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?"
Isn't the key difference between them simply, "intent"?
What does The Pirate Bay intend to do, versus Google's intent?
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 Google, and not the downloader?
Why sue TPB and not the downloader?
Google provides a search mechanism for internet content, some of which infringes copyright.
TPB provides a search mechanism for downloadable content, some of which infringes copyright.
Google maintains an index of where to find things on the internet, which searchers make use of to get what they want.
TPB has a tracker, listing where to find downloads, that searchers make use of to find what they want
Google store a cache of large parts of their searchable content, keeping a copy on their servers to make searches faster.
TPB... oh wait.
If anything, Google is more infringing.
Why sue TPB and not the downloader?
Because TPB is in breach of the law? If they were going after the downloader you'd be arguing that they should be suing TPB. But fear not, with IPRED, they'll be going after the downloader, too!
Google provides a search mechanism for internet content, some of which infringes copyright. TPB provides a search mechanism for downloadable content, some of which infringes copyright.
Google maintains an index of where to find things on the internet, which searchers make use of to get what they want. TPB has a tracker, listing where to find downloads, that searchers make use of to find what they want
Google store a cache of large parts of their searchable content, keeping a copy on their servers to make searches faster. TPB... oh wait.
Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.
So the tracker gives clients the ability to be their own search engine, whereas google keeps all their data private.
Is that the difference between good and bad ?
Trackers are bad because they empower individuals, search engines are good because they can be easly be controlled from within.
One day leaders will see freedom as a good thing.
That's the only way to settle this, because you are obviously not going to listen to anything I say.
As you obviously didn't read what I said. Who at TPB actually goes through and reads ALL of the comments, all of the file descriptions? No one probably. TPB is a DUMB service, it, as a site and a system, has no knowledge of what crosses through it. If someone had to hand enter all of the data, or TPB somehow woke up one day to find itself Skynet, then yes, it would be aware that someone typed "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!".
Do you think /. is aware of our current conversation? Does anyone on the staff of the site actually know that we're having this conversation? And more pertinently, would they know if I told you where to go download the crappy Comic Book Movie of the Week? Probably not, and more so they are not responsible for this discussion (or say, if I told you where to by drugs/illegal firearms/etc).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
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.