November 3, 2010 at 20:11The company received a fine for advertising on a pirated site (Google may be as follows)
Hollywood studios Disney and Warner Bros won $ 400,000 in damages in a lawsuit against a firm that advertised online on pirate sites and allegedly “funded piracy.” Perhaps this article can be fined both Google and Yandex, whose contextual advertising is placed everywhere on the Web.
Triton Media was found guilty of “contributing to copyright infringement” and “inducing infringement”. She advertised on a large number of pirated sites, including free-tv-video-online.info and watch-movies.net, which give access to streaming video for which they do not have a license.
Now the question is: are advertisers responsible for the content of the sites on which they advertise? And if they obviously know that the site violates the law (in this case it is obvious), should they compensate the damage to the copyright holder?
Advertising is the main source of income for such pirated sites. According to a 2007 Wall Street Journal article , the two sites mentioned above earned over a million dollars in advertising over the previous two years, including $ 809,000 from Google. Obviously, their income grew in the following years, so now we are talking about many millions of dollars for only these two sites. It’s difficult to even guess how much Google has “funded” all pirated resources on the Internet, if you count contextual advertising in recent years.
Hollywood studios got the precedent they need so much, so that in the future we can expect similar lawsuits against other companies that are illegible about the place of advertising.
Triton Media was found guilty of “contributing to copyright infringement” and “inducing infringement”. She advertised on a large number of pirated sites, including free-tv-video-online.info and watch-movies.net, which give access to streaming video for which they do not have a license.
Now the question is: are advertisers responsible for the content of the sites on which they advertise? And if they obviously know that the site violates the law (in this case it is obvious), should they compensate the damage to the copyright holder?
Advertising is the main source of income for such pirated sites. According to a 2007 Wall Street Journal article , the two sites mentioned above earned over a million dollars in advertising over the previous two years, including $ 809,000 from Google. Obviously, their income grew in the following years, so now we are talking about many millions of dollars for only these two sites. It’s difficult to even guess how much Google has “funded” all pirated resources on the Internet, if you count contextual advertising in recent years.
Hollywood studios got the precedent they need so much, so that in the future we can expect similar lawsuits against other companies that are illegible about the place of advertising.