Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 27th May 2012 16:12 UTC, submitted by azrael29a
Google "What is interesting is that you can use the new system to play around and notice that Microsoft doesn't always seem to take down from its search engine, Bing, the same links that it orders Google to takedown." Funny, but since Microsoft outsources their takedown requests to a different company, most likely just a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
Thread beginning with comment 519632
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Um, duh?
by earksiinni on Sun 27th May 2012 20:25 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

I had to reread the post and the article twice to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. Now that I am sure:

Um, duh?

Why would Microsoft remove links from its own search engine if it doesn't have to? The article mentions that Microsoft's DMCA requests aren't bogus, but suggesting that because they are valid that MS would make the same requests of Bing is simply a logical fallacy. How does one follow from the other? Especially when it is so blatantly obvious how it would be in their self-interest not to.

I just don't see what's "funny" or "curious" about this. I expected Thom's commentary to be something corporate-bashing; a little disappointed in his reasonableness ;-) (Just kiddin' with you, man.)

But seriously, enlighten me, someone?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Um, duh?
by Ford Prefect on Sun 27th May 2012 20:34 in reply to "Um, duh?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

If you would read the article, it would enlighten you.

The links in questions are links to pirated software from Microsoft. If Microsoft has an interest in stopping these links to be spread, it is more than natural that they take down the links in their own search engine.

Or they consider that nobody uses Bing search anyway. ;-) Seriously, though: The blatant interest of Microsoft is for these links to go away, everywhere.

Edited 2012-05-27 20:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Um, duh?
by earksiinni on Sun 27th May 2012 20:42 in reply to "RE: Um, duh?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Thanks for the clarification, it seems that you're right. The article doesn't explicitly state this, however, and could be written much more clearly. Not only is giving one example regarding Xbox 360 games not necessarily indicative of the overall pattern, even that example is ambiguously worded:

"In this case, Marketly had sent a takedown to Google demanding the removal of a bunch of URLs from its index concerning a variety of XBox 360 games, including DiRT 2. The 20th URL listed goes to a page on TorrentRoom."

I didn't read "a bunch of URLs...concerning a variety of XBox 360 games" as necessarily meaning torrent links, etc. Yes, I know that the very next sentence says "goes to a page on TorrentRoom". I stand by statement that this could be more clearly phrased; and again, one example does not indicate the overall pattern. They should just state the specific pattern plainly and clearly.

But I dug further into this after reading your comment, and based on my own research it seems like you are correct. Thanks for the correction.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Um, duh?
by Morgan on Sun 27th May 2012 20:38 in reply to "Um, duh?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

It's plain and simple hypocrisy. Microsoft is saying to Google "take down that link because it allows someone to illegally download our products". Yet they keep the exact same link active on Bing searches, thereby allowing people to illegally download their products.

In other words, Microsoft shouldn't be using a federal law to tell their biggest search competitor "stop doing that!" while they are doing the same thing themselves.

In the end, it's not so much that Microsoft cares whether you run a pirated Microsoft product, rather they want to find any way they can to stifle competition. It's old hat as far as I'm concerned.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Um, duh?
by earksiinni on Sun 27th May 2012 20:50 in reply to "RE: Um, duh?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Er, just to let you know, I revised my position after the commenter above informed me that MS was issuing these notices for MS software. This wasn't made entirely clear by the article.

That said, your argument did pass through my mind, but I don't know how much market share they could gain by allowing Bing to index MS copies.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Um, duh?
by MollyC on Mon 28th May 2012 04:45 in reply to "RE: Um, duh?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

In the end, it's not so much that Microsoft cares whether you run a pirated Microsoft product, rather they want to find any way they can to stifle competition.


Huh?
A good way for Microsoft to "stifle competition" is to turn a blind eye to the massive piracy of its stuff. How is issuing a piracy link "takedown request" an attempt to "stifle competition"?

Secondly, the summary says that "Microsoft outsources their takedown requests to a different company". So your rant holds zero credibility whatsoever to begin with.

Third, even if your rant had some credibility, Microsoft is the copyright owner of its own stuff, so they have a right to host links to pirated warez of their own stuff if they wanted to. Get over it.

P.S.
What's likely here is that the company Microsoft outsources its takedown requests to discovered (or were told of) Google search results listing MS warez, and didn't discover (or weren't told of) the same links in Bing, because Google is used like 8 times more often than Bing. Someone using Google and finding links to MS warez and notifying the "takedown request" company is eight times more likely an event than someone using Bing and finding the same links and notifying the "takedown request" company about them, because Google is eight times more used than Bing. And the "takedown request" company likely doesn't consider passing Google takedown requests on to Bing, Ask, DuckDuckGo, etc.

Edited 2012-05-28 04:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2