This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/10/google-algorithm-hollywood-lobbyists-copyright

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Google alters algorithm as Hollywood lobbyists win latest copyright battle Google alters algorithm as Hollywood lobbyists win latest copyright battle
(2 months later)
Google is to make a significant change to its search algorithm from Monday, downgrading websites that persistently breach copyright laws.Google is to make a significant change to its search algorithm from Monday, downgrading websites that persistently breach copyright laws.
The move is a victory for media and entertainment giants, which have complained for years that Google does not do enough to prevent access to material that breaches strict copyright laws on content such as music videos and TV shows.The move is a victory for media and entertainment giants, which have complained for years that Google does not do enough to prevent access to material that breaches strict copyright laws on content such as music videos and TV shows.
Google said in a blogpost that it would take into account the number of valid copyright takedown notices that it received for any given sites. Those sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in user search results, it said.Google said in a blogpost that it would take into account the number of valid copyright takedown notices that it received for any given sites. Those sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in user search results, it said.
"This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily – whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed from Spotify," wrote Amit Singhal, the company's senior vice-president for engineering."This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily – whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed from Spotify," wrote Amit Singhal, the company's senior vice-president for engineering.
The decision follows prolonged behind-the-scenes lobbying by the music and film industries to get Google to demote the search position of sites which they say infringe their copyrights, such as the Pirate Bay.The decision follows prolonged behind-the-scenes lobbying by the music and film industries to get Google to demote the search position of sites which they say infringe their copyrights, such as the Pirate Bay.
Google has resisted on the basis that its search results should reflect what sites people point to for particular words or phrases – the basis on which its search reputation was built – but that has become less and less tenable as it has tweaked its algorithm to favour or penalise sites that it sees as "spam" for other sorts of content.Google has resisted on the basis that its search results should reflect what sites people point to for particular words or phrases – the basis on which its search reputation was built – but that has become less and less tenable as it has tweaked its algorithm to favour or penalise sites that it sees as "spam" for other sorts of content.
The fact that the blogpost is signed by Amit Singhal, Google's most senior engineer in its search team, indicates the level at which this decision has been taken.The fact that the blogpost is signed by Amit Singhal, Google's most senior engineer in its search team, indicates the level at which this decision has been taken.
Google's previous refusal has also been said within the industry to have been the reason why it has struggled to sign content deals with the music and film businesses to rent or sell a broader variety of films or music outside the US.Google's previous refusal has also been said within the industry to have been the reason why it has struggled to sign content deals with the music and film businesses to rent or sell a broader variety of films or music outside the US.
But the decision means that it may now be able to sign up the record labels and film studios so that it can compete more effectively with Apples's iTunes. Google has for a long time had plans to make money from selling films and music via Google Play, according to documents released earlier this year at its trial against Google, but revenues have been far below its projections despite the wide penetration of handsets running its Android software in the smartphone market.But the decision means that it may now be able to sign up the record labels and film studios so that it can compete more effectively with Apples's iTunes. Google has for a long time had plans to make money from selling films and music via Google Play, according to documents released earlier this year at its trial against Google, but revenues have been far below its projections despite the wide penetration of handsets running its Android software in the smartphone market.
The move was welcomed by the entertainment industry Michael O'Leary, senior executive vice-president for global policy at the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement: "We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe."The move was welcomed by the entertainment industry Michael O'Leary, senior executive vice-president for global policy at the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement: "We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe."
Comments
88 comments, displaying first
10 August 2012 11:18PM
Great, we're now sorting web hits based on corporate or political interests rather than the most likely candidate that a user is looking for. Brilliant.
Bill Hicks was right - the guys are fucked, and they're fucking us.
Thanks for continuing to ruin the Internet, corporate shills and scum.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 11:22PM
If they can give into these lobbyists, it's only logical that if someone comes to them with enough money, they'll give into them too.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 11:29PM
And so it starts...
Well, at least this should prompt people to try out some of the other web search sites.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 11:30PM
does that mean I will never ever be able to find youtube in a google search?!?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 11:32PM
The internet should not be controlled by money, and that is all hollywood lobbyists represent.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 12:26AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
11 August 2012 12:47AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
11 August 2012 12:47AM
Michael O'Leary (Motion Picture Association of America)
"We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe."
Judging by the sheer quantity of re-hashed sh1te Hollywood is churning out nowadays, it sounds like stealing is rife amongst yourselves.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 3:43AM
Hilarious considering the amount of stolen content on Google-owned YouTube and Blogger. Also will they stop trying to intimidate complainants by handing over details of every complaint to the website Chilling Effects?
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 5:03AM
Corporate shill apologist detected.
"Intimidating complainants" (more oversight is a good thing)
"stolen content" (copying is not stealing, you're being disingenuous)
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 6:14AM
Has anyone else noticed that Google's search engine isn't very good any more ? There was a time when typing in a few keys words produced the desired result. Now, it produces a huge number of irrelevant sites. It also seems more difficult to refine searches.
Does anyone have any idea why ?
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 7:01AM
If someone out there has the balls to create an alternative search engine - opportunity knocks now, and riches await. But..., if you let the spammers flood it, I, for one, won't be a customer.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 7:08AM
Feedback - Google's engine has always been the best. It was so far ahead of Yahoo, AltaVista and Microsoft that it just blew them out of the water. In recent years it'd got a lot better. Their decision to prioritise original work and penalise spammers was one of the best moves they ever made.
So I'm a Google fan-boy but if something better comes along I will use it; but not for everything. No SE sympathetic to pirates will ever compete with Google Scholar.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 7:13AM
Expect to see more content on Google Play. They'll give it a week so that the goldfish memoried consumer has forgotten about this story though....
Oh, and can people stop using "Libertard" and "Freetard" and these other pathetic, made up words? It makes you sound like you're living in your parents basement. Try coming up with a rational argument instead.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 7:21AM
Google's engine has always been the best. It was so far ahead of Yahoo, AltaVista and Microsoft that it just blew them out of the water. In recent years it'd got a lot better.
Scholar is great, especially when you need to read a paper and you're outside the university network and away from its journal subscriptions. Then again, accessing papers put on the web by academics might well be considered as supporting copyright infringement. Will Google be removing this feature from Scholar? This algorithm change suggests that they are willing to consider it.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 7:37AM
Another case of US commercial interests trying to control the internet.. A whole generation has grown up with peep to peer sites and I for one don't have a problem with it... The film and music business have to adapt to reality or go out of business....
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 7:37AM
"Has anyone else noticed that Google's search engine isn't very good any more ? There was a time when typing in a few keys words produced the desired result. Now, it produces a huge number of irrelevant sites. It also seems more difficult to refine searches.Does anyone have any idea why ?"
Yes. This has been a problem for some time now. I think it started when Google decided to modify searches based on previous user activities, location data and such. This actually sucks big time. For example, I make a search at my work computer and find what I need. But then I might need to look up the same thing on my laptop in the evening. I get completely different search results and often the relevant results are way down or not there at all. The search results do not have any consistency at all. It is utterly frustrating.
The fact is Google has started to suck more and more.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 8:01AM
Another case of US commercial interests trying to control the internet.. A whole generation has grown up with peep to peer sites and I for one don't have a problem with it... The film and music business have to adapt to reality or go out of business...
They can go out of business for all I care, since they haven't produced a decent film or song in decades.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 8:34AM
It's not just the big film and music industries that are hit by copyright abuse. I'm a stock photographer and make my living selling photos. It's not easy when some people put my photos on free file sharing sites without my consent. I'm sure there's lots of artists, photographers, musicians and authors who are struggling to make money and don't deserve to have their creative content given away for free without their consent. People justify copyright abuse because they only think of the big corporations that have ripped us off for years but it also affect the little independent guys that need copyright abuse to be taken seriously.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 8:42AM
I made a comment which has been removed because it does not comply with 'community standards'.
Apparently it is quite consistent with 'community standards' for people to defend and justify illegal behaviour, but not to criticise those who do so.
My point, for the record, is that it is hilarious for people to accuse Hollywood of having 'money-making' priorities in the context of an article about *Google*, one of the most ruthless, rapacious money-making corporations ever invented.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 8:42AM
Intended as a free and open plaform for information, communication and innovation. Google is steadily becoming a big brother who takes it upon themselves to decide what information users should see. This undermines participatory democracy and human rights..
Already this year we've seen the arrival of Google's new privacy policy allowing them to collate a massive, all-inclusive database of your most private information, from your political leanings to your searches for prescription drugs....
Now this...
Be afraid people. Be very afraid...
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 8:43AM
The fact is Google has started to suck more and more.
Same for videos. You now get pages and pages of irrelevant youtube results, before getting a match that is actually relevant on any of the other sites.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 9:01AM
Sad really.
We get to have the web downgraded even more and people say 'fine by me'.
You ain't even getting paid for it.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 9:40AM
The young fellas I know who download multiple seasons of hit series and always seem to have the latest movies before they come to the multiplexes never use google to find out where to get the goods. they've got their own social networks of where the bit-torrent sites are and they can text or email
each other or just verbally pass the info on over a beer. Google is doing this to make money.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 10:19AM
The web is free.
People are mistaking Google as an intrinsic part of the web.
They simply have one search engine in amongst thousands.
Try the others, you may well be surprised.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 10:23AM
"Google's engine has always been the best. "
But that's why that raw truth 'not bothered video' is so famously entertaining.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 11:06AM
Because YOU used to be the customer, and now you are the product. You are saleable to money paying advertisers so the searches are now designed not to connect you to what you want, but for advertisers to connect to you.. Google does not charge for its software, it is entirely advertising funded.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 11:49AM
Has anyone else noticed that Google's search engine isn't very good any more ? There was a time when typing in a few keys words produced the desired result. Now, it produces a huge number of irrelevant sites. It also seems more difficult to refine searches.
Does anyone have any idea why ?

Yes !! I've noticed this and it's a pain in the arse. And I just cannot get the hang of Google forums. In fact, every time I sign up to a Forum there is never anybody in . Is it just me?
Another Google issue getting up my nose is their Picasa.
I use to be able to take pictures on my camera and some short video clips and load them onto Picasa via USB lead. Now, no more video clips on Picasa. Where have they gone. Have I missed the news on this subject.
Has Google changed something? I haven't !! Tried crying on the Google Forums - but you never get an answer. Crazy !! Is Google loosing their way and thereby loosing their customers?
I must stress ! I'm a big Google fan but I'm getting worried I may have to move on.
KISS !! KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (Google)
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 11:59AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
11 August 2012 12:26PM
Won't really matter a lot to me... and shouldn't really matter a lot to anyone else either. From my personal experience I would say that it is rare that something I look for can be found on a non-piratebay website and at the same time not being found on piratebay. As a consequence it is a waste of time to google for something, when I can go straight to piratebay and get what I want.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 12:37PM
One thing that helps is to select More search tools -> Verbatim in the left hand menu, on the Google home page. If I search for A B C, then I expect A, B and C to be found on the webpages returned, not just A and B or B and C. I agree with an earlier post that Google is not as good as it was some years ago. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any better search engines to use instead.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 1:05PM
I'm pretty sure by now most people who use websites for movie streaming or downloading or that type of thing know the URLs, and as always there will always be work-arounds.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 1:06PM
Won't this lead to more people using alternative services like duckduckgo? They may not be as good as Google, but they don't track you as heavily and aren't as in thrall to corporate interests.
There's been much abuse of the DCMA system with many companies filing false claims, will these go against a site?
Can you now bombard a competitor with false DMCA takedown requests purely in order to lower their google ranking?
Why isn't there a fine system in place for false takedown requests?
Who arbitrates this system other than Google?
Will Youtube be knocked significantly down the list as it's one of the largest banks of unauthorised streaming media in the world?
A recent report showed that offline sharing was far more prevalent than online sharing, which makes this all look kind of dumb.
Honestly this whole crusade is getting ridiculous now.
And thru it all TPB is still running as it ever has.
You have to laugh.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 1:20PM
It'll just lead to a massive increase in use of the deep web and private trackers.
And don't be too complacent about TPB, Demonoid was torpedoed last week.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 1:57PM
Bye bye then Google. It's been nice using you.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 2:36PM
it's just corporate hollywood stamping on independents through the back door... it's not even worth stealing the cgi nonsense hollywood spews out. all fireworks, no substance.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 2:42PM
Copyright protects every creative person. Even if they don't earn a penny from their work. The idea that anyone who puts in a complaint is "corporate" is idiotic.
Take a look around and see how often people "copy" and put that content up alongside ads or one-click away from another page of their own which has ads. Or the people who use the content to build up a site or business which they then sell.
A vast number are profiting. Wouldn't you agree that is theft and immoral?
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 3:03PM
Copyright protects every creative person

No it doesn't.
Possibly* it did in the past, but not anymore. It's a joke, and it's a waste of everybody's time.
*... though I seem to remember that home taping was killing music.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 3:05PM
Google already has youtube and now google play ? Stick to search tools so you dont have a conflict of intrests. Safari hacking scum
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 3:24PM
OK, how about something a little more constructive 'ay..??
What are the options..? What are your fav alternative SE's..???
I remember many years ago a friend told me about this new SE called Google, I checked it out, liked it and have been using it ever since but now I feel it's time for a change. I can try other SE's and if they work fine, if not I can always go back to google for the occasional search if needs be. When Google started it wasn't as good as it is now so it stands to reason that if we all throw our collective weight behind a new SE that it will also improve only this time maybe they won't turn out to be such a bunch of sell outs..?
So come on Guardian readers... what is the best alternative to Google...??
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 3:27PM
Now to "downgrade" websites that dumb-down. Step forward Hollywood types, your agents, affiliates, and your collective owners - we need to shave you.
As for copyright protecting "creative" people. Well, that's just naive.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 3:34PM
I would like to add that speaking as a musician who owns % of songs through Socan here in Canada that so-called pirating is actually very good promotion if you are an up and coming artist/band. It is the established acts that lose money from it and they are the ones complaining, not your local indie band who would most likely love to see their song on the hard drives of 10,000 people even if they never paid a penny for them. And of course then there is hollywood and like a lot of people I find it very hard to feel sorry for an industry than produces as much garbage as hollywood does or pays it's 'actors' so much for doing it...... I am certain that there are good hard working artists in this world that are genuinely getting screwed because of the likes of Pirate Bay. But for every one of those I suggest there are dozens who benefit from what is essentially free promotion.
Sorry Lars Ulrich..... I just can't get all that emotionally charged up at the thought of you losing money.....lol
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 3:49PM
This is a very good point. Google is in the mind boggling position of having a monopoly over one of the most profitable business sectors in the world and basically disavowing all customer service. There are no phone numbers, no properly monitored forums and they rarely if ever respond to emails unless the said site is in the public eye. Frankly, it is an utter disgrace. And this is relevant to this particular article, because if the wrong sites are banned due to supposed copyright infringement, who can they appeal to? Who will be listening? As with recent Penguin updates, whole businesses can be ruined overnight, people out of work, revenue dropped to nothing, and Google couldn't give a damn. This is both worrying and I think not in the interests of global business.
Look at a company like Zappos which has become a multi million dollar concern due to an incredible focus on customer service. They have a following which is verging on the fanatical, both from their staff and their customers.
Google is the exact opposite. We use them because we have to. But they should be careful - because no company that treats its customers like this, (approximately 1/3 of planet earth in this case) can stay at the top without a little bit of respect for its customers.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 3:54PM
2 things from now on
#1 I will refuse to pay a dime to watch a movie or buy/least anything from the Hollywood entertainment establishment! Period
#2 Find an alternative to google since its back down on the freedom of the web!!
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 4:11PM
When did Google become the internet?
Other search engines are available.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 4:20PM
Still using that privacy thief Google? What is this, the 1990s? You should read http://donttrack.us/ and http://dontbubble.us/ and then switch to http://duckduckgo.com/ for all your searching.
While you are at it, remove any personal information from Facebook, if you must have an account use a fake name and log in using your browser's "privacy" mode. Same for Google searches- make it as hard as possible for them to track you.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 6:36PM
re DuckDuckGo "they don't track you as heavily"
DuckDuckGo doesn't do any tracking at all. We spoke to them on the Tech Weekly podcast back in May. Give it a listen.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 6:49PM
It's not just the big film and music industries that are hit by copyright abuse. I'm a stock photographer and make my living selling photos. It's not easy when some people put my photos on free file sharing sites without my consent.
Two things:
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'd rather have a free Internet without you or your photos on it than a tame little marketplace with the primary goal of protecting your income source.
Get a better business model. Copying your photos is an investment of time and resources - setting up a microblog which generates click-through ad revenue is a good way of making money out of distributing content for "free" - and if you are distributing for free then there is no reason for anyone to disseminate your content rather than saving time and effort by just going directly to the source.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 10:00PM
Songwriters, composers, session musicians etc all have to pay rent and bills just like everyone else. By stealing their work on line, you are stealing their income, just as you would close down a shop by stealing all the stock.
Link to this comment:
11 August 2012 11:34PM
Absolute drivel on numerous counts.
Downloading music is a civil, not criminal matter. It is not theft in a legal or ethical sense.
A download does not correspond to "a lost sale", and thus cannot be equated to any loss of income.
And while a shop may be forced to close down if you could simply clone the entire contents, the fact that there wouldn't be any need for said shop after the cloning is completed would mean that isn't a bad thing at all. Everyone having unlimited access to the shop's contents is clearly better than the shop acting solely as an entity that denies people access to the goods.
Link to this comment:
Comments on this page are now closed.
Google opens Android music store to challenge Apple iTunes
17 Nov 2011
Google Music offers US-based Android users exclusive content and songs at same prices as the rival Apple iTunes. By Charles Arthur and agencies
27 Aug 2011
MGEITF - Eric Schmidt answers Google's critics - video
24 Aug 2011
Click to Download: Google music special
9 Sep 2008
Google strikes NBC Universal ad deal
25 Sep 2009
Google Books deal postponed after avalanche of criticism
2. Sergey Brin and Larry Page
19 Jul 2010
Job: co-founders, Google; president of technology, Google (Brin), president of products, Google (Page)Age: 36 (Brin), 37 (Page)Industry: digital mediaTurnover: $23.65bnStaff: 19,835Salary: $1 (each)Worth: $17.5bn (each)2009 ranking: 1
Turn autoplay off
Turn autoplay on
Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
Edition: UK
About us
Today's paper
Subscribe
Move to downgrade websites that persistently breach copyright follows prolonged lobbying from media and film giants
Google is to make a significant change to its search algorithm from Monday, downgrading websites that persistently breach copyright laws.
The move is a victory for media and entertainment giants, which have complained for years that Google does not do enough to prevent access to material that breaches strict copyright laws on content such as music videos and TV shows.
Google said in a blogpost that it would take into account the number of valid copyright takedown notices that it received for any given sites. Those sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in user search results, it said.
"This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily – whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed from Spotify," wrote Amit Singhal, the company's senior vice-president for engineering.
The decision follows prolonged behind-the-scenes lobbying by the music and film industries to get Google to demote the search position of sites which they say infringe their copyrights, such as the Pirate Bay.
Google has resisted on the basis that its search results should reflect what sites people point to for particular words or phrases – the basis on which its search reputation was built – but that has become less and less tenable as it has tweaked its algorithm to favour or penalise sites that it sees as "spam" for other sorts of content.
The fact that the blogpost is signed by Amit Singhal, Google's most senior engineer in its search team, indicates the level at which this decision has been taken.
Google's previous refusal has also been said within the industry to have been the reason why it has struggled to sign content deals with the music and film businesses to rent or sell a broader variety of films or music outside the US.
But the decision means that it may now be able to sign up the record labels and film studios so that it can compete more effectively with Apples's iTunes. Google has for a long time had plans to make money from selling films and music via Google Play, according to documents released earlier this year at its trial against Google, but revenues have been far below its projections despite the wide penetration of handsets running its Android software in the smartphone market.
The move was welcomed by the entertainment industry Michael O'Leary, senior executive vice-president for global policy at the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement: "We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe."