Google Product Abuse discussion ban - a slippery slope?

[michal1980]

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)

violating a copyright is not stealing.

 

[DigDog]

violating a copyright is not stealing.

this according to you? or to a court?

let me say i'm glad you quoted my whole message so it's on page 3 as well, which is good. as for your response, i can't say the same.

 

[lxskllr]

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)

First off copyright infringement isn't "stealing". it isn't theft as a matter of law, and it isn't theft parsing it in common English. You're incorrect using any interpretation made by intelligent people.

Secondly, you may like to read thIs wiki on Creative Commons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

It's only presented as an example. There's many free licenses that get used, but CC is the most popular.

 

[michal1980]

this according to you? or to a court?

let me say i'm glad you quoted my whole message so it's on page 3 as well, which is good. as for your response, i can't say the same.

according to the supreme court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as stolen property for the purposes of a prosecution under a statute criminalizing the interstate transportation of such property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22

The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[6

 

[Pulsar]

according to the supreme court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as stolen property for the purposes of a prosecution under a statute criminalizing the interstate transportation of such property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22

The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[6

Sigh.

I was very careful to say that it was illegal, because it is. I see you're one of those people. Look, you can play semantics all you like. It's illegal. That makes it a very simple matter for Anandtech to decide.

 

[gsaldivar]

"...Google is now enforcing their requirement that their ads not be displayed alongside any discussions that involve "Google Product Abuse." This is legalese for the company not wanting their ads being used to fund sites that promote or otherwise offer instructions on downloading YouTube videos..."

I feel that there is a misinterpretation of Google's actual request.

Would it be possible to (either by code, or with moderation) flag discussions about Google's products and run non-Google ads on those pages only? I think Google would be happy with that solution. To be clear, Google is not objecting to the conversations taking place on Anandtech (that is our own interpretation), they are simply asking that their ads not run alongside them.

Of course, banning all discussions on that topic accomplishes the same thing, but I feel it would be fairer to members (and to Google) to disclose if there is a technical or cost limitation as to why the board's management cannot meet Google's specific request, and has decided to simply prohibit the topic altogether.

 

[mmntech]

How much revenue is Google actually providing the forums? Seems like the best alternative would be to either find a new ad provider, or charge a small subscription fee to compensate for the lost revenue.

 

[Ryan Smith]

Would it be possible to (either by code, or with moderation) flag discussions about Google's products and run non-Google ads on those pages only? I think Google would be happy with that solution. To be clear, Google is not objecting to the conversations taking place on Anandtech (that is our own interpretation), they are simply asking that their ads not run alongside them.

We do not currently have that capability. And at first glance it does not seem to be a satisfactory solution due to the time/money required and the likelihood of false negatives.

Seems like the best alternative would be to either find a new ad provider, or charge a small subscription fee to compensate for the lost revenue.

We've tried that before. It did not go well.

 

[michal1980]

We do not currently have that capability. And at first glance it does not seem to be a satisfactory solution due to the time/money required and the likelihood of false negatives.

We've tried that before. It did not go well.

could you just make a google subforum that does not run google ads?

 

[Ken g6]

could you just make a google subforum that does not run google ads?

And who would use it at this point? Except people who want to post links to YouTube downloaders?

Google appears to have AnandTech - and most of the Internet - over a barrel. IMHO they're starting to abuse that position, but not enough to lead any customer to do much about it yet.

 

[michal1980]

And who would use it at this point? Except people who want to post links to YouTube downloaders?

Google appears to have AnandTech - and most of the Internet - over a barrel. IMHO they're starting to abuse that position, but not enough to lead any customer to do much about it yet.

Its just downloaders today.

Soon this well spread to whatever else google doesn't want you talking about.

Google worried about people violating their rights is funny, this is a company that goes out and does things like scanning millions of books to post online. But a few people might download a youtube video, and they go nuts trying to stop it.

 

[Greenman]

Its just downloaders today.

Soon this well spread to whatever else google doesn't want you talking about.

Google worried about people violating their rights is funny, this is a company that goes out and does things like scanning millions of books to post online. But a few people might download a youtube video, and they go nuts trying to stop it.

It can spread to anything google decides they don't like. If they decide that discussion of civil rights doesn't fit in with their views, they have every right to stop advertising anywhere those discussions are held. For the site owner it's a simple matter of comply or lose the revenue.

This isn't rocket science, it's not about civil rights or free speech, it's business. Business can choose where and how their dollars are spent. What they're asking for is reasonable from their prospective. It's also business from the AT side. I assume this is a for profit venture, and anything that threatens those profits is a bad thing, so complying with your primary revenue providers wishes makes a lot of sense, especially when the activity in question isn't legal to begin with.

 

[michal1980]

It can spread to anything google decides they don't like. If they decide that discussion of civil rights doesn't fit in with their views, they have every right to stop advertising anywhere those discussions are held. For the site owner it's a simple matter of comply or lose the revenue.

This isn't rocket science, it's not about civil rights or free speech, it's business. Business can choose where and how their dollars are spent. What they're asking for is reasonable from their prospective. It's also business from the AT side. I assume this is a for profit venture, and anything that threatens those profits is a bad thing, so complying with your primary revenue providers wishes makes a lot of sense, especially when the activity in question isn't legal to begin with.

I care more about anandtechs response then googles stupidity.

 

[Greenman]

I care more about anandtechs response then googles stupidity.

We know what AT's response is, compliance. They decided that revenue loss was more important than promoting copyright infringement. I'd have made the same call.

 

[balloonshark]

Is there content on youtube that is free of copyrights? If so is it illegal to download one of those videos from youtube?

 

[michal1980]

We know what AT's response is, compliance. They decided that revenue loss was more important than promoting copyright infringement. I'd have made the same call.

discussion of how to download youtube videos is now promoting copyright infringement?

What other discussions do you want to prohibit because they might be skirting some law or tos?

 

[soccerballtux]

Is there content on youtube that is free of copyrights? If so is it illegal to download one of those videos from youtube?

illegal? no
against terms of service? yes
enforceable? probably not and they probably don't want to
are they going to make it difficult for you to keep doing it? yes

 

[lxskllr]

Is there content on youtube that is free of copyrights? If so is it illegal to download one of those videos from youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae8SZbxfE0g

Posted under the GFDL. Forbidding the copy of the video would be a violation of the license by Youtube.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License

To be clear, the above video is still copyrighted, but the license explicitly states the rights and responsibilities of the video distributer/user. For other videos, there's other licenses in use, as well as public domain video. They all have different requirements, or none at all depending on the status.

 

[soccerballtux]

Sigh.

I was very careful to say that it was illegal, because it is. I see you're one of those people. Look, you can play semantics all you like. It's illegal. That makes it a very simple matter for Anandtech to decide.

Sorry but that's not how the law works. It is only granted the authority given it by the word of the law, the rest remains in public domain for the benefit of the people.

the media companies can lobby to reform copyright to include downloading itself if they want.

also
legality hasn't come into this, this is about Google saving on costs and pretending to care about the media companies

 

[soccerballtux]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae8SZbxfE0g

Posted under the GFDL. Forbidding the copy of the video would be a violation of the license by Youtube.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License

To be clear, the above video is still copyrighted, but the license explicitly states the rights and responsibilities of the video distributer/user. For other videos, there's other licenses in use, as well as public domain video. They all have different requirements, or none at all depending on the status.

google is still free to not host it for the purpose of you downloading it, provided the license of the video does not forbid forbidding downloading for personal use by whoever is serving it.

that said, everyone would probably abuse that option if it were granted "this is a permissive license work" and upload everything with that box checked.

 

[lxskllr]

google is still free to not host it for the purpose of you downloading it, provided the license of the video does not forbid forbidding downloading for personal use by whoever is serving it.

that said, everyone would probably abuse that option if it were granted "this is a permissive license work" and upload everything with that box checked.

But they are hosting it, and the prohibition of download does violate the license. Commercial infringement is much more egregious than individuals sharing files, and Google can't pick and choose which licenses it wants to honor.

 

[BUTCH1]

How's this for an idea, figure out what it would cost per member to replace Google's $$ and start making AT forums a fee-based service. We all like free stuff, (and forums) but I'd rather fork over a modest fee than see ATF have to bend to the whim of the almighty Google. What's laughable is ad-blockers and YT downloaders have been around for quite awhile now, cat's kinda outta the bag on that one and YT openly keeps "full album" vids up knowing people are just ripping out the audio for free music. Yea, it's not exactly good quality free music but most don't care.

 

[Greenman]

discussion of how to download youtube videos is now promoting copyright infringement?

What other discussions do you want to prohibit because they might be skirting some law or tos?

Read my entire post, not just the last sentence.
Google is a business, they provide advertising revenue to AT. They have no legal or moral obligation to support a site that they think conflicts with their best interests. Some google minion found the downloading discussion, kicked it up the chain of command, and it was decided that they didn't want to support that discussion. It's just that simple.
No one is trying to curtail your rights, you are perfectly welcome to discuss downloading videos with anyone that wants to listen. But Google has decided they won't pay for the venue. That's reasonable.

I have no love for google, but what they're doing isn't nefarious, it isn't an attempt to silence the peoples voice, it's not an attack on the first amendment, it's a company saying "we won't pay you to tell everyone how to swipe our shit".

 

[lxskllr]

I have no love for google, but what they're doing isn't nefarious, it isn't an attempt to silence the peoples voice, it's not an attack on the first amendment, it's a company saying "we won't pay you to tell everyone how to swipe our shit".

Maybe Google should STFU, and look somewhere else. Everyone's making money, including them, and I linked to a video where they're explicitly violating the license(assuming one were to follow their ToS).

Btw, it absolutely is nefarious, and it is an attempt to silence people's voice. What I find most offensive is Google getting Snake's sig removed. What's next, Intel getting AMD references removed from signatures? We could have a gang bang, and Nvidia can pile on AMD also. Maybe Apple would like my sig removed...

Google had nothing to do with the removal of any part of SlickSnake's sig.
admin allisolm

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

 

[Greenman]

Maybe Google should STFU, and look somewhere else. Everyone's making money, including them, and I linked to a video where they're explicitly violating the license(assuming one were to follow their ToS).

Btw, it absolutely is nefarious, and it is an attempt to silence people's voice. What I find most offensive is Google getting Snake's sig removed. What's next, Intel getting AMD references removed from signatures? We could have a gang bang, and Nvidia can pile on AMD also. Maybe Apple would like my sig removed...

So now you're angry at them on spec?