YouTube escapes Google's piracy site smackdown

One law for us, and one for you


Analysis Google has admitted its own YouTube operation will not be affected by algorithm changes designed to demote pirate sites.

Google announced the proposed changes on Friday in the hope of fending off new legislation designed to make it act more responsibly. From this week Google will modify its search results so that websites are ranked based on the number of valid requests received to remove copyrighted material, among other factors.

Before the algorithm adjustment, Google's search engine rewarded the unscrupulous and punished the innocent. Rights holders were obliged to engage in a game of Whack-a-Mole with pirate sites, and Google received over a million infringement notifications a week. As most copyright holders are individuals or tiny businesses, who can ill-afford the overhead of chasing down pirates, this is a thankless and financially crippling exercise.

As the BBC highlighted recently, the tech blogosphere's characterisation of "Big Content" or the "MAFFIA" doesn't reflect reality. As smaller players and independents withdraw from the digital economy, the big business that remains is simply getting bigger.

"Music fans may find that an industry where [UK hip-hop label] Son Records can't make a living is not quite what they wanted," concluded Rory Cellan-Jones.

Creators' rights groups want the Do No Evil corporation to demonstrate some corporate social responsibility. For its search results, Google already acts as judge and jury, and can make entire continents disappear from the world wide web.

Arguably, it already actively adjusts the search results subjectively: Google News filters its feed so that critical stories, such as (say) this one, disappear from view within minutes. The rights' groups want Google to demote infringing links, to give legitimate digital content businesses a chance.

Yet the financial incentives are tempting. Google profits by selling advertising against pages pointing to the pirate sites, and the company is reluctant to halt business even when warned that it's acting illegally. Last year Google settled a criminal investigation by paying a $500m fine after ignoring repeated notifications.

"We’re treating YouTube like any other site in search rankings," a Google spokesbot told Search Engine Land - then adding rather tellingly: "That said, we don’t expect this change to demote results for popular user-generated content sites."

Google paid $1.65bn for YouTube knowing that its success was based on infringement, not user-contributed videos of cats or toddlers, emails subsequently showed. (See Google knew YouTube did evil, but bought it anyway, March 2010.)

So what criteria will Google use to allow YouTube to escape? Google won't say.

This has some fascinating implications. Google gives itself a huge competitive advantage by promoting its own properties over competitors: it gives prominence to Google+ over Facebook, for example. This has already attracted the attention of numerous antitrust investigators. Favouring YouTube is a high-risk strategy. Particularly since the content identification system Google has developed, and implemented, should make the filing of takedown notices redundant.

The ill-fated Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) required Google to remove pirate links, rather than demote them, and this portion of the controversial legislation had wide congressional support. If Google hopes that voluntary action can fend off a repeat of SOPA, it must be seen to implement fairly.

Google is a company at the crossroads. We can see hints that it wants to do the right thing, and grow the internet economy in partnership with creative industries. The old, scofflaw Google simply regards other people's creative material as free filler to sandwich in between its advertisements. But New Google can't seem to leave the Old Google behind, and probably nothing short of a culture change - with new management at the top - will allow it to make the transition. Remember, the fish rots from the head down.

Speaking of which, where is Larry Page? ®

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • DigitalOcean tries to take sting out of price hike with $4 VM
    Cloud biz says it is reacting to customer mix largely shifting from lone devs to SMEs

    DigitalOcean attempted to lessen the sting of higher prices this week by announcing a cut-rate instance aimed at developers and hobbyists.

    The $4-a-month droplet — what the infrastructure-as-a-service outfit calls its virtual machines — pairs a single virtual CPU with 512 MB of memory, 10 GB of SSD storage, and 500 GB a month in network bandwidth.

    The launch comes as DigitalOcean plans a sweeping price hike across much of its product portfolio, effective July 1. On the low-end, most instances will see pricing increase between $1 and $16 a month, but on the high-end, some products will see increases of as much as $120 in the case of DigitalOceans’ top-tier storage-optimized virtual machines.

    Continue reading
  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022