I think that we have all heard of Google's decision to comply with the EU ruling on an individual's right to be forgotten. The British recording industry have reasonsed that, if Google can implement a ruling allowing a person to be forgotten, then they should also have the capability to remove data on demand from other organisations - in particular, themselves.
In the past when there have been requests to delete search results pointing to sites that are offering media that is being 'pirated', Google's response has been that it is not possible to sanitise the data that they display as a result of a search. However it would seem that if they can remove data referring to individuals then they can, at least theoretically, remove links to unauthorised films, music and other media. The article also provides counters to this logic
However, if Google does so then it and all the other search engines will no longer be agnostic and will become censored versions of their current selves. Furthermore, Google isn't allowing entire sites to be deleted from their search results, as is being requested by 'big media', but only specific items supported by an reasoned case and evidence of the identity of the individual requesting the deletion.
An interesting article, and in my opinion well worth a read.
Related Stories
Furthermore, since we don't log IP addresses in access.log, and IP's run through Slash are turned into IPIDs, its hard to get an idea of where our userbase is (the general feeling is the vast majority of us are based in the United States, but even then, that's more because our peak hours of traffic are between 4 and 10 PM EST). We've wanted to get a better idea of what our traffic and userbase are, so we're asking permission from the community to install piWik, and embed its javascript tag in the footer of each page, which will give us a wide berth of solid information to work from.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Thursday June 05 2014, @10:13PM
To paraphrase Homer Simpson "Google ... the cause of, and solution to, everyone's problems."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Thursday June 05 2014, @10:16PM
TL;DR The "right to be forgotten" submissions are essentially identical to Google's DMCA submissions. Except DMCA submissions don't require a copy of the copyright owner's photo-id. So, as is to be expected for MAFIAA and MAFIAA-affiliates, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
I think requiring the photo-id of the copyright-owner would be an improvement, especially if it is included in the archive of the DMCA request at chillingeffects.org. Then the copyright-owner would probably file a right-to-be-forgotten request for the copy of their photo-id.
Here's the right to be forgotten form in case anyone wants to see for yourself:
https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch [google.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05 2014, @10:49PM
I think the waitresses need to be prettier and give me a blowjob at the end of meal.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05 2014, @10:59PM
Careful what you wish for; I think I "ate-out" at that restaurant once and got a nasty sore!
(Score: 1) by e_armadillo on Thursday June 05 2014, @10:51PM
and oddly my answer stayed the same when I re-read the title correctly -- "Nah . . "
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday June 05 2014, @11:32PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by hybristic on Thursday June 05 2014, @11:41PM
I think it's very similar. It's not Googles job to prevent piracy. In fact it has potential to hurt their business by doing so.
(Score: 1) by bzipitidoo on Friday June 06 2014, @05:27AM
Worse. It's not even about preventing crime. It's like one political party asking phone companies to snoop on rival parties. Big Media has a terrible record of demanding too much, asking for all kinds of things they have no right to ask for.
(Score: 1) by Gertlex on Friday June 06 2014, @01:14PM
Sounds par the course for things the UK government thinks are good ideas, at least.
And my perception is the Brits themselves don't mind, somehow. They sure don't seem to object much.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 06 2014, @12:43AM
I suspected this when the floodgates were opened. Next some other group or interest will demand that their filtration is applied ad infinitum. What you will end up is the current version of media. It really doesn't upset anyone or is uncomfortable. At least for important people. But it's also a useless piece shit and really in wait for a better replacement (ie internet journalism etc).
Lets not have this pleasing all kinds of interests. If it continuous there will be an eager market for unfiltered anonymous search. And you can be sure it won't have any realistic point of contact.
(Score: 2) by juggs on Friday June 06 2014, @01:02AM
Is there nothing these leeches won't attach to in an attempt to extract even a picolitre of pecuniary corpuscles?
I swear if I issued a bogus press release announcing a subtly new design of kitchen sink this vampire squid would appear and demand, however convolutedly, that if it's possible to produce that design it must be possible to produce a design that results in some royalties for them also.
Hell, I'd put them in the kitchen sink and activate the InSinkErator* to be rid of them if I weren't so afraid slicing them into bits wouldn't just create a thousand mini squidlets appearing from the sink overflow, all demanding payment because the sound as they passed through the InSinkErator* required royalty payments as it's somewhat like some death metal band they represent uttered in 66 B.C. - either that or the book mafia would appear saying it was equivalent to Vogon poetry and they needed paying - or both.
* Trademark of some entity or other. That word came to mind and displaced the generic term for one of those in sink waste disposal devices - I blame it on advertising brainworms (feel free to call it moron).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 06 2014, @02:18AM
The most surprising aspect of this story is that there is a recording industry left at all these days. I have not bought a single CD from a label since they went after Napster. I bought one two years ago from a phenomenal guitarist playing in the subway, but that was because it was his and he was amazing. But I can't think of a single other person in my Gen-X age cohort that I know who buys CDs anymore. At most they buy something off iTunes, but they hardly do even that anymore. Most people have all the legacy tracks they could have ever wanted, and there isn't that much new these days to want to pirate. For everything else there are services like Spotify or Pandora. Everyone younger than I am reflexively torrents everything they want. I introduced a somewhat younger cousin to Boubacar Traore, which he liked, and an hour later he had downloaded his oeuvre.
I realize that anecdotes != data, but if a given activity has become so rare that you don't hear about it anymore then the market power behind that activity cannot be but a shadow of its former self.
Sigh. It will be a great day when these recording industry jerks, traditional media, Big Oil, Wall Street, and all their ilk go the way of the dinosaurs. I propose we start thinking now about an appropriate venue for humanity to throw itself history's greatest party on that day.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by juggs on Friday June 06 2014, @03:01AM
Yes still around - you're just not the target market anymore.
It's a repeated mantra that there "isn't that much new these today" when it come to music - perhaps that is because music evolves in a cyclical pattern. That involves eschewing the music of one's parents as that must be old, then reaching back further to find music that does not carry the same stain but is listenable, those of a musically talented bent reinvent the what was then is now music with a twist - making it palatable and popular again - with more lights and volume.
I daresay this has been going on for thousands of years. Just a few centuries ago the creative type would nuance their performance with a 56 string lute, a very big drum and a gun-powder explosion at the end to wow the crowd with something spectacular.
So no - there is nothing "new" in performance - it is iterative. But as long as performance is entertaining to us, in the here and now, why care?
However this story is just about middlemen getting pissed off that they are not getting the money they think they deserve and that other middlemen are encroaching on their turf. I find it hard to give an iota of a shit for their rent seeking, usurous claims when they have held the entire industry in their claws for far too long.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Rivenaleem on Friday June 06 2014, @08:19AM
I think Google should comply with the "Recording Industry's" desire to be forgotten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06 2014, @10:13AM
Google only removes links which have
* identified the exact source (you don't request "please remove everything referring to me", you request "this link about me comes up in Google search, please deindex), and
* explained the reason.
So the recording industry would have to submit every single link to be removed, and for each single one explain explain in detail why they think that specific linked content violates their copyright.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06 2014, @12:15PM
Once you start filtering, where do you stop and who decides when you stop?
The door is wide open to a form of heckler's veto. I don't like your religion. I think you're a quack. Or I'm a quack who wants to shut down legit research. Or I think classical literature is pornography. Anyone who wants to shut someone else up just files a claim, and there's an instant takedown and a lengthy, Kafka-esque appeals process that takes an indefinite amount of time.
Sounds like a new arms race - mutually assured destruction - my corporation won't destroy your corporation's web presence if you don't destroy ours. Any smaller voices will be quashed.