Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Other Big Ad Networks to Block Ads On Pirate Sites

rated by 0 users
This post has 9 Replies | 0 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,744
Points 1,210,145
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Tue, Jul 16 2013 1:39 PM

From the "Why wasn't it done sooner?" file comes word that the Web's major advertising platforms will soon be blocking ads from being seen on sites designed to distributed pirated materials. The consortium of sorts that's responsible for the movement involves the Interactive Advertising Bureau and seven participants: Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, 24/7 Media, Adtegrity, Condé Nast and SpotXchange.

If I were to burn you a copy of Adobe's or Microsoft's latest and greatest piece of software, that'd be frowned-upon. If I were to charge you for it, it'd become a criminal offense. With that perspective, it's little wonder why so many torrent site owners have wound up in jail; by displaying ads that help fund both the network and their wallets, they're effectively selling you access to pirated software - even if it's inadvertent (likewise, while no one has to pay for HotHardware's content, those who allow ads to be seen pay inadvertently to help keep the site alive and well).

While you'd imagine that the likes of Google and Yahoo! would have the capability to detect whether or not their ads are being displayed on such websites, these collective media companies will require copyright holders to contact them, submitting a complaint. This seems a little clunky; it's as though these companies would rather have the ads displayed by default because after all, revenue is revenue. Torrent sites are big revenue.

That's so much the case, that it's been said that The Pirate Bay has had casino ad deals that have hovered around the $100,000 per month mark, and defunct torrent site Surfthechannel generated over $50,000 per month. Clearly, these figures don't just cover hosting costs - they're in-pocket revenue.

Content creators believe that with these advertisers' help, the guilty sites' revenue will be starved, and eventually they'll die off. That = less piracy, and that also = total nonsense. What I could see stemming from this are ad networks that don't care where their ads are seen. After all, while many ad companies are all taking part, they're doing so by their own free will - this isn't a law.


"Private" torrent sites thrive, but have no ad revenue

Further, while this move would undoubtedly maim the revenue stream for some of these sites, to think that they'll simply go away as a result would be naive thinking. Many private torrent sites exist which survive on donations - donations that users feel compelled to contribute because they don't want these sites to die off. The owners of these sites are pocketing nothing, but the sites live on - and as has been proven a countless number of times before, if you take one torrent site down, another is going to pop-up.

Still, this move is hard to disagree with - it only makes sense that these companies would want to distance themselves from pirated and illegal materials, thus, the fact that this took so long is rather surprising.

  • | Post Points: 110
Not Ranked
Posts 52
Points 555
Joined: Apr 2012
semitope replied on Tue, Jul 16 2013 3:25 PM

sellings ads doesn't really equate to selling pirated content. Otherwise we can just go ahead and start accusing many companies of inadvertently breaking the law when they have a means of income while people use their service illegally. i.e. if anybody is using your service illegally, then you shouldn't be making any money. The ads aren't illegal.

What this will do is bolster lower tier ad services. Its fine for the little guys.

Long live torrents!

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 20
Joined: Jul 2013

Works for me....the ads are usually adult in nature and make it difficult to use PB at work! LOL!

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 16
Points 110
Joined: Apr 2013

lmfao +1 for that comment

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 187
Points 1,755
Joined: Nov 2010
lipe123 replied on Tue, Jul 16 2013 7:48 PM

Where will I see my cheap Russian bride ads now then?!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 619
Points 5,260
Joined: Dec 2011

"Still, this move is hard to disagree with - it only makes sense that these companies would want to distance themselves from pirated and illegal materials, thus, the fact that this took so long is rather surprising."

Uhm, pirates spend a lot of money on media and it isn't like that money is leaving the economy, it's just being spent on food, or shoes, or rent.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 635
Points 5,705
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: Canada
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
RWilliams replied on Tue, Jul 16 2013 9:07 PM

I don't see the correlation between your comment and my quote.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 541
Points 4,525
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: Schertz, Texas
ajm531 replied on Wed, Jul 17 2013 12:36 AM

correct me if im wrong but couldnt you just temporarily disable java to no show images and therefore that no longer be an issue?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 116
Points 810
Joined: Apr 2013

You know? I was thinking the same thing here...

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 40
Points 305
Joined: Jul 2013

This shouldn't matter except to harm the lining of some torrents and their affiliates. Just more pop ups from less reputable sites that I don't get to see with Pop-up blocker.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (10 items) | RSS