[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2010/09/wnpGu0.jpg[/newsimage]Should search engine giants like Google be more selective when accepting advertising customers and try to keep out those associated with piracy? Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/indie-filmmaker-google-not-doing-enough-to-prevent-piracy-34515/](http://www.myce.com/news/indie-filmmaker-google-not-doing-enough-to-prevent-piracy-34515/) Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
I’m not really thinking ads, but finding pirated content on google, was just as easy as finding pirated content on the pirate bay.
Google is linked to most of the websites on the internet. Like torrent sites have links to the torrents, google is linked to the torrent sites, that are linked to torrents.
To me thats pretty much the same level of infringing as a torrent index site that links to other torrents.
Not a surprise the RIAA/MPAA haven’t gone after google. It’s a little different when the company/person you are suing actually has the ability and means to fight back.
IMO, the Internet should have the same Constitutional guarantees regarding free speech (or maybe free content) as the press is afforded. That means no restrictions to what content a person can seek or receive. It chaps my a$$ to see the RIAA/MPAA etc. have no issues trampling our Constitutional rights so they can stick more money in their pockets.
Despite what Google may say about this issue: "â€œWeâ€™ve long had in place a policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),â€ A Google spokesperson said in a statement. â€œFor AdSense publishers, if we receive a notice of infringement, we may disable their participation in AdSense in accordance with the DMCA process.â€
Note the spokesperson’s use of the word MAY disable… Fact is, they do no such thing. AdSense accounts never get disabled. Google doesn’t want to put a dent in their AdSense income 2.6 billion dollars last quarter. Why mess with success?
We’ve filed dozens of DMCA notices with Google regarding pirate websites that feature AdSense ads adjacent to streams our pirated film (and dozens of others). Not once has Google disabled the pirate website’s AdSense account even after being notified about rampant piracy on said site.
Google’s tactic is to look the other wide and hide behind a curtain of so-called free speech. It’s not about free speech, it’s about theft, pure and simple. Google makes money, the pirates make money, the advertisers gain clients and the content creators get ZERO.
You are trying to restrict my ability to obtain information over the Internet. I see that as a restriction the same as telling me I can’t buy a certain magazine or newspaper. You should put your attention toward those breaking the law and not using a shotgun approach that infringes on everyone’s ability to obtain information via Google or any other search engine.
The Internet is something the RIAA, MPAA, etc. needs to adjust to and not think they can mold it for their own benefit and profit. If you want to ride the Tiger (i.e. the Internet) then don’t think you can steer him to where you want to go. You have to go where the tiger wants and adapt to that reality.
[QUOTE=UTR;2545795]You are trying to restrict my ability to obtain information over the Internet. I see that as a restriction the same as telling me I can’t buy a certain magazine or newspaper. You should put your attention toward those breaking the law and not using a shotgun approach that infringes on everyone’s ability to obtain information via Google or any other search engine.
The Internet is something the RIAA, MPAA, etc. needs to adjust to and not think they can mold it for their own benefit and profit. If you want to ride the Tiger (i.e. the Internet) then don’t think you can steer him to where you want to go. You have to go where the tiger wants and adapt to that reality.[/QUOTE]
I can do this thanks to Google.
It’s not a matter of prevent your ability to search Google, it’s about not allowing Google to make money (and provide revenue to) those who steal content outright. How is it ok for the website and Google to make money off a streamed (stolen) film when the content creator(s) earn nothing?
This isn’t about Google search results or anything of the kind…it’s about Google (and other ad companies) providing a mechanism and incentive for unsavory website operators to earn income.
The film distribution model is moving away from DVDs onto online delivery. With that evolution comes a parallel move of pirates online and providing stolen streamed content. They don’t do this out of altruism. They do it for profit and whether those profits come from ad dollars or subscriptions (very slick “legit-looking” websites) it undermines legitimate businesses. It’s not only damaging those who create content, but those who legally distribute it online and off.
It doesn’t matter if Google makes money or not. Magazines and newspapers make money, or try to make money, and Google is no different. You are just trying to hit an easier target (i.e. Google) instead of hitting at the entities that are actually breaking the law. IMO, you are just jealous of Google because they find ways to profit from the Internet conforming to its ebbs and flows. My guess is you really want to tap into that revenue stream Google has created since you can’t seem to change your economic model to adapt to current conditions or effectively prosecute those that are breaking the law. You (and the RIAA, MPAA etc.), on the other hand, are trying to profit as a parasite does.
Go fight your fight. I don’t care how you do it as long as it doesn’t affect my ability to get information over the Internet. If you try to influence Google’s ability to let me search, either by legal or economic means, then you are negatively affecting MY rights.
I’ll give you my take on the methods employed by the RIAA and MPAA to address piracy. They have failed miserably and in the process have made the public hate them. Not a smart move from a business aspect. If you and the others in the entertainment industry want to ride the “tiger” then find a way to make your content affordable and easy to obtain. You should be looking at mass quantity distribution at a low price point and not a tight fisted grip on content at a high price point. Work with ISPs, Google etc. to distribute your content to a vastly larger market instead of trying to make them your personal police force. One day you will realize you can’t steer the tiger. Then you will finally find a way to coexist in harmony with the Internet like others have done. If you don’t then you will go the way of the dodo bird and someone else will find a way to do what you should have done.
No–simply trying to hold Google (and many other smaller ad companies) accountable regarding their dubious “source” of income. Of course there are plenty of totally legit websites that utilize AdSense ads, which is great. It’s just not so great to have advertising adjacent to stolen content and make money off it…
Is it ok to walk into a store, take merchandise and sell it in a store down the street? No, it’s not. Aside from the fact movies are digital, how is it any different to steal a film, post it as a stream and make money selling ads? It’s theft either way you look at it…a form of online fencing if you will.
BTW, even when notified about a website that features pirated films and its AdSense ads, Google doesn’t sever their relationship with said website. They say the “may” do so, but in reality, that never seems to be the case.
As for Google being an easy target, ha. They can, and will continue to do, pretty much whatever they want.
The basic fact is Google is doing nothing illegal. Anything you propose that limits my rights to gather information over the Internet isn’t going to fly. Even if I want to know a list of web sites offering pirated content. Just because I search for doesn’t mean I will obtain pirated content.
By your logic I shouldn’t be able to buy blank DVDs or burners because I [B][I]might[/I][/B] make an illegal copy of a movie or CD to sell to a third party. Then, God forbid, Google might make money from sites selling media and DVD burners. It isn’t Google’s place to be the policeman of the Internet like you seem to think they should be.
I like you, UTR. Great responses.
[QUOTE=Blu-rayFreak;2545868]I like you, UTR. Great responses.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think entities like the RIAA, MPAA etc. understand the true nature of the Internet. It has become an unalienable right to every person, IMO. By that I mean it is a communication tool not unlike your vocal cords. People and/or business entities can operate on the Internet but they can’t change the basic function of it as a conduit to distribute information freely. I guess what I am saying is the Internet has become an unfettered conduit to facilitate the freedom of speech of all humans similar to writing books, distributing fliers or standing on a soap box on a street corner. Anyone that tries to limit that function of the Internet is inherently infringing on the rights of the people to freedom of speech and the freedom to transmit, and obtain, knowledge.
Personally, I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution regarding the right to have a free Internet similar to what is there for the right to have a free press. IMO, the Internet has become the greatest invention devised by man to disseminate knowledge and ideas. It should be afforded the highest protection we can give it to insure we all can use it equally and in an unrestricted manner. If someone abuses that right then they should be held accountable. We shouldn’t restrict the rights of everyone else because of the actions of a few people.
Typical tactics of the MPAA and RIAA. These people think the whole friggen world is supposed to disrupt it’s business to work for free for Hollywood. They want to control media storage technology and how devices are manufactured. They want to control broadcasting. The are continuously wanting to change protections of digital content on the consumer’s dime. They want to stop the recording of digital content by ruining devices and having them designed to their specifications. They want congress to pass and change laws. They want to destroy what is left of fair use. They want, they want they want.
You know what I want? I want the MPAA and RIAA to go straight to hell and get out of our lives. If they can’t run their business in the real world they need to get out and move on to something new. The modern world just doesn’t care about these whiners and schmecklers. Most Hollywod product sucks anyway.
before trying to get someone else to do the dirty work, media makers should do what they ought/can to stop their content getting to the internet themselves first. as they give copies of their films out to ‘friends/performers’, perhaps looking in that direction may help. on top of that, make the media available themselves on-line at their own sites, for sensible money, drm free and good download speeds. compete rather than quosh is the answer. most of the media makers also produce the burners and disks. people are expected to pay good money for these items, but then not supposed to use them? bloody ridiculous!!
If the site is a problem, go after the site, don’t go after the advertiser. I don’t know if it is illegal to accept ad revenue from a file sharing site, and if it was I doubt Google would risk the legal costs for a little revenue. Anyone can claim a site is doing something illegal, but it has to be proven, and not all countries have the same laws as the US, and not all of the ones that have treaties with the US and implimented our draconian copyright laws intreperts them the same way.
Stop trying to impose reason or logic into the equation, this is all politics and law, neither of which are rational or logical.