Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC • Hacker News Board

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#31

Post by msy » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 2:54 PM UTC

zenspunk wrote: post #21

Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal? Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many re…

Fake anti-virus software, counterfeit pharmacies, counterfeit products in general, malware of all sorts. Google have been taking their money for years. They have the resources not to. That's pretty shitty behaviour that endangers their users in my book.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#32

Post by rryan » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 2:57 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #25

jbk wrote: post #9

Disclaimer: VLC dev and VideoLAN chairman I think the worse part of all this mess is that Google refuses to act and stop those. This was requested quite a few time and Google told us to go away because we didn't own all the trademarks in the US (even though we still have copyright). Moreover, the safe-browsing initiative, used in Chrome 12, is a complete joke. Reporting one of those websites make the safe-browsing re…

Well, this is about misalignment of incentives. If you are a search user, you are not Google's customer . You are their product . They sell you to people who buy adwords - whoever they may be.

OK, this line of reasoning is all over the place. All it does is expose that you know close to nothing about how Google works. There are in fact, many hundreds of engineers whose sole incentive (e.g. promotions and salary adjustments) and purpose in their job is to make sure that your search results are good.

These engineers are /not/ the engineers that are in charge of designing or running the systems that sell ads. In fact, those are two completely different divisions of the company. (If you would like to learn more about how Google works from the inside, I suggest reading Steven Levy's book "In the Plex")

Just because you do not pay for something does not mean it is not a product. If search was not good, people would go to a competitor. This is how Google got to where it is today, and bing.com is just a click away. This thread is about the quality of Google search results, and your argument is that Google does not care about the quality of your search results because they allow you to use it free of charge by inserting labeled advertisements.

To me, this is not a logical argument -- your emotions and sense of being wronged have taken over.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#33

Post by gaius » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:03 PM UTC

rryan wrote: post #32

gaius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is about misalignment of incentives. If you are a search user, you are not Google's customer . You are their product . They sell you to people who buy adwords - whoever they may be.

OK, this line of reasoning is all over the place. All it does is expose that you know close to nothing about how Google works. There are in fact, many hundreds of engineers whose sole incentive (e.g. promotions and salary adjustments) and purpose in their job is to make sure that your search results are good. These engineers are /not/ the engineers that are in charge of designing or running the systems that sell ads.…

Oh, I feel no sense of being wronged at all, this is not emotion speaking, it's cool-headed business analysis. There's no such thing as free, someone always pays, and if you think you are getting something for free, that only means that someone else is paying for it for you, and perhaps they want something in return. You can understand this and adjust your expectations accordingly, or you can get upset without really knowing why.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#34

Post by zenspunk » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:05 PM UTC

jbk wrote: post #27

zenspunk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: parent made a retrospective edit to add the link after I had made this post. So again, I ask: - is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report? - does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser? - or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued? - which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal? - h…

> is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report? Yes. They get money from advertisement, they should check reports. > does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser? No. If Google ToS banishes copyright infrigement, they can remove advertisers without questionning. > or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued? S…

>Yes. They get money from advertisement, they should check reports.

I don't see how one implies the other. Drug companies get money from selling ingredients for makeshift heroin, they should stop its use?

> CA, USA, of course.

And which laws? Should they block advertisers of euthanasia? Political groups? "Terrorist" groups? This is a very slippery slope.

> How do they solve spam on gmail?

No, if I were to submit many reports with different advertisers from different accounts, there's no way to detect that as spam. There's no comparison with email spam, which is a one-to-many medium.

>I disagree on Adsense, but agree on Search. Making money from illegal activities is illegal in most (if not all ) countries.

Why the distinction between Adsense and Search? Do they not profit from Search?

Google isn't making money via copyright infringement - it's only a byproduct of the actions of separate perpetrators. It's like Microsoft being held responsible for botnets.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#35

Post by zenspunk » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:08 PM UTC

jbk wrote: post #29

zenspunk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not read my post? I said they could easily (relatively) solve the issue of these guys turning up in search results. The problem they can't solve, I argue, is to ensure that people violating copyright law (of some arbitrary country) can't advertise with Adwords. Edit: Look, I can do retrospective edits too!

We speak here about US law, not arbitrary country, because that where Google is based. They can solve the problem of checking reports on US copyright violations with Adwords.

Google also does business and has employees and servers in many other countries. Why should they not enforce the laws of those countries too?

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#36

Post by numbsafari » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:09 PM UTC

zenspunk wrote: post #26

numbsafari wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google wants to be a useful search engine that returns relevant results. If they are returning links to malware/spyware/adware in exchange for money rather than linking to legitimate results, don't you think that is not only unethical but borderline illegal? If Google's product is US then they are effectively selling US to the malware/spyware/adware fiends. Google absolutely has the responsibility to return relevant,…

Did you not read my post? I said they could easily (relatively) solve the issue of these guys turning up in search results. The problem they can't solve, I argue, is to ensure that people violating copyright law (of some arbitrary country) can't advertise with Adwords. Edit: Look, I can do retrospective edits too!

Here's google's policy on copyright violations in AdWords:

https://adwords.google.com/support/select/professionals/bin/...

To quote:

"For AdWords and related programs such as Google AdWords Certification, if we receive a notice or otherwise have reason to believe that an advertiser's or client manager's site is infringing, we may remove the offender's advertising in compliance with the DMCA."

So, they already do this. The question is, whether or not the VLC team has submitted a complaint that meets their criteria.

My guess is that this is something the FSF should really get involved in, except they are probably too busy taking money from Google to talk up how "open" Android is to be bothered by a little pro-bono work from a hard-working group of OSS devs.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#37

Post by zenspunk » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:10 PM UTC

msy wrote: post #31

zenspunk wrote: post #21

Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal? Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many re…

Fake anti-virus software, counterfeit pharmacies, counterfeit products in general, malware of all sorts. Google have been taking their money for years. They have the resources not to. That's pretty shitty behaviour that endangers their users in my book.

>They have the resources not to.

This point is crucial. Could you elaborate?

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#38

Post by rryan » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:12 PM UTC

rryan wrote: post #32

gaius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is about misalignment of incentives. If you are a search user, you are not Google's customer . You are their product . They sell you to people who buy adwords - whoever they may be.

OK, this line of reasoning is all over the place. All it does is expose that you know close to nothing about how Google works. There are in fact, many hundreds of engineers whose sole incentive (e.g. promotions and salary adjustments) and purpose in their job is to make sure that your search results are good. These engineers are /not/ the engineers that are in charge of designing or running the systems that sell ads.…

Replying to self since we are at the max depth.

So, from the perspective of a business analyst, you are saying that Google has no incentive to ensure the quality of their search results because they don't receive any additional money from the people who use it?

That sounds like very short-term thinking to me, and Google is a famously long-term thinking company.

OT your line of reasoning reminds me of Excite when they were considering using Google's results. "[Google] was too good. If Excite were to host a search engine that instantly gave people information they sought, [Excite's CEO] explained, the users would leave the site instantly." [1]

[1] http://cdixon.org/2011/05/16/accurate-contrarian-theories/

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#39

Post by gaius » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:15 PM UTC

rryan wrote: post #38

rryan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, this line of reasoning is all over the place. All it does is expose that you know close to nothing about how Google works. There are in fact, many hundreds of engineers whose sole incentive (e.g. promotions and salary adjustments) and purpose in their job is to make sure that your search results are good. These engineers are /not/ the engineers that are in charge of designing or running the systems that sell ads.…

Replying to self since we are at the max depth. So, from the perspective of a business analyst, you are saying that Google has no incentive to ensure the quality of their search results because they don't receive any additional money from the people who use it? That sounds like very short-term thinking to me, and Google is a famously long-term thinking company. OT your line of reasoning reminds me of Excite when they…

No, of course they do, but only so you'll come back and can be shown more ads. And "incentive" is quite literal: ads are Google's main (only?) revenue stream. If they don't get eyeballs, they have no inventory of product to sell to their real customers.

Look, I'm not saying this is good or bad. But it is what it is.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#40

Post by omouse » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:15 PM UTC

How can you say "intellectual" property and GPL in the same sentence? That's fucked up, seriously. The whole point of the GPL is to help erode the copyright system and make it unnecessary.

Of course this situation is not specific to VLC, other open source products are affected by this scourge and there’s not much we can do about it. They have the money to buy adwords, we don’t. Sadly, as a non-profit organization we don’t have the money to sue them.

Really? You would sue them? That's kinda dumb don't you think? Kinda gives legitimacy to the shitty copyright system...

Anyway, my solution would be to ask for money so that you can afford to take some action.

The other half of this solution is to setup a few spammy/malware-looking websites that offer the genuine product. Out-spam the spammers! There must be a reason people are falling for the spammers' marketing after all.

And judging by the domain names, you failed to pick up on that marketing. They have some key domain names; downloadvlcplayer.net, vlcdownload.org, vlc-media-player-blog.com. Those domain names should have been bought up a while ago. Create a new domain, something like free-vlc-download.com.