Calacanis Wants Publishers To Blackmail Google
Jason Calacanis wants twenty major publishers to blackmail Google into cutting off the ad dollars it gives to content-stealing websites. Funny, I thought Google had a spine. Oh, wait, it does.
Jason argues that since these sites are making their cash off ad networks like AdSense, the major content publishers should demand Google stop paying paying these guys or else they will drop their Google ads.
Imagine your the CEO of one of these ad networks and an email comes to your desk with 20 of your top publishers saying “We support X publisher in their effort to protect their content from the following website which is stealing content.” When you’re an ad network your main cost of doing business is signing up publishers, and your publisher relationships are all you’ve got.
I have so many reasons why this is a bad idea. First, this is a job for law enforcement. If Google started doing this, they would be required to do it in all cases where the law might be a question. Its not their problem, unless a court says it is their problem. Second, it would be stupid of Google to roll over for these guys, since it would establish that Google could be blackmailed. Regardless of any complaints people have about Google, they don’t just roll over for threats. Which brings me to my third point: Google doesn’t need their money. Google prints money at this point, and if publishers are going to resort to petty blackmail, Google can say “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out”.
I’m not saying that content theft is a minor problem. It is both wide-spread and disgusting. Content thieves are no-talent criminals. As criminals, they should be prosecuted. However, the criminal justice system is ill-equipped for this sort of thing. With court cases taking forever, getting the government to do its damn job is impossible, what with the thousands of cases that would need to be added to the system. The courts have all the right to prosecute websites that steal content, as well as users who download music illegally, but the courts don’t have the resources to do so.
We need an overhaul of the court system where electronic crimes can be settled in a matter of days. The infringed upon part should be able to submit proof of ownership of the content, a computer should determine the penalty, and the infringing party should be notified that it has been fined. In these cases, if one party can point to content as originating in one place and duplicated in another, that should be enough to swing the burden of proof over to the infringing party. That is the only way ownership of content can be protected by the courts.
Now, I’ve got my own ideas for penalties (twice the standard market price, i.e. $1.98 a song, $60 a movie, or twice the value of a website) and checks in the system (if the claim is false, the claimant pays for all court costs), but my main point is that new ideas are needed. With the RIAA playing “moron cowboy” and Jason Calacanis suggesting blackmail (blackmail!) as a course of action, it is clear that new ideas are the only way to end the madness.
So, got any ideas?
Via The Blog Herald. On a side note, the Herald has some disheartening things to say about Google:
I think the notion is noble, but I have two concerns: the first is that Google won’t listen, my experience with Google and communications has been poor to say the least and I have no confidence in the company responding to complaints about content theft.
Ouch.
I’ve suffered a lot from content theft of my subscription-only site. It seems an insoluble problem - CopyScape helps, but it can’t prevent the content theft in the first place. These people know they can’t be prosecuted since the average local sheriff doesn’t understand the web, and isn’t going to go knocking their door down.
Comment by Barry K | June 3, 2005
Actually, resolving things without going to courts is a much better solution for everyone (tax payers, Google, and the publishers), and it happens all the time in businss.
Google, Tribal Fusion, FastClick, etc. have terms of service that doesn’t allow their service to be used for illegal gains. Publishers have a terms of service for their RSS feeds.
Moveable Type/Blogger/Yahoo Mail/AOL/GMAIL/ETC. all have terms of service that if you break you get tossed–it doesn’t go the courts. When you take a GMAIL or HOTMAIL account for free you agree they can toss you without going to court at any time if they suspet your–for example–spamming folks.
If some people brea Google/Tribal Fusion/FastClick have people breaking their TOS then they have the right to toss them. As publishers we have the right to highlight who is breaking the rules.
Some third parties are breaking their agreements with the ad serving companies and publishers. As a group we should not do business with them, and we don’t have to go to court to decide who we do business with.
The group effort was something I suggest to the publisher of the Blog Herald who said he was having a time getting people’s attention.
best j
Comment by Jason | June 3, 2005
Jason, I just point to the RIAA. They have all the resources in the world, and their efforts to go outside the court system have been nothing short of disastrous. They are not the model to emulate.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | June 3, 2005
>> Jason, I just point to the RIAA.
>> They have all the resources in
>> the world, and their efforts to
>> go outside the court system have
>> been nothing short of disastrous.
>> They are not the model to emulate.
Good point Nathan, however the population of people stealing music is, well, everyone online. Also, these folks don’t need to register with a social security/Tax ID with the RIAA.
The population of people who are in the Google Adsense, Tribal Fusion, and other network ad programs is
Comment by Jason | June 4, 2005
All Jason does is wrap other people’s work with ads. Calcanis is douche bag looking for attention for his 70 craplogs,inc. What a hippocrite.
Comment by SlimeyLLC | June 4, 2005
SlimeyLLC: What are you talking about? We pay our bloggers!
Comment by Jason | June 5, 2005
The Herald was right, this is my responce from Google:
After e-mailing Google AdSense about the ads they were running on a site that was steeling my feed this was their responce:
Google is a provider of information, not a mediator. We serve ads targeted to certain web pages, but we don’t control the content of these pages. For these kinds of questions or comments, it is best to directly address the webmaster of the page in question.
However, it is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be found at the U.S. Copyright Office website: http://lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/) and other applicable intellectual property laws. In this case, this means that if we receive proper notice of infringement, we will forward that notice to the responsible web site publisher.
To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication (by fax or regular mail, not by email) that sets forth the
items specified below. Please note that pursuant to that Act, you may be liable to the alleged infringer for damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an item when you in fact do not. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether you have the right to request removal from our service, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.
Comment by Sean | June 6, 2005