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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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?

[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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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.

So what? Microsoft benefits from piracy too

[erroneus]

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

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?

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.

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.