Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Google, pure evil
Old 06-27-2014   #1
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Google, pure evil

Why are artists disappearing from the Internet?

"[...]

The press is abuzz with reports of Google’s recently revealed extortionate tactics against indie labels and artists. Rumors are that those who don’t accept YouTube’s take-it-or-leave-it licensing deal for its new streaming service will be barred from offering their own channels on YouTube and prevented from using tools like Content ID to identify their music when it is posted by others without authorization. This means not only that authorized versions of such indie artists’ work will vanish from YouTube, but that infringing copies, against which Google will still sell advertising, will stay up.

Not so long ago, Google changed its image search interface so that full-size, high-resolution images – rather than low-resolution thumbnails – appear in a slideshow-like format. Google search results now omit specific references to the site where the photographer’s work appears, and instead enable users to page through the full size gallery of images in search results without navigating to the source websites. This switch has resulted in traffic declines of close to 80 percent to photography-rich websites and squanders the investment made by site owners in applying SEO practices to the photographs they license or produce. Google’s response to photographers and site owners in the U.S.? “If you don’t like it, mark your site not to be searched.” Put another way – “the only way to stop us is to remove yourself from the Internet.”

[...]

It should give us all reason to pause when companies known for evangelizing the benefits of making creative work available on the Internet and through new technology platforms instead use their market power to make the work of indie artists and creators inaccessible, except through infringing means."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...m-the-internet
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #2
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,685
...can you set this up on a per directory basis? Disallow the search engine from hitting image directories, allow it to hit the html directories?

It seems like that would allow search indexing without image display.
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #3
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
I think hyperbole like calling a company 'pure evil' because they have practices you don't like turns more people off real issues than it does rally them around a cause.

Requesting to not be indexed by Google is not the same as being 'taken off the Internet', it's saying you don't want to be listed by Google's search engine, i.e. decline the service of a company because you don't like the terms. As Google has a monopoly (effectively, in most Western countries), that's obviously undesirable for a lot of people.

There are a few ways to prevent resource leeching if you want to, not sure how Google's system works, but I'd imagine providing small images to them, and large images to users on your site will be reasonably straightforward.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #4
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Whether people are turned off means really nothing to me. This is not a rally or a cause. Evil is as evil does, and Google does it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #5
Tejasican
Registered User
 
Tejasican is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 203
Brian,
A robots.txt file at the root directory will do it for now, but even that is an honor system type of thing. Google respects it for now....
Lawrence
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #6
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
Google is evil for a lot of reasons not stated here, but I don't really have an issue with the full resolution image search - it's still as easy as ever to visit the source page, and we've always been able to see full resolution images without visiting it's website context.

The youtube thing is pretty dreadful though.

It seems more and more services are working against the ideal of net neutrality, or actively working against it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #7
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
Whether people are turned off means really nothing to me. This is not a rally or a cause. Evil is as evil does, and Google does it.
Not a fan of Google's work, but 'evil' seems excessive.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #8
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by nongfuspring View Post
Google is evil for a lot of reasons not stated here, but I don't really have an issue with the full resolution image search - it's still as easy as ever to visit the source page, and we've always been able to see full resolution images without visiting it's website context.

The youtube thing is pretty dreadful though.

It seems more and more services are working against the ideal of net neutrality, or actively working against it.
Some sites traffic dropped 80% though, Google is simply stealing their content and traffic. How else to say it?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #9
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegman View Post
Not a fan of Google's work, but 'evil' seems excessive.
I don't think it's excessive at all, but I'm also alluding to this.

"Do the right thing: don't be evil. Honesty and Integrity in all we do. Our business practices are beyond reproach. We make money by doing good things."

Buchheit, the creator of gmal, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out", adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil."
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #10
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
Quite, I think Google's ideas of 'evil' are more about catchy taglines than a realistic definition of the word. But I guess we're into semantics now.

If we're going with Google's definition, then I expect we can agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
I don't think it's excessive at all, but I'm also alluding to this.

"Do the right thing: don't be evil. Honesty and Integrity in all we do. Our business practices are beyond reproach. We make money by doing good things."

Buchheit, the creator of gmal, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out", adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil."
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #11
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
Some sites traffic dropped 80% though, Google is simply stealing their content and traffic. How else to say it?
The article says nothing about which websites, what the sample size was, over what duration, or anything other than a percentage next to a generalisation coupled with an assumption.

The use of full size images via URLs is part of how the internet is structured, for example we do it on the forum all the time. Main issue is having permission and crediting the source, which google does.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #12
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Nonsense and obfuscation, nothing to see here huh?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #13
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
Fastmail for my email, Photobucket for web posting, bing and others for google. Glad to be gone from those folks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #14
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,393
What the F...riday.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #15
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegman View Post
Requesting to not be indexed by Google is not the same as being 'taken off the Internet', it's saying you don't want to be listed by Google's search engine, i.e. decline the service of a company because you don't like the terms.
that is true in the a limited and technical sense. But in an operational sense, it's unmitigated BS.

Google is the de facto public index of the web -- the white and yellow pages of the internet. They have near monopoly control of that resource, and the consequences of Google's gaming or abusing that status should concern anyone who uses the web.

At a minimum, you might ask yourself whether you think that the use of YOUR images by a commercial entity should be allowed by default, with minimal or no attribution, in a manner that forces YOU to opt-out to stop their appropriation of your images from occurring. Failing to do that is a far cry from "agreeing" to Google's "terms."
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #16
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
Fastmail for my email, Photobucket for web posting, bing and others for google. Glad to be gone from those folks.
I've been using Fastmail for something like seven years. They're absolutely superb. Can't recommend them too highly.

Of course, about half of the email I send is to and from Gmail accounts, so Google still gets to scan about half of my ingoing and outgoing email, and exploit the information so gained for commercial purposes.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #17
Scrambler
Registered User
 
Scrambler's Avatar
 
Scrambler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 1,279
Must be showing my age, but I can recall searching the interweb before Google. I had Altavista searches down to a fine art, then Google turned up. With reduced traffic, Altavista ceased to function effectively and I and others had to give it up for the inferior (IMHO) Google. As at last year, Altavista ceased to exist as a name. It had ceased to exist as an approach to searching the web 10 years earlier. Like a REAL search engine, Altavista would do a proper Boolean search.

If people take their sites out of Google indexing then eventually other search engines will gain popularity as they will have access to things that Google doesn't.

That said, it's anticompetitive behaviour (antitrust in the US) I would have thought, within the arena of image display.

I wonder what SEO looks like if you want Google to stay away?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2014   #18
pakeha
Registered User
 
pakeha is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
Why are artists disappearing from the Internet?




It should give us all reason to pause when companies known for evangelizing the benefits of making creative work available on the Internet and through new technology platforms instead use their market power to make the work of indie artists and creators inaccessible, except through infringing means."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...m-the-internet
It should give us all reason to pause when companies do not pay their fair share of tax in the countries they operate - but hey, don`t sweat the big stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2014   #19
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
I consider this big stuff. Truly unfortunate I left yours out.

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2014   #20
Hosermage
Registered User
 
Hosermage's Avatar
 
Hosermage is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 320
About the youtube thing... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...accurate.shtml
__________________
David Young
My journey into Leica: LeicaLux.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2014   #21
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 540
There are other search engines.

If you object to Google’s questionable practices, you don’t have to use Google. I don’t.

Do some research and empower yourself.

I use DuckDuckGo:

https://duckduckgo.com
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2014   #22
andersju
Registered User
 
andersju is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, France
Age: 34
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
I've been using Fastmail for something like seven years. They're absolutely superb. Can't recommend them too highly.
Hear, hear. Been on Fastmail since 2008. Fantastic feature set (many things that Gmail lacks), and most of all it's nice to be a paying customer and know that there's actual human support to be had. Hell, some of the developers (who are now also the owners after the staff bought the company back from Opera) even participate on emaildiscussions.com.
__________________
minorshadows.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2014   #23
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
Press photographers should in any case run their own mail server, or use the mail server run by their agency or editor.

It is a human right and prerequisite of any free press that the correspondence of journalists may not be searched, confiscated or otherwise manipulated. Placing your mail on the servers of your ISP or, even worse, a massively promiscuous consumer oriented service like Google pretty much waives that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2014   #24
andersju
Registered User
 
andersju is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, France
Age: 34
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
Press photographers should in any case run their own mail server, or use the mail server run by their agency or editor.

It is a human right and prerequisite of any free press that the correspondence of journalists may not be searched, confiscated or otherwise manipulated. Placing your mail on the servers of your ISP or, even worse, a massively promiscuous consumer oriented service like Google pretty much waives that.
The only way of guaranteeing confidentiality and integrity is using something like PGP encryption, since even if you run your own server, any email you send or receive is passed around the Internet in plaintext. Funnily enough, even though I don't trust Google and don't use their services, I believe it is probably more secure to send email from one Gmail account to another Gmail account since the email then never leaves their datacenters and, additionally, are supposedly encrypted when moving around internally (compared to sending plaintext over the open Internet).
__________________
minorshadows.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2014   #25
NY_Dan
Registered User
 
NY_Dan's Avatar
 
NY_Dan is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New York City area
Posts: 1,207
I'm with Ranchu on this one. Anyone who owns a business, such as an event photographer, must pay Google to have their name listed within the first few pages of search results. It's not a neutral search engine -- to me in my humble opinion it's like blackmail. I also don't like the limited number of results per page. As for YouTube -- the ads are too much. As for mail servers -- my website hosting company, which has great flash sites for photographers, even at $17 per month, doesn't offer any mail servers -- instead all users get/have their own gmail, which seems to be pretty ubiquitous. Corporations are people, and pretty soon will probably have religious freedom too, maybe the big G will come out as, oh I don't know, SATAN!!!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2014   #26
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
 
Griffin's Avatar
 
Griffin is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 495
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosermage View Post
N i c e !!
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Nice!!!!!!!
Old 06-30-2014   #27
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Nice!!!!!!!

That article looks like the usual tech industry shilling to me. Here's else, and the actual contract. Of course, your pictures aren't mentioned here.

"Under the terms of the published version of the contract, indies must promise not only to never sue Google - under a “Covenant Not To Sue” - but give immunity to punters who continue to upload the label's own material to YouTube's massively popular video service.

Why does this matter? Getting your stuff taken down from YouTube is hugely costly and in practice, almost impossible, thanks to "safe harbour" provisions designed to protect ISPs and other service providers in the mid-1990s, when the public internet was in its infancy. It requires an individual URL-by-URL take-down notice to be filed for each infringement. Google can continue to monetise the label's music via YouTube, even without the label's permission.

[...[

In theory Google has a content ID system that could block the unlicensed uploads - but nobody can compel it to use the system. It can stand around and whistle innocently while YouTube is populated with the same music over and over again.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06...usic_revealed/


The contract.


http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...78771972656250

Also.

"4. Now Google starts a subscription music service (supposedly called Pass on YouTube Music…no sorry, YouTube Music Pass). They offer indies a hillbilly deal and make a threat–if indies don’t take the terms, Google will shut off the sainted “monetization”–automatically. YouTube generates only paltry earnings on a per stream basis–which only mean anything if you are the kind of company that gets a huge advance for massive aggregation of “content” and probably some nonrecoupable “technology fees” and other goodies.

But note: the real threat here is that YouTube will leave the videos up and force the indies to send a URL by URL DMCA notice. YouTube can cut off the money automatically–one URL by URL basis. But somehow they can’t manage to take down the unauthorized videos automatically.


This shows up their DMCA abuse for what it really is: notice and shakedown."


https://musictechpolicy.wordpress.co...and-shakedown/

https://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2014   #28
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
They're likely going to offer to put your pics earlier in the slideshow for a fee, or maybe you won't be able to afford that. There'll be tons of crap photos from getty/microsoft before anyone ever sees yours. Page 443 = NICE!!!!!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 14:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.