Google Accused of Benefitting From Piracy

Clant writes "Google has been accused of benefiting from certain piracy websites because of the Adsense program, according to reports. Several major media companies have called on Google to properly screen their AdSense partners and stop supporting sites that are benefiting from piracy. 'Legal filings show that Google worked with EasyDownloadCenter.com and TheDownloadPlace.com from 2003 to 2005, generating more than $1.1 million in revenue for the sites through the AdSense program. Google reportedly noticed the amount of traffic and advertising served by the two websites and assigned them an account representative to help optimize their efforts.'"

Comments

Guilty by association?

[nietsch]

So what is it exactly that google did that was illegal? paying someone for some adspace does not make you responsible for the rest of the page. Or does the RIAAmob think otherwise?

Re:Guilty by association?

[truthsearch]

Normally I'd agree with you. But when you get large enough you get personal attention from Google employees. That means Google spent resources to assist the sites in placement, styles, and other tips. Google's not responsible for the content, but they definitely optimized their profits off of potentially illegal content. It's not dirty but it doesn't feel completely clean, either.

Re:Guilty by association?

[camperslo]

Grocery stores benefit from pirates eating food, film at 11!

Re:Guilty by association?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if the nature of the content changed. What if instead of pirated software the site hosted child porn. Would it still be okay for Google to support them in their effort?

Re:Guilty by association?

[cliffski]

yawn.
If the grocery store had a guy set aside specifically to work with the pirate to help make him a millionaire, then I'd say you have some kind of comparison.

Try to at least read the summary here, before engaging in automatic "it involves teh evil RIAA therefore they must be wrong" slashdot groupthink.

Re:Guilty by association?

[AKAImBatman]

If the grocery store had a guy set aside specifically to work with the pirate to help make him a millionaire, then I'd say you have some kind of comparison.

That's not a very good analogy. A better one is that a fellow comes into the grocery store every so often and makes exceptionally large purchases. The store manager talks with the fellow a bit about his grocery purchasing habits. The fellow replies that he needs the food for his "crew". The store manager then says that he'll help by assigning a special employee to expidite the fellow's shopping trips.

Six months later, the press walks in and says, "How can you provide such service to a known pirate!?"

Re:Guilty by association?

[SnowZero]

Well apparently at some point "Do no evil" became "Uphold the law" in some people's minds. The funny thing is that people get angry at Google for following the law in China, but if when they don't enforce the law, other people get angry. It is dumb to expect every company dealing with many thousands of clients to check every one of them. If Google helped these sites, it probably was no more than some emails or phone calls; I doubt they really looked at their business model or anything, as that isn't really relevant to placing ads on their website.

In the past, I've helped people get my GPL'ed libraries working by exchanging a few emails, but I don't know what they are doing with them. Am I guilty if it turns out they are using it to break the law? After all I "worked" with them to get it functioning. If a car salesman sells a car to someone asking for a car "which can cross the state quickly", and that client later commits a murder and goes on the run, is the salesman guilty? He "advised" the client on how to "optimize" his nefarious plan.

No, these people should not be guilty, because it is madness to expect everyone to "enforce" laws on their clients, going only on mere suspicion. The most you should ask of people or companies is to report suspicious activity to the relevant authorities, and let them investigate it. Refusing to do business with a company could actually put you at a greater legal risk if that company turns out to be legitimate.

Re:Guilty by association?

[mahmud]

Who cares if it would be OK or not. No sane company would support such site in any way if they were aware of child porn being there. Duh.

Re:Guilty by association?

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have authorities to deal with that. This is about copyright enforcement being cost shifted onto Google.

Re:Guilty by association?

[jayloden]

I got "personal attention" from a Google employee with suggestions on how to optimize my ad revenue too, and my site never made more than a few hundred dollars in a month from adsense (typically much less). My impression was that they hired some data entry workers to scan through adsense customer websites and suggest better ad placements. I somehow doubt they even cared or noticed what the content of the site was, they're just looking to make sure your ads are in the most prevalent and annoying locations. The fact that they had an employee "assigned" to optimize ad placement means absolutely nothing in this instance.

Re:Guilty by association?

[truthsearch]

That's a different situation. When you reach a certain point in monthly revenue your account status changes and you get a "real" Google representative assigned to your account. You're able to customize the look of the ads more than other accounts and can target ads with very specific keywords (other than those in the page content).

Re:Guilty by association?

[recharged95]

Look at it this way, would it be any different if the sites using adsense and being assisted by Google were on sites that allow people to:

fund terrorism? fund porn? fund politicial issues? acquire drugs (illegal that is...)?

Guilty by association? Hardly. But is there a law that can be enforced against Google--possibly.

Social Law is only law when it's enforced.

Re:Guilty by association?

[russotto]

Unfortunately, the law they have bought and paid for allow them to go after Google for exactly this. It's called "vicarious copyright infringement". It's normally applied to a forum owner who allows copyright infringement to go on in his forum and thereby benefits (e.g. from rent of the space). However, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to apply it here.

Re:Guilty by association?

[smaddox]

Haha. Nice. I don't buy the response of the pirate though.. Instead of: "The fellow replies that he needs the food for his 'crew'." I think it would be more like : "The fellow replies, 'Arrgh - it be for me maties.'"

Re:Guilty by association?

[Iago515]

Almost, but not quite. What you need to add in there is the employee goes down to the ship and helps with the nutritional intake for the crew, just enough so the chains won't slip off and they'll be able to work 18 hours a day instead of the 14 they are now. Of course this will cost the manager more, but the benefits will outweigh the costs.

Re:Guilty by association?

[SatanicPuppy]

Oh please. Want to find someone who profits from terrorism? It's not hard. Cable news companies make a mint, a number of duct tape manufacturers get a nice spike in sales, lot of people go out and buy guns and bibles.

And piracy? Why don't they go after the lawyers and politicians who are making money hand over fist?

Re:Guilty by association?

[Myopic]

I disagree. I side with the way the law currently stands, which includes a "reasonability" test. With this test in mind, the question becomes whether or not the person providing the good/service has reasonable expectation to know that the good/service will be used illegally. Obviously, this is a big grey area, but it is good enough to assign legal obligation. For instance, if a guy with a gunshot wound and a bag full of cash runs out of a bank and gets in your cab, and asks you (not forces you at gunpoint; merely asks you) to drive him across state lines, then you have a reasonable obligation to say no, or in some way not help in the bank robbery.

That is pretty close to your example of a mechanic helping get a fast car into the hands of a criminal. That one might be in the gray area, and might hinge on how clear it is that the guy was going to commit a crime. Another good example is head shops, which sell products often used for illicit drug use: Clinton winked at head shops and let them sell bongs to stoners; but Bush wouldn't do that, he enforced the law and closed down a lot of head shops all over the country, saying they had a reasonable expectation that bongs weren't being used as "tobacco water pipes".

In the case at hand, Google would also be in the gray area, and the question is whether they had a reasonable expectation that ThePirageBay.ORG was engaging in illegal activity. From what little I know of this case, I am inclined to give Google the benefit of the doubt, especially considering ThePirateBay claims they don't break any of their local laws. But, I do object to your suggestion that ancillary consideration given to a criminal by a knowing third party does not or should not attach responsibility onto that third party -- it does, as it should.

Re:Guilty by association?

[davenaff]

I think people are largely missing what Google currently allows/prevents, the point of the article and the significance of the actions. 1. Google already polices activities that are likely to be illegal. Just look at the long list of activities that Google does not accept advertising on: https://adwords.google.com/select/contentpolicy.ht ml Just a few examples: - prostitution - weapons - gambling - counterfeiting oh, and copywrighted works 2. An account rep assisted the site owners with selecting keywords to bid on. The account rep suggested terms like "bootleg movie download" and "pirated". So, Google accepted websites into Adsense that violate their own content policies, extended them credit and then helped them promote the websites via Adwords. 3. Why does any of this matter? Google is struggling to strike deals with video copywright owners to keep this content on Youtube / Google video. A key component of all of these deals is Google's ability (and of course willingness) to filter illegal material. Google loses a lot of credibility when it can't ensure its employees abide by its promises. It looks even worse because Google profited from it. Using the metaphor from above, this is equivalent to a TV store that sold billboard space above the store that said where to go to find illegally stolen TVs. If you're a TV manufacturer, you're not going to what your TVs in that store.

Re:Guilty by association?

[Jesterboy]

I don't know about you, but I'm rather happy I don't get interrogated every time I go to make a purchase. I'm happy the people at Wal-mart don't start assuming the CDRs I buy for data backups are for "teh warez", or the Sharpies I buy to mark them are for "huffing". Honestly, how far does this "reasonability" have to go? The GP post mentioned a person calling a dealership for a "fast car"; wouldn't they just help them out without asking questions? Does the dealer have to immediately assume he's a criminal? And are you going to tell me that if a guy with a bag full of money and a gun (he had to rob the bank with something, right?) climbed in your car and told you to drive, you would tell him no, risking your life for a bag of money that doesn't belong to you and will eventually be recovered anyway? Or that any court in America would say you had a "legal obligation" to tell him no?

I am not sure what the comment about "head shops" has to do with anything. It seems you are advocating shutting down stores whose wares could possibly be used for illegal activity. Why stop at the head shops? Shut down the home supply stores; all that PVC pipe is just waiting to be turned into bongs, all that fertilizer sitting there, waiting to become a bomb. Cars can be weapons, common tools can be used for illegal entry, and nasal decongestants can be turned into methamphetamines; should Bush halt the sale of these too?

In my opinion, this sounds more like paranoia than reasonability.

Re:Guilty by association?

[Fordiman]

"And piracy? Why don't they go after the lawyers and politicians who are making money hand over fist?"

Professional courtesy, of course; who do you think it is at the RIAA making noises about this? It may be a muckety muck saying the words, but you can bet it's a lawyer moving the guy's mouth.

And, of course, the separation between 'lawyer' and 'politician' these days is ... slim? Is that a good word for the thickness of a gnat's wing?

Re:Guilty by association?

[babbling]

Exactly. Google are not the police or any other branch of the government, so they shouldn't be deciding for themselves whether sites that display their ads are legal.

That said, if you read their terms & conditions they do actually specify that they don't want their ads on certain types of sites, such as porn sites, sites that may offend people, or sites that may be violating copyright law. I think they should loosen up and allow those sites, though. It's quite limiting because any site that discusses religion, sex or violence runs the risk of offending people.

Re:Guilty by association?

[meiao]

Do you buy stolen goods? If you pay them, then they will steal more, because they have a consumer base. Warez, or whatever site have a consumer base that won't pay them. Google does.

Re:Guilty by association?

[lachlan76]

and asks you (not forces you at gunpoint; merely asks you) to drive him across state lines, then you have a reasonable obligation to say no, or in some way not help in the bank robbery.

What kind of nutcase jury would convict for something like that? Given that the bank robber got that far, it's a fair assumption that he/she has some sort of weapon; you'd be crazy to refuse.

Common carrier laws for advertisers

[dsanfte]

I think we need a 'common carrier' style law for advertising programs. It's obviously not possible for Google to police each and every website that signs up for ad impressions.

Re:Common carrier laws for advertisers

[DogDude]

If they assigned a specific representative to the account, then they certainly are aware of what that site does. That's what makes this a story. I'm sure that there are millions of tiny, illegal sites using Adsense that Google can't possibly police.

Re:Common carrier laws for advertisers

[garcia]

I think we need a 'common carrier' style law for advertising programs. It's obviously not possible for Google to police each and every website that signs up for ad impressions.

Well, when you sign up to be an AdSense "partner" it does tell you that they will review your site's content to make sure that it will be acceptable for their ads. They won't allow you to be a porn site, etc, etc, etc.

So, if they are doing that, then they should be able to block anything else that they might not want to have their ads displayed on.

Re:Common carrier laws for advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, more legislation. That's always the solution to a problem.

Re:Common carrier laws for advertisers

[Phanatic1a]

Corporations don't make choices about who they do business with? And you want to encode, in law, that they're not responsible for choosing who they do business with?

Are you insane?

Re:Common carrier laws for advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is it not possible, but they likely don't even care. This is the same "do-no-evil" company that actively encourages domain parking.

Re:Common carrier laws for advertisers

[julesh]

Well, when you sign up to be an AdSense "partner" it does tell you that they will review your site's content to make sure that it will be acceptable for their ads. They won't allow you to be a porn site, etc, etc, etc.

So, if they are doing that, then they should be able to block anything else that they might not want to have their ads displayed on.

Just because their T&C says they *can* do it, doesn't mean they actually *will*. This is like your ISP says they can block your account for doing anything illegal with it -- 99% of the time they don't notice so don't do anything, but they need the term in place so that on the occasion they do notice something's wrong with what you're doing they can do something about it.

No way!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying Google is in it for the money?

Local law?

[garcia]

Both sites sold a repackaged BitTorrent client and access to a P2P search system, but the defendants argue that they are not guilty of the charges.

Where are these sites located? First off, selling repackaged BitTorrent clients isn't against the law. Second, are these sites hosted and run from areas of the world that permit you to link to torrents regardless of their content?

While this would be an embarrassment to Google here in the US because our media sucks and never tells full truths, it wouldn't matter legally in those countries.

Google should screen against illegal activities in the country of origin.

Re:Local law?

[Anti_Climax]

Details of the imbroglio are indeed slim, and it would appear at this time that no legal action against Google is pending.

Why worry about local laws if they aren't gonna bother suing?

They're just whining at this point.

Re:Local law?

[lazarusdishwasher]

Google should screen against illegal activities in the country of origin.

I don't think google should add any extra screening automatically. I would prefer it if they sent dmca notification style letters to start the screening process. Would it be possible to craft the reporting interface that would run a moddified diff (one that can render video and compare the two or whatever the audio equivelent would be) that looked for similarities to a known good sample provided by the organization claiming copyright and the offending url.

Re:Local law?

[Orange Crush]

Google should screen against illegal activities in the country of origin.

I don't think that would be wise. The Internet is global. If a child porn site was hosted in some third world country with no laws against it, Google would still be unwise to do business with them--they're a U.S. company and a good bit of any revenue-generating traffic could very well be visitors from within the U.S.

What?

[Lithdren]

So they want Google to check every website that shows up in their searches, and make sure a law isn't being broken somewhere, there's no illegal copywrite infringement, ect.?

Thats like requesting the United Postal Service to check every single package to make sure nobody is mailing love letters to anyone other then their husbands/wives. You could do it, with enough money and willpower, MAYBE, but its not excatly their responsibility.

Re:What?

[cliffski]

that's not vaguely what is suggested or said. try reading the article.
Google didn't accidentally let a pirate site through the net. They awarded an account manager to them, and generated a million dollars worth of revenue for them. They made 2 guys who were trying to make money from trading copyrighted content into millionaires, no doubt boosting some google profits at the same time.
Try and at least read the summary.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not arguing that Google should check every single website that has their ads on it, but when a site pulls in 1.1 million and they assign an account representitive, they know what's going on. To draw from your analage, it would be like Fedex seeing that someone ships thousands of packages a day, goes so far as to inspect them and see their are illegal drugs in them, but then goes on to offer them a bulk discount for using their shipping services so much.

Re:What?

[DogDude]

Google reportedly noticed the amount of traffic and advertising served by the two websites and assigned them an account representative to help optimize their efforts.

No, in this case, it would be like asking the USPS to please not assign account representatives to personally work with companies mailing kiddie porn.

Re:What?

[Lithdren]

Still fails to explain how its Google's responsibility to make sure they're not doing something illegal on their website.

Its not their job. They are there to make money, and find the stuff you're searching for. Thats it. They are not morally or legally responsible for what you search for, or how they go about advertizing for something on someone elses website. If the people holding the copywrites are against the site, have them take down the site.

If nothing else google did them a favor, as it made the site so easy to find, it would be easier to track down and get shut down.

Re:What?

[cliffski]

give me a break. If your a respectable business and you find out that you are clearly working with criminals you have a moral and legal obligation to stop dealing with them and notify the cops. I'm pretty sure in the Uk if you ignored this you would be guilty of all kinds of stuff, obstruction of justice, yada yada. Saying to the judge "I made it easy for you by selling him the ferraris your honour" would just get you laughed at.

Why is everyone defending this? because you happen to like downloading copyrighted stuff for free? what if the site was a race hate site? is that just hunky dory? Imagine complaining to google about them making piles of cash from the KKK website, and to be told "tough shit, we ain't the cops pal". Is that OK?

No respectable company should carry on like this. The fact that a lot of slashdot people dislike the RIAA doesn't make what google are doing defensible. They can omit some results in search terms if they like (see china), don't kid yourself it would be hard for them not to place adsense on pirate sites.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your a respectable business and you find out that you are clearly working with criminals

Criminals? Have these guys been prosecuted for anything or is it a purely civil matter? Although it is true that copyright infringement can in some circumstances in some jurisdictions amount to a criminal offense, it sure isn't Google's job to find them guilty or otherwise. The most that should be expected of them if they really suspected criminal activity is to report the matter to the police.

Re:What?

[shaitand]

'you are clearly working with criminals you have a moral and legal obligation to stop dealing with them'

Now now, lets not confuse legality with morality. Criminal activities aren't neccesarily immoral. Legal and moral are entirely unrelated concepts. You have a legal obligation if the law says so. You have a moral obligation if you a dealing with someone who is doing something immoral.

'Why is everyone defending this?'

I run a respectable computer service business. My business is fixing computers not judging customers. I don't care what activities my customers engage in; even with the computers. They could be into porn, the mob, neo-nazi's, democrats, or republicans. I am not the police nor am I a judge. I provide and repair tools I am not responsible for how people choose to use those tools.

I don't see that Google has any responsibility to police websites anymore than automotive shop that fixed the site owner's car last week had an obligation to refuse him service. That responsibility falls on others.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your a respectable business and you find out that you are clearly working with criminals you have a moral and legal obligation to stop dealing with them and notify the cops.

Sherman act violations are a felony in the US and Microsoft admitted committing such crimes in civil cases (ie: no criminal conviction). When are you going to stop working with these criminals?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Legal and moral are entirely unrelated concepts."

I wouldn't go so far. In principle, they can be; in practice, they are somewhat harmonized (kiddie-porn and murder are immoral and illegal for basically the same ultimate reasons). It's not necessarily a perfect harmony, though.

Re:What?

[shaitand]

'I wouldn't go so far. In principle, they can be; in practice, they are somewhat harmonized (kiddie-porn and murder are immoral and illegal for basically the same ultimate reasons). It's not necessarily a perfect harmony, though.'

Just because some things are both does not make a harmony between the two concepts.

For instance, wet and delicious are two unrelated concepts yet lobster is both. Being wet does not make the lobster delicious anymore than being legal makes moral actions moral.

Re:What?

[Adambomb]

Imagine complaining to google about them making piles of cash from the KKK website Correct point concerning the fact that it is entirely unethical for them to have worked so closely with criminals, but poor choice of analogy. Since Google is an American company they could just cry freedom of speech on that front (however, they'd still have some 'splainin to do if they did, as you said "See china"). Bigots and idiots arent illegal everywhere, and I dont know whether to append sadly to that or not.

Re:What?

[BugsPray]

Are you implying Google should bring its China practices here? If I type in "warez", I don't care if it's illegal. I want search results and ads based on warez. If Google starts filtering my search results, they can kiss my hundred clicks per day goodbye.

Re:What?

[bill_mcgonigle]

So they want Google to check every website that shows up in their searches, and make sure a law isn't being broken somewhere, there's no illegal copywrite infringement, ect.?

They should do the same thing with all the searches too. Every possible variation of "Parent Directory" some.bad.song.mp3 must be accounted for or Larry and Sergey are going to jail.

Or, they could deal with the people causing trouble in the first place. Whichever makes more sense.

Re:What?

[mgblst]

YOu are asking Google to police the web? Is that really their role. How is it up to them to decide what is illegal, and what is not? Obviously they are not responsible. It would be impossible for it to be otherwisre.

So what if they awarded an account manager, what do you think that means? That they have someone examine every aspect of the site for illegal activity? They did not assign a ip lawyer to the site, they assigned an account manager.

Hardly...

[cliffski]

If your company is knowingly helping to do business with a company that is breaking the law, you don't think you have a duty to stop doing business with them?
Imagine your a second-hand computer store that realises that the guy who turns up every monday with a bunch of new PCs is quite clearly stealing them from nearby offices. Do you think you have a leg to stand on when you say its nothing to do with you?
Its a different situation if you don't know that a business you deal with is engaged in illegal activity. In a case where you clearly do, and clearly take no action, I'm guessing you are on extremely dodgy ground legally.
I would much rather live in a world where legit businesses like google took reasonable steps to *not* work with dodgy companies who are engaged in illegal activity.

Just because this might involve the 'RIAAmob' doesn't mean that google is innocent.

Re:Hardly...

[ElleyKitten]

Imagine your a second-hand computer store that realises that the guy who turns up every monday with a bunch of new PCs is quite clearly stealing them from nearby offices. Do you think you have a leg to stand on when you say its nothing to do with you?

That's a slightly different scenerio, because that's receiving stolen goods, which is very clearly a crime. A more apt analogy is if the guy next store keeps bringing in new, appearently stolen computers to his store, and then comes to you to buy flowers to decorate the store. Google had nothing to do with distributing the pirated things on these websites, they just bought adspace from them, which is completely legal.

Re:Hardly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine your a second-hand computer store that realises that the guy who turns up every monday with a bunch of new PCs is quite clearly stealing them from nearby offices.

Or suppose one of your customers regularly parks on yellow lines. Obviously you'd refuse to ever do business with him again! Of course the difference is that parking illegally can have serious consequences for road safety and/or congestion, unlike copyright infringement.

Re:Hardly...

[clark0r]

I don't get this. In your case, the shop would be /buying/ the stolen equipment, therefore handling stolen goods. In this case, Google is promoting it's own product in a way that would make them more money (them being Google). I don't see how the content of the sites is the business of Google in the first place, they only care if they're breaking the adsense contract.

Re:Hardly...

[Sancho]

How about the more obvious example of someone advertising stolen goods in the classifieds section of a major newspaper? Is it the responsibility of the newspaper to check out every classified for fraud? I don't know.

I do know that, as computers and automations have become prevalent, laws have been passed to pass the burden of the crime from the automation-regulator (Google, ISP hosts, etc) to the person actually committing the crime. Look at the DMCA for a fantastic example of how to do this.

Similar laws should apply. In the case of the DMCA, if Google or the ISP starts regulating content, they run the risk of losing their common carrier status. Instead, they wait for a complaint, and then take action. For ads, the burden should be even lighter, because one or two instances of copyright infringement on a site should not be enough to force Google to pull their ads or risk legal trouble.

Re:Hardly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy is very poor. It is odds on that Google is the sole stream of revenue for these sites. Google is an advertising agency. As the a provider reselling adspace on a site, it would make a lot of sense for Google to be aware of the content.

Try this on for size. You own a motel, rent rooms, etc. You're business isn't going too well. This guy comes along and says he can get people to come to your motel and pay for your rooms. You just have to pay him $10/room/hour. You agree and the next day business is booming. Turns out the guy is a pimp. He let's people screw his girls for free.

Don't you think it makes sense to be aware of the people you are doing business with?

Re:Hardly...

[redcane]

Hell, that sounds like a good business proposition if you were unlikely to average whatever the price for the room was -$10/hour. I don't even see why it's your business what people are doing in the rooms, and since you don't have to pay yourself for a room (just his $10 cut), it seems like there are some fringe benefits as well. How is the guy being a pimp for sex any different from him being some other form of marketing force? It's not that much different than offering "champagne and chocolates on arrival", just targetting a different demographic.

Re:Hardly...

[ElleyKitten]

Your analogy is very poor. It is odds on that Google is the sole stream of revenue for these sites. Google is an advertising agency. As the a provider reselling adspace on a site, it would make a lot of sense for Google to be aware of the content. Try this on for size. You own a motel, rent rooms, etc. You're business isn't going too well. This guy comes along and says he can get people to come to your motel and pay for your rooms. You just have to pay him $10/room/hour. You agree and the next day business is booming. Turns out the guy is a pimp. He let's people screw his girls for free. Don't you think it makes sense to be aware of the people you are doing business with?

That's an even stupider analogy. First of all, if they don't pay, it's not prostitution ($10/hr is not even remotely enough to pay a prostitute). Basically, you'd be paying him to advertise to horny people that you have a hotel, which there's nothing wrong with. Even if they are prostituting in the hotel, I'm pretty sure that the law only applies against the actual people involved, not hotels that can't have their employees in the room to make sure no money exchanges hands illicitly. Anyways, prostitution has nothing to do with pirate websites. Find a better analogy next time you tell someone theirs is poor.

Re:Hardly...

[Rebelgecko]

Of course the difference is that parking illegally can have serious consequences for road safety and/or congestion, unlike copyright infringement.
Actually, copyright infringement DOES have serious consequences for road congestion! You see, the internet is not a dumptruck. It is a series of tubes. Downloading clogs the tubes, slowing the internets down for everyone else.

Re:Hardly...

[Maxo-Texas]

That is actually a very interesting loophole and i bet the authorities have already dealt with it and found it to be prostitution. Someone pays the girls even if the pimp doesn't. It probably becomes muddier if he is paying them indirectly.

But anyway... if you opened a house with free girls in it. And you charged folks a hundred bucks an hour to go into the house... you would be busted for something.

Stunning... and yet not at all.

[jmagar.com]

You might think that Google should not support illegal activity. And you'd be right.

But what if they are active in trying to be the Ad Tracker for these sites, so that Big Brother can monitor the population a little more effectively?

Google and NSA Goolge and NSA Google and NSA

Then perhaps, it is justified.

Re:Stunning... and yet not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read what you linked to? The first article is clearly labeled as satire, the second is an editorial composed of wild speculation, and the third is an article is about Google and NASA. I'm no corporatist but christ man, check your fucking sources.

Not Evil?

[WED Fan]

While not illegal, Google seems to be treading in the gray a lot, lately. From government influence to allowing a repressive regime to censor content to pirate profits, Google should just announce that it has fully joined the ranks of Corporate America and disavows its founding principles.

Google then:

Don't be evil.

Google now:

Well, it's all relative, isn't it? But, man, look at our stock price. Cool, we're rich.

Re:Not Evil?

[TheBogie]

Google then:

Don't turn in bloggers so the chinese government can attach car batteries to their nuts.

Google now(stock price near 500):

Red on left nut, black on right; or is it vice-versa?

Re:Not Evil?

[db32]

Don't be evil still applies perfectly. You just aren't reading it right. The rich are above the law, and the poor are the cause of the problems. So through simple substitution based on current society "Don't be evil" directly translates into "Don't be poor". And they most certainly are not poor, so they can't be evil.

And now its happy fun slashdot analogy time. Should the auto manufacturer be held liable for the death of a child picked up by a pedophile in their car advertised as the safest for children? (Check me out, slashdot car analogy and think of the children all in one).

Re:Not Evil?

[WED Fan]

I love you. Will you marry me?

Wait, are you male or female?

Hell, what's it matter? I'm in Washington, we can get away with anything. Or, they'll make a law to allow it soon enough.

So, how about it?

Re:Not Evil?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Could you provide some hot grits to old people using email in Korea? Or would it be more appropriate in Soviet Russia for the grits to provide you? I am new here and am not sure FTW!111111111111111111eleven!

Re:Not Evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should the auto manufacturer be held liable for the death of a child picked up by a pedophile in their car advertised as the safest for children?

No more than the person who says something offensive when people use his speech to inflict violence on another. But I can't get people to understand that. And your analogy works with guns, too. Today's loonies make it necessary to ask such questions.

iminplaya -shut down for advocating freedom, or at the very least trying to squeeze out an accurate definition.

Re:Not Evil?

[Neopoleon]

"Google should just announce that it has fully joined the ranks of Corporate America and disavows its founding principles."

I hate to sound like Mr. Rudepants, but how could anyone be so naive?

I know I could be nicer, but it's amazing to me, after all these years, that anybody could still be thinking as this person does.

Do all of you *really* think Google is in this for the benefit of the world? That they're a bunch of philanthropists, going around and doing good for everybody?

In my time at Microsoft, I've observed many instances of insular thought - to the point that it's flat out bad for the company.

But, the blinders you have on are, somehow, even worse.

It's a fantasy to think that Google is, or ever has been, anything other than another powerful player in software (well, advertising, really, but they sell their advertising through software).

It's a company! It exists to make money! They'll do whatever they can get away with to meet that goal!

I try not to comment... I try to remain politic...

But, comments like the one to which I'm responding, as well as many others I read here today, are indicative of an *astounding* detachment from reality.

You're all being played by Google. As long as you believe, or try to believe, that Google is somehow different from the rest of the major players, you're just allowing yourselves to be taken advantage of, and I'm adding a clause so that I don't have to end my sentence with a preposition.

That's all I have to say for now.

Re:Not Evil?

[WED Fan]

Please, next time, don't read so seriously. If you click on my link and check out previous posts, you will see I'm the most sarcastic SOB and way too many Slashdotters take me too seriously.

Re:Not Evil?

[Neopoleon]

Please, next time, don't expect someone who's responding to you to go back and perform a check on every single other comment you've ever left in order to ensure that you're being sarcastic.

The tone was very much in line with many other comments - nothing to set it apart.

Other than your history, of which I know nothing, as there are far too many people registered on /. for me to remember who's who (except for people I actually know, and they consitute a very small portion of the readership).

If "way too many Slashdotters take [you] too seriously," then consider that the problem isn't in their lack of DD - it's your presumption that we've all either read your earlier works, or research every /. member before responding.

If there were only a few dozen people here, that'd make a little sense.

With how many people there are, though, it's ridiculous to assume that we all know who you are.

Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google shouldn't be policing websites for other companies.

Re:Where's the problem?

[cliffski]

Jesus. Nobody was even suggesting that google even tell the RIAA about it. All they want them to do is not to work actively with pirates to make them into millionaires. This is hardly an evil shock tactic.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello there clifski, my name is "Anonymous Coward" and not Jesus although many slashdotters have come to worship me.

What you're saying is true, however it simply isn't Googles problem. Forcing them to make some moral or ethical judgement on a site before allowing them to participate in the ad network is unworkable. Content changes and if Google were checking regularly, they would effectively be policing sites would they not?

If these "pirate" sites made over $1 million, copyright holders should sue the site operators for criminal infringement. That's all.

Re:Where's the problem?

[cliffski]

so you agree that if google are notified of adsense on a site that is clearly and openly trading copyrighted material, that google should freeze their account immediately yes?
There are some sites that are a grey area, but some blatantly are not. I'd like to see google cut off the supply of ad funds to those sites.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

a site that is clearly and openly trading copyrighted material

That's not what they were doing. They offered a modified BT client for download (legal) and provided a search engine for trackers (legal). That's why these guys are not being directly sued with infringement but for "incitement to commit.."

Perhaps you feel that Google should cut off ad funds to all sites offering software downloads and search, themselves for example?

Re:Where's the problem?

[likes2comment]

But the RIAA wants to be millionaires also and to sue everyone costs a lot in legal fees. http://www.bozolawyers.com/

So effing what?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

So effing what? Google also accepts ads from pinkos, right-wing nutjobs and presidential candidates.

Hell, because of its volume, it's probably also safe to say Google does business with active sexual predators, drug dealers and serial murderers.

Google's just an average media company, like NBC, not the thought police. Let the market sort it out: if people decide that all the losers Google whores for really are just selling crap, they'll figure it out eventually.

Re:So effing what?

[truthsearch]

So effing what? Google also accepts ads from pinkos

Legal.

right-wing nutjobs

Legal.

and presidential candidates.

Legal (regulated).

That's the difference. Apparently some sites which they dedicate employees to help may not be legal.

Re:So effing what?

[shaitand]

Personally I think we should find out what utility company provided the electricity that enabled these violent criminals (okay so they commited no violence or actions which were immoral, only illegal) to commit these heinous acts and chase them down with pitchforks! Or water, lets go after the water provider. How about their maid? That's vile hag is clearly responsible. Their mechanic? Yup, we gotta kill him off too! How about the restaurant they ate at last night?

Google provides advertising. It is not their responsibility to judge their customers or their activities. It is not for Google to investigate and determine if in Google's opinion their activities are illegal. The only time Google should need concern themselves is if the image of the site would negatively reflect upon Google's own image.

Re:So effing what?

[Danse]

Google provides advertising. It is not their responsibility to judge their customers or their activities. It is not for Google to investigate and determine if in Google's opinion their activities are illegal. The only time Google should need concern themselves is if the image of the site would negatively reflect upon Google's own image.

Exactly. And really, what Google is doing should help bring sites like this to public attention, and if they're doing something illegal, then the government can go after them. I really don't see the issue here.

Re:So effing what?

[pla]

That's the difference. Apparently some sites which they dedicate employees to help may not be legal.

So if a car dealership "dedicates employees" (eg, an on-call salesmen) to a local front-organization for the mob, has the car dealership acted illegally or even unethically?

As for the sites in question dealing in copyrighted material - So does Amazon. Would you require Google to make sure Amazon has the right to resell every book and CD they list?

Google HAD to support these sites.

[gasmonso]

Remember that Google is based in the US. If they discriminated against these site and removed their Adsense, Google would have been sued. So clearly they did the right thing ;)

gasmonso

Re:Google HAD to support these sites.

[Wateshay]

What?? There is no law in the US that requires a company to do business with everyone who shows up. The only restriction is that you can't discriminate based on a fairly narrow set up criteria, such as race or gender (and even those have exceptions). If Google chose to do business with white pirates, but refused African-American pirates, then they might have a problem. Otherwise they're free to do business with whomever they choose.

Re:Google HAD to support these sites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. Google can discriminate as it pleases as long as it is not against a protected class. Warez is not a protected class.

Re:Google HAD to support these sites.

[pyite]

The only restriction is that you can't discriminate based on a fairly narrow set up criteria, such as race or gender (and even those have exceptions).

Narrow? You have to be completely kidding me. Apartment buildings that have elevators are forced to have handicap accessible apartments on floors reachable by the elevator because if they didn't, they wouldn't be complying with the American Disabilities Act. *That is ridiculous* If I'm building an apartment building, why should I have to pay extra money for the extra thought necessary to design ADA compliant kitchens and bathrooms? It should be completely at the discretion of the owner/builder. But it's not. Buildings with such features would be sought out by the handicapped, and other buildings would be avoided. Welcome to the free market. But unfortunately, it's more like saying welcome to the nanny state.

Benefitting from piracy

[hackstraw]

To some degree artists and record labels benefit from piracy, but lets hold off on that, but it is a form of marketing.

Harddrive manufactures, companies that sell MP3 players, blank media, and all of that benefits from piracy.

Personally, I believe that content should be free or kinda taxed/subsidized by hardware. Hardware breaks, and has to be either replaced or done without.

I pay my ISP a flat fee for internet, but I don't pay for "content" besides my donation to slashdot.

I pay hundreds/thousands of dollars for hardware that breaks all the time, but I don't pay a small fraction of that on software because its just not worth it.

Re:Benefitting from piracy

[lantastik]

Is this your way admitting to being a l337 h4x0r p!r473? If it is, then your rationalizations for not paying for "content" are utterly ridiculous. It takes as much time and effort to produce a piece of software, album, movie, etc. as it does to produce a piece of hardware. Just admit to being a scum-sucking lowlife and get on with it.

If you are not admitting to anything, well then go ahead and just disregard this post.

Re:Benefitting from piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"To some degree artists and record labels benefit from piracy, but lets hold off on that, but it is a form of marketing"

big companies spend millions opn sales research, PR and marketing. You think they don't know the best way to promote their products? or (more likely) this is a little fairy story that pirates tell each other so they can carry on stealing stuff.
grow up.

Re:Benefitting from piracy

[Archades54]

there is one positive side effect of piracy i can think of. you might have some poor guy that can barely afford a pc, has just enoguh scratch to get himself a nice lil pc, he gets software packages off the net, learns how to use them, he's just trained himself into being able to use a variety of software packages that normally he wouldnt have been able to do due to money constraints, then he could use those skills to pickup a job and start to earn some cash to pay for things.

Good or law-abiding?

[Infonaut]

Here's the conundrum: Even if it was lawful, was it "good?"

I believe the more power and control of capital a company acquires, the more difficult it is for the company to examine its own behavior under the lens of ethics. In time all decisions become decided on the basis of whether they are legal or not, which is a completely different calculus. A company can scrupulously follow the law and still act unethically.

The "do no evil" mantra might help Google employees feel like they're not actually working at a tremendously powerful publicly-traded company, and it probably still has a lot of influence on decisionmaking at the company. But I have a hard time believing that we won't be reading more and more stories of questionable ethics at Google as their power grows. I commend the leadership at Google for attempting to buck the forces at work here, but power still corrupts; it's the nature of the beast.

Re:Good or law-abiding?

[deprecated]

To do no evil does not necessarily mean to do good. I am sure there is a cogent and pithy reply from some hoary old philosopher, and that in latin, but I am far too lazy to look it up.

Re:Good or law-abiding?

[frank_adrian314159]

Here's the conundrum: Even if it was lawful, was it "good?"

In my opinion, yes.

Google could decide that it would be the arbiter of what should be advertised on its pages. In most cases, it has not. This is a tremendous amount of restraint for a company that could literally name winners and losers in the marketplace. In treating even scumballs like this (and I say that not because of the downloading, but because their stuff is adware-infested crap) in an evenhanded manner, I think that Google is doing the right thing. Remember that free speech (and yes, advertising is speech) is worthless unless we also defend the speech of scumballs. Google has done nothing that they would not have done with any other client of that size. And that *is* good.

Re:Good or law-abiding?

[Anonymous Coward]

All that evil needs to conquer is for good men to do nothing.

Re:Good or law-abiding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google could decide that it would be the arbiter of what should be advertised on its pages

ahhhh you seem to have totally missed the point. Google ARE DECIDING the winners, they have seen these sites give them good revenue and are ACTIVELY engaging with them to try and increase that revenue. They are therefore directly helping to make this company a winner on the google site.

In other news...

[Infinityis]

In other news, it has recently been revealed that several centuries ago, cartographers actively sold maps to seafaring pirates. Legal proceedings have revealed that many well-respected mapmakers have been implicated as enablers for these pirates. Amerigo Vespucci was not available for comment, but it is suspected that this turn of events will tarnish his name...

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amerigo Vespucci was not available for comment, but it is suspected that this turn of events will tarnish his name...

Like his name could be tarnished any further... ; )

In other news...

[qwertphobia]

In other news, the big three American automakers, GM, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler, along with a few smaller manufacturers are under investigation. It seems they profited when they sold thousands of vehicles to members of a number of well-known crime families.

The gub'mint is also looking into allegations that Dell has profited from selling computers to known spammers.

TDK does too

[Anonymous Coward]

As does Memorex, Maxell, and nearly every other CD/DVD writable maker. I mean, come on. In that case every roommate I've ever had has been benefitting from piracy as well. I mean, geez.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...television stations that accept advertisements for beer, benefit from DUI.

RTFA sil vous plait

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the defendants were assigned an account manager is not particularly surprising: this happens to many "high traffic sites," ... but does not necessarily mean that the content of a site is closely scrutinized.

AT&T benefit from Mafia crime!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The mob use phones to set up deals and pay AT&T!

Re:AT&T benefit from Mafia crime!

[TClevenger]

Very true. My dedicated AT&T rep knows that my company does "web services", and attempts to recommend services based on my usage patterns, but if asked, I doubt she knows specifically what we do.

Re:AT&T benefit from Mafia crime!

[StringBlade]

Perhaps they Verizon now?

Everyone benefits from piracy

[matt328]

Companies benefit from piracy everyday when someone pirates a product and likes it so much they actually go out and buy it.

Google just happens to be making millions of dollars and some lawyer thinks he can prove it's shady and wants to get a cut.

Where's the Crime?

[mpapet]

On the mega-software-corporation-industry side, they all talk a good anti-piracy game but everyone and their grandmother knows that users of stolen software are converted into legitimate users quite easily. Certainly much easier than going out and trying to find new customers. (Ask apple about what it takes to get users to switch)

For example, how much does Adobe care that Photochop is pirated? Very little actually. They get onwards of 80% of their Photochop sales in upgrades. I will be generous with adobe and estimate half or more of the upgrade sales are from people with legitimate licenses. The other half are finally making enough money to pay for a photochop license.

I would be very interested to find out how *this* specific story about Google and piracy got published. Discrediting Google seems to be the intent more than anything else.

McDonald's guilty of supporting street gangs

[Hao Wu]

The restaurant frequently serves people off the street who are linked to all manner of criminal activity.

They knowingly go on serving who ever has an appetite for their food, and the cash ready to pay for it.

No screening, no checking IDs... "Food for profit" is the evil game they play.

Re:McDonald's guilty of supporting street gangs

[inviolet]

The restaurant frequently serves people off the street who are linked to all manner of criminal activity.

Fine.

Tomorrow, McDonald's sets up an office in east Compton, California. They assign two employees to the new office, whose stated assignment is to set up the food supply lines for the Cryps during their coming gang war against the Bloods. The Bloods, of course, have already got a dedicated agent from Burger King overseeing their own distribution problems.

Still feel the same?

Don't you just love analogy-fights on slashdot? Can we get a tag for this?

Re:McDonald's guilty of supporting street gangs

[Hao Wu]

They assign two employees to the new office, whose stated assignment is to set up the food supply lines for the Cryps during their coming gang war against the Bloods.

...

Still feel the same?

Worse- what if the manager were paid to summarily execute hordes of random people who came in to eat?

You make a very good point, however unrelated.

BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a staff member on several BitTorrent sites used widely today, and let me tell you, anybody who isn't a scam site can't get AdSense. Google will disable your AdSense account if they find out that you're a BitTorrent site.

There is also some speculation by admins that if your account does get disabled, your search results get nuked too.

Re:BitTorrent

[goarilla]

There is also some speculation by admins that if your account does get disabled, your search results get nuked too.

i don't think so ... 'SEARCHTERM filetype:torrent' is still a way 2 effective method of searching torrents
for this to be true, i can't be certain tho but doing that usually gives torrentlinks to all the major players: TPB, isohunt, torrentspy, demonoid, torrentz, mininova, ...

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Torrent is not a synonim to piracy, be aware.

Hear hear!

[captainjaroslav]

And while we're at it, the recording industry should stop doing business with any known drug-law violators! In fact, I say the motion picture industry should refuse to hire actors who have a speeding ticket on their record. This new assault on illegal activity will surely result in a better world for all of us.

Makes legit people mad

[drewzhrodague]

This makes legit people (like me) hopping mad. Imagine that you do what you can to build *useful* applications on the Internet, being sure to avoid porn, spam, and warez methods. Then, Google turns off the ads on your site, when you can barely keep up with the constant bombardment from comment spam. Then, you find out that Google is okay with providing ads for warez groups. How much fun is that?

Re:Makes legit people mad

[jo42]

Sound of hand slapping forehead and uttering "Why didn't I think of that...!".

Re:Makes legit people mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to believe Google just turned off your ads for no reason. If the site is legit - they would want your business since happy users click more ads (that is if we presume happy users are those who find what they are looking for).

So if you are really building a good legitimate site - the only reason I could fathom that they shut your site down is that users NEVER clicked on your ads. Since adsense advertisers pay by impression (ie, every time their ad shows a 1,000 times they pay X amount), but when a ad shows up on your page no one clicks on it, it would make sense to eventually turn off ads on your site because the advertiser is getting cheated every time their add appears on your page.

Now maybe this is because whoever your customer is just doesn't like ads. That isn't google's fault, but the reality of your business.

Lawful, good?

[captainjaroslav]

I think it's more lawful neutral, not quite as good, but at least not chaotic evil.

Re:Lawful, good?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had my car's alignment checked once. It's chaotic evil.

Verdict: not evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Data duplication and distribution is not morally equivalent to murder and rape, and hence it is not "piracy."

In fact, IMO, sharing songs and what-not is not morally wrong. The laws that make it illegal are unjust, and an unjust law is no law at all. So, IMO, it is only "technically" illegal, those laws should not be enforced or obeyed. Qualifier: I am not a proponent of the complete dissolution of copyright or other "Intellectual Property" (sic) type laws, though I do think that these laws need some very extreme changes. At present they do more harm than good (their enforcement requires taking control of the hardware of every individual in the world, which is both a crime against personal freedom and also technologically impossible), so they can and should be ignored.

So, even if we set aside the (possibly correct) notions of Google's hands being clean since they didn't commit the crime but merely failed to police their huge customer base for illegal activity, I will still say that Google's dirty, dirty hands are far from evil.

Re:Verdict: not evil

[Ugot2BkidNme]

Being that I have set up a program similar to Googles Adsense before I have to say Google is being completely irresponsible. When someone signs up for your program you has guidelines concerning content of the users page "Web page or any Web site that contains any pornographic, hate-related, violent, or illegal content" can be found at Section 5 of this page https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms?hl= en_US. Now when the user is approved the representative at Google who approved this site is responsible for a cursory check of the site to make sure the user is agree to these guidelines.

Google as an entity may not have been aware of this to begin with they may have lazy data entry people who get paid minimum wage that check things. This could cause things to slip trough the cracks. However being a responsible Advertiser means that you should make sure that these sites to not violate the policy by implementing a double or triple check policy or a screen and approve policy that only supervisors can approve. If this was in place then it could just have been a slip up by certain employees. Lots of things fall through the cracks especially a site as large as Google.

But regardless the people who help optimize should also be checking the content as well. The example websites are clearly for the distribution of pirated content.

Re:Verdict: not evil

[Ugot2BkidNme]

You can also see another example of this policy "Any other content that is illegal, promotes illegal activity, or infringes on the legal rights of others" found under the Site content section of the following page. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer. py?answer=48182&sourceid=aso&subid=ww-ww-et-asui&m edium=link posting copyrighted material or even information on how to find and or share copyrighted material is clearly an infringement of the legal right of the copyright holder.

Really?

[Duncan3]

I thought all of Google's revenue was from domain squatters, spyware programs, and viagra/stock/scam spammers. That's the first page no matter what you search for these days.

Guess we learn something new every day!

Re:Really?

[Kaenneth]

Your search results may be reflecting what you are searching for.

Are you kidding? That's their specialty.

[JacksBrokenCode]

It's obviously not possible for Google to police each and every website that signs up for ad impressions.

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information." Do you really think that a company with such an ambitious goal can hide behind "there's too many accounts to police"?

I don't think they should have to police the sites that participate in AdSense, but to say that Google doesn't have the means to filter their clients seems a bit off the mark.

Google is doing its best so no one else gains info

[itz2000]

Google is doing its best afford so no one else will gain from Google's popularity, as a result no one else will get information about users and will do wrong stuff with it.

e.g : google is trying to buy gooogle.xyz or g.xyz (mistake intended) domains so no one will make profit of users who had fallen into these sites with the information they enter.
so, in one hand, it looks good, Google, spends money to save users from giving private information to malicious people, but maybe, and just maybe
according to this article, they spend that money in-order to gain more information?!

think about it... i hope it's all conspiracy

Yes, and here's what google should do...

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as this website is convicted of a crime, google should stop doing business with them.

Presumably, you're not suggesting Google's legal staff can figure out when something is legal with regards to copyright. Hell, I can't get a single lawyer to tell me what's legal and what's illegal. Sounds like nobody is sure until a judge bangs his gavel.

But hey, google is smart, they should make snap judgements because.... they're really smart!???!!! I guess. Or something like that.

Help me out here... Google should not do business with companies who are probably doing illegal stuff.... Like Microsoft.... Oh wait, it's okay to do business with them. Well, not with Exxon....

Anyway, you tell us how that works. I'm sure it will seem really simple once you explain it.

You're on tiger....

Good Christ, none of you read the article did you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. All of you are, more or less, saying, "What's the big deal? They aren't responsible for content. Do you expect them to check out yada yada yada..."

It's not like they're being looked at because they sent these guys some checks. They assigned them an ad rep. Do they assign everyone an ad rep? No. Once an ad rep is assigned, do you expect them to not follow up with the assignee? No, that would defeat the purpose of having an ad rep.

What they're saying is that Google assigned them an ad rep based on the fact that a lot of advertising was going out on their websites, and they wanted to help that along. Hence the ad rep. You know, the person who maybe tells them where they could place ads, maybe offers a better targeting ability. Are they doing this blindly? Are they conjouring up where to place the ads without seeing the current layout? No.

Your analogies suck, too. No, it's not like map makers and car makers selling to shady people. It _would be_ like car makers selling to the mob, then, seeing that the mob buys a lot of cars, sends a personal car salesman out and tells them how to get the most out of their car, maybe darker tinted windows, or bullet-proof glass.

You people fucking amaze me. You'd apologize for Hitler if he had made a bitchin' search engine.

Pure and unadulterated...

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal filings show that Google worked with EasyDownloadCenter.com and TheDownloadPlace.com from 2003 to 2005, generating more than $1.1 million in revenue for the sites through the AdSense program.

Pure and unadulterated bullshit. I can guarantee that Google has never paid anyone a million dollars for ad clicks. I'd venture that they rarely have paid anyone over a thousand dollars. They also have a tendency to not pay people on the fringe at all. Lots of sites are suddenly unacceptable to Google once they reach the hundred dollar payout.

Lets do a small calculation. Optimistically, at $0.05 per click, that's 22 million ad clicks. From what I have observed over the years approximately 1% of site visits will result in an ad click (optimistically). So for 22 million ad clicks that's a minimum of 2.2 billion site visits. Over 2 years and two servers that is 1.5 million visits per server per day, constantly. (multiply by at least 5 to convert "visits" to "hits" and multiply by another 5 since $0.01 per click is more realistic).

So... 37.5 million hits per day? 434 requests per second? One request every two milliseconds? For lame sites like those listed in the summary? I highly doubt it.

I'm quite sure that the only site that has ever made a million dollars from AdSense is Google.com.

Re:Pure and unadulterated...

[shark72]

"I'd venture that they rarely have paid anyone over a thousand dollars. They also have a tendency to not pay people on the fringe at all. Lots of sites are suddenly unacceptable to Google once they reach the hundred dollar payout."

I don't like replying to ACs, but: I hit $1K in payouts a while back and I'm going strong. Google recently asked me (along with a bunch of other people) to add more 300x250 format spots so they can pump more ads.

"(multiply by at least 5 to convert "visits" to "hits" and multiply by another 5 since $0.01 per click is more realistic)."

Weird. I average $0.33 a click, and my content (and thus my ad mix) is widely varied. I'm not displaying particularly high-paying ads.

"I'm quite sure that the only site that has ever made a million dollars from AdSense is Google.com."

I think the folks at Digg will also disagree. It's a safe bet that they're doing in excess of 1000X the traffic of my little old site.

Microsoft Accused of Benefitting from Ninjacy

[BForrester]

Legal filings show that Microsoft is working with Ninjas to directly counter the Google Pirate threat.

This just in!

[jaimz22]

This just in: Google accused of being a company in a capitalist country

Re:Good Christ, none of you read the article did y

[Anonymous Coward]

> Good Christ, none of you read the article did you?

You must be new here.

From my understanding the AdSense money means this is commercial scale (criminal) infringement. Without that, the "cadre of media powerhouses" would be stuck with a civil case. Overall the WSJ article looks like just another attempt to smear Google. The telling content in the Guardian is "The row is a sign, however, of deteriorating relations between the media companies and Google."

> You people fucking amaze me. You'd apologize for Hitler
> if he had made a bitchin' search engine.

Godwin isn't needed here, tell us what percentage of VW owners are also Hitler apologists and we're done.

The Chewbacca Offense

[Dachannien]

This does not make sense. The Mafiaa could be suing these newly-minted millionaires into oblivion, and the more money Google pays out, the more money that can be recovered in a lawsuit. They should be encouraging Google to pay out more cash.

These website operators have the money - or the liquidatable assets - to make good on any judgment against them. Instead, they choose to sue children, old people, and disabled people, none of whom have pockets deep enough to pay out the outrageous sums the Mafiaa is claiming as damages, even though it's estimated that they lose money on every one of these lawsuits.

ISPs Benefitting from Piracy

[TheGreatHegemon]

By this same vein, ISPs also get revenue from piracy... It's absurd...

So what? Microsoft benefits from piracy too

[erroneus]

That was a major contributing factor in their building of a monopoly.

How many degrees of separation?

[gavink42]

The article does say that Google isn't currently being sued. But, how many degrees of separation are required before a company isn't held responsible for something someone else does?

It seems clear that a company that sells or distributes pirated software is breaking the law, but how far does the chain of responsibility go? Is that company's ISP also liable? How about the shipping companies that pickup and deliver their "products". Or, the banks they do business with?

What questions does a company/supplier have a right to ask of its customers? And, if they don't ask enough questions, should they be held liable also?

Personally, I think it's a slippery slope that's traveled when deciding where to place that line.

I'm asking a lot of questions here, but doesn't it boil down to privacy? A private company doesn't have the right to dig into the operations of another private company. That's reserved for law enforcement, and only if there is cause to indicate illegal activity.

And in breaking news...

[Andy Somnifac]

Amerigo Vespucci, in the ongoing investigation of sales that have lead to wide spread piracy, has announced that he has given up all naming rights to the continents that bear his name. This may cause confusion for residents of the most populated country on the newly named continents, as they become accustomed to calling their country by its new name, "The United States of Rand McNally."

What Interests me is...

[phoenixwade]

The Article indicates that Google has apparently accepted that those ads were a bad thing, and stated they would take steps to correct the situation.

I'm curious as to why they would knuckle under. Either the article was mistaken, Google was paying lip service, or the income was much lower than the quoted amounts. I can't believe that Google would take steps to remove a multi-million dollar income stream.

Stop press!!! Post office Colluded with Unabomber!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Ted Kazinsky used the post office to mail his bombs. The USPS "benefitted" by selling its services to Unabomber. Many criminals used the Post office to send mail. Two Pakistani taxi driver brothers share a passport. (First one goes to Pak, mails his passport back, brother follows three weeks later. One bro comes back, mails the passport back to Pak, the other brother, not neccessarily the same one who returned, comes in again. They claim they have been doing it for ages. True or just a fancy cricket ground tall tale bragging cant be verified) Post office benefits by their business too. So what is so special about google?

It all hinges on whether Google knew...

[Animaether]

To put it to your business...

Let's say you repair a guy's computer and you notice that there's on there. Not only is there on there, you can tell that it's on there because he's using it to seed his distribution network. Not only that, but you realize that he has a fair amount of subscribers and gets a good portion of revenue from having said . Now you strike a deal with him - you'll tell him that if he purchases that shiny new server, he can serve even more customers... and you'll take, say, 1%.

You knew about the , and you knowingly, willingly, wantingly helped with the in order to increase your own revenue.

The question is whether -that- is something you should be held accountable for.

Obviously, if you didn't know about , and just told him to get a new server because his current one is hopelessly outdated, and still take that 1%, then that's just business as usual.

Obviously your scenario is not comparable because you don't get to take %'s of revenue from your customers just for repairing their machine, which makes me wonder why you even proffered it - but there you go ;)

So... the real question is.. did Google know that the sites were primarily, of not exclusively, for ? If they did, and still assigned that manager (or that manager found out, etc.), and still told them how to increase their ad revenue for the obvious reason that it would increase Google's revenue, then Google deserves to be slapped around a bit with a large trout.. and possibly fines/lawsuits, depending on jurisdiction, applicable laws, etc.

Re:It all hinges on whether Google knew...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say you repair a guy's computer and you notice that there's on there. Not only is there on there, you can tell that it's on there because he's using it to seed his distribution network. Not only that, but you realize that he has a fair amount of subscribers and gets a good portion of revenue from having said .

You knew about the , and you knowingly, willingly, wantingly helped with the in order to increase your own revenue.

The question is whether -that- is something you should be held accountable for.

Maybe... but I think it would take a lot of explaining to the jury. Can you go into a bit more detail about the on there?

Re:It all hinges on whether Google knew...

[ScrewMaster]

No ... the real question, in that case, is why a computer repairman would be performing what amounts to computer forensics on a client's computer.

Regardless, you have some groups (the RIAA, MPAA, and others like them) who would like nothing better than to see ISPs and services such as Google forced into the role of high-tech censor, and worse, be made responsible for what sites they merely link to. Then there's everyone else who would prefer otherwise. Be very careful when requesting that a corporate or government entity be granted such power: odds are, in the long run you'll regret it.

Re:It all hinges on whether Google knew...

[shaitand]

'Obviously your scenario is not comparable because you don't get to take %'s of revenue from your customers just for repairing their machine, which makes me wonder why you even proffered it - but there you go ;)'

Because it is an irrelevant point. If the revenue source were illegal then it would be the entire point but the revenue source is perfectly legal in this case. The business google is engaged in is 100% legal from source to destination.

You also seem to be ignoring the biggest point of all. Here in the US nobody is a criminal or guilty of breaking a law until the point has been proven in a court of law. Now there is a chain of people needed to establish whether or not criminal activity is occuring, first there is the person/customer/company themselves; next comes the police; then the district attorney has to feel there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing; and then comes both a judge and a jury of peers. Last I checked neither I nor Google are in the list. Niether of us are qualified to determine what actions are legal or not (especially actions like copyright infringment that aren't even criminal matters). Niether of us are in the moral right if we punish you by refusing to business with you despite the fact that you have never been shown to do anything wrong.

Re:It all hinges on whether Google knew...

[Animaether]

aw shoot. Why does posting in "Plain Old Text" cause stuff between that thing that points to the left and that thing that points to the right get eaten?

What I meant all over the place there was...
<illegal stuff>

( pst. Slashdot. parsing &lt; and &gt; is NOT plain old text! If I wanted that, I'd pick "HTML Formatted"! )

Re:It all hinges on whether Google knew...

[Achromatic1978]

No ... the real question, in that case, is why a computer repairman would be performing what amounts to computer forensics on a client's computer.

To diagnose the cause of the fault?

It is dissapointing when your an advertiser

[cybrthng]

And you see your ads on sites like this. I've seen referrals from astalavista.box.sk, iso sites, pdf/book sharing sites and other high traffic sites that are questionable in there legality but probably making millions.

Perhaps there are marketers that could see this profitable, i say leave that to Adbrite and other mass CPM sellers selling junk and have google focus on whats legit.

If for anything google should hand qualify every site it approves and be liable for the network they are selling to there advertisers. It is a lot to ask for, but they shouldn't do anything less.

Google has a terrible problem of expecting technology to fix/manage itself and this is one of those times when intelligent human intervention should be capable of deciding what is best for google and its partners. Googles "human" customer support is basically non existant. I think that upsets people when they try and report these piss poor quality sites and are disregarded. A smaller business would be disgraced out of business for what google just ignores and amasses huge profits from while promising advertising partners that technology still solves there click fraud issues. ha ha ha

One could argue...

[popo]

That the entire concept of a Search Engine is to connect to the intellectual property of others.
In the Web's early days it was legally decided that linking to a site could require the site
owner's permission -- a fact that has largely been forgotten out of both convenience and mutual
benefit. But the nature of that law did establish (and does preserve) the rights holder's
ownership and control of linkage to his property. This linkage is not compensated -- in fact
it is reverse compensated in the case of AdWords.

Not, of course, that I'd like to see search engines disappear -- but the reason search engines
are such a "big deal" is that they form a single nexus to a global mass of (3rd party owned)
intellectual and creative property.

So not only does Google (and every other search engine) benefit from piracy, they also benefit from
property which they do not own and from intellectual property owners whom they do not compensate.

Next Article up

[MythicalPuma]

Google Benefits from Slashdot Exposure

More & Less

[Trendy.Ideology]

Less stories about my beloved Google.com doing bad things for money. More stories about what our President, and his associates do for money. Whatever happened to those Enron guys, anyway?

But seriously...

Until they even prove/convict someone of something on a website like that, is it even fair, according to our legal system's Innocent Until Proven Guilty policy, to say that Google is advertising on websites engaged in illegal activity? I for one, like my warez, pr0n, and MP3s. And anything that helps keep those sites up is in my eyes good.

Just because the RIAA and other bodies that would like to shut down those sites are unsuccessful, doesn't mean they need to start harassing google over letting those websites make enough money to operate off their ad program.

Whats illegal?

[Dan541]

Who's to say that those site are illegal?

allofmp3.com is a legal and legit bussiness

but I bet the RIAA would throw the same accusation at google if allofmp3 used their adsense program

Funny! Offtopic!

[Anonymous Coward]

The disclaimer on the satire site says, "Any resemblance to the truth is a pure coincidence except for all references to George W. Bush, the Bush administration, Dick Cheney, and the White House."

I hope they cherish these final years of free material!

Skeptical

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a little skeptical - I think the news is making a big deal because the blog and news is saying google made millions off a piracy website. First of all, google doesn't tell adsense users how much money total is made - when I host ads I just know what I'm getting paid - not how much google got paid, and I kind of doubt they made a special deal to reveal it here since they covet privacy - so I'll believe it when some real evidence shows up. Suppose it is possible to reverse-engineer this, but have to admit, still skeptical

We're trying to out these exact sites...

[spoco2]

A friend and I have set up a website mp3read.com where we're trying to out these horrendous scam sites. And do you know what the best source is to find the urls of all these dodgy sites? Our own Adsense ads! Each day I go to our site, view the ads and grab the urls, scam site after scam site... We add those sites to our Adsense block list, and the next day we get a new raft of dodgy scam ads...

It's very hard when you're trying to have a website that is ousting these site, only to end up with AdSense ads to the very sites you're trying to out right there on your site... we're just trying to make enough money to cover the hosting, but we don't want to do it at the expense of actually sending people off to these horrible sites.

We're slowly getting more real, legit adverts on our site, but the flood of scam sites advertising via Adsense is insane...

Please do come to our site and report scam sites you hate, we've only just started in the last week or so, but we have a list of 35 so far.

Now Google is paranoid about fraudulent clicks

[spikeham]

Now it seems Google has swung to the opposite extreme, being very paranoid about clicks possibly being fraudulent and not crediting ad referers. Not too long ago I put some Google ads up on a free screensaver site http://www.mounthamill.com/ and have gotten a significant number of legitimate clicks, but Google disallows a lot of them for no apparent reason.

ha ha

[ralph1]

Google should buy those media companys and set the music free.

Google Sales Knew Perfectly Well

[dysonlu]

From News.com: "Google AdWords salespeople suggested they buy keywords including "pirated" and "bootleg movie download," and that a Google employee corroborated their sworn statements in a deposition that has been sealed by the court."

Google God followers (and I know there are plenty lurking here at Slashdot), please spin the statement above in a way that your Almighty One look good.

Re:Google Sales Knew Perfectly Well

[0x0000]

salespeople suggested they buy keywords including "pirated" and "bootleg movie download," and that a Google employee corroborated their sworn statements in a deposition that has been sealed by the court.

I think it makes 'em look pretty damned good without any spin at all... They siezed the moral high ground, served the customers needs, and made money for the share holders. What's your problem with that?

Do note, though, that Google is not God. More like a supplicant for the position Lucifer once held... you know: before.

Money and evil

[okinawa_hdr]

While I'm not a religious person, I think that the phrase, "Money is the root of all evil" has more than a shred of truth to it.

GOODBYE FUCKLE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They were and still are the worst ad^h^hsearch engine out there. First they only find fucking ad sites and second their whole stupid 'Did you mean' bullshit. Now I can see how the shitdot sheeple love google so much, the whole piracy chant 'Information wants to be free' bullshit they created so they can infring all copyrights they want. Given half the chance, the shitdot sheeple would steal anything tangible from any store simply because they feel somehow 'entitled' to everything. Oh, that's righ5t, the shitdot sheeple feel everything should be free and communism is the way to go. I hope this goes to shitdot and as a result has everyone at google and shitdot including fucktardtaco and brokebacneil arrested and receive the fucking electric chair.

GO AHEAD! FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR WASTE YOUR GOD DAMNED MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!

They were and still are the worst ad^h^hsearch engine out there. First they only find fucking ad sites and second their whole stupid 'Did you mean' bullshit. Now I can see how the shitdot sheeple love google so much, the whole piracy chant 'Information wants to be free' bullshit they created so they can infring all copyrights they want. Given half the chance, the shitdot sheeple would steal anything tangible from any store simply because they feel somehow 'entitled' to everything. Oh, that's righ5t, the shitdot sheeple feel everything should be free and communism is the way to go. I hope this goes to shitdot and as a result has everyone at google and shitdot including fucktardtaco and brokebacneil arrested and receive the fucking electric chair.
1234
2345
GO AHEAD! FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR WASTE YOUR GOD DAMNED MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!
They were and still are the worst ad^h^hsearch engine out there. First they only find fucking ad sites and second their whole stupid 'Did you mean' bullshit. Now I can see how the shitdot sheeple love google so much, the whole piracy chant 'Information wants to be free' bullshit they created so they can infring all copyrights they want. Given half the chance, the shitdot sheeple would steal anything tangible from any store simply because they feel somehow 'entitled' to everything. Oh, that's righ5t, the shitdot sheeple feel everything should be free and communism is the way to go. I hope this goes to shitdot and as a result has everyone at google and shitdot including fucktardtaco and brokebacneil arrested and receive the fucking electric chair.
52134
1461346
GO AHEAD! FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR WASTE YOUR GOD DAMNED MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!
They were and still are the worst ad^h^hsearch engine out there. First they only find fucking ad sites and second their whole stupid 'Did you mean' bullshit. Now I can see how the shitdot sheeple love google so much, the whole piracy chant 'Information wants to be free' bullshit they created so they can infring all copyrights they want. Given half the chance, the shitdot sheeple would steal anything tangible from any store simply because they feel somehow 'entitled' to everything. Oh, that's righ5t, the shitdot sheeple feel everything should be free and communism is the way to go. I hope this goes to shitdot and as a result has everyone at google and shitdot including fucktardtaco and brokebacneil arrested and receive the fucking electric chair.
1234
2345
GO AHEAD! FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR WASTE YOUR GOD DAMNED MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!They were and still are the worst ad^h^hsearch engine out there. First they only find fucking ad sites and second their whole stupid 'Did you mean' bullshit. Now I can see how the shitdot sheeple love google so much, the whole piracy chant 'Information wants to be free' bullshit they created so they can infring all copyrights they want. Given half the chance, the shitdot sheeple would steal anything tangible from any store simply because they feel somehow 'entitled' to everything. Oh, that's righ5t, the shitdot sheeple feel everything should be free and communism is the way to go. I h