Advertising networks can be found liable for contributing to copyright infringement on websites if they facilitate that infringement, a US court has suggested. It ruled that the ad network in question was not liable, but suggested that others could be in other situations. A district court judge in Massachusetts said that ad …
So this would be 'American ad pushers' I'm assuming, as American law stops at their border.
Team America: World Police - Fuck Yeah!
google will have to respond to infringement and take-down notices a bit more promptly, but it should already have such mechanisms in place. The key part from Google's (and any ad network's) point of view is that they are not required to proactively monitor the sites they link to / advertise on. So the burden on finding / asking to remove infringing sites is completely on the rights holder (which is as it should be)... and basically all they'll be doing is play whack-a-mole since as soon as a site gets taken off one place it will pop up in another
Looks like Google is going to have to:
1) Get more lawyers,
2) Get more lobbyists,
3) Get more venal academicians,
4) Lay in a very extensive supply of toilet paper.
All legitimate business expenses, if I am not mistaken.
Now a wholly-owned subsidiary of RIAA/MPAA Inc.
...so people can get DRM-free stuff AND not have to look at adverts - double bonus.
On a more serious note - I assume this only applies to advertisers who advertise on sites who have been found guilty in court of copyright breach.
Why not go the whole hog and sue the electricity company for providing the power they need to run the servers.
You're not thinking big enough:
The government provides money and people sometimes use money to buy illegal stuff, so the government should be held responsible. The copyright owners should just go after them for every lost sale (millions, surely) of every single work.
I think a sensible figure would be something like 10x the total wealth of the planet, based on previous claims.
Anything else would be pandering to the communists.
The DCMA takedown notice means that the ad company should have known.
Then then you sue he infringing site, you can sue the ad company at the same time, unless of course they show hat they were in the process of stopping service to the site.
You could also sue the government for conspiracy if they tax the add revenue.
Nope, still targetting the wrong group
It's the makers of PC periphals like hardware mice who should be sued. Clearly it's the mouse that enabled pirates to click on the ad, so there should be a blanket tax on that hardware.
Also, eyeballs, if you don't click on the ad, you're still seeing it. So perhaps MAFIAA should just lobby government to have a blanket tax on anyone who owns eyeballs.
Rather more limited than it first sounds
If I'm reading this right, he said that they could be responsible in some case, but providing financial support was not enough. It's not quite clear then what sort "essential service" he's thinking of. Perhaps something like the old Geocities business model, where they provide hosting in exchange for running ads on your content would qualify.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire