Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC(blog.l0cal.com)
blog.l0cal.com
Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC
http://blog.l0cal.com/2011/07/07/these-companies-that-mislead-our-users/
14 comments
When I used to work at LimeWire, Google would do the same thing to us. Not only did they sell adwords to the malware sites, they refused to allow us to buy adwords.
How likely is it that these sites serve up clean binaries to Google's spider?
Quite unlikely, tested with different user-agent, and notably the Google Spider one, but the binaries are almost empty and download other binaries, which might not work for them...
Another explanation is that Google doesn't consider those adware and toolbar as malware... I truly don't know.
Another explanation is that Google doesn't consider those adware and toolbar as malware... I truly don't know.
My knowledge is probably ~ 7 years out of date here, but back in the day when I worked in AV, labelling and removing spyware was a task fraught with legal issues.
AV companies could recognize and trivially remove such a thing - but chose not to, so they didn't get sued by well-monied corporations who got very upset at their "User Metric Software Toolbar blah blah blah" being marked as malware.
I wonder if that's the case here.
AV companies could recognize and trivially remove such a thing - but chose not to, so they didn't get sued by well-monied corporations who got very upset at their "User Metric Software Toolbar blah blah blah" being marked as malware.
I wonder if that's the case here.
Perhaps one or some of the tech press that read HN will pick this story up and give you all some more link juice? Or, perhaps some of those anonymous vigilantes will be happy to have new targets to go after.
I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but thanks for VLC and all that you all do. It's one of my favorite projects, and it's one of the first things I install on friends' machines.
I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but thanks for VLC and all that you all do. It's one of my favorite projects, and it's one of the first things I install on friends' machines.
Although I believe google is in the wrong here, I do also believe that adware/malware prevention should be the responsibility of the end user's machine. What google does is at best sticking its fingers into the dam. We can't expect them to do everything, not to mention business and IP laws in the US are incredibly generous to corporations. The case may be that its legally difficult for Google to attack some of these companies.
Well, here, they get money from the adwords... So they are a bit responsable.
Well, this is about misalignment of incentives. If you are a search user, you are not Google's customer. You are their product. They sell you to people who buy adwords - whoever they may be.
OK, this line of reasoning is all over the place. All it does is expose that you know close to nothing about how Google works. There are in fact, many hundreds of engineers whose sole incentive (e.g. promotions and salary adjustments) and purpose in their job is to make sure that your search results are good.
These engineers are /not/ the engineers that are in charge of designing or running the systems that sell ads. In fact, those are two completely different divisions of the company. (If you would like to learn more about how Google works from the inside, I suggest reading Steven Levy's book "In the Plex")
Just because you do not pay for something does not mean it is not a product. If search was not good, people would go to a competitor. This is how Google got to where it is today, and bing.com is just a click away. This thread is about the quality of Google search results, and your argument is that Google does not care about the quality of your search results because they allow you to use it free of charge by inserting labeled advertisements.
To me, this is not a logical argument -- your emotions and sense of being wronged have taken over.
These engineers are /not/ the engineers that are in charge of designing or running the systems that sell ads. In fact, those are two completely different divisions of the company. (If you would like to learn more about how Google works from the inside, I suggest reading Steven Levy's book "In the Plex")
Just because you do not pay for something does not mean it is not a product. If search was not good, people would go to a competitor. This is how Google got to where it is today, and bing.com is just a click away. This thread is about the quality of Google search results, and your argument is that Google does not care about the quality of your search results because they allow you to use it free of charge by inserting labeled advertisements.
To me, this is not a logical argument -- your emotions and sense of being wronged have taken over.
Replying to self since we are at the max depth.
So, from the perspective of a business analyst, you are saying that Google has no incentive to ensure the quality of their search results because they don't receive any additional money from the people who use it?
That sounds like very short-term thinking to me, and Google is a famously long-term thinking company.
OT your line of reasoning reminds me of Excite when they were considering using Google's results. "[Google] was too good. If Excite were to host a search engine that instantly gave people information they sought, [Excite's CEO] explained, the users would leave the site instantly." [1]
[1] http://cdixon.org/2011/05/16/accurate-contrarian-theories/
So, from the perspective of a business analyst, you are saying that Google has no incentive to ensure the quality of their search results because they don't receive any additional money from the people who use it?
That sounds like very short-term thinking to me, and Google is a famously long-term thinking company.
OT your line of reasoning reminds me of Excite when they were considering using Google's results. "[Google] was too good. If Excite were to host a search engine that instantly gave people information they sought, [Excite's CEO] explained, the users would leave the site instantly." [1]
[1] http://cdixon.org/2011/05/16/accurate-contrarian-theories/
No, of course they do, but only so you'll come back and can be shown more ads. And "incentive" is quite literal: ads are Google's main (only?) revenue stream. If they don't get eyeballs, they have no inventory of product to sell to their real customers.
Look, I'm not saying this is good or bad. But it is what it is.
Look, I'm not saying this is good or bad. But it is what it is.
Well, you're saying "it is what it is," but you're only providing arguments, not evidence. I think rryan has presented actual evidence in the form of how Google is structured.
But don't you see that if Google sells no ads, those people working to make your search better don't get paid either?
I can see that, but you're making the fundamental mistake that just because something is plausible that it is actually happening. There's enough moving parts here that arguments are not sufficient.
No, it is a valid point. To lose sight of that is to forget they're a business.
You don't pay them directly. Yes, they get paid based on your repeat usage, but they get paid by advertisers.
You don't pay them directly. Yes, they get paid based on your repeat usage, but they get paid by advertisers.
Keeping things just good enough that search users return is not the same set of incentives as delivering search that meets the comprehensive set of user wants.
Your instinctual reaction to frame this in the context of a market is faulty. ALL of the major search players operate under the conceptual mode of users as product, advertisers as customers. The same is true with other media companies (TV, newspaper, etc). That seems to be the only model the market will currently bear, as the existence of media giants is predicated on their ability to accelerate consumption
Your instinctual reaction to frame this in the context of a market is faulty. ALL of the major search players operate under the conceptual mode of users as product, advertisers as customers. The same is true with other media companies (TV, newspaper, etc). That seems to be the only model the market will currently bear, as the existence of media giants is predicated on their ability to accelerate consumption
Oh, I feel no sense of being wronged at all, this is not emotion speaking, it's cool-headed business analysis. There's no such thing as free, someone always pays, and if you think you are getting something for free, that only means that someone else is paying for it for you, and perhaps they want something in return. You can understand this and adjust your expectations accordingly, or you can get upset without really knowing why.
[deleted]
Last week, I changed my default search in Chrome to DuckDuckGo. Today when I do a search for VLC Media Player I get the "VLC media player" Wikipedia article in the red box at top, and http://www.videolan.org/vlc as the top search result, with a nice little "Official site" label beside it.
I'm increasingly delighted by DuckDuckGo.
I'm increasingly delighted by DuckDuckGo.
I wonder if there are any SEO people out there, doing pro-bono (is that even the right term?) work for open source projects like this?
It should be possible to fight back (or, as was discussed/suggested before, search engines are just broken).
It should be possible to fight back (or, as was discussed/suggested before, search engines are just broken).
~2 minutes of pro-bono work:
http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/
Put in name of the bad guys. Find the blogs who blogged about their sites.
http://webylife.com/design/top-10-brand-logo-mistakes/commen...
http://www.dragonblogger.com/entertainment-television/
etc, etc. Contact them, ask them to change the link to the spam site with a link to your site.
It's stupid gruntwork, you'll need lots of it, and it will be like playing whackamole -- but it will probably work at getting them off the front page.
The other alternative, rather than de-ranking their sites, is to rank more of your own, or parasite off of high authority sites. For example, notice Wikipedia ranks for VLC right now? You know who else would rank for VLC with a trivial amount of effort? Github (&etc -- just has to be on any domain other than yours). Is there an OSS industry mag that you guys like? Have they written a review of it? Get your community to link to that review, with whatever anchor text you're having trouble with.
OSS projects shouldn't have really serious SEO issues for branded keywords -- you practically swim in link equity -- and wouldn't if marketing were treated as a priority worth addressing.
http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/
Put in name of the bad guys. Find the blogs who blogged about their sites.
http://webylife.com/design/top-10-brand-logo-mistakes/commen...
http://www.dragonblogger.com/entertainment-television/
etc, etc. Contact them, ask them to change the link to the spam site with a link to your site.
It's stupid gruntwork, you'll need lots of it, and it will be like playing whackamole -- but it will probably work at getting them off the front page.
The other alternative, rather than de-ranking their sites, is to rank more of your own, or parasite off of high authority sites. For example, notice Wikipedia ranks for VLC right now? You know who else would rank for VLC with a trivial amount of effort? Github (&etc -- just has to be on any domain other than yours). Is there an OSS industry mag that you guys like? Have they written a review of it? Get your community to link to that review, with whatever anchor text you're having trouble with.
OSS projects shouldn't have really serious SEO issues for branded keywords -- you practically swim in link equity -- and wouldn't if marketing were treated as a priority worth addressing.
VLC has been linked by high profile sites for many years now. Adding yet another link from "linuxmag" isn't going to help.
The real issue is that the SEO guys are just too good and can poison the well with impunity. I feel only better competition can help this. Maybe the Bing guys can do a better job and eat Google's lunch. Quick search on Bing shows the first few links are legit but the last one isn't (and is identified as adware by our Sonicwall). Also, the ads Bing produces are fake too. Guess no one is doing a good job in this regard. I suspect shit like this is why PC users are clamoring for an "App Store." They need someone to help them properly install software.
The real issue is that the SEO guys are just too good and can poison the well with impunity. I feel only better competition can help this. Maybe the Bing guys can do a better job and eat Google's lunch. Quick search on Bing shows the first few links are legit but the last one isn't (and is identified as adware by our Sonicwall). Also, the ads Bing produces are fake too. Guess no one is doing a good job in this regard. I suspect shit like this is why PC users are clamoring for an "App Store." They need someone to help them properly install software.
LinuxMag is hardly high-profile. It's audience is pretty focused and limited. I imagine the audience size of the referring site influences Google's rank on the SERP.
I think the point is to remove the links from linuxmag to the bad guys.
The point isn't to increase the number of high profile sites that link to VLC, the point is decrease the number of high profile sites that link to your spammer.
Sure.
Still, adwords, adsense or bing ads get ranked over the highly ranked website.
Still, adwords, adsense or bing ads get ranked over the highly ranked website.
I doubt it would be welcome, see http://jacobian.org/writing/seo-scumbags/
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
That's not SEO. That's spam. SEO is about optimizing portions of your website for people using a search engine. Lumping all SEO together is akin to lumping all hackers together as criminals. I equate the techniques to those used in journalism. You want to front load the article with the most important information. The least important information should be at the end.
...or lumping hackers and crackers together as "all hackers."
Congratulations! I knew someone was going to call me out on that when I wrote it. Much easier to make pointless observations than to actually contribute, after all.
The difference there is "I want a link back from your site to my site." That's the point at which the offer loses all possible shreds of credibility.
In my experience it's quite difficult to offer any web assistance for free online, I guess people are too wary of unsolicited help.
hi guys, I am the owner of the blog, webylife.com if you have any problem with the any link just get in touch with me would be happy to help you out you can shoot me a mail at nikunj.tamboli @ gmail .com
They can create their own versions of those spam sites that offer the genuine product. That's what I would do, and they should have bought up some of those domain names earlier. The URL gives a lot of hints and definitely helps SEO.
This takes a huge amount of time to do, especially when people behind VLC are doing it as a volunteer work...
it wouldn't take that long and they should be getting paid for their work as well. why not ask someone to volunteer and do this so they can get back to work on VLC itself? why not ask for some donations?
One problem with VLC is the genuine site's URL is not obvious. It is:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
but it's competing against (spammy) sites like "vlcdownload.org".
If they had vlc.com or changed their name to videolan, then it'd be better IMHO.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
but it's competing against (spammy) sites like "vlcdownload.org".
If they had vlc.com or changed their name to videolan, then it'd be better IMHO.
I think the real issue is that there is a misalignment of "business models".
On the one hand you have an open Source project with little funding relying on a small group of volunteers acting mostly out of a sense of social responsibility and on the other hand you have dishonest rip-off artists able to make money for free with little or no practical sanction applied.
Its not really google's job to police the web (Note I'm not condoning Google's behaviour). The extent to which they do this depends on how well that policing activity aligns with their business interests.
The root problem is profit Vs non-profit in an environment with dis-interested / conflicted and or toothless regulatory bodies.
IMHO Money is metaphor for power and as long as VLC/VideoLAN is a 'not-for-profit' organisation they will have problems.
On the one hand you have an open Source project with little funding relying on a small group of volunteers acting mostly out of a sense of social responsibility and on the other hand you have dishonest rip-off artists able to make money for free with little or no practical sanction applied.
Its not really google's job to police the web (Note I'm not condoning Google's behaviour). The extent to which they do this depends on how well that policing activity aligns with their business interests.
The root problem is profit Vs non-profit in an environment with dis-interested / conflicted and or toothless regulatory bodies.
IMHO Money is metaphor for power and as long as VLC/VideoLAN is a 'not-for-profit' organisation they will have problems.
So distributing copy of VLC with lots of malware added but still conforming with the GPL is okay?
Yes, this is ok, as long as VLC copyright is concerned.
However:
- Claiming that you are the original Author is not OK, because of copyright laws.
- Adding restrictions on the usage of the software is not OK, because of the GPL.
- As the VLC installer is GPL, the modified installers must be GPL'd too.
- Shipping VLC commercially means shipping all the source code of all external libraries, which they usually don't. (Still GPL)
- VLC, VideoLAN, x264 and VLC media player Trademarks are registered. (depends on the countries)
- Scraping the website and the images is not ok. (copyright)
- Wrongly impersonating a person or an organisation is not ok either.
However:
- Claiming that you are the original Author is not OK, because of copyright laws.
- Adding restrictions on the usage of the software is not OK, because of the GPL.
- As the VLC installer is GPL, the modified installers must be GPL'd too.
- Shipping VLC commercially means shipping all the source code of all external libraries, which they usually don't. (Still GPL)
- VLC, VideoLAN, x264 and VLC media player Trademarks are registered. (depends on the countries)
- Scraping the website and the images is not ok. (copyright)
- Wrongly impersonating a person or an organisation is not ok either.
I think the trademark would stop my hypothetical evil plans more than anything else. If I had to call it "Bill's video player that isn't evil, honest." no-one would download it.
(To say nothing of why someone who distributes malware would be at all concerned with copyright and trademark law.)
(To say nothing of why someone who distributes malware would be at all concerned with copyright and trademark law.)
Which of those would be okay in a copyright-less world? Which ones are morally/ethically bad (without copyright law)?
GPL enforcement depends on copyright law. So, all GPL enforcement goes out the window without copyright law.
I think everyone is already assuming that the above practices are morally and ethically bad. The problem is how to prevent them from happening, which most likely involves using the law.
I think everyone is already assuming that the above practices are morally and ethically bad. The problem is how to prevent them from happening, which most likely involves using the law.
If no copyright exists, then you can do all of the above. If no trademark exists, only the trademark one would be ok. If no patents exists, no change.
Ethically, I would say that the biggest issue is to claim money for a work you haven't done.
Ethically, I would say that the biggest issue is to claim money for a work you haven't done.
There is no "copyright-less world," but pot sure is fun, isn't it?
I don't smoke the chronic, thanks for making an assumption and reducing the level of debate here to a juvenile level.
Laws aren't natural, they're man-made things and they can be removed if they cause more problems than they solve.
Laws aren't natural, they're man-made things and they can be removed if they cause more problems than they solve.
Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal?
Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many reports should warrant an investigation by Google?
Regardless, can Google remove these Adword listings without legal issues (i.e. without risking being sued)?
Getting these scammers off the front page of search would be relatively easy - it can be solved algorithmically. They're probably working on it now, with their anti-linkspam initiative.
But I don't see how Google could get them off Adwords without employing hundreds or thousands of people to review advertisers, but this would create more problems of greater magnitude than it would solve.
They could crowdsource it to narrow the (retrospective) review process, but this would create a secondary market of advertising, which I doubt Google wants, nor users would want to deal with.
I can't think of a way for Google to solve this problem without creating larger ones.
It's the responsibility of governments -- not internet advertising platforms -- to police copyright law.
Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many reports should warrant an investigation by Google?
Regardless, can Google remove these Adword listings without legal issues (i.e. without risking being sued)?
Getting these scammers off the front page of search would be relatively easy - it can be solved algorithmically. They're probably working on it now, with their anti-linkspam initiative.
But I don't see how Google could get them off Adwords without employing hundreds or thousands of people to review advertisers, but this would create more problems of greater magnitude than it would solve.
They could crowdsource it to narrow the (retrospective) review process, but this would create a secondary market of advertising, which I doubt Google wants, nor users would want to deal with.
I can't think of a way for Google to solve this problem without creating larger ones.
It's the responsibility of governments -- not internet advertising platforms -- to police copyright law.
Google wants to be a useful search engine that returns relevant results. If they are returning links to malware/spyware/adware in exchange for money rather than linking to legitimate results, don't you think that is not only unethical but borderline illegal?
If Google's product is US then they are effectively selling US to the malware/spyware/adware fiends.
Google absolutely has the responsibility to return relevant, meaningful and SAFE results to its users. They already try and do that in a lot of cases. It's just that, in this case, they are getting paid not to.
If Google's product is US then they are effectively selling US to the malware/spyware/adware fiends.
Google absolutely has the responsibility to return relevant, meaningful and SAFE results to its users. They already try and do that in a lot of cases. It's just that, in this case, they are getting paid not to.
Did you not read my post? I said they could easily (relatively) solve the issue of these guys turning up in search results.
The problem they can't solve, I argue, is to ensure that people violating copyright law (of some arbitrary country) can't advertise with Adwords.
Edit: Look, I can do retrospective edits too!
The problem they can't solve, I argue, is to ensure that people violating copyright law (of some arbitrary country) can't advertise with Adwords.
Edit: Look, I can do retrospective edits too!
Here's google's policy on copyright violations in AdWords:
https://adwords.google.com/support/select/professionals/bin/...
To quote:
"For AdWords and related programs such as Google AdWords Certification, if we receive a notice or otherwise have reason to believe that an advertiser's or client manager's site is infringing, we may remove the offender's advertising in compliance with the DMCA."
So, they already do this. The question is, whether or not the VLC team has submitted a complaint that meets their criteria.
My guess is that this is something the FSF should really get involved in, except they are probably too busy taking money from Google to talk up how "open" Android is to be bothered by a little pro-bono work from a hard-working group of OSS devs.
https://adwords.google.com/support/select/professionals/bin/...
To quote:
"For AdWords and related programs such as Google AdWords Certification, if we receive a notice or otherwise have reason to believe that an advertiser's or client manager's site is infringing, we may remove the offender's advertising in compliance with the DMCA."
So, they already do this. The question is, whether or not the VLC team has submitted a complaint that meets their criteria.
My guess is that this is something the FSF should really get involved in, except they are probably too busy taking money from Google to talk up how "open" Android is to be bothered by a little pro-bono work from a hard-working group of OSS devs.
We speak here about US law, not arbitrary country, because that where Google is based.
They can solve the problem of checking reports on US copyright violations with Adwords.
They can solve the problem of checking reports on US copyright violations with Adwords.
Google also does business and has employees and servers in many other countries. Why should they not enforce the laws of those countries too?
Google refuses to comply to some French law about logs retention because their servers are not in France. Why would it be otherwise in the opposite situation?
Fake anti-virus software, counterfeit pharmacies, counterfeit products in general, malware of all sorts. Google have been taking their money for years. They have the resources not to. That's pretty shitty behaviour that endangers their users in my book.
>They have the resources not to.
This point is crucial. Could you elaborate?
This point is crucial. Could you elaborate?
Google has billions in cash sitting around, I'm sure if they hired a few thousand people to deal with this problem that some significant strides could be made. This, however, may not be the most prudent use of resources (cash).
Not taking people's money doesn't get you sued. Amazon's scam-bots cancel legitimate vendors all the time because they 'smell funny'.
And nobody asked Google to background check - the offenders were reported, and Google whitewashed the report. That raises suspicious eyebrows because Google is making money off of the offenders.
And nobody asked Google to background check - the offenders were reported, and Google whitewashed the report. That raises suspicious eyebrows because Google is making money off of the offenders.
No, but at least Google should take down those advertisers when they are reported to them.
See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738238 as a comment, for example.
See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738238 as a comment, for example.
Edit: parent made a retrospective edit to add the link after I had made this post.
So again, I ask:
- is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report?
- does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser?
- or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued?
- which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal?
- how should they solve the potential problem of scammers flooding the report system?
Again, I don't think Google can solve this problem without creating larger ones. I don't think it's their job to police copyright.
So again, I ask:
- is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report?
- does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser?
- or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued?
- which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal?
- how should they solve the potential problem of scammers flooding the report system?
Again, I don't think Google can solve this problem without creating larger ones. I don't think it's their job to police copyright.
> is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report?
Yes. They get money from advertisement, they should check reports.
> does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser?
No. If Google ToS banishes copyright infrigement, they can remove advertisers without questionning.
> or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued?
Sued? This is inside Google system, respecting Google ToS. They have the right to banish accounts and have done repeatedly in the past.
> which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal?
CA, USA, of course.
> how should they solve the potential problem of scammers flooding the report system?
How do they solve spam on gmail?
> I don't think it's their job to police copyright.
I disagree on Adsense, but agree on Search. Making money from illegal activities is illegal in most (if not all ) countries.
Yes. They get money from advertisement, they should check reports.
> does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser?
No. If Google ToS banishes copyright infrigement, they can remove advertisers without questionning.
> or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued?
Sued? This is inside Google system, respecting Google ToS. They have the right to banish accounts and have done repeatedly in the past.
> which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal?
CA, USA, of course.
> how should they solve the potential problem of scammers flooding the report system?
How do they solve spam on gmail?
> I don't think it's their job to police copyright.
I disagree on Adsense, but agree on Search. Making money from illegal activities is illegal in most (if not all ) countries.
>Yes. They get money from advertisement, they should check reports.
I don't see how one implies the other. Drug companies get money from selling ingredients for makeshift heroin, they should stop its use?
> CA, USA, of course.
And which laws? Should they block advertisers of euthanasia? Political groups? "Terrorist" groups? This is a very slippery slope.
> How do they solve spam on gmail?
No, if I were to submit many reports with different advertisers from different accounts, there's no way to detect that as spam. There's no comparison with email spam, which is a one-to-many medium.
>I disagree on Adsense, but agree on Search. Making money from illegal activities is illegal in most (if not all ) countries.
Why the distinction between Adsense and Search? Do they not profit from Search?
Google isn't making money via copyright infringement - it's only a byproduct of the actions of separate perpetrators. It's like Microsoft being held responsible for botnets.
I don't see how one implies the other. Drug companies get money from selling ingredients for makeshift heroin, they should stop its use?
> CA, USA, of course.
And which laws? Should they block advertisers of euthanasia? Political groups? "Terrorist" groups? This is a very slippery slope.
> How do they solve spam on gmail?
No, if I were to submit many reports with different advertisers from different accounts, there's no way to detect that as spam. There's no comparison with email spam, which is a one-to-many medium.
>I disagree on Adsense, but agree on Search. Making money from illegal activities is illegal in most (if not all ) countries.
Why the distinction between Adsense and Search? Do they not profit from Search?
Google isn't making money via copyright infringement - it's only a byproduct of the actions of separate perpetrators. It's like Microsoft being held responsible for botnets.
> Drug companies get money from selling ingredients for makeshift heroin, they should stop its use?
No, but if they receive credible reports that Joe Drugdealer is is using their ingredients to make makeshift heroin, they should look into those claims before directly selling their ingredients to Joe Drugdealer in the future. That's a more apt analogy to the situation we're discussing here.
No, but if they receive credible reports that Joe Drugdealer is is using their ingredients to make makeshift heroin, they should look into those claims before directly selling their ingredients to Joe Drugdealer in the future. That's a more apt analogy to the situation we're discussing here.
So of course I agree that spam results are the heart of evil. But I'm confused. After reading the DDG comment, I plugged both "VLC" and "VLC Media Player" into both google and DDG, expecting to see bad results at google. Instead, the top 4 results (ignoring ads, of course) all point to videolan.org. Is this a case of my results being pre-filtered or something? I don't recall hitting the "this is stupid, make it go away" button too often on Google.
Seeing that I am thinking more and more about creating a personal "never ever work with those people/companies" database...
To me it appears that most have not changed the name and they are hosting the download files for free. Not all darkness here.
sudo apt-get install vlc.
Really easy, so may be google is not the best way to download and install software ?
Obviously this is the best way to get it.
But when I send some video to my friends/relatives and they can't play it, I have to say "use VLC". If I forget to send the URL, there's a danger they'll fall into some spam site.
But when I send some video to my friends/relatives and they can't play it, I have to say "use VLC". If I forget to send the URL, there's a danger they'll fall into some spam site.
jaehoony(1)
How can you say "intellectual" property and GPL in the same sentence? That's fucked up, seriously. The whole point of the GPL is to help erode the copyright system and make it unnecessary.
Of course this situation is not specific to VLC, other open source products are affected by this scourge and there’s not much we can do about it. They have the money to buy adwords, we don’t. Sadly, as a non-profit organization we don’t have the money to sue them.
Really? You would sue them? That's kinda dumb don't you think? Kinda gives legitimacy to the shitty copyright system...
Anyway, my solution would be to ask for money so that you can afford to take some action.
The other half of this solution is to setup a few spammy/malware-looking websites that offer the genuine product. Out-spam the spammers! There must be a reason people are falling for the spammers' marketing after all.
And judging by the domain names, you failed to pick up on that marketing. They have some key domain names; downloadvlcplayer.net, vlcdownload.org, vlc-media-player-blog.com. Those domain names should have been bought up a while ago. Create a new domain, something like free-vlc-download.com.
Of course this situation is not specific to VLC, other open source products are affected by this scourge and there’s not much we can do about it. They have the money to buy adwords, we don’t. Sadly, as a non-profit organization we don’t have the money to sue them.
Really? You would sue them? That's kinda dumb don't you think? Kinda gives legitimacy to the shitty copyright system...
Anyway, my solution would be to ask for money so that you can afford to take some action.
The other half of this solution is to setup a few spammy/malware-looking websites that offer the genuine product. Out-spam the spammers! There must be a reason people are falling for the spammers' marketing after all.
And judging by the domain names, you failed to pick up on that marketing. They have some key domain names; downloadvlcplayer.net, vlcdownload.org, vlc-media-player-blog.com. Those domain names should have been bought up a while ago. Create a new domain, something like free-vlc-download.com.
> How can you say "intellectual" property and GPL in the same sentence? That's fucked up, seriously.
You understand very little about GPL. GPL is very strongly linked to source code copyright and source code modification. It isn't BSD or MIT.
> I don't think it's tAnd judging by the domain names, you failed to pick up on that marketing. They have some key domain names; downloadvlcplayer.net, vlcdownload.org, vlc-media-player-blog.com. Those domain names should have been bought up a while ago.
With what money?
You understand very little about GPL. GPL is very strongly linked to source code copyright and source code modification. It isn't BSD or MIT.
> I don't think it's tAnd judging by the domain names, you failed to pick up on that marketing. They have some key domain names; downloadvlcplayer.net, vlcdownload.org, vlc-media-player-blog.com. Those domain names should have been bought up a while ago.
With what money?
I think the worse part of all this mess is that Google refuses to act and stop those. This was requested quite a few time and Google told us to go away because we didn't own all the trademarks in the US (even though we still have copyright).
Moreover, the safe-browsing initiative, used in Chrome 12, is a complete joke. Reporting one of those websites make the safe-browsing re-scan the website, and find absolutely no issue with it and white-label it, which is even worse...
I contacted the Safe-Browsing initiative to report the issue and they told me "that their wasn't any issue on those websites...". Right...
Of course, running any of those executables on your Windows machine makes MSE (or other antivirus) scream...
I hope that Google fighting spam initiative will improve the situation, but seeing http://vlc-download.com/ on the first page of "VLC" search makes me wondering...