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 Blocks Author's Ads For Offering Torrent Of His Own Book

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the stop-automating-this dept.

Software 130

An anonymous reader points out the recent trouble of author Cody Jackson, who wrote a book called Learning to Program with Python. He offers the book for sale, but also gives it away for free, and he used the CC-BY license. In order to distribute the book, he posted links to his torrent of it. Unfortunately, this cause Google to suspect his AdSense account for his website. Even after removing the links, he was unable to get in contact with Google's AdSense team to get his accounts restored. After his story was picked up yesterday by Techdirt, somebody at Google "re-reviewed" his case and finally reinstated his account. Jackson had this to say: "One good thing about this is that it has helped raise awareness of the problems with corporate copyright policies and copyright regulation as a whole. When a person is unable to post his/her own products on the 'net because someone fears copyright infringement has occurred, there is a definite problem." This follows a few high-profile situations in which copyright enforcement bots have knocked down perfectly legitimate content.

cancel ×

130 comments

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

Frosty! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41493977)

First post!

Get used to it (4, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41493999)

Its only going to get worse.

Re:Get used to it (5, Funny)

spokenoise (2140056) | about 2 years ago | (#41494395)

Well he could distribute it via megaupload or similar. Oh-wait...

Re:Get used to it (1)

CallsignBaron (1136063) | about 2 years ago | (#41495525)

Who the hell modded that comment "Informative"?? Well, Duh!

Re:Get used to it (2)

worf_mo (193770) | about 2 years ago | (#41497227)

Informative seems close enough since there is no +1 "Disturbingly True".

Re:Get used to it (3, Funny)

Metabolife (961249) | about 2 years ago | (#41495551)

This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.

Re:Get used to it (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41496057)

Ok, was this a real post that got yanked or some one being cute?

Re:Get used to it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41496991)

I've seen this meme around a few times

Re:Get used to it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41497439)

But how can you be sure it's not true?

Re:Get used to it (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41497931)

>>> "One good thing about this is that it has helped raise awareness of the problems with corporate copyright policies and copyright regulation as a whole. When a person is unable to post his/her own products on the 'net because someone fears copyright infringement has occurred, there is a definite problem."

> Its only going to get worse.

The system is working perfectly as devised: call me paranoid, but IMHO the main idea is to suppress uncontrolled culture distribution, be it free or from unaffiliated parties (i.e., all the ones from which for-profit distributors cannot take a slice from the revenue). Except that "slice" is loosely defined to be up to 90%.

That's why I think there's no possible compromise with *AA, patent trolls etc. The only good deal is the one by which they're kicked in the *ss and get to pay lawyer/court costs.

Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (5, Insightful)

crypTeX (643412) | about 2 years ago | (#41494017)

Copyright enforcement by software: the speed camera of the internet...if the traffic ticket were set to eliminate your whole wage. Actual people could review this stuff...or we could all accept that if you use the tools a giant corporation provides to you at essentially no cost, you are totally at their mercy.

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (-1, Troll)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#41494063)

Yup...I think Google is too big and needs to get broken up to dilute their power as they control too much.

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (0)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41494129)

Why don't you just boycott them?

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494479)

Government action is just a boycott on a national level.

The moment free marketroids realise that the government can be regarded as a corporation which has proprietary interests in everything with its jurisdiction, the sooner peple will stop discussing the government as a "wrong" solution to problems.

As to whether you signed the social contract, well, you don't get to freely live in someone's house just because you were born there, do you?

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494795)

"Why don't you just boycott them?"

But how is he supposed to find his porn then?

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#41495737)

Well, I've tried. There are no good alternatives.

From one side, that's tipical in every monopoly, and Google is in a very "the winner takes it all" market, so it's tempting to say that they sould be regulated. From the other side, there are several big players losing enough money on this market for prooving that Google is better just because they are more competent, not because they are abusing their monopoly. That's an argument for letting the market unregulated... Since I have a liberal (real liberal, not US liberal) bias, I'd say that we need overwelming evidence before regulating a market, and there isn't overwelming evidence any way.

I think it is just about time somebody starts a Youtube-like site outside of the US... But not me :P the risk is a bit too high.

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#41498037)

I avoid Google as much as I can. With the exception of Google Pedometer, Google Maps, and SketchUp I don't use Google at all. Seeing this story and the influence Google has on the Internet I feel they have too much power.

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494457)

They need to spin off their commercial offerings, so they can be subjected to the pressures of a market containing human beings. I just cancelled a trial of their for-money services for a customer of mine, because the for-money services were poorer than their free ones, and the sales support team was startlingly unmotivated. That's got to tell you something (:-))

--dave

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (3, Insightful)

way2trivial (601132) | about 2 years ago | (#41494147)

That's the only memory that stands out for me from Seaquest. In the first few moments of the premiere episode, Roy Scheider is speeding on a motorcycle, and the govt. scans his tags/ID and launches his phone to advise him the fine has been deducted from his social security account.

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (1)

jrronimo (978486) | about 2 years ago | (#41494313)

That was the first episode of Season 2, I think. A scary glimpse into the future at the time, but now it's becoming the normal state of things. :/

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494825)

"A scary glimpse into the future at the time, but now it's becoming the normal state of things."

Why should we pay/use civil servants to gets the speeding morons off our streets if a nice, cheap machine can do it for us?

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (1)

jrronimo (978486) | about 2 years ago | (#41495019)

I guess I feel like I should be properly /caught/ speeding, which leaves the opportunity to get away with it, if you will. If there are flawless machines everywhere, I can't speed anymore, haha.

You're right. Good point.

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (1)

someones (2687911) | about 2 years ago | (#41495977)

if you want to get away with it: just hide your licence plate ;)

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (1)

davecb (6526) | about 2 years ago | (#41494493)

[sign back on and...] They need to spin off their commercial offerings, so they can be subjected to the pressures of a market containing human beings. I just cancelled a trial of their for-money services for a customer of mine, because the for-money services were poorer than their free ones, and the sales support team was startlingly unmotivated. That's got to tell you something (:-))

--dave

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495365)

[One more in case you missed it...] They need to spin off their commercial offerings, so they can be subjected to the pressures of a market containing human beings. I just cancelled a trial of their for-money services for a customer of mine, because the for-money services were poorer than their free ones, and the sales support team was startlingly unmotivated. That's got to tell you something (:-))

--dave

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (3, Insightful)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#41494699)

Precisely. Google didn't stop him distributing it in any way, they just stopped him advertising the fact on their own systems, which (I'm guessing) have been plagued with people trying to advertise illegal torrents. Then they took a second look at their mostly-automated system and realised something had gone wrong, and corrected a false positive. For a company their size it's a realistic response. The big problem is that such a high percentage of torrents are illegal that it's giving a perfectly good and indeed useful technology - far more useful than "the cloud" whatever it is these days - distributed, multiply redundant, peer based information technology? Hell yeah! It's amazing, pity it got hijacked to the extent where legit companies are scared of it.

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (5, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | about 2 years ago | (#41495045)

Well, the problem is that Google only bothered to take that second look after he ran out of options for communicating with them, and had to complain to the entire internet and shame them into acting.

If he hadn't managed to get a big audience for his complaining, he'd still be locked out.

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (4, Insightful)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#41495749)

No. The problem is that the entire Mankind relies on Google to get new information.

(I don't know how to solve it. But that's the problem.)

Re:Google doesn't want to pay a human for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41497293)

competition is the solution. rather use regional search engines, and others such as bing, et al.

Post Deleted for copyright violation (3, Funny)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 2 years ago | (#41494049)

I would write something insightful but then the copyright police would come after me for violating my own copyright.

Re:Post Deleted for copyright violation (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#41494567)

Genius! Can we use this to set the RIAA on the RIAA and hence cause a divide by zero situation whereby the organisation consumes itself in a welter of litigation?

Begs the question (4, Interesting)

Narnie (1349029) | about 2 years ago | (#41494071)

Given the numerous articles about copyright enforcement bots recently, it makes me wonder why there is so little human oversight about account banning. Or even attempting to match the author to the work to the copyright in question to the offending post. Apparently, it is better to throw out all the apples, and review the ones that that claim they aren't bad.

It also makes me wonder why it seems difficult to talk to an actual person at google about account restoration. I hope to never have to go through the process.

Re:Begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494189)

I would of utilised a term of speech don't get your nipples in a twist over a mute point when they are by enlarge one in the same, but unless it happened on accident irregardless of whether you were chomping at the bit or could care less, I wouldn't call you escape goat per say, but getting to the crutch of the matter being straight as a narrow is better than being on tenderhooks since time in memorial for all intensive purposes to hold down the fort, so I'll take another tact and won't cut off your nose despite your face because after all is set and done the proof is in the pudding and since you have a long road to hoe with a myriad of something or rather to do of upmost importance I'm internally grateful it all goes well.

Re:Begs the question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494529)

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41496729)

E+ for effort!

Re:Begs the question (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41494311)

Given the numerous articles about copyright enforcement bots recently, it makes me wonder why there is so little human oversight about account banning

Because the average Joe on the street has no idea what is going on. All the articles and discussions are only to/by/for the choir.

And once the average guy does figure things out, the media will step in and twist it around so he thinks its a good thing.

Re:Begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495141)

Well, the 'fake' accounts are generated by automated processes. There's no way a real person could keep up with it, so you get ban-bots. Though I agree that there should be a more clear way of getting your account reviewed by an actual person.. it's not surprising at all that this process is fully automated.

Re:Begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495181)

The only issue is that you have to make a huge public scene or otherwise do some form of prostitution to get a wrongful adsense account (and Google accounts, even) termination noticed by anyone at Google. It's really nasty in that regard.

Re:Begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495459)

It's trivial for a "pirate" to escalate claims for hundreds of accounts a day. It seems pointless for the pirates , as all of the claims will be shut down... If there are really many pirates who try to get their content reinstated , it could be because they want to DoS the humans working on the complaints and get stories like these

Or Google is just too cheap to hire humans (Occam's razor etc)

Re:Begs the question (2)

BLKMGK (34057) | about 2 years ago | (#41496061)

There's no human because of the sheer volume of work that would be involved. It would be a huge effort to actually valdidate all of the things their bits think are in violation..

Not Yours! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494075)

If a corporation can make money on your stuff, you are not allowed to give it away.

America, by the corporations, for the corporations.

Re:Not Yours! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494791)

If a corporation can make money on your stuff, you are not allowed to give it away.

America, by the corporations, for the corporations.

Corporations are people too... thus your statement is true.

Re:Not Yours! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41495291)

Corporations are people too... thus your statement is true.

I've actually heard Limbaugh make this argument.

Torrents != Piracy (4, Insightful)

lattyware (934246) | about 2 years ago | (#41494079)

This is why the 'torrents == piracy' mentality is such an issue - torrents are seen as such a red flag these days that it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are unwilling to use BitTorrent as a distribution method as it's seen as a bad thing.

Re:Torrents != Piracy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494235)

I think it goes further than that. Here are some things that don't indicate one way or another whether they're illegal or not.

Downloading copyrighted material
Bittorrenting
Bittorrenting Copyrighted material
Downloading a DVD
Downloading a Movie
Downloading Photoshop from the internet
Not paying for software
Not paying for copyrighted software
Downloading music with bittorrent
Downloading Movies with bittorrent

It's the redefinition of language and linking terms with illegality that benefits large lobbyists to ensure more powers that hurts, here. It's not really a mentality so much as a sneaked in change in meaning that not all of us notice until we read lists like I made above and find a little gut feeling that some of them must be wrong and avoided, when there's no indication one way or another in the terms themselves.

Re:Torrents != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41497641)

> Not paying for software
> Not paying for copyrighted software

Given the duration of copyright and the fact that very few people release their software in the public domain (or are unable to, in some jurisdictions, YMMV), it is safe to assume that *all* software still in use today is 'copyrighted software'. All copyleft software is copyrighted.

The distinction between 'software' and 'copyrighted software' is meaningless.

Re:Torrents != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41497929)

> Downloading a DVD
Exactly how do you download a physical object? Oh, did you mean the data that was originally stored on a DVD?

Re:Torrents != Piracy (1)

drosboro (1046516) | about 2 years ago | (#41494367)

This is true, but unfortunately, as a heuristic, "textbook + torrent == infringement" is probably going to be a pretty good one. I'd guess the vast majority of textbook torrents are "piratical". At this point, Mr. Jackson represents an edge-case - a very welcome one, but an edge case nonetheless. Still, it would sure be nice if there was a quicker way to get past the algorithm to an actual human who could take a look at particular cases like this one. Then perhaps we'd start overcoming that BitTorrent stigma.

Re:Torrents != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494707)

It sure would be nice if we weren't so paranoid and lawsuit happy about copyright infringement that we didn't even need automated bots!

Re:Torrents != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495929)

The chance that downloading from a random torrent is legal is about the same as the chance that sex with a random human is illegal.

Re:Torrents != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41496225)

legal sex with random humans happens far more often than legal random torrent downloads

Google is also a victim here. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494111)

Google is also a victim here, a victim of language re-defined by rights-holders (those who usually aren't creators) such as the RIAA, MPAA, BSA and the like. They've been given power, and they use it to redefine terms. That affects how we think and react.

Because of this redefinition, it's a rare soul who won't jump to the conclusion I'm doing something highly illegal if I state I'm downloading and redistributing copyrighted material belonging to Apple Inc via Bittorrent.

Via language our thoughts are funneled into a narrow tunnel-visioned meaning, and the millions of times a day that people do the above, entirely legally, are disregarded. Most of us here have used Ubuntu, and done precisely the above by downloading it.

Then google sees "torrent" and "download" and suspends an account because of the same tunnel vision...

Re:Google is also a victim here. (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41494463)

Google is also a victim here, a victim of language re-defined by rights-holders (those who usually aren't creators) such as the RIAA, MPAA, BSA and the like. They've been given power, and they use it to redefine terms. That affects how we think and react.

The obvious difference, since it seems you missed it, is that a multi-billion dollar company like Google actually has the power to do something about it, but instead, they play the game, because regardless of what they claim their company philosophy is, the bottom line is... well, their bottom line.

If Google sees more profit in "being a victim" to laws they could very well change, then they will do precisely dick to change them. Period.

Welcome to Capitalism, comrade.

Re:Google is also a victim here. (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41494621)

John Galt never saw it coming.

But he still whined about it, that's for damn sure.

Re:Google is also a victim here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494643)

But what benefit do google's wrong actions provide to google? By suspending Jacksons book torrent ads and account they miss out on further income from him, they protect no rights holders, they lose a little more goodwill, and the bottom line is... Their bottom line is a little diminished.

They're playing the game, certainly, but its to no benefit of theirs. It benefits only the ones who use their power to actively promote the game, and google (like us) is as much a pawn in that promotion as we are.

(Speaking purely monetarily that is. resisting the game takes effort and thought, and while that has its own cost to corporations and humans alike, I consider it a different enough cost (or a shared one between victims) to mention as a separate point)

A more general problem (5, Insightful)

neminem (561346) | about 2 years ago | (#41494117)

It really isn't just about auto-copywrite-infringement bots. It's really about non-overrideable bots with no human oversight in general. This problem reminds me very much of a problem I had a week ago, in which I wanted to put a large purchase on a credit card (then pay it back like the next day, with money I'd just been paypal'd, but that hadn't made it to my bank yet). I told the bank a week in advance: I am making a large purchase on this date, please don't flag it as suspicious. The response back was that they would make a note, but it would probably be marked suspicious anyway, and there was nothing they could do about it.

So I get there, I try to make the purchase, and sure enough: the charge is canceled and my card is suspended. So I call up the bank, tell them what happened, ask whether they can fix it. Answer: nope, it was all automatic, you'll have to call back later and hope someone with more privilege than a first-level phone support operator has is around. Thanks a lot, every-bank-on-the-planet (cause really, it's not just that one bank, they're all like this now.)

Yes, computers are getting more powerful. Yes, you can cut costs by hiring fewer humans to do superfluous things. You can cut costs even more by hiring fewer humans to do things they're really required to do, and just do a frelling terrible job of it as a result. But at least keep one person around at all times to clean up after the resulting mess, please, every company ever? Thanks a lot.

Re:A more general problem (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494303)

I had this problem several times back when I was still in college, I was trying to use my checking account to buy a TV from Best Buy (worked there in college, actually had reasonable prices for employees).

After going through the 'check approval process', my check was denied, and I was given a number I needed to call to "authorize" the check. I called the number, and was given the whole, "it was flagged as suspicious, we can't approve the check, the computer says it is suspicious and I only read what is on my monitor" spiel. After arguing for close to an hour, I gave up and had to go to my bank and have them issue a cashier's check for the purchase. Utter idiocy.

Re:A more general problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495509)

Then you closed your account and opened one with a bank that actually cares about customer service, right?

Cell phone (1)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#41494519)

I've had charges blocked when buying large-ticket items, usually after buying smaller stuff and gas (often a pattern for card theft).
Usually the charge blocks, and within about 1-2 minutes I get a call from Visa which asks me to verify my purchase. After they confirm things then all is well.

Re:A more general problem (1)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#41494923)

> Thanks a lot, every-bank-on-the-planet (cause really, it's not just that one bank, they're all like this now.)

I'd still leave them and get another bank. Maybe you're right and they're all like that. But maybe not, and you'll be sending a message. They might offer you something to make you stay.

Re:A more general problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494975)

It isn't. For some reason you seem to believe that, having a credit card, does entitle you to something. I assure you, if you really have the money, no bot or human wil stop you to spend it. No-one however cares about the fact that you "will get the money next day". They telling you "it's a system they can't override" is just an easy excuse.

Re:A more general problem (3, Insightful)

neminem (561346) | about 2 years ago | (#41495031)

I feel like you're responding to a statement that is remarkably different from the one I made.

Does having a credit card "entitle" me to the ability to use it? I suppose not. One would merely assume that if I were a company in the business of providing a particular service, I would attempt to avoid putting up roadblocks in the way of my customers using that service, or be worried that they would go elsewhere. But that was before everyone realized that they could have shitty customer service as long as so did everyone else.

In any case, the fact that I would have the money the next day was entirely irrelevant, except that I didn't want to give people reading it the feeling that I was being fiscally irresponsible by charging things I couldn't pay back immediately (in fact, I didn't tell the credit card people that, being their main business strategy depends on people making large charges and -not- paying them back the next day...)

I assure you, I definitely did have the credit limit, which is all they would care about (as evidenced by the fact that after calling them back later and getting them to really-for-sure-this-time tell their computer I was about to make a large purchase, the same charge went through without issue.)

In conclusion... nice troll?

Re:A more general problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495617)

You sure all banks are like this?

When I purchased my Nexus 7 the charge was initially declined, literally 5 seconds later I got an automated call from my credit card company about it and asking me to confirm it wasn't fraudulent, I did, then I re-did the payment and all was well.

But I don't live in the US, maybe all the banks there are shit, although I doubt it, you probably could find one that cares about customer service.

Re:A more general problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41496251)

It's all relevant. There are many people that buying a Nexus 7 would be just an average charge on their account.

Re:A more general problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495669)

I don't understand, this was a credit card or debit? If credit, then they are under no obligations to alter their risk management policies just because you want it so.

If debit, you need to have them raise your transaction limit for that day. You do it the day of, not by leaving a note in advance, unless you WANT your transaction to be flagged and held up while a human digs up your account info??

By the way you say they deactivated your card, I'm assuming you mean credit, and uh, that's someone ELSE's money bro, and a bigger beaurocracy. Go get American Express or something if you want to pay for better service, but you're not even dealing with just a bank at this point, but the card association.

Re:A more general problem (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41495925)

I would suggest changing banks. Yes I've had problems. My favorite was "I'm taking a 1 month vacation, I leave tomorrow" "Ok we've noted it" Arrive at my first hotel, car is rejected. I call the company, and they tell me the charge was suspicious because it wasn't in my town...
But I've never had a problem contacting my credit card company and getting a charge fixed, at any time of day or night.

Re:A more general problem (1)

ColaMan (37550) | about 2 years ago | (#41496987)

Fer fuck's sake, you shouldn't have to notify your bank that you're going to be using your card! They're charging you interest on everything you buy, transaction fees on everything the merchant sells to cover 'fraud' and yet when you try and use it, it's a big red flag.

They just don't want to have to deal with proper fraud, so they set their auto-fraud-detection level to irritatingly-low levels. Fuck them. If they don't want to deal with the 'hassle' of offering a credit card - which was *supposed* to make things more convenient for the purchaser - they should fuck off out of the credit-card business.

And so ends my rant for the day.

I hereby designate Sept 29 "Torrent Anything Day" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494199)

If you have a google adsense acct, torrent your novel, grocery list, anything trivial or not, that you own copyright to, and post an ad to the link. Make the automated tools as useless as possible and show that a 'guilty by default' rule is just WRONG.

Re:I hereby designate Sept 29 "Torrent Anything Da (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495595)

I've got an AdSense account, and there's NO WAY I'd do this. There are just too many cases similar to this one - Google auto-bans someone incorrectly, then that person discovers it's well-nigh impossible to get that ban reviewed by a real person.

Many of us AdSense users are ridiculously paranoid about this possibility because it appears to happen fairly frequently.

Re:I hereby designate Sept 29 "Torrent Anything Da (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495965)

So true, there is literally no alternative to Adsense. We tip toe every change to make sure we are are not banned (we hold creative commons content, some of which is good enough to be hated by the copyright cartels, and we receive tons of DMCA requests). Unless you have an Adsense account specifically for trolling, you should never try this.

And (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41494317)

[quote}When a person is unable to post his/her own products on the 'net because someone fears copyright infringement has occurred, there is a definite problem[/quote]

Corporations have free reign, access and usage of special "corporate" copyright tools. Try getting access to those as a person.

Re:And (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 2 years ago | (#41496279)

If you use angle brackets for your quote tags (<quote>stuff to quote</quote>) it'll actually use the quote style rules. For example:

Corporations have free reign, access and usage of special "corporate" copyright tools. Try getting access to those as a person.

lawsuit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494369)

If I were him id sue myself for infringement...that'll keep them lawyers tied up for a while... like an infinite loop

Re:lawsuit (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | about 2 years ago | (#41494839)

Considering that kids sending their own pictures to each other get in trouble for quite some time now I wouldn't be so sure. You might get fined and/or jailed, just because it is a "right" thing to do. Who cares if you've broken your own rights, all that matter is the fact that [they think] you did.

Assuming Infringement by Default (4, Interesting)

chromatic (9471) | about 2 years ago | (#41494379)

The default assumption of these automated checkers is that anything shared is infringing.

I've run into this myself. While I give away my book Modern Perl [onyxneon.com] free in electronic forms, my publisher charges a nominal fee for the Kindle version to cover expenses. I made some changes recently to fix some formatting problems and edit out a couple of typos. After I uploaded a new version, the Kindle copyright police declined the update (to a book they'd already allowed in their store) because they thought it was available online for free elsewhere.

I understand that no one wants a million copies of Wikipedia articles clogging up book stores, but it would be nice if there were a way to say "Yes, the contents of this book are available under a Creative Commons license and I have the right to distribute it."

(My publisher has the same right to distribute the printed copy, and Amazon is very happy to sell that version.)

Assuming guilt by default (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about 2 years ago | (#41495245)

This automation of checking and acting on that is quite scary stuf.

It can ultimately lead to the opening scenes of Brazil, the movie made by Terry Gilliam.

Re:Assuming guilt by default (1)

chromatic (9471) | about 2 years ago | (#41495313)

My given last name is Buttle! Why do you think I use a pseudonym?

Re:Assuming Infringement by Default (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41496069)

The default assumption of these automated checkers is that anything shared is infringing

And that is all by design. Its a natural extension to the PR campaign to sway peoples opinions by manipulating their knowledge.

The first rule of copyright (2)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#41494425)

is that we don't talk about copyright.

The second rule of copyright, if you feel like violating the first rule, is that all copyright belongs to big rights aggregators and media monopolies until extensively and conclusively proven otherwise.

The third rule of copyright is that all copyright belongs to big rights aggregators and media monopolies even after extensively and conclusively proven otherwise.

Re:The first rule of copyright (2)

Mike Buddha (10734) | about 2 years ago | (#41494525)

is that we don't talk about copyright.

The second rule of copyright, if you feel like violating the first rule, is that all copyright belongs to big rights aggregators and media monopolies until extensively and conclusively proven otherwise.

The third rule of copyright is that all copyright belongs to big rights aggregators and media monopolies even after extensively and conclusively proven otherwise.

The fourth rule of copyright is that these rules are copyrighted and may not be redistributed in any form without express written consent from Copyright Rules Inc.

Re:The first rule of copyright (1)

Narnie (1349029) | about 2 years ago | (#41496851)

The fifth rule of copyright is that all copyrights not held by big rights aggregators and media monopolies are inconvenient^W automatically invalid and ownership is to be transferred to the appropriate copyright holding body for safe keeping and royalty collections.

The other problem... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41494451)

The other problem is that the only way to get in contact with google is to have a story published on a high profile website.

Google contact (4, Informative)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#41494505)

Google is a terrible company to get ahold of. I'd imagine that they might get a lot of phone-spam and useless complaints, so try to keep their support lines hidden, but when problems or bugs arise it's often very hard to find out who to contact.

This is especially true as they're supporting many "consumer" markets such as android etc.

Re:Google contact (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#41495863)

They simply don't value it. It's too expensive to them so you don't get it.

Two Attacks on Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495051)

"Protect Our Prophet" & "Protect Our Profit"

Re:Two Attacks on Free Speech (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about 2 years ago | (#41495143)

Free speech aint free any more. I've copyrighted it!

Easy fix. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41495255)

1. don't take anything down until a "DMCA request" comes
2. acknowledge receipt of DMCA request, ask the submitter to - in addition to be (agents of) the copyright holder in the request - confirm that the requested download link is indeed the work in question, and if not, accept liability for the cost involved
3. take down link
4a. nothing happens -> fine.
4b. take-down successfully appealed -> submitter will need to fork over say $1,500 per wrongly submitted request. Further DMCA takedown notices are being held in queue until payment is received.

Exactly what they want (2)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 years ago | (#41495295)

Isn't this is exactly what the large publishers/record companies/movie producers want? Make it more difficult to publish or own stuff which makes it harder to compete with them? Remember when you had to be a computer nerd to make a website to share information? Now anybody who can click a mouse can post whatever they want on Facebook or elsewhere. That's exactly what the publishers don't want to happen to them.

The only way this problem is going to be improved is if the law requires some sort of human oversight, and somehow held accountable for such blatantly false takedown notices. Not that I see that happening anytime soon.

Contacting google customer support, lol (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#41495853)

Yeah, good luck with that. You can post something on a message board they'll ignore and that's the extent of customer support it seems.

I can't post my ad on Google either. (1)

viralsuicide (2731619) | about 2 years ago | (#41496239)

well I can't post an ad on adwords for my band because the name of it is Viral Suicide. What they think a mass viral suicide will happen.

Fines for false claims should start at $1 million (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#41496287)

That would clear the air.

He's lucky the press noticed (3, Informative)

ChrisKnight (16039) | about 2 years ago | (#41496491)

I've been trying to resolve a Google AdSense issue for a year, and they just don't seem to give a damn.

Re:He's lucky the press noticed (3, Insightful)

crystalattice (179900) | about 2 years ago | (#41497991)

I am the author mentioned in this article. The only reason my story got picked up by the media is because I first sent a news tip to Techdirt, as I know they like to discuss copyright issues.

I had sent notice to Slashdot when Google initially shutdown my ad account, but there wasn't much of a story at the time. Luckily, someone decided to cross-post the story from Techdirt to Slashdot, which may have helped Google make a decision.

So, all I can say is let as many tech sites know about your problem as you can and publicly shame Google into helping you.

shanghai shunky (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41496503)

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.mcrushingplant.com
http://www.crusher007.com
http://www.sand-making-machine.com
http://www.china-impact-crusher.com
http://www.cnshunky.com
http://www.bestssj.com
http://www.shunkyen.com
http://www.crusheren.com
http://www.crusher02.com
http://www.portablecrusherplant.net
http://www.csconecrusher.com

Adsense "Review" (3, Interesting)

enter to exit (1049190) | about 2 years ago | (#41496757)

So, has anyone ever tried to resolve an Adsense dispute with Google and not have it ignored or denied?

Banned from Adsense (3, Interesting)

softegg (938655) | about 2 years ago | (#41496845)

Yeah, evidently I got banned from Adsense for life because I put some ads on our forums and the kids did the darnedest thing... they actually clicked on them. A whole lot of times. I really didn't have any control over that. So they kept all the money I was to be paid from ALL of my sites (not just the one that the kids were clicking on), and banned me from Adsense, seemingly forever. I would click on the appeal button and ask what is up, and 6 months later they just say "denied".

I tried some of the other ad networks like Chiquita and Bidvertiser, but most of the ads were misleading or for scams and I had to delete them. The ones I did keep, on the most popular of my sites, have earned less than $1 in the entire time they have been up. Basically, Google has a monopoly on online advertising for small websites, so I'm pretty much screwed on ever making money from website advertising ever again.

Thanks for clicking on the ads, kids! Not...

(I wonder if this means that you can royally screw over websites by going and clicking on their ads every day?)

Get the fuck away from google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41496981)

and the other big fuckers. They're not charities, you know.

Too much dependence on Google (4, Informative)

slashmojo (818930) | about 2 years ago | (#41497147)

That's what happens when Google is the income source, traffic source, video host, blog host, stats/analytics provider etc etc etc. You inadvertently break one of their rules and you lose your business or a substantial part of it with no recourse or at best a long wait for an appeal to be considered with no guarantees. The result is people jumping through hoops to get around such issues such as by having multiple accounts with fake details (or real details but using multiple registered companies) .

People really need to break their dependence on Google (and any other almost monopoly) even if it initially means making a bit less money or having to do a bit more work, ie. install piwik for stats (or use statcounter) , install wordpress on your own server for blogs (or use wordpress.com), use other ad networks (there are many or you could even sell your own ads) and optimize everything as much as you can (test test test!), get traffic from other sources - amazingly it is possible!

In other words - don't be lazy! Google is not the only game in town, they just want you to think that.

It is so simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41497489)

Google's (or any monolithic corporation's) terms and actions are designed for the benefit of the corporation (least effort, maximum profit now) and not for the so-called customer.

Nice to see the editing's improved ... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#41497537)

It cause[sic] Google to suspect it of what?

Presumably not murder of the English language - I'm pretty certain who's the culprit in that case.

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>