Are YSI Request Threads and other copyright infringing activities in direct violation of Google AdSense's TOS?

https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms

#13
Representations and Warranties. You represent and warrant that (a) all of the information provided by You to Google to enroll in the Program is correct and current; (b) You are the owner of each Site or that You are legally authorized to act on behalf of the owner of such Site(s) for the purposes of this Agreement and the Program; (c) You have all necessary right, power, and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform the acts required of You hereunder; and (d) You have complied and will continue to comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, and regulations (including without limitation the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 and any relevant data protection or privacy laws) in Your performance of any acts hereunder. You further represent and warrant that each Site and any material displayed therein: (i) comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, and regulations; (ii) do not breach and have not breached any duty toward or rights of any person or entity including, without limitation, rights of intellectual property, publicity or privacy, or rights or duties under consumer protection, product liability, tort, or contract theories; and (iii) are not pornographic, hate-related or otherwise violent in content.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7623/dom7wb.jpg

It's not the reality of impropiety, its the perception. If some overzealous corporation tried to go after ILX over YSI links, they'd certainly have little to no case. That's not the point, what's important here is that Andrew would have to deal with a pissed off hosting provider, possibly even mount a defense (costs $$), and have a general headache to deal with.

More importantly, the presence of YSI threads precludes Google AdSense participation (for random incoming Googlers), cutting off a much needed funding source for all the time, work, and dollars that go into maintaining ILX.

the latter is definitely true, it only takes one narc emailing them and you're kicked out of the program, never paid the accumulated funds from that particular month.

something to keep in mind if people start creating "Click on these ads to make ILX money" threads. definitely bad.

The problem with this is (DISCLAIMER: I am not claiming this is likely, as it most certainly is not, but it is possible) that the DOJ can choose to prosecute in the USA as a "conspiracy" rather than an individual case of copyright infringement. If that's the case, they are only required to show that you "aided" the "conspiracy" to break the law, in this case, infringe federal copyright laws. Whether or not you actually infringed any copyrights yourself is irrelevant.

This is how the DOJ does all it's warez group prosecution. I don't have exact numbers, but there's been a handful of guys thrown in prison who's only role whatsoever has been running a chatroom or something similar.

So, if the DOJ chose to prosecute ILM as a conspiracy (refer to disclaimer above) then Andrew could be prosecuted, very heavily, assuming the Australian government chooses to cooperate, whether any songs were hosted on or off server.

IIRC, the DOJ has gone after 1 or 2 random public IRC warez distribution channels and newsgroups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation

-- Courtney Gidts (jo...) (webmail), June 6th, 2006 5:51 PM. (ex machina) (later) (link)

Like in My Own Private Idaho? Cool!