RIAA: Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough To Make Piracy Disappear From The Internet

from the but-of-course dept

When Google first caved in to the legacy entertainment industry's demands to start modifying search results to downrank sites that received a lot of DMCA notices, we quickly warned that the RIAA and MPAA would never think that it was enough, and would continue to whine and complain. Yesterday, we pointed out that the RIAA was bitching and complaining about how many DMCA notices they could submit (which turned out to be a case of the RIAA failing to RTFM). But that was just the prelude for today, when the RIAA would release a "report card" on how Google's new filtering was going. Guess what? They're not happy, and apparently they won't be happy until Google magically makes all infringement disappear (*poof*).
Six months later, we have found no evidence that Google’s policy has had a demonstrable impact on demoting sites with large amounts of piracy. These sites consistently appear at the top of Google’s search results for popular songs or artists.
For everyone else in the world, if they're not satisfied with how the sites they favor rank in Google, they learn a little something about search engine optimization. But, noooooooo, not the RIAA. They think that it is a requirement that Google be tailored to them directly.
Well-known, authorized download sites, such as iTunes, Amazon and eMusic, only appeared in the top ten results for a little more than half of the searches. This means that a site for which Google has received thousands of copyright removal requests was almost 8 times more likely to show up in a search result than an authorized music download site. In other words, whatever Google has done to its search algorithms to change the ranking of infringing sites, it doesn't appear to be working.
Well, that's one interpretation. Another one (the right one) is that whatever the industry itself has done to raise the rankings of those sites by effectively competing in the marketplace "doesn't appear to be working." iTunes, in particular, is locked up in its own little walled garden with few people "linking in" (a big part of how Google determines relevance). Do people still use eMusic any more? The problem seems to be that those other sites just aren't where people look for stuff when they're searching Google for the music. That's not Google's fault.

Of course, what all this continues to demonstrate, beyond the fact that the RIAA will never, ever be satisfied until Google wipes out all infringement with the magic "piracyBgone" button, is that the RIAA still just doesn't understand search. The methodology here is suspect:
For this analysis we performed searches for [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download over a period of several weeks starting December 3, 2012
First big mistake: the RIAA simply does not seem to know that Google does not deliver the same results to everyone. That change a while back. They try to tailor specific responses to specific users, based on what those users are searching for. So, if the RIAA is seeing those sites ranked higher, perhaps it says something about where the RIAA is commonly looking for stuff...

Also, here's the thing that the RIAA just doesn't seem to get. Google's entire business and algorithm are built, ground up, around the idea of understanding what people are looking for when they search, and then taking them to that place. The RIAA might not like it, but the simple fact is that when people are searching for [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download, chances are they're not looking to buy, but to download for free. So that's what Google is showing them. That's not Google's fault. That's what the person is searching for. Even if Google magically did show them Apple, Amazon and Emusic as the top results for every [artist] [track] mp3 and [artist] [track] download, the people doing those searches wouldn't go there, because they're not looking to buy. If they did a search on "[artist] [track] buy" perhaps there would be different results.

If you actually compare apples to apples, and look at the kinds of sites that people are probably looking for, the RIAA's own "data" seems to suggest that Google is, in fact, demoting sites that receive a lot of takedowns.
Note that in those last two categories, sites that have received more than 10,000 DMCA notices appear less frequently than those with closer to 1,000 DMCA notices. The other three categories are red herrings, because those aren't where people are looking for when they do searches on either [artist] [track] mp3 or [artist] [track] download.

Basically, this just reinforces two (completely unsurprising points):
  1. The RIAA will never, ever be satisfied, no matter what Google does. Which again, reinforces the idea that it was probably a bad idea to even cave in in the first place.
  2. The RIAA still doesn't understand how search works, nor does it seem to have any interest in learning. It doesn't understand that every single other website in the world has to work hard to lift themselves up in Google's search rankings. They don't get to specifically call out sites they don't like and automatically force Google to lower their rankings. The RIAA gets a massive headstart on every other site in the world... and they still haven't figured out how to take advantage of this.
Of course, it's not just the RIAA. Musically points out that the RIAA's complaints are only the latest in a long line. The MPAA and BPI have already made similar complaints. And they'll continue to complain, because it gives them an excuse for not doing what they should be doing, which is helping the companies they represent adapt to the internet era. It's much easier to just blame a third party -- especially when doing so without understanding the very fundamentals of how a search engine works.

Filed Under: copyright infringement, demotions, filtering, piracy, search
Companies: google, riaa

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    special interesting, 22 Feb 2013 @ 7:25pm

    I see nothing wrong with Google's current policy except that they might add a fee to each one. Make a profit off the the 'copyright dogs' like RIAA and their ilk. It would be nice (and important) to drain their funds to cripple their incredibly unjustifiable influence for things that do no one any good and downright harmful if not damaging.

    I support making a fee for each and every take-down claim $5 from individuals and $25 for firms.

    I support the lowering of the max limit from 10k to 100.

    I support that a time limit of 100 per day

    These steps would be a good way to reduce the staff manpower wasted on censoring, corruption and copyright nonsense. It is likely that every person employed in copyright can be considered a drain on the economy and the fines and jail terms are outright insanity. Every person who had his life ruined by bad legislation becomes a drain on society in so many way although I hope these good people can recover anyway.

    Ahhh. The chance for another rant. This is such a fun site.

    I don't buy the possibility that RIAA is clueless on this one (or any of the others). It is more likely they know how weak and nonsensical their argument is and that this is the 'best they can come up with' at the moment. These guys are being paid to do this and (its the classic) if they don't do something then their bosses will stop funding them.

    Since I believe the RIAA knows they are doing is wrong in “Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough To Make Piracy Disappear From The Internet” and that they know that what they are purporting is not going to help anyone but themselves. Its another 'cigarette argument' (someone trying to convince you to buy something they know is bad for you).

    more eloquent explanation for a 'cigarette argument':
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/02462421991/undisclosed-uspto-employees-write- report-saying-uspto-does-great-job-handling-software-smartphone-patents.shtml#c381

    Sensible people would laugh at this but money has its own stench and this time it smells bad. From my viewpoint the RIAA uses the 'organized crime' business model. To be honest, as a voter this whole copyright thing is just pissing me off and even if it meant striking down the entire amendment regardless of any collateral damage wold be best. What I mean is that if the organizations that it has fostered seem indistinguishable from criminal organizations its too much for me to handle in any form.

    I don't like it when Google or anyone tampers with search. Raw data untouched by anyone or any algorithm is best. Its dangerous to censor as it provides only a colored view of the world or the particular search you made. This color may be you own special tint as measured by your own data they collected but it is a colored lens nonetheless. Censoring is a slippery slope topic and how do we measure how far Google has slipped or been forced? Its good they publish their algorithm and lends some sort of transparency safeguard.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.