• http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    The point where a business whose search engine has long displayed pirate sites, and whose video site is largely built around pirate content, decides to factor DMCA notices into search engine rankings is the point I stop using it except for client work.

    Considering Youtube’s own content ID and DMCA processes are well known to be error prone, how many people are going to file a notice against every single Youtube embed on a competitors site?

    The more technology companies try to appease media companies, and indeed emulate them, the sooner they’ll reach their own demise…

  • http://twitter.com/ScottyMack Scott McKirahan

    This will be something that SEO’s rant and rave about but in the end, the people Google cares about – the end users – will have no clue and simply don’t care. Google owes nothing to websites as much as we would all like to think they do. They are going to rank sites where they want to rank them and if you don’t like it, oh well. It’s THEIR website. They don’t need your permission to raise your site, lower your site or make it completely disappear. They certainly don’t have to take any content down off of their own website and I wouldn’t either if I owned YouTube. The day they are forced to be “fair,” is the day I know we have truly lost our freedom in America.

  • Alan

    More hypocrisy from Google. Not sure how much more I can stomach. 

  • http://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe Joe Youngblood

    Great stuff Danny!

  • http://twitter.com/dvdrepairtips Lance Carr

    Easily the greatest source of scraping and unauthorized use of my content comes from Blogger.com. I have a feeling that may enjoy similar leniency!

  • daveintheuk

    The sad thing is, Google treating their own properties in search results is no longer news – it is the norm.

    I think the trouble is a lot of people at Google genuinely think their products are the best thing since sliced bread and that they are doing some great service to users/copyright owners/business owners etc… Perhaps they too blinded by the face-value “coolness” of the Content ID to see it for what it really is – a little bribe to stop people enforcing their rights. As with so many of the things Google seems to get away with, it is hard to imagine it translating into a “real world” scenario – can you imagine Pirate Bay or similar (who only direct people to content, not serve the stolen content themselves) offered to cut movie studios in?! Or the guy flogging fake “Rolex” watches on a market stall offering Rolex 50p for every knock-off watch he sellse? How do Google do it?

    End result of this? More Google properties, making money off other people’s content, at the top of the results – while the PR side rinses and repeats that this is all good for users and copyright owners.

  • Jenksy

    Funny how Google always ends up on the periphery of its own rules. Equally ironic as that is funny is that Google is the biggest enabler of copyright infringement the world has ever known (***note to South East Asia: steal one more of our images via Google images and I’m sending in troops).

    Equally sad as the two, former points are funny and ironic, are the drones who come buzzing-about with the what-they-feel-is-some-master-stroke-of-rhetoric-and-reasoning mantra, “it’s their search engine” at any point a rational criticism is leveled against Google. 

    *le sigh*

    Google continues on this trajectory for two reasons only. Here they are:
    1.) Critical thinking is a critically endangered intellectual faculty
    2.) Apathy

  • ZengaFooo

    Now there s a dude that clearly knows what time it is. Wow.


  • Pierre Gardin

    Not sure anyone cares about your life except yourself.

  • fjpoblam

    Excuse me for asking, but doesn’t this reduce the value of using Google as a search engine so much, that it is of of obviously less value than most any other?

  • simontay78

    Why can’t google be just a unbiased search engine that index EVERYTHING and tweak the search results based on popularity, relevancy, date & back links.

    Now that with a swift Pirate Penalty competitors can easily fake multiple complaints and bring down website ranking down without due process & create a chaos in the search engine algorithm.

    Imagine searching for facebook and facebook are ranked maybe on the 3rd page instead of the first because of “pirate penalty” by over zealous content owner’s complaints of “embeds” of youtube videos?

    I think google search will go down in history as another altavista or yahoo…a new search engine will spring up pretty soon I guess.

  • Tohe

    Once it loses its utility, Google search will see its numbers drop. As a data driven company I expect them to correct this self destructing course. I just wish we didn’t have to experience this unfortunate situation. I guess entities (like humans) have to learn from their own mistakes.

  • http://twitter.com/DocSheldon DocSheldon

    Nice piece, Danny. It is interesting that Google seems to have evolved from being exempt from their own established guidelines to invulnerability for their own “efforts” to help control infringement. I suspect that if/when the issue ever faces a judge’s interpretation, they may have put a bullet in their own foot. This is demonstrably favoring their own internet properties over those of their competition, as well as all others.

    On the other side of the issue, it would be nice to see copyright infringement claims that are found to be false result in punitive action against the party making the claim.

    Google has obviously evolved into more than just a search engine, but it seems as though their management philosophy for their other businesses has overflowed into how they do business in search. I find it difficult to imagine that the company’s leadership is so dense as to not see the problems this will create. That leaves the next most logical conclusion – they really think they are immune. More likely, the fines they could incur are minuscule in comparison to the profits they reap.

    Is Kent Walker on vacation? Can he really be advising in favor of this? Or perhaps not, and his counsel is simply being ignored.

  • http://www.reaseo.com/ Jerry Mosher

     I wouldn’t go so far as to say it would reduce the value to less than any other search engine but some value may be lost.

    The main effect will be a little less duplicate content and lower ranking torrent sites which will have little to no impact on online digital piracy(people who illegally torrent don’t use search engines to do it).

    I think the biggest issue here is that Google will treat their online properties(Youtube) differently than others.

  • drWho2728

    Your entire post is speculation and FUD. If you look at the youtube.com page on the google transparency page: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/youtube.com/

    you can see requests received by Google search for takedown of youtube URLs. I would imagine that if those requests were legitimate then they would have similar effect on rankings of youtube results in Google search. 

    Considering youtube provides its own takedown mechanism, most requesters would likely use that then send takedown requests to google search. Similarly, other content sites which respond to takedown requests sent to them directly should remain unaffected if the requests are never sent to “Google search”. Not sure what is so hard to grasp here?

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    You believe that over the past year that YouTube has had only 682 removal requests filed against it? If it’s that small a number, why does YouTube have a mass removal program?

    You’re looking at the relatively few YouTube web page request that have been received, not the YouTube video removals that have been logged — which might be in the thousands or higher.

    That’s the point of why I explained how YouTube has its own takedown mechanism as being important here. None of those requests appear to get logged as web page takedowns, which are what will be used for the coming penalty.

    That’s the heart of all of this, and I think you don’t grasp the importance, sorry.

  • http://twitter.com/DocSheldon DocSheldon

     Agreed. I’d be surprised if YouTube doesn’t receive more than 682 requests in a single month! But as Danny says, that’s not the real point. Why do takedowns count against other properties, but not against a Google property?

  • Alan

    Thats nice

  • VengaMooo

    Sounds like one heck of a plan to me dude. Wow.

  • robthespy

    Freedoms have been erroding For as long as I can remember.

    What freedoms specifically are you so passionate about? A publicly traded company’s freedom to steal content and profit from it?

    Their freedom to bypass users explicit security settings?

    Their freedom to use the data collected from you for anything they decide to do now and in the future?

    America- F. Yeah!

    Oh, Google operates in over 60 other countries…so get over yourself.

  • Arrby

    I have been steadily filtering Google out of my life. I greatly regret not pursuing, more aggressively, some way (which means someone with more tech knowhow than myself) to set up Thunderbird. Gmail is all of Google that I now permit on my pc – willingly. I will resume my filtering efforts as they apply to this company which certainly knows how to do evil carefully. They, like murderous corporatocracy governments (including the big one whose president gets a kick out of murdering people with nifty high tech toys), are all about a form of law & order. It’s law and order that is controlling and for the benefit of parasites rather than about actual law and order that normal people would welcome.

  • http://www.facebook.com/FloydianJosh Josh Alexander

    Great news for video Marketers jrseovideopro.com

  • http://electrojams.com/ Jordan Meeter

    Why does Google continually take these actions? Why can’t they just be the unbiased third party who promotes frequently demanded and linked content to the top and push down irrelevant  spammy stuff? Why not just stay out of it?

  • Isaac Hayes

    doesn’t Google own YouTube

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Yes. That’s why the opening paragraph says, “Google’s own YouTube.”

  • drWho2728

    Yes, I agree that the total number of takedown requests for youtube content must be much higher than 682, but those numbers are requests sent to Google search.

    My point is that other video hosting sites have mechanisms for takedown (though maybe not as sophisticated as youtube’s) e.g. http://vimeo.com/help/faq/abuse or http://www.metacafe.com/copyright/

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000049574720 Neal Lehman

    Its not stealing when you volunteer your information.  There are many other search options, also the option to not use the internet  Stealing is taking something without consent….

  • robthespy

    I’m referring to content being posted to YouTube without permission.

  • rt

    Google’s motto: Do know evil!

  • Durant Imboden

    Aren’t YouTube results fed into the SERPs in a different way than third-party sites are, just as results for Maps, News, etc. are? In other words, aren’t they blended into the “Web” results with a “Universal Search” algorithm, rather than being served up from the main index?

    If that’s the case (and I believe it is), it stands to reason that factors used in the main index’s search algorithm wouldn’t affect YouTube results.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Yes, they might appear via Google Video though Universal Search, as I covered above. And, as covered above, this again means that there’s a type of immunity, because other video sites that appear that way still get reported as “web search” issues.

  • Durant Imboden

    Well, there’s no reason why YouTube or Blogger *should* be treated like other sites, because they’re owned by Google and Google can deal with infringements at the account level (which isn’t the case with third-party sites).

  • robthom

     French people.

  • robthom

    I miss Altavista.

  • robthom

    Gmail was the first thing I got rid of 6 months ago when google tried to force me to tie it to my pre-existing youtube account.

    I’ll still use youtube without signing in to rip mp3’s from video’s.

    Unfortunately I’ve also still been tied to google search engine for deep internet searching,
    but now I’ll be actively looking and hoping for an alternative.

  • Arrby

    I have no ability to assess (in any special capacity) Ixquick, but that’s what I’ve been using for a while. As while, I have (finally) begun browsing in ‘private browsing’ mode, which is easy enough to do. I have no doubt that corporatocracy governments can cut through any of that locked door approach, but it’s all one can do – until we crush fascism. Again.

  • Alan

    I do also. Site with most keywords spammed in title tag wins!!!

  • Daniel Petroski

    Wow a surprise reaction from a Frenchie. Big shock, you socialist douchebag.

  • Pierre Gardin

    I heard your mum ask after you, Internet terror.