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'."

Comments

I was wondering when this was going to happen

[DaHat]

Back in the 2600 case over the DeCSS source code the courts said that it was effectively illegal to link to something illegal.

Since then I've been wondering when the major search engines were going to be sued because they link to illegal content such as child porn and pirated software.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out and if Google does lose you can surly expect to see others joining in against them and others due to the precedent it sets.

Re:No leg to stand on?

[TommyBlack]

But if you filter words like "crack" and "keygen", you'd basically have to do that manually by making special rules for those sorts of things. But then why wouldn't folks just start using different words?

And what about if those words were being used for legitimate purposes? (Admittedly, I can't think of any legitimate reason most people would do so)

At any rate, I think Google is on the right side trying to remain value-neutral with respect to content as much as possible. They have to respond to pressure on things like pornography sometimes, but if the system is built upon the way people are actually using it, the less they mess with their system the better it should be.

Oh it's google so sue them

[Perl-Pusher]

Van Laere said he was told by Google that Web sites with illegal content would be removed from their index, but that it couldn't tweak the Suggest feature. So Van Laere filed suit, an action he said is an expensive option for a small company against a behemoth such as Google.

He's trying to get Google to change the Suggest results. Van Laere uses Google's tool for analyzing Web traffic and found that about 93 percent of ServerCheck's customers come to their Web site by way of the popular search engine.

"We don't have any problems with the fact that in Google you can find illegal copies of our software," Van Laere said. "There are people who will never buy the product at the end of the day.

So they really weren't harmed, they just want some google cash! I noticed they refiled the suit. Did the first one get thrown out? Why is litigation always the first thing companies do? It seems they can't try just working out their differences by communication. If 93 percent of your customers are coming by way of google, do they really want to have the term servercheck blocked? They can block porn because it's an input term, not an output suggestion. See the difference?

Hint: if the most common search phrases

[Marxist Hacker 42]

With your software's name are "crack" and "keygen", you *might* need to take a good long look at your licensing and pricing model.

Re:No leg to stand on?

[drsquare]

I think Google should only serve ads from legitimate businesses.

What will they say to the shareholders when profits go down 80%?

Common problem

[Rgb465]

This "problem" is not limited to ServersCheck. A Google 'Suggest' search for just about any popular software package will turn up entries that include the words "crack", "serial" or "keygen".

Just for kicks I tried the following queries:

Photoshop
Paintshop
Autocad 2005
3d Studio Max
Fruity Loops
Windows 2000 Pro
Office 2003
Soundforge

*All* of them resulted in illicit entries appearing in the suggestions box.

Re:No leg to stand on?

[jcorno]

I think most people misunderstood Google's statement, which I'm guessing the Serverspro legal team specifically intended. Google claims the results can't be filtered. The lawyers say that's not true, because they can filter the search terms. The two are obviously different. Unless I completely misread it, Google was saying that you won't get suggestions if you search for "porn," not that you won't get any suggestions that contain the word porn. Filtering indivual search terms would be a lot less complicated than filtering the millions of indexed web pages.

That's not the way the world works...

[ktakki]

First of all, I take it from the name "ServersCheck" that this piece of software is a remote administration tool. Since very few competent admins would rely on a cracked piece of software to monitor their equipment, it's got to be warez kiddies doing the cracking (and probably not even using the software). You know, 0-day oneupsmanship.

Now, do you see the inherent flaw in letting warez kiddies dictate the pricing structure of your product?

Photoshop must be the most widely cracked software out there, second only to Windows XP (just a guess). It's not terribly expensive - $700 or so, right? - and there are both low-cost and free alternatives (Photoshop Elements, the Gimp, etc.). Does that stop anyone from cracking Photoshop CS? Nope.

Supply and demand dictate the price of your product. ServersCheck and Photoshop CS are not high-demand mass-market consumer products. They're priced accordingly. And since they're used by professionals, there's a return on the investment. Theoretically, ServersCheck will maximize your uptime. My legit copy of Photoshop CS has allowed me to generate thousands of dollars of income for my company (not that I couldn't have done that with the Gimp, but I've been using Photoshop since version 2.51 and I'm pretty set in my ways).

While supply and demand controls pricing, you hope that your product sells enough to recoup your investment in development, distribution, and marketing, along with covering your recurring expenses and perhaps a bit of profit on top of that. If not, you cut expenses. Adobe is a publicly traded company; while cutting the price of Photoshop CS2 might push a few more units out the door, that would come at the expense of profits and perhaps result in a net loss. Cue the shareholder revolt in 3...2...1...

Finally, the whole warez culture is not about being able to use software that you can't afford. It's all about hoarding, the digital equivalent of those ladies who live with 50 cats. It's irrational. Why you would want to hitch the pricing of your product to that sort of thing is even crazier.

k.