Google Removes Kazaa Links, Keeps Sponsored Links

SanityInAnarchy writes "Everyone should remember when Google removed several links that Sharman (owner of Kazaa) claimed were infringing their copyrights. At first, only real results were touched and sponsored links left alone. Well, that sponsored link was removed, but there are quite a few left on a search for 'Kazaa Lite' that, if they aren't infringing Kazaa copyrights, openly advocate piracy. Well, maybe not quite, but I still can't believe they expect that phrases like 'complete albums,' 'full-length movies,' and 'Napster lives' are to be interpreted as '100% legal.'"

Comments

i noticed this too

[fuckfuck101]

and it's still not hard to find links with kazaa lite, or anything to do with illegal nature.

a far more pressing issue for me is why doesn't google remove links for "kiddie porn" or "illegal porn" or "rape pics" or something?

or is it a case of one rule for one, another for everybody else?

Re:i noticed this too

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

and it's still not hard to find links with kazaa lite, or anything to do with illegal nature.
< snip >
or is it a case of one rule for one, another for everybody else?

This is precisely why they shouldn't filter out any search results. If they filter only some some "illegal" (keep in mind that legality is a function of locality) links, they are, in effect, endorsing the others. Your sacred cow may not be mine, and everyone's kink is someone else's horror.

Search engines merely provide a searchable index to content. I don't see how they can be seen as guilty of copyright infringement, so long as the page descriptions are kept short enough to qualify under "fair use". An impartial tool like a search engine is not a place to enforce morality, since morality is subjective by its very nature.

I should close by saying that I don't personally condone the examples you've given, but the people involved in the creating of that content are the wrongdoers, not Google.

Re:i noticed this too

[Guppy06]

"a far more pressing issue for me is why doesn't google remove links for "kiddie porn" or "illegal porn" or "rape pics" or something?"

Because it's easier to filter out one or two specific brand names than a few thousand different metaphors and spellings.

Re:i noticed this too

[cra]

The locality-issue is important in all this. Like here in Norway it's perfectly legal to download music or movies *for personal use*. As soon as I start to sell copies, or share my downloads with kazaa or similar programs, then I break the law.

Another this is this; Because something is illegal, should it be illegal to get information about it? Take drugs, for example. What if I wanted to find out something about the effects of, say, heroine? Would google or anyone else be able to know that I actually wanted some totally legitimate information about the subject, rather than a list of pushers? Would google know that when I searched for "kiddie porn" and "Thailand", I was looking for a place to report my neighbour that I suspected foul play at his holiday? Would google know that when I searched for "How to make a bomb", I just want to see if that stuff under my sons bed can be used to make a bomb and should be taken away before an accident happens? Would google know that I wanted to find out how to totally uninstall kazaa, not to download it?

Bottom line: It is not illegal to search for information about things that are illegal. I think Internet is too good a place to find out about things to be cencored. And I regret to say that I think the americans lead the way there by suing anybody for nothing. (I guess I'll get sued for saying this. . .) I understand people/companies that would do this to avoid getting sued, but I think it is the wrong way to go.

Legal trends against google?

[zapp]

It seems that there's been a trend lately for blaming a search engine for what can be found using its services. It is not google's responsibility to maintain the content of the Internet.

If i search google for "Child pornography" ... it is not their fault if some comes up.

If I search for mp3s or full movie rips, its not their fault. They are an indexing service, not a filtering service, nor a content provider.

blah people are stupid.

I can't believe people haven't attacked this guy.

[I'm a racist.]

The submitter of this article seems to be a bit of an asshole.

I still can't believe they expect that phrases like 'complete albums,' 'full-length movies,' and 'Napster lives' are to be interpreted as '100% legal.

Might I refer you to the first ammendment?

Re:Two different issues!

[Dark Nexus]

Psst..... both infringe on copyrights!

The difference is that the other copyrights aren't held by Sharman.

Google pulled a fast on on the RIAA

[m.dillon]

You guys are idiots. Google pulled the links, but they also put a link up to the original DMCA notice that was sent to them which... guess what? LISTS THE BANNED SITES!

So now instead of these sites being deep in the list of results, they are now front and center, and probably getting far more hits then they were before the notice was sent.

forbidden words

[frovingslosh]

but I still can't believe they expect that phrases like 'complete albums,' 'full-length movies,' and 'Napster lives' are to be interpreted as '100% legal.'"

By this logic, SanityInAnarchy's own post would be illegal, as the post uses the exact same words that it suggests should in some way be illegal to search for or index. Once we have forbidden words we have a very small step to forbidden thought.

One can argue that the piracy should be illegal, but it's a far stretch to say that a link with any of these phrases should not exist on Google. There are invalid uses of the phrases, but there are many valid uses as well, including a group that might not wish to sell their soul to a major label and the RIAA and might want to make their "complete albums" freely downloadable on the Internet. It's a shame or worse that an RIAA mentality might hamper their ability to do so.

Re:Google: "Don't be evil"

[Snowspinner]

They didn't remove hate across the board. They removed it in Germany, which has extremely strict hate speech laws, which Google was probably running afoul of.

Nor did they say anything about copyright infringement being wrong. They complied with a DMCA request. The DMCA being the evil thing that it is, they were, quite likely, in violation of it.

In other words, both cases were not Google being evil, they were the law being evil. Google is not the legislative body in either the US or Germany, so that's not really their fault.

Leave search engines out of this

[gad_zuki!]

This is like demanding Enron being removed from the yellowpages. Control search engines and you control the net I guess, this is one of the bigger problems of the DMCA. Linking should not be illegal regardless of the site.

Let them fight their battles, but leave unaffiliated third-parties out of it. Google has nothing to do with kazaalite, google has nothing to do with scientology, etc. You would think a GOP administration would defend business like google and free speech, but the DMCA has yet to be challenged and Ashcroft has no problem using it for his own end.

I don't want a goverment sanitized search engine, I want the rawest information I can get.