Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I have google alerts set up on my name, and found that someone has pirated a number of my books (I have books published by major publishers around the world). In fact, the BLOG in question, hosted at blogspot has at least 100+ pirated e-versions of major business books and audiobooks which it makes available through those file sharing services.
..but of course, the kicker is that the pirate is using adsense to make money from the pirated versions -- probably, in fact, more than I make as a royalty.
and using a Google property -- Blogspot, to do so.
I know this can be dealt with eventually (I'm not the copyright owner so I can't file a DMCA), but here, you have someone using google to finance and make money from illegal activities.
If this is not "doing evil", I'm really not sure what is in the online world.
You'd think that the adsense folks, so informed of what is massive piracy based on adsense, would be able to take a look and take action immediately.
...sigh.
This is indeed, a side effect of the adsense business model
ASA
You can find instructions for filing a DMCA Infringement Notification for AdSense (and details on who can file it) here.
That really isn't my point, actually. We have a situation where google is informed of a site that has MASSIVE copyright violations (or at least is promoting that illegal activity), using Blogspot (a google company) and adsense to finance it (a google company), in such a way that a six year old can identify the illegal activity, but...
Google, having been so informed (here and via the feedback system) of this site, requires paperwork (email is not sufficient as it is with yahoo).
This is a serious no brainer, and the extent of the piracy involved is so big that it has to be well organized.
I think I'm going to communicate the details with my publisher (huge multinational) and see where they want to go with it, and let their legal departments decide who they want to chase, if anyone.
...so I'm content to leave the piracy going as evidence.
Betweeen google adsense, google blogspot, rapidshare, and the other companies involved in this instance, I'm sure there are enough deep pockets to chase down.
I know it's not as black and white as it should be with these issues, but if I come across a person on the street wearing a big sign that says:
Free stereos, boosted from trucks.
dya think I'd kinda "get it" without someone sending me a notice?
Bottom line is that in this case, adsense is providing a profit to pirates involved in this case. Somehow I don't think that's what google set out to do.
Bottom line is that in this case, adsense is providing a profit to pirates involved in this case. Somehow I don't think that's what google set out to do.
I'm not sure why you expect Google to be perfect, no online company is regarding these matters, what counts is what they do when they're being notified.
The only annoying thing with Google is they require paper instead of emails, while other companies somehow manage to do fine with it.
Without that, things become a lot more complicated for a business. They have a lot of legal obligations on their end when it comes to copyright infringement, and to keep their safe harbor status, they need to play by the rules set out in the law.
It's not evil, it's the way the law works. Just get in tough with the copyright owners and have them send it, or have them sign a paper giving you the right to represent them in such matters. But don't blame Google because they want to cover their own ass.
Fact: Google is providing the financial incentive to make the violation of these laws profitable.
Fact: Google can disable anything they choose, and often have in the past, without any explanation or justification.
Fact: Google can take action without a specific DMCA complaint (as they have with many publishers), and simply on the basis of their online TOS's.
These are basics facts. In addition, the site in question has over 200 (maybe more) e-versions of books from most major publishers, and it's clear that they are stolen.
Simply put Google doesn't need formal complaints to close down an adsense account or a blogspot.
I happen to despise the DMCA as a means of protecting copyright, but when it is used as an excuse for NOT stopping broad criminal activity, as it is in this case, and as exemplified by the previous posters, something is wrong.
I'm surely not losing much money here, but it is the principle involved.
So, to wrap up. I was notifed by google alert about the criminal site via google alerts, because google search is indexing it, from google blogspot, and financed by google adsense.
And we wonder why advertisers are hesitant about advertising on content network? And we, as adsense publishers are in competition for the same ads that are shown on these criminal sites (the ads for parts of the criminal site are the same ones that show on some of my pages).
Sometimes you need to look at the results, and the bottom line is that google is being used to run a criminal enterprise which probably could not exist without google's inaction.
That, in itself, is absolutely startling to me. You can provide any explanations you want to justify support of criminal acts, but support of criminal acts is support of criminal acts.
Remember, folks, that it's the people who play fast and loose with both the law, and adsense's terms of use that are and have been damaging OUR incomes, now, for years. The good guys compete with the bad.
(I'm sorry, but I'm a little hot on this issue. I'm tired of seeing our revenues drop while seeing criminals use the same system to make money. I could make much more money by stealing my own books and giving them away free, screwing the publishers and retailers.) Heck of a world.
and it's clear that they are stolen.
It never really is until someone actually complains.
the bottom line is that google is being used to run a criminal enterprise
You could also blame ISPs, Network and computer companies, Adobe, electricity...
You could also blame ISPs, Network and computer companies, Adobe, electricity...
Google is, in effect, paying them, and that makes it quite different.In your examples, you are talking about customers. It's really different.
I have complained. All they need is half an eye ball to take a look and spare me, the copyright holders (of which there are hundreds to notify), the publishers, etc, hours of work.
Why is it the victim here that pays?
I've actually been through some of this before with the DMCA. If someone steals a LOT, as in this case, it's really hard to notify the victims so they can take action. It should be possible to say: Google, here's a criminal you are supporting. Go to page such and such. It's obvious.
That is in fact how it used to be in the earlier Internet days.
I won't say anything beyond that. I hope you understand why I can't talk to you about any legal-sounding issues.
ASA
That is in fact how it used to be in the earlier Internet days.
Yes, the pre-OCILLA [en.wikipedia.org] days. (See the "Actual knowledge of infringement" section of the linked Wikipedia article, which is similar to comments made elsewhere in this thread.)
Can you also pass along that it would be nice to be able to file DMCA via email.
I won't say anything beyond that. I hope you understand why I can't talk to you about any legal-sounding issues.
Absolutely understood. I think it would be a great help to all if it was possible to ask google to look at a site to determine TOS issues, which would include gross copyright infringement. I've been at the forefront of a number of actions on copyright, and it's a huge frustration that the only person who has ANY standing to even comment on these illegal acts is the copyright owner.
So, if I, as a private person, stumbled across a multi-million dollar infringement scheme generating a million in adsense money, I can't even be heard by google because I'm not the copyright owner. That's absurd, although I recognize it's standard practice for most companies since the DMCA.
It is SO frustrating to see our illegal competitors stealing outright, getting adsense money, and there's nothing to be done.
We'll see about what I can do through my contacts, though. With times so tough I really hoped I wouldn't need to get back down to the batcave to fight evil-doers <grin>.
Once I realized Google was just ignoring me though I stopped reporting sites. The sites in question get huge traffic and a lot of times I think Google looks the other way when it's a big publisher.
Once I realized Google was just ignoring me though I stopped reporting sites. The sites in question get huge traffic and a lot of times I think Google looks the other way when it's a big publisher.
I think this is more than just an ethical issue, but maybe not. Clearly there is a problem with policing or taking action, and I know from experience that Yahoo's record with us on such issues has been absolutely terrible.
At some point, I think there are credibility issues, PR issues, and even stock price issues that may affect publisher revenues.
I've talked about this elsewhere but anything that calls into question the business practices of google, has the potential to diminish people's desire to click on google ads.
I think google has gone beyond the "safe zone" in terms of laxness in enforcing its existing rules, and overall I think even casual visitors know that a good percentage of google ads lead to junk.
To me all these issues speak to quality, and the perception of quality, and while google may still "be in the lead", I think the spiral has plunged downward. And when google is perceived as a purveyor of junk, no doubt it will continue to drive CTR, and visitor interest down.
Certainly, this particular hotbed of piracy is so enmeshed with google in so many ways that it's a law suit asking to happen or a PR mess.
Ads by google used to have credibility. Being involved in piracy, having horrible standards for sites, allowing spam sites to promote, the whole ball of messy wax, have changed the meaning and value of "ads by google".
Anyway, watch for the continued progression unless Google drastically addresses quality and user perception to correct their initial HUGE errors.
Scalable systems are great, but employees and human are required to create quality, and sooner or later, you have to face that as a business.
Hope I've explained the connections here.
In terms of public perception, it's probably better to have AdSense ads on a great stolen page than on a lousy original page. Google may have good reasons for closing down the accounts of content thieves--such as avoiding lawsuits--but maintaining credibility with Joe User isn't one of those reasons.
As much as I'm opposed to copyright infringement, I don't think the average user cares at all about who owns the intellectual property he's reading or viewing--or that he looks down his nose at AdSense or Google because he sees AdSense ads on a pirated page (especially since he's unlikely even to have thought about whether the page's content is original or stolen).
I guess we'll have to disagree. Everyone I know who uses the Internet is aware of the issues of piracy. I know a number of people who ask me, when I've offered to provide some images, or other things to them for free, whether they are "legal", because they won't have anything to do with anything pirated.
These are "regular" people. They buy software, and don't steal it. Same with music, video, etc.
I, for example, can, like many, access almost anything pirated that I like, because I'm good at finding things, but if there's music or a cd, music video or anything I can purchase, I purchase it and don't steal it. Heck, I'm not lilly white, but as an advertiser, I sure as hell don't want to advertise my books on pages where people are going to steal books at no cost.
Anyway, lots of people have no concerns, but many do. Who knows what the real numbers are.
But let me ask you something. I assume that our reactions when you see adbrite ads is different than when you see adsense ads.
Why is that? Speaking for myself, I see adbrite ads on many sleazy sites on the shady sides of the law, and the content of the ads themselves are..well...let's say, often questionable.
I've experimented with adbrite as a pub. and advertiser, very briefly, and due to their "low quality" both sides, I quickly decided not to have anything to do with them. Can't afford to have my business associated with businesses who support illegal activities, piracy, #*$!, etc.
I think it DOES make a difference, and particularly for those in my demographic (both me and my visitors) which are high income, professional, highly educated, business oriented, success oriented, and I like to think, have some rudimentary ethical standards.
Maybe for other demos, it's irrelevant.
Anyway, MY Joe User DOES care, some a little, some a lot, and again, I think overall google needs to attend to quality issues like, last year, not next year.
The novelty, flash, etc of adsense ads if finished, and CPM, CTR and total revenue will trend downward. This is probably not reversable at this point, but the downtrend will continue faster unless google rehabilitates itself.
Oh...THOSE things, visitors are saying about the ads. I didn't even see them. There's nothing worthwhile there.
...and by and large, with the junk ads, they are right.
We are about halfway to reducing our adsense impressions by half as our first step. We'll assess, and if the present trends maintain, we'll wait a month, then drop by another half.
..and to us, it's quality, it's perception, it's usefulness and it's relevance, and adsense is not providing that to us as it was before.
We'll also look at our advertising budget anew shortly and whether we want to increase or decrease it based on whether we perceive content sites and search results are of sufficient quality and provide ROI.
Heck, it's important to me.
I feel your pain. Our stuff is also frequently ripped/stolen, often on pages with Adsense on it. *sigh*
Just wait for the outcome of the Viacom-Youtube case. This will affect the future of the net more than anything else. In case Viacom wins, expect copyright owners (like your publisher) start chasing infringements and starting lawsuits. Big time.
And yes, I think Google IS evil.
It seems to me, at least in a full DMCA compliance cases, that Google should voluntarily turn over to an author all income from "violation pages", as well as the correlated income that Google should recoup from Google's Adsense publisher-partner.
Has Google ever turned over monies earned from pages "removed" via the DMCA process? Not that I have ever read.
THAT would be the right thing to do, voluntarily, even if it means sending out checks for $.37 and backcharging their publisher-partner-infringer, if Google can.
A music clip from a blockbuster movie released last year. Put together by a Youtube user, using scenes from the movie. Using one of the music tracks from the movie. Superb quality. But the "kicker" is in the description: a link to a file sharing site WHERE THE COMPLETE SOUNDTRACK IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. In highest quality. For free.
800,000+ views.
You think Google cares? Not one yota. And no, it is not a video clip published in one of the "official channels".
The first real problem I see with all of this mess is dealing with copyright infringment that originates from outside the US which is the vast majority of it.
The second real problem I see is that we have no real method of defining serious offenses vs obviously flagrant claims. We had one filed against us that was a obvious mistake due to the size of the company, one hand didnt know what the other was doing. This was over a single paragraph of text.
This shouldnt eat up the same resources at Google as say a page distributing warez or a page distributing millions of copies of a book or movie. These are very serious offenses and the primary reason for the DMCA act to be passed in the first place.
The whole system has been clogged with ridiculous claims. Here is a test someone did that highlights my points.
[dmca.cs.washington.edu...]
The resulting network would be much smaller than it is now. It would also be far more elitist than the current network, and it would leave hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of current AdSense publishers--including most members of this forum--without revenue from contextual ads. But it would eliminate a major incentive for copyright infringement overnight.
All in favor, raise your hands.
But I think there is some mis-understanding of the DMCA situation here. Service providers are only protected by the DMCA safe harbour if they do not earn money from the infringing activity. That is why you see so few ads on Youtube videos (Google can not be sure whether the video might be infringing or not, and thus they can not monetize the majority of the videos). In this context it does not matter whether the infringement is "serious" or "obviously flagrant" as long as it is an infringing activity. Infringement is infringement, regardless of the degree of infringement.
In other words: IF the service provider IS earning money from the infringing activity, THEN he is not protected by the DMCA safe harbour. ("Fair use" might apply though, which is very limited. If the infringing service is earning money from the infringement, it will be hard to call the infringement "fair use".) Thus, the whole DMCA notification process does not apply. Copyright owners can directly take such cases to court. Chances to win such a case might be even better if you notified the infringing service provider of the infringing activity, and they took no action (all the while earning money from the infringing activity).
But as I said - I am not a lawyer, so the best advice would be to see an IP lawyer.
The real trend in the court cases is that DMCA provides a method, and as far as the courts are concerned, that is the method you should use.
As for Google being able to terminate accounts for any reason that they choose, that simply isn't true, any more than a business can refuse service to anyone. Once a legally limited reason enters into it, they need to follow the law when it comes to dealing with that case.
As for Google being able to terminate accounts for any reason that they choose, that simply isn't true, any more than a business can refuse service to anyone. Once a legally limited reason enters into it, they need to follow the law when it comes to dealing with that case.
Dave, if the above is to be credible, you'd have to explain the hundreds, and probably thousands of adsense accounts (and adwords accounts too) that google has terminated without explanation, specifics or other information. You'd also have to take the position that the TOS we all agree to is invalid, since the termination clauses are there.
So, I'm not buying your contention at all. Google can terminate any business relationships with adsense partners at will, whenever they choose just as we can terminate that relationship.. No reasons needed. The ONLY exceptions occur when a person might have grounds to content that termination was based on discrimination against a protected class, and that's impossible to prove anyway.
The bottom line on this particular situation, now updated. Someone has gone to great effort to make over one THOUSAND books available illegally on the net over the last three months, then monetizing this through adsense.
These are complete books. Published by major publishers. There is no issue of permissions, or fair use, or anything else.
This is massive criminal activity. Google can terminate the site and the adsense account, and I see no reason why it should not based on a "on its face" 20 second look at this site.
It's slick. It's professionally done. It's clear, as clear as it would be if you stumbled onto a site with 1000+ software programs from adobe, microsoft, etc.
I know google can't work miracles, but they can shut off the flow of cash going to that site via adsense. I haven't heard any good reasons here to change my mind, and if they take their social responsibilities seriously, then the need to take that action.
You've said "I think I'm going to communicate the details with my publisher." What's to think about? Reporting the infringement to your publisher should have been your first step, since the publisher is the copyright holder and has the legal standing (not to mention the moral responsibility) to demand action from Google.
I am not terribly concerned about MY situation, per se, but with the principles involved, so telling me to kick into motion a process that should be completely unnecessary and IS unnecessary legally isn't helpful.
I think google should take on the responsibility, and it's a common sense one, that when something completely obvious is reported and is illegal, that google exercise its moral, practical and contractual rights to terminate the offender(s).
Do you think that if the issue was slightly different - say, displaying adsense ads on sites that showed graphic body parts of murder victims, that google would delay, or require the family of one of the victims to complain?
Of course not. The same for other similar situations where, there are illegal acts taking place of violations of TOS that a 6year old child would recognize as conclusive.
But what you are suggesting is that I, as a victim of this, since it potentally affects royalties, have to contact the copyright owner of the books, who in turn will probably contact the major publisher(s) of the books, who will then send it to the legal department, who will draft a letter, and send it to google who will then....
you get the point. It will take weeks, and a large investment of time and money on the part of the victims.
If this was gray, yes, I understand. DMCA all the way. This isn't. These folks are criminals and it's obvious, clear to anyone who looks.
The laws are flawed -- not google's fault. They have opportunities to step up on these issues, because they CAN termininate (as they often do) without warning, long investigation, or any paperwork sent to them.
I expect that from a company that professes to have principles to abide by. Or for that matter, any company, since I believe it is in its own self-interest (many will argue that point the other way). I believe ethics have practical positive implications for long term business success.
Some don't.
Google' brand is already damaged because of their long term violation of basic principles regarding quality. THis would be a good time to start their rehabilitation.
Or, they can be adbrite.
I believe I WILL take some time (and hopefully google will NOT terminate the sites) and report these folks to the major players who will create scorched earth for these people to walk on. I'm not a fan of the rabid organizations that bully and threaten to get compliance but if that's what it takes, google, adbrite (who is also displayed on these sites), the file sharing networks, etc, can content with the RIAA, Microsoft, Adobe, Prentice-Hall, etc.
So, I've convinced myself that whatever google would do is so minor, it's not worth pursuing.
I figure I can spend 10 minutes a day submitting documentation to the online reporting systems set up to report piracy. The chips will fall wherever.
Thanks for the comments. I'll let people know if anything comes of it. This is a BIG target for the big boys to hunt, and these big boys WILL hunt virtually around the world.
