"My guess is that google would prefer a search result about Ian Watkins to provide a picture of the corresponding Ian Watkins, not some other Ian Watkins."
And as soon as Google invents a technology that can read the minds of users via their internet connection, they'll be able to tell which of the many thousands of Ian Watkins in the world was actually being searched for by that particular user at that particular time. In the mean time, Google (and those of us with a grasp on reality) accept that the current method of returning search results works pretty damn well nearly all of the time, and unlikely coincidences like this are unfortunate but not worth trying to fix by making Google work less effectively.
"There's also the issue where it seems things which are popular get preferential treatment"
Wait, you're complaining about a search engine working exactly like a search engine should? Exactly what order do you think thousands of search results should be displayed? Alphabetical? The level of stupid in your complaint is almost painful.
"if what i'm searching for isn't very popular it's very likely i'll have to be super specific with the keywords or dig through results, or in some cases, i can't find it at all"
Wow, so you've figured this out about ten years after the rest of us.
"and that's why google (and all other search engines) PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Well you're fully entitled to not use any of them. That'd obviously make your web surfing much less infuriating and hence far more productive...
"Sure Google is useful, but it's still a big insult to the authors."
Yes, having excerpts of your works able to be easily found by fans and potential customers, or people researching your work for academic purposes, must be so damn insulting! Obscurity would be so much more rewarding!
"On the whole, most authors would rather be able to pay for food and health insurance instead of having their book show up on the fifth page of some Google search."
Since one does not preclude the other in any way, shape or form, your point is completely irrelevant.
"Remember, most authors don't get free food and health insurance like the programmers at Google."
Neither do millions of other self-employed workers, so again your point is completely irrelevant.
"It's you who is out of touch with the needs of the millions of creative people who work hard and just ask for the chance to control what happens to their work, just like every other worker in the economy."
If that's the case then it looks like "millions of creative people" are completely clueless about the working conditions of "every other worker in the economy", most of whom have little to no control over "their work" once it's completed.
"Even the richest artists have 1/1000 the wealth of the Google billionaires."
If you want sympathy for your cause I suggest you leave the millionaire winners of the copyright lottery system out of the discussion. Most of us are not going to feel sorry for someone worth millions who's jealous of someone worth billions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh--- you're the one that's out of touch
"You do understand what Google's doing, right?"
No, he clearly doesn't, which is why most of his comments come off as ignorant rants that border on comedy. I also get a whiff of failed author/artist/creator who blames everybody but himself for his lack of success.
Re: Re: Re: Same reason as all the other content organizations
"You're just a copyright denier."
Way to sound like an idiot. A 'copyright denier' would be someone who denies copyright even exists, like the way Holocaust deniers claim the Holocaust didn''t happen or was greatly exaggerated. Are you sure that's the accusation you're trying to make? Most people here are complaining about the overreach by and abuse of the copyright system, which pretty much implies they acknowledge its existence.
Care to try explaining yourself a little better?
"Publishers always experiment with bundling rights in different ways because they want the customers to be happy."
At this point there are very few customers who believe that their happiness is a high priority for publishers.
"But getting things for free is not sustainable no matter how happy it makes people."
Decades of free-to-air TV and radio would disagree with you. But you seem to have gone off track because this article is not about getting books for free. If you think it is then you're as clueless about Google's book scanning project as the Author's Guild.
Have you ever stopped to ask why these nations consider the US an adversary? Countries don't decide these things on a whim, there are usually pretty good reasons, like being treated with a lack of respect for example.
"The vast majority of the world's websites manage to police themselves and keep infringing content off their sites."
That's a totally irrelevant (and unsubstantiated) claim. Most infringement issues come from site with user-generated content, which mean all sites that don't have UGC have nothing to do with the discussion.
"You pirates live in your own fake reality and everyone is laughing at you."
I can smell your desperate state of denial from here. Given the massive, worldwide scale of copyright infringement, it would seem that our reality is quite solid and everybody is actually laughing at you. More likely nobody's laughing, just ignoring you.
Re: There are three key FEATURES: 1) no civil or criminal sanctions.
...it's only illegal infringement...
If it were only illegal infringement you might have a point, even if some of that 'infringement' should be perfectly legal (i.e. content taken from the public domain). But there is massive amounts of collateral damage ('anomalies' in blue-speak) caused by the War on Infringement, and whatever benefits the current copyright system might bring, they're outweighed by the costs to society as a whole. Content creators are not special little flowers that need protecting from the big, bad world any more than the rest of us, and that applies even more to the corporations that actually control most copyrights.
So Mike writes an article that criticises a sneaky plan to allow record labels to screw musicians out of their rights, and you call him names because you don't like what Google does. Do you realise that you are the one that sounds like a slimy weasel here? You also sound like you support the RIAA's position here, so it's pretty hard to believe you have any genuine concern for artists.