rowan

Now that I think about it more, perhaps a better metric would be takedowns versus unique objects. For example, a site with 100 DMCA takedowns and 500 vids (high percentage of piracy); versus a site with 100 DMCA takedowns and 500,000 vids (mostly genuine vids, or at least not yet complained about)

Google may not be able to reliably determine "number of potentially copyrightable objects" on a site, but they could use something simpler like a count of pages.

100 DMCAs with 500 pages = severe penalty
100 DMCAs with 500,000 pages = slight or zero penalty

edit: Looks like google are already evaluating this. Right hand column: "URLs requested to be removed as a percentage of the specified domain's indexed URLs."

http://www.google.com/transparencyre...ns/?r=all-time

DWB

If you get a 100 DMCAs to a porn site, you're a pirate and need to lose your ranking.

rowan

The point I was trying to make is that a very popular site with (genuine) user uploads is going to get a lot of DMCAs, possibly at the same sort of level as a less popular one with "fake" user uploaded content. The former is a popular site with a small percentage of copyrighted content, the latter a blatant pirate. That's why the percentage of DMCAs vs indexed pages works as a better penalty metric.

Half man, Half Amazing

Wrong.

Every torrent site, filehost aggregator or any other pirate sites knows how to game that stat and they're already doing it. They index every query ever ran on their site as an individual page that Google indexes. You can search for "Megan Fox and Morgan Freeman sex tape" on Filestube and within hours that's the number one google result. That percentages of pages stat is bullshit. Pirates would LOVE for Google to use that (and Google probably will) because it's so easily manipulated. Do you actually believe less than 5% of the material on ThePirateBay is pirated? Do you actually believe less than 1% of the stuff on Filestube is pirated? Pirates would love you to believe that's true but it's complete horseshit.

__________________
Is this gonna get ugly, now? Huh? I hope not. Because I thought what we were here, racial differences notwithstanding, was just a couple of old friends. You know, just both of us Californians.

Harmon

Thanks for outing yourself.

__________________
[email protected]

gideongallery

yup auto correct on the browser spelling checker did that, right clicked and selected the wrong word

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

nikki99

Pirates will rot in hell under the command of Satan sent by Jesus Christ

__________________
SMC Revenue - Best Tgirl websites of the world now VR
Non exclusive BIG Tranny/shemale Package for sale, full 2257 - hit me up skype: nikkimontero

Qbert

Only one of those three actually exists.

Nautilus

Yes that is entirely possible but those specific warez search engines cannot claim "we're like google" anymore. Because to be like Google, they'll need to start punishing piracy sites too which will make them useless for surfers because they do not index anything else except for piracy sites.

That means Google is setting of what actually is a legal precendent. Now the next time a site like Isohunt or Torrentz.eu is dragged to court, they cannot scream "we're just a neutral search engine like google" anymore like they did since times immorial. No policy against repeat offenders, you're not like Google. Period.

The importance of what Google just did is not simply that piracy sites will start getting less of Google traffic, although that is very important too. But their latest move also provides a weapon to sue piracy search engines like Isohunt/Torrentz.eu/Filestube/Filetram into oblivion.

__________________
.
.

FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

helterskelter808

How does a private company changing its policy set a legal precedent?

Nautilus

It is not exactly a legal precedent of course. But it is quite common nowadays for courts to take into account community standards and practices of big respectable companies such as Google. When Isohunt and the likes start screaming next time "we're like google" any good lawyer will simply ask them "where is your repeat infringer policy similar to the one that Google implemented". There are good chances that courts will side with that arguement.

__________________
.
.

FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

gideongallery

except the fact that Google exempts there own tube site means that all isohunt will have to do is add a Google search query under their own results

and say see where just like Google , we exempt our own stuff too , and then just USE Google , including their repeat infringer policy afterwards.


it not the "legal precedent" you want unless it universally applied.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kristin

I wonder how much Google regrets releasing their transparency report.

I think that they loved the pirates until they had to create a division within Google to respond to DMCA requests. I see how many we send them ... it's pretty crazy.

__________________
Vacares rules.

"Usually only fat guys have the kind of knowledge and ability that Kristin has."