Slashdot Mirror
Google Looks To Cut Funds To Illegal Sites
rbrandis writes "Google is in discussions with payment companies including Visa, MasterCard and PayPal to put illegal download websites out of existence by cutting off their funding. If Google goes ahead with the radical move, it would not mark the first time that illegal websites have been diminished or driven out of business by having a block put on their source of money."
Thanks Google/banks for killing your own model and building the strength of your sucessor.
If it's left up to one Government to determine what is and is not an illegal site, this is ripe for abuse. Or, what if Google decides that a site (lets say, Mega) is illegal, when in fact it's not?
Google? This is why Bitcoin is necessary. We can't continue having commercial entities controlling the money flow.
Who decides what website is illegal? A website that may be deemed illegal in one country may not be in another.
This was the case with WikiLeaks and how their funding was diminished. The same would be the case with phone unlocking sites fro example.
Isn't Google making money via advertising on youtube with all the posted videos that are infringing on copyrights?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Cutting off funding should not be decided by business, the courts should make that decision. Garnted, the operators of such a website may be scumbags but they still deserve their day in court.
And the site you use to convert your dollars to bitcoin will be illegal. What then?
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
For many searches, I still get results that put link and ad farms at the top, while those that are more likely to give original information are demoted.
To me this looks like Google is trying to make sure that if it can't make money on something, no one can. I don't see why it has the right to go out and strong arm other private companies. if something is illegal, let the law take care of it. If Google wants to make the world a better place, start by trying to do so good, instead of just avoiding evil.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
the plans, still in discussion, would also block funding to websites that do not respond to legal challenges, for example because they are offshore.
So, if the "legal challenges" have a basis in fact, why not use existing laws? Sounds like a mechanism to make American laws apply to everyone in the world. And they don't even have to prove guilt, just send a threat from a lawyer, which is rightfully ignored, then Google pulls the plug on the site's income, site erased.
I think this could be great, and have unintended consequences that end up strengthening piracy.
By driving out the for-profit pirates, you restore it to the hobbyists, who tend to have high standards and be somewhat fanatical.
This will probably damage piracy of the vapid "big media" movies, music, etc. but will enhance piracy of niche markets and specialty genres, which will strengthen those through the "try before buy" principle among those who are likely to buy them anyway, if they like them.
Google's policies have already somewhat achieved this model. Some of the best piracy for music at least is through Youtube these days. They take down the big acts, but you can find lots of obscure and older material (full albums) with a simple search.
In many ways, this is the resolution between pirates and industry. Industry gets to protect its big money makers, which if pirated result in a loss of profits because they are only purchased for a short term (novelty value). Pirates get access to the vast breadth of information available that isn't in that single protected category.
Giving in to RIAA thugs won't make them demand any less, but will instead make them see themselves entitled to that and more. Google shouldn't be rubbing their back, they should be bloodying their noses.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If BitCoin becomes the "currency" of choice for the "underground economy" (a position for which it is well suited... about the only thing it's well-suited for), I don't think it's going to terrify Google or Visa/MC all that much. They don't WANT that business; it causes too many legal/regulatory hassles.
It's their search engine/payment mechanism/bank/whatever. They can decide what it is used for. They ARE the law, when it comes to the services that they themselves run. They don't need to ask a court's permission to verify if something is or isn't illegal.
who/how do you define an "illegal download site"?
Is this "they host the files", or is this torrent sites that host no files? This matters, as one of those is not even illegal.
So I take it that Youtube will be cut off then?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Gotta admit, I liked this when I read the headline, but was disappointed when I saw that this is targeted at media sharing and cites Wikileaks. Was really hoping Google was finally following the money in the anti-spam/malware fight. Oh well.
I have mod points, but not finding anyone questioning this source... Have you RTFA? This is The Telegraph! There is no source cited AT ALL. You don't know who said what in which context. Nothing.
Microsoft has hired the CEO of Burton-Marsteller with the official function of spreading FUD on Google.
But frankly, this sounds more like this comes from The Onion... Nobody here questions sources anymore?
"Legal tender" is anything the government says it is.
"Currency" is anything two or more transacting parties say it is. "Goodwill," "reputation," "an understanding that if I do this for you, you'll do something for me later," and the like are all "currencies" in this sense.
In a more tangible sense, soldiers in WWII used unopened packs of cigarettes as currency, even though it had no legal backing whatsoever. In some American cities, street people have used bus tokens and other useful items that could later be exchanged for a needed good or service as currency, again, without legal backing.
I'm not ignoring your last sentence, but until or unless Bitcoin-holders attempt to seek the same status for Bitcoins that non-domestic sovereign-backed currencies have, I don't think there will be a problem. From a legal standpoint, bitcoins are more analogous to limited-edition art prints, where "limited" is a very high finite number and where everyone has the ability to, with some expense on their part, create new prints until the limit is reached. This is only a legal analogy, in practical terms Bitcoins are a lot easier to transfer than a paper art print.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Bitcoin will always be a fringe currency. What Google is doing is encouraging a return to peer-to-peer filesharing, which I have no problem with.
Palm trees and 8
The article refers to someone whose virtual currency "borrowed" significant elements from US currency. While his "medallions" weren't anywhere close to being replicas with US-mint-issued currency, there were enough elements to cause confusion about just who or what was backing the coins' value. Calling them "Liberty dollars" when that is the common name for a historical US coin probably didn't help.
If he'd minted them as "Liberty Money," used units other than "dollars," "cents," or any other past or present unit used by the US government, and avoided words, coin-sizes, and other attributes that might cause confusion he would likely have been free and clear legally. If he went further and put "not backed by any government" or similar words on all coins and paper-money products, that would've been even better.
His mistake wasn't making a second currency. His mistake was either not knowing the law and going out of his way to avoid even the appearance of violating it or knowing the law and being arrogant enough to dare the government to step in. If his goal was anything other than to go to jail, he failed. On the other hand, if his goal was to become a legal martyr and the money thing was just a means to an end, he succeeded.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Business is a voluntary act. Google is not a governmental agency which is required to deal with everyone, or even to deal with everyone with an even hand. They don't decide who can be online and do business, and who cannot. Those other sites will still exist and may conduct business as usual, just without a particular business partner.
If you don't like it, don't use them. It will reduce their income. Of course, I presume you're using Google right now, or you wouldn't give a fuck what they do (since, hey, you don't use them anyway).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Interestingly, States have the right to make gold and silver legal tender but they do not have the right to coin money.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Currency" is anything two or more transacting parties say it is. "Goodwill," "reputation," "an understanding that if I do this for you, you'll do something for me later," and the like are all "currencies" in this sense.
The same goes for Tide laundry detergent, apparently.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Sounds like a first date if I've ever heard one described...
From TFA: “In 2011, Visa, Mastercard and PayPal, cut off all donations to WikiLeaks, the controversial website headed by Julian Assange”
If assisting with cutting off funds to sites like Wikileaks is what Google is intending to do, this can set a very bad precedence. While WikiLeaks is controversial, it is not be illegal. It hasn’t been even charged with any crime. But let’s say it does get charged with some random US law from 1918 and, in the court of law, is pronounced to be “illegal” in the US, does it mean the funds will be cut off to Wikileaks globally? What if the Wikileaks is based in Sweden and I live in Norway, would I be able to give funds to Wikileaks? Would Google prevent me in any way? How far would this ban go?
What if Iran sued New York Times and declared it to be illegal. Should Google then prevent the transfer of funds to New York Times because it was found to be illegal there? If Google decides to have different blocking policies based on the geographical location of the user, this can lead to breaking up the internet. Besides, we know there are plenty of technologies that allow users to spoof/change the location on the web. Will banning VPN and Tor be the next big thing?
--
There’s no such thing as “illegal download”
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
Visa could choose to not do business with blacks if they choose to?
If you say no, where is the line drawn?
Except for the fact that Visa operates in country that prohibits racial discrimination by law AND the fact that they would be subject to customer boycotts even if it were not legally prohibited, yes, they could choose not to do business with people of a certain race.
In the United States, there are many local "businesses" that are organized as private clubs and who restrict club membership to people of certain age, religious, gender, or racial groups. Typical examples are golf clubs, alcohol-serving "private" establishments, and the like. Other "private club businesses" include professional associations, fraternal associations, and associations which have other specific "affinity criteria" like the age-based "AARP."
Laws limit the kinds of goods and services they can offer on a "members only" basis. For example, the wholesale "club" known as Sam's Club must offer certain regulated products like alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs without regard to "membership". On the other hand, a "night club" that sells alcohol for on-premises use only is not required to sell alcohol to non-members.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
First, this requires that people are willing to sell, and if a single entity was buying up Bitcoins at that massive of a scale, you can bet the price (due to demand) would skyrocket. Then if the government effectively 'destroyed' said currency by not reintroducing it to the system, the value of the coins in the system (presuming a stable demand similar to what already exists), would remain high as the supply of coins would be drastically reduced. A government doing something like that would temporarily destabilize the market place, but wouldn't in any significant way impact the long term viability of bitcoins as a currency, if bit coins could bounce back from their 2011 market bubble, then obviously their viabilty as a currency can survive a period of temporary instability.
The demand for Bitcoin is predicated on the existence of exchanges that allow Bitcoin to be traded for fiat currencies. Those exchanges are easy targets for a government wishing to ban Bitcoin within its borders.
This would be a much more successful avenue of attack for a government trying to shut down bitcoins, however I think that it would be difficult to completely eradicate conversion between fiat currencies and bitcoins. All it takes is for one government to allow such a conversion to their local fiat currency, and you can convert that to litterally any other currency in the world. Sure it might take more hoops, but I'm sure there are more than a few nations that wouldn't mind some extra influx of value to their currency should a large portion of the world ban digital currency to fiat conversion.
In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
If it's left up to one Government to determine what is and is not an illegal site,
Actually, that's the way most laws work:
In general, sovereign states determine what is and is not illegal within their domain, subject only to their "basic law" (i.e. Constitution) and the ability and willingness of the people to rise up and revolt and the ability and willingness of outside actors (typically other governments, but sometimes people or corporations) to sanction or to go war with the sovereign state if it does something that offends someone.
Google is hosted in the United States. It does business in other countries. If another country tells Google "don't allow our citizens to access XYZ or we will kick you out" or "don't allow site XYZ that is in our borders to be accessed through Google or we will kick you out" then Google has a choice: Play by the rules or pack up and go home.
Since Google is based in the United States, it is subject to United States laws. If the Federal Government (or the state government where Google operates) gives a lawful order to Google, Google has a choice: Obey the law or cease being headquartered in the United States. If the request has to do with US-based web sites or US-based users, the choice to move his HQ abroad isn't enough, it will have to both move abroad and exit the US market, or obey the law in question.
Now, fortunately for companies headquartered in the United States, we do have a working court system and if the government asks Google to do things that the government is prohibited from requiring Google to do, Google can say "no" and if the government keeps insisting on action, Google can go to court and get an order requiring the government to back off.
Also, fortunately for Google, it's sitting on more than enough cash to fight a legal war with the United States and not lose purely due to inadequate representation or legal attrition. Smaller companies and individuals on the other hand can be and are bullied to the point of suicide by the United States Government.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Seems the GP's argument needs to be modified. "A person's actions can not be punished until they are found guilty". This does indeed say that if someone kills people and robs banks, but gets away with it, they will not be punished (the actions are still illegal).
Google? Visa? RIAA/MPAA?
Or is Google going to cut funds to sites AFTER they are ruled illegal in a court of law?
The real problem is WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE. There is where freedom dies.
morcego