Google has said that cutting off advertising from piracy sites is much more effective than censoring the sites from access.
The Australian government last month introduced legislation that would allow rights holders to get an injunction placed on internet service providers (ISPs) to force telcos to block specific overseas piracy websites from access by Australian users.
The rights holders would need to demonstrate that the primary purpose of a website is for the infringement of copyright before the Federal Court will order ISPs to block it. Latest Australian news
Dallas Buyers Club wants alleged infringer details by May 6 The censorship end game of the piracy site-blocking Bill Mandatory data-retention funding to be a Budget surprise Google slams Australian piracy site-blocking legislation NBN Co predicts up to 370,000 premises need work on HFC
The move has been welcomed by rights holders, but faces opposition from Google, which told the parliamentary committee looking into the legislation that site blocking “is not the most effective means of stopping piracy”.
A recent study of the piracy ‘ecosystem’ in which the authors conducted a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of various anti-piracy measures found that anti-piracy efforts directed towards blocking access to pirated content have not been successful, Google said in its submission.
Google said that more effective measures include providing legitimate content that is more attractive to consumers than piracy, and cutting off advertising to piracy websites. The introduction of site blocking could have unintended consequences, Google warned.
Site blocking also has the potential to be used in ways that were unintended, included by blocking legitimate content.
Google said that legislation allowing sites that
facilitate access to infringing copyright content to be blocked could lead to virtual private network (VPN) services being blocked.
VPNs also have many other legitimate purposes, including privacy and security, Google stated.
The court should be forced to consider the impact on freedom of speech when blocking sites, the company said — via redwolf.newsvine.com