Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. 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.Google Senior VP of Engineering Amit Singhal • Regarding changes to Google’s search algorithm that will favor sites that post legitimate content that hasn’t received copyright removal notices. Despite this change, Singhal claims that the company will keep those sites in the engine, though they may rank lower. “So while this new signal will influence the ranking of some search results, we won’t be removing any pages from search results unless we receive a valid copyright removal notice from the rights owner,” he says. “And we’ll continue to provide “counter-notice” tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated.” (thanks Andrew Hart)
There’s literally no reason I can think of why it has to be heard in America … at no point was the site ever in America. I think they’re trying to use my website as a sort of guinea pig to try to scare everyone else making linking websites.British student Richard O’Dwyer • Discussing the potential extradition order he’s facing from the United States. He’s being targeted for running a Web site that merely linked to other Web sites where you could watch TV shows and movies online. (His site hosted none of the shows in question.) He’s not from the U.S., but customs officials are trying to extradite him to make an example out of him, after pressure from the entertainment industry. Sound a little like SOPA? Effectively, what’s happening to O’Dwyer is an example of the kind of thing SOPA was meant to enforce. Mind you, it’s not like search engines don’t link to these sites already. (A full timeline of the case is over here.)
So, fun fact about Pinterest: The fine print gives the company the right to sell your photos, and on top of that basically says that by uploading a photo, you’re implying that you own the photo. If the latter turns out to be not the case, the former could put users in real danger. Boston Business Journal Web Editor Galen Moore learned about this after creating this lovely board full of building plans he didn’t own. “The service shows fascinating potential,” Moore says. “But if you operate a business, or have any net worth to speak of, I recommend a careful read of the fine print.” The company has yet to comment on the matter. (ht Kate Gardiner via RWW)
EDIT: A response to this post, which briefly analyzes the TOS for multiple sites, has gotten a bit of play.
Decades of evidence from around the globe all show the same thing: making copyright law or enforcement stricter does not work. It does not decrease infringement at all — and, quite frequently, leads to more infringement.From TechDirt’s article on PROTECT-IP and SOPA, titled “The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas.” If you had to cut down the entire argument to two sentences, these two are the ticket. By the way, in case you missed it the other night, there’s a letter floating around, allegedly sent by NBC Universal to its suppliers, attempting to strongarm them into supporting SOPA. Chew on that while you’re eating your breakfast of turkey and stuffing.
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
