Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Proposes Fighting Piracy By Blocking Ad Money

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the george-carlin-would-approve dept.

Piracy 202

judgecorp writes "Google has published a report, written by the Performing Rights Society and BAE Detica, which says the way to fight piracy is not to chase the sharers, but to cut off the money in the system. 'Some 86% of advertising on the pirate sites surveyed by Detica comes from networks that have failed to sign up with the UK’s self-regulatory bodies or commit to strong codes of conduct. More than two thirds of the sites that rely on subscriptions or payments display well-known credit card logos. Online advertisers should be encouraged to sign up to self-regulatory codes of conduct. Credit card and online payment facilities, the pirate’s oxygen supply, must be blocked.'But is Google absolutely sure it isn't doing that with AdSense?"

cancel ×

202 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dunno, might help but not solve problem (5, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40534945)

Cutting off the pirates' oxygen supply will help with the bigger outlaw commercial operators. But it won't faze ThePirateBay in the least. Until somebody can come up with a solution to that one, the problem isn't likely to get solved. Longer term though, the bandwidth caps are going to do more to curb the problem on the Internet than anything law enforcement could ever do.

Eventually we will rediscover the bandwidth of sneakernet. Not much to be done about that one. And it gets worse.

Ponder this one 'content industry'... How much storage would it take to store every popular song? How easy is it to pass that around? All somebody needs to add is a P2P phone app that works over WiFi to continually sync new songs in as people socialize. Poisoning might be a problem but hashes can resist that. Somebody really serious about peeing in the industry's corn flake could solve the problems and post 'an app for that.' We are getting close to carrying around enough storage so that every kid could just expect to have 'everything' ever released on a major label sitting in their mobile device. Just a few more turns of Moore's Law. How much longer until the same thing happens with TV & movies? Forget the cloud and monthly fees or paying by the minute, just have every movie or tv show ever made riding around on every phone.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535111)

But it won't faze ThePirateBay in the least. Until somebody can come up with a solution to that one,

I wasn't aware ThePirateBay was a "problem"?

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (-1)

six025 (714064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535297)

But it won't faze ThePirateBay in the least. Until somebody can come up with a solution to that one,

I wasn't aware ThePirateBay was a "problem"?

Sure, it's a problem for some of us. You could argue that TBP is "great advertising" because it allows users to "Try Before By" software from ISV's for free, and then buy if they like it ... but we all know how often that works out in favour of the ISV's don't we ;-)

Peace,
Andy.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

rockout (1039072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535625)

But getting back to his original point, how will this affect TPB in the least? I know that the private trackers I frequent (2 for music, 1 for TV, 1 for movies - most of you could name these with 100% accuracy wink wink) none of those 4 has advertising on their sites. It wouldn't even cause a blip on their radar.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

six025 (714064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536079)

But getting back to his original point, how will this affect TPB in the least?

Probably about the same as it affected your favourite "Canadian.VIAGRA Pharmacy" :)

Peace,
Andy.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536551)

But getting back to his original point, how will this affect TPB in the least?

It will affect TPB (which has ads) by cutting off ads. Duh.

I know that the private trackers I frequent (2 for music, 1 for TV, 1 for movies - most of you could name these with 100% accuracy wink wink) none of those 4 has advertising on their sites. It wouldn't even cause a blip on their radar.

Did you miss this part?

Credit card and online payment facilities, the pirate’s oxygen supply, must be blocked.

Private trackers cost money, they get it by ads, subscriptions, or voluntary donations. Hence the two-pronged attack -- go after the ad networks to vet sites, and go after the payment processors to vet sites, and you've blocked all three sources.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536763)

Many (not all) of them have "Premium" subscription or donation type things. The summary even points out that they're referring to not just advertising networks, but also to payment providers (like PayPal). If the pirate sites can't get ad money, donation money, or subscription money, how are they meant to survive? Exactly.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535639)

Do we? Where do you take your data from? The research financed by the big labels? Maybe the same research that generated this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/24/the-riaa-do-not-believe-a-word-they-say-ever-for-theyre-claiming-72-trillion-in-damages/ [forbes.com]

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (4, Insightful)

six025 (714064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535995)

Do we? Where do you take your data from?

Personal experience from both sides of the debate - as a former warez user who paid lip service to "Try Before Buy", but now works with an ISV (Independent Software Vendor, if you don't know what it means ...).

The research financed by the big labels? Maybe the same research that generated this

No. These mega-corporations are lying to us, that's obvious.

Working for an ISV helped me realise that downloading and using software from small indie developers without paying for it benefits no one but myself. It certainly doesn't benefit the indie developer in any way!

Nothing sinister. No **AA involved. Just honest, hard working developers with a passion for building products that help people get things done. In the case of these ISV's there generally isn't the luxury of running an international cartel dedicated to screwing over the rights of artists and consumers. We know that piracy hurts our business - at least to a certain extent - but that seems to be lost on people who consider anyone with a website and products to sell to be in the same league as $$MEGA_CORPORATION$$.

Peace,
Andy.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536101)

The truth is, there is no data that links downloads with selling losses. Be it for big corporations or indies. Some indies got rich because of p2p, others may have been harmed by it. Corporations are probably harmed by it, but how much? Nobody really knows, and certainly not enough to justify the witch hunting US and its aligned countries have been practicing against end users.

All in all apparently the great majority of people do not think piracy is wrong, and considering we are living in Democratic countries last time I checked, where it is very tricky to keep the population from doing what the majority wants. Copyright had its purpose, but it is not useful anymore for the human race. Its drawbacks far outweight any good it brings at this point. People know this and no matter how much big money or governments try, they will always fail to enforce what most people do not want enforced.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536565)

While I partly agree, the concept that piracy always hurts is a misnomer. In the case of indie games I would consider piracy a neutral force. Sometimes piracy brings to mainlight games that few would have tried. People saw the game but didn't think it was worth the money, after pirating and playing it, suddenly realized it was worth the money and paid for, while other times people pirate the game and are happy to just stick with the pirated version. I don't know of any in depth legitimate study that isn't brazenly wrong to the point of assuming one of 2 false ideas.

1. Everyone who would have paid will pay for software regardless of if they pirated it or not.

2. Everyone who pirates a game, absolutely would have purchased it if they hadn't pirated it.

Both overgeneralizations are equally bogus, the truth of the matter is somewhere inbetween, one thing I can say though, is the actual value of the game is a huge factor. Anyone who downloads the game, and feels it isn't anywhere near worth the money it costs, is a guaranteed lost sale. IMO the absolute best of both worlds, is when games have both as single player and an online mode, as the online mode is sort of a carrot, that pirates can rarely actually crack, but the single player is something that gives people a solid idea of the depth of the gameplay. IE games like left4dead etc... do very well with this model. Of course that dosn't work for every game, no shortage of games just can't translate to have an attractive multiplayer mode, however even something simple like an authenticated high scores table etc... can translate theft into sales. The kind of play and the cost of the games influence the percentage of pirates turned to sales, and IMO developers using the right practices can very often find ways to turn many cases of piracy into sales, often in ways that generate more sales than the game would have had without the piracy. Piracy can't and won't be stopped, IMO it takes a different way of looking at it to turn a "problem" into a marketing plan.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (4, Interesting)

camperslo (704715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535967)

I wasn't aware ThePirateBay was a "problem"?

We really should have this conversation about something else that is a far more serious problem that could be fought in a similar way. We should ban paid political media ads to cut the cash flow chain of political corruption.

Many serious problems in the world, including the financial crisis, can be traced back to crony capitalism, where money taken in through campaigns or funneled directly to media during campaigns buys influence leading to regulatory changes that are contrary to the public interest. Additionally, misleading ads also distort public perception. An informed public is crucial to the proper functioning of democracy.

Attempts at controlling fund raising have been a dismal failure. What's needed is similar to the what the story here suggests. Ban PAID political advertising in the media, and bring back local media ownership. Controlling what online would be more difficult, but that is needed too. The changes could be done at the FCC level and not involve campaign laws. Media owners would be subject to fairness rules governing informative public service time that the GIVE away.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

Alimony Pakhdan (1855364) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536289)

For me as a small label owner, they and their like are a problem.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535293)

TPB runs ads -- how do you conclude cutting off ads revenue won't hurt them?

As for people walking about with a complete music library, that's just delusional; a typical song at high quality is 5 MB, a typical album is 10 songs, or 50 MB, so a 64 GB device can only hold 1000 albums. That's about 6 months' worth of the US & UK output alone. Quibble with my numbers if you like, but there's no way your getting two orders of magnitude out of that.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535501)

As for people walking about with a complete music library, that's just delusional; a typical song at high quality is 5 MB, a typical album is 10 songs, or 50 MB, so a 64 GB device can only hold 1000 albums. That's about 6 months' worth of the US & UK output alone. Quibble with my numbers if you like, but there's no way your getting two orders of magnitude out of that.

He did mention Moore's Law. In the last couple of months I can recall a couple of articles about predicted hard drive sizes in the next 10 years. It may very well go up a couple of orders. If a portable device had a couple hundred TB, or even a PB, then we could very well be in a different ball game.

Will sizes increase? For music I cannot imagine by much. Certainly not orders. Even FLAC is not more than several times the size. Movies could possibly increase in size.... but to what real value? Do you need 10000x10000 pixels on a mobile device? Storage sizes will increase far more rapidly than file sizes.

He also mentioned apps. I use an RSS feed to automatically download stuff all the time. It is not beyond reason to expect that one could be automatically downloading certain genres of music and movies. Slacker already does this for me when it caches popular stations.

Does it have to be everything? No.

Even if people just walked around with the most current and popular content being automatically synced across portable devices it could be the endgame for content providers.

Given people's penchant for sharing, that may well be a possibility. Writing is on the wall. People's behavior is limited by two factors, laziness (convenience) and availability of technology. The desire to do this is already there.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

Known Nutter (988758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536637)

Even if people just walked around with the most current and popular content being automatically synced across portable devices it could be the endgame for content providers.

And, one might argue, an endgame for content, too. The counter-argument to which is usually something along the lines of smaller, independent content creators rising up to fill the void. Just remember, those guys aren't always what's "most current and popular..."

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535523)

Exactly my point. Right now you could easilly walk around with blocks like:

Billboard Pop Charts - ALL
Billboard R&B/Soul/etc - ALL
Billboard Country - ALL
And so on.

With "ALL" defined at first as the Top 100 chart for every year since they made a chart. You can do that now, the Pop chart will fit on a 32GB MicroSD card. Soon every song that charted, period. A little later every album from a major label that charted. Then every album from a major label, period. It is coming. Inexorable, unstoppable. And with video just a couple of generations behind. And once the back catalog is on everyone's device keeping up with new content is easy enough. It could be done. It would drive sales of storage at a time when little else seems to be enticing people to move beyond the fairly small sizes available today.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536379)

Ok, I guess we have different definitions of "getting close to" -- and I did overlook "Just a few more turns of Moore's Law", which does clarify your definition, so my fault.

Still, I'd like to know why you think TPB is immune -- if you ask me, usen^Wfightclub is much more nearly immune, although the talk of locking down payment portals could interfere with that, too.

(This, of course, is ignoring that you can't block ad networks from working with pirate sites -- when you limit the ones in your jurisdiction, you've just made an attractive niche for ones out of your reach to take over.)

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536513)

> that you can't block ad networks from working with pirate sites

Of course not. But if they get serious about cutting off the air supply they probably can. If they stop trying to sue little old ladies for downloading (and losing that PR war) and use the newly developed ability to track illicit money on the Internet to dry up the ability to make enough money to pay for hosting you could remove most of the sites that make it easy to find stuff on the trackers. And you could probably even go after the trackers and force everything to magnets. There are weak points in the networks they haven't yet expended the effort to go after in earnest because they were betting on just scaring off the users with high publicity low cost lawsuits.

If they decide that tactic is costing them more in goodwill than it is driving sales they will eventually adapt. They aren't quite dinosaurs, just a bit slow witted. Then we shall see just how well the pirates can really adapt.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536629)

Tax havens, allow Politicians to strip mine their countries assets, allow arms dealers to trade in weapons, allow major drug dealers like the CIA to launder their money, allow corporations to cheat on hundreds of billions in taxes globally, allow organised crime to hide their assets, allow hundreds of millions in bribes to be paid top corrupt countries all over the globe, allow for assassins to be more readily paid, facilitate global espionage payments basically they allow every kind of corruption to occur that requirements the transfer of money. All of a sudden tax havens are going to draw the line at naughty advertisement income. Google you morons, you cheat on taxes in every possible way, just as advertisements via spam and copyright infringement will cheat.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535321)

Ever read this?

http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/1/3/inside-the-cell-phone-file-sharing-networks-of-western-africa-q-a

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535351)

You don't seem to remember much from history... The first "Big dog" in piracy was Napster, and they flourished at a time when the vast majority of the public had 56k connections at best. More often than not even slower speeds. All bandwidth caps do is drive consumers to lower quality encoding. The major media outlets probably don't realize it, but this hurts them the most. Despite the fact that they think "pirates" are some parasitic new species that in now way puts money into their system it's quite the opposite. Some of their biggest customers are pirates. The fact of the matter is, they can't get what they want. Which is any movie/show they want at any time, in decent quality at a reasonable price. The media industry seems to think that $300+ per month is a reasonable price for a cable/satellite connection that has "all" the channels, is choked with ever increasing commercials and isn't even on-demand. Add to that, the fact that your forced to scroll through hundreds of channels that you don't want, due to horrible packages forced on the cable providers by content producers.

Piracy is driven, solely, by the media industry that's complaining about it. They could end it tomorrow if they wanted to. But they have this rediculous pipe dream that the internet will lead to them cutting costs by not having to produce physical copies of their media any longer, but at the same time they can raise the price of that very same media. Sorry, that's not going to happen guys. It's 2012, time to get a clue.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535447)

>>>All bandwidth caps do is drive consumers to lower quality encoding

Yep. I still use 56k downloading when stuck in hotels w/ no internet. It takes about 4 hours per episode, and the quality is the same as VHS tape. That may seem like a long time but the electricity is free, and my laptop has nothing better to do anyway except download. I get six TV episodes per day to watch... plenty of entertainment.

>>>industry seems to think that $300+ per month is a reasonable price for a cable/satellite connection that has "all" the channels

Aren't you exaggerating a bit? Comcast charges around $100 and Dish just $50 for hundreds of digital channels.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (4, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535769)

>>>industry seems to think that $300+ per month is a reasonable price for a cable/satellite connection that has "all" the channels

Aren't you exaggerating a bit? Comcast charges around $100 and Dish just $50 for hundreds of digital channels.

No, he's not.

Shaw cable up here in Canada encrypts their channels. It's $150 a month plus equipment rental, which is required by the service and flaky as fuck to boot. If you want to get decent HD selection (let's go out on a limb and say HBO HD), you're looking at at least $225 with taxes.

The fact is, it's cheaper, easier, and more reliable for me to just rent my entertainment. Nothing down, nothing a month.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535997)

I just got cable with Cogeco, who I thought was owned by Shaw. The equipment rental is under $10 / month and I'm paying around $60 / month for HD and I get MOST of the channels. And it would have cost less than $100 to get ALL. But basic + "select" had the majority of the channels that I really wanted, and for somewhere around $6 / more I could select one package so I got one that had documentary and some channels my daughters wanted. After taxes, equipment rentals included, I'm paying around $80 / month and that's most of the channels, HD.

Where in Canada is Shaw charging $150 - $225 ?

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535785)

Aren't you exaggerating a bit? Comcast charges around $100 and Dish just $50 for hundreds of digital channels.

The number of channels is meaningless, really. The right metric is the fraction of content broadcast per unit time that you would actually sit down and watch (remember that you pay per unit time even when you arent watching anything.) Due to high rates of repetition of the good while the bulk being utter crap anyways, "hundreds of channels" doesnt tell anyone anything.

The reason his "all the channels" comment is meaningful is because those packages maximizes the amount of content available. No sacrifices.

The right way to drive into his "all the channels" comment is not by going after the number of channels, but instead by going after the cost per desirable content that you need to pay, which is likely to be minimized on the most basic of packages instead of either the "hundreds of digital channels" packages that you are talking about or the "all the channels" packages that he is talking about.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536609)

You raise an interesting question: is commodore6502 actually a commodore64_love sockpuppet? The name similarity is obvious, and they're both borderline retarded, and for some bizarre reason they're both obsessed with dialup internet access. But the question is why? They don't reply to each other, they don't really have an agenda, commodore64_love didn't get modded into oblivion (eventually they stopped giving me mod points). If it is a sockpuppet, it has to be the most pointless sockpuppet of all time. Personally, I think some kind of bizarre separated at birth story is more likely. Some borderline retarded mother was driving down the road one day when her twin baby sons both jumped out of the car window, smashed skull first into the pavement over and over and over again, and then rolled into ditches on opposite sides of the road. This all happened right as a Commodore64 Fanclub meeting was getting out, and two independent couples coming from it each noticed a baby on the side of the road and took it home. Meanwhile, the mother had a similar IQ to her two sons, so by the time she got home she had long since forgotten she ever even had kids, and the two children grew up independently, never knowing the other existed.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1, Interesting)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535703)

> The media industry seems to think that $300+ per month is a reasonable price for a cable/satellite connection that has "all" the channels, is choked with ever increasing commercials and isn't even on-demand. Add to that, the fact that your forced to scroll through hundreds of channels that you don't want, due to horrible packages forced on the cable providers by content producers. Piracy is driven, solely, by the media industry that's complaining about it.

This is the 'ol "It's not my fault I pirate, it's your fault for [insert overblown claims about how the industry mistreats consumers]". There are plenty of ways to pay for content without buying a "$300+" cable subscription. It's retarded to claim this is the only way to get it. Redbox, Netflix, Amazon video on demand, music subscription services, etc. They're all cheaper than $300+ a month. The fact of the matter is that people still pirated the Humble Indie Bundle and it was "pay what you want". Sorry, you can't fool us into believing that the problem is some imaginary $300 / month subscription fee - we know that pirates are the problem.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536151)

people still pirated the Humble Indie Bundle and it was "pay what you want

And they wanted to pay $0. What's the problem??

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536485)

Sorry, you can't fool us into believing that the problem is some imaginary $300 / month subscription fee - we know that pirates are the problem.

The false dichotomy here is thinking only one of them can be the problem. Clearly they have a problem with people whose sole reason for piracy is to save money, whether it's cheapskates who pirate when they can and buy when they must or freeloaders who wouldn't pay anyway, but demoralizes the paying customers - why should they pay when the freeloaders don't. Because of that they're implementing copying restrictions and DRM systems and region codes, annoying unskippable warnings which is also abused for trailers and commercials, pushing for mass surveillance, three/six strike laws that lack judicial oversight and mass shakedowns that are economically impossible to defend against, carry excessive penalties (thousands of dollars for one 99 cent song) and so on.

That pisses a lot of other people off, people who like to run a media server like me. People that run Linux like I did, not anymore but that's a different story. People that have a laptop with no optical drive which they feel they should be able to watch it on. People that feel once they have bought it, they should be able to convert it to watch on their phone or tablet. People that don't like them poking their noses in all private communication. People that don't like kangaroo courts. People that are afraid they'll get a thousands of dollar lawsuit because their wifi was open or their machine was hacked or their tenants or relatives was on P2P. On top of that particularly the TV and movie industry cling to an outdated business model which makes the pirate service far more convenient.

You have a problem with pirates? Well, the feeling is mutual because I have a problem with you because I would like to pay but there's nothing worth paying for. You've made your content so locked up and difficult to access and use as I want that the pirates win without a fight. The service I want you're not willing to offer to me for any price. Your current efforts are futile and the totalitarian society you'd have to build to stomp out piracy is not one I'd care to live in. As far as I'm concerned you're a hindrance to my enjoyment and a menace to society and the best way of neutralizing you would be to take your copyright away. If people want you to continue creating, they'll pay. If not then find some other work. It's not the perfect solution but getting rid of copyright is the lesser evil, you're the greater.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536033)

You don't seem to remember much from history... The first "Big dog" in piracy was Napster, and they flourished at a time when the vast majority of the public had 56k connections at best.

For those of us who are really old, there was audiogalaxy before napster. I don't know if anyone else here remembers that, it was not even peer to peer in any sense it was simply a site that served every song known to man. I found stuff on there that was super rare and hard to come by, even with the massive modern archives we have access to. It had a great search function and all songs were guaranteed to be what they were labelled as and a good recording. I still miss it. I used to dare people to come up with a song so obscure I couldn't find it there, some people succeeded but most were surprised.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536181)

Except that only a tiny fraction of Napster users were on 56k modems.

Overwhelmingly, the user base consisted of college students and IT professionals who enjoyed what we would call broadband access, even in Napster's day, at someone else's expense.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536373)

Some of their biggest customers are pirates.

where's the data to back that up? or did you really mean "some" as in at least 2?

really, i'm sure there are some "pirates" that mainly pirate as a try-before-by mechanism, but in lack of real data i think that's unlikely. it's human nature. if i've already stolen something, it's actually extra time AND money for me to go back and purchase it. that doesn't come naturally.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536673)

Piracy is up, so are sales, so are profits. Well, well, if everyone's pirating instead of buying, how do sales and profits keep climbing? There's your data, and a question to ponder while looking at it.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535407)

But it won't faze ThePirateBay in the least. Until somebody can come up with a solution to that one, the problem isn't likely to get solved.

Get the founders arrested after passing a new law specifically targeting them. Or extradite them to another country, like the United States, have a show trial, and then disappear them. Not hard to solve one website.

Longer term though, the bandwidth caps are going to do more to curb the problem on the Internet than anything law enforcement could ever do.

No it won't. People use more bandwidth on Netflix than piracy. And bandwidth caps are the result of antiquidated infrastructure, which in turn was caused by government-assisted monopoly and short-term thinking. Caps aren't happening to combat piracy; If that was the thinking, we'd all be on dial-up.

Eventually we will rediscover the bandwidth of sneakernet. Not much to be done about that one. And it gets worse.

Yeah. For one, they'd have to leave mom's basement. Not gonna happen. And as far as 'rediscovering the bandwidth' of sneakernet goes... Most college kids already know this. How do you think they turn in their homework?

Ponder this one 'content industry'... How much storage would it take to store every popular song?

You'll have to define 'popular', for one. For two, you'd have to know how many songs have been written. Ever. For shits and giggles, let's say 1 billion songs, each 6MB in size... *thumbs calculator*... 5.7 petabytes. That's chump-change.

All somebody needs to add is a P2P phone app that works over WiFi to continually sync new songs in as people socialize.

o_O Mobile phones can't generally make adhoc connections. That leaves bluetooth. Which on a good day with fair winds from the west can do a few hundred kilobytes per second. And it'll suck your battery dry in less than the time it takes you to have dinner with your friends.

Somebody really serious about peeing in the industry's corn flake could solve the problems and post 'an app for that.'

We already have that: It's called ignoring them.

We are getting close to carrying around enough storage so that every kid could just expect to have 'everything' ever released on a major label sitting in their mobile device.

My mobile device is close to having petabytes of local storage? Cool! Hangon... I just got a phone call on my new upgraded to petabytes phone. Wait. Two calls. The first one is for you... it's The Laws of Physics, and they are suing you for defamation. The other is AT&T, who's charging me 82 trillion dollars in overage charges.

How much longer until the same thing happens with TV & movies? Forget the cloud and monthly fees or paying by the minute, just have every movie or tv show ever made riding around on every phone.

While we're at it, can I get my flying car?

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535789)

Thinking that The Pirate Bay is simply one web site that would go away with thug tactics betrays a lack of understanding of what is happening. If what you suggest is done, two months later there will be The Martyr Bay, based out of North Korea, and it will have far more users.

Just because something is impractical now doesn't mean it will be that way for very long. How hard would you have laughed at someone ten years ago who suggested that everyone would have free access to literally years worth of streaming video from their cell phones? Must we wait until the technology is upon us before we talk about it?

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535801)

Mobile phones can't generally make adhoc connections.

Both the iPhone and at least some Android models can connect using ad-hoc, though at least in the former case the app can't set up itself the connection.

But in any case, nobody said it had to be over ad-hoc: public APs (with and without passphrases) are common, and syncing over them is equivalent to an ad-hoc connection for the purpose.

it's The Laws of Physics, and they are suing you for defamation.

And what Laws would those be, considering that IBM has already achieved storing 1 bit in just 12 atoms, which would just take 10^-6 cm3 to store a petabyte?

Sure, it's far from practical - for now. But it's certainly possible.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535943)

And what Laws would those be, considering that IBM has already achieved storing 1 bit in just 12 atoms, which would just take 10^-6 cm3 to store a petabyte?

Because you're forgetting the biggest problem with mobile devices: The battery. Without energy, it doesn't matter how much whiz-bang you can do. It's still just a paperweight.

Wow! A smartphone sneaker net. Clever idea. (1)

dinther (738910) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535483)

It would need a P2p style app on IOS and android that always runs in the background using NFC and bluetooth to discover hosts. You'd become a node in a sneaker network. Imagine how fast data replicates on school grounds and in busy shops. Lots of potential to link in local product promotions too.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535627)

> Eventually we will rediscover the bandwidth of sneakernet. Not much to be done about that one. And it gets worse.

The "we'll resort to the sneakernet" argument is retarded. The sneakernet is inconvenient and will always lack the variety and quality of a globally accessible repository like PirateBay. If companies can push people to the sneakernet, it will be a huge win for the content industry. Most people won't do it, there will be a several-month delay before you can get cracked copies of software, it will be more vulnerable to viruses (like limewire), and pirates will be forced into the embarrassing position of asking friends for copies of stuff, which makes them look like cheapskates. In the end, the "we'll resort to the sneakernet" is just a hollow threat used by pirates who want to believe nobody can back them into a corner and make them pay for their entertainment.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535807)

We are getting close to carrying around enough storage so that every kid could just expect to have 'everything' ever released on a major label sitting in their mobile device. Just a few more turns of Moore's Law.

Moore's Law doesn't really apply to storage devices, they actually progress much faster than microprocessors. It's sometimes called Kryder's Law.

Just my two bits.

Re:Dunno, might help but not solve problem (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535935)

Perhaps in the US, but most everywhere else the bandwidth is still increasing. Here's the latest figures [www.ssb.no] from Norway, solid green line is average speed and solid blue line is mean speed. All cable/DSL/fiber lines are sold uncapped and our consumer protection agency is making sure you get what you pay for, so those figures are quite meaningful. I've personally downloaded a 500GB+ torrent in 3 days on a 60 Mbit/s line and it was no problem. You can see about a year ago the average speed made a huge jump, that was the biggest fiber company doubling their speeds. Now cable and DSL have followed and the mean is 7.2 Mbit/s. I can't find a recent figure on the total number of fiber connections but the biggest supplier network has 280k of 1670k broadband subscriptions alone (17%) which means the total is probably 20-25%.somewhere.

All new housing is installed with fiber and they're still retrofitting it all over the place. Cable, telecom and electricity companies are all now fighting for a piece of that pie and there's a rush to lay fiber first because it's very hard for a runner-up to get enough customers to lay cable too with 20-25% year-over-year growth. And we're one of the thinnest populated countries in the world, we're 214th out of 242 [wikipedia.org] while the US is 179th. Our biggest telecom operator has already said they're looking to phase out the copper lines and deliver only fiber and mobile, meaning PSTN, ISDN and DSL will go away like the telegraph and the beeper service. Maybe it'll still exist in rural areas as a legacy network but in cities I doubt you can get a regular landline in 2020. You talk on your cell phone and for Internet you're either on 4G+ mobile broadband or you're on fiber.

Heh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535001)

I like how people try to equate making money from copyrighted works with making money from advertisements to pay for the website itself.

Re:Heh! (3, Interesting)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535645)

I wonder how many people believe this, while at the same time believe that RIAA/MPAA exploit the artists, riding their publicity to generate money from advertisers. They make money indirectly, so it's not exploitation either right? I mean... "websites", "established commercial distribution channels", what's the difference?

In content advertising as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535007)

They might want to look into the advertising that, some times, comes with certain content. This could actually make piracy lucrative for one individual who is prolific enough to send out a bunch of content with a bunch of adds.

Have we solved world hunger ? (1, Funny)

Asaf.Zamir (1053470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535025)

Have all the problems been solved that we now address the none problems ?

Re:Have we solved world hunger ? (1)

Matt_Bennett (79107) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535433)

Your argument is a red herring [wikipedia.org] . While it may not solve the issue, it may make piracy less attractive. Unfortunately, people pirate for many reasons, including they can make money from it. Wouldn't it be awesome if some of the creativity involved in piracy got redirected into new endeavors? I'm realistic- I know it won't make the piracy problem (which includes poor monetization models on the part of the current content creators) go away, but I see how this could help.

Re:Have we solved world hunger ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535711)

Ah we could solve world hunger easily. The problem is, we'd have to take over most countries where the problem is most pressing and install our own governments to deal with it. Then liberals would throw hissy fits over the entire thing, because it would be a "unilateral use of force" even if it was for the greater good of entire regions.

IE Banks and Visa are profiting from piracy (2)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535045)

Every transaction on a credit card makes money for the middle men.

Interesting sort of incestuous fight within the Royal Court of Capitalism.

Re:IE Banks and Visa are profiting from piracy (2)

Shark (78448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535473)

The content industry is not engaged in capitalism. They have a competitor in the distribution sector that they cannot beat on merits, so they are trying to legislate it away. Capitalism would demand that they compete rather than go home and cry to mommy.

Re:IE Banks and Visa are profiting from piracy (0)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535539)

[stores are] not engaged in capitalism. They have a competitor in the [shiplifting] sector that they cannot beat on merits, so they are trying to legislate it away. Capitalism would demand that they compete rather than go home and cry to mommy.

Your understanding of the situation is dumb.

Re:IE Banks and Visa are profiting from piracy (1)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535821)

He's talking about the Internet, not piracy. Not dumb.

Re:IE Banks and Visa are profiting from piracy (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535939)

How many people actually click through an ad on a warez site and buy something? I seriously doubt anything significant. Even if they have the money (which, relatively speaking, is not likely since they're on a warez site) they're probably savvy enough to not associate something like their Amazon account to their piracy habit through those ad cookies.

Re:IE Banks and Visa are profiting from piracy (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536417)

instead of asking that, ask if yourself if you would pay money to advertise somewhere if no one was seeing (pr paying attention to) your ad? nothing is the right answer. the advertisers don't have to guess if people are clicking through. they know, and they wouldn't continue to pay their $ if no one was clicking through.

doing my part! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535065)

Fighting Piracy By Blocking Ad Money

Same here! Adblock+ FTW. And here I never thought I'd agree with Google about anything.

written by the Performing Rights Society (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535085)

Subject says all.

Well, it kinda didn't work for Wikileaks, so why should it work for TPB?

"The report has failed to take into account the fact that many modern peer-to-peer networks ignore websites altogether, allowing direct communication and exchange of content between the users through software applications and “magnet” links."

Ehhh.... OK.... but where do I click on the magnet link? Isn't that a website like TPB?

Re:written by the Performing Rights Society (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536001)

Ehhh.... OK.... but where do I click on the magnet link? Isn't that a website like TPB?

As I see it, TPB is now nothing more than a convenience that may soon vanish without being missed. Thanks to the magnet links, the whole data base is now so small (they say about 90 MB zipped), that one could set up a distributed approach synchronize it on the client size by using some kind of add-on to the bit-torrent client.

Awesorme, I love this webpage!!! yay (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535095)

Slashdort, it's like the facebook of the Internet!

Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535161)

Ah, of course. I get it. We need more censorship!

Blocking credit card & online payments (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535193)

That's how they dismantled wikileaks. Funny that the google would espouse the same solution for torrent sites as the government did for infoleak sites.

Oh well. (shrug). I never pay for pirate sites anyway. I figure if I'm paying to watch a movie or TV show, then I might as well just go buy the legal DVD or amazon release instead... and watch the money goto the actors, writers, artists, etc.

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (5, Interesting)

nblender (741424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535353)

Except they won't let you buy what you want. Back in the 70's there was a popular TV show that I enjoyed watching when I was a kid. Go ahead, try to find a DVD set of "WKRP in Cincinnatti"... My wife's cousin came over and lamented how she could only find the 1st season on DVD but the music wasn't what was in the original show... I relayed that I had also been hoping to buy the DVD set... So I went to TPB and downloaded the full series with original music.

WKRP is credited for popularizing many songs back then and helping artists rise to fame. However, the reason there are no DVD sets of WKRP is allegedly because of the difficulty in licensing the music from the content providers. When WKRP shows are aired in re-runs, they are aired with crappy sound-alike music... In many episodes, the songs are contextual so part of the plot is ruined when they removed the music.

As the cherry topping, I introduced my 10yo son to WKRP and he devoured all of the episodes, watching some of them twice and three times; with original music... He enjoys the music and has been buying it from iTunes...

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535511)

Are you sure? Usually when TV studios negotiated music rights, they negotiated the right to air them during (1) first run (2) reruns and (3) on VHS or Betamax tape. So reruns should be showing the original songs.

Quantum Leap had the same problem. Seasons 1/2 DVD set does not have the original music, but then the fans complained so seasons 3/4/5 restored the music (and upped the pricetag). I solved the problem by recording the reruns straight off the TV.

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536409)

Yes he's sure. This is well-known -- they cheaped out, not expecting it to be a big hit, so WKRPiC is fucked-up in reruns.

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536215)

Go ahead, try to find a DVD set of "WKRP in Cincinnatti"...

http://bit.ly/MSglkA [bit.ly]

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536707)

Indeed there are DVD sets but, as the OP said, not with the original music.

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536427)

As the cherry topping, I introduced my 10yo son to WKRP and he devoured all of the episodes, watching some of them twice and three times

now that's parenting.

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536679)

That show was syndicated to NZ in the 80s.

Curses, now I have that jingle in my head.

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536827)

Indeed, the same thing happened to MTV's Daria.

You would think that a company like MTV would have all of their licensing issues sorted for such a scenario, but apparently that's not the case.

There's a reason that the rare and incomplete VHS releases are prized among fans...

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535365)

And that right there is why we need something like Bitcoin. You may be OK with financial censorship of Wikileaks. You may be OK with shutting down pirate sites. But are you OK with the way it's done? With no legal recourse or oversight to speak of?

Re:Blocking credit card & online payments (1, Interesting)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535463)

That's how they dismantled wikileaks.

Yeah, and how'd that work out for them? Wikileaks is still there and going strong. They accept Bitcoin; as soon as someone sets up an ad network to do the same, attacking the CCs to attack the piracy "problem" will become equally as futile.

Don't all pirates have adblockers? (3, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535197)

Since all pirates have adblockers, doesn't that make the proposal irrelevant?

Re:Don't all pirates have adblockers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535435)

No. The majority of pirates are casual computer users these days.
And with the way the content industries are acting, more so every year.

The worst part was when some of the reps of the industry quite flat out said that they don't care for appeasing internet users who want a download system.
Sickening greed. If they can't sell you 1500 copies of the same thing, the system doesn't exist as far as they are concerned.
Well, THEIR system is slowly turning in to that and there is nothing they will be able to do about it because of their stupid ways. Even with laws.

So many online distribution platforms have already proven the DD model as effective and profitable.
Some have even made pay-what-you-want work (through various methods, including free-to-consume with paying for better service or quality, or more of a thing, such as new skins in a game, wallpapers or even figurines)
The thing these geniuses at the RIAA don't get is price isn't linear with sales numbers.
Halving the price often more than triples sales of a product. (usually depends on the price though. And we are speaking on the cheaper day-to-day spending, not high-end prices)
It is the model that McDonalds or even large supermarkets use.
Low prices on some things with an absolutely tiny or sometimes even NO profit, but it is still pretty basic and sometimes requires other things to fully enjoy it.
A very good example is looped-sales through common household items that are important with other things. Butter. Flour. Milk.
Or in fast-food, sell something that is basically standard order with all meals at a low profit / loss and make it up with the other more expensive things. (fries, salad, whatever)
These models work extremely well.

The games industry is completely missing this and are trying to blame both piracy and now the second-hand market.
The second-hand market is there BECAUSE they created it by increasing prices so much.
Maybe in a few years time they will finally realize this and lower prices.
All it takes is a bunch of companies at once to drop their prices on some large games and it will almost certainly start the trend.
A large chunk of gamers wait out for the second-hand releases because they simply CANNOT afford the prices now.
This is pure profit for those companies going completely to the stores.
They are so stupid. Completely and utterly stupid. Whatever financing morons they have employed should be fired. Out of a cannon. In to a wall, so it hurts.
Increased prices aren't helping anyone. Not even the companies as they actually are losing bucketloads of money and so many of them are being shuttered.

To all media companies: adapt or die. The consumers are your friend. Don't piss in their cereal or they will stop you from buying yours.

Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535203)

Who else read this as: "Google Proposes Fighting PRIVACY By Blocking Ad Money"?

Re:Privacy (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535281)

I didn't. If you ask me, blocking ad-money has the opposite effect, and improves privacy.

Further, if ads were integrated into movies and games, then piracy would not be a problem, and in fact it would be a solution. But of course, google does not like that solution, because they can't get between that flow of money.

So we'll move to subscription piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535221)

For a nominal fee, all our warez are belong to you?

Incredibly naive. (1)

gallondr00nk (868673) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535227)

As long as there is traffic, there will also be advertising. Running ads benefits both the site and the advertisers, after all. They'll just switch to another method.

Re:Incredibly naive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535279)

Well, if they block UK advertisers, they'll just switch to Chinese advertisers hawking cloned products.

I propose fighting piracy by (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535251)

helping the countries around the Gulf of Guinea with international aid and supplies. Oh wait, this is a story about copyright infringement? And they propose fighting it by any other way than making people think it's somehow morally wrong to copy something without harming the original? Destined to fail. Fittingly my captcha is writhes, something I'm sure all the copyright police are doing in their seats.

Why is it Google's problem? (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535337)

The war on piracy hurts them much more than piracy itself, why is Google suddenly backing it?

Re:Why is it Google's problem? (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535585)

Because it's an easy cheap shot at their smaller competitors.

Re:Why is it Google's problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535599)

Google has to show that "they're doing their part" in the grand drama. It scores them political points, and thus keeps some of the lobbyists, politicians and other groups at bay, or at least distracted, who have been sharpening their knives hoping to carve into Google's Ad revenue for quite some time.

Thank you Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535357)

Please push forward any mechanism to stop piracy, and force them to grow to become even better pirates with better software and hardware, just like how I trim my basil plants to keep them alive and healthy. Cutting them down, they only grow back stronger.

and 100% of pirates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535367)

...start with a Google search.

opt out (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535383)

'Some 86% of advertising on the pirate sites surveyed by Detica comes from networks that have failed to sign up with the UKâ(TM)s self-regulatory bodies..."

I'd like to be the first to state that the idea that a network has to "sign up with the UK's self-regulatory bodies" is horrifying on so many levels.

First is the notion that a network has to "sign up" to be able to exist. Second is the notion that "self-regulation" is anything but a horrible idea. Third is that not signing up with these "self-regulatory bodies" would disqualify someone from making a living.

If it's a law, then make it a law. This "self-regulation" is nothing but paying juice to the most powerful thug on the block. If you kick up your percentage to the capo, then you can do business. If not, well, a lot of bad things can happen on the Internet, if you catch my drift.

None of this has anything to do with protecting content creators. Not one bit. It is only about making sure that the yegg with the gold is the yegg what gets to make the rules.

New gFascism update out, mandatory upgrade!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535403)

Well welcome to fascism, another real-life example how F500's and the governments and NGO's they run and vice versa
are interconnected - I wonder shall we just go and call them 'governance' as they call themselves that??
Fuck this new order, new state of affairs or whatever they want to call it.

It works for spam (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535405)

The only approach that ever had a meaningful and demonstrable effect on spam was to interrupt the flow of money. It makes sense that the same could be helpful for piracy - or at least, for large-scale piracy. Obviously this does nothing to stop people from burning and sharing discs.

This assumes piracy actually needs money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535451)

It doesn't, the entire point of piracy is that it's centered around a technology that's essentially post scarcity. All those bits, all those ones and zeroes, are so cheap that people provide them to each other for free. People who put up pirated movies, which are usually extremely high quality, don't get any money out of it. Nor do people who volunteer their own bandwidth to give those bits to others.

"Piracy" is a system that has moved beyond capitalism, even while the production of those things that are pirated haven't yet. This is where the problem comes in, but it's not a problem your going to solve by trying to impose capitalism on something that is inherently non capitalist.

This is how bitcoin will die... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535525)

The banks and paypal will cut off pirate sites like they did with wikileaks, and bitcoin will take off massively as TPB starts to promote it to everyone visiting their site. Then they'll cut off the exchanges and bitcoin will be practically useless.

Who's the "pirate"? (1)

snemiro (1775092) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535583)

Piracy is not about sharing data....is about making profit from it. The "legal" frame is another issue....because companies according their own interests make the law.... The best way to combat piracy is to charge us$2 per downloaded movie/music album.

Here's an idea (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535617)

Why not give the people what they want full access too all musical works from all record companies with proper ownership rights.. Can't be that hard and all the money wasted on litigation could have paid for that service already.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536153)

It would seem that at a certain point, making the entirety of works all of the record labels have ever created available via itunes, netflix, or whatever would be the cheaper and simpler solution. I wonder what that point is. Are we close to reaching it? Have we already?

Of course, this seems simple when put into so few words, there's got to be something I'm missing. What is it? Aside from the general "Content companies only want control," what excuse would major labels give for this?

I've been buying music from independent punk rock labels for going on 20 years. I've heard from many people who ran labels in the 80's that they would much rather have distributed their stuff online for free (bandwidth, hardware costs notwithstanding) rather than sitting around dubbing tapes or spending money on plastic discs with music on them. money that had to be recouped in order for a band to be deemed a "success."

big android piracy site gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535765)

I noticed www.paidandroidappsforfree.com now goes to a google 404 - does that mean google bought out the domain?

Let's buy some Bitcoins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40535813)

... and profit.
Pirates will switch if you block revenues. That will have a very nice side effect on Bitcoin-based economy.

With other words.... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535845)

What Google is saying is not that they are against Piracy (and their Ad Money), but they are against anyone else at all to take their money (because Google cannot take them anymore, or for one or another reason will be forced to cut them off). As simple as that, Google's new moto:
- We do not do evil, but only if no one else does evil. Oh, and don't look too hard at how we made our first billion...

It won't work. P2P is mostly a bartering economy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536159)

the way to fight piracy is not to chase the sharers, but to cut off the money in the system

Here's the problem with that:

Relatively speaking, there is very little money in the system.

A vast majority of the economic value generated by the P2P ecosystem is the result of informal bartering.

With P2P, I give a file to you, and you respond by giving another file to me. No money exchanges hands -- yet, we both end up with more value.

Credit card and online payment facilities, the pirate’s oxygen supply, must be blocked.

The pirate's oxygen supply is not money. It's the free exchange of content. Again: I rip and share so that you will rip and share with me.

It's true that there's a small amount of value being extracted from the P2P ecosystem by showing ads and collecting money. Google might be able to reduce that money. But those ads were providing little value to the P2P community anyway; a simple Google search (ironically) will give people all the information they need to fully participate in the P2P bartering economy.

Re:It won't work. P2P is mostly a bartering econom (1)

davydagger (2566757) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536463)

sssh, all they are going to do is get rid of some shiesty advertisers, and won't affect anything. Its really fine by me

Shiesty advertisers are in the same catagory as spam.

p2p is people sharing. Let them go after the rip off artists

Sure, ad buyers are so noble (1)

Teresita (982888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536429)

Online advertisers should be encouraged to sign up to self-regulatory codes of conduct. Ad buys have a built-in encouragement mechanism. You spend x dollars for an ad, and you get x+y dollars back in new revenues. Google's idea is like saying companies should be encouraged to boycott advertising in the Superbowl because the state it's being played in doesn't celebrate Martin Luther King Day. It feels good in principle, but it pisses off the shareholders.

From years of RIAA/MPAA sympathies are diminished (1)

davydagger (2566757) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536443)

Its been over 15 years of /. covering the same repeated drama over copyright legislation with the MPAA/RIAA smash fly with hammer and screw what breaks mentality. Its not new, and its not stopped, and its really put a damper on my enthusiasim for most copyright claimaints. Then there is microsoft, and all these years of running linux and (mostly) free software.

Everytime I hear "Copyright" I think hindering innovation and exploitation. My desire to see any pirates pursued at this point is nill.

Let's not forget who's the organized crime here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40536501)

Let's not forget who's the organized crime here!
Who is "selling" information as if it were tangible commodities, not moving a single finger for that copy, but taking money, and then having the audacity, to call *us* "thieves"!!
Not to forget, the original work wasn't even done by them, but by some poor schmuck who got ripped off *exactly* the way they accuse us of acting. (Well, I guess they are the experts on it. ;)

The content Mafia is!

Also: Please tell me how this will stop decentralized P2P file sharing... [ytimg.com]
And how about darknets?
Hm?

Also: Fighting Unpopular Opinions (5, Interesting)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40536829)

This also works with unpopular opinions and content.

Case in point, Recently SomethingAwful's harassment of the TVTropes website reached a head when they started attacking TVTropes by complaining to Google about Trope pages that had odd content. The example was "Naughty Tentacles" which was the cliche of tentacles in anime tending towards being somewhat risque even in non-risque works. Google pulled all advertisements from their site until this page was removed and cut all their advertising money.

The catch being that Naughty Tentacles and other "Not Safe For Google" pages were not serving Google Ads, which means that Google is now claiming that if you have an Ad Sense ad on a SINGLE page then Google has editorial rights on ALL pages on your site.

That sick feeling in your stomach is normal, it merely means you are wise enough to realize what a huge disaster this could possibly be.

(Not to say that TVTropes handled it well themselves. The administrator had a very public nervous breakdown over the whole thing, began harassing anyone who posted Japanese media tropes, tried to argue that Romeo and Juliet was child pornography because R&J are both 14, etc etc... Many people, including myself, were publicly banned and our names dragged through the mud because we disagreed with his "great porno purge" on what was supposedly a collaborative website.)

Another recent example of something similar was when the concern troll at L7World began harassing [l7world.com] websites that hosted "Kodmo No Jikan", a very risque Japanese manga involving a precocious child abuse victim and the male teacher who is the subject of her torment (and who is attempting to save her from her abusive stepfather). While the content is... as close to pornographic as possible without actually reaching that point, the fact of the matter is the L7World troll used as many "fainting couch" attacks he could, including photoshopping things out of context and directly attacking the Advertisers that went through Google, to harass every manga hosting website he could. (He then later admitted he likes KnJ, reads it, and was just fucking with as many people as he could because he could get away with it.)

Several months later, a similar attack was done by someone claiming that all Manga hosting websites had to remove not only any works with underage characters -- but also any manga works that had Gay or Lesbian themed content, because the "web is a product of the United States, a Christian Nation, and thus they had a duty to uphold Christian morals". When this troll was ignored and banned for these frothy rants, suddenly Google was getting all kinds of complaints out of the blue about these sites and pulled their advertisement money.

This attack destroyed OneManga, severely hurt every other manga site, et cetera. Even sites that do not host manga, and are simply series database sites, such as BakaUpdates, were affected. So don't think that you're only in danger if you host Troll-Unapproved content, if you talk about things that trolls don't like, they can go through Google to attack your site now.

And before anyone takes umbrage with the "underage characters" part, I would point out that the most popular children's comic in the world, Doraemon [wikipedia.org] , as well as The SImpsons [rottentomatoes.com] technically fall under the same overreaching umbrella of what this troll was complaining about, and are not pornographic by any sense of the word.

tl;dr: In short, I find it very unsettling that Google is openly bragging about the possibility that legal trolls such as the MPAA could now use attacks that Religious fundamentalist trolls (and, in the case of SA, just plain normal trolls) have used to silence websites that they do not agree with.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>