Google is apparently compensated by the vendors that appear in its Flight Search and Hotel Finder vertical search engines

So here’s what that means: Last year, Google launched Hotel Finder and Flight Search, seemingly to compete with Kayak or Hotels.com. Both now appear prominently on Google’s main search results page. At the time, it seemed like Google was just running roughshod over every industry, gathering up precious information while it trampled over the once-profitable fields sown by competitors that couldn’t afford to operate on the slim margins Google does.

Now, though, there’s another layer: Google is collecting money from vendors its search engines point users toward. The results seem to be the same as pure “organic” results, just now companies are paying Google for the referral. So if you grab a Delta flight through Google Flights, Delta will kick back a percentage of your ticket price to Google. Totally fair!

But it also goes against the Google’s fundamental principle that search results should always be organic and transparent.

http://gizmodo.com/5914381/googles-letting-companies-pay-for-search-results

Much Worse Than The Loss Of Freely Accessible Pirated Files Is The Loss Of Freely Accessibly Attractive Websites In General

Because free websites + free attractive content makes for some good advertising opportunities. No matter whether those websites – or the content they’re providing access to - are legal or illegal.

That’s why there are so many who want the media and the public to believe that website blocking does not work.

In order to make that point, they start by arguing that website blocking is a useless remedy, since it does not address all possible instances of content piracy, and circumvention may still be possible.

But that’s beside the point. Big Content may not even be looking to eradicate 100% the piracy problem, much like Big Data is not looking to eradicate 100% of the botnet, spam, malware‘bad’ apps or illegal advertising problem.

It’s about limiting damages…limiting costs due to piracy or other illegal activities online. Technical solutions for online illegallity need to be able to at least achieve that goal.

And it turns out that even badly implemented site blocking remedies are able to achieve that, much like partially successful spam filtering campaigns.

Now imagine if ISPs and other online service providers would be able to make money by fighting piracy. Maybe that would cause even better technological remedies to pop up all of a sudden, not only addressing a significant part of the problem, but perhaps even the majority of it.

Only time will tell…

For the time being we’ll have to keep up with large quantities of propaganda that aims to leave attractive online clusters of (illegal) content intact for as much and as long as possible…

Pirates, Hackers…They’re Always Willing To Expose ‘The Scene’ In Return For A Bit Of Money

Centropy member Matthew Thompson is sharing with TorrentFreak readers an excerpt from his forthcoming book, This is the Scene.

Things were great for me as a pirate; I had access to whatever I wanted and was a member of some of the biggest groups that have ever existed. Then Operation Fastlink happened.

Operation Fastlink was a multi-year, joint-operation run by the United States Department of Justice and the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section of INTERPOL designed to take out the groups Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, ProjectX, and Class.

Matthew is currently running a Kickstarter campaign to raise funding to continue work on his book.

The campaign page and accompanying video are available here.

Much more:
http://torrentfreak.com/i-was-a-member-of-centropy-the-worlds-leading-movie-piracy-group-120526/

Last Year Google Rejected 610,000 Websites And Disapproved 134 Million Ads

This is no censorship because Google itself can make money doing this

Ads that are in violation of our ads policies aren’t allowed to be shown on Google and our AdSense partner sites. For many repeat offenders, we ban not just ads but also advertisers who seek to abuse our advertising system to take advantage of people. In the case of ads that are promoting counterfeit goods, we typically ban the advertiser after only one violation. Here are some metrics that give some insight into the scale of the impact we have had over time, showing the numbers of actions we’ve taken against advertiser accounts, sites and ads. You can see that the numbers are growing—and growing faster over time.

We find that there are relatively few malicious players, who make multiple attempts to bypass our defenses to defraud users. As we get better and faster at catching these advertisers, they redouble their efforts and create more accounts at an even faster rate.

Even in this ever-escalating arms race, our efforts are working. One method we use to test the success of our efforts is to ask human raters to tell us how we’re doing. These human raters review a set of sites that are advertised on Google. We use a large set of sites in order to get an accurate statistical reading of our efforts. We also weight the sites in our statistical sample based on the number of times a particular site was displayed so that if a particular site is shown more often, it’s more likely to be in our sample set. By using human raters, we can calibrate our automated systems and ensure that we’re improving our efforts over time. In 2011, we reduced the percentage of bad ads by more than 50 percent compared with 2010. That means the proportion of bad ads that are showing on Google was halved in just a year.

Google’s long-term success is based on people trusting our products. We want to make sure that the ads on Google are safe and trustworthy, and we’re not satisfied until we do.

Posted by David W. Baker, Director of Engineering, Advertising

‘We’ve done nothing wrong’ – Google’s Schmidt on Euro antitrust probe

Schmidt declined to respond on whether his firm would indeed put forward any “remedies” as requested by Almunia, who was clear that a Statement of Objections could be issued within weeks if Google didn’t play ball.

Schmidt claimed that he hadn’t seen any precise examples of which laws his company might have abused and remained steadfast that his firm would be continuing to talk to the competition commissioner and his team.

Earlier, Schmidt told the Big Tent crowd that he was “not aware of anything we’ve done wrong. We’re happy to be educated on the contrary”.

Beyond that, he said “we’re not going to speculate”, which is interesting not least because of the amount of evidence that has been placed in the public domain from complainants who have grumbled to the European Commission that Google does favour its own search results over others.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/23/eric_schmidt_google_big_tent/

Kazaa code rises from ashes to help ISPs block pirated material for profit. Can block child porn too! And replace Google’s Ads!

Talk about disruptive technologies. The article also suggests that there’s a commercial incentive needed if one wants ISPs to be dealing with piracy issues. It’s interesting how all these – very different – topics are being put in the same basket: it is probably all zeros and ones right? Pirated files, child abuse images, online advertising…just identify, replace and make some money while doing it…

The people behind a company once accused of being complicit in copyright infringement through peer-to-peer filesharing are now selling software that blocks pirated content—and gives Internet service providers a way to make cash in the process. And soon, a version of the same technology could be used by ISPs to inject their own advertisements into search results—a capability that is sure to raise the ire of proponents of network neutrality.

Global File Systems LLC, a subsidiary of Kazaa owners Brilliant Digital Entertainment Inc. (BDE), have developed software that combines a database of “known bad files” with Web filtering technology at the ISP’s firewall, allowing ISPs to intercept and change links in search results being passed back to a user’s PC—and sending searchers to sites where the user can pay for legitimate copies of the content.

“A number of trials have shown that, properly priced, it’s possible for the content owners and the ISP partners to take back customers from the pirate operation,” BDE’s Michael Speck, who manages the content management business, told Ars in an interview. He said that the software, called Global File Registry—advertised with the tag line, “What goes up can come down”—offers an opportunity to end “the friction between content owners and ISPs,” and to make content blocking a no-cost or profit-making capability for the ISPs themselves.

Speck said that the other solutions proposed by content owners and some ISPs to stop piracy (such as those that were part of drafts of the failed SOPA and PIPA legislation) require fundamental changes to the way the Internet works. BDE’s approach, he said, “is a software platform integrated into the existing machinery of the Internet,” and doesn’t require changes to the Domain Name Service.

Ironically, Global File Registry is based on Truenames, a file identification technology that was originally part of the Kazaa filesharing service. “It’s the Truenames patents that allow individual items of content to be located within a peer-to-peer or cloud environment,” Speck said. BDE has pursued a number of cloud companies to get them to license the technology, and Speck says that many have bought in, including Skype, Level 3 Communications, and Google (which Speck called “one of our most enthusiastic licensees”).

In the case of Global File Registry, which BDE has worked with Cisco to develop over the past few years, a database of Truenames identifying information is combined with the existing content-filtering capability of firewalls to intercept links to infringing content being returned in search results. The software, which is embedded in the ISP’s firewall, then modifies the data to remove and replace the link. “ISPs already have equipment that can identify ‘bad data’,” Speck said. “We’re only asking the machinery that operates the Internet to do one more thing after it identifies bad data—and that is to convert it to a positive response.”

Speck added that the software doesn’t look at the source of the infringing content or the destination of the search results, so it doesn’t identify users trying to access the content. “It’s only a refinement of the data being delivered,” he said.

Global File Registry is already being deployed, and BDE is initially marketing the software to ISPs in Australia, New Zealand, and France. In addition to the anti-piracy version of the software, Global File Registry is also being packaged for law enforcement customers in a version the company plans to give away as a way to block access to child pornography sites, drawing from data collected by child protection organizations.

But what may be the most controversial version of the Global File Registry product is yet to come. Speck says Global File Systems is preparing a version for the US market that allows ISPs to intercept contextual ads in search results and inject their own advertisements in their place. “At the moment, ISP operators invest in the network, acquire customers, and just open the window to the Internet, allowing other people to push advertising down customers’s throats,” Speck said. “We believe it’s incongruous that ISPs should just open the window and allow them to force-feed advertising,” rather than getting their own advertising revenue, he explained.

Speck calls the software “an ISP packet-adjusted advertising platform,” and says it relies on the same technology as the anti-piracy software. “Relying on that same technology, we have been able to replace a search engine or website’s advertising with the ISP’s own advertising,” he said. But he added that “we’re not suggesting we can forensically remove and replace every advertisement from every webpage”—the technology is specifically targeted at search-based ads “of a certain category.”

When asked how Google would feel about the idea of ISPs swapping their own advertisements for Google’s paid ads, Speck said, “I think they’re excited about the prospect that someone can do that, which is why they’re one of the most enthusiastic licensees of our technology.” But he admits there may be some resistance. “Whenever there is a fundamental shift in a business model, the primary resistance is going to be from the established players.”

Google has not yet responded to an Ars inquiry on the level of the company’s enthusiasm for the interception of its main revenue stream.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/kazaa-code-rises-from-ashes-to-help-isps-profit-by-zapping-rogue-links/

Google must answer EU antitrust concerns over search, copyright, advertising and how it deals with competitors

An investigation by Europe’s antitrust head Joaquin Almunia looked at whether Google gave preferential treatment to its own services in its search results.

Mr Almunia said the company must now “offer remedies” swiftly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18143812

and:

“I offer Google the possibility to come up in a matter of weeks with remedies,” said Almunia. “If Google comes up with an outline of remedies which are capable of addressing our concerns, I will instruct my staff to initiate the discussions in order to finalize a remedies package.”

Google wasn’t immediately available to comment.

The EU’s anti-trust chief said it was in the interest of all those involved in the case to reach a “quick resolution” to the four areas of concern he has identified.

The first concern relates to how Google displays links to its own vertical searches for services such as restaurants or news differently to the way it does for links to competitors.

“We are concerned that this may result in preferential treatment compared to those of competing services, which may be hurt as a consequence,” Almunia said.

The second part of the investigation, Almunia said, focused on how Google copies content from competing vertical search services and “uses it in its own offerings…using that material on its own sites without their prior authorization.”

Third, EU regulators want Google to change the deal it strikes with its partners, whereby Google dictates how websites deliver search advertisements. This obliges partners to “obtain all or most of their requirements of search advertisements from Google, thus shutting out competing providers”, and could potentially impact advertising services purchased for example by online stores, online magazines or broadcasters, Almunia said.

Finally, EU anti-trust regulators found that competitors were shut out of Google’s auction-based advertising platform, AdWords, on which advertisers can bid for the placement of search ads on search result pages provided by Google.

The Internet giant will now need to submit an outline of possible remedies to address regulators’ concerns.

More:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120521-705717.html

Facebook policy change may open ad front against Google

Changes to the data use policy are explained in a 2,800-word document. In the “advertising” section, Facebook says, “We’re also clarifying our existing disclosure that we might show ads off Facebook to explain that, if we showed these ads, they may or may not include social context (such as whether your friends have ‘liked’ a particular business).”

Barry Schnitt, Director of Corporate Communications and Public Policy at Facebook, told CNET that “We can foresee a future where we might serve ads off of Facebook, and they may be standard ads or they might be, ‘your friend John liked’ a product.” Schnitt explains that both types of ads — standard and social — are currently available to advertisers on the Facebook site itself.

More:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57432916-93/facebook-policy-change-may-open-ad-front-against-google/

They All Want A Window Of Time Between Notice And Actual Removal. Time Is (Advertising) Money

Because algorithms that enable distribution of files are apparently much easier to write than algorithms that immediately remove copyright infringing files. Algorithms that immediately remove spam or malicious ads appear to be the exception to the rule…

Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have drawn up a series of “principles” to guide how rights-holders should act when issuing them with requests for the removal of infringing content from search indexes as well as the responsibilities to which search engines themselves should be required to conform.

The plans were published (4-page/43KB PDF) by digital rights campaign group the Open Rights Group (ORG) who obtained details of the proposals via a freedom of information (FOI) request to the government.

Under the plans, search engines would be required to provide a way for rights-holders to inform them that their rankings display links to pirate content. Search engines would have to quickly remove content on receipt of a valid takedown notice.

Rights-holders’ takedown notices would have to be targeted in order to “specifically identify infringing content” and should only issue them to search engines “after assessing their impact on any non-infringing uses and concluding that the takedown would not have an adverse effect on such non-infringing uses”, the search engines’ plans propose.

Much more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/10/search_engines_plans_to_combat_piracy_seek_extra_safeguards_existing_eu_law_does_not_provide/

The Year Of The Ecosystems: Google agrees with Mozilla’s Windows RT browser concerns

Internet fragmentation (and as such fragmentation of the advertising landscape) is inevitable. Google can’t stop technological progress

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57431475-92/google-agrees-with-mozillas-windows-rt-browser-concerns/

Symantec: Flashback botnet could generate up to $10k per day in ad clicks

Antivirus and security firm Symantec says the true motivation behind the massive Flashback malware infection is revenue—ad revenue, that is. In a post to its Security Response blog, Symantec wrote that a Flashback botnet has the potential to generate up to $10,000 per day in ad clicks, primarily impacting Google and bringing in “untold sums of money for the Flashback gang.”

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/05/symantec-flashback-botnet-could-generate-up-to-10k-per-day-in-ad-clicks.ars

Google was long the major search engine that stood against paid inclusion, even calling out against paid inclusion as part of its 2004 IPO filing

So what’s up with paid inclusion happening at Google, which fought against it before?

http://searchengineland.com/google-comparison-units-get-new-look-change-highlights-paid-inclusion-in-some-vertical-search-areas-119865

Google’s Sergey Brin: Facebook and Apple a threat to Internet freedom

“You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive. The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules that will stifle innovation.”

Or limit available advertising space…

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57414316-93/googles-sergey-brin-facebook-and-apple-a-threat-to-internet-freedom/

Media companies are in trouble because they have to compete against a multitude of companies producing media as a loss leader

Today it’s “content” vs “infrastructure”,  ”content” vs “devices” and “content” vs “online advertising”. That’s two battles too many…

Media companies will be able to weather the storm of disruption if they adopt what I call a “Heinz 57″ business model — they have to develop a variety of revenue streams — in addition to how they currently make (or mostly lose) money.

When every company is a media company you’ll lose if all you are is a media company.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/every-media-company-is-a-media-company-and-theres-the-rub/2235

The Australian Federal Court has ruled Google breached the law by displaying misleading sponsored links at the top of its search results

Consumers who used Google to search for Honda, Harvey World Travel, Alpha Dog Training and Just 4X4 Magazine were presented with ads that led to rival websites.

“Although the key words are selected by the advertiser, perhaps with input by Google, what is critical to the process is the triggering of the link by Google using its algorithms.”

“Google’s conduct involved the use by an advertiser of a competitor’s name as a keyword triggering an advertisement for the advertiser with a matching headline,” he said.

“As the full court said, this was likely to mislead or deceive a consumer searching for information on the competitor.

“This is an important outcome because it makes it clear that Google and other search engine providers which use similar technology to Google will be directly accountable for misleading or deceptive paid search results.”

More:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-03/accc-wins-case-against-google/3930456/

UK ISPs React as ASA Starts Enforcing New Broadband Advertising Rules

The new guidance (original news) has been designed to bring greater clarity to the market by requiring ISPs to provide a more honest account of both their service performance and flexibility to consumers.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/04/uk-isps-react-as-asa-starts-enforcing-new-broadband-advertising-rules.html

White House pressures AOL, Google over pirate sites

AOL, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo already prohibit pirate Web sites from joining their ad networks. But the White House says those four companies “are being encouraged” to do more.

A White House report (PDF) released today singles out those four companies by name, arguing that they and others should “act as checkpoints for infringing activity and reduce the distribution of infringing content.” Here’s an excerpt:

Ad networks and exchanges, including Google, Microsoft (Bing), Yahoo!, and AOL are being encouraged to develop best practices for online advertising networks and exchanges, in order to ensure that they do not place any advertisements on infringing Web sites, and to remove such Web sites from their ad networks.

More:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57407401-281/white-house-pressures-aol-google-over-pirate-sites/

Google fighting a war against a huge number of bad actors—from websites selling counterfeit goods and fraudulent tickets to underground international operations trying to spread malware and spyware

Strategy very similar to that of the entertainment industry fighting piracy

With billions of ads submitted to Google every year, we use a combination of sophisticated technology and manual review to detect and remove these sorts of ads. We spend millions of dollars building technical architecture and advanced machine learning models to fight this battle. These systems are designed to detect and remove ads for malicious download sites that contain malware or a virus before these ads could appear on Google. Our automated systems also scan and review landing pages—the websites that people are taken to once they click—as well as advertiser accounts. When potentially objectionable ads are flagged by our automated systems, our policy specialists review the ads, sites and accounts in detail and take action.

The numbers show we’re having success. In 2011, advertisers submitted billions of ads to Google, and of those, we disabled more than 130 million ads. And our systems continue to improve—in fact, in 2011 we reduced the percentage of bad ads by more than 50% compared with 2010. That means that our methods are working. We’re also catching the vast majority of these scam ads before they ever appear on Google or on any of our partner networks. For example, in 2011, we shut down approximately 150,000 accounts for attempting to advertise counterfeit goods, and more than 95% of these accounts were discovered through our own detection efforts and risk models.

Google already banned 800,000 advertisers

Much more:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/making-our-ads-better-for-everyone.html

Lack of ads forces free newspaper ‘De Pers’ to close down

As a result of the rapidly deteriorating conditions in the advertising market for free newspapers, Wegener has never been able to generate enough advertising revenues for ‘De Pers’ to be profitable

http://www.futureofcopyright.com/home/blog-post/2012/03/13/lack-of-ads-forces-free-newspaper-de-pers-to-close-down.html

YouTube: No One Cheats Our Video Algorithm. No Exceptions For Cleavage-Baring Ladies

Freedom of speech vs the accuracy of the money-making algorithm

The controversy over the cleavage-baring ladies of YouTube, accused of spamming and cheating YouTube’s related videos algorithm, has caught the attention of both Google’s engineers and Machinima, the online entertainment network housed largely on YouTube.

After months of concerned YouTubers leaving forum posts, making videos, signing petitions, and raising awareness about the issue, the Google-owned company is finally taking action.

On Thursday, Bing Chen, a YouTube manager who works with video creators, tweeted the product team was ”aware” of the issue and said that engineers are “attacking this from several angles (spam, etc).”

Much more:
http://www.dailydot.com/news/reply-girls-youtube-yogscast-machinima-response/

Who Buys All Those Google Ads? An Infographic Breakdown

Google cleared $37.9 billion in 2011 revenue, which equates to more than $3 billion a month, mostly from those little text ads next to your search results that neither you or anybody you know will admit to ever clicking on.

Infographic here:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/01/google-ad-buyers-infographic/

Originally, the MegaUpload Conspiracy had contracted with companies such as adBrite, Inc., Google AdSense, and PartyGaming plc for advertising

Currently, the Conspiracy’s own advertising website, Megaclick.com, is used to set up advertising campaigns on all the Mega Sites.

The popularity of the infringing content on the Mega Sites has generated more than $25 millionin online advertising revenues for the Conspiracy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment