What is Digg?54 Comments
- hopefuel, on 10/22/2008, -6/+58I don't think this qualifies as evil in the grand scheme of things...
- th3heretic, on 10/14/2008, -2/+34Of course Google profits off pages that have Google ads on them...
- Humpasaur, on 10/14/2008, -4/+25Also, I can't help but add: GOOGLE PROFITS OFF EVERY SINGLE THING THAT HAPPENS ONLINE. You could substitute this report with literally anything else in the history of Teh Internets and it would be an equally valid headline. Next they'll be telling us google profits off porn. Shocker!
- nmanguy, on 10/15/2008, -0/+8Well no *****.
- bdfariello, on 10/15/2008, -0/+6I just straight-up searched for "bankofdamerica.com" in Firefox's Google search bar. It suggested I search for "bankofamerica.com" instead as I typed. When I actually did search for it, it suggested again "Did you mean: bankofamerica.com" and the "bankofamerica.com" is a link to that exact Google search.
Google can only go so far protect people from themselves. I think if they were to censoring search results of these typo-squatters, people would then be complaining that Google's blocking search results. That's a dangerous precedent to set for any reason, mind you. - BXRWXR, on 10/14/2008, -3/+9All your ads are belong to us.
- austenallred, on 10/15/2008, -0/+4My favorite one is goole.com
- adarkmethod, on 10/15/2008, -0/+4just for the record, typo-squatting is in no way illegal, as the article claims. representing yourself as the business you're squatting would be.
- ruforealz, on 10/14/2008, -3/+7Yahoo is profiting too...
- WhiteHamster, on 10/15/2008, -3/+7Its pretty much exactly what Stalin would do today if he were alive, and more evil
- Humpasaur, on 10/14/2008, -1/+4That's a pretty resounding "DUH" -- but it's up to the shadowy domaining regulatory bodies to fix that, not f'ing Google. Google does their part, Eric Schmidt is a good content evangelist:
http://pizzaseo.blogspot.com/2008/10/eric-schmidt- ... - borsaid, on 10/15/2008, -1/+4they don't have to. if you're a customer of Google's (and we all pretty much are) and you search for porn, they eventually profit off porn in one way or another.
- minorgods, on 10/15/2008, -1/+4I have never seen so many geeks whine about big companies having to shell out a few cents a click.
Isn't it appropriate for companies to pay the owner of said typo page to direct paying customers to their site? After all, they could one of those idiot smart search plugins that creep into browsers, and by then who knows what page you will land on? - Scira, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3yeah you "forgot" the period many times.
- Scrooged, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3Wife walks in and sees you looking at lesbian porn. "Oh this? I was just trying to get to google.se and forgot the dot" Wife, "Oh, I understand in that case. I'm sure you can also explain why you added the typo to your bookmarks?"
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2you'd probably be getting msn popups pointing to these typosquatter websites?
- ghaib, on 10/14/2008, -1/+3Google profits from pretty much all the spam and spam sites/blogs out there.
- Upon66, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2And all the people that own those domains are making money too! How 'bout that!
- identitymatrix, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2Isn't it ironic that Wired's web page has Google Ads on them, and so Google is profiting from of this very news article and giving some of the money to Wired?
Anyway time to enable Adblock again. - AlienMushroom, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2How could this be google's fault while they don't own those domains?
- inactive, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2But do they?
Google don't allow Adult ads, and they certainly don't allow ads on Porn sites. - IrishCharm, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2I'm so happy Ben Edelman, the Harvard McAfee advisor could step in, yet people fail to realize he was the one who created the first software that "Phished" information, which is how he got his position. So the man who made a living off of exploiting "user mistakes" is now being the Knight in Shining White and saving all the "weak" companies like Bank of America? Maybe we can get him and Google to channel their resources to get us a way out of our Economic Depression by creating an adsense for the National Treasury.
- username7410, on 10/15/2008, -1/+2I can't believe they're people out there unaware enough to click on something on a link farm page.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1use opendns or a similar service
- sexybobo, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1Does kinda suck they allow these but they have stopped doing adds for domain tasters (people who buy domains then return 4 days latter so they get there money back) which has helped a lot. now people that want adsence money have to actually pay for the domain so it has cut down a lot on domain tasters.
What really needs to happen is they need to remove the 5 day grace period as a domain registration is $10 and if you mistype it you are out $10 who really cares and places like godaddy say 95% of domains purchased are canceled in 4 days the system is being abused. - wibambau, on 10/15/2008, -2/+3This is kind of like when you're intending to turn into a Target, but you miss the entrance and pull in to Wendy's, only different.
- locojones, on 10/15/2008, -1/+2Having read their brief, they are vulnerable on an ACPA attack. Clearly, 15 USC 1125(d) says that:
"A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, ... if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person—
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, ... and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name..." [that is otherwise infringing].
We won't know, without litigation, whether the factors required for bad faith exist. But Google sets a new record for ludicrousness in their filing when they say that they can't possibly know that a domain such as BankofDmerica.com is infringing on a registered mark. The fact that they are profiting off the use of these domains does weigh against them, however.
The bulk of Google's argument rests in a poorly-crafted argument that Google isn't the registered owner of the domains, therefore cannot be liable. What their brief conspicuously lacks, however, is any argument contradicting "trafficking in" liability. The statute is quite clear that "the term “traffics in” refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, EXCHANGES OF CURRENCY, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration" (emphasis added). Clearly, ownership immaterial for this part of the statute as it's an easy argument to make that Google is trafficking in infringing domain names by paying out money to those who use them.
Because it's rare to win a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, especially in federal court, I'd expect to see a trial on any number of these issues. - bgolat, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1Typo domains are my favorite, thank you to the ones who can't spell or type!
- armakaryk, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1damn, now i want a jr bacon cheeseburger.
- inactive, on 10/15/2008, -1/+2Welcome to 10 years ago.
- inactive, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1(AND NOTHING OF VALUE WAS LOST)
- myhandleondigg, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1I wish something could be done about squatting websites. I've had multiple domains hijacked by Godaddy when they wouldn't allow me to transfer my domain to another registrar. Just today I've come across 5 or 6 band websites that were all the exact same parked image of the broad outside of a college.
- weech, on 10/15/2008, -1/+2Right, keep drinking the Kool aid. Google did it, it cant be evil!! Now, if it was Microsoft.....
- antdude, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1How many are there for Digg?
- RodBorn, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1No, he meant Googled
...you moroned - dejanigma, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1This might have been said here already.. but... uh...
So what? - saady87, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1i find my self hitting gooogle.com which surpisingly...still leads you to google.com, Goooogle.com, is where ul get *****.
- Darksci, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1I typed in bankofdamerica but didn't see any ads...
Oh thats right, I use adblock. - znine, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1This just in: Razor manufacturers profiting from emo kids
- jamespo, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1Well http://photos23.flickr.com/24427597_0cba60d473_o.j ...
- Raingwc, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1Done it many times, the goal is to type in google.se(sweden) and I do googlese and hit enter, forgetting the dot, and Wham, lesbian porn dating site. Nice.
- Neem, on 10/14/2008, -7/+7I believe that there is a legitimate service to be offered here as I, the user, would much rather click on the link to be redirected to the right site than retyping the address and taking a chance at getting it wrong again.
The way its done by these squatters is despicable, yes, but that doesn't mean what google does is evil in any way. - ChrisArchitect, on 10/14/2008, -2/+2I'm not sure if the claims in the story really pin it on Google as 'allowing' type-squatters to aid their profits .....the article veers off into discussing trademark infringement -- but what about the spammy sites with all the adsense links on them? That's what google shouldn't be allowing to rank. People get to those sites not just by typos, but by keyword searches that return the spammy sites as results.
- djJohnnyG, on 10/15/2008, -0/+0If you had a swedish wife would you really need porn?
- borsaid, on 10/15/2008, -0/+0exactly the same. . . but different
- ShittyPunGuy, on 10/15/2008, -3/+2I guess you could say Google brings you What You Need, When You Need It!
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 