Alright. This will be interesting. But what is it going to accomplish? It is not illegal to advertise on websites that promote piracy and consumers won't really care one way or another. Wouldn't it be better to research something a little more productive?

This "google alliance" bias thing invalidates the results before they are even going to be published. To Google, these websites are just like every other website. Google relates and links things automatically as does every search engine, piracy related or not. Millions of websites use Google AdSense.

I believe Castle made the "google alliance" comment.

Is he involved in the USC research?

If he is, then the data will be flawed.

Yes Google doesn't care about the numbers.

But IMO other media will use the data to try and embarass google because they will be so jealous

Correct, that is from Castle.

/paul

"It is not illegal to advertise on websites that promote piracy"

I think most people can understand why advertising on illegal websites should be illegal...

A site is not illegal until a court of law with jurisdiction over the site says it is illegal and then it usually gets shut down, so the point is kinda moot. 

If I were you, I'd find another hobby. The Pirate Decade is over...

Typical pirate logic. The court system has nothing to do with any of this. A site is illegal if a content holder says it is.

"A site is illegal if a content holder says it is."

Sorry, but no content holder would ever say anything like that. You really need to do a little research.

First, at least some "consumers" do care about obeying the law and doing the right thing.

Second, it should be illegal to advertise on pirate web sites.

- V

Interesting thoughts about the conflict of capitalism and morality.

True "Some 'consumers' do care." However, the people who visit pirate sites don't care about US copyright law. If they did they wouldn't be there. And apparently pirate sites get a lot of traffic otherwise the adverts wouldn't be there.

Marijuana posession is still a federal crime. Should it be illegal to advertise on google searches for medicinal marijuana stores?

Comparing the amount of advertising on searches, more people are willing to casually break US copyright law than US narcotics law. 

Since the public would be outraged if the Feds had the authority and started throwing copyright infringers in jail at the rate that they imprison marijuana consumers, it would appear that the only way to curb copyright piracy is to change consumers beliefs and consumer habits.

That requires a lot of advertising dollars. Kinda ironic isn't it?

"Interesting thoughts about the conflict of capitalism and morality"

No, this is a simple conflict between crime and justice.

Here's what Google suggests when I type Photoshop in YouTube's search field:

'photoshop cs6 free download'

Here's what they suggest when I type Microsoft Word in YouTube's search field:

'microsoft word 2010 free download full version'

Google may not survive if we stop the commercial Piracy Industry.

That's why the company declared war on art and artists a long time ago, and that's why it protects organized crime 24/7.

Morality is not involved. And we have pure capitalism on both sides of the conflict: Illegal vs. legal.

It has everything to do with morals. If someone believes that there is nothing WRONG with copyright infringement then they will continue to do it whether it is illegal or not.

It is hard to pass a law if the majority of people believe that enforcing that law would be immoral. It can be done.

But it is nearly impossible to enforce a law that people believe the moral basis of the law conflicts with their own liberty. Just check how well that worked for prohibition.

People have decided that it is morally wrong to infringe on someones copyright. They have passed laws to allow copyright holders to enforce their copyrights.

If you can convince a majority of consumers that it is immoral to profit from advertising on web pages that direct users to sites that contain infringing material then you have won half the battle. Convincing consumers, businesses and advertisers to curtail their liberty to abide by the law will be the battle that you will lose.

Isn't it about time that people who profit from other peoples work get stiffed?  It takes too long to shut them down and put them in jail, let's just cut off their revenue and other body parts.

Do the math.  Kim Dotcom's MegaUpload with 4% of internet traffic was making; sorry, ripping off, somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 million a year, just in advertising.

Where are all the freehadists that rail against "successful" musicians for being greedy when they speak out about illegal downloading?  I'm waiting for an answer..........  

Its' one thing to talk about free, its' quite another to talk about abusing others to create wealth.

We don't need the law to end this, we just need to keep it out front.  This is a pr disaster waiting to happen and I don't think there are too many legitimate business that want to be the last man standing. 

I agree, we should be cutting off their body parts like we used to do. I want "PIRACY IS DEATH" billboards in all the major cities, along with public executions of suspected pirates. That would be ideal.

Two torrentfreaks in this thread already. :)

Scary times, huh? 6 strikes coming up, torrent sites & lockers coming down. Google in deep s***.

What's the world coming to...

So typical the response to my post.  Focus on the cynical statement and ignore the real point of the discussion.

There is  o free in free file sharing; it is simple a business model designed to be profitable at someone else's expense.  I'm still waiting for the pirate community to address that simple fact.

Talk about the business behind those you so fervently defend and stop making this some noble social experiment.

The problem is you aren't being hard enough on piracy. That's basically like being a freehadist supporter.

Only with the harshest measures will we defeat the freehadist menace.

Nah, no need to be harsh.

We all want to stop the thieves, but the international anti-piracy initiatives that are rolling out these days will do the job.

"Isn't it about time that people who profit from other peoples work get stiffed?  It takes too long to shut them down and put them in jail, let's just cut off their revenue and other body parts."

Well, yes. It is. But this isn't going to do that. All it is going to do is show much money is being made. It won't actually stop the advertisers because it is not illegal to advertise on the websites.

"We don't need the law to end this, we just need to keep it out front.  This is a pr disaster waiting to happen and I don't think there are too many legitimate business that want to be the last man standing. "

True enough. It could impact major corporations that care about image. But the advertising world is very complex, espeically the online one. For every company that blocks their ads on torrent sites, another lines up to fill their spots. Most often times done completely automatically by the advertising agency. There will always be someone willing to advertise on torrent sites. Even if it is the old "you won a free wii" advertisements. Ad agencies fill their spots, one way or another.

Casy - so exploiting artists for corporate profit is OK than? Wow, just wow. Don't you think it's better idea if those ad dollars go to Spotify and Pandora instead of 4shared, Filestube and IsoHunt?

Billy Corgan Exploited By… Citi Bank, AT&T, Target, Virgin Atlantic, Mazda, Neiman Marcus, Musicians Friend, Hertz, BMW, Audi, Boston Market, Urban Outfitters, Williams Sonoma

U2 Exploited by United Airlines, Jet Blue, HP, State Farm, Westin, Urban Outfitters, Sprint, AT&T, Amazon, Disney Resorts, Crate and Barrel

Tom Waits Exploited By Wendy’s, Yahoo, BMW, Mitt Romney, Adobe, Cadillac, LG, Target, Westin Hotels, Priceline, Hyatt Hotels, Weight Watchers, VISA, State Farm, Mini Cooper, ADT Security…

Yes, I do think that would be a better idea. I have never been a piracy advocate. But this isn't going to funnel advertising into legal means. All it will do is point out the amount of money being spent on websites promoting illegal content. Ad agencies will fill the unsold ad inventory on torrent sites, one way or another.

While I disagree with Casey and believe that we can have a meaningful impact in decreasing ad revenue to pirate sites; there's another impact and it has to do with public perception.

Someone mentioned transparency, well the freehadists don't have any of that in their diatribe.  But, begrudgingly, I do have to give their lobby credit for sustaining a decade long campaign of misdirection and obfuscation as to their "digital right" for other peoples content.  

They even have the arrogance to portray their actions as some noble experiment in the evolution of communication.  Yeah, we'll share...................... his stuff.

But, alas, there is a major component missing from their incessant harangue and it certainly muddies their position. Someone is profiting, big time and unfortunately it is not the artists.  

After all, this free stuff does come at a price, and for the guy or gal trying to make a living from their art the price is survival.

So much for noble causes.

He he, awesome!!! Don't you just love that title:

'USC Annenberg Advertising Transparency Report'

This is the first serious attack on Google, ever!

One of the ways Google are harrassing piracy victims is through the 'Google transparency report'.

In Google's own words:

Transparency is a core value at Google. As a company we feel it is our responsibility to ensure that we maximize transparency around the flow of information related to our tools and services. We believe that more information means more choice, more freedom and ultimately more power for the individual.

In this report, we disclose:

• Real-time and historical traffic to Google services around the world;
• Numbers of removal requests we receive from copyright owners or governments;
• Numbers of user data requests we receive from government agencies and courts.

Source:

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/

Ouch! :)

Google wants everyone else to be transparent.

But the tide is turning.

I know it's a long shot, but... what if Google lose their war against artists?

Google will not lose. They have mountains of cash and that gets the lawyers, lobbyists and politicians drooling and crawling on their knees.

Right now Google needs even more money to expand.

Google may at some point put the clamp down on copyright infringement if there is money to be made that way.

For instance, maybe in the future when Google is controlling the physical networks, the ISPs, the mobile networks, and one or two mass media outlets then they will use copyright law enforcement to crush any competitors that remain and the lawyers and politicians will be there to pave the way for them to do it.

"Google will not lose. They have mountains of cash"

Alta Vista had mountains of cash. Then something happened...

Sure, Google is big, but their economy is built on copyright infringement and that makes them weak and vulnerable to political changes.

Google is now the dinosaur. So anything can happen. New anti-piracy initiatives might kill them. Or a new competitor may arrive.

And don't forget Apple could buy them tomorrow.

"Google is now the dinosaur." Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha....oh that's a good one.

"Apple could buy them tomorrow." I have a fondness for apples.

Then why doesn't Apple buy Google? What has Apple done lately? on Safari perhaps?

Why don't the "good" guys come to the rescue, throw some money at lobbyists to get some laws/regulations passed to curtail the profit being made off of advertising connected to piracy sites?

Google is worth more than what Apple can pay. They could "merge", but lets be real, that would be blocked hard by the government considering they are competitors in a lot of fields.

the bigger they are, the harder they fall...

Alta Vista never had much cash. They had over inflated stock. A lot of companies did. Google has lots of cash and stock that is not over inflated. Google's money is built on top of ads. Piracy may contribute to those ad revenues, but the vast majority of it has nothing to do with piracy.

Google is not really a dinosaur in any way. Their areas of interest right now, Android, Youtube, and Google Fiber are doing quite well.

"Google's money is built on top of ads"

Google's economy is entirely based on piracy.

Take piracy out of the equation, and Google's history...

First of all, you need to also include Bing/Microsoft and Yahoo as they return results that are almost identical to Google's. Criticising Google while not including the others is ridiculous. You may as well also include the Ask,  AOL Search,  MyWebSearch, Blekko, Lycos, Dogpile, WebCrawler, Info, Infospace, Search, and Excite search engines, too, for the same reason. Are you ready to do battle now?

Emotion usually rules the day in these comments at DMN, but the rational reality is that none of these so-called 'pirate sites' hosts any illegal content. They simply point to torrents that may or may not pull copyrighted material hosted by thousands of anonymous users. And every single search engine points to them as well.

This is called "a losing battle." Instead, why not figure out how to monetize those sites, which purportedly service almost 200 million users, who also purportedly buy 30%-40% more media than people who don't use those sites. You cannot shut down a hydra, but maybe you can leverage it for the benefit of many who deserve it.

"You cannot shut down a hydra"

Yes, we can. It's happening right now...

Are you kidding? This year has been the worst in recorded history for copyright enforcement. We are stuck with our pants down and Silicon Valley is making sweet love to our butthole.

"This year has been the worst in recorded history for copyright enforcement."

Not true. Megaupload alone was huge, and that was just the ouverture.

Like I said: It's happening right now...

The Megaupload battle is far from over. Especially since so many laws were broken in the process of taking them down. A full scale megaupload trial could very well uncover all the illegal steps taken to shut them down and actually weaken the federal government's ability to fight piracy more than ever.

As I have said before, going after MegaUpload was a bad and premature idea. They took a gamble against a company with a lot of money and without making sure there were laws in place to win the battle. Now there is a good chance the feds will lose the battle and then MegaUpload will be impossible to take down. And an even worse side effect is that MegaUpload's users have since resorted to harder to detect forms of piracy, often times protected by encryption making it nearly imposible to detect. They didn't do their homework and screwed up.

While the hardcore users may be harder to find, the ISPs can't hide and they are the target.  

It would be a shame if Dotcom walks, but I do find a contradiction when the freehadists show disdain for the man and success and then defend this, er, indivdual.

If nothing else, it once again points out that piracy is really just a self-serving practice that screws artists.  

"As I have said before, going after MegaUpload was a bad and premature idea."

Shutting down MegaUpload was the best thing that happened to artists in 2012. It sent shock waves through the entire commercial Piracy Industry.

And it was just the beginning...

in the history of mankind, sanctions and penalties have rarely worked well..

What does work, and this is simply economics or "capitalism" 101..

come up with a better product that will replace the current product..

Yeah, like t-tshirts and hoodies.

Since technology has made it possible to infringe others copyrights on a massive scale without any consequences, all copyrightable material should be considered to have no intrinsic value.

Time to move on.

Go on tour sell merch and hope that the price of gas stays low and that sweat shop over in China that is pumping out the t-shirts, hats and hoodies doesn't raise prices.

"in the history of mankind, sanctions and penalties have rarely worked well"

On the contrary: Without sanctions and penalties, you wouldn't own the computer screen you read this on, you wouldn't own the chair you sit in, and it wouldn't matter because somebody would have murdered you a long time ago.

Civilisation is based on fear and terror. Sanctions and penalties work very well for all of us every single minute of our lives.

Unless we're artists.

Haar haaar ye dimwit landlubbers! Me and me fellow Pirates never download tracks by any of you loosers. You are whining like it mattered, while we on our side all know that we only rob the already rrich and famousssss, not out of the goodness of our hearts, but because we have not heard of the other stuff(and because most of it is not worth nicking in the first place)

get day jobs or join us sailing the interweb trawling it for bits and pieces and generally pissing people off... Haaarrr Harrr! yo ho ho and a bottle of Redbull

Die, pirate scum.

Nah, pirates should be sued -- not killed.

Don't waste our natural resources.

Always been a fan of the old "we took it, but it wasn't very good anyway".

Love that.

Law enforcement will put sanctins in place is someone "shares" the digital bits from your bank account.   The fact is law enforcement can and does sanction people and organizations for violating copyright laws.  If an artist wants to give away their music, that is great.  The current situation on the internet forces and artist to give away their music.  Copyright is a human right.  Article 27 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights says, "(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."  Additionally, "sharing" copyrighted content violated US Federal law 17 USC 106 and more than 200,000 people have been sued for doing that since 2010. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics says that musicians wages are down 45% since p2p technology arrived.