I use to own Google adsense account since year 2006 (keep good fate on it), late 2006 my account reach USD 100 but i din’t withdraw it cause i understand is not worth to withdraw USD 100 for foreigner like me (bank charges, currency exchange) …..

This year (2007) April i add another web site in my account and it do generate good profit (i happy with it), then at late Jun i bought over a website (7 year history with good traffic/pageview) then i add adsense in ….

But today 17/07/2007 my account get disable and all my money gone …….

So below is my question :
1. How come google take away all my money ? (from 2006 till now).

2. If there is afraud click or illegal activity, you surppose to ban the URL not my account. why ban (extra profit for google adsense) ?

3.Google adsense how do you return all the money to the publisher since early year 2006 (i know cause i use adword) ?

4. If i have illegal activity, taking out google adsense is the only solution, then why not taking out google search Bar ? (Goolge are not paying me, why should i advertis for google ? ).

I need a clear answer from Google ….

I found google Policy is not fair for user with low page view and do believe that is million user like me facing this problem …..

Thanks god internet exit and i can search for more help.

Thanks
wish to hear your reply soon.

The DMCA was never created to faciliate the wholesale posting of content against the wishes of the copyright owner. It was meant to protect ISPs who against their knowledge had copyright infringing content posted on one of their hosted websites.

I believe Google will lose, and it better. Because if not, watch out. There will be plenty of others ready to “syndicate” your content royalty free. And there won’t be anything you can do about it (other than spend hour upon hour upon hour trying to get them to take it down).

Phil

No one’s offering the same cars for sale, no. The point was, tunnel-vision leads to blinkered thinking.

on betting the number of those ‘like me’ is growing - ref.:people who get their news/information/entertainment almost exclusively online.

How does the artist make a buck if his/her success is ’set free?’ Well…Stephen King found a way to do that with a downloadable ‘time-bombed’ product. Plenty of software programmers time-bomb their demos (the demos remain operable to a point in time, after which they cease to function unless you obtain an unlock-code by sending them the requisite money. Now, you could argue that, even if time-bombed, a song can be re-recorded, then re-transcribed to file…but that sort of thing is happening all the time, anyway. I’m spending a good deal of time at home converting my old vinyl albums to audio CDs using my computer - I paid for the albums initially, and I see no reason to pay the music industry’s inflated prices for a remastered version I can make myself, using cheap software on a machine built from spare parts.

Protecting content, in this era, is virtually impossible.

Only one thing really works - the knowlege, on the part of the fan, that without return, the artist can’t continue to produce: so supporting the artist becomes an act of enlightened self-interest…kind of like selling one’s SUV so that there’s a planet to drive on in the coming years.

It’s fanbase loyalty that will help to keep deserving artists alive and producing…along with any advertising the artist elects to become associated with in order to generate extra revenue. What we’ll see is something of a return to the old patronage system that used to support artists in Renaissance Italy and in the royal courts of Europe, only the ‘patrons’ will be the online fanbase of each artist. Of course, daVinci didn’t pause for commercial breaks…but then, he didn’t get out much, either…occasion trips to try flying machines, but most of those ‘field trips’ were local, anyway…

This is yet another reason why the telecom companies are so eager to grab the internet and stake their claims on vast swaths of it - they are trying to position themselves as the new middlemen of the information age. You can control the spice, or control the demand…but without the road connecting the two, you won’t make much money…and whoever controls that road stands to make the most money.

Everybody acts as if advertising is the bane of civilization, but it’s really more the hallmark of civilization. To be successful at it, the trick is to position it judiciously and not overdo it, as is the fashion of media-hoes such as Murdoch (FOX), so that the consumer mutes, tunes or TiVo’s it out. The last time I watched broadcast network television, I was appalled - there were brief segments of programming, maybe 10 mins. avg. in length, between commercial ‘islands’ which featured sometimes 10-12 ads. The old saw from advertising came back to me: ‘programs exist to fill the spaces between commercials.’ How low we have sunk since PLAYHOUSE 90.

SIDEBAR: Even though PBS has commercials, they’re quick, tasteful, and usually only take up the brief intervals allotted for them between program timeslots. This is called intelligent scheduling.

***

for josiah…

Viacom can go after the petty profits their clips made for YouTube, but sussing out the damages will take years and the only real profiteering will be done by lawyers. An intelligent producer would simply cut their losses and focus on generating new product…as so many software companies do to stay ahead of the piracy curve… What you’ll see in the future is the evolution of on-demand into virtual arcologies with the artists at the apex and their fanbases providing the support…which is kind-of what’s been happening, anyway…and the extra requisite cellulose supplied by prudently administered advertising…

Sorry… ads are not just going to ‘go away,’ folks…

“Basically, [as Paw puts it] Viacom aren’t stupid, they do have a point, and perhaps in their case they should be taking the action that they are.

“The CBS/BBC model is a good one, but the merit of it is found not so much in the ‘clever’ strategy itself, as in what it intends for the quality and nature of their content. The secret to making use of YouTube as they plan, will be for CBS and the BBC continually to offer, on their own channels, fresh, appealing product, which competes with what should be regarded only as its own advertising on YouTube.

“It will be a shame if Viacom wins a lot of ground against YouTube in the outcome of this law suit: the CBS/BBC model is one that will only drive better content.”

>>the stupidity that has been behind the tanking of Detroit auto makers.

No one’s offering the same cars for free.

>>but I’ll bet the number of those like me is growing rapidly.

That rings of hyperbole.

>>Kill ONE Google/YouTube and a HUNDRED will spring up in it’s place…

No need to kill them, it’s happening anyway.

>>And what a relief that soon those artists will be able to own and produce their own stuff.

As the web has shown us, if a piece of media is hyper popular, it will be set free. Then, how do you suppose the artist makes a buck? Do they just chalk-up the millions of plays that didn’t generate revenue as the price of doing business?

+ + +

Many are quick to bash Viacom in the blogosphere, but I haven’t read a single sentence dedicated to future options or models that could support and protect the content owner’s investment. Yes, there will always be another YouTube, we get that, so then what? Is the content owner simply effed? As I blurted on LostRemote…if you keep extrapolating the “it’s just going to be free somwhere else” concept to forthcoming devices and delivery options, it starts to feel like it will become impossible to make a dime off of content, because technology can keep liberating it from the shackles of a business model, like a virus that removes ownership.

I can see where Viacom is coming from, but that’s largely because I can also see the stupidity that has been behind the tanking of Detroit auto makers. New ideas do not sell well to entrenched, blinkered mentalities…or, to mix metaphors, it’s sometimes very tricky to get an old horse to learn to drink from a new watering hole. If the morons in the GM, Ford and Chrysler boardrooms would wise-up and start making fully-electric cars, we might not have to worry about selling-off all our beachfront properties in Florida before the middle of the next decade…and at the same time, we could sieze a major share of the emerging Chinese auto market…

What a number of your detractors seem to miss is that ‘the media’ is changing. A lot of us simply don’t care about Viacom’s products…we spend more of our free time online. I’m sorry (not terribly so) but the few times I’ve seen Bill Maher have been confined to video tapes loaned to us by one of my wife’s friends: we don’t have cable, because we’re not willing to shell-out the ridiculous rates for the swill the local cable company offers as its ‘basic package.’ (Sorry Bill - you ARE brilliant, btw…) I’m likely not viable as a slice of any ‘normal’ demographic, but I’ll bet the number of those like me is growing rapidly. (Oh, and the only time I’ve ever seen ‘da sponge’ has been ONLINE…)

Viacom’s actions remind me very much of the fact that broadcast media (and this includes ‘those cable guys’) are up against a media paradigm shift - and they are trying to stay alive, literally. So, I guess I can hardly fault them for trying to carve the heart out of the new kid on the block, especially when that kid is using some of Viacom’s stuff to boost its profit margin. But Viacom will ultimately lose, in the end. That’s the sad part. They’re going to go down in flames, and things like this might drag Google/YouTube with them, but that’ll just leave a vacuum for another start-up to fill…and filled it WILL be. Kill ONE Google/YouTube and a HUNDRED will spring up in it’s place…

Big time media producers need to keep in mind that there are a couple zillion webcams out there now, so talking heads aren’t just a dime a DOZEN….they’re like a dime for about thirty THOUSAND…and growing. In all honesty, I find many of YouTube’s indy vids far more interesting and entertaining than, say, almost anything any network anchor has to say (including Katie) and some of the indy vid productions on there are vastly superior, in terms of laugh-potential, than any sitcom. Who needs good writing, or bloopers, when you can have spontanaeity…and bloopers…AND local interest…for FREE?

So…I googled Viacom’s website and wrote the president of the board of directors. I told him they (Viacom) were making a big mistake (I emailed it to the shareholder’s feedback email addy - nothing gets boardroom attention quite like an email from an investor–do I own Viacom stock? Who KNOWS, man? My portfolio is all over the place–”probably” is the best answer I can think of.) I was a bit more serious than I am here, but the points were essentially the same: ‘…you guys are missing the boat on free advertising,’ etc., etc., “…this might scare off investors…” yadda yadda… Hopefully some underling with a modicum of intelligence will read it and figure out a way to ‘interpret’ it to the high priests of entertainment at Viacom…

If Viacom is so smart to be suing Google/YouTube, howcome CBS is not only NOT doing the same thing, but seems to be perfectly okay with YouTube’s use of their materials? Huh, Paw? Huh? Huh? Answer: brains in le boardroom. (Time to call my portfolio manager, methinks…it’s either that, or uraniumy…)

Who cares who produced the stuff? You see a short clip that makes you laugh, or piques your interest, you go looking for the whole deal - click - it takes you to VIACOM…or CBS….or HBO…or MTV. John Abell is right - it’s the artists that are the items of interest, not the boardrooms behind them. And what a relief that soon those artists will be able to own and produce their own stuff - as soon as they take it off the air or cable and go online with it, full-bore…music, comedy, talk-show, whatever… Not quite full-circle back to the times when minstrels used to pass the hat, but closer than it’s been in centuries.

For a better (and more reasonably priced) product, eliminate the middle-man…

Right Jeff?

- Amanda

While I’m at SXSW with thousands of earnest techies trying to change the world one Twitter at a time, Viacom had to go out and get all old media on Google/YouTube. Since everything has already been said by everyone else,…

What I think will happen is a change in the balance of power, not the evaporation of Big Media in favor of massive creative entrepreneurship. Some of this is old hat: from the demise of the studio system to Clint and Tom controlling everything they do and (the late) Johnny and Dave owning their own shows, not the networks on which they appear. It’s an especially interesting question when the cash catalyst is public property, like (ahem) a broadcast spectrum.

I’m not saying Viacom doesn’t provide a service. I am asking how much Don King deserves when he’s not the one taking the punches

By the same analysis, would you support my creating a pirate tv station where I re-broadcast Viacom’s programming with my own ads spliced in?

And how could you support the one and not support the other?

Sweet mysteries of life.