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.'"

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.

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: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: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.

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: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 [google.com] 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.