's only interest in content creators, music and other artists is as a means to drive traffic and hence ad-revenue. They want more them and don't give a f**k about content creators income. Period.
Steve Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The effectiveness of safesearch (whether on youtube or google search itself) is based on censoring numerous legitimate results. That's not terrible when it's a voluntary option.
Of course, this leads to a simple question: Why can't Google do it anyway, despite all the false positives?
Well, Google Search has a philosophy of not deciding for their users what is and isn't legal. Given that they own so much of the market, this isn't just good for free speech, it's absolutely necessary. By refusing to make determinations like these, Google avoids abusing what could otherwise be offensive monopoly powers. False positives could kill business for victims.
Do we really want to establish a system where people or companies who are disliked or suspected of illegal behavior are shut off from search engines? I suspect the RIAA would not fare especially well.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us