Tech Journalist Recommends Suing Google Over Spam Blogs?

from the uh,-tom,-what? dept

I like reporter Tom Foremski and have linked to his stories in the past. I've never met the man, but we've emailed a few times in the past. But everyone has those days when they write something they clearly haven't thought much about, and it looks like Tom had one of those days recently. Dark Helmet alerts us to a short blog post that Foremski did for ZDNet that is all kinds of awful. The main focus is on suggesting that you turn in colleagues using unauthorized software to the SIIA to try to claim a $1 million prize. This is a really sleazy process used by the SIIA and the BSA for years. Perhaps you can forgive Tom for not knowing much about how these organizations work, but plenty of other reporters have detailed how these organizations bully companies who can't figure out how to produce the exact evidence that these organizations demand as "proof." These organizations are just nasty, often harming small businesses just because they can't find their specific licensing agreement on a legitimately purchased software application. Encouraging this kind of behavior is not a good idea, Tom.

And, of course, that claim that there's a "$1 million prize" is great for headlines, like the one Tom wrote, but the details always tell a different story. The real "prizes" are "up to $1 million." A few years back, we asked for proof that the BSA actually paid out a million dollar prize, and offered a similarly termed "up to $1 million" reward for anyone who could prove that the BSA paid someone $1 million. Of course, they couldn't, because these groups don't actually pay that much. In fact, in the year after we asked for proof of the $1 million prize, the BSA actually paid out a grand total of $136,000 to 42 different people -- an average of about $3,200. Putting the $1 million prize in the headline is playing into their bogus claims. It's the sort of thing that reporters shouldn't be doing. Let them put out their bogus press releases, but reporters should be debunking them.

Finally, in trying to explain why this is a good idea, Tom makes an odd and totally misapplied analogy:
I know that ZDNet for example, faces problems with its content being scraped and illegally being used on web sites that try to make money by running Google ads next to it. It's often difficult to stop that practice because it's tough to track down the owners.

But if SIIA went after Google, because it profits from illegal use of copyrighted content, then that would go a long way to stamping out that practice.
First off, we face the same "problem" here at Techdirt, with lots of sites scraping our content and putting it on other sites plastered with Google ads. Except, that we know it's not actually a "problem." Most of those sites get very little, if any, traffic, and search engines are smart enough these days to put the originator higher up in the results. The ad views on these sites aren't costing the original site any revenue. And, if they actually are getting any traffic, it doesn't take long for people to realize the original source and start going there instead. This isn't a "problem."

Second, what the hell does scraping sites have to do with turning your colleagues in for using unlicensed software? The two are totally different situations and have nothing to do with each other.

Finally, if SIIA went after Google because it profits from illegal use of copyrighted content, the lawsuit would be thrown out of court as soon as Google's lawyers said "DMCA safe harbors." This is pretty basic stuff, and someone who's been a tech reporter for as long as Foremski should know better than to think that it's either legal or sensible to suggest that an organization sue a third party that profits off of the potentially infringing activity of someone else. As Dark Helmet noted with his submission:
This is 3rd party culpability, which is odd coming from a blogger and journalist. Has he ever ran a story about something illegal that was done? And did that publication have advertisements on it? So didn't he profit from the illegal activity? Shouldn't he have the FBI going after him for such illicit behavior?"
Again, Tom usually does pretty good work, so I'm going to chalk this up to a rushed post without putting much thought into what he was saying.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:18am

    3rd party liability

    you are correct but for the wrong reason. the DMCA has nothing to do with this. however, there's already been cases where both credit card companies and advertising channels (like google) have been found not liable for allowing pirates to use their services.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:52am

    Re: 3rd party liability

    Didn't know Somalian pirates where that tech savy to use google checkout to process their ransoms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Brian (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: 3rd party liability

    Well they did use Paypal for a while but were worried about their ransom funds getting frozen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:58am

    Re: Re: 3rd party liability

    arrrrgggg!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    he who knoweth more than thou, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 8:57am

    Re:Re:Re:

    Spongeblog.org

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 9:08am

    Journalist is quite the misnomer in this case. I suggest he be called "talking point regurgitator."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 9:30am

    Re:

    "Journalist is quite the misnomer in this case. I suggest he be called "talking point regurgitator.""

    I'm not so sure. I went and dug up his bio when I came across this one, and it appears to indicate fairly clearly that he is in the business journalism field....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Jimr (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 10:55am

    Up to $1 million prize maybe a bit sleazy but most likely legit.

    A business I frequent ran a similar thing... he simply offered a chance at $1 Million with every purchase over $20. He gave away a $1 scratch and win ticket from the local lotto kiosk. Zero risk of him actually ever ever giving away anything but a $1 scratch and lose lottery ticket.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Tom Foremski, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 9:56pm

    Ooops...

    Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I was just pointing to the SIAA's new direction. It was a little tongue-in-cheek.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    John Crosby, Feb 24th, 2010 @ 11:17am

    SIIA Responds...

    We invite you to read our blog post on this discussion and share your comments... http://www.siia.net/blog/index.php/2010/02/the-realdirt/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This