Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#61

Post by rbanffy »

josefresco wrote: post #26

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe MS is okay with Bing returning results, even pirate results that Google does not. Maybe MS agrees with the Pirate mantra that piracy doesn't hurt, but help sales. What would happen if pirates, even casual pirates learned that Bing results weren't filtered but Google's were? I would suspect a massive uptake in usage if this was proven. And who are these pirates…

Protecting Microsoft's market share and its associated network effect is very important for them - if Windows' share falls below a certain level, writing Word documents, sending PowerPoint presentations, keeping your e-mail in Exchange and your workflows in SharePoint will make much less sense than it does today. As it happens, Microsoft products become less attractive and their share spirals toward an equilibrium point given by their cost/benefit ratio as compared to their competitors.

Even if they lose some sales to piracy, as long as network effect work to their advantage, it's worth to lose it to a free version of their product than to a competitor.

It's unsurprising if they turn a blind eye to piracy when they judge it benefits them.

Having said that, this looks a lot like incompetence, or a contractor that's being paid to issue takedown notices only to Google.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#62

Post by billpatrianakos »

Zirro wrote: post #17
jcoder wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck, I don't give two shits about "controversial" language--but overtly, aggressively sexist language? Fuck that.

Wait, do you really consider "bitch" or "bitching" in these contexts sexist, nowadays? I've seen it applied to both genders, and, as in this case, a verb. It's moved on from the controversial stage to a common expression.

Amen. I bitch constantly and I'm a dude.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#63

Post by pbhjpbhj »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #36
ChuckMcM wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it points out that Microsoft's internal processes are not well run. Presumably if Microsoft ever chose to sue Google over those contested links it would be a reasonable defense on Google's part that they were doing better than Microsoft's own search engine in complying. If you read Eric Goldman's excellent blog on the topic you can see that to keep your safe harbor status you have to be credibly trying to comply…

>Presumably if Microsoft ever chose to sue Google over those contested links it would be a reasonable defense on Google's part that they were doing better than Microsoft's own search engine in complying. If you read Eric Goldman's excellent blog on the topic you can see that to keep your safe harbor status you have to be credibly trying to comply with requests You're assuming that their law firm sent Bing the takedow…

>to host links of which they own copyright on their own search engine //

They don't own a copyright on the torrentroom link (for example). There is no copyright in a regular URL¹.

They apparently own the content linked to. But then I own the content of my house that the road network is linked to and that doesn't mean the local government is party to people taking my stuff without asking.

Links may be made unlawful but they're not copyright infringements. IMO they're not even contributory.

--

¹ It may be possible to craft a URL that has sufficient distinctiveness and artistic merit to acquire a copyright but I can't ever recall seeing one or hearing of one. A URL could be a trademark infringement of course.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#64

Post by lolcraft »

chc wrote: post #33
jcoder wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@karunamon Sorry, no. There's normalization due to changing norms and morays (e.g., "shit"), then there's normalization that's designed to subordinate a group (do you see many whites calling an unfamiliar black man "boy"?). This is much more like the latter. If you would tell your wife, girlfriend, or female coworker to "stop bitching" when she has something to say that you don't want to hear, then you are a chauvini…

> the meaning does not change Your entire argument seems to be predicated on this idea. But the thing is, pretty much every linguist in the world would disagree with the notion. The connotations of words are constantly shifting — there is ample evidence of this throughout the history of languages. I applaud you for thinking about this sort of thing and speaking out about it, but in this particular case I think you're…

That is crazy. I mean, The Chronic came out in 2001. It's not that long ago. Gangsta h-hop profuse in "BEE-ATCH!" exclamations, as referring to women, is still being produced. Abusive husbands still call their wives bitches. You might be fortunate enough to live in some sort of cultural coordinate in which this is old and odd, but I would struggle seriously to call that situation a representative sample.

To put it the offensive way, nowadays it might be hip and such for white boys to address themselves as niggas, as it has being normalised by hip-hop spatters into the new bro. Still, no non-asshole honky would do so to an actually black person. It would be pretty insensitive, for starters.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#66

Post by ishansharma »

kenrikm wrote: post #59
myko wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they have and Bing just prioritizes requests differently? This is interesting though, when I saw the headline about Microsoft making so many takedown requests to Google I assumed the items to be taken down were found by the Bing team, but it seems that isn't the case.

Maybe it is and the Bing team only uses Google to find the links. (lol) Actually didn't Microsoft force their employees to use only Microsoft products? Sometimes it's not fun to eat your own dogfood.

As far as I remember, it was them asking not to buy iPhone. Nothing more. They can't force their employees to use only Microsoft products. They'd be down in a day!

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#68

Post by Rexxar »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #63
recoiledsnake wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Presumably if Microsoft ever chose to sue Google over those contested links it would be a reasonable defense on Google's part that they were doing better than Microsoft's own search engine in complying. If you read Eric Goldman's excellent blog on the topic you can see that to keep your safe harbor status you have to be credibly trying to comply with requests You're assuming that their law firm sent Bing the takedow…

> to host links of which they own copyright on their own search engine // They don't own a copyright on the torrentroom link (for example). There is no copyright in a regular URL¹. They apparently own the content linked to. But then I own the content of my house that the road network is linked to and that doesn't mean the local government is party to people taking my stuff without asking. Links may be made unlawful b…

Copyright laws clearly apply to data URI

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#69

Post by chc »

lolcraft wrote: post #64
chc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the meaning does not change Your entire argument seems to be predicated on this idea. But the thing is, pretty much every linguist in the world would disagree with the notion. The connotations of words are constantly shifting — there is ample evidence of this throughout the history of languages. I applaud you for thinking about this sort of thing and speaking out about it, but in this particular case I think you're…

That is crazy. I mean, The Chronic came out in 2001. It's not that long ago. Gangsta h-hop profuse in "BEE-ATCH!" exclamations, as referring to women, is still being produced. Abusive husbands still call their wives bitches. You might be fortunate enough to live in some sort of cultural coordinate in which this is old and odd, but I would struggle seriously to call that situation a representative sample. To put it th…

Reread the last paragraph of my comment. You're talking about the noun, which I intentionally mentioned to head off responses like this. Yes, that word is offensive. We're talking about a different word.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#70

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Rexxar wrote: post #68
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to host links of which they own copyright on their own search engine // They don't own a copyright on the torrentroom link (for example). There is no copyright in a regular URL¹. They apparently own the content linked to. But then I own the content of my house that the road network is linked to and that doesn't mean the local government is party to people taking my stuff without asking. Links may be made unlawful b…

Copyright laws clearly apply to data URI

Can you explain please? Do you mean like an image encoded in a URI? If so that's why I called it a "regular URL", so as not to be confused with a URI; to recapitulate I'm referring to a mere link to a resource and not the resource as contained in a link.
Post reply on HN