Google Product Abuse discussion ban - a slippery slope?

[soccerballtux]

Then you either don't understand the situation, or you don't understand free speech. Google provides a service that we utilize, and they have certain terms and conditions we need to meet. We can either decide not to use that service, or try and meet their T&C. It's no different than a nice restaurant requiring a dress code... you either meet their dress code or you don't eat there. It's a simple concept, and one that doesn't need the political spin you're trying to put on it.

you can have your cake to look at (watch youtube)
but you can't talk about eating it (downloading it)

currently they even let you eat it.

 

[Paladin3]

Freedom of speech does not mean others have to fund, publish or otherwise support your speech. Advertisers have the right to pull their advertising dollars for any reason they want to and it's up to the publication, or forums in this case, to decide if they want to comply with their demands or give up the revenue.

If any of you feel strongly enough about this issue then you can make your checks out to Anand. Otherwise, be happy that the forums are being so open and honest about the issue.

 

[balloonshark]

Not that you're going to agree but I don't like the fact that you had to get rid of discussions or information from the past. I would have had less of a problem if you had agreed to create a new rule to disallow further youtube download discussions as long as you were partners with google. I just don't like it when past knowledge and people's efforts to help others is destroyed.

 

[Jimzz]

^

Yep google told them to jump and they said yes master how high.

And I agree if they just changed the rule that is one thing. But to go back and delete older post is pure censorship.
Lets not just tell someone they can't make new books but also you have to burn all the old ones as well.

 

[Ketchup]

^

Yep google told them to jump and they said yes master how high.

And I agree if they just changed the rule that is one thing. But to go back and delete older post is pure censorship.
Lets not just tell someone they can't make new books but also you have to burn all the old ones as well.

To me, this part makes the most sense out of the whole deal. People are popping in the forums all the time because of what they found on a Google search. Not to get membership, just to see what other people are suggesting.

As other have said, the hypocrisy of all this rises when one sees what just a couple words of a Google search will show on the first page.

I am encouraged to see what the Bosses are saying about this. I want to keep these forums alive as much as anyone, but some things just aren't worth the cost, and I do hope that Google decides to not engage in further testing of that fact.

 

[SlickSnake]

Anyone who is really concerned about ongoing developments like this, can just stop using Google as their primary search engine for starters.

I used to have https://startpage.com/ listed as my search engine of choice in my sig for years, but then one day a few years ago, some good old boy Google buddy here sent a complaint to a mod about it, and I was forced to remove it from my sig.

Startpage DOES query the Google search engine. However, they DO NOT transmit any of your private browsing habits or any other personal data to Google when they do it.

 

[lxskllr]

I used to have https://startpage.com/ listed as my search engine of choice in my sig for years, but then one day a few years ago, some good old boy Google buddy here sent a complaint to a mod about it, and I was forced to remove it from my sig.

That's a load of crap by both parties. It never should have been asked, and the if asked, the "request" should never have been honored. If Google has a problem with Startpage, take them to court. Silent suppression should never be tolerated.

I've kept out of this discussion because it deals with legal grey area, so it isn't /entirely/ unreasonable, but legal grey areas are largely white, so I really don't like the decision. When a technology forum censors technological discussion, one has to ask themselves why they exist.

Edit:
It seems facts aren't as they were presented. I'm leaving my posts as a historical record, but am retracting most of my objections. I still don't quite like the way things are going, but it's not enough to make noise over.

See post #77

 

[michal1980]

That's a load of crap by both parties. It never should have been asked, and the if asked, the "request" should never have been honored. If Google has a problem with Startpage, take them to court. Silent suppression should never be tolerated.

I've kept out of this discussion because it deals with legal grey area, so it isn't /entirely/ unreasonable, but legal grey areas are largely white, so I really don't like the decision. When a technology forum censors technological discussion, one has to ask themselves why they exist.

Isn't it obvious? anandtech forums exist to make money.

Its funny that in the Youtube terms of conditions google says they can link to third party sites, and that they don't have control over what the third party post. But in adsense they say they wont post ads to sites that promote any hacking and cracking.

anandtech needs to take a deep look at who they want to be, a technology forum that's independent? or an advertising outlet for google?

another thread in this forum says Anandtech wont delete a user account if the user asks. But google asks for a purge of discussions about downloading youtube videos and poof magic happens.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

My only real input here is we should avoid discussing this issues in the context of "abuse", while it is legalese we should be careful in letting google frame this issue, this is the same kind of slimy tactics that lead to many businesses framing copyright infringement as "theft", we shouldn't let these cultural myths spread.

To have a sticky thread at the top of all the anandtech forums that suggests that people who use these programs are somehow abusive is very bad form, in my opinion. It's sufficient to simply state that the discussion is no longer allowed and why.

I can't help but shake the feeling that Google are fast becoming our overlords, I think some effort on the part of the anandtech staff to attempt to acquire alternative advertising and abandon google should always be on the agenda. I hope you continue to look into that.

 

[z1ggy]

Isn't it obvious? anandtech forums exist to make money.


another thread in this forum says Anandtech wont delete a user account if the user asks. But google asks for a purge of discussions about downloading youtube videos and poof magic happens.

Reminds me of politicians....

I can call up/email/write my congressman asking that he veto/vote for a certain bill. I'll get no response, or a typical BS response that's clearly automated and not from him, i.e. it's a waste of time.

Butttttttttt, if I was a giant corporation willing to "donate" money to his campaign the following year and I (off the record) wanted him to veto/vote for a certain bill, he sure as heck is going to do it.

My point is, that user doesn't pay money to run this forum, so this forum could care less about any request he makes. Google pays to keep this forum up, so... If Anand doesn't want to go in the black, they will do whatever Google says to do.

 

[michal1980]

Reminds me of politicians....

I can call up/email/write my congressman asking that he veto/vote for a certain bill. I'll get no response, or a typical BS response that's clearly automated and not from him, i.e. it's a waste of time.

Butttttttttt, if I was a giant corporation willing to "donate" money to his campaign the following year and I (off the record) wanted him to veto/vote for a certain bill, he sure as heck is going to do it.

My point is, that user doesn't pay money to run this forum, so this forum could care less about any request he makes. Google pays to keep this forum up, so... If Anand doesn't want to go in the black, they will do whatever Google says to do.

very true.

 

[michal1980]

My only real input here is we should avoid discussing this issues in the context of "abuse", while it is legalese we should be careful in letting google frame this issue, this is the same kind of slimy tactics that lead to many businesses framing copyright infringement as "theft", we shouldn't let these cultural myths spread.

To have a sticky thread at the top of all the anandtech forums that suggests that people who use these programs are somehow abusive is very bad form, in my opinion. It's sufficient to simply state that the discussion is no longer allowed and why.

I can't help but shake the feeling that Google are fast becoming our overlords, I think some effort on the part of the anandtech staff to attempt to acquire alternative advertising and abandon google should always be on the agenda. I hope you continue to look into that.

I'd compare video downloaders with DVRs. At the end of the day what is really the difference? Google allows the videos to be streaming, ie actively downloaded. All downloaders are doing is recording the stream. so they can watch something later.

Google is just using its size and monopoly to bully the market.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'd compare video downloaders with DVRs. At the end of the day what is really the difference? Google allows the videos to be streaming, ie actively downloaded. All downloaders are doing is recording the stream. so they can watch something later.

Google is just using its size and monopoly to bully the market.

Exactly. Technically speaking the data is streamed to your PC and stored in memory to be played in your application of choice (there's nothing that restricts you to browsers to interpret http and the other protocols server through HTML)

It is just a bully tactic, their revenue stream isn't strictly speaking legally enforceable (same with any adverts really) so they resort to slimy tactics to protect a dying business model.

 

[Ketchup]

Exactly. Technically speaking the data is streamed to your PC and stored in memory to be played in your application of choice (there's nothing that restricts you to browsers to interpret http and the other protocols server through HTML)

It is just a bully tactic, their revenue stream isn't strictly speaking legally enforceable (same with any adverts really) so they resort to slimy tactics to protect a dying business model.

You both make a decent point here, however the request in question deals with bringing up the subject on the forums. We aren't necessarily being asked to respond either way to the legality of it.

 

[Pulsar]

Exactly. Technically speaking the data is streamed to your PC and stored in memory to be played in your application of choice (there's nothing that restricts you to browsers to interpret http and the other protocols server through HTML)

It is just a bully tactic, their revenue stream isn't strictly speaking legally enforceable (same with any adverts really) so they resort to slimy tactics to protect a dying business model.

No....

Google makes money from advertising, and a large part of the youtube business model is based around people that host videos there also making money through advertising. That's why google enforces their legal copyright. If everyone ripped videos and distributed them, google's revenue stream would go 'poof'. It's piracy, and google is fighting against it. Not unreasonable.

 

[Rage187]

Interesting predicament.

I get it, as YouTube isn't exactly their content. And if that is the line, ok.

 

[michal1980]

No....

Google makes money from advertising, and a large part of the youtube business model is based around people that host videos there also making money through advertising. That's why google enforces their legal copyright. If everyone ripped videos and distributed them, google's revenue stream would go 'poof'. It's piracy, and google is fighting against it. Not unreasonable.

By that logic the DVR should be banned. And ad blockers.

 

[Pulsar]

By that logic the DVR should be banned. And ad blockers.

Google has a copyright and terms of service that forbid you from using downloading their videos. It is not a matter of 'logic', it's a matter of legality. A fairly straightforward one.

 

[Greenman]

Anyone who is really concerned about ongoing developments like this, can just stop using Google as their primary search engine for starters.

I used to have https://startpage.com/ listed as my search engine of choice in my sig for years, but then one day a few years ago, some good old boy Google buddy here sent a complaint to a mod about it, and I was forced to remove it from my sig.

Startpage DOES query the Google search engine. However, they DO NOT transmit any of your private browsing habits or any other personal data to Google when they do it.

Thanks for that info. I'll be using this.

 

[lxskllr]

One other thing... Did anyone push back on this? Google doesn't advertise on sites to spread love and money to the worthy. They do it because it makes them money, and this site makes them money.

The more I think about it, the less I like it. I'd tell them to stick their ads up their ass, and shut the site if it doesn't support itself, and a solution can't be found. As it is, this place is getting less fit for purpose, when technological discussion gets censored. Do it right, or don't do it at all...

 

[DigDog]

i though you were going away?



as i have said before, google wants us to stop telling people how to google "youtube downloader".
you might think the issue here is with "google" but the reality is that the issue is with "downloader".

youtube videos are either content produced by individual youtubers or full-blown copyright theft. either way, if someone downlads a youtube video, they are infringing *someone's* copyright.

google asked us to stop telling people how to do that. it's a far cry from "saying bad stuff about google", and since it's essentially piracy, which we already ban, why all the rage?


didn't i say this very same thing 1 page ago? or maybe you chose to ignore a sensible response because it doesn't work for your conspiracy theories?

 

[michal1980]

Google has a copyright and terms of service that forbid you from using downloading their videos. It is not a matter of 'logic', it's a matter of legality. A fairly straightforward one.

tv networks have copyright.

and just because something is in a TOS, does not make it legal.

technically just watching a video on youtube involves me downloading the video.

 

[lxskllr]

i though you were going away?

Are you talking to me? I didn't say anything about leaving, one way or another. I'm (mostly)quietly judging, and assessing the goings on here.

You also make a blanket, and baseless assumption regarding downloaded videos. A large quantity of the videos I download are breaking copyright if downloading is *forbidden*. Think about that one for awhile...

 

[DigDog]

i must be confusing you with someone else

edit: my bad. nearly identical avatar in this thread : http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=36975222&highlight=#post36975222

as for legality, if you possess a video in a form which you can watch without it being in possession of the rights owner, you "have" the video, and have thus stolen it.

again - i dont agree with this ridiculous interpretation of the law, but it's the law. and while i may continue to ignore the law in my private life, i woldn't do the same if my paycheck depends on it. (if i get hired by the RIAA, i'll even stop downloading torrents)

in regards to the stream being on your computer, eh sure, technically you are right. and techncally the guys from TPB were innocent. but the law said otherwise.

now google asks a business partner of theirs to stop giving out info that helps people break the law, and damages them. in exchange for a whole bunch of money, too.
tell me where the problem is.

oh and downloading someone else's video is implicitly forbidden. if a person holds copyright, your owning the video without an agreement (which can be a sales receipt; again, i dont agree with the way copyright law evolved, but this is the state of things) is a copyright infringment.

look, the name makes it pretty clear - a copyright holder is (capitals incoming) THE ONLY PERSON LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE A COPY. have you made a copy of *something* ?
were you authorized?
no?

ok, im glad you get it now.

(if you download public domain videos, or videos given away expressly by the holder, then yeah, you can tell people how to download it. now go find me a public domain video on youtube, pls)

 

[Ketchup]

... edit: my bad. nearly identical avatar in this thread : http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=36975222&highlight=#post36975222

Yeah, if you read many posts from both, I don't see how you could get them confused, lol.

About the youtube downloader: if this got any bigger, I would shoot back to Google the question of why them allowing such videos to be posted is legal in the first place. It's not their video!

Taking this a bit further (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong here): who is making the money on these videos? Them and the person who uploaded (if they allow ads) AFAIK. Does the record company (artist) know? No. Is the record company (artist) making money? No. And when they do find out, a lot of them are asking Google to remove them. Some smaller artists are putting their videos out there for recognition, but big names are in a constant battle to keep their content off (because people continue to try to put it on there). So who is the villain here?

Google has gained a lot of money because of their tactics. Money = power. In some ways, they could be considered a modern-day Microsoft from the past. I will be very surprised if their "requests" stop here, so I do hope the staff is ready for alternative sources when the time comes.