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'."
...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?
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.
They should stop filtering on the word "porn"
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
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 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.
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.".
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.
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.