Media Companies Accuse Google Of Supporting Piracy

1. Yes Google is less than honest on keywords.
2. A program to look for files, be them 'illegal' or not is not illegal yet (I think, or have they bought that law too?)
3. A sealed disposition that people are talking about as if it was not sealed?

I guess by some of the definitions I have read, I am a Pirate since I have contributed to the decline in the sales of music and movies. I have not bought either in the past 10 years, so that means I MUST be downloading illegally...NOT!

Probably just a sales person trying to make a buck and it backfired on him. I wonder if Google has a policy about not selling to certain types of companies. If so, his hiney is on the line!

yes google does have rules against sites that offer copyrighted content on the site adsense is on.
»www.google.com/adsense/s ··· ium=link
Site Content

While Google offers broad access to a variety of content in the search index, publishers in the AdSense program may only place Google ads on sites that adhere to our content guidelines, and ads must not be displayed on any page with content primarily in an unsupported language. View a list of supported languages.

Sites displaying Google ads may not include:

* Violent content, racial intolerance, or advocacy against any individual, group, or organization
* Pornography, adult, or mature content
* Hacking/cracking content
* Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia
* Excessive profanity
* Gambling or casino-related content
* Content regarding programs which compensate users for clicking on ads or offers, performing searches, surfing websites, or reading emails
* Excessive, repetitive, or irrelevant keywords in the content or code of web pages
* Deceptive or manipulative content or construction to improve your site's search engine ranking, e.g., your site's PageRank
* Sales or promotion of weapons or ammunition (e.g., firearms, fighting knives, stun guns)
* Sales or promotion of beer or hard alcohol
* Sales or promotion of tobacco or tobacco-related products
* Sales or promotion of prescription drugs
* Sales or promotion of products that are replicas or imitations of designer goods
* Sales or distribution of term papers or student essays
* Any other content that is illegal, promotes illegal activity, or infringes on the legal rights of others

Copyrighted Material

Website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with content protected by copyright law unless they have the necessary legal rights to display that content. Please see our DMCA policy for more information.

google does check because they turned down one of my websites before for adsense not for illegal content but i hadnt finished the site yet and had a bunch of dead links so they denied it

Let's repeat:

It's a search engine...
It's a search engine...
It's a search engine...
It's a search engine...
It's a search engine...

There was that song by Justin Timberlake.... what was it again? Oh right! Now I remember... cry me a river.

MPAA / RIAA get your heads on straight, get with the 21st century, and stop typing in yahoo in the google search to get to yahoo.com for christs sake! ----- You know these fools do this too with the number of bad moves they have taken in the past.

--ssx--

p.s. Taylor if you are reading this I hope you have a nice day.

lol

sarcasm is a must whenever a user has to reply to a topic on this site.. its great

No pirate or facilitator of theft should go unpunished.

I was just thinking about that the other day...'How long will it be before they attack google?'

Ironically..I 'live searched' with Microsoft's online engine..sorta got the same stuff. Wonder if they'll attack them with all the money that MS has to burn...

I search for my "stuff" on a site/application that doesn't have ads.

The xxAAs lose from all angles!

Plus, I have .googlesyndication.com blocked.
I don't see ads.
YAY Outpost!

Hi Taylor!

Raising a stink about Google selling advertising space that caused the media companies to suffer a loss would be like me complaining that since Sports Illustrated sold advertising to Absolut vodka, and the drunk that hit me was drinking Absolut, that SI should be held responsible.

Why is it that the rules always seem to change once the medium changes to flowing electrons, moving photons, and magnetic states?

Let's repeat:

Google employees actively assisted those breaking the law.
Google employees actively assisted those breaking the law.
Google employees actively assisted those breaking the law.
Google employees actively assisted those breaking the law.
Google employees actively assisted those breaking the law.

Google has just as much money to burn as Microsoft, maybe more.

Actually..although I was thinking about that (google being attacked), I was still kinda surprised. Pretty sure that google can give those guys a good run for their money.

they have to prove that the download program was made for the sole purpose of piracy before calling out google on it.

Political correctness is married to Liberal values. Thus the end result.

/magic encoder ring encrypted message

But they are not OFFERING copyrighted content. The programs the offer are 100% legal. The fact that a user could use the program for 'illegal' purposes is mitigated by the fact that google is an INTERNATIONAL company. That means that laws like the DMCA don't apply, and the company advertising is fully legal in countries like sweden.

So, google has nothing to fear. US law doesn't apply.

What LAW are they breaking? If I'm a searcher from sweden, there are no laws being broken.

I agree, a bit off topic here but it is the same for those people who wanted to sue MySpace for their teens getting 'involved' with someone else and it is MySpace fault. I guess the next time I go into a bank or gas station and it gets robbed, i dont sue the robber but the bank or gas station for letting him in.

Everone knows the RIAA and MPAA are full of crap. They look about as honest and clean doing these tricks as our govenment is about doing this war. As more and more times goes by, more and more truth comes out.

Just pick a Google employee out of the crowd to pay that back. They are all millionaires.

Yes, that is their policy. It sounds like someone either misrepresented the website originally or it slipped through a crack.

When I applied with one of my sites a while back, that's the exact response I got: sorry your site violates our terms (warez).

1# Go to Google :|
2# Now enter the following query into the Search box.

?intitle:index.of? mp3 coldplay

Replace [artist] with the artist/singer/band you’re looking for and [title] with the song title. Just one of them also fine. For example:

?intitle:index.of? mp3 coldplay
?intitle:index.of? mp3 “simple plan”

?intitle:index.of? mp3 “simple plan” untitled

?intitle:index.of? mp3 “welcome to my life”

Look at the hits on the second search page 1 of 10 of over 53 million, lol Dadkins

IMHO, I outright, furiously and blatantly accuse Media companies of wanting censorship applied to the web foe their own financial gain.

So what if someone made $809,000, these very same Media companies spent more than a $million on adverts during the Superbowl alone.

I can hardly wait until they target Microsoft OS computers or monitor and video card manufacturers.

Where you been? What do you think the DRM in Vista is all about? Ever heard of the Trusted Computing Project? Have you read up on the technical hoops video card manufacturers have to jump through, and the built-in technology required in new graphics cards to disable or degrade the ability of the video card to play protected content at its default high resolution; i.e., the high resolution you paid over $300.00 to get in the first place? The assholes from the RIAA and MPAA have succeeded in pushing their agenda into the design, development and production of all technological means of delivering their content, limiting innovation, creativity and technical excellence from producing anything more than the astigmatic view their myopic vision allows.

Or, were you just being sarcastic...? Either way, it ain't funny, so wipe that smiley off your post, sir.

Ok, no more smiley face.

I read about the TCP, aka treacherous computing. Know enough not to buy Vista because of DRM.

Better read up folks. If you all think Vista is "Da Bomb" you must be smoking some wicked weed.

You better have some very and I do mean very deep "pockets" if you expect Vista to run as good as Windows XP does now.

»www.techworld.com/opsys/ ··· type=all

Vista crippled by content protection

By Chris Mellor, Techworld
PC users around the globe may find driver software is stopped from working by Vista if it detects unauthorised content access. Peter Guttman, a security engineering researcher at New Zealand's university of Auckland, has written A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. He reckons Vista is trying to achieve the impossible by protecting access to premium content. Users will find their PCs' compromised by the persistent and continuous content access checks carried out by Vista.

Disabling and degrading

Vista is disadvantaging high-end audio and video systems by openly disabling devices. The most common high-end audio output interface is S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format) which doesn't have any content protection. It must be disabled in a Vista system when DRM-protected content is being played. Equally a high-end component video interface (YPbPr) also has no content protection and must be disabled when protected video is being played.

CPU cycle guzzling

The O/S will use much more of a PC's CPU resource because 'Vista's content protection requires that devices (hardware and software drivers) set so-called "tilt bits" if they detect anything unusual ... Vista polls video devices on each video frame displayed in order to check that all of the grenade pins (tilt bits) are still as they should be.'

Also 'In order to prevent tampering with in-system communications, all communication flows have to be encrypted and/or authenticated. For example content sent to video devices has to be encrypted with AES-128.' Encryption/decryption is known to be CPU-intensive.

This comes right from Billy's mouth...

»keznews.com/2055_Bill_Ga ··· ..._of_t he_line

Three points Mr. Gates brought up that I found of particular interest were:

1. He "guarantees" that there will be a major new release of Windows in the next 2 to 4 years. This runs contrary to some of the analysts who have said that Windows Vista will be the last major release of Windows.

2. Windows Vista has helped bring hardware and software together. Microsoft has made a great effort to work with hardware vendors to make sure Windows Vista and new hardware devices work seamlessly together. Historically, Microsoft had been at a disadvantage compared to Apple because Microsoft only controls half the platform. But with Windows Vista, it has teamed up with hardware vendors to create a more seamless experience.

3. Microsoft made sure to get ahead of the memory limit curve this time. 32-bit Pentiums were 32-bit in addressing as well. It started the work during the XP time frame and even now, servers are moving to 64-bit platforms (WinCustomize.com runs 64-bit MS SQL Server on an AMD64 box). The challenge of 64-bit computing right now is getting the driver support. And "Windows Vista is our way of pushing the hardware vendors to strengthen 64-bit support now rather than later."

Sure sounds like a ME release to me. Something to fill the gap and MS pockets until the next real OS from them comes out.

The major concern to me with vista, it is the degrading of all visual and audio output just for content protection of HD media. If you don't have all your visual and audio hardware with the crappy resource draining protocol supported by your cards, monitors and speakers when non of the current hardware has the protocol even when the manufacturers say they do.

Vista wont be high on any content creators list of OS's to use simply because of the blurring and audio distortion on low end systems. The performance drain that the content protection adds is not going to be something MS will focus on either. Vista wont be much of a content development platform because of this. People will stick with XP or switch to Mac's and Linux if they haven't begun already switching to them.

I know, huh?

Your boy can find movies!
Too bad most movies are too sucky to watch.

Ummm, no. Google is a US based company and therefore must comply with all US laws. In fact, even if a company is based outside of the US they must comply with US laws if they wish to operate or even have a presence in the US. Check the news for the online casino executives who were arrested for simply passing through the US. Get with the program, if you operate in the US you follow the laws of the US or you get fined/arrested. Its that simple.
»news.google.com/news/url ··· sp&cid=0
»www.eog.com/news/industr ··· id=17850

Umm, NO. Google is supposed to follow the laws of the host country. Last time I looked, there were 243 countries in the world. And only ONE of them has the DMCA. So, google is CORRECT in that it's not violating the laws of the 95% of the people in the world live in. Get with the program, the US is a VERY small part of the world stage, and our influence grows less and less every day we chafe under the auspices of Her'bush.

Silly child, wrong again.

quote:

---

A number of U.S. laws apply to U.S. companies which conduct international business transactions. These are applicable, inter alia, when a U.S. company establishes a business operation in a foreign country.

A. Export controls under the Export Administration Regulations - (U.S. Department of Commerce):
- Prohibits export transactions regarding certain products and/or certain
country destinations; requires export licenses for certain transactions
- Export controls apply to, inter alia, (i) exports by a U.S. company to its foreign affiliates; (ii) sales by the foreign affiliate within the foreign country; and (iii) sales by the foreign affiliate to third countries
- Export controls apply to the export of both goods and "technical data" including software, technology, trade secrets, and other information
- Under the "deemed export rule" technical data can be "exported" by disclosing it to foreign persons in the U.S. and to foreign nationals who are employees of U.S. companies both in the U.S. and abroad; posting information on the Internet and similar computer networks can be deemed an "export" since such information is accessible in foreign countries
- Export controls apply to "re-exports" to third countries of U.S. products, U.S. technical data and foreign products based on U.S.-origin technical data
- Civil and criminal sanctions; up to ten years imprisonment; Justice Department may attempt to hold officers and directors of U.S. company liable for acts of its overseas affiliates

---

YAWN, arguing with you makes me tired. Being right is tough work, but somebody has to do it!!