Slashdot Mirror
Google in Trouble for Suggesting Illegal Software
JehCt writes "Google is being sued over the 'suggest' feature built into its latest toolbar. InfoWorld reports: 'ServersCheck, a small company that makes network monitoring software,' is complaining that, 'If ServersCheck is entered, Google generates suggested search terms such as serverscheck crack, serverscheck pro crack and serverscheck keygen which lead to pirated software.' In an apparent public relations blunder, Google claimed to have no way of filtering suggestions. However, Google can and does filter because the toolbar won't provide suggestions for keywords like 'porn'."
They start censoring individual keywords there is going to be no quality control, since obviously they can't work with every keyword that entered on google or in the toolbar.
If there is an automated way, what is there to prove that a competitor is not doing it?
-nick
...that more people are interested in pirated copies of their software than their actual brand? I'm far from an expert at the workings of search engine toolbars (hate 'em), but doesn't that particular function bring up the most popular searches for that keyword?
Telling Google to filter those selections is rediculous! If the company doesn't like people supplying cracks/serials then go after the offender... not Google just because they no they exist. I'm tired of all this crap. Pretty soon the MPAA and RIAA will go after Google because they index illegal mp3 and movies. What the hell is wrong with this world?
http://religiousfreaks.com/Is that anyone can sue anybody for anything, even if it's later:
a. tossed out of court;
b. found totally without cause; or
c. settled because the group/person being sued doesn't have enough legal firepower or deep pockets to fight the case.
I predict that Google, who have just a teeny bit of money, isn't too worried about this one.
Now, if it were say a Linux distro being sued by say a Unix license owner who claimed they had stolen their code, that's another animal, but that's because most distros don't have deep pockets or lawyers to throw on fires for no good reason.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I think Google should only serve ads from legitimate businesses.
If an ad happens to offer free software, the target of the complaint shouldn't be Google but instead the business that is actually breaking the law. That's what makes sense to me.
Google should be able to take the ads down and halt service of those ads if an inquiry is warranted.
Otherwise, I've got a great business plan:
1. Make a piece of shill software.
2. Have your friend start a business that cracks it and offers it through Google ads.
3. Sue Google for the ads.
4. Profit.
My work here is dung.
that sounds like the politically correct way to say "i want to censor google". if people looking for their product in good faith are suggested search terms that allude to a crack, they most likely aren't going to try those search terms. if they're given results for a pirated version only, then there's an issue.
this guy sounds like he's taking it a little overboard. but you are correct, google made a mistake saying they couldn't filter them out when they do regularly filter results anyways (china's google for instance?)
please me, have no regrets.
No one is going to believe that technical restrictions shit, especially not from Google. I mean, they didn't believe it from Napster (they were lying, too) and they're definitely not going to take that line from Google, which is widely considered to be a collection of some of the smartest people in technology.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
From the Google Suggest FAQ, "Google Suggest uses data about the overall popularity of various searches to help rank the refinements it offers." Perhaps they have turned off suggestions for a few obvious terms (porn, etc), but I doubt they are actually filtering the searches used to rank the refinements - this would be quite difficult to do in general. Expecting google to weed through all of the searches that have been made in order to find what some might consider to be illegal would be absurd.
They should stop filtering on the word "porn"
I think the original poster might be wrong about Google's ability to filter. There's a difference blocking suggestions for the keyword "porn" and blocking only the "illegal" suggestions for "ServersCheck". Going by the logic in the post, Google could probably only easily block *all* sugggestions for "ServersCheck", not just the illegal ones. I'm pretty sure the software company wouldn't like that option...
What ServersCheck is asking Googles is to stop suggesting that people search for Serverscheck crack, when they were possibly trying to just search for ServersCheck.
Now that I've stated teh obvious, this seems a perfectly fair thing to ask, both legally and ethically, even considering free speech, and the fact that the present model is ultimately based on the actual results/user request - which is a really nice way incidentally.
Google Suggest, even if GOOG would probably want to potray it as more of a user trend analysis tool, seems to be on shaky ground, as it seems intuitive to think of it more of a guidance system based on the value it actually provides.
If their code is smart enough to know a keyword "ServersCheck" is listed on webpages with the other keywords "ServersCheck crack", "ServersCheck keygen" or "ServersCheck pro crack" they should be able to put a filter in for it.
Technically, yes. They should be able to.
From a business standpoint, I don't see why Google should be compelled to modify their code for the benefit of ServersCheck or any other party who would complain about the behavior of the tool.
Wouldn't Google still be considered a common carrier? They didn't produce the stuff, why would they filter it.
.. if a common carrier started to filter out results that they thought were unfavorable, then they'd have to filter ALL illegal content, because then they become a delivery source.
IIRC
So why is Google filtering the stuff?
Or would they not be common carrier?
= Grow a brain...
Aggregated information is just that: information. It is not owned or copyrighted by anyone. The judge should simply rule that Google is not the one to sue, because they do not own the fact that 1000 people searched for this result.
The big problem here is the program is called Google Suggest. So basically, Google is suggesting that people should search for cracks, keygens, and other things which hurt the business of said product. Google is in no way being neutral when it "suggests" search terms.
If this gains any kind of traction, it will probably lead to the demise of the suggest program. All someone has to do is preform a few actions (create a product, website, preform searches, etc.) and then they can sue Google.
If they do manage to outlaw bringing up search results with words like "crack," won't the cracker scene just come up with some other lingo? I could write something that does the same thing and call it a "Floyd" instead of a "crack," and if that catches on you'll get just as many illicit search results for "ServersCheck Floyd." And then what, will they sue over searches for "Floyd?"
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Google technically could put a filter in. However, that starts a terrible precedent. Although pages with the word 'crack'after a piece software in the title could (and probably will) be illegal, what if they are simply information about cracks, for example about cracks' illegality? Should google not be able to link to pages with information about illegal activity? Should they censor out the words "murder" or "theft"?
I can see how this can be difficult. All Google is doing is querrying it's databases for the most frequent search terms that match ServersCheck*. Its kind of hard to classify in what contexts should certain phrases not be suggested. I mean, if I started typing "G4 Cube", it might be perfectly legitimate for google to suggest "G4 Cube Cracks", not because I want to search for craked software for a G4 Cube but because the cases for this machine were known to develop cracks. The word has many meanings, and if you can figure out a way to programatically determine whats ment by a short phrase worth of context, then it has alot more practicall uses then filtering Google.
Keygen, I could see just skipping over for suggestions. Not as many legitimate uses. Of course, that starts down a very slippery slope, especially when you think of things like Google.cn
#include <signature.h>
I don't understand why this would be illegal. Immoral maybe, and a definite bug, but illegal? Google could just as easily dump serverscheck out of its index. There's nothing illegal about that. Why do they legally have to return results favorable to serverscheck?
Why is it that naive, idealistic comments get modded up, but harsh realistic comments get modded down?
Because moderators believe in hope, however ill conceived it may be.
"Saying that Linux is inferior to Windows because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferi
I think more to the point though is the one thing that people don't seem to understand about Google. They are a SEARCH engine. They don't produce the content, only make it easier to find. They shouldn't be held responsible for other peoples' criminal acts. You can learn how to make a bomb through Google as well, and you should be able to. That is one of the side effects of having the entire span of human knowledge at your fingertips. I just don't understand why companies, individuals and interest groups keep going after the messenger.
You'll have that sometimes...
Not sure why the parent is modded as funny, because its more insightful than funny. Did that company sued the ISP or the maintainer of the sites? Nope. They went were the money is.
Thats like charging someone with a crime because he knows where the neighborhood crackhouse is.
Which is not a legitimate use.
Not in the same category as using a no-cd crack to play a warez copy of a game, I'll admit. But I bet the EULA and/or license for the game forbids you from using such software.
A crack or a keygen may make it much easier for you to run software that you are entitled to use, and using one in such a situation might not (and probably will not) result in litigation, but that does not mean it's a legitimate use.
grnbrg.
My apologies, I modded your comment -1 redundant when I meant to mod it up insightful.
At least posting this comment will zero out the effect (no means to undo the mod)
Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
The 2600 decision was unconstitutional on the face of it. The first amendment lets a newspaper tell citizens where a red light district is without fear of being hauled up on pandering charges. The last 25 years have seen our federal courts loaded with pro-business, defacto right wing judges who have markedly ruled against the consumer and for more invasive corporate power.
Google shouldn't have to filter a damned thing.
Software to crack your own property is morally proper, no matter what laws the rich bastards have purchased. The "license to use, but you don't own this disk or the software" idea is manure. You buy it, you own it. That's how physical transactions work. An author of a book doesn't get to tell you how to read, store, or dispose of the book after you purchase it. Well, right now he can't. Wait a couple of years.
This is how people lose faith in the law. Make enough stupid, vicious laws to make powerful people happy, and soon no one respects the law, since they KNOW it's a scam to make powerful wealthy people happy.
I'm starting to see the end of the internet as we've known it. It's turning into corporate-controlled 21st century TV, complete with vice squads and corporate private cops busting people.
Time to start building encrypted darknet transmission systems, kids. The dark times are starting.
2600 lost because they were not a noble defendant.
I think that the same lawsuit with a defendant of higher moral character would have had a different result (eg., Google).
In some cases, the judge can't seem to look at the law instead of the defendant. I think 2600 was one of those cases. The judge saw scary hackers and seem to react "they must be stopped". It was a stupid ruling from a stupid judge. Don't expect that to slow Google down one bit.
...google made a mistake saying they couldn't filter them out when they do regularly filter results anyways (china's google for instance?)...
One of the reasons that Google can't effectively filter in the States is that in English (and, I assume, most other languages), one word can have multiple meanings. There are many reasons that the word "crack" (or some such) and the name of a piece of software can legitimately be on the same page. They don't even have to be related -- multiple entries on the same page, for example. And, unlike in China, the government has not told them to filter out anything related to a certain word without care for the good wheat that gets thrown out with the chaff. In an environment that praises free speech, it is logistically impossible to filter a word in relation to another word without going actual people going through each page individually and searching for context. Think about how well your anti-spam filter works, for example.
Another point here is that Google offers an international service. Even if some judge does rule that Google has to, for example, keep program searches from turning up toolbar results for the cracks to those programs, this ruling would only be in effect in the US. This would mean separate Googles for each and every country... But the thing is, unless you rely on China-like tactics (which aren't particularily effective to begin with), there's no reason that someone in the US can't access google.ca or some such. i.e. Going through the trouble of censoring the American Google site really won't be effective. It'll just be a big waste of taxpayer (for enforcement) and corporate (for implementation) money, which will end up hurting the average Joe more than the occasional software "pirate".
This brings up the question of syntax vs. semantics. Right now, Google could filter based on syntax, but what if the Kiddiez start getting smart about things and instead of labelling the hacked versions "crack" or "keygen" or "warez", they labelled it "orange juice" or "pinto" or "football" -- words that have no semantic relation to the issues at hand here. Sure, Google could get smart too and start filtering those, but the list of unrelated words or phrases could almost be limitless -- moreso if foreign words are allowed.
In my mind, I'm getting this picture of anti-virus programs and their virus signature checking algorithms, and the run-time complexity involved as the number of signatures increases. In this case, it could be exponential in a very short time period if Google is forced to filter every single search string against a rapidly growing list of "questionable" keywords.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
This company's going to get shot down if they face Google in court. Their example of filtering is the opposite of what they're complaining about. They give an example of Google not offering suggestions for "sex", which means Google is filtering the input keywords. They then complain that Google doesn't exclude "servercheck keygen" from the result set for "servercheck", which would involve filtering the output set. Google's response will be, quite properly, "Yes, we can look at keywords and not offer any suggestions for a certain set of keywords. But that's not what you're asking. You're asking for us to filter the set of suggestions returned for potentially any set of keywords and remove certain suggestions but not others. And what criteria do we use to decide what's legitimate? "keygen" is entirely legitimate as a keyword for software to let authors generate license keys to issue to buyers of their own software, after all.".
Scientology not wanting any critic sites suggested.
RIAA not wanting any alternative music/non-big 4 music sites suggested.
It would never end, and we end users are all poorer when censorship happens.
And don't think for a moment this company won't ask to have other download sites removed the moment it is proved it's possible. Google's defence has to be that it's not possible in an automated system.
Lastly, filter out crack and it will simply become cr@ck. You get the idea.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Google can and does have the ability to filter out search terms like "britney spears naked" and other offensive terms like that. And in response to all of the people who say stuff like "crack" has plenty of legitimate uses, i would argue that the word "naked" and/or "nude" has just as many legitimate uses, and google suggest filters them out.
Anyways, i completely agree with what they are saying... I have no problem with google trying to use google to search for illegal software, but when they are trying to search for legal software, and google suggests to search for illegal software, that is a problem... IMO, google should be able to filter it out the same way they do for pornographic results from the google suggest bar.
If there's anything more important than my ego around, i want it caught and shot now.
The software company is just going to have to make their software harder to crack. Research on anything can yield an opportunity to do something that's in violation of somebody's idea of a copyright violation. Google is just giving search results. Google doesn't promote any of them except the sponsored ones you see on top.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Those guys should actually think about the reason cracks of their software have more rating than their software, it is of course the result of bad... ... well bad everything , bad management, bad marketting, bad prizing.
The happy outcome is that google is getting sued perhaps because google has the money, instead, sueing the guys that make the cracks or distribute them would be harder and more difficult to get benefits from
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
From the first hit using the search terms "serverscheck crack":
Shareware Connection periodically updates pricing and software information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it. Software piracy is theft, Using crack, password, serial numbers, registration codes, key generators (keygens), warez is illegal and prevent future software development.
How would you go about filtering this site? Curious.
My spoon is too big.
I know this is probably too obvious, but because the messenger has billlyuns and billllyuns of dollars and the people that are actually doing something illegal are A: hard to catch and B: have (by design, or because they're the type of people who find it difficult to get a legitimate job) few available assets.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
"And what about if those words were being used for legitimate purposes?"
There are plenty of legitimate uses, but, it's a minor convenience, so it shouldn't be a big deal. It's not like you can't search for those words, it just won't suggest them.
It's not like google is suggesting that you go an get a crack for your software, it's suggesting that it might a word you're looking for, based on what other people search for.
It's exactly like page-rank. If you go searching for "Santorum" because you're looking for Senator Rick Santorum's personal website, you're not going to find it as the first result, because more pages link to spreadingsantorum.com than they do linking to the senator's site... But instead of the content of the web dictating what comes first, it's the users that dictate what comes first, as a byproduct of what they ultimately click on.
So, as usual, they shouldn't be suing Google, they should be suing Google users that search for cracks.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
What's wrong with suggesting those search terms? First of all they are search terms. Searching for them isn't illegal. Getting pirated copies is. Second, some of those have dual meanings that are hard to filter. Cracks could relate to things that are not software related, how would the software know the difference? Finally, not every one of those are necessarily illegitimate. Cracks have their legitimate uses. Every gamer I know cracks their single player games that they paid for, so that they don't have to keep the cd in the drive when playing. People with legitimate copies of windows crack them so they don't have to go through the activation process every time they format / reinstall.
DMCA, yeah, yeah...That law needs to be rescinded.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Google Suggest is a brand name for a search engine running against a database of collected popular combinations of search terms. It is no more an set of actual suggestions from Google as the term "suggestion" is used in casual conversation than Microsoft Office is an actual "office", or Microsoft Sam and Mary are actual little people living inside your computer that talk to you, or than Mozilla Firefox is a flambeed mammal.
This is, I am afraid, incorrect. Google is a US company, and censors according to the requirements of US law everywhere (though in some countries it censors under local laws too, as in the cases of China, France, and Germany). Google.cn, google.de, google.fr, google.co.nz, etc etc, all censor the same results that get censored in the US, complete with the standard DMCA notice, even though the DMCA is not in effect in any of those countries. I contacted Google about this when I noticed it, and they pretty quickly confirmed that this is indeed the case.
Of course, that brings up that whole moral issue. To be honest, I've got no problem with not enlarging a monopoly, especially considering that there are other OSs out there - cheaper or free - that can do almost everything I want. "Why pay when you don't have to?" vs "If a free cracked version wasn't an option, would you pay for it or use something else as a substitute?" Seeing that games are still mostly Windows-only, I probably would have paid (and, again, have done so twice), but were the games available to use under OSX or some Linux distro, I most certainly wouldn't have.
I'm a fan of the Google Sketchup concept: give it away to everyone, only require a license for it to be legally used professionally and enable a couple features that no home user would ever have a need for. It's an even better deal because that pro license is exactly the same cost as the everyone license prior to Google's acquisition of SketchUp. I used a cracked version before, now I have a legal free version. I can evaluate it as I see fit, and decide whether the $500 investment is worthwhile for me to use it professionally (from what I've heard of people who do have a legal pro version, it's well worth it; I only use it for casual use so I don't know or care). I feel that's how most software should be priced - free personal use, charge (perhaps a good bit more) for professional use. You get more people using your software which is going to probably bring about more sales due to people finding that they can profit from using the software.
But, that's just how I'd do it. Not everyone would like it, no matter how well it seems to work for those that have tried it.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Google isn't a public service. When they say they "Can't filter", it's likely because it sends them down a slippery slope towards being unable to run a search engine. Ok, let's get rid of thte cracks. Now the warez. Now all the strange misspellings of those two. Well Jesus, thare are a billion pages on Google. To go through each one to make sure it's not illegal somehow would require trolling the entire internet.
In ths case, we're not talking about filtering individual web pages but suggested search terms. Sure, they could filter those too, technologically. However, we get the same problem; It's going to mean some poor sap going through each search term and trying find the offensive or illegal ones. They could try just filtering some terms, but then you get things like this, with them being called hypocrites.
In the end, between the additional logistics required to filter every time someone complains and the additional drain on computer resources to do so, it's a more acceptable business decision to get the whiney people to go away than to try to appease them.
It's been a long time.