Google Receives Its 100 Millionth Piracy Notice. Nothing Changes…

  • Save

The following post comes from Frances Moore, CEO of global recording label organization IFPI.  Over the past decade, trade group that has almost no success getting Google to modify its results.

“After 100 million piracy notices, it’s time for Google to take meaningful action to help curb online copyright infringement.

This week marks a key milestone for the global recording industry in our efforts to develop a thriving licensed digital music business – we have sent our 100 millionth piracy notice to Google.

In the last two and a half years, we have informed the world’s leading search engine more than 100 million times that it is supplying links to sites providing copyright infringing music that pay nothing to artists, songwriters or record producers.   And this represents only a fraction of the infringing links supplied by Google, because the search engine caps the amount of piracy notices that rights holders can send.

Google, with its market capitalisation of more than US$370 billion, is directing internet users to illegal sources of music.  This is not only harming a recording industry whose revenues have fallen by 40 percent in the last decade to US$16.5 billion, but it is also harming the more than 500 licensed digital music services worldwide that offer up to 30 million tracks to internet users.

How can these legitimate businesses reach their full potential when the world’s largest search engine doesn’t place them above pirate services in its search results?

Google has given public commitments that it wants to play its role in tackling copyright infringement online. In August 2012, it said it would take into account the number of valid copyright removal notices it receives for any given site leading them to be potentially placed lower in search results.

Unfortunately, the recording industry has seen no demonstrable demotion of sites that receive a high volume of piracy notices. If you search for an artist’s name and the term “mp3” on Google, the first page of results you get is still dominated by links to infringing sites.

The truth is that, whatever Google’s claims to be helping tackle infringement, they are not showing convincing results.  Research indicates that search engines are a major gateway to illegal music.  The Digital Entertainment Survey 2013, from law firm Wiggins, noted that 65 percent of internet users accessing infringing content regularly use search engines to locate it.

We would like to see Google and other search engines play a more responsible role in encouraging safe and legal use of the internet. Our research suggests consumers share this view – 60 percent of internet users worldwide believe that search engines should prioritise licensed music services over pirate sites in their search results according to Ipsos MediaCT.

IFPI and its affiliated organisations, including RIAA in the US and BPI in the UK, are calling on search engines to take meaningful action to address online copyright infringement. The recording industry has five requests:

1. Fulfill the admirable promise to demote sites receiving extensive numbers of piracy notices.

2. Make sure that the “take down” of a song is effective and does not mean temporary removal, to be replaced 2 seconds later.

3. Better help consumers to find legitimate sources of music – for example by using an icon to indicate authorised sites

4. Change the way the auto-complete search function works so that it no longer directs users to pirate sites

5. Make sure your stated policy on repeat offenders has teeth – why is it that, after millions of copyright notices to the same site, this is not having an impact on search results?

Google has a role to play in helping to make the internet a safer place for legal commerce. Indeed, it has launched its own music streaming service, licensed by record companies, which has attracted many plaudits. It has taken some steps to improve its reaction to anti-piracy notices from rights holders.

But Google has the technological expertise to do more and it has a duty to its users to stop overwhelming them with links to infringing content when they search for music online.

The recording industry worldwide invests US$4.5 billion a year in nurturing, discovering and promoting artists. This ensures a continuous supply of new content that keeps people engaged with digital services and using the latest consumer electronics.

To enable it to continue to do that, leading technology players such as Google need to show a greater respect for copyright law.  If they can take that step, then together we can build a sustainable digital marketplace that will continue to provide great music and a fantastic user experience for consumers around the world.”

Page/Brin image by Duncan Hull, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC by 2.0)).

78 Responses

  1. cjhoffmn

    Anyone remember how the squabble with books ended? Didn’t google want to scan all the world’s books and make them available online? How did that end? Did Google end up doing it anyway? There might be some interesting ideas in that process / situation that might be of use here…

  2. Paul Resnikoff

    Dear Frances,


    You think Larry or Sergey are even going to open this email, much less care? They’re busy picking which private planes to upgrade (at their private hangar) and how to make the unborn generation fix wearables to their faces. They don’t give a f*&k if mp3skull is a top listing, they only care about not violating the DMCA (which they aren’t) and driving more traffic and ad revenues (which they are).

    Do you think they even know what an ‘IFPI’ is? You’re doing it wrong!

    If you (and the RIAA) really want change, then demand it. Google is playing dirty, so why are you playing so nice? These are friendly, nice-guy platitudes, which will achieve nothing. Are you afraid publications like Techdirt, Digital Music News, and TechCrunch will criticize you, and call you a dinosaur? Who cares?

    Are you afraid that playing rough will sacrifice your multi-million dollar salaries and overheads?

    In fairness, I have no idea what you personally make. But Cary Sherman, your equivalent at the RIAA, is pulling down millions in annual salary (and that is documented). And for what? For stupidly trying to push SOPA and getting steam-rolled as a result in one of the worst blowouts in PR history? For watching his industry hemorrhage billions while pulling some phantom strings on Capitol Hill?

    That’s worth millions?

    And don’t even get me started on the ridiculous payroll at the RIAA. Why do we need even need two (or three, or whatever) of these over-bloated trade groups? Over at indie label organization A2IM, president Rich Bengloff keeps salaries and overhead super low (I’ve seen the numbers, I’ve seen the offices). Because if you’re not passionate, you won’t want to work there!

    Why isn’t the IFPI SUING Google? Are you afraid of suing anyone that isn’t a defenseless dead grandmother?

    Why aren’t you forcing Google to comply with the DMCA and stop limiting the number of takedown requests you can submit? Is that even legal?

    Don’t think you can win in court? Then why do you think some open letter will help? And if you don’t think you could win in court, then why does any of this so-called ‘strategy’ make any sense?

    And why are your major label constituents licensing their precious content to Google Play Music All Access (or whatever it’s called these days)? Why are you letting Google flatten you on YouTube, which is probably creating the biggest drain on your best friend and financial backer, Spotify?

    So here’s one idea: stop licensing anything until they shape up their search results. Now that’s a start! Pull everything down until they pull everything down. Google is gangster; you need to be gangster too. You think Tommy Mottola would approve of this?

    Then there’s the whole question of whether any of this is worth the effort at all. Can you ‘adapt’ and ‘fight’ at the same time, or are these polar opposites that demand a strategy overhaul? Because if you’re going to fight, then fight.

    Google’s winning. The score is 1,000-0. The game is almost over. Your call.

    Paul Resnikoff
    Digital Music News

    Written while listening to Slim Thug.

    • Anonymous

      “Why aren’t you forcing Google to comply with the DMCA and stop limiting the number of takedown requests you can submit? Is that even legal?”

      No, it’s not. And every violation is worth $750k.

      This can break Google.

    • FarePlay


      Well done. There is certainly more than enough blame to go around, not the least of which is an entire generation that seems to favor tech over the individual and their rights. Musicians and other creators, who, until the internet, could earn a reasonable living are merely the tip of the iceberg.

      The tech industry has been extremely generous to their own, but at what expense to everyone else?

    • Some guy

      Why are you letting Google flatten you on YouTube, which is probably creating the biggest drain on your best friend and financial backer, Spotify?

      Amen, brother…

    • Music Industry Mouthpiece

      You can’t sue Google, they will rape your butt in court. Defenseless dead grandmothers and 12 years olds are better targets.

      • Anonymous

        “You can’t sue Google, they will rape your butt in court”

        I think you’re in for a surprise…

        • TuneHunter

          He is correct, you have to be very deep pocket and carless plaintiff.
          You will not get contingent service no matter how clear case you have.
          They are arrogant and ruthless.
          You can spend $20K a month on Adwords and they will turn you off without notice. Do not count for any response to yours or your attorney attempt to communicate. They make but also kill businesses on daily basis and you have no place to go and complain.

          In the meantime for music they are the best entity to execute delivery of 100 billion dollar industry.
          We just have to educate them that merchandising is destine to deliver 10x as mach cash than advertising smoke created around it!

    • Paula Rosenkruetz

      Right on Paul! A Big Music production boycott is exactly what we need. Nobody with real cultural sway gives fux about the music propagated by these labels so grounded in their overpriced physical sales. With a vacuum of their trashy influence on the market there is space for substantive artist who don’t define themselves in terms of a bank account to enter into the market. Reestablishing noncartelized pricing schemes and in doing so promoting sustainable practice and business ethicality on an organizational level. We can end the myth of the pop star billionaire and conformal superiority in one fell swoop. Commendations! Someone should pay you for this idea!

  3. TuneHunter

    Those two have to be friends with some big time artist. Let’s find that link(s) and show them how to create 100 billion dollar music industry by 2020. Google can play it skillfully and take over at least 50% of new born industry

    Change to “fair use doctrine” would be the best start.
    Currently , for some stupid reason, Google wants everything in the open. If we change it, musicians, book writers and film makers will be able to keep the goods inside of virtual walls and blinded by advertising Google would become automatically the biggest merchant of media. Search results for any copy protected media should lead to just unmarked results with option for purchase. Today they are shredding at least $200 billion
    dollars of media monetization to around $15B in advertising income. Very sad outcome for such bright guys.

    • TuneHunter

      IFPI, RIAA and labels are worse than Federal Government so Google boys are our only hope!
      Greed should convince them to switch the business model – how long can we shred music goodwill to pennies in advertising. Lets find proper communicator.

      • Anonymous

        There’s one way — and one way only — to communicate with Google:

        Sue them!

        • TuneHunter

          Very long process and you never know the outcome.
          Few month ago book industry lost big battle with Google and appeal does not guaranty any success.
          Let’s educate the devil and laugh together on the way to the bank.

          • Anonymous

            “Few month ago book industry lost big battle with Google”

            That was a short battle in a war that has been going on for many years. Let’s see how the appeal turns out.

            “Let’s educate the devil and laugh together on the way to the bank”

            I’m totally with you on that, but Google only listens in court. And this is not like all the other cases all around the world where they pay the usual million for their usual crimes.

            This is worth $750,000 a pop. Every time Google wilfully ignores a DMCA notice, it’s going to cost them $750k if somebody takes them to court.

            1 million ignored DMCA notices?

            $750 billion dollars!


          • TuneHunter

            Still, they are the best organization to reshuffle the business and deliver results in seconds.

            50billion dollar YouTube as a 50% of new music industry should be interesting proposition.
            100K Radio stations and few million websites sourcing tunes for sale will do just that!

  4. Awww poor baby

    Sorry, it’s 2014. I don’t want to live in a world where people who make music make more money than teachers, firefighters, and nurses. Get over yourselves. Times have changed. There is no more money in the music industry for indie labels.

    All media is now free. Deal with it.

    • Anonymous

      So, who’s going to finance the production of your next favorite song/movie?


      (Hint: It costs millions to produce the content most people — including pirates — want.)

    • TuneHunter

      You forgot to add cops and bureaucrats for complete list of holly cows of American society!
      There is shortage of printed money to cover all those overpaid, arrogant and unproductive union boys.

      Musicians deserve to have income.

      • Anonymous

        Easy now — we get it, you’re jealous.

        And I don’t blame you. It’s pretty fulfilling to be an artist. But that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to steal from us.

    • A Musician

      So we need to get over it? How about you go down to the grocery store and tell the clerk that the items in your cart are free because *you* think they should be free… see how far that gets ya, sunshine!
      Here’s a clue for you, Get a Life!

      Google should be sued for violation of the DMCA but then shown how to properly make the money that the audiences and fans are willing to pay. Provide good links to authorized sites and they will reap the whirlwind that they have no idea even exists…

    • willowhaus

      Wow. Guess what? I don’t want to live in a world where technology companies buy & sell our legislature attempting to tear down basic rights for their corporate gain, while making more money that the GNP of several countries and simultaneously taking food out of the mouths of working class people who create nice things. I also don’t want to live in a world where whiny, entitled people who claim to be fans refuse to pay the price of admission for the things they supposedly love, while giving thousands of dollars a year to internet and technology companies without batting an eye.

    • Shadrack

      But you’re happy if Google do?

      Faultless logic that…Dick head

  5. nm

    Thanks for randomly bolding clauses and changing the font size on entire paragraphs at a time. Really makes it easier to read, especially since I’m too stupid to figure out what the “important” parts are by myself. Peer-reviewed academic journals and mainstream news outlets should really follow your lead.

    (Sorry if this post was hard to read. I didn’t know how to change the important bits to 72 pt. font.)

  6. Admiral Stockdale

    Just curious, what is Google’s limit on takedown notices? Is it a hard limit on the total number of notices? or just a limit on the number of links per notice with unlimited notices allowed?

    • Anonymous

      The number doesn’t matter.

      It’s a violation of the DMCA if Google deliberately ignores — or ever did ignore — as much as one legitimate notice.

      • Anonymous

        …just saw that the anti-crime organization BREIN wanted to increase the number of notices from 10,000 to 40,000 in 2013…

        But again, if it can be proved in court that Google knowingly ignored even one legitimate DMCA takedown notice, then it may be the end of the company.

        Look what happened to MegaUpload. Exact same story…

  7. Anonymous

    Here’s another interesting fact:

    Two out three pirates use search engines such as Google to find stolen material!

    So we can eradicate at least 50% of all piracy, if Google is treated like MegaUpload and shut down.

    (Please see documentation in a post below this.)

    • Anonymous

      Why don’t we take it down a notch.

      We have to address the fact that the Google has turned into a criminal organization over the years, and I’m sure we can do so in a civilized manner.

    • Anonymous

      Indeed. The technology industry a huge anti-artist cabal who exists solely to destroy art.

      • Anonymous

        Nobody’s saying that.

        The destruction of music and art is just collateral damage.

    • Anonymous

      ARTISTS RISE UP! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

  8. Piratenparteiler

    Stop the censorship of the Internet ! Make good legal services and people will pay for !

    And think, in the 80es people bought music. Today they bux Movies, Videogames, smartphones, apps and so on. This means less market share and interest in music.

    • Chris

      Total and utter rubbish – in the UK alone there are 72 legal services – some for free, some very cheap and some at the standard iTunes price. Repeat this to include every major country in the world. The vast majority of them are DRM free, good quality audio etc etc. That’s still not good enough for Pirates though.

      Problem is with your “Make good legal services and people will pay for” is that it’s total bullshit.

      Pirates don’t want to pay anything ever. No thief does – that’s why they steal.

      • Piratenparteiler

        No, people just dont listn that much music any more, instead they are playing more games, smartphone apps and so on. Market for music is just not that big anymore !

        • Chris

          Again total rubbish – people listen to more music now than they ever have

  9. Daniel

    What exactly is the IFPI’s process for figuring out which sites aren’t legit? What if they get it wrong sometimes, and Google follows through anyway and de-lists or otherwise penalizes perfectly legal sites? Then they might be liable for hurting legitimate businesses. (Action and inaction are different.) How much research should be necessary on their part to figure out when IFPI might be wrong?

    Why is it Google’s fault for pointing to a site that breaks copyright law in the first place? Why isn’t it that site owner’s fault? Isn’t IFPI just going after Google because Google is someone they think they can go after, since they’ve failed to go after the people actually responsible in so many circumstances?

    And if it’s “fair use” to reference something in small bits, wouldn’t it strike you as generally fair to point to sites by placing small pieces of them within your search engine results? If 90-second samples on iTunes are legit, how could it possibly be unfair to just list tiny descriptions of a site?

    In short, the reason they ignore these so boldly is that they can, and I’d bet they are confident that they will win if it goes to court–or at least easily withstand the hit. Contrary to what one commenter wrote, this won’t “break them.” They’re just being a search engine, and listing what’s online.

    The idea that they are meant to police the web is a little crazy, and, frankly, fascistic. They are a private company. What business do they have penalizing people just because some lawyers complain? They lawyers are paid to treat the issue as one-sided even when it isn’t.

    And for contrast to the picture being painted of them, they watch their Adwords and Adsense advertisers like hawks to try to prevent profiting from ads which point to illegal content. Were they profiting off of it directly, and failing to diligently attempt to avoid such profiting, then it seems a lot more likely they could be held accountable.

    Obviously, Larry and Sergey don’t pay close attention to each IFPI notice. They hire their own lawyers. Lots of them. And these arguments which whine and claim they have no legs to stand on falsely reduce the issue. The shrinking amount of fair use is actually pretty annoying for a lot of content creators. Do you really want to get rid of that?

    And if labels pulled down Google’s access now, and denied them licensing they’d already given them, based on Google’s actions which do turn out to be legal, don’t you think they’d find themselves being countersued? Meanwhile, don’t you think Google’s coming music release stands a chance in the marketplace? And don’t you think Beats, not Spotify, is more of a “friend”?

    And to the guy who said all media should be free and musicians are overpaid, that’s really just being a trolling a-hole. Artists have been underpaid for a long time. The fact that a tiny few of them are now overpaid doesn’t change that. Art is a big part of what makes life worth living. You might try thinking a bit about what it is to undervalue them.

    Finally, IFPI probably will try to sue. These notices are just a smart initial step to establish a pattern. Will it work? I doubt it. But the IFPI will play hardball sooner or later, win or lose.

    • Chris

      “What exactly is the IFPI’s process for figuring out which sites aren’t legit?” – simple they ask their various country members (RIAA in the USA and BPI in the UK etc. etc.) which sites their members have LICENSED their copyrighted material to. If you don’t license (i.e. PAY) to have copyrighted material on your site you ain’t legit.

      Every single one of these illegal sites could fairly easily get a license to stream / download music – they wont though they think it’s far better to rake in all the cash for themselves and not give a penny to the people who actually made the music.

      • Daniel

        And how about sites which contain promotional tracks only, and thus no license? Or how about sites that have express permission for the limited tracks they stream, and thus no license? Are they only searching for sites that host files with a certain phrase in the name, or pattern in the file? How do they select so they know for sure that they have a perfect list?

        I don’t think they do. Or even close.

        • Chris

          They ask their member labels! If they have been given permission then they are fine. Soundcloud exists with labels blessing for example.

          IFPI isn’t a faceless corporation – it’s a collection of national trade associations whose membership are both small and major labels.

  10. Anonymous

    “Finally, IFPI probably will try to sue”

    And they’ll win!

    It can easily be proved in court that Google

    1) violated the DMCA by knowingly reducing the number of legitimate takedown notices that right holders could submit,
    2) is the world’s leading torrent search engine,
    3) encourages innocent users to click on illegal links via its auto-complete feature,
    4) is the world’s leading portal to organized crime.

    And don’t forget that Google itself has shown how easy it can stop infringement in a matter of days. The company proved that when it recently stopped catering for pedophiles.

  11. HP

    Those guys have vampire teeth and out for the blood of artists. Media being free is only because the theft is allowed. The music industry of the past was bloated and dishonest. More of the music being made today is in the artists hands and it is they who are being robbed. It is idiotic to believe media should be free because you want it to be and because you are a thief. “Getting over it” jeez how about getting over the fact that being a thief is what you are. People buy a cup of coffee for three bucks and then piss it away but don’t want to spend a dollar on a piece of music that will provide at least a modicum of entertainment value but most probably a lot more than that. I know the music that I have purchased over the years has and still means something to me and yes I do feel that it enriches me. Sorry if that seems a little too precious. Pay for music you like don’t buy music you don’t like. Media should be free when groceries are free, when doctors and medicine and plumbers are free.

  12. TwoJimbobs

    Why not just take all these organizations who are approaching Google, and the labels/artists and paid music services who have this common cause – and then sue Google/Yahoo/Bing/et al in a massive class-action lawsuit? Would this not open the eyes of the big Search Engines, and bring about the changes that are being sought? And, if not, would it not at least generate revenue to replace that which these organizations feel they’ve lost? As we’ve seen, copyright notices aren’t getting the job done. Why not see if a court summons can do the trick?

    • Anonymous

      Artists need a resistance movement. Google needs to be sued.

  13. Anonymous

    When musicians and artists start making albums with more than 2 decent songs and stop charging out the ass to purchase two good songs and a load of shit..well ill still support Google. This is the age of technology. More people have access to cell phones in the world than they do properly working bathrooms.

  14. Youdlovetoknow

    Or…. here’s a radical idea. Make music free period. The way it should be, its a well known fact that the record industry takes heavy advantage of their own clients as often as they can especially now with sales shrinking. The only reason people sign to labels is because they either don’t have the resources to promote their music themselves, or because they are too lazy and uneducated to promote themselves properly. Now, before you argue, think about this. Record labels and talent managers work together through their connections to put together the funding and advertising for a music show. That’s a handy thing to have because it removes the time limitations that come with planning so the talent can do what they do best all the time, thereby generating profits more quickly and much more easily. I definitely see the appeal in that, BUT WAIT! HOLD ON! What people don’t know is when you sign to a record label you are generally giving up a majority of the profits you would receive off of the sales of you tracks (CD’s, DVD’s, MP3’s, and Shows) Then your manager is going to take another 10-15% for himself. Now you are making maybe 20% of what you should while these assholes live like kings because they “Found you” If music was free and shows were the only profit bands made this is how the change COULD go. The record industry fails…. and disappears. Oh, no. Now you are left with a manager. Who again is only taking 10-15% You are now making the other 85-90% vs 20% (remember also, thanks to the piracy, maybe 5% of that 20 comes from music sales. The majority of profits that musicians see comes from…… you guessed it… SHOWS! So you pay your manager his percentage, your music is being passed around at lightning speed which is SELF ADVERTISING with social media these days, and your manager is booking shows all over the place which you as the artist can now fund alongside the other artists performing at the show. You start small, making sure your shows cost as little as they can to build revenue, after enough time you invest that money in your tour bus and equipment…. Now you can put on epic shows together with your fellow musicians who are not business men and want the show to be how THEY want it to be not how a corporation wants it to be. When you get older in your career and have buttloads of money, you look around and start funding other amateur artists paving the way for the next gen of musicians. Musicians working together to make the industry, not CEO fuckbag of Im a greedy dick CO. That’s how it could and should work. Unfortunately everyone’s so busy bitching about the money that nobody cares about the real point of music anymore. Respect to artists like Swollen Members, who worked their asses off, built their own label, and do things how THEY want to do them because MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE FOR EVERYONE!

    • Chris

      The day my mortgage is free yes I agree. The day my train ticket is free yes I agree. The day my utility bills are free yes I agree. The day my clothes are free yes I agree. The day my food is free yes I agree. The day my fuel bill is free yes I agree.

      The fact that you think musicians make load of money from gigs tells me everything I need to know about you.

      To quote David Lowrey on his excellent Trichordist blog:
      The average income of a musician that files taxes is something like 35k a year w/o benefits. The vast majority of artists do not make significant money on the road. Until recently, most touring activity was a money losing operation. The idea was the artists would make up the loss through recorded music sales. This has been reversed by the financial logic of file-sharing and streaming. You now tour to support making albums if you are very, very lucky. Otherwise, you pay for making albums out of your own pocket. Only the very top tier of musicians make ANY money on the road. And only the 1% of the 1% makes significant money on the road. (For now.)

  15. Joseph Green

    Power to the internet corporations! Defend paying Wall Street and not paying artists! The new reactionary chic? It’s a tired old myth, touring is not an answer – filmmakers, writers, photographers, graphic artists can’t tour, what about them?

    It’s Internet corporations that need a new business model, not artists. Extremely wealthy for-profit advertising businesses track eyeballs (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc), they can use the click count to share advertising wealth with artists, musicians and writers, that would only be fair.

    • Hercules

      Why sould facebook something with artists and writers ? They could also share their revenue with unemployed or poor people. Since facebook is not a music website there is no reason why they should pay anything to musicians.

      • Chris

        Something like 15 out of the top 25 pages on Facebook are music related so to say Facebook isn’t a music site is a little naive

  16. tez

    everyone is hot on the download but i can wander into loads of places in town and buy pre owned cds which when purchased do not pay the artist nor record label so whats the difference? its still supposedly illegal but has been done for years! the multimillion dollar industry whine on about what they are loosing instead of getting smarter and making things more desirable? they get all protective over 40 per cent of sales well im sorry i have not bought new music for a long time except for box sets and collectors stuff and i but all my regular cds from second hand shops etc but hey mr big producers your not chasing me cause your not getting enough of my money?

  17. AnonyBus

    Who cares about Hollywood or the Recording Industry, they are crooks. Good job Google, carry on. Time for them to wake up sell at reasonable prices in order to combat piracy. An album should cost no more than $1, and $5 if they want to be greedy.

    • ProMaestro

      Sure pal, $1 per album. Do you have any idea how hard it is to write quality music? How much our music gear costs? How much it costs us to hire musicians to record? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn’t suggest that artists sell their works at a price that would put them at poverty level.

  18. Really??

    This is just silly, all Google does is show which links are highest by traffic. It’s also shown that people who pirate and more likely to support what they like. The drops in revenue is because I no longer have to pay $15+ dollars for a whole album of music when all I want is one song. Most artists don’t make money directly from the music but from merch sales and concert tickets. I could really give a shit less about the labels making their money.

  19. Whatever Records.

    The record industry is failing because it’s obsolete. The artists don’t need them to become big anymore, the internet has been supporting smaller musicians with amazing websites about discovering music. The record industry takes such a huge chunk of their client’s earnings I feel like supporting that is vile anyway. Let the clients realize that they can make more money on their own. Record Industries either need to get used to the change and do something other than whine or crumble under their stubborn traditionalism and greed.

    I purchase music from musicians who don’t have huge record labels in their back pocket.

    • FG

      Google has been under investigation from the US government once. Don’t think there won’t be a second time, just because Google is in bed with the NSA camp.

  20. Aarron Dixon

    So you want Google to falsify its search results, so you can make more money in an industry with a sickening profit margin renowned for its’ greed, while claiming the moral high ground? Well boo fucking hoo.

    • Anonymous

      No, Google just have to stop supporting pirates the same way it recently stopped supporting pedophiles.

      The wild west days are over, and Google needs to shape up or — preferably — go away.

  21. Johnny Gagnon

    Google ceo need to be placed under arrest and incarcerated for 100 million seconds…..

  22. Music Lover

    Here’s my radical idea: Make it easy for me to pay the musicians. I want lots of stuff that isn’t available anymore (e.g., 5.1 channel recordings issued in the heyday of DVD-A and SACD). The only ways to get these recordings are to hunt down a used copy (artist gets nothing) or to pirate them (artist gets nothing). I would dearly love to be able to pay the musicians/producers/engineers/etc. directly. There shoudl be an easy way to do this online! I’m ready and waiting with my credit card.

    P.S. For this idea to be successful, RIAA and its ilk could not get a cut. Consumers should be able to directly remunerate producers.

  23. Jay

    Stuff it up your rear. We have intellectual rights to search the internet, so all you fascist wanting to discriminate the internet is just pathetic. Google is doing the right thing to let their search engine be free.

    Who said it was wrong to have music on the web?

  24. copypedia

    Check out – a site that allows content owners to start taking advantage of infringement and unauthorized use, instead of fighting a never-ending losing battle. Copying is not going away – it’s time for a change in mindset in dealing with it.

    The Copypedia Team

  25. Eggbert

    A lot of new music sucks though. I can see why it’s taken a dive and it has nothing to do with piracy. Musicians have always made their money off of concerts and when they charge $300 for a frickin ticket you can expect people feel little guilt about downloading. it goes bothways.

  26. Shame on Power

    It’s a real shame regarding piracy because the best and ONLY attack on it is consistency. We as a business are suffering tremendously up against so much unfair competition. Example; We put together a nice karaoke laptop for a customer for about $2,450.00 and the customer wants to know why he sees laptops for $500-900 with far more music. Hence the beginning of the end of that sale in most cases. It HURTS us more than one can imagine.

    People who are not effected by it lack empathy and I can’t blame them so to speak. Yet we tell people to try and apply it to their world and they would come to the same conclusion that it HURTS them too. The customer that we helped for a week now has another offer on the table with 9X’S the amount of music for 1/3rd the price of our package. The customer owns a candy factory. So I would propose the question like this to them: What if they worked an entire week on a project and invested many hours into it and gave the customer a fair deal and a level of customer service that made it a SUPER DEAL. Then the business down the street breaks into your factory and takes a bunch of product and then offers that product to your potential customer for 1/3rd. the price and 9X’S the amount of candy you were going to offer them. That would CRUSH you and HURT you.

    I have NEVER looked down upon those who want copies of movies, music, etc. Yet I continually try to reach them on another level to see just how much it hurts those that play by the rules.