U2 Manager Paul McGuinness: Google Should 'Take Down' Sites And 'Keep Them Down'
from the be-careful-what-you-wish-for,-www.u2.com dept
Paul McGuinness, U2’s manager, (“World’s Richest Band Seeks Handout“) has been a longtime critic of Google, whose search engine he views as being nothing more than a portal for pirates. That’s when he’s not blaming pretty much everyone else (ISPs, any tech company connected to the internet in general) for not making U2 incrementally richer. But Google is never far from his mind, not even when accepting an Industry Icon award from Billboard Magazine for his 35 years as the band’s manager.
McGuinness (again) thinks he has a quick fix for the piracy problem, and it all revolves around Google.
What needs to be done is simple, take the sites down and keep them down. If the pirates can manage to replace their sites instantly with legions of bots, Google, with their brilliant algorithm engineers can counter it. We need the technology giants like Google to do the things that labels, the publishers, the artists, the writers repeatedly ask them to do. They need to show corporate and social responsibility. Take down the illegal sites, keep them down and clear the way for the legal digital distributors like iTunes, Spotify, Deezer, the new Jimmy Iovine Beats service, which promises to be a very serious competitor.
Yes. It’s all so “simple.” Just “take sites down” and “keep them down.” Like many people who frequently confuse “Google” for “the Internet” (see also: many people in the UK government), McGuinness overstates the simplicity of his request while granting powers to Google that it simply doesn’t possess.
Let’s tackle the “simplicity” aspect first. If McGuinness is only referring to delisting sites (and that’s somewhat unclear), it’s not nearly as easy as he (or the RIAA, MPAA, UK government) thinks. There are several ways this could go wrong (see also: site blocking/web filters), not the least of which is that it puts internet access in the control of agencies and entities that can’t even seem to issue DMCA notices without taking down legitimate content sources. So, if labels and studios (and those represented by them) can’t even send out failure-free DMCA notices, they’re hardly in the position to tell a company that indexes millions of sites how “simple” it would be to “block” or “take down” pirate sites.
Then there’s what’s actually in Google’s power to do. McGuinness does mention “algorithms” but shortly thereafter he’s deploying wording that sounds suspiciously like a call for Google to take down sites, as in do a private ICE job and lock up the domain, thus keeping it out of searches and “clearing the way” for legitimate offerings. That’s something Google simply can’t do, and even if it could, certainly shouldn’t do. Google’s main product is a search engine. It crawls and indexes sites. It is not in the “internet police” business. That’s not what it’s product is intended to do and that’s not what a majority of those using the search engine want Google to be doing.
But the RIAA, MPAA and others insist this is Google’s job — to sniff out infringing content and remove it from the web (or at least, its search results). Google processes millions of DMCA notices per year, but this is always viewed as a sign of failure on the company’s part. If it was “better” at the job McGuinness and others think it should be doing, it wouldn’t be receiving so many notices.
Somehow, it always comes back to the claim that Google “owes” millions of content creators something for indexing the web.
I would like to see them open their hearts a little and be more generous to the ecosystem that started their success a few years ago. Google talks a lot about Internet freedom — that’s fine, we all support Internet freedom don’t we* — but let’s not confuse freedom of speech with the freedom to steal pirated stuff.
*Note: Paul McGuinness does NOT support internet freedom.
I don’t think anyone confuses freedom of speech with piracy, but just like the above situation, it’s not nearly as simplistic as McGuinness and others believe it is. Shut down a whole site because it hosts or links to pirated content and you’re also shutting down everything that surrounded it, a lot of which greatly resembles “free speech.”
McGuinness likely won’t be happy until every search engine is completely subverted by IP-heavy industries, but that’s apparently acceptable collateral damage if it results in incremental sales increases.
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, engineering, open internet, paul mcguinness, search engines, u2
Companies: google
Comments on “U2 Manager Paul McGuinness: Google Should 'Take Down' Sites And 'Keep Them Down'”
Luddites have never quite come to grips with the internet. They all have an unworkable solution where time and again they have been shown their ideas are totally unworkable.
Google is not the internet. I somehow manage to deal with the internet and never use Google at all. If I can do it so can the hordes of people that use the internet globally if given a sufficient reason to. Make Google a non-player in importance and that is exactly what will happen. Things will go on as usual, sans Goggle. I somehow fail to grasp exactly how that delisting sites will cure the issue.
More to the point is that younger people are no longer considering rock n roll as the main fare for consumption of music according to a recent article I read a few days ago. Neil Young claimed rock n roll will never die but it’s days are already numbered if the future generations aren’t caring to hear it. The legacy copyright folks have no one to blame for this but the very ones pushing to wall off culture such as you see in this article so being called for.
If you drive away your fan base through threats to them by court, exactly how long do you think this is going to last? At some point the public will get educated but not in the manner that is being sought. The message they will get instead is leave it all alone and there is no issue.
Re: Google is not the Internet?
Google bought the Internet from America Online.
Re: Re: Google is not the Internet?
Who were grant it by DARPA which got the idea from Al Gore who was in Johnny Cash?s America with Tim Robbins who in Mystic River with Kevin Bacon.
Re: Re: Re: Google is not the Internet?
Been playing 6 Degrees, I see.
Re: Re: Google is not the Internet?
No – we all know what The Internet actually is –
Paul McGuiness is not much brighter than the “shareholders’ meeting
Re: Re: Re: Google is not the Internet?
I though it was a series of tubes?
Re: Re: Re:2 Google is not the Internet?
I guess the real question is how did the fit all the tubes in that little box?
Re: Re: Re:2 Google is not the Internet?
…filled with cats.
Re: Re: Re:3 Google is not the Internet?
…clogging up the tubes so that people can’t get their Internets.
Re: Re:
So what are young people listening to? Because my daughter and all her friends listen to rock and roll, just not from geezers like U2.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know. I’m a geezer. But I do know that my wife listens to top 40 (well, top 10, really) radio a lot, and I don’t think I’ve heard a single rock and roll song on it yet…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Offspring and Metallica are basically the only ones who can get in the top 10, and only at album releases for a month max these days. And they’re getting both getting old.
Doesn’t matter anyway, bands like Slayer manage to get grammies with zero radio play.
Re: Re: Re:
yes, maybe if u2 didn’t overly depend on electronic processing, they would still be considered artists.
Let put a delay on the guitar and let it drone just like the rest of our music.
If noone is pirating our music, we don’t want anybody pirating any music.
Re: Re: Re:
I listen to Lady Gaga, Madonna, Katy Perry, Sheena Easton, Kelly Clarkson, Blondie, Gwen Stefani, Selena Gomez, Pat Benatar, etc.. I listen mostly to female artists, although I also have an affinity for ApologetiX and classic Duran Duran.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also tend to gravitate toward female artists, though it’s typically more in the Nightwish, Epica, Within Temptation, Evanescence, Lacuna Coil, Delain, We Are The Fallen, After Forever, Edenbridge, etc. direction.
How can Google "take down" sites?
Isn’t that done by the DOJ with men repelling from black helicopters and busting down your door?
Re: How can Google "take down" sites?
If they are ‘repelling’ from black helicopters, they’d better be on the ground or they’ll make pretty splats – unless they are ‘rapelling’ down. 🙂
Getting Google to de-list sites
This is a great way to make the dinosaurs think that piracy has gone away, yet continue to circulate the location of those now invisible sites in the underground.
Great idea RIAA / MPAA!
Re: Getting Google to de-list sites
Redundant, really. Any piracy site that’s serious knows about robots.txt.
Re: Re: Getting Google to de-list sites
And relies on word of mouth on how to find them, not search engine traffic. You think the teenager that is told The Pirate Bay is where to find his favorite series for free is not going to ask “So what’s the address?”
If they don’t get the information in the form of a hyperlink anyway, that is.
Re: Re: Re: Getting Google to de-list sites
Yep, my seedboxes are pirating so badly, and they’ll never know from where :3
Absolutely right
You re right a lot of people don’t confuse freedom of speech with piracy, but your statement is right shutting down a whole site because it hosts or links to pirated content is not the solution to the problem of piracy.
Thank you
Very insightful article
Re: Thank you
Well, hello there, Mr. Sock Puppet.
terminology problem
Google is indeed a portal for “pirates” — or “inadequately served potential customers,” as successful entrepreneurs like to call them.
Re: terminology problem
You see, I don’t think even that’s true. I’m not a pirate, but I do know a number of people who pirate. And not a single one of them uses Google to do it because it’s actually kindof hard to find pirated stuff through Google, compared to the alternative methods.
Re: Re: terminology problem
Might want to get your joke detector checked, seems to be on the fritz.
Re: Re: Re: terminology problem
bang bang
Ah yes. It does that sometimes. Sorry. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 terminology problem
bang bang
I know percussion maintenance works on old TV’s and some laptops, but I really don’t recommend it in this instance.
Re: Re: Re:3 terminology problem
I think he shot hos joke detector.
Re: Re: Re:4 terminology problem
I believe that’s what’s called ‘Extreme percussion maintenance’.
Re: Re: terminology problem
actually, this place -> bing.com is a better source of pirated material. Totally un-policed and off the radar of the mainstream.
Re: Re: Re: terminology problem
You just have to deal with M$ whole screen of shitty ads.
Fuck that, torrent indexing search engines are the way to go!
Re: Re: Re:2 terminology problem
duckduckgo, usenet (may it never die) too.
if its google’s “job” to cleanse the intarwebz, google should be paid by the people who want it cleaned
“We need the technology giants like Google to do the things that labels, the publishers, the artists, the writers repeatedly ask them to do [for free]”
Inb4 ootb with his rant about how this douchebag is right and google is wrong blah blah blah…
The sense of entitlement is strong in this one...
‘We need the technology giants like Google to do the things that labels, the publishers, the artists, the writers repeatedly ask them to do. They need to show corporate and social responsibility.’
Here’s a question I don’t think I’ve ever seen satisfactorily answered: Why?
Why should google, or any other tech company care what happens to the recording industry? Does the movie industry go out of their way, spending time and money to defend and protect the automotive industry? Does the aviation industry move heaven and earth to protect the farming industry? Or how about the recording industry itself, does it tirelessly work to protect the tech industry?(Answer: No, no it does not)
This is something that gets me every time the subject comes up, the massive, glaring sense of self-importance, arrogance and entitlement that people like that demonstrate, as though everyone around them owes them, as though every other industry has nothing better to do than jump to their tune and do everything in their power to ‘defend’ the movie and recording industries, no matter what it may cost them to do so.
And as far as ‘social responsibility’, considering the copyright maximalists were so worried about any possible ‘weakening’ of copyright that they fought tooth and nail against expanding fair use rules to benefit the blind, the sheer hypocrisy in such a statement just boggles the mind.
This I believe
It seems to me that we have uncovered OOTB’s Secret Identity, he is actually Paul McGuinness!
Re: This I believe
I was thinking the same thing when I read this.
Re: This I believe
If so he must suffer from multiple personalities since there are plenty of examples out there. Could it be that he is the embodiment of the MAFIAA collective minds?
Re: Re: This I believe
Wouldn’t ‘collective minds’ require them to have a mind in the first place?
That’s because it is. The DMCA takedown process is blatantly unconstitutional, and Google has failed to stand up for the rights of the Internet users that its search service is supposed to enable and empower.
“Hey Google, here’s a list of website we want you provide links to. If we come up with more site in the future we’ll let you know. In the meantime, send all traffic to our approved sites. We’re in control of everything now.”
Not only would this instantly kill Google, it would kill the internet.
Common carrier?
In my mind, a search engine MUST be content agnostic if it’s to be of any value. Once ANY type of content is allowed to be de-listed, the integrity of the whole thing goes in the toilet. personally, I think Google – as industry leader – has already gone way too far in this respect. As long as they don’t filter at all they should have all the protections of a “common carrier” and these people should just buzz off.
Google is not the internet, smart guy who obviously knows what their talking about /s
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
(And not to STEAL a quotation, heavens no, credit to Upton Sinclair)
Really cynical
This is really cynical by U2. They want everyone who uses a search engine to sing that they still haven’t found what they are looking for…
If google did do this, and screw up their search engine majorly, then perhaps a quid pro quo would be fair. They could adopt as their new advertising slogan “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.”
the new Jimmy Iovine Beats service,” which promises to be a very serious competitor.”
I think this insane speech was to advertise Jimmy Iovine Beats service.
” but that’s apparently acceptable collateral damage if it results in incremental sales increases. “
As the actions and results achieved by such actions show, the collateral damage is more than acceptable to certain backward IP heavy industries even when there is no noticeable effect on either piracy or sales.
Its not the results but the principle no matter how costly that principle is to everyone.
” but that’s apparently acceptable collateral damage if it results in incremental sales increases. “
As the actions and results achieved by such actions show, the collateral damage is more than acceptable to certain backward IP heavy industries even when there is no noticeable effect on either piracy or sales.
Its not the results but the principle no matter how costly that principle is to everyone.
I just figured it all out guys.
They equate Google to the Internet because they see Google as the Internet’s Gatekeeper, much like how Hollywood and the music industry are Gatekeepers. They think because they have an iron fist on all that is music and movies that likewise Google should have an iron fist on all the internet.
Re: Re:
Hmm, you might be on to something there, I mean, they’re still, to this day, completely incapable of realizing that the internet mobilized to shoot down SOPA, instead laying all the blame on Google(who, if I remember correctly, actually was a little late to the party in that case), so they could indeed see Google as the ‘internet’s gatekeeper’, and be acting accordingly.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they believe Google controls the internet, or at least access to it, and they target Google because there’s potentially a lot of money to be taken from them.
Best quote was overlooked
I love his tunnel vision of internet-as-TV-replacement. Apparently the Internet had no value to anyone until the professional music and film industries discovered it (and thereby gave Google a reason to exist).
The stupidity…it burns!
Re: Best quote was overlooked
Not stupidity so much as arrogance, when dealing with the movie and recording industries, they always believe that everything revolves around, and depends upon, them, hence their constant demands that every other industry ‘protect’ them.
Re: Best quote was overlooked
“more generous to the ecosystem that started their success”
I wonder if he realises that the “ecosystem” responsible for their success is a bunch of open-source and free protocols, software, languages and other systems that encouraged growth and innovation because they reduced the barrier-to-entry for international exposure to virtually nil for the first time in history for ordinary people.
Nah, of course he doesn’t, he’s addressing the fictional internet that his industry invented to make them feel less like idiots for ignoring the web for a decade, thus sealing their own fates.
Keep slamming him
Keep slamming him and missing his points, it only makes you look slightly more desperate to make points.
Look, all he is saying is that Google has the choice to continue to index pirate sites (you know, the ones that gets tens of thousands of DMCA notices) and to continue to offer them up as the prime results for their searches, or they can recognize that these sites are CLEARLY infringing, and take steps to stop the pollution of their SERPs.
No, it’s not about a single misdirected DMCA taking a site down (it doesn’t happen, Google can’t “take sites down”, they can only stop listing them), rather it’s about Google realizing that some sites are major piracy hubs, that that they shouldn’t continue to support and encourage piracy.
If Google used the 10,000th page removal as a trigger to put sites in the sandbox for a while, out of sight and with no results, perhaps it would change the way people operate.
For that matter, Google is very good at spotting sites that are just scrapes of other sites. Most of the torrent “index” sites are replicants of each other, the same data presented in slightly different formats. Google could easily determine things like mirror sites and portal sites, and when they take down the main site, they could do the same by applying what they know.
Moreover, it would not be hard for Google to de-index chat boards and such that are mostly spam hauses for file locker links – if the file locker gets too many complaints, sites that link excessively to them should also be devalued or even removed from the search results.
Google can do something if they want, but they are making huge profits on not doing anything, which is quite a bit more evil than they want to be, IMHO.
Re: Keep slamming him
Should have figured you’d show up on this one AJ, but perhaps you can answer the question I posed above.
You say Google ‘can do something if they want’, but the question remains: Why should they? Google does already de-list sites/links that receive a valid DMCA claim(or at least one that isn’t glaringly wrong), why should they go the extra mile to do the police work of the *AA’s, something that would take time, effort, and money to do, all for an industry that, due to their arrogance, seems to think that Google works for them, and so owes them that time, effort and money.
Re: Re: Keep slamming him
” why should they go the extra mile to do the police work of the *AA’s, something that would take time, effort, and money to do”
First off, thanks for your reply. That it took more than 24 hours for a reply to come up shows exactly how long my comment was held in moderation before Mike’s crack staff got around to posting it. Kudos. You likely will never get to read this reply, because by the time it gets posted, this post will be on page 5 or something.
So to answer your question, it’s because Google (and Bing, and Yahoo) are companies that are in a position to influence the consumer, and they have all chosen to respect DMCA notices because they also understand that they do have some responsibility in the situation.
Moreover, after a certain level of infringement, Google is actually wasting time and money to continue to index sites that are generating tons of notices. Remember, DMCAs to Google are generally for sites that are either unreachable or unresponsive (or like H33t, want to change to process removal requests). At some point, Google would do better to cut their own losses and stop indexing sites that continually generate significant numbers of valid DMCA notices.
It is a question of quality is as well: If a site is repeatedly getting pages removed, those pages should marked generally as bad, and a negative on the site. At bare minimum, such a site should have a hard time making it onto early result pages because their site should be considered poorly. Google has all sorts of punishments for sites with too many links, too few links, too many words, too few words, and 1000 other things, so linking to a bunch of pages removed from the index should be a good indication that things are not good on that site.
“Google does already de-list sites/links that receive a valid DMCA claim”
They will remove single pages without consideration for anything else. A torrent site with millions of pages (most of them show files that are no longer actually seeded or shared anywhere), 10,000 DMCA notices wouldn’t even scratch the surface. By ignoring the signs that the site has issues, the continue to award and encourage whack-a-mole attitudes. Google scraps the page, they rename it slightly, and it gets reindexed on the same domain. How nice is that?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one’s going to take seriously the words of someone who thinks the poor don’t deserve education.
Chew on a report vote.
Re: Re:
Right, because it’s perfectly alright for you to slam and insult everyone else.
horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
Re: Keep slamming him
He’s not saying anything about de-listing sites. And that is because he doesn’t have a clue about how the Internet actually works. If he did he would have said something like “de-list”, “de-index”, or “remove links to” sites. But he didn’t. He said “take down” and because of that it, it is glaringly obvious he is an ignorant parrot of the Content Cartels anti-Google talking points.
I wonder if these people have so little understanding of how Google in particular and computers in general work, that they think since Google has made an algorithm to automatically rank web pages, then Google must be able to just easily create an algorithm to detect pirate sites. I mean, unless they’re just grandstanding, their demands very strongly imply they think that way.
Why dont Google fight back? They could just remove everything MPAA releated and demand that they stop their bullshits.
They could do it for a day and call it a protest. Im sure these cunts would then see how much Google helps them.
Re: Re:
They wouldn’t even have to call it a protest. At some point, it would just be sound business practice.
The UK government keeps trying to pass legislation that would make Google responsible for the content it indexes. In other words, they want to hold Google liable for piracy if Google links to a site that has pirated content. What’s amusing is that none of the proposed legislation has suggested that Google should be liable for incorrectly blocking content, because the major studios don’t give a damn about taking down protected speech.
So….think it through. If that sort of legislation ever got passed, Google would be exposed to huge liability every time they indexed a page that talked about, for example, U2. They’d be completely free of liability if they stopped indexing any page that mentioned U2. There’s a lot of people frothing at the mouth to sue Google, so it wouldn’t be economically viable for Google to continue indexing those pages. They’d get hundreds or thousands of lawsuits filed each day. They’d have to stop, until either the legislation got appealed or until all the studios freaked out and signed mandatory arbitration agreements.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, in my little fantasy world, Google could entirely ‘disappear’ the lunatic country France as well. They seem way too sue-happy over there.
Meanwhile...
U2? Is that the same outfit that make extensive use of tax havens to avoid paying tax??
Re: Meanwhile...
And don’t forget that they also still tell G’ments what to do despite the whole non-tax thing…
Hmmm…Maybe Google should make a special case tweak. Whenever someone searches for U2 free songs it instead searches for U2 hypocrisy tax avoidance. Everyone wins – people aren’t directed to get U2’s songs free, so U2+leeches are happy, and people are directed away from U2 songs, so they don’t listen to them, so they benefit.
“U2” is a really short word and probably shouldn’t be used in Google’s algorithms at all.
Paul McGuinness is NOT U2's manager
He was recently replaced. Maybe there is a connection?
Re: Paul McGuinness is NOT U2's manager
The new manager is some dude named Guy Oseary…
Ignorance
Yet another pig-ignorant person who has absolutely no idea how the net works and obviously thinks a flick of the magic Google switch can turn off all the alleged undesirable sites. I despair. Sounds like he’s been taking advice from that other technically inept wonder, David Cameron.
What about other search engines?
When people make speeches about how Google should just delist sites, do they not know (or not care) about other sites? If Google is forced to delist a site, do we think Bing and every other search engine will do the same? Or will they take this as a competitive advantage and start advertising that they don’t block sites like Google does?
And what’s to stop someone from making their own search engine? Or better yet, just use an “underground” one like DuckDuckGo?
negative land misspelled
The classic is their unlicensed rebroadcast of satellite content during zoo tv tour, a tour that wasn’t free to attend. In other words more dumb ___________
U2 is the richest band? I thought it was Metallica and easily, especially since they finally got their shit together again in the last one they made that even metalheads are accepting them again.
Says something about this world when U2 is the biggest band on Earth.
Thank you.