Wouldn't it be easier, not the mention more truthful, to call these Opaqueness Reports instead of Transparency Reports?
After all, opaqueness is the goal, therefore it shouldn't it be the title of the report?
It's like how school report cards are called 'progress reports', because progress is the goal.
Of course, Transparency Reports maybe is just as well. It's like the cable industry 'reporting' how cord cutting isn't happening, it's all just a myth. Or the movie industry 'reporting' how piracy is preventing them from reporting ever larger profits year over year. Similarly, maybe anything they do report as an increase of transparency should be read similarly.
If Google provides search results to unauthorized content, then the owners of that content should treat it as a gift. Look, Google just made it easy for you to locate that unauthorized content that you want to get shut down.
Getting the search results off Google won't make the unauthorized content go away, nor will it make it much harder to find.
Talking about Google is counterproductive. Go after the source of the unauthorized content. Leave everyone else alone.
Oh, and while you're dealing with that unauthorized content, please be careful about innocent bystanders who might happen to be on the same server, or the same ISP, or same country, or same planet. Please don't nuke an entire server, ISP, country or planet because one user has unauthorized content located on that planet.
Section 230 of the CDA takes care of protecting "sites that host them", but not necessarily the consumers themselves who write reviews.
Furthermore, the defense from attacks by those who get bad reviews needs to happen earlier in the process before a consumer (or a site invoking CDA S.220) has to spend significant money on legal representation. Like SLAPP laws.
There may not really be a cost benefit at this stage. Or maybe the benefit is high only for a very few.
But you know, that was like in the early days of Books. Telephones. Electric lights. Automobiles. Radio. Pocket calculators. Digital Watches. Personal computers. Cell phones. Bluetooth earpieces. Smart phones. Tablet computers.
Each of these things started expensive. Limited benefits, especially for the cost. Benefits enough for those with money. Gradually affordable to everyone. Then common place. Then cheap and ubiquitous. Remember, at one point, toothbrushes, ball point pens, combs, and cigarette lighters were expensive items. There was only one toothbrush per household. Now these items are common and even disposable. Even basic pocket calculators that were very expensive are now fifty cents in blister packs in a bin during fall 'back to school days'. Same with transistor radios. I guarantee you that smart phones, and tablet computers will get to this point. It is inevitable.
I think that smart glasses and smart watches are just not at the stage yet. But they will get there. Believe it. Or not. But it is inevitable. The benefits are enough that eventually the oddballs will be people who DO NOT have these everyday commonplace items.
Like a Luddite with no: toothbrush, comb, pen, radio, mobile phone or PC.
aside: but some would argue that tech would not exist without Big Content, but that is a different mental illness for another time.
In order to give patents more scrutiny, the USPTO is proud to announce that it will be making changes to its patent application review process.
Whereas presently, patent applications are thrown into a room full of kittens with PATENT GRANTED stamps affixed to their feet; in the future the kittens will no longer be blindfolded in order to afford greater scrutiny to patent applications.
Do they have a definition of Pr0n? Do they have a definition of Extremist?
I'll just use US politics as an example, even though it is irrelevant to the UK. Republicans think they are in the center and Democrats are extremist. And Democrats think vice versa. Some people think both Democrats and Republicans are extremist.
Hey, here's an idea! (Oh, no... hold on to your socks...) Let's ban anything that anyone considers Extremist.
That would be like pouring drain-o into teh intartubes to clean them out so that Netflix could flow through more easily.
1. Jane registers jane.com with SuperDooperDomains. 2. SuperDooperDomains is strongly against copyright infringement. 3. Jane puts up a website that has only legal content. 4. Some time passes. 5. Evil Jane changes her website, while twirling her mustache, and starts hosting copyright infringing content. 6. Now SuperDooperDomains is suddenly liable through no action or intent of it's own. Furthermore SuperDooperDomains is strongly against copyright infringement.
This seems insane.
Wouldn't it be a reasonable, well considered and fair solution, in the interest of justice, to put the liability onto Google instead? After all, it's obviously Google's fault.
Linking should not have any liability. None. Zero. Zilch.
If you want to go after someone, go after the linked to site! How's that for an idea! Get rid of the infringing content and all the links (including ones you don't even know about!) just stop working! Like magic.
In fact, copyright enforcers should be thankful for links because they point you directly to where the actual infringing content is hosted.
There is another important reason why linking should have NO liability.
1. Suppose Jane at site A posts some perfectly legal content. 2. Joe, who is himself against any copyright infringement, innocently and harmlessly posts a link on his site B to legal material at site A. 3. Later, evil Jane at site A changes the content at that link to something that is content infringement. 4. Now Joe's link from site B now links to infringing material. And this through no action or intent of Joe, who is strongly against copyright infringement.
See the problem here?
Joe should not even have to defend against an accusation of linking -- which should never be considered wrong.
Linking to infringing material is like posting a sticky note telling people where the crack house is. Get rid of the crack house and all the sticky notes, including ones you don't even know about are now irrelevant.