[RNR19952]

smartmind, on 11 August 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

ChessikaZimmerman, on 11 August 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Bad move Google but in trying to make lemonade from lemons.... I'll just start scrolling further down the search results pages and not automatically pick from the top 10 results as they just may be skewed in many ways. On a 2nd note you have just helped push me to using other search engines. Good 4 me, bad 4 Google... Still thinking that lying in bed with RIAA & MPAA is such a good idea?

Wow Google must be quaking in its boots because ChessikaZimmerman won't be using Google any more! Too bad Google probably couldn't give two hoots whether individual users stop using Google.

They will when thousands of us quit using Google, they will become worthless

[RobbyCannonsyu2]

RNR19952, on 11 August 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

smartmind, on 11 August 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

ChessikaZimmerman, on 11 August 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Bad move Google but in trying to make lemonade from lemons.... I'll just start scrolling further down the search results pages and not automatically pick from the top 10 results as they just may be skewed in many ways. On a 2nd note you have just helped push me to using other search engines. Good 4 me, bad 4 Google... Still thinking that lying in bed with RIAA & MPAA is such a good idea?

Wow Google must be quaking in its boots because ChessikaZimmerman won't be using Google any more! Too bad Google probably couldn't give two hoots whether individual users stop using Google.

They will when thousands of us quit using Google, they will become worthless

With an audience of Billions, I doubt thousands will make much of a difference; if IP theft were not so rampant, then this would not be an issue to begin with. There is plenty of free as in beer and free as in speech software, music, and movies available on the internet, but the very people that get up in arms about the treatment of artists as their motive for IP theft, refuse to go listen to the indies, or use their software, or watch their movies, or contribute monetarily to these independts. Hypocrisy indeed!

[kap2]

Sites that aid copyright theft should be completely banned from the web not just downgraded. Google has not gone far enough.

[deepsand]

Sorting through the drivel, fluff and tripe looking for substantive on-topic posts in this thread is no mean feat.

[NP]

Good Bye Google! I enjoyed your Doodles. Ohh I hope, RIAA and MPAA used some lube before they had their way with you.

[stabbykat]

RobbyCannonsyu2, on 11 August 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

I think this is a move in the right direction. I am very concerned that we keep an open and free internet, but at the same time, respecting property rights is something that has to also happen. For webmasters that do not know what content is on their site, I would suggest they go find out; honest self regulation is going to be the best policy, and this should help ensure that takes place. Just my .02

Wow, you're a perfect little sheeple aren't you? I'm a video game developer, I own my own company. Let me tell you something, the people you THINK you're fighting for, they're not the ones losing money from piracy. They lose more money from these lawyers that argue their companies hire, trying to squeeze every penny of profit out of something they can't really get any money from in the first place. WE don't need people like you 'standing up for us', you're actually standing AGAINST us, and nobody asked you to defend us in the first place, you just assume everything these lawyers argue is true and intently honest. They're not being honest, they're doing their job which is to make arguments out of thin air that exploit people like you and your emotional state.
If these companies really want to start making more money, they need to stop hiring these idiots that lie to their faces, saying "if you keep funding us as we fight against 'piracy', more profits will always be just around the corner!' and need to start making more customers HAPPY. These pirates are potential CUSTOMERS. There is something in their situation which makes them unable to pay for their products or maybe they just feel its more convenient to download everything from the web. Whatever the case, it is MY job, and the job of people like me, to work to make them more satisfied so they'll give in to their conscience and support us as we do what we do.

[RobbyCannonsyu2]

stabbykat, on 11 August 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

RobbyCannonsyu2, on 11 August 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

I think this is a move in the right direction. I am very concerned that we keep an open and free internet, but at the same time, respecting property rights is something that has to also happen. For webmasters that do not know what content is on their site, I would suggest they go find out; honest self regulation is going to be the best policy, and this should help ensure that takes place. Just my .02

Wow, you're a perfect little sheeple aren't you? I'm a video game developer, I own my own company. Let me tell you something, the people you THINK you're fighting for, they're not the ones losing money from piracy. They lose more money from these lawyers that argue their companies hire, trying to squeeze every penny of profit out of something they can't really get any money from in the first place. WE don't need people like you 'standing up for us', you're actually standing AGAINST us, and nobody asked you to defend us in the first place, you just assume everything these lawyers argue is true and intently honest. They're not being honest, they're doing their job which is to make arguments out of thin air that exploit people like you and your emotional state.
If these companies really want to start making more money, they need to stop hiring these idiots that lie to their faces, saying "if you keep funding us as we fight against 'piracy', more profits will always be just around the corner!' and need to start making more customers HAPPY. These pirates are potential CUSTOMERS. There is something in their situation which makes them unable to pay for their products or maybe they just feel its more convenient to download everything from the web. Whatever the case, it is MY job, and the job of people like me, to work to make them more satisfied so they'll give in to their conscience and support us as we do what we do.

While entitled to your opinion, and indeed your opinion of me, you're completely off the mark here.
1) I would enjoy seeing some of you work, provide a website, list of titles, something, anything?
2) I am not fighting for anyone, though I do take umbrage with people displaying entitlement issues; no one owes anyone free music, video games, or software.
3) If you don't mind giving it (your software) away for free please post a link to your quality titles where I may go download them legally free, post a donation link and if I like what I play, I'll be happy to donate what I believe they were worth to me.
4) I tend to agree that big music, big software, and big movie industries spend more in lawyer fees that what it is likely worth; but, at the end of the day it is their money, their content, their right to choose how to deal with it. I don't want any of those people taking my things without asking, so I in kind do not intentionally utilize their things without their consent.
5) If being respectful of another human beings rights makes me a "sheeple" then I will gladly wear the fleece, though I think the real person bleating like they have their head stuck in a fence is someone else...
6) Thieves are potential customers? really? I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm vacuuming up broken glass and replacing my car stereo...

Edit:
Regarding the poor that can not pay, hmmm, interesting, they have enough money for a computer, internet connection, etc..., just not enough to pay for a game, song, or movie; possible... and in that rare circumstance, I'm sure that if they were to rob a bank because they are poor, that a judge would take that into consideration, tell them it's okay, and to go ahead and keep the money and have a nice life... Theft is theft; anytime one person takes from another person without consent it is theft, again you have your own software company, put your money where your keyboard is, post your software up for donations, again I'd rather support that than the big software industry, I utilize Jamendo and have a few artists I donate to. I also utilize Amazon and pay for my MP3s, Books, and Movies. Finally I play games and pay for those, and I run Linux, and donate to developers that make that possible for me.

Sheeple out.

This post has been edited by RobbyCannonsyu2: 11 August 2012 - 01:55 PM

[deepsand]

stabbykat, on 11 August 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

RobbyCannonsyu2, on 11 August 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

I think this is a move in the right direction. I am very concerned that we keep an open and free internet, but at the same time, respecting property rights is something that has to also happen. For webmasters that do not know what content is on their site, I would suggest they go find out; honest self regulation is going to be the best policy, and this should help ensure that takes place. Just my .02

Wow, you're a perfect little sheeple aren't you? I'm a video game developer, I own my own company. Let me tell you something, the people you THINK you're fighting for, they're not the ones losing money from piracy. They lose more money from these lawyers that argue their companies hire, trying to squeeze every penny of profit out of something they can't really get any money from in the first place. WE don't need people like you 'standing up for us', you're actually standing AGAINST us, and nobody asked you to defend us in the first place, you just assume everything these lawyers argue is true and intently honest. They're not being honest, they're doing their job which is to make arguments out of thin air that exploit people like you and your emotional state.
If these companies really want to start making more money, they need to stop hiring these idiots that lie to their faces, saying "if you keep funding us as we fight against 'piracy', more profits will always be just around the corner!' and need to start making more customers HAPPY. These pirates are potential CUSTOMERS. There is something in their situation which makes them unable to pay for their products or maybe they just feel its more convenient to download everything from the web. Whatever the case, it is MY job, and the job of people like me, to work to make them more satisfied so they'll give in to their conscience and support us as we do what we do.

Are you wholly clueless as to the number of sites that blatantly copy the content of others, and frequently rank higher in the organic SERPs than does the author of the plagiarized content?

Or, is it the case that you just don't give a damn so long as it happens to someone else?

[RobbyCannonsyu2]

Concerning how YouTube will be affected....
Looks like the current official response is, they won't be.
Imagine that

Google antipiracy measure skips YouTube, says report

This should be interested to continue following.

[deepsand]

RobbyCannonsyu2, on 11 August 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Concerning how YouTube will be affected....
Looks like the current official response is, they won't be.
Imagine that

Google antipiracy measure skips YouTube, says report

This should be interested to continue following.

Per the article

Quote

"Requests for products other than Google Search (e.g, requests directed at YouTube or Blogger) are not included," states Google. The reason? People who want to report infringing activity can do it on special takedown forms found directly at YouTube and Blogger.

Google has two different channels for reporting alleged infringement, depending on whether it is content that is under its control, i.e. Blogger and TouTube, or content that is not.

For the former, Google can remove infringing content from its own servers, thus removing it from the SERPs. For the latter, it is powerless over the content, and thus can do no more than adjust the SERPs accordingly.

[GlitchusGlitch]

As I always say, Google is evil!

[crosswordbob]

Ever tried using Google to see if a particular textbook is available (to buy) as an e-book? Good luck wading through pages and pages of crappy illicit download sites. I've more or less given up on Google for such searches—if they can make finding legitimate products easier than arsing around with download sites desperately trying to infect your devices with spyware and the like, I'm all for it.

[deepsand]

GlitchusGlitch, on 11 August 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

As I always say, Google is evil!

So, it's evil to not allow those who copy your content to rank higher in the organic search results than do you?

This post has been edited by deepsand: 11 August 2012 - 09:14 PM

[mlabudaphotos]

Google is lowering the ranking of web sites with repeated infringement claims, so? The sites are still indexed and searchable. The victory is?

[MitchLabuda]

"Google, however, says it's now able to get involved in demoting sites that infringe copyright because of the sheer number of copyright removal notices it receives."

So? The sites are still indexed and available. The victory is what?

[RobbyCannonsyu2]

deepsand, on 11 August 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

RobbyCannonsyu2, on 11 August 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Concerning how YouTube will be affected....
Looks like the current official response is, they won't be.
Imagine that

Google antipiracy measure skips YouTube, says report

This should be interested to continue following.

Per the article

Quote

"Requests for products other than Google Search (e.g, requests directed at YouTube or Blogger) are not included," states Google. The reason? People who want to report infringing activity can do it on special takedown forms found directly at YouTube and Blogger.

Google has two different channels for reporting alleged infringement, depending on whether it is content that is under its control, i.e. Blogger and TouTube, or content that is not.

For the former, Google can remove infringing content from its own servers, thus removing it from the SERPs. For the latter, it is powerless over the content, and thus can do no more than adjust the SERPs accordingly.

Obviously Google is only able to alter it's own site's contents and not the content of other websites. This does not change the current fact that often an unauthorized music video streaming from YouTube will rank higher than the actual content owners site. So, with that in mind, it seems that it should penalize it's own site to the same degree that it penalizes other sites. I'm not a "Google is evil" person, and realize any corporation is in the business of making money and will utilize competitive edges where it can; but, on this issue, I believe it should be a truely level playing field, and I believe Google should lead by example, including taking their own medicine.

Edit:
I'm not interested in policing YouTube, that should fall under the authority of a payed YouTube/Google employee, so the take down forms are of little interest to me, other than under a situation where I were to find content I own being utilized without my consent. Again, webmasters need to know what is on their sites, and be responsible for taking care of matters in a proactive and direct hands on approach.

This post has been edited by RobbyCannonsyu2: 12 August 2012 - 10:07 AM

[deepsand]

mlabudaphotos, on 12 August 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Google is lowering the ranking of web sites with repeated infringement claims, so? The sites are still indexed and searchable. The victory is?

The lower a page's listing ranks in the SERPs, the less likely it is to be clicked on.

Click-through rates fall off dramatically with distance from top of SERPs.

[deepsand]

kap2, on 11 August 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

Sites that aid copyright theft should be completely banned from the web not just downgraded. Google has not gone far enough.

It is neither legally nor physically possible to ban anyone or anything from the web. The web is not a physical entity, but a logical one that does not exist in any one place that is controllable by any one party.

The only party who can act to remove an on-line resource is its host, which may be the offending party himself. Even if a resource is hosted by a 3rd party, each is subject to the law of its own jurisdiction only, so that there is no uniformity with regards to what does and does not breach the contractual relationship between a host and its clients.

Furthermore, it is not desirable that any party be able to summarily ban any content from the web. To advocate such is to allow that, for example, a cleric anywhere in the world could stifle freedom of speech simply by declaring content to be blasphemous.

[JackNFranFarrell]

Self styled freedom advocates and self styled privacy advocates should go away and argue with each other for about a lifetime (mine).

[fjpoblam]

Not to side with those for or against what Google's doing, but this. Google has always said, another SE is just "a click away". Actually, on a few browsers, it ends up being *several* clicks to make things go smoothly and comfortably - setup as a default browser and all. But maybe it's worth taking a few clicks. (You may see, in my web practices, that I've "clicked away" from G products.)