Google vows to fight antipiracy bill even if passed

Post by electromagnetic » Thu, May 19, 2011, 11:21 PM UTC

powertower wrote: post #25

smokeyj wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the revenue from pirate sites disappeared Google wouldn't even blink. The pain in the ass is regulatory compliance. Hollywood wants IP enforced on Google's dime/technology, and Google doesn't want to be their bitch.

Just an example... When I used Google AdWords, 30% of the clicks came from Google "content partners" which where nothing more than link farms. I'd say that was a significant source of revenue for Google... So much so that Google even put up its own parked domain service to further its profits. If Google was "good", they would have either got rid of this 8 years ago, or never got into it in the first place. Don't unde…

Post by jerf » Fri, May 20, 2011, 2:10 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #26

jerf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is a nightmarish slippery slope situation for them." Stronger: This is an existential crisis for them. For as rich as they appear to be and for all the resources they seem to have, the task of curating the web is still an order of magnitude or two larger at least, and for certain strict interpretations of the law, this would simply crush them. And there is no chance that any politician will look at Google and s…

That's way overstated. The "curation" that is required here is, "Here is a list of domains that appear in court orders. Don't send ads to them with adsense, don't accept ads linking to these domains, drop them from search rankings." My reading of the law as written doesn't require more drastic action, such as scrubbing out links to them from blogs. That is, it isn't Google's responsibility to figure out who is infrin…

Post by smokeyj » Fri, May 20, 2011, 2:40 AM UTC

randomwalker wrote: post #29

Today I got to talk to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, one of the very few legislators who is fighting this. Here are my notes: http://33bits.org/2011/05/19/fighting-protect-ip-congresswom... There were some surprises for me. Here is the summary: Appeals to free speech and chilling effects are at best temporary measures in the fight against Protect IP and domain seizures. Even if we win this time it will keep coming back…

Post by jussij » Fri, May 20, 2011, 3:49 AM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #31

powertower wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an example... When I used Google AdWords, 30% of the clicks came from Google "content partners" which where nothing more than link farms. I'd say that was a significant source of revenue for Google... So much so that Google even put up its own parked domain service to further its profits. If Google was "good", they would have either got rid of this 8 years ago, or never got into it in the first place. Don't unde…

Justify with evidence please. Don't go spouting slanderous statements and have nothing to back them up with. If it's as obvious as you seem to be claiming then you shouldn't have any trouble backing up your point. Google's policy isn't to be "good", it's to "do no evil" and they are very, very different things. This legislation is dangerous like a bomb. If you integrate a system that can drop an IP address from globa…

Post by btilly » Fri, May 20, 2011, 4:44 AM UTC

palish wrote: post #34

btilly wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's way overstated. The "curation" that is required here is, "Here is a list of domains that appear in court orders. Don't send ads to them with adsense, don't accept ads linking to these domains, drop them from search rankings." My reading of the law as written doesn't require more drastic action, such as scrubbing out links to them from blogs. That is, it isn't Google's responsibility to figure out who is infrin…

And you see nothing inherently wrong with that task? (Otherwise, you'd label it as more than an "unpleasant task".) "Memory Hole" comes to mind.