Google tries to combat piracy by changing their search results so slightly.
Ad formats. We’ve been testing new ad formats in search results on queries related to music and movies that help people find legitimate sources of media. For the relatively small number of queries for movies that include terms like “download”, “free”, or “watch”, ..
An improved DMCA demotion signal in Search. In August 2012 we first announced that we would downrank sites for which we received a large number of valid DMCA notices. We’ve now refined the signal in ways we expect to visibly affect the rankings of some of the most notorious sites. This update will roll out globally starting next week. ..
Removing more terms from autocomplete, based on DMCA removal notices. We’ve begun demoting autocomplete predictions that return results with many DMCA demoted sites.
Every day our partnership with the entertainment industry deepens. Just this month we launched a collaboration with Paramount Pictures to promote their upcoming film “Interstellar” with an interactive website. And Content ID (our system for rightsholders to easily identify and manage their content on YouTube) recently hit the milestone of enabling more than $1 billion in revenue to the content industry.
Providing more targeting ads you can now buy that new album from google directly from the search.
Also Google will change the way that they do rankings, so some SEO techniques are thrown out the window.
For those who haven't already changed http://duckduckgo.com is great search engine with a bunch of awesome tricks.
(Score: 4, Informative) by LookIntoTheFuture on Thursday October 23 2014, @06:31AM
You know what would be cool? A search engine that returns results without bias. Raw results, like Google used to provide. I'm not saying that everyone would want this, but I would.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday October 23 2014, @06:37AM
That was also back when google was actually a technical company instead of a bureaucrat infested dump. Because it's politically appealing they're now opening people up to unnecessary attack vectors and false sense of security by ranking up sites that use SSL regardless of context or usecase. I'm sure the people at google who actually do the work and have the competence raised concerns about this and things like "anti-piracy" filtering. But again, bureaucrat infestation. Hopefully some day those raw results or at least robust results will happen again.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Thursday October 23 2014, @06:46AM
Isn't it simply perverse that a search engine has to be constantly modified so it doesn't work properly? Imagine a toaster that didn't toast, or a shower that dried up just when you'd covered yourself in a thick lather.
Now it's good that there are more "legitimate"/"preferred" options available (because that wasn't always the case); but let's face it; if I search for "latest blockbuster magnet" I'm not really looking for the umpteen-buck-per-month streaming option, am I?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 23 2014, @06:58AM
I don't know how "raw" it is but when I type the above "naughty words" into Bing along with the name of the movie the results are...the movie. I switched after Google started trying to force real names and G+ on everybody and I have to say I really like it, the Image search is MUCH better and the regular search results seem to give me more real hits than Google which i always seem to get a lot of SEO crap.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sudo rm -rf on Thursday October 23 2014, @09:38AM
Try it:
!sn Google Fighting Piracy
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 23 2014, @02:17PM
I thought Duckduckgo just used Google on their backend?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tempest on Thursday October 23 2014, @03:15PM
They compile information from multiple sources (50 according to Wikipedia), but it seems like they're heavily linked to Yandex. Over the last year it seems like they've really improved on result relevance, which is often similar to Google.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @05:28PM
Wow that messes me up.
When I see a "!" heading a statement, I think the command is ignored, or that it is a "NOT".
I would have a heck of a time unlearning this; I configure network hardware and the ! is something I use in text files to make reference to a comment, or list commands not used in the configuration but could be; the text can still be uploaded or pasted in and it won't cause a problem, much like a rem statement or comment in other code/scripting. I like that it is not quite the same as a coding comment; it is easily discerned with a quick glance what is going on or could be, as often the ! prefaces statements that are not comments at all, but explain much simply from what it isn't letting the hardware do.
I think old people like me have to keep yelling that the internet is not cool anymore because young people keep changing the way I expect things to work. Or not work, in the case of the "!"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @06:33AM
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy [gnu.org]
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 23 2014, @10:12AM
Informative? Really? When then here is something for YOUR enlightenment, something that RMS is sadly a big fan of, Newspeak. [wikipedia.org]
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @11:28AM
ACs are never seen so don't bother. I never surf below +2 just for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @01:00PM
Just for the record (because that may change through later moderation), at the current time the post in question is at +1, with just one moderation (that is, it was never above +1, and thus would not have shown up at +2).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by elf on Thursday October 23 2014, @01:26PM
at >= +2 the conversation would be quite odd, only 3/13 comments are +2 and above. I for one enjoy AC comments, quite a lot of them are informative and the others make an entertaining read.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 23 2014, @02:24PM
It could be said that RMS in fact uses OLDspeak and it's the rest of the world that has moved on to more misleading, capitalist-centered "Newspeak" as you say.
You should think about actually reading his history. Only take off your Microsoft Ra-Ra glasses first.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 23 2014, @02:28PM
That being said, I'd agree a lot of the terms he's defining on that page are a bit wacky. RMS does have a tendency to split hairs.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 23 2014, @08:00PM
Really? The man refuses to speak to you unless you use HIS TERMS including giving HIM credit for Linux by calling it GNU-Linux and has in the past ended interviews and walked off when they dared call it Linux?
But then again what do you expect from a self proclaimed squatter that considers this to be perfectly acceptable behavior [youtube.com] when you are a fricking presenter on stage? Fuck that crazy Newspeak talking assclown, he is why Linux is seen as the OS of the maladjusted!
And can we PLEASE get a "no AC" button? Pretty please? Because surfing at +whatever doesn't do a damned thing when 1.- ACs can get modded up and 2.- none of the settings seem to stick between browser upgrades. this frankly should be a trivial feature to add and more importantly would give this site something that the green site does NOT have, which seeing as how the fundraiser drive has died like a roadkill skunk after the Brown Huffypost fiasco having selling points? Yeah that would be a GOOD thing IMHO.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 23 2014, @10:11PM
Really? The man refuses to speak to you unless you use HIS TERMS including giving HIM credit for Linux by calling it GNU-Linux and has in the past ended interviews and walked off when they dared call it Linux?
[then blah blah pulling out the toejam video yet again]
Hey, I never said he was easy to get along with. A fair number of his predictions about the marketplace have proved to be rather accurate over the years, though.
And can we PLEASE get a "no AC" button? Pretty please? Because surfing at +whatever doesn't do a damned thing when 1.- ACs can get modded up
I find it funny that you don't see the irony in you complaining about crappy comments. Not really sure what you're going on about, as I just browse at 0 (or is it 1?) and it supports my workflow fine. So much of SD/SN end up being shouting matches anyway that I don't see much point in complaining about modfiltering.
You're going to end up reading a lot of it anyway if you browse at 0/1, or end up missing out on a lot of decent content over time if you constantly browse at 2. You in effect filter out all except the quality ACs and then you complain that ACs are getting modded up? That's pretty petty and honestly sounds more like an inferiority complex on your part. (I try to avoid making accusations of mental illness usually, but it sounds pretty accurate. Sorry.)
would give this site something that the green site does NOT have
Well, personally I think being able to post anonymously is a feature worth having even with the trolls. For one thing, we'd lose out on those people who post anonymously because they work at the company the article is talking about.
As people have pointed out before, how much of a real difference is there between posting as AC and posting behind a pseudonym? ACs always posting at 0 means the trolls are easily ignorable, and the rest of the social aspects that APK froths about can mostly be handled by not being a twat and having a slightly thick skin.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 24 2014, @04:25PM
official RMS biography [oreilly.com]
Appropriately enough, they open-sourced the text of the book and posted it online :)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @07:01AM
At least one good thing that comes out of this. Result ordering should depend on how relevant the results are, not on how much effort the author spent on SEO techniques.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @07:01AM
The same applies to the dinosaur industries. You can't give them an inch because they'll just keep coming back for more (Google was never required by law to do any of what they did, and look where it got them).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Thursday October 23 2014, @08:23AM
Providing more targeting ads you can now buy that new album from google directly from the search.
I haven't seen this yet - I really hope this'll happen though.
A year or two ago, I tried to purchase a song online. I eventually found it in Amazon.fr and in Amazon.de. Guess what? I lived neither in Germany nor in France, so ... no sell.
By now I'm so conditioned to not being able to legitimately buy music online, that even if there was a legitimate way to buy music where I live, it would not be the first way I'd go about getting music.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Thursday October 23 2014, @11:49AM
Try mp3million. They're about 9 cents a song.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 23 2014, @02:21PM
And the catch is?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Thursday October 23 2014, @07:16PM
whois mp3million.com
Registrant City: Moscow
Registrant State/Province: Moscow
Registrant Postal Code: 123308
Registrant Country: RU
Registrant Phone: +7.4957856536
As I suspected -- the last time I used a "cheap mp3 service" (circa 2008) it was Russian site. So you're just paying 9¢/song to have someone else do your "piracy" for you...
A good summary here [torrentfreak.com]:
For well over a decade there have been big sites, mainly hosted in Russia or Ukraine, that allow their users to download music for a fraction of the prices quoted by outlets such as iTunes. Historically the sites claimed protection under licensing from the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) but that has always been a controversial assertion. Few if any pay money to western labels.
And more legal specifics [wikipedia.org] to a particular case. I'm not going to look further into the details of mp3millions.com .
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 23 2014, @10:15PM
I remember hearing about a similar site a few years back where they also had the caveat that you needed to "load your account" in $10 increments.
But as you said, we're running into the "legal here vs. legal there" and "obviously ethically dubious" issues. And paying $.09 per song is so low in comparison, why even bother paying at all...especially considering that it's even MORE dubious that any fraction of it whatsoever is making it to the actual artists, which is an argument in favor of the RIAA you can hardly make every day.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Friday October 24 2014, @02:23AM
we're running into the "legal here vs. legal there" and "obviously ethically dubious" issues
I'm not trying to say either of those things. I don't care about the legality, particularly the legality of distribution channels on the Internet, and I think the situation is too simple for "ethics" to come into it.
If none of the sale's proceeds make it back to the one who, you know, created the value in the first place, then what point is there in paying? Convenience?
Obviously, there can be other 'value-added' producers on the way. But I'm in particular responding to
legitimate way to buy music?
Buy it at mp3millions!
The exchange of money is not what makes the transaction legitimate. The compensation of the value-producers is what makes a transaction legitimate.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday October 24 2014, @04:16AM
When you buy music from a big label, how much of that money do you think makes it to the artists? From what I've read it's not very much. It's better to get your music however is convenient and then donate to the artists directly.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Saturday October 25 2014, @01:00AM
I'm not judging your method of "doing what's convenient" and then donating to the artist as "stealing" or "unethical". I'm making the point that it's not a legitimate transaction [wikipedia.org] between you and the producer.
When you buy music from a big label, how much of that money do you think makes it to the artists?
This is a rationalization, and it's one I don't particularly care for. The "artist" made a contract with the company - it's, again, irrelevant how much they're getting paid from a sale as long as they're getting paid **what they asked for** in return for their product. It's a legitimate transaction. In the current age of digital distribution and channels such as BandCamp [bandcamp.com] (where AFAIK independent producers get much better deals than with major label contracts) producers are free to decide how they decide to make their products available for purchase.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 24 2014, @01:52PM
Well, I'm sure the RIAA throws at least a percent or two back to the artists, but yeah. I'm not really disagreeing with anything you're saying.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by gidds on Thursday October 23 2014, @04:10PM
(my emphasis). Do they count only notices relating to an actual breach of copyright? Or all those which don't get challenged (which could be for many other reasons)? Or even all those which are correctly filled-in?
The former sounds slightly defensible; the others much less so.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by TGV on Thursday October 23 2014, @06:32PM
I guess it's no coincidence then that since today, doubleclick.net, youtube.com, ssl.gstatic.com, docs.google.com and a bunch of other domains all refer to the same range of IP addresses.