Profile 
Jon Claude Van Schear
Website: -

Comments

 -1Posted on Nov 21st, 2012 | re: Deconstructing: Pandora, Spotify, Piracy, And Getting Artists Paid (77 comments)

“Google invested in ContentID because it had to after facing billions in infringement claims on YouTube and other sites. And Google still gets away with murder on other websites, including all the Google AdWords revenue on third party piracy sites.”

You missed the part where Google is not able to tell whether content is infringing, it’s not their responsibility to look out for the interests of Hollywood.

“Google’s job is to do the least it has to do to comply with the law while still profitting from piracy. Google makes money on free content, so why would they lobby to stop that?”

Profiting from piracy, are you high? Why would they do that after Viacom’s appeal reversed the Youtube decision and they lost a lot of money? They know that Hollywood has a stronger reach in the government, so why would they kick the hornet’s nest by attempting to profit from piracy?

“The fact is, the U.S. govt could force them to block piracy websites, just like they force Google to block other sensitive sites — searches for classified documents, etc — or just like Google censors its own results (not showing videos of warm crimes on YouTube, for instance).”

It would disrupt their business model if they were forced to, which is why they’re trying to resolve it without massive changes to their infrastructure. I

By the way, blocking searches for classified documents? You do know you can have Google de-index pages or files on your website? Also, if the government were putting up documents capable of being indexed and searched, then that’s pretty ignorant.

“Google is not some benevolent, or at best, independent operator providing us a great service. They are a company benefitting from piracy and theft of creative works, music included.”

And Hollywood is? Every business is looking out for itself, but at least Google doesn’t go around assuming that people are guilty until proven innocent.

 0Posted on Nov 20th, 2012 | re: Deconstructing: Pandora, Spotify, Piracy, And Getting Artists Paid (77 comments)

Answer this question:

Why would Google invest 32 million into ContentID for free, but not do all they could to combat piracy?

It’s not as simple as telling them not to crawl piratebay, and you’re ignorant to think that way.

On top of that, if they had to change the algorithm for search, then think of what would happen. Just think back to how many people had to redo their site content because of the Panda and Penguin updates. Plus you have the costs in doing so.

Google is not going to jeopardize the relationship they have with their consumers over a minority complaining about online piracy.

Oh, and would tell you to pander your ridiculous Lowery-based conspiracy theories elsewhere, but you’ve gone and reiterated the same bullcrap to a number of sites.

 +1Posted on Nov 20th, 2012 | re: Deconstructing: Pandora, Spotify, Piracy, And Getting Artists Paid (77 comments)

Amen to that brother.

And with Pandora, people seem to miss the fact that they’ve been losing money every year since they started.

Why is that? Licensing fees, and instead of doing a disservice to their consumers and upping the price of their service to compensate (we all saw how people reacted to Netflix when they did that), they’re trying to change the situation so that 1) they don’t go belly up and wreck a revenue stream for the artists and 2) they don’t lose their consumers.

So it’s basically a delicate balancing act.