Megaupload Indictment Shows That Google Does Actively Police Against Its Ads Showing Near Infringement

from the oh-look-at-that... dept

Tue, Jan 24th 2012 7:20am — Mike Masnick

One small point in the Megaupload indictment is worth calling out for reasons that have little to do with the case at hand. It seems that it's become vogue in Hollywood over the last couple of years to blame Google for everything. You see all sorts of stories claiming that Google is the main cause of "piracy" and conspiracy theories bizarrely claiming that Google was the main force behind stopping SOPA/PIPA because it "profits from piracy." There are tons of stories claiming that Google refuses to pull ads from sites that engage in widespread infringement. But... right there, smack dab in the middle of the Megaupload indictment is the fact that, pretty early on, Google dumped Megaupload because a review of the account found lots of infringing content:

On or about May 17, 2007, a representative from Google AdSense, an Internet advertising company, sent an e-mail to DOTCOM entitled "Google AdSense Account Status." In the e-mail, the representative stated that "[d]uring our most recent review of your site [Megaupload.com,]" Google AdSense specialists found "numerous pages" with links to, among other things, "copyrighted content," and therefore Google AdSense "will no longer be able to work with you."

Note that this in May of 2007... way before the widespread claims by Hollywood folks began saying that Google turned a blind eye to any infringement it found. Seems like this part of the indictment suggests otherwise.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: ads, cyberlockers, infringement
Companies: google, megaupload

59 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:25am

They also could have dumped them due to the "Not using a real name" policy, really, who would truly have the name 'Dotcom'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:53am
  
  Re:
  ....someone who thinks the bubble might burst?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:34am
  
  key word links
  Google AdSense specialists found "numerous pages" with links to, among other things, "copyrighted content,
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- spookiewon (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: Actually,
  If you read some of the early reports, Dotcom REALLY IS his real name, just not his birth name. He had it LEGALLY changed. I really don't see that his name would be any less believable a last name than the person who replied to one of G+ comments the other day whose apparent "real name" is jason Lastname. I know of people whose real names have been rejected by Google for G+ because they don't look real, yet Mr. Lastname still has an account.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re: Actually,
    Yeah, and there was a misprint on the immigration form,
    What is your First Name? was strangely ...
    
    What is your Jason?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  That is his real name. Besides, the real name policy only applies to g+.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Larry, 24 Jan 2012 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Until today that is...
    
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/tech/social-media/google-plus-nicknames/index.html?eref=mrss_ igoogle_cnn
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Time to grab up Kim DotCom :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Tate (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:33am

Double Dipping
Of course the entertainment industry won't stop claiming that Google profits off of copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean that they won't use this evidence to say, "See? Even Google dropped Megaupload because they are such a den of piracy! Clearly this proves their guilt!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:36am

Well, of course
These days a statement like Google AdSense specialists found "numerous pages" with links to, among other things, copyrighted content seems to be declaring the obvious. If there's anything there, it's likely copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:54am
  
  Re: Well, of course
  Exactly. Who holds the copyrights in question, and are THEY actually complaining? Several posts since this came out mention or headline folks who WANTED their copyrighted material shared. What Big Rights Holders want does not mean that Independent Rights Holders want the same thing. I wonder when the number of copyrights held by individuals will surpass the Big Rights Holders? Even when this happens, the independents will probably not have the same lobbying power as the incumbent entitlementists. Too bad!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joshua Bardwell (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: Well, of course
  The obvious implication is, "copyrighted content for which we do not believe you hold the rights."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:23am
    
    Re: Re: Well, of course
    Maybe: "copyrighted content for which the copyright owner did not consent to its placement on Megaupload".
    
    I might consent to my program being on Megaupload. But Megaupload doesn't have any coypright interest in the work, maybe an express or at least implied license.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:44am

"Of course the entertainment industry won't stop claiming that Google profits off of copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean that they won't use this evidence to say, "See? Even Google dropped Megaupload because they are such a den of piracy! Clearly this proves their guilt!""

Not an entirely unfair response given Google's forfeiture of $500 million in profits from promoting illegal pharmacies. Go look at some of the other sites running ads from Adsense. Google hardly has clean hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:48am
  
  Re:
  "Google hardly has clean hands."
  
  And the RIAA, MPAA and the rest do?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    I didn't say that. Try focusing on what I did say. RIAA/MPAA's faults are legion. But the notion that Google is somehow noble, is simply wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You didn't say anything about the RIAA/MPAA, just Google.
      
      "Not an entirely unfair response given Google's forfeiture of $500 million in profits from promoting illegal pharmacies. Go look at some of the other sites running ads from Adsense. Google hardly has clean hands."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I KNOW!! I was talking about Google. If you want to talk about the AA's, I'm happy to. Don't infer I'm an AA cheerleader simply because I left them out of a sentence about Google.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't trust you either to not be one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Between Google and Hollywood, I take Google every time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:01am
  
  Re:
  The pharmacies weren't necessarily illegal, just Canadian:
  
  "Google Inc. has agreed to pay $500 million to settle a U.S. government investigation into the Internet search leader's distribution of online ads from Canadian pharmacies illegally selling prescription and non-prescription drugs to American consumers..."
  
  http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/24/AP-Google-Settles-for-500M-in-Pha rmacy-Ad-Scandal.aspx#page1
  
  Google (and other search engines that weren't taken to task, most likely) apparently was violating some kind of law against importing medication, but I kinda get the impression that the law is about protecting overpriced US drugs from strapped Americans looking for more affordable meds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Suggest you look into "viagra" manufactured in India.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Suggest you look at insulin manufacture in India or any of the other legal drugs also manufactured there, also there is Brazil which is a first class bio-engineering house today.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 11:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Suggest you talk to prostate cancer surgery patients and the exorbitant drug prices they're expected to pay to recover from that procedure.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have no problems with people accessing cheaper medicine. My concern is that they get what they're supposed to be getting. I have no real issues with drug patent laws. After 17 years, generics are allowed. But the cost of developing medications is such that this seems like a reasonable period and the companies should not have to tolerate being ripped off during that period.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Much of the R&D is federally funded.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not only that but the scientists and doctors conducting the R&D are often volunteers and those who participate in the clinical trials are also often volunteers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and there is plenty of reason to believe that the pharmaceutical industry exaggerates its R&D costs.
        
        If we want to give them patents, fine, but there needs to be some guidelines.
        
        No patents on anything that receives any help from government funding.
        
        I want independent auditors auditing their costs so that we can better determine how much they spend on R&D and tailor patent lengths accordingly. You want free market capitalism, abolish patents. You want a government established monopoly it should be tightly regulated and the public has a right to know how well those regulations are working.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marked you "funny" for lack of a "pathetic" button.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    I kinda get the impression that the law is about protecting overpriced US drugs from strapped Americans looking for more affordable meds.
    
    Bingo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:22am
  
  Re:
  Funny since the grey area of pharma drugs was tolerated since the crack of dawn, maybe the problem is the confusing signals that the government and law enforcement give.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  Everything is illegal in the US lately.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Also Bingo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Some comments really need a 'Not Funny' button.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TasMot (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:51am

Google AdSense specialists found "numerous pages" with links to, among other things, "copyrighted content," and therefore Google AdSense "will no longer be able to work with you."

Under current copyright law, everything set down in a fixed form has a copyright. Even what I'm writing here (may, depending on whether or not is is just facts) now has a copyright. The vast majority of web pages that Google crawls and indexes (and they store in their archives) are copyrighted.

When will the insanity stop????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:53am

Doesn't this rather beg the question, how would google know if the content in question was infringing or not?

Don't google themselves argue, reasonably, that without the copyright holder actively informing a host site that there is no way to know if content is infringing or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  It doesn't say, but perhaps they were responding to complaints already received from rightsholders?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  They don't basically they made an arbitrary call and stopped voluntarily doing business with Megaupload, which in turn created their own ad company and got even more revenue from it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
awa, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:03am

Multiple Readings
As suggested above, this revelation can be spun multi-valently. Another potentially "bad" reading would be "See, if Google can drop Megaupload, it can drop other sites similar to it i.e. it IS capable of policing its networks and therefore should police its networks, or otherwise be held liable." The major response I can provide is from the Tiffany v. Ebay counterfeiting case, in which the judge held that eBay's good faith in trying to police its site for counterfeits was a point in eBay's favor AND, at the same time, eBay had no affirmative duty to pro-actively police its site without specific knowledge of likely infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:17am
  
  Re: Multiple Readings
  This is an interesting point. And one I expect will resurface in future litigation. I suspect that Google can, in fact, police its own networks through a combination of its own due diligence and information from aggrieved parties.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re: Multiple Readings
    Then you are not an IT guy because everybody who ever had to look at a log file with more than a thousands lines knows that no one will look through it manually ever! and there are no tools to guarantee 100% of anything, now with copyshit is even more problematic since there is no way to distinguish between legal or illegal usage, there is no way to say if something is illegal or legal just by looking at it, one can make assumptions but those can be wrong, further start snooping on people and they will find ways to protect themselves, force the issue and they will go after you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re: Multiple Readings
    I don't think the question is 'can they' because obviously with enough time and man hours anything is possible. The question is 'do we want to force them too with threats of civil liability or criminal culpability' and that question is two fold. First, do we really want laypersons making decisions like what is and is not infringing? That's certainly going to invite a very limited reading of legality due to the risks involved. Copyright isn't a simple 'is this legal or not' situation after all since the manner of the material's use is what determines legality, not merely the use itself. This calls into question both google's own due diligence as well as any information from aggrieved parties since it's easy to make mistakes and aggrieved parties have a history of over estimating what is and is not a legal use. Second, is it really worth driving up the costs of providing any kind of service on the internet with these added responsibilities? Enforcement is not free and considering the purpose of copyright it's not entirely clear that it's worth the cost to these third parties to aid by manually policing in this manner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2012 @ 4:14am
    
    Re: Re: Multiple Readings
    Of course! Just like how Viacom and Youtube, am I right? As long as the aggrieved party finds the infringing content it's all peaches and cream and absolutely nothing can backfire, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:27am
  
  Re: Multiple Readings
  Yep that can happen just like Megaupload got screwed by trying to cut costs and implementing hashing on files, if they didn't do anything they probably have less problems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:08am

While Google may not be the bastion of sound, ethical business practices, these mega corps aren't exactly in a position to go around pointing fingers at anyone. Copyright law empowers these mega corps to the point where it works against the common wealth and stifles art, innovation and technological progress. It has become an epidemic, a virus which cannot be contained, and its stench reaches us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:10am

Think about the children and the terrorists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 8:11am

the entertainment industries will use anything and everything in whatever way they can as long as it is to their advantage at the time. whether it is true or not, is a completely different thing. unfortunately, Google is the 'in flavour' atm for being blamed for everything possible. that saves the real culprit from having to own up and take the blame!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 9:04am

And yet you still claim that sites self-policing against infriging content is impossible. This proves that your claims are wrong. It is possible for sites to police against piracy. There may be cases where it isn't obvious that something is infringing but in cases where well known works that are clearly under copyright (such as a newly released blockbuster Hollywood movie) are being shared it would be simple to police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 9:25am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 24th, 2012 @ 9:04am
  Sorry, but unfortunately for your argument Viacom have already proven that even copyright holders have trouble distinguishing between infringing content and content they made available themselves.
  
  The point its that services like google should not be pandering too the kind of ignorant fools who believe you can just look and see to know that any particular piece of content is infringing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hothmonster, 24 Jan 2012 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  True the can police themselves and this is proof that they do. But it doesn't mean they can or necessarily should have to check every site they do business with everyday. Hell I doubt they have the staff to review every site they do business with once a year. They do what they can and make good faith efforts, but policing copyright content is the task of the copyright holder pure and simple. But for some reason they think its too hard for them to have to police their content but it should be simple for other companies to do it for them. Of course contradictions are their specialty though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  I'm just going to repeat this here. A special copy of it shared just for you:
  
  I don't think the question is 'can they' because obviously with enough time and man hours anything is possible. The question is 'do we want to force them too with threats of civil liability or criminal culpability' and that question is two fold. First, do we really want laypersons making decisions like what is and is not infringing? That's certainly going to invite a very limited reading of legality due to the risks involved. Copyright isn't a simple 'is this legal or not' situation after all since the manner of the material's use is what determines legality, not merely the use itself. This calls into question both google's own due diligence as well as any information from aggrieved parties since it's easy to make mistakes and aggrieved parties have a history of over estimating what is and is not a legal use. Second, is it really worth driving up the costs of providing any kind of service on the internet with these added responsibilities? Enforcement is not free and considering the purpose of copyright it's not entirely clear that it's worth the cost to these third parties to aid by manually policing in this manner.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
isaac Kotlicky (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 10:07am

You're missing the point!
Hasn't anyone read TV tropes!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards
The whole POINT of this is to show that Megaupload is such a dastardly bunch of seal-clubbing, baby-kicking, puppy-skinning ghouls that even a corporation as EVIL as Google is disgusted by their nazi-like behavior!

You know - like how the Joker (Google) refused to work with Red Skull (Megaupload) the Nazi against Batman (MPAA/RIAA).

See? it fits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 11:19am
  
  Re: You're missing the point!
  Or like how Coke had to create their evil counterpart, Fanta, to continue to sell products to Nazi's without tarnishing their name? And now Coke abuses people in Latin America and markets Fanta to latin american's because they won't touch Coke? Oh, no wait...thats just evil pretending to have standards which I guess is more like the AA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 11:16am

Google is the number one site to got to for finding infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- idwal (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 5:02pm
  
  Re:
  Nurr...
  Google is the number one site to go to for finding anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skatevideosite, 25 Jan 2012 @ 4:45am

Skatevideosite.com lost Google Ads just by embedding copyrighted videos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Lockyear, 31 Jan 2012 @ 4:24am

Difficult to understand the logic - nearly all search engine results go to pages that contained "copyrighted content"... (because copyright is automatic).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isaac stern, 25 Apr 2012 @ 6:31am

google
google is dinasor she want avalle everyting ,megaupload is like air for every one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lrobbo (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 9:26am

Yip, copyrighted stuff will get you removed from adsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]