[powertower]

Things are not that clear.

Do you know what the revenue sources are for a lot of the pirate movie websites?

Google AdSense.

And for software...

From what I've seen, Google often displays crack sites on the first search page for software. 1st place result for author, 2nd,3rd,4th,5th,6th,7th result for crack sites.

In my own testing, I've found that at least 30% of buyers search for crack 1st, and when they can't find it, then they buy.

Google does this for two reasons:

1. There is significant revenue involved here. 2. There is significant relevancy involved here. As people gladly want to use pirated stuff to get out of paying, and want to see these results.

Google is not fighting for you. They are fighting for themselves.

[mtogo]

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better...

[smokeyj]

Google's revenue from pirated movies and software is virtually non-existent. Their real interest is Youtube, considering half it's content probably infringes copyright somewhere.

[powertower]

This is not true at all and I would love to see you back it up with a credible source.

This has been covered over and over again...

A significant portion of those sites would not exist without AdSense revenue to cover costs and make a profit.

[smokeyj]

If the revenue from pirate sites disappeared Google wouldn't even blink. The pain in the ass is regulatory compliance. Hollywood wants IP enforced on Google's dime/technology, and Google doesn't want to be their bitch.

[powertower]

Just an example...

When I used Google AdWords, 30% of the clicks came from Google "content partners" which where nothing more than link farms. I'd say that was a significant source of revenue for Google... So much so that Google even put up its own parked domain service to further its profits.

If Google was "good", they would have either got rid of this 8 years ago, or never got into it in the first place.

Don't underestimate the amount of revenue Google generates from fraud.

[electromagnetic]

Justify with evidence please. Don't go spouting slanderous statements and have nothing to back them up with. If it's as obvious as you seem to be claiming then you shouldn't have any trouble backing up your point.

Google's policy isn't to be "good", it's to "do no evil" and they are very, very different things. This legislation is dangerous like a bomb. If you integrate a system that can drop an IP address from global DNS servers at will, then things are very dire.

Wikileaks got taken down enough as it was, but no one would have heard a peep if the DNS was dropped in seconds of being noticed.

Next step would be to force search providers to recognize 'infringing text' and have the DNS immediately taken down to stop the Streisand Effect.

Hello Egypt, Syria, heck the Middle Eastern Despots, you'll all have promising new positions in the US government very, very soon!

[jussij]

> Justify with evidence please.

Just one example, do a search and you'll find many more:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_40/b4003001....

[danssig]

>Google's policy isn't to be "good", it's to "do no evil"

This isn't their policy, it's just a meaningless motto. Google is in this fight because it will financially impact them. There not doing it because they care about us.

[nl]

link farm != pirate site