Slashdot Mirror
What the Pirate Bay Verdict Could Mean For Google
explosivejared writes "Forbes is running a story discussing the verdict in the Pirate Bay case and its implications on file sharing, specifically with regard to Google. The article points out what most people on Slashdot already realize: Google provides essentially the same service that the Pirate Bay does. The Pirate Bay case may be far from over, accounting for appeals, but the Pirate Bay's assumption of being unchallengeable was shattered. The article raises the question of whether or not Google is untouchable in the matter. The story is quick to point out how the situation resembles a futile game of cat-and-mouse, but given how the Pirate Bay's confidence was ultimately broken, is Google beyond reproach?"
The pirate bay case means google may have to pay when people use google to download copyrighted material.
Almost sounds like the internet will be treated like a broadcaster on radio stations where money is payed to musicians when a song is played.
Isn't the key difference between them simply, "intent"?
What does The Pirate Bay intend to do, versus Google's intent?
and how justice is under the paid service of the corporations, not to mention legislators, and the charade of a fair and free society is being maintained despite corporations and wealthy do not have any problems ignoring and bypassing laws through the power of money if they feel the need. and all is rationalized behind a twisted interpretation of 'freedom' coupled with capitalism.
no. im not socialist. but im this close to being one from what i saw in the recent years.
Read radical news here
..both TPB and Google will eventually be able to rely on the same protection as ISPs. They are neutral carriers of information and therefore should, in law, be held harmless. The Pirate Bays difficulties are that publically they try to deliberately convey an air of behaving unlawfully and dangerously to attract attention. I think the Swedish court bit on this too much, rather than the actual evidence and law. From what I can tell, the legal abilities of the primary Swedish courts don't appear to be too good; previous judgements against Pirate Bay have routinely been overturned on appeal, and I suspect this one will be no different.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The verdict explicitly addresses this point and states that due to TPB running the tracker and thus being intimately involved in the sharing of copyrighted material any comparison with Google is false. They were not convicted because TPB is hosting a bunch of torrent files, they were convicted because they were running a tracker.
What TPB did and Google does not, is format the search results in a way that makes it easy to get exactly what you want. If you use the well known filetype:torrent on Google to search something all you get is the standard high page rank hits first. This with no peer or seed numbers, comments or screen captures,so it is a crap shoot as to actually getting a good file. I guess they will hide behind the term vague search results, or, 'we only provide the links and nothing more'. Now if the comments and seed info were decentralized... well that would be...
flinging poop since 1969
Why then doesn't GOOGLE help TPB?
Google can afford billion dollar lawyers.
Have they even read the verdict? The reason pirate bay was demed illegal was not because pirated content could be found, rather because almost ALL (well above 90%) was illegal, and the court found that the service was created IN ORDER TO distibute such content.
The similarity with google is about as close as an alligator and a lightbulb.
Since the staff at piratebay have been pretty outspoken about what they do, going as far as to say that yes we have mostly pirated material here, but it is legal in sweeden so you can go fuck yourself - they cannot really argue against the verdict and claim that they did not create the service to facilitate distribution of copyrighted material.
They were simply wrong about the law.
That being said, trackers have crossed into the mainstream. The only way the content-owners can regain control is to give better access to the material than the pirates do. This means streaming services. pay a monthly fee and gain unlimited access to all the music you want.
It is just a matter of time. 10 years from now, most entertainment can probably be legally streamed for a monthly fee. When this happens, trackers will loose most of their hold on the content. Most people wont be bothered to go through all the hoops and annoyance and delays of places like piratebay when they can have instant access for a small fee.
Google should "cooperate" with all authorities in this matter. In fact, what Google should do is to say:
"We'll remove *all* references to pirated content from search results in order to guarantee that no such content can be obtained with the help of our infrastructure." (Bold mine).
Google would go further and say:
"What we expect from content providers is a list of all content they feel breaks copyright and we will timely respond as noted above. Google is a responsible company which values the "rule" of law."
Now, it would be interesting to see how those companies respond.
Why would you compare yourself to Google when the name of your site is The PIRATE Bay?? Are you fucking crazy? Are you that stupid to try fighting this case when your name is The PIRATE Bay?? Who are you trying to convince that your website is a happy legitimate place where there is no illegal file sharing and if there is there's nothing you can do about it because you don't control your users' content? Well I wonder. With a name like The PIRATE Bay I guess that it is wonderful virus-free website with loads of freeware and shareware! I don't have a problem TPB, and it is a good site.. But two things piss me off.. All the idiots that upload viruses, and how cocky the owners got because they think they are l33t swedes. Well hey guys, you could have gotten away with it if your fucking name wasn't The PIRATE Bay..
Simply close the internet to all free content. What are we Commies?, why should anything be free?
The internet is here as a vehicle to provide paid content from the RIAA, MPAA BSA ans other for profit businesses.
Any other use, especially if it is involving providing information of any kind for free and not compensating the content owners needs to be stopped, and stopped now.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
If the RIAA raises one finger, all Google needs to do is discreetly mess with search results and adwords. The message will be loud and clear, one of two things will happen:
Nobody can touch Google. They are the world's largest website. They have a string attached to every corner of the Internet, any attempt to pull off a maneuver like this on Google will result in a quick plunge into Oblivion.
Google does not host torrents.
Google does not have a tracker.
Yes you can search for torrents on google. Any torrent you find will not be hosted on a google server, and will not tracked by google.
"The article points out what most people on Slashdot already realize: Google provides essentially the same service that the Pirate Bay does."
Could we maintain a minimum level of intellectual honesty when discussing TPB? The article does NOT point out any such thing.
1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.
2. TPB hosts the BitTorrent tracker files. Google does not.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
root@internet> rm -rf /
In a world in which a misinterpreted US law applies on Sweden, of course google can be a target as well.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
This is completely incorrect. Until the appeal has been determined in the case in years, this thing is still in legal limbo. Even new cases will "await the appeal decision".
Thus, this means nothing. The appeal will be everything, as was expected in the first place. All we have is a case of bad reporting/moral panic by forbes.
If I were to look up houses to rob on google - shouldn't google be liable for facilitating the services for me to do so?
How about publishers of city plans?
Local government for labeling streets and houses making it easier for me to rob a particular house?
Besides... You can't really prove intent. That is why there are no pre-crime units and that is why there are repeated offenders.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
If by just indexing content, like Google, you could get in trouble, isn't there a case to prosecute Slashdot as well? After all, the site works basically with citations from other sources, and it would have to guarantee that the sources are legitimate and not copied material? How can someone managed that? Also, we talk about pirate bay and others all the time. Aren't we encouraging piracy... If they are interested, I guess they could stretch the argument if they decide they don't like you...
As the article already mentions, the case against TPB is very much a moral victory for the MAFIAA. They need to show you can't "get away" with it.
If Google wants to "co-operate" and avoid this kind of shitstorm, they'd enter into agreements with content owners where they'd agree on what kind of limitations is acceptable, in exchange for giving them a break and not pressuring governments to act.
The bad thing would be that this is all settled privately, and not checked by some kind of "rule of law". You might not even be able to tell how they'd modify their search to support such agreements without studying search results all day...
I think the more interesting question is the if Pirate Bay is liable for copyright violations without themselves actually violating copyright, are media companies liable for violent crimes violations without themselves actually committing violent crimes? A large part of modern cinema and music quite obviously glamorizes violent behavior, shouldn't action be taken against the media companies for these, now that this precedent is in place?
Google provides search services for the entire internet, and links to pages that may or may not link to links (torrents) to illegal content. TPB links directly to the torrents, and what's more, is they also track them. Google != TPB in any way shape or form other than the fact that they both have search functionality
Consequently, if they hosted only torrents tracked by DHT or other such, they would be perfectly legal.
-->profit.
I'm all for supporting TPB, but I wonder if the Google defence is what lost them the case (as well as a corrupt judge).
Google does not host torrent files, without torrent files you don't have access to the content - sure you can use Google to search for torrents, but the results will be off-site (probably thepiratebay.org!) not hosted on google.com itself.
Google does not run trackers. If TPB's torrents were all DHT-only, then they might have an argument.
I thought the de-centralised approach was the whole point of BitTorrent (after the Napster etc. episode of shutting down one site kills the whole system) but it doesn't really work if you still need to host the torrents somewhere.
So how are they the same - are you really saying that every website with a search box is the same as Google?
#include <sig.h>
lets think for a minute...
Yesterday i searched for weed pricing and got a forum of people all over the US listing they're standard pricing in the region.
I also imagine you could Search for kiddy pr0n, rape incest, etc. All of which are Illegal in different ways but Google, in the same way it provides access to copywrited content, provides access to.
This story is just some moron that happens to work for forbes.com posting some unresearched incomplete hogwash that he really doesn't even understand.
Move along folks nothing to see here
I mean, right there in the posting is a link to copyrighted material: at the bottom it says "2009 Forbes.com LLC(TM) All Rights Reserved".
Look at me! I just cut-and-pasted the entire content of the article into a file sitting on my computer. And now I've saved the HTML file and all of the images. Oh, wait, that was redundant, because just by LOOKING at the page I had already done all that.
I suspect that most web sites that have links to outside content are in a similar pickle.
In any case, Taco better not take a visit to Sweden or he might be charged on the same grounds: linking to copyrighted material and providing searchable means to find it, such that other users can subsequently violate the copyright. Oh, and he's making money from advertisements, so it is a commercial operation.
Google is "too big" to fail.
Surely Google wouldn't bother with fighting a court case, if it was a smallish country like Sweden, they would just buy the country...
> Google indexes the content on TPB. TPB is the
> actual website with that content.
The Pirate Bay indexes torrents hosted on other sites. How many layers of indirection do you need?
There's a world of difference between Google and TPB. The main one being that Google is in daily contact with the **AA, and pulls down links its notified of whereas TPB deliberately chose its name to identify what it was about and when notified by the **AA and copyright holders then proceeded to tell them to fuck off, posted up their letters and mocked them. All of which is not really a very clever idea when they can afford better lawyers than you and you're running a site skirting on the boundaries of illegality. Quite why they're surprised at both ending up in court and being found guilty is beyond me.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
When an unfair judgement happens in a court of law, there are essentially 3 ways to defeat it:
1) Appeal ( which I am sure is going to happen)
2) Act to unseat the judges or other entities who pass the unfair judgement. This may be happening already as the Pirate Party in Sweden gains members and a voice
3) Mass acts of public dissent. If a large number of websites post just one "infringing" link on their pages, then the law becomes moot, as the enforcement would have to target all those who "infringed".
It boils down to this:
If we want to end this senseless business for once and for all, a large number of sites need to post an example of an infringing link, and voice their protest.
Get to it people, and stop whining!
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
...if only because of its sheer size. Google:AIG::Pirate Bay:First National Bank of Podunk The little bank didn't get any of the bailout funds, but AIG, with a broader scope of services and more clout, did. Why? They are linchpins in the field. Prosecution there will show the flaw in the argument, and retroactive changes don't look good. So, all players know someone got screwed, and they move on. Either way, the big guy won't get screwed, because he'll fuck you back.
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <beer.h>
Rationally, i would agree with you, but the *AA's don't think rationally and seem to get their way at most every turn.
They will sue and win to make "examples".
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... their products.
Pirate Bay spend years bragging about how you can get copyrighted material (for free) using their services. Their main selling point was that you could easily get "the hottest, latest" movies and music even before they were released.
On the other side, Google only markets the advantages of their products and have never publish a detailed HOW-TO procedure on using their services to violate copyright law.
(this would be a metaphor for indexing in case you haven't notice);
Serious question: What if Google DID run a torrent tracker? Let's not get into the content it indexes, let's just assume they do so. Now what?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Here's the difference. On the Pirate Bay front page, there are links to TV Shows. Click that, and you are presented with about 50 tv shows to download (every episode of every series). I can download any TV show ever without ever leaving the Pirate Bay website. You may be able to find the same torrent in Google, but you can't download anything until you've left Google's site completely. That, plus the fact they do nothing to nudge you in the right direction to download copyrighted materials (like providing direct links to TV shows), makes Google far more legit than TPB ever was.
It's amazing that a journalist can talk to an expert like Edelman and still put out such a terrible article. Nowhere in the article does it mention that in the USA Google is protected by the DMCA Safe Harbor. Unlike the Pirate Bay, Google removes links to infringing material from their index as soon as they have actual knowledge of it.
Hey Stupid with the big mouth, take a look here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27622135 and see how stupid you are.
Hey Stupid with the big mouth, take a look here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27622135 and see how stupid you are in calling others names and not knowing what you are talking about.
A crow bar is not illegal. I can buy one for as little as $5-$10. It's very useful in construction and demolitions.
But a crow bar can be a terribly violent weapon. Ever banged your shin with one? It would take just a good swing or two to commit murder.
In many jurisdictions, there are laws having to do with "brandishing a weapon", typically in a threatening manner. I can carry a crow bar all day long at a construction site, and nobody would care. If I carried the same crowbar into a fine restaurant, things would be markedly different. If I sold a crowbar to a kid who wanted to help his dad work on the garage, I'd be a nice guy. If I sold the same crowbar to a kid who wanted to off his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend, I could easily be an accessory to murder.
Intent matters. It's not the tool, it's the act!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I think if Google where to start removing links to copyrighted content other than as required by the law, it would very soon cease being the world favorite search engine.
Can you imagine the outcry on here and Geekdom in general if Google decided to censor results in this way? I'm pretty sure some other search engine would appear without these restrictions and quickly become all computer geeks new baby. I'm also sure the Google is shewed enough to realize this.
N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
So will it be Goobay .. Piroogle perhaps?
Everyone is pointing out that Google would never lose this suit, because they can afford the world's best lawyers... this is true, and great... if you happen to be Google.
People are saying that TPB is different because it ranks the quality of torrents based on downloads, seeds, etc. Is it really that different though? Google has PageRank. which yes, is based on very different standards, but the function is identical... an attempt to separate the useful links from the crap, using an automated algorithm. The only real difference is that Google is a general search engine, while TPB is built for 1 specific type of file, and therefore optimized specifically for that file type. If you consider that to be significant, then compare Google Image Search to TPB rather than Google in general.
In the past, safe harbor laws have been upheld, because they thankfully realize that most people running websites:
1. Aren't lawyers
2. Have a handful of people running a service with far more content than they could ever monitor
and 3. Aren't involved in copyright infringement any more than a store that sells you a case a blank discs.
I run a forum with thousands of threads in it. It's mainly a gamer's forum, though with various off topic forums for a variety of other stuff. We generally delete Warez threads and the like, but like most forums of this nature, there's way more posts than any of us could ever read through, and the chances we've missed at least one infringing post... somewhere, are just about 100%.
So what happens if someone goes digging through to find copyrighting content, and rather than simply asking us to take it down, they go straight to suing? This is a zero profit forum (negative profit really, as I'm paying the price of a VPS every month and using no advertising to recover it). Saying I couldn't afford to defend myself is an understatement.
In the past, the safe harbor laws were generally upheld... if it came to a court case, I could simply show up, point out that I'm a service provider, and that I comply with valid takedown requests, but can't possibly find everything that should be taken down without being notified.
If that law isn't upheld, it basically means the little guy can no longer run a website. To run a website, the standard is no longer "can afford a few bucks for hosting", it's "can afford a lawyer." That would kill probably 90% of the net.
It doesn't matter that the majority of websites don't actually infringe everything, all it takes is a lawsuit and a threat, and if you can't afford a defense, you're gone.
The TPB case is, as far as I know, the first case where a service provider wasn't granted safe harbor status, and that's a VERY bad precedent.
Nothing, you morons.
Google is a web search engine.
TPB is a torrent search engine.
Google's tools are designed to make is easy to search the web.
TPB's tools make it easy to download copyrighted material.
This is the same BS that came up after the Napster trial, and is BS for the very same reason.
Put simply:
Google is designed to search the Web.
TPB is designed to assist piracy.
I know we're all well aware of the 80/20 rule..but apparently that goes out the window in your efforts to rationalize your overblown sense of entitlement to the creative works of others.
Google is *PROTECTED* by the DMCA in the United States.
Suck on that, Slashdot faggots.
Reading up on safe harbour things sound really murky and has rules like "the service provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity."
I do not think be a lawyer with google would be fun lets put it that way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6038116.stm
If the ruling implies that anything that hyperlinks is liable, then internet itself is illegal.
So, or you cant have that ruling, or you cant have internet, is an easy choice.
Google doesn't "provide essentially the same service." PirateBay WAS PROVIDING THE TRACKER SERVER for your client to connect to and exchange file chunks. People love to leave that part out.
Google has happily removed search results in the past due to legal request. PirateBay thought it was above morality and the law.
Let's roll.
You're always touchable when stupid judges and rich, powerful special interests are involved in a media show trial. One can only hope that the Swedish Supreme Court has a better understanding of their own laws.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This could apply not just to Google, but also to Yahoo, MSN, etc. as well as sites and email messages that link to or have within them copyrighted material. This could wind up having a great chilling effect on the entire net.
Torrent sites will never die. I support TPB and it's illegal content. Were not born into a perfect world. Some people will never have the oppertunities financially that we would like. Not everyone can be top dog. To be financially stable requires someone is not. To have your great job with lots of monwy means someone is doing some grunt work that you are not.
Well I'm not living the rest of my life without or going to college for 8 years just to have debt. Forget that. If a game or movie can bring happiness into my life, no government will tell me I can't be happy. I will continue to download till the day I die and let all the squares run the rat race of life.
As a thought experiment, what if somebody (such as me) came up with a program that used some of the ideas behind torrents and distributed processing, and created a distributed, decentralized search engine? Say that this program became popular enough that it could create an index large enough and fast enough that it could rival google. Say that some people used it to find and download copyright infringing content.
How would this work, legally, if somebody decided to send a DMCA take down notice? Also, if this distributed search engine were in the position that TPB is in right now, what would be the result? Who would be sued, et cetera?
My guess is that it would be in the same position as programs such as BitTorrent and Transmission: no legal action can be taken against the program because it is just a dumb set of instructions and requires the use of a person to intentionally infringe on copyright.
By the way, I actually plan to implement something similar to this eventually in the future, but if somebody else wishes to run away with the idea, be my guest. Also, try to tell me about it, if you get a chance...I'd be interested to see where the idea goes.
You're wrong.
Google this: heroes filetype:torrent
You now get a list of torrent files for the TV show Heroes. Click any link and you can download Heroes material without ever leaving the Google website.
The 'filetype:torrent' argument effectively turns Google into a BitTorrent website.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Hmm, I don't see it. I typed it in and got a list of links to websites that host Heroes torrents. I wasn't able to download directly from google.
I always thought Intent was what mattered. The intent of TPB is obviously for piracy, while for Google there is no intent at all to aid specifically piracy.
u haz b33n shrewed :-P
I'm so tired of reading news story from people that don't know their facts. For one, they never said they were completely untouchable from Swedish law, only that they were untouchable by the laws of other countries, which is very true. And their "confidence was ultimately broken"??? Where do you get this stuff?? Have you EVER been to their Web site at all? This has only made them feel more empowered and motivated to be the revolutionaries that they are. And you say the case MAY not be far from over? One appeal has already been sent & the other 3 have already said they are definitely appealling. Get your facts together! This thing is far from over, which is what was being said before the verdict was even given! This may have set the tone for the proceeding appeals, but that doesn't mean they have lost at all.
.. it wasn't actually the decision.
It is true that Grokster lost that case, but not because the MPAA's argument about what constitutes "substantial non-infringing use" prevailed.
Rather, it was because there was clear evidence that Grokster *induced infringement actively.
From Phil Larson's excellent summary of Breyer's concurrence:
"the tool does not even require substantial non-infringing uses in the shortterm if it appears that there is a reasonable prospect for there to be substantial non-infringing uses in the future.,,,
He argued that the "capable of" language in Sony is forward looking and doesn't confine the analysis of liability to a static interpretation of the product's existing uses"
http://www.philiplarson.com/blog/?p=
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ever heard of gnutella?
First of all I personally believe that this case was justly decided, nor decided strictly on the facts. But obviously the swedish court disagreed with my personal belief. I don't see Google being largely effected by this case, unless ACTA will contain new global copywrite provisions and is ratified by congress and signed by the president, that would uphold copywrite violations of any sort however remote upon any countries peoples or corporations in any other country by statute, OR Google's service is not adaquately legally protected as to how it's users access and download copywritten material. Ergo they could potentially, but unlikely be partly liable as aiding and abeting such piracy of copywritten material by any of it's users and did not take specific precautions to prevent such occureances on their managed systems accordingly, even if hacked or hijacked temporarly. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
sweden is not one of the united states of america
I couldn't give a crap about the *IAA lawsuit against TPB other than as a source of amusement. This debacle is going to drag on for years, as I type this the website is still up - business as usual.
Now if they managed to shut down torsky I'd really be up shit creek.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
The Pirate Bay was a site intended to assist piracy! Google exists to assist finding legitimate content.
You can use TPB to find legitimate content, and you can find pirate material on Google, but in both cases this is tangential to the main aim.
Complain about copyright infringement to Google - they will remove the link. Complain about copyright infringement to TPB, and they'll respond saying that what they're doing is legal.
99% of the traffic on Google is people searching for legitimate material. 90+% of the traffic on TPB is people searching for infringing material.
At least half the torrent on TPB seem to be for infringing content (try a search for "the" or something that will get a lot of arbitrary hits). A very small part of Google is for infringing content.
And finally - A torrent is more sophisticated than a link. It's a detailed set of instructions on where to find and how to assemble a specific set of files, complete with checksums and file lists. A link is an arbitrary pointer to a location on the web. You can't change the content in a torrent.
The cases seem to have little to do with each other. Copyright law in Sweden has little to do with regulations in the US. Google is still protected on the 'impartial traffic facilitator', who is required to remove copyrighted content as dictated by US law under the DMCA. To expect them to remove material in compliance with the DMCA (which says they are protected from payment), and then think that foreign law will supersede US law, would be expecting a complete reversal of US law an sovereignty.
Can you explain why you think a ruling in swedish court would override the restrictions (onerous as we complain about them being) and protections of US law? I don't believe Sweden had a DMCA where the operators were required to remove infringing content -- so they could legally, under some theories be held to be aid & abetting illegal activity, but the DMCA draw lines to protect neutral providers who follow the DMCA and hold them blameless if they follow the requirements that law.
Why do you think this would change? They are two different systems with two different methods of propagating 'blame' for
infringement. A ruling under a different system wouldn't, in anyway, apply that the same principles hold under a different set of assigning blame and responsibility.
n/t
Well, the problem with why they won't target Google in the same manner is obvious...
Google makes money for the American Economy, TPB does not...
Or maybe google doesn't provide the same services as TPB?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If google can be sued, it is only from Sweden since this an issue under Swedish law. However if Google is sued repeatedly and it looks like Google will lose even once, then two things will happen 1. Search and listing engines will bar access from anyone in Sweden (as sites outside Sweden could sue under Swedish law) 2. Clear their databases and caches of anything from Sweden The only other issue is does DNS search data constitute a copyright infringement? If so then the Swedes could be reduced to typing a lot of numbers Now of course none of this will come to pass as soon as the Swedish government recognises the issues. It can either have indexing sites and the internet and the potential for piracy, or it can put up a virtual trade barrier that will wreck its economy and destroy its business's
Why not just dump the entire PirateBay index into a torrent for anyone to download? No need for a centralized index when you have the BitTorrent protocol...
Ah, yes. But that was more than just a search function.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27622135 Read there and the parent post to it (which was by computershack, and it shows you all just how noob level computershack really is in this field, because all he knows are the simple things on the surface of things, but not what really goes on beneath that).
QUIZ
Define the word profit?
and why shouldn't it be illegal?
What do these questions have to do with the subject? it sure seems to link
HUMAN KNOWLEDGE BELONGS TO THE WORLD
Fuck you rotten twat
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."