Another Comment...

Here is another comment I left in response to a post about anti-piracy law and Google's role in the debate:

I don't see how this law would benefit Google at all. They make money off advertising, period. They shouldn't have to be the copyright police and not accept money from sites who are infringing copyright laws. If those sites are blacklisted, Google loses revenue from those advertisers. They're a pretty morally sound company, but I doubt Google feels too badly about who they're advertising. They need money to do what they do, and they take it form whoever will pay for it. Retail stores don't NOT sell pants to sex offenders or drug addicts, right? I'm sure Google will survive even if many of their sponsors are "blacklisted," but to claim that it will benefit them is a stretch. If anything it will set them back. It's not like Google should get in trouble for advertising infringing sites, that adds extra police work for them when they have enough on their plate as it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for playing for the content you consume and reviving intellectual property rights, but Google is a middle man who doesn't owe anything to content creators. To say that Google "encourages" and "sustains" online piracy is a little much. They might bot be combating it, but it's not their fault that piracy-based sites get traffic. The blame is all on the sites themselves, and it's not fair to bring Google into the debate when they are just the messenger. Google is going to advertise the sites that are the most popular--that's what they do. If pirating sites can afford to pay for ad spots on Google, that's not Google's fault. I agree that this claim is a bit of a stretch, and I doubt anyone at Google felt that they were "between a rock and a hard place" when it came to ad revenue from piracy sites.