Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Blocks Author's Ads For Offering Torrent Of His Own Book

Posted by Soulskill on from the stop-automating-this dept.

An anonymous reader points out the recent trouble of author Cody Jackson, who wrote a book called Learning to Program with Python. He offers the book for sale, but also gives it away for free, and he used the CC-BY license. In order to distribute the book, he posted links to his torrent of it. Unfortunately, this cause Google to suspect his AdSense account for his website. Even after removing the links, he was unable to get in contact with Google's AdSense team to get his accounts restored. After his story was picked up yesterday by Techdirt, somebody at Google "re-reviewed" his case and finally reinstated his account. Jackson had this to say: "One good thing about this is that it has helped raise awareness of the problems with corporate copyright policies and copyright regulation as a whole. When a person is unable to post his/her own products on the 'net because someone fears copyright infringement has occurred, there is a definite problem." This follows a few high-profile situations in which copyright enforcement bots have knocked down perfectly legitimate content.

12 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... by crypTeX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copyright enforcement by software: the speed camera of the internet...if the traffic ticket were set to eliminate your whole wage. Actual people could review this stuff...or we could all accept that if you use the tools a giant corporation provides to you at essentially no cost, you are totally at their mercy.

    1. Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... by way2trivial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the only memory that stands out for me from Seaquest. In the first few moments of the premiere episode, Roy Scheider is speeding on a motorcycle, and the govt. scans his tags/ID and launches his phone to advise him the fine has been deducted from his social security account.

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    2. Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precisely. Google didn't stop him distributing it in any way, they just stopped him advertising the fact on their own systems, which (I'm guessing) have been plagued with people trying to advertise illegal torrents. Then they took a second look at their mostly-automated system and realised something had gone wrong, and corrected a false positive. For a company their size it's a realistic response. The big problem is that such a high percentage of torrents are illegal that it's giving a perfectly good and indeed useful technology - far more useful than "the cloud" whatever it is these days - distributed, multiply redundant, peer based information technology? Hell yeah! It's amazing, pity it got hijacked to the extent where legit companies are scared of it.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    3. Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... by Goaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the problem is that Google only bothered to take that second look after he ran out of options for communicating with them, and had to complain to the entire internet and shame them into acting.

      If he hadn't managed to get a big audience for his complaining, he'd still be locked out.

    4. Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... by marcosdumay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. The problem is that the entire Mankind relies on Google to get new information.

      (I don't know how to solve it. But that's the problem.)

      --
      Rethinking email
  2. Not Yours! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a corporation can make money on your stuff, you are not allowed to give it away.

    America, by the corporations, for the corporations.

  3. Torrents != Piracy by lattyware · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why the 'torrents == piracy' mentality is such an issue - torrents are seen as such a red flag these days that it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are unwilling to use BitTorrent as a distribution method as it's seen as a bad thing.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    1. Re:Torrents != Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it goes further than that. Here are some things that don't indicate one way or another whether they're illegal or not.

      Downloading copyrighted material
      Bittorrenting
      Bittorrenting Copyrighted material
      Downloading a DVD
      Downloading a Movie
      Downloading Photoshop from the internet
      Not paying for software
      Not paying for copyrighted software
      Downloading music with bittorrent
      Downloading Movies with bittorrent

      It's the redefinition of language and linking terms with illegality that benefits large lobbyists to ensure more powers that hurts, here. It's not really a mentality so much as a sneaked in change in meaning that not all of us notice until we read lists like I made above and find a little gut feeling that some of them must be wrong and avoided, when there's no indication one way or another in the terms themselves.

  4. A more general problem by neminem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It really isn't just about auto-copywrite-infringement bots. It's really about non-overrideable bots with no human oversight in general. This problem reminds me very much of a problem I had a week ago, in which I wanted to put a large purchase on a credit card (then pay it back like the next day, with money I'd just been paypal'd, but that hadn't made it to my bank yet). I told the bank a week in advance: I am making a large purchase on this date, please don't flag it as suspicious. The response back was that they would make a note, but it would probably be marked suspicious anyway, and there was nothing they could do about it.

    So I get there, I try to make the purchase, and sure enough: the charge is canceled and my card is suspended. So I call up the bank, tell them what happened, ask whether they can fix it. Answer: nope, it was all automatic, you'll have to call back later and hope someone with more privilege than a first-level phone support operator has is around. Thanks a lot, every-bank-on-the-planet (cause really, it's not just that one bank, they're all like this now.)

    Yes, computers are getting more powerful. Yes, you can cut costs by hiring fewer humans to do superfluous things. You can cut costs even more by hiring fewer humans to do things they're really required to do, and just do a frelling terrible job of it as a result. But at least keep one person around at all times to clean up after the resulting mess, please, every company ever? Thanks a lot.

    1. Re:A more general problem by neminem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I feel like you're responding to a statement that is remarkably different from the one I made.

      Does having a credit card "entitle" me to the ability to use it? I suppose not. One would merely assume that if I were a company in the business of providing a particular service, I would attempt to avoid putting up roadblocks in the way of my customers using that service, or be worried that they would go elsewhere. But that was before everyone realized that they could have shitty customer service as long as so did everyone else.

      In any case, the fact that I would have the money the next day was entirely irrelevant, except that I didn't want to give people reading it the feeling that I was being fiscally irresponsible by charging things I couldn't pay back immediately (in fact, I didn't tell the credit card people that, being their main business strategy depends on people making large charges and -not- paying them back the next day...)

      I assure you, I definitely did have the credit limit, which is all they would care about (as evidenced by the fact that after calling them back later and getting them to really-for-sure-this-time tell their computer I was about to make a large purchase, the same charge went through without issue.)

      In conclusion... nice troll?

  5. Re:Google is also a victim here. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is also a victim here, a victim of language re-defined by rights-holders (those who usually aren't creators) such as the RIAA, MPAA, BSA and the like. They've been given power, and they use it to redefine terms. That affects how we think and react.

    The obvious difference, since it seems you missed it, is that a multi-billion dollar company like Google actually has the power to do something about it, but instead, they play the game, because regardless of what they claim their company philosophy is, the bottom line is... well, their bottom line.

    If Google sees more profit in "being a victim" to laws they could very well change, then they will do precisely dick to change them. Period.

    Welcome to Capitalism, comrade.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  6. Re:He's lucky the press noticed by crystalattice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am the author mentioned in this article. The only reason my story got picked up by the media is because I first sent a news tip to Techdirt, as I know they like to discuss copyright issues.

    I had sent notice to Slashdot when Google initially shutdown my ad account, but there wasn't much of a story at the time. Luckily, someone decided to cross-post the story from Techdirt to Slashdot, which may have helped Google make a decision.

    So, all I can say is let as many tech sites know about your problem as you can and publicly shame Google into helping you.

    --
    Free Programming BookLearn to program