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 519634
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Um, duh?
by Morgan on Sun 27th May 2012 20:38 UTC 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[3]: Um, duh?
by Morgan on Sun 27th May 2012 21:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Um, duh?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well it appears you and I were typing at about the same time; your follow up was posted four minutes after mine. My apologies, I was simply offering an explanation as you requested.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

RE[3]: Um, duh?
by Morgan on Mon 28th May 2012 04:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Um, duh?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I didn't realize it would be such a cognitive leap for some people. The competition I'm referring to is in the search arena. Google is the biggest competitor to Bing, and Microsoft is using the DMCA to intimidate and harass them. If their true intention were really to "stamp out piracy" they would also remove the offending links from their own system. By failing to do so, they make it obvious that they care more about pushing Google around than protecting their copyrights. It's so obvious (almost) anyone could see it.

Secondly, by outsourcing it they can claim the company they hired mistakenly missed the links in Bing. I'm not saying that's why they outsourced it; perhaps it's cheaper or easier. But it certainly provides plausible deniability.

And finally, it wasn't a rant, just conjecture. Nothing I need to get over, though you certainly seem to be emotionally distraught over it all.

Edited 2012-05-28 05:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6