Google Product Abuse discussion ban - a slippery slope?

[lxskllr]

So now you're angry at them on spec?

Spec=speculation? I'm assuming Snake was being truthful. I don't see any other reason a search engine endorsement would be verboten on a tech forum, especially with all the other technological endorsements people put in their sigs.

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

 

[esquared]

Spec=speculation? I'm assuming Snake was being truthful. I don't see any other reason a search engine endorsement would be verboten on a tech forum, especially with all the other technological endorsements people put in their sigs.

This claim about google is absolutely untrue.

What we did, because of his claim is to spend multiple mod hours looking into this from 12-11-14 to now.

Without divulging too much info from slicksnake's communication with the mods, he could not find the PM from the mod that made his claim nor could we find one from him. From further communication he did admit that the goggle claim was probably an error.


What he hasn't done is edit out his claim and now this keep getting quoted and gaining legs from nothing at all.

 

[lxskllr]

This claim about google is absolutely untrue.

What we did, because of his claim is to spend multiple mod hours looking into this from 12-11-14 to now.

Without divulging too much info from slicksnake's communication with the mods, he could not find the PM from the mod that made his claim nor could we find one from him. From further communication he did admit that the goggle claim was probably an error.


What he hasn't done is edit out his claim and now this keep getting quoted and gaining legs from nothing at all.

Fair enough. That's my biggest point of contention with the whole mess. I won't edit my posts, because I believe what I said based on the facts presented, but if those were in error, a large percentage of my problems aren't valid.

 

[soccerballtux]

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

by the way, I'm only referring to Copyright Infringement here. I cannot speak of Intellectual Property Theft, if there is such a thing. I believe IP is legitimate and should be protected for the original 15 or 25 whatever Copyright years. Hm, I suppose that's a little different from what I originally said.

 

[lxskllr]

by the way, I'm only referring to Copyright Infringement here. I cannot speak of Intellectual Property Theft, if there is such a thing. I believe IP is legitimate and should be protected for the original 15 or 25 whatever Copyright years. Hm, I suppose that's a little different from what I originally said.

It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

 

[soccerballtux]

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

RMS is a bit unfair to say the clearest way out...it's a clear way out from a certain point of view.

 

[Jimzz]

"Purch Acquires Anandtech"
Purch; parent company of Tom’s Hardware

Now its making more sense why anandtech bowed down to Google.

 

[Pulsar]

"Purch Acquires Anandtech"
Purch; parent company of Tom’s Hardware

Now its making more sense why anandtech bowed down to Google.

I had the same thought.

 

[Jimzz]

I had the same thought.

Yep seems this was in the works for a good year plus so when google came they bent over to make sure nothing could mess the deal up.

"Before his departure, Anand spent almost a year meeting with all of the big names in the publishing space, both traditional and new media players. The goal was to find AnandTech a home with a partner that had a sustainable business model (similar to AnandTech’s), but could add the investment and existing reach to allow the site to better realize its potential. That search led to a number of interesting potential partners; it was a refreshing experience to say the least knowing that there are groups in the world who really value good content. Ultimately that search brought AnandTech to Purch."

 

[ClockHound]

You can rest assured that we're quite sure.

As dumb as the whole situation is, I can appreciate Google not wanting to have their ads funding discussions on how to rip their content.
-The New Boss

Ok...that misguided assertion has me jumping into a fray that I want no part of.

But, let's be CLEAR - Google does NOT own any content on YouTube, except the content they create for their YouTube channels. YouTube is a content aggregator, whose initial success was driven by the dissemination of copyrighted material they didn't own.

Having my own channel on YouTube that featured my own original animation series, I can assure you that I merely granted them a license to distribute my original copyrighted work as per their draconian and dubious legal terms of service agreement. There is no mention about protection from unauthorized downloads. As well, their legalese makes it clear they have no liability in failing to protect my copyrighted content.

I can only conclude why Google would care about content being downloaded is that the ads would not be included. Not because they care much at all about protecting my copyrighted content.

That Google would punish Anandtech in order to protect my content that I offer freely on YouTube is a stretch too far.

As a huge swollen pig content aggregator/distributor, they have to pretend to care about protecting 'their' content. 99.99999% content that is not theirs in any legal or moral definition.

They're a gargantuan advertising company with near monopoly powers who do no evil. Unless it fits their good agendas.

/rant

 

[michal1980]

Ok...that misguided assertion has me jumping into a fray that I want no part of.

But, let's be CLEAR - Google does NOT own any content on YouTube, except the content they create for their YouTube channels. YouTube is a content aggregator, whose initial success was driven by the dissemination of copyrighted material they didn't own.

Having my own channel on YouTube that featured my own original animation series, I can assure you that I merely granted them a license to distribute my original copyrighted work as per their draconian and dubious legal terms of service agreement. There is no mention about protection from unauthorized downloads. As well, their legalese makes it clear they have no liability in failing to protect my copyrighted content.

I can only conclude why Google would care about content being downloaded is that the ads would not be included. Not because they care much at all about protecting my copyrighted content.

That Google would punish Anandtech in order to protect my content that I offer freely on YouTube is a stretch too far.

As a huge swollen pig content aggregator/distributor, they have to pretend to care about protecting 'their' content. 99.99999% content that is not theirs in any legal or moral definition.

They're a gargantuan advertising company with near monopoly powers who do no evil. Unless it fits their good agendas.

/rant

Well said. I'd like to ad that I'm disappointed that Anandtech, and other tech sites aren't calling google out for their redacted.

For example in the youtube TOS, google says they might link to third part websites, and it has no control over the content on those websites. (we all now know that's a lie). Second ad-sense has a twisted ass exemption for what discussion is allow: Ripping DVDs is ok, Cracking firmware is ok. But its not ok if it will violate copyright. Because we all know that people just rip DVD's they make.

Google doesn't care about copyright, they care about their pocket book. They rip off copyright left and right.

They don't care about sites they link too, If they did they wouldn't let you get around newspaper paywalls.

maybe google should be broken up. But if everyone is bullied into silence by them, they'll taking more and more power.



No profanity is allowed outside the social forums.

This is PFI and you have to maintain some sort of control when posting here.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Rakehellion]

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.

Your "best" alternatives are pretty crappy. The current solution is working well.

 

[Rakehellion]

Google doesn't care about copyright, they care about their pocket book. They rip off copyright left and right.

You don't care about copyright either. You just care about yourself and what you're allowed to do. Just like everyone else.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The thing that strikes me is that Google does not want to censor their own search results because they know that would hurt Google's business, instead they just want to try to get everyone else to hurt their business.

I am disappointed.