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?"

Comments

Google will have to pay

[tg123]

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.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Tenebrousedge]

Everything not specifically released into the public domain that is indexed by Google is copyrighted.

That would probably be more than 99.99% of the internet.

What on Earth would make you think that a legal case in Sweden would have that effect? What do you imagine Google would pay for? To whom? Why Google, and not the downloader?

I don't think what you're saying is remotely realistic.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Anonymous Coward]

What on Earth would make you think that a legal case in Sweden would have that effect? What do you imagine Google would pay for? To whom? Why Google, and not the downloader?

Hello, my name is Inigo Monbooyah. You killed my attention span with all those questions. Prepare to die.

Re:Google will have to pay

[rackserverdeals]

No.

Google indexes web content, but if you want the content you put online to not be indexed by Google, you have a mechanism to do that and even to request your site's crawled content be removed.

But most people don't want that. If it wasn't for Google, their website wouldn't generate much if any traffic or revenue.

If Google and TPB are so similar, the question should be, why aren't more people trying to take advantage of the popularity of bittorrent?

I think some people are. From what i hear, it seems that some people are putting their content out there, in the hopes that it triggers sales. For instance, software that has a fee, and then a recurring charge, or things of that nature.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Cassini2]

The pirate bay case means google may have to pay when people use google to download copyrighted material.

That is exactly what is happening. The newspapers are going after Google for money. They want to charge Google for the headlines and short blurbs on the Google News page.

Essentially, everything on the web is copyrighted, Google has money, so people are going to start going after Google. Precedents like this are going to make things worse.

For the moment, the attacks will be fairly non-obvious, but the *AA will push for increasingly draconian copyright laws. Eventually, if they are not stopped, excessive rules will kill the Internet. For those with a sense of history, one can have either a small network with lots of control or a big network with lots of users and lax controls. What made the internet successful was the relative lack of control. Let's hope this doesn't change.

Re:Google will have to pay

[billcopc]

Google is unaffected by this meaningless verdict. The cartels sued four mostly political figures who had no money to defend themselves, and won despite a theatrics worthy of My Cousin Vinnie. This whole ordeal was more of a social media stunt than any realistic legal matter, and by that measure it is a great success, as people everywhere are panicking over the outcome.

Google, on the other hand, is a giant corporation with billions of dollars, filled with many bright minds and, I'm sure, armed with the world's top lawyers. They are no strangers to the copyright issues. Were the MAFIAA to go after Google, they would be facing a very different battle, one they could actually lose, because Google has ample resources to not only put up a real fight, but also lay the groundwork for copyright reform, should the verdict land in Google's favor, with the fruits of that effort trickling down to torrent trackers and any other content indexes.

It's quite simple, really: You don't fuck with Google, because Google fucks back.

Re:Google will have to pay

[tg123]

Everything not specifically released into the public domain that is indexed by Google is copyrighted.

That would probably be more than 99.99% of the internet.

What on Earth would make you think that a legal case in Sweden would have that effect? What do you imagine Google would pay for? To whom? Why Google, and not the downloader?

I don't think what you're saying is remotely realistic.

What I should have put is I can see the way this is heading.

When a song is played on the radio, in a store ,on oil rig etc. money is payed to the copyright owners (whoops I put musicians, money generally goes to everyone but the musicians).

I can see this happening here with google and most likely your isp will pay a fee , this will be hidden in your isp bill, and the money will be payed to the copyright owners .

Legal litigation just is not going to cut it

Re:Google will have to pay

[shoemilk]

I can see this happening here with google and most likely your isp will pay a fee , this will be hidden in your isp bill, and the money will be payed to the copyright owners .

Sweet! When can I start expecting royalty checks for this post?

Re:Google will have to pay

[mpeskett]

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.

Re:Google will have to pay

[KibibyteBrain]

It is far far worse than just that. What really has happened is the content lawyers now have a sword they can hold over everyone's heads who deal in indexing services: do what we want or we sue your for your shirt. TPB was not targeted because of what they were doing being any different from Google, but rather because the *AA's didn't like how they were doing it, and they didn't cave to the *AA's whims upon command.

Re:Google will have to pay

[onepoint]

>>The cartels sued four mostly political figures who had no money to defend themselves, and won despite a theatrics worthy of My Cousin Vinnie

Problem is, that one the ball starts in the direction, it takes some greater effort to move it off it's course, besides that, these 4 people now will loose 1 year of there life in jail.

As for google, like any big firm, they will think it out, and if at risk, they will attack to the best of their ability. Who knows maybe they will go down in the style of standard oil.

Re:Google will have to pay

[gomiam]

That would make the sites hosting your stuff without permission responsible, not Google.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

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.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

The difference is that google would have cooperated with authorities and media companies. Take a look at what they've done with youtube and Video ID. They will actively try to prevent copyright infringement. Pirate bay didn't and wasn't willing to do that.

Re:Google will have to pay

[rackserverdeals]

All you need to do is send Google a DCMA takedown notice. You don't need a lawyer for that. You can find DCMA takedown notices online that you can modify.

You can also send the takedown notice to the webhost.

If the person is running AdSense on their site, which many do, and that's why they steal content, sending the DCMA take down notice could result in them losing their adsense account and their incentive to steal your content.

Re:Google will have to pay

[mpeskett]

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!

Actually, if they were going after downloaders I'd say they were exploiting the court system with their money and lawyers... I'd be saying that in this case too if they hadn't been so shockingly incompetent.

TPB being in breach of the law is the current court decision, they still argue that they aren't and I find their argument convincing. It's yet to be seen whether an appeal court will agree. There's also nothing to say that a court wouldn't find Google to be in breach of the law if anyone were to sue them

Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.

Well, fair point that TPB don't comply with takedown notices, but most of the requests they get are appealing to US laws like the DMCA and hence deserve a heaping of scorn. There is also the fact that they don't host anything that's under copyright, so they have nothing to takedown except what is effectively a link to the infringing content... and I think I'm right in saying that linking is legal under Swedish law

Re:Google will have to pay

[timeOday]

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.

You are right - assuming differences of degree do not matter. But they do:

"The key issue in the copyright infringement case was the so-called Sony safe-harbor principle that was set by the Supreme Court 21 years ago in Sony v. Universal Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The ruling stated that, "...the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial non-infringing uses." (Sony 464 U.S. at 442). Grokster argued that proof of reasonable, actual or potential, non-infringing use, is sufficient to fulfil the ""substantiality"" requirement. The RIAA and MPAA argued that Sony safe-harbor requires proof that the non-infringing use is the primary one; an incidental non-infringing use is not enough."

In other words, the difference between google and The Pirate Bay, which is blatantly obvious to the layman, is also recognized by the law.

Re:Google will have to pay

[mpeskett]

Are they required to actively prevent copyright infringement? Are they in fact hosting anything that infringes copyright?

Youtube would have to co-operate because they store the uploaded videos, so if a video is infringing then Youtube is liable. TPB only stores a .torrent file, which isn't under copyright.

Re:Google will have to pay

[TheoMurpse]

No idea about Swedish law, but under US law, that's not true.

By calling themselves "The Pirate Bay" and doing all their public bragging of the ability to get torrent files on their computers, they'd be found liable under the "inducement" theory of secondary liability.

Google, however, would not, as they don't induce copyright infringement.

Seriously, it's like Slashdotters don't understand that the law takes factual circumstances into account.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.

Well, fair point that TPB don't comply with takedown notices, but most of the requests they get are appealing to US laws like the DMCA and hence deserve a heaping of scorn.

According to Swedish law, the notification need not have any special format, nor contain any references to Swedish law. The law only talks about "awareness of obvious copyright infringement". This can be abused, but the service provider has another line of defence: They must be found to purposefully aid in the infringement.

For TPB, since they knew what DMCA was about, they can't really claim to not understand that they are not aware of obvious copyright infringement. If the note had been in Hungarian or hieroglyphs they could have claimed that the note was incomprehensible. If the movies were not big blockbusters they could have claimed that the notices were for material that weren't obviously infringing. (And be safe according to 18 para).

Finally, they have gone on record to say that the purpose of TPB was to infringe copyright. This means they are not protected under paragraph 19 either.

There is also the fact that they don't host anything that's under copyright, so they have nothing to takedown except what is effectively a link to the infringing content... and I think I'm right in saying that linking is legal under Swedish law

The court found that since the torrent file, after having been uploaded and stored on TPB, is an accessory of the crime of illegal copying, TPB must take down the torrent file.

So to summarize, and I am not a Swedish lawyer, linking is cool. Linking to infringing material is ok, as long as you cooperate with rights holders. Linking to material that isn't "obviously" infringing is completely ok.

And by "obvious" we mean that you'd have to be pretty willfully thick-headed to not connect the dots.

If you link to a YouTube video of a shaky camcorder movie of a Balkan wedding, you can reasonably claim that you had no idea that this was the greatest summer hit of 1933 in Kazakhstan, and just wanted to show what a Balkan wedding looked like. But if you link to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", with the text "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!" you can't claim that you had no idea what it was.

Re:Google will have to pay

[mpeskett]

Was that a decision from the Swedish Supreme Court, or are you blowing smoke?

Re:Google will have to pay

[tg123]

............ "inducement" theory of secondary liability.

Google, however, would not, as they don't induce copyright infringement.

Seriously, it's like Slashdotters don't understand that the law takes factual circumstances into account.

it is law we are talking about here and law is about lawyers presenting stories based on facts to a judge and or jury.

Wow so I can have copyrighted material on a website and as long I do not induce people to download it, I can not get sued ?
How cool is that ?

Re:Google will have to pay

[Plaid Phantom]

Since when has "realistic" factored into the RIAA's doings?

Re:Google will have to pay

[Kneo24]

But in the eyes of the copyright cartel, they want everyone to believe they're the same thing. However, even if you play nice, there's no guarantee that the cartel will be nice to you for cooperating with them anyway.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Magic5Ball]

The unfavoured momentum only exists due to a sufficient mass of passive unknowing supporters. I look forward to reading TPBs' book(s) and possibly attending the lecture series next year.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Zumbs]

Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.

Has Google ever complied with a takedown notice on a link to copyrighted content, found with their search engine? They comply on youtube, but that is because they actually host the content, not just a link.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

Yes - try searching for x-men wolverine origins torrent.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Draek]

But to my knowledge they've never cooperated with the countless photographers claiming copyright infringement through their Google Images service. Yes, that's just pointless bitching, but consistency requires either cooperating with both or don't listen to either. Instead, we only get another instance of the golden rule: "he who has the gold makes the rules". Pity.

Re:Google will have to pay

[mcrbids]

Torrent files are under copyright - the creator of the torrent has copy rights! Granted, he/she is unlikely to enforce them, but they are still copyrighted.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Omestes]

But if you link to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", with the text "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!" you can't claim that you had no idea what it was.

Sure you can. How many things are listed in Pirate Bay? Millions? I doubt that anyone who works their actually knows more than a small percentage of the site, its just an automated database. Its like saying that Google "knows" that when I search for "X-Men Wolverine torrents" that its serving up copyrighted material.

Well, a more or less directions for you the user to do something illegal and not the actual content itself...

Re:Google will have to pay

[TheoMurpse]

I don't understand what the point of your argument is. Technically, I don't even see an argument. Could you please clarify what exactly you're arguing against that I said?

Adn if you have copyrighted material on a website, it's likely that you could be sued as a primary infringer.

The inducement rule is only applicable where secondary liability is at issue. Secondary liability is when someone else is the primary infringer, not you.

For primary infringement, fair use would be one avenue of defense. But inducement is not a defense for primary infringement. Hell, inducement isn't a defense at all. It's a theory of secondary liability.

So clarify, please, what words of mine you're arguing against.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Zumbs]

Thanks for the example. I don't think, I have seen this before

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

Re:Google will have to pay

[u38cg]

Indeedily. I wonder at this stage if the best approach isn't for EFF or someone to launch a private prosecution against Google under similar grounds and get some clear legal water between what is and isn't going to fly in the courts.

Re:Google will have to pay

[jsiren]

I have copyrighted material online, owned by myself, and indexed by Google. When can I expect to be compensated?

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

Really?

You link to a torrent of a hotly anticipated movie with the text "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!".

And you claim to not know that the content was infringing?

I'm not going to argue with that. I suggest you do the above, and get yourself to court. That's the only way to settle this, because you are obviously not going to listen to anything I say.

Re:Google will have to pay

[ScentCone]

they've never cooperated with the countless photographers claiming copyright infringement through their Google Images service

Sure they have. It's called "robots.txt" - and a photographer publishing their works on a web site simply has to ask Google not to index them. And they won't. They'll also lose the potential exposure, but that's a choice.

Re:Google will have to pay

[impaledsunset]

A work needs to meet certain standards for originality to be under copyright. It merely contains some data, the data itself is not copyrightable, and the representation of that data was neither created directly or indirectly by a person, nor does carry any originality whatsoever.

At best you could try to argue that you created an original collection of files and the database of the hashes of these files is copyrighted by you, but you'd have to work hard to get there. That won't work for most torrents -- a hash of Linux ISO is merely data, not copyrightable; the list of files contained in a illegally distributed program and their hashes would fail to manifest any originality, at least on your part; a big asorted collection of files of interest created by you might have some chance, but the torrents containing a dozen of random files I've seen have a fairly low chance here, in my opinion.

Good luck.

Re:Google will have to pay

[colmore]

This isn't going to happen.

Google can simply withdraw its services from the country threatening suit. Public outcry would shut down the case in any half-functioning democracy.

The Pirate Bay had no such leverage. Clout and popularity matter a lot in these things.

For instance iTunes could be faulted for not checking downloaded MP3s against their library of copyrighted content, but the music industry simply isn't going to go that aggro on the world's largest music retailer.

Re:Google will have to pay

[asCii88]

Why Google? What about the rest of the search engines?

Re:Google will have to pay

[mcnellis]

Have you ever searched filetype:torrent {search terms} on google? They're not doing shit. They went after TPB because they knew TPB couldn't defend themselves as well (although I think they did a pretty good job). Fuck the RIAA.

Re:Google will have to pay

[TheGratefulNet]

It's quite simple, really: You don't fuck with Google, because Google fucks back.

sad. very sad.

essentially, "one dollar, one vote" or "might makes right"

in this sense, goog is no better than the mafiaas! even though they might be fighting for things we care about (for now) it makes them no better if they are simply a 'giant with a big stick'.

so what we're saying is that only the rich corps can afford justice.

if this doesn't show that american justice is FUCKING BROKEN .... ;(

(sigh)

Re:Google will have to pay

[sandysnowbeard]

The difference is that google would have cooperated with authorities and media companies. Take a look at what they've done with youtube and Video ID. They will actively try to prevent copyright infringement. Pirate bay didn't and wasn't willing to do that.

That should have absolutely no implications on the legality of the pirate bay, in the same way that my calling a police officer a fat pig shouldn't affect the severity of a speeding ticket I'm about to get.

Re:Google will have to pay

[interkin3tic]

What on Earth would make you think that a legal case in Sweden would have that effect? What do you imagine Google would pay for? To whom? Why Google, and not the downloader?

These are all reasonable, rational questions, which is why they have no place in discussions of legal battles.

Why sue google? Because google has a lot more money and plenty of people who can hire lawyers don't care about what makes sense.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

It may determine if the officer gives you a warning or an actual ticket. Maybe, its more like becoming an informant will lesson your jail time, or even allow you to walk free.

Re:Google will have to pay

[whoever57]

You are right - assuming differences of degree do not matter. But they do [wikipedia.org]:

The Pirate Bay defendants claimed in their trial that 80% of the torrent files on TPB were for for files that could be legitimately shared. The prosecution had done only limited searches in order to find copyright violations and hence could not refute that claim.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Omestes]

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).

Re:Google will have to pay

[green1]

"Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial non-infringing uses."

I believe TPB is quite CAPABLE of substantial non-infringing uses.

It strikes me that the Sony decision was substantially mis-used in the Grokster decision.

All this aside from the fact that the US supreme court is rather lacking in Swedish Jurisdiction...

Re:Google will have to pay

[mariushm]

It could be the actual movie, or it could be the trailer, which is legal to distribute, or the upload could have written that on purpose as incentive for people to get what in reality could be a documentary or interviews about the movie.

If you or TPB or any site removes the torrent for the trailer, the upload could very well sue you because you accused him of copyright infringement and removed his torrent.

You can't download the content of millions of torrents and check the contents.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

Nobody is aware of everything on the site, obviously. But in my example I wasn't talking about the liability of the site. I was talking about your ability to claim ignorance if you linked to a torrent that way.

Re:Google will have to pay

[MacGyver2210]

To me the RIAA and MPAA statements there fundamentally fly in the face of the US legal system. Innocent until proven guilty - not the other way around. They should not have to prove that their service is used primarily for legitimate purposes. If someone has a problem with their service, it should be that person's responsibility to find something they are doing wrong and point it out. As it stands now it seems like the legal system is getting extremely lazy and it's all up to the defendants to prove themselves innocent instead of having the plaintiffs actually prove some non-implied wrongdoing.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

It could be the actual movie, or it could be the trailer,

No, because in my example I specifically stated that the situation was that you linked to the movie. No fakes, no trailers - the real movie.

That was the example scenario I drew up.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If anything, Google is more infringing.

Google has pushed the bounds of copyright, privacy and data protection laws a lot — far too far in some cases, IMNSHO.

However, on this particular count, there seems to be a rush to spot the parallels between Google and TPB while completely ignoring the different contexts, even such obvious things as Google actually co-operating with content owners and taking down infringing content uploaded to its services, while TPB stuck two fingers up at the content owners and the law and assumed if they thumped their chests enough they'd be immune to legal penalty. As a consequence of greater scrutiny, Google will almost certainly have to modify their behaviour significantly over the coming months, perhaps in search and surely in some of their other products, but they will probably be given a decent chance to do so by the authorities and the major content producers. Meanwhile, it seems the guys from TPB will have plenty of spare time to consider whether pure arrogance was an effective strategy after all.

Re:Google will have to pay

[tg123]

Do not worry when I read what you wrote on the first post it seemed funny.

Just picking bits out.

I'm a bit of cynic when it comes to lawyers. I'm not sure what they contribute to society.

Your use of primary infringer and secondary infringer are meaningless as far as I can see.

Unfortunately I'm sure they mean something in court cases when they whip the magnifying glasses out.

 

Re:Google will have to pay

[iiiears]

  Why doesn't "A large media company" TM recognize the the piratebay as an unserved market and see revenue potential?

Re:Google will have to pay

[TheoMurpse]

Think of it like this:

primary infringer:secondary infringer::murderer:accessory to murder

And if you think lawyers contribute nothing, you must either (1) expect the layperson to understand the law completely, (2) allow "I don't know the law" as an excuse to any crime, or (3) think that there is no need for laws.

It's like saying engineers don't contribute anything to society because other people could build their own bridges. Or mathematicians don't contribute because everyone can add 2+2.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

Scroll down and you'll see:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

Re:Google will have to pay

[tg123]

Think of it like this:

primary infringer:secondary infringer::murderer:accessory to murder

And if you think lawyers contribute nothing, you must either (1) expect the layperson to understand the law completely, (2) allow "I don't know the law" as an excuse to any crime, or (3) think that there is no need for laws.

It's like saying engineers don't contribute anything to society because other people could build their own bridges. Or mathematicians don't contribute because everyone can add 2+2.

oh god im getting into a flame war.....

I think there was a famous quote once : when you argue with a fool you become one.

all I can say is i'm not a fool are you ?

Re:Google will have to pay

[davester666]

When you become incorporated in countries on at least 2 continents.

Re:Google will have to pay

[n3tcat]

Sweet! When can I start expecting royalty checks for this post?

You can start with Google too! ;)

Re:Google will have to pay

[Flu]

The reason, is that the swedish law, is a local interpretation of en EU-directive. Thus - assuming that the swedish law is a correct interpretation of the EU-directive, similar acts would be illegal in the complete EU. According to arguments held by the court, anyone in the world is breaking swedish law, independent of their physical location, if they commit a crime on the internet, which is illegal in Sweden. Thus, google can be prosecuted in Sweden. Thus, if the verdict is confirmed in HÃgsta Domstolen, it does mean that google can be prosecuted in Sweden.

Re:Google will have to pay

[TheoMurpse]

I'm not a fool.

I'm not sure how you're getting into a flame war. Perhaps you don't know what a "flame" is. Google reveals this definition (among others):

criticize harshly, usually via an electronic medium; "the person who posted an inflammatory message got flamed"

What inflammatory message did I post anywhere? I didn't realize that defending the profession of law was inflammatory. Apologies if I was wrong.

Although I suppose that your insinuation that I'm a fool might make this a flame war, no?

Re:Google will have to pay

[bonch]

Why sue TPB and not the downloader?

Oh, so we're back to Slashdot's old argument from 2000 that it's the individual infringer who should be legally pursued. Except that every time someone like the RIAA has done that over the years, Slashdot posts a negative article about it, and it's obvious you don't want them to do that, either.

My favorite thing is how the RIAA will use lists of IP addresses and prosecute them, and Slashdot will breathlessly post about how one in hundreds is some little girl or some grandma, as if the RIAA is supposed to stalk every person to find out their real identities.

The fact is that you don't want them to go after individual downloaders. That's just something Slashdotters say because they think it's logistically impossible, and you don't want the free ride to go away.

Re:Google will have to pay

[jsiren]

When you become incorporated in countries on at least 2 continents.

So, if I'm a private person, I'm not entitled to compensation; if I'm an international corporation, I am?

This ain't fair! Where do I complain?

Re:Google will have to pay

[kimvette]

Is Google? Now, Google is based in the US, not Sweden, so it has to abide by American laws, so there is actually legal basis for requiring them to block content.

Google indexes everything. I just searched now for "warez" sites and "serials" and found several sites listing what appear to be actual serial numbers, and actual install images (I didn't install or try them - I have MSDN subscriptions and Adobe CS2 at the office, and primarily run Linux at the office and at home anyhow - no need for "warez").

Someone will say "yeah, but TPB requires users to actively submit sites" - - however, one may elect to manually submit sites to googlebot, and one has to actively post content to web sites, etc. and "serials" and "warez" and "war3z" are very easy for Google to flag for examination by humans, so one could very well argue that Google is every bit as "evil" as TPB was - MORE so, because what TPB did in Sweden was actually LEGAL under local laws (the court is obviously corrupt - were officials to want to solve the problem legally, they would have asked the legislature there to introduce laws which banned LINKS TO "illegal" copyrighted works).

Also, since TPB does not operate in the US, and Google does, the legalities are completely different. It could be argued that since google "could" flag certain keywords (serials, serialz, warez. war3z. install keys, etc.) for manual inspection before inclusion that they are responsible, since Google actively goes out to scrape and index the content - and in the case of the google cache, actually repost those "stolen"[sic] serial numbers/install keys.

TPB refused to remove torrent files, because the way the local laws where they operated read, they simply didn't have to. The current case with its verdict is an illegal one and I hope that they win on appeal. It IS a problem that needs to be fixed, but the government needs to fix it in a LEGAL manner, not overlook the law because TPB squeaks by on technicalities. If you prosecute someone DESPITE technicalities, you are not a nation of laws, but a lawless, tyrannical nation and deserve to be overthrown either by the vote or other means. This takes an awakening by the populace and realizing that the need to vote for people who consider the need of the well-being and long-term survival of one's own nation overrules the needs of others.

This goes for any lawless nation. As a completely off-topic aside: I hope the United State is taken over by the VOTE in the next election by citizens waking up and voting out incumbants, and not electing socialists or communists or fascists/neocons into office - nor puppets of bankers or corporate America. I want the government OF the people, working FOR the people -- not the government of the people working the people over. We need moderates who can read and understand the Constitution to be our public servants - not our public servants becoming our master. What makes a GREAT leader? A person who serves. It doesn't take a radical group to overthrow and stir things up: it simply takes responsible voters.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Maybe being called "The Pirate Bay" and having a picture of a pirates ship as a logo... I dunno... maybe it wasn't such a great move? If they'd called the site "Super Swedish Torrents" or something, and maybe avoided anything that gave the slightest hint the the site was intended for downloading copyrighted material, then *maybe* their case would've been stronger.

On a related note, if the difference between Google and TPB is their "intent", then wouldn't Google be guilty anyway because they link to TPB? Or does the whole guilt thing only work when it's a one-hop-link?!

Re:Google will have to pay

[kimvette]

I've used TPB to download perfectly-legal torrents: Linux distros, the free Crossover Office releases, old, free Wordperfect and StarOffice releases, and so forth. I've also downloaded public domain ebooks and audio recordings not to mention old cartoons and movies that have reverted to Public Domain. Therefore, TPB canb, has been, and is used and probably will be used for non-infinging purposes as well as illicit purposes.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Not only that, but Google link to TPB... so where TPB is one link away from copyrighted material, Google is *TWO* links away! Or is that not quite enough to get sued?

Following that line of thought, it is possible to Google search TPB:
whatever filetype:torrent site:http://thepiratebay.org/

So surely if TPB are guilty, Google must be too!!

Re:Google will have to pay

[eiapoce]

If you are american you can start next time by not voting for the man hiring RIAA lawyers... (Hint, he's changing not much)...

Re:Google will have to pay

[ardle]

Government

Re:Google will have to pay

[nonicknameavailable]

none@nowhere.loopback.edu and/or none@127.0.0.1

Re:Google will have to pay

[nonicknameavailable]

then we have to stop piratfÃrlaget (pirate publisher) http://www.piratforlaget.se/

Re:Google will have to pay

[Thinboy00]

On a related note, if the difference between Google and TPB is their "intent", then wouldn't Google be guilty anyway because they link to TPB? Or does the whole guilt thing only work when it's a one-hop-link?!

IANAL, this is not intended to reflect actual facts, just my opinion: IMAO linking should never be illegal, but unfortunately it seems to be anyway. The only reason linking is (apparently) illegal is because legislators/politicians are idiots and don't understand the tech they're legislating about (and they don't read the laws they sign either).

Re:Google will have to pay

[mariushm]

How are they supposed to know if it's the real movie or not?

You "specifically stated that the situation was that you linked to the movie" - if I were from TPB I would say "who are you and why should I trust that you're telling me the truth?"

Have you heard about "lying" ?

RIAA and MPAA lie all the time on their DMCA notices when they request stuff to be taken down, they sometimes send them automatically without even checking if the content is fair use or not, so it's simply not possible to believe anyone. (DMCA doesn't apply outside Sweden anyway just in case you want to reply with a remark about this)

I can very well get a HD camera, record 10 hours and post a torrent with 500GB of content. TPB can't possible spend time downloading and inspecting all the content.
They can't remove it just because someone says "I'm clearly stating that it's clearly a collection of pirated blu-ray movies" and they should never trust anyone because that anyone could very well be a competitor of mine who wants to see my business fail and my content removed.

What RIAA and MPAA or whoever feels their content is pirated on TPB must do is tell their partners in Sweden to start a lawsuit and request the identity of the person who posted the torrent file and demand from that person to have the torrent file removed. Who posted it it can remove it from the site easily.

If it's the case, just like with the DMCA in US, that person will be able and has the right to reply saying he believes it's fair use and decide not to delete the torrent and continue with the trial.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

lol - good find!

Re:Google will have to pay

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Just to be clear, I'm just assuming the who "intent" thing myself... other than that, I can see no difference between Goog and TPB, so I just guessed that's why they've been found guilty. But I might very well be wrong though!

Re:Google will have to pay

[TechWrite]

Absolutely right. And, at least in the U.S. and in my very limited experience, it is also a huge problem with juries. I recently finished jury duty in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, Ohio), one of the most impoverished areas in the country and not generally considered to be a county with a high percentage of government/police supporters. I was absolutely shocked by the attitudes of many people on the jury - some even stated that they thought that the detectives on the case wouldn't waste time and investigate or bring charges against innocent individuals! They also expected the accused to prove their innocence (present alternative scenarios, accuse others of the crime, etc) rather than have the prosecution actively prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So in many of the jurors eyes the defendant was guilty simply by virtue of his being accused and before we even saw any evidence. And it was then the job of his (public defender) lawyer to prove his innocence.

And what really got me is that the people who felt this way didn't seem stupid, intellectually lazy, overly gullible, etc. They simply could not comprehend that it didn't matter if the defense proved innocence, it only mattered if the prosecution proved guilt. They didn't seem to be able to comprehend that the police can make mistakes, witnesses can be wrong or have an agenda and sometimes shit just happens.

After this experience, I sincerely hope that I am never accused of a crime. I have next to no confidence that a jury of my peers will really look at the evidence and decide whether or not the prosecution proved guilt rather than simply convicting since only guilty people end up in court.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Ernesto Alvarez]

TPB has perfectly legal uses.
Linux distros are usually transferred via TPB, so are amateur authorized releases (Lamont, Familjen, Timbuktu). Also I was conducting a few experiments with TPB regarding distribution of own files to friends.

If these are not legal uses, then something is really wrong.

Re:Google will have to pay

[uffe_nordholm]

While I agree that the robots.txt works in practice, I am not entirely convinced it will hold up in court.

As far as I know, the copyright holder must specifically grant others rights (eg grant Google the right to make and distribute thumbnails) for these rights to exist. If the copyright holder does nothing, you have only those rights granted to you by the law.

So if you wanted to really be a bitch about it, Google's stored thumbnails could very easily constitute a violation of copyright. In USA they might get off the hook claiming "fair use", but not all countries have such exceptions.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Ernesto Alvarez]

I've got to admit that google works fast.
The search you posted takes you back to the same post. Talk about circular references.

Re:Google will have to pay

[mpeskett]

You're right, there's no good solution to be had from suing people. Either they sue downloaders and face the bad publicity from suing the wrong people because their methodology is fundamentally flawed, or they sue the providers and face the problem that the providers aren't actually to blame. Perhaps if they had a foolproof way to identify infringers we'd be a little more understanding of their efforts, but currently they are in rather an awkward situation when it comes to trying to sue people.

Now could you point to the part where I need to think this is a problem? Maybe they should stop trying to sue away their problems and confront the real problem that their business model isn't tenable in the modern era, and continuing to try and use it is only going to alienate what customers they have left.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Omestes]

Okay, if I defame you on /. (an illegal use), Sourceforge or the admins of /. are not going to get in trouble, I will. The worst that can happen to /. is that they are legally forced to remove the comment, but the further and more real consequences happen to me, the individual who actually broke the law.

We agree on this?

Now, lets say I grab some of your IP, lets say some code from one of your projects, and then I post it fully on /. Now the worst (in the US) that will happen is /. will get a DMCA take-down notice, I am still culpable for my actions legally.

We agree on this as well, right?

Now, lets tone this down. I provide a link on /. just pointing to a separate webpage with your code. Now, by this logic, /. is magically culpable for my actions.

Thats what I don't get. We're judging things by VERY different standards based on very similar behavior. Either a webpage is responsible for ALL 3rd party use of dubious legality, or none. If I sell stolen goods on Craigslist, they are in the clear, if, though, I provide a mere link to bad content, then they are not. You see my issue?

Yes, TPB is guilty of not taking things down when asked, though I'm not certain of the extent of that, since being in a foreign country DMCA doesn't apply, and I don't know if there is an equally moronic equivalent in Sweden. Even, then though, I can see their refusal as well since they don't actually HAVE or HOST any illegal content, just the directions for other people to find it. So there could be an argument that this is in the clear, especially if, as I hear, linking to dubious content isn't illegal in Sweden.

So, bringing this into the real world, with a deeply flawed analogy; You own a store will a board for posting notices. I post the address of a house of prostitution, or drug dealer, or what not. Now your store is guilty of what?

Yes, intent does come into play here, so I am being rather naive, since I really don't buy it. Name aside, it is a webpage devoted to torrents. Torrents, like all technology is completely neutral until used towards well or ill gains. There is no intent in the goal to deliver torrents, and TPB has remained agnostic by refusing to remove ANY torrents, legal or not. Checking through their webpage, we have no actual evidence of intent, outside of the silly name, no where does it say "this webpage exists to facilitate the transfer of illegal files, please keep your bloody legal Linux ISOs to yourself!", or such.

I have a lot of issues with this. And I'm not even pro-piracy.

Re:Google will have to pay

[mpeskett]

Google probably have overstepped the bounds in places... I'm undecided whether that's a bad thing; maybe the laws need to change rather than Google's behaviour, but that's beside the point really.

assumed if they thumped their chests enough they'd be immune to legal penalty.
...
Meanwhile, it seems the guys from TPB will have plenty of spare time to consider whether pure arrogance was an effective strategy after all.

I thought their strategy was to set up their operations in a country where it was legal to do so. If they were in the US then it'd be an open and shut case, but they seemed pretty sure they weren't breaking Swedish law. That's for the courts to decide, but they weren't only sticking two fingers up - they were sticking their fingers up from behind what they thought was the protection of an international border.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Requiem18th]

Almost sounds like the internet will be treated like a broadcaster on radio stations

MAFIAA Lords: AWESOME!

Re:Google will have to pay

[mdwh2]

Because TPB is in breach of the law?

And similarly, the answer to "Why Google, and not the downloader?" would be "Because Google is in breach of the law".

Of course, we can't be sure until they're taken to court too - but the question is what is the difference between a legal search engine and an illegal one under Swedish law.

Re:Google will have to pay

[sowth]

So the fact anyone can lie and say they own copyright to another's work or use it as if they have copyright is Google's fault? The same thing can be done to the Copyright Office, printers, or countless other places. Employees of large (movie, software, music) companies have done this, often without the knowledge of their management, and those companies were sued for copyright infringement. Should we shut all these places down because someone may trick them into innocently infringing on copyrights? How would someone know if a picture you claim is yours is really yours?

This goes back to the photo developer issues, where shithead photographers put pressure on various places like Walmart, so if you tried to have anything remotely decent looking developed, you'd have to go through a lot of shit to convince the idiot teenager behind the counter you took the photo yourself. This in a time where high quality multi-megapixel cameras are common, so nearly every picture you take would look somewhat "professional."

This is why I think the Creative Commons system is not really helpful in some ways. Someone who would take another's work without permission also would not have any problem slapping a public domain stamp on it. Legal sophistication and stating intentions for a work is a good idea, but it doesn't really fix the problems with sharing works and collaborating with strangers.

There is no magic way to know a work was really created by someone else. How do you know I didn't just cut and paste this post from somewhere else? You can't because you would have to be omniscient to do so. Sometimes you know because it was copied from a popular big media work or from your circle of friends, but that is not always the case.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

Okay, if I defame you on /. (an illegal use), Sourceforge or the admins of /. are not going to get in trouble, I will. The worst that can happen to /. is that they are legally forced to remove the comment, but the further and more real consequences happen to me, the individual who actually broke the law.

We agree on this?

Yes, provided that /. actually does comply and removes the comment.

Now, lets say I grab some of your IP, lets say some code from one of your projects, and then I post it fully on /. Now the worst (in the US) that will happen is /. will get a DMCA take-down notice, I am still culpable for my actions legally.

We agree on this as well, right?

Yes, again provided that /. does comply with the notice.

Now, lets tone this down. I provide a link on /. just pointing to a separate webpage with your code. Now, by this logic, /. is magically culpable for my actions.

No, only if they refuse to comply with the notice.

Thats what I don't get. We're judging things by VERY different standards based on very similar behavior. Either a webpage is responsible for ALL 3rd party use of dubious legality, or none.

The difference is between what you do with 3rd party content you know to be illegal versus 3rd party content you do not know to be illegal.

If I sell stolen goods on Craigslist, they are in the clear, if, though, I provide a mere link to bad content, then they are not. You see my issue?

If you sell stolen goods on Craigslist, they are in the clear only if they remove your listing upon notification. This is, of course, providing that it is reasonably clear that the complaint is valid.

Yes, TPB is guilty of not taking things down when asked, though I'm not certain of the extent of that, since being in a foreign country DMCA doesn't apply, and I don't know if there is an equally moronic equivalent in Sweden.

There is. And they ran afoul of it.

Even, then though, I can see their refusal as well since they don't actually HAVE or HOST any illegal content, just the directions for other people to find it.

Illegal content comes in many forms. The court held that the torrent file is illegal - not because it contains copyrighted material, but because it is a tool in a crime of copyright infringement. When someone intends to commit copyright infringement via TPB, they create the torrent file and upload it as part of the crime. This is what makes it an accessory of the crime, and illegal. And TPB did host it. And TPB refused to remove it.

So there could be an argument that this is in the clear, especially if, as I hear, linking to dubious content isn't illegal in Sweden.

It all comes down to whether you can reasonably be said to not know that the content was illegal.

So, bringing this into the real world, with a deeply flawed analogy; You own a store will a board for posting notices. I post the address of a house of prostitution, or drug dealer, or what not. Now your store is guilty of what?

Well, it depends. Does your post explicitly state that sex for money is offered at that house? Have I been told such a note is there? Do I profit from the note being there?

If the answers are yes, yes, and yes, then yes, I'd expect to be found guilty of assisting.

If they are no, no and no, then I doubt I'd be found guilty.

Yes, intent does come into play here

Intent is all of it. TPB have gone on record stating that the purpose of the site is copyright infringement. They have made money off the site. They have refused to remove material that a reasonable pers

Re:Google will have to pay

[mdwh2]

According to Swedish law, the notification need not have any special format, nor contain any references to Swedish law. The law only talks about "awareness of obvious copyright infringement". This can be abused, but the service provider has another line of defence: They must be found to purposefully aid in the infringement.

The court found that since the torrent file, after having been uploaded and stored on TPB, is an accessory of the crime of illegal copying, TPB must take down the torrent file.

But was this clear in the way the law was written? If not, I think that's worrying. If they knew they were supposed to honor takedown requests not just for copyrighted material, but also any kind of "link" to a copyrighted work, then I guess they should have known it was illegal. But if not, they're being convicted - including prison and millions of dollars in fine - based on an interpretation of the law that does not seem at all obvious.

For future sites though, I don't think this is too much of a problem. Even if a site did honour takedown requests of torrents, I imagine most people would still be able to download whatever - firstly, things like TV shows are usually downloaded quickly, and TV companies would have to be very quick with the requests to stop them. Secondly, you only need to find a torrent once, on some website, and then you can download or seed for as long as you want, even after the torrent is taken down. They could only remove access to a file if they issued requests for a given torrent to all torrent search engines world wide simultaneously, and even then, it's only good until someone reuploads it again.

This isn't comparable to say copyrighted material on YouTube, where (a) the site needs to be up all the while you download/watch, and (b) there aren't many well known video sites besides YouTube.

If you link to a YouTube video of a shaky camcorder movie of a Balkan wedding, you can reasonably claim that you had no idea that this was the greatest summer hit of 1933 in Kazakhstan, and just wanted to show what a Balkan wedding looked like. But if you link to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", with the text "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!" you can't claim that you had no idea what it was.

Neither of which is what TPB did. A better analogy would be that you create a website saying "Link to copyrighted video", but it's the webhost you used that gets fined millions of dollars, and the owners sent to prison, because they didn't micromanage all the millions of user sites on their servers.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

[T]he question is what is the difference between a legal search engine and an illegal one under Swedish law.

This is spelled out in the law on electronic commerce and other services: You must take down material that is obviously illegal - as in, when being notified by the rights holder of it being there and given enough information that a reasonable person would conclude that it is clearly illegal. Failing to do that, you must not have intent to distribute illegal material.

Search engines that comply with takedown notices are thus doubly covered - they take down the illegal material, and by doing so proves the absence of intent to serve illegal information.

TPB did neither, and in addition went on record stating that their intent was copyright infringement.

If you can read Swedish, here is Lag (2002:562) om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster. Check paragraphs 16-19, inclusive.

Re:Google will have to pay

[mdwh2]

I think that's a very funny example of how ineffectual it is anyway - Google do all they have to do to remain legal, but you can clearly easily search for the torrent.

And that's for a major mainstream movie that was leaked before it's release. They can't stop something major like that with takedown notices, so for most music, films and TV, even if every torrent search engine in the world obeyed takedown notices, I can't see it having much effect at all...

Re:Google will have to pay

[mdwh2]

Thanks for the info - were "links" to copyrighted material "obviously illegal" under Swedish law, or did this only become apparent with this new ruling?

TPB did neither, and in addition went on record stating that their intent was copyright infringement.

Do you have a quote/link OOI?

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

Thanks for the info - were "links" to copyrighted material "obviously illegal" under Swedish law, or did this only become apparent with this new ruling?

I think what became apparent is that linking to illegal material makes you an assistant to the crime. Just how much liability you have, however, is another matter. For example, Google links to tons of illegal material, but since they take down illegal stuff when they see it or when somebody informs them, they are not liable.

TPB did neither, and in addition went on record stating that their intent was copyright infringement.

Do you have a quote/link OOI?

It's in the verdict on page 71.

Att The Pirate Bays webbplats lockat besökare på grund av möjlig-
heten att gratis tillgodogöra sig upphovsrättsligt skyddade alster har bekräftats av
Carl Lundström. I ett e-mail som han skrev till sitt juridiska ombud skrev han att
webbplatsen var till för piratkopiering och under huvudförhandlingen har han upp-
givit att hemsidan bl.a. var till för piratkopiering.

Since I don't know if you speak Swedish, here's my shot at a translation:

That The Pirate Bay's website has attracted vistors due to the possibility of getting access to copyrighted material for free has been confirmed by Carl Lundström. In an e-mail that he wrote to his legal representative he wrote that the site existed for piracy and during the main trial he has stated that the homepage existed for, among other things, piracy.

As a personal note, re-reading it, I am a bit shocked that an email between Carl and his legal counsel was admitted as evidence. However, the word used is "juridiskt ombud" (legal representative) and not "försvarare" (defense attorney).

If it isn't obvious, I am not a lawyer, just an interested layman - so I can't really say more about the above.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Mateo_LeFou]

I was just reading up on this, since I referred to grokster in other posts. You might like:
http://www.philiplarson.com/blog/?p=5

Basically, the grokster holding did not overturn the Sony safe harbor test. SCOTUS used the fact that Grokster "induced" infringement to escape having to clarify or overturn the meaning of "substantial noninfringing use".

Re:Google will have to pay

[gilgongo]

Yes - try searching for x-men wolverine origins torrent.

Of if you want to make Google almost *exactly* like the Pirate Bay - try it this way.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

But was this clear in the way the law was written?

The law doesn't specifically address torrents, or links, or anything. It only talks about "illegal information". TPB thought the torrent files weren't illegal, the court thought otherwise.

Legally, it appears solid.

Morally... well, is it fair? I'd say yes. What made TPB lose wasn't just the illegality of the torrent files (which they could reasonably have argued hadn't been settled by a Swedish court), but their stating that the purpose of TPB was copyright infringement, their building a business on that, and their continued refusal to work with the rights owners. They acted in bad faith, and that damned them.

They thought they'd found a loophole in the law that would let them get away with massive copyright infringement, but apparently forgot to cover all bases.

In the end, they had no leg to stand on, because when they should have been trying to promote TPB as a legal file sharing service, and doing their utmost to comply with the law, they did the opposite.

Re:Google will have to pay

[shutdown -p now]

Sure you can. How many things are listed in Pirate Bay? Millions? I doubt that anyone who works their actually knows more than a small percentage of the site, its just an automated database. Its like saying that Google "knows" that when I search for "X-Men Wolverine torrents" that its serving up copyrighted material.

And that's completely okay, but when the owner of the movie writes you a note pointing at a specific torrent, then you can't pretend ignorance about that particular torrent. Which they did. What's so hard to understand here?

I swear, sometimes, in /. discussions on that topic, it almost feels like people who are otherwise very smart ("news for nerds", right?), and show it in many other discussions, suddenly start pretending to be as dumb as a rock. Wonder why...

Re:Google will have to pay

[zen-theorist]

That is exactly what is happening. The newspapers are going after Google for money. They want to charge Google for the headlines and short blurbs on the Google News page.

Essentially, everything on the web is copyrighted, Google has money, so people are going to start going after Google. Precedents like this are going to make things worse.

Google will respond with the obvious: "Set up robots.txt and we wont crawl you" - hastening the demise of the newspaper. Worse, if thrust with a lawsuit, Google will proactively block the newspaper, and the remaining newspapers will shut the f up.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Patch86]

One very minor correction: TBP allegedly never turned a profit. According to the evidence given in the court case, the owners spent quite a lot of their own money running the site, and it never got around to breaking even. They claim it was a hobby, not a business.

Re:Google will have to pay

[endymion.nz]

Yeah, I'll take legal advice from somebody who calls it the DCMA. Cheers buddy. _b

Re:Google will have to pay

[rtb61]

More likely maybe the judge was a tame sure bet and there was no way the copy extremists were going to lose this case, well at prior to an undoubtedly successful appeal and an 'accurate' interpretation of the law. There was no way they would take it to so public a trial with out being certain of the outcome. Well at a 'guess' that is my interpretation of the intent, who says the law is for sale ;P.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Its not a matter of what they are doing, its a matter of what they are willing to do. Google works with law enforcement. Pirate Bay was set up to avoid law enforcement. But yes, the pirate bay would make a more attractive legal target than Google because of their overall revenue disparity, but also because they had less of a defense.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Moredhel27]

likewise you have Corsair RAM which also contains images of sails on the DIMM's should this also be obvious that they are infringing copyright on data stored on the harddrive ? :P

Re:Google will have to pay

[mcnellis]

I have yet to notice Google restricting any sort of searching. Using filetype:torrent gives you more torrent search results than using TPB for *any* content. In the trial they mentioned Coldplay. If you search Google for "Coldplay filetype:torrent" you get twice as many results than searching for Coldplay on TPB. I don't get how Google has co-operated.

Re:Google will have to pay

[supernova_hq]

I like to relate links to road signs. Could you sue someone for posting a sign with directions to an illegal protest, even if they never personally went anywhere near it?

Re:Google will have to pay

[supernova_hq]

click it and you see

Notice Unavailable
DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google [Blogger]

Sent by: Twentieth Century Fox
To: Google

The cease-and-desist or legal threat you requested is not yet available.

Chilling Effects will post the notice after we process it.
Google has received a legal complaint and submitted it here to the Chilling Effects database, as described in Google's Digital Millennium Copyright Act policy. In response to the complaint, Google may have removed content from a search results page or hosted page.

So much for reading it...

Re:Google will have to pay

[Kartu]

Hm, does it work only in US? I don't see anything similiar to that in Germany.

Re:Google will have to pay

[supernova_hq]

A torrent file contains nothing but a title and a list of trackers, along with some other technical data.

The only thing even remotely copyrightable about them is the title. The format is standard (LOTS of prior art) and you can not copyright facts (list of servers/trackers).

Re:Google will have to pay

[pmarini]

because Google can afford a server farm in the state with the cheapest electricity, while PB can only afford a museum...

or maybe I got this wrong and it all has to do with lobbying the democratic rulers

or maybe I got that wrong too and it has to do with how justice is relativistic...

Re:Google will have to pay

[Eunuchswear]

Uh, confessing your guilt to a lawyer is a no-no in most systems. Lawyers aren't allowed to lie - just bend the truth.

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

That's not relevant. They registered a corporation to run the site. They attempted to monetize traffic by putting up ads. In emails they discussed share allocations, profit splits, etc.

If they didn't turn a profit, it was a failed business, but still a business.

Re:Google will have to pay

[pmarini]

yeah, but what's the default situation?
I while ago I created a personal website by simply uploading a few pages and Google started indexing it, so did the Internet Archive
later on I started to receive a lot of spam and phishing attenpts with granular information on my personal details, so I did what you say and had my pages removed from the Google index and the "Archive" (although I suspect that some tape backup copies, or leftover of GFS mirrors might still be lingering somewhere) but, guess what, in the meantime a German "how do you call those websites which copy & retain metadata from all over the place to make your searches end-up in their specially crafted advertising pages" still has them and makes the whole "opt-out" an actual shenanigan

Re:Google will have to pay

[lacoronus]

Lawyers are sworn to silence by law, and not required to testify.

Re:Google will have to pay

[mpeskett]

The Pirate Bay holds only a torrent file, no infringing content. So long as linking to things that are infringing is legal under Swedish law, so should providing torrent files. They don't respond to takedown requests regarding copyrighted material because they don't have anything that's under copyright on their servers.

Re:Google will have to pay

[rackserverdeals]

The default situation is that when you put something online it is publicly available. That means the good and the bad associated with being online. This shouldn't come as news to anyone.

You should take some steps to mitigate some of the bad, such as not posting your email on any webpage. This has been a common practice for many years.

The point is, the good far outweighs the bad. If you don't like that, you can either keep your documents off the web, or you can password protect everything so you control access.

Re:Google will have to pay

[moortak]

If they are planning to sue someone they damn well should take the time to figure out the identity of the person they are suing.

Re:Google will have to pay

[idji]

Google only shows you where to find the torrent files - and doesn't know who is downloading the files. TPB also has the torrent files and knows EXACTLY who is downloading the files NOW, and categorizes everything nicely for you. If you think about it - EVERY file over 50Mb in the TV category is probably illegal - so their argument about not being able to know is nonsense.

Re:Google will have to pay

[shutdown -p now]

The Pirate Bay holds only a torrent file, no infringing content.

That's your take on it. Swedish court found that torrent file is "accessory to crime" here, and the logic is pretty straightforward to follow. There's also the fact that TPB provides tracker services, as well...

Re:Google will have to pay

[master811]

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.

As much as it pains me to say it, that last sentence should be more like.

TPB provides a search mechanism for downloadable content, most of which infringes copyright.

Re:Google will have to pay

[hkmwbz]

Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.

AFAIK, TPB will take down content if served with a Swedish court order. DMCA notices are obviously complete idiocy, and only jingoist American morons would think that a DMCA claim has any merit in other countries.

Re:Google will have to pay

[hkmwbz]

According to Swedish law, the notification need not have any special format, nor contain any references to Swedish law

Really! So you are saying that the DMCA applies in Sweden? Wow.

Finally, they have gone on record to say that the purpose of TPB was to infringe copyright.

You'll need to come up with a source for that claim.

Linking to infringing material is ok, as long as you cooperate with rights holders.

BS. Private entities have no authority. If they want cooperation, they should report it to the police, who will then get a court order, which TPB will comply with. But private companies have no legal authority.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Thanshin]

Inigo Monbooyah

Inigo Monbooyah?

If my name was Íñigo Montoya you, most certainly, would have to prepare to die.

Re:Google will have to pay

[Akral]

Sure they have. It's called "robots.txt" - and a photographer publishing their works on a web site simply has to ask Google not to index them. And they won't. They'll also lose the potential exposure, but that's a choice.

What if you store your photos remotely? On Flickr?
What if somebody steals your photos and hosts himself, what Google indexes?

robots.txt is not an answer to copyright infringement, it's simply a guide to indexing.

Re:Google will have to pay

[DeskLazer]

clearly, you could do better:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=x-men+wolverine+origins+torrent

Been there already

[Norsefire]

This was touched on in the trial, again. and again, and again and again. Ultimately the IFPI said that Google is working with them to stop piracy.

"Kennedy was asked why they haven't sued Google the same way as TPB. He said that Google said they would partner IFPI in fighting piracy and he has a team of 10 people working with Google every day, and if Google hadn't announced they were a partner, IFPI would have sued them too." (src)

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

Look, there'a a huge difference between Google and TPB. It's willfully obtuse to pretend there isn't.

1) Google crawls the Internet and indexes content for searching. It presents search results in the form of hyperlinks to the sites of the people providing the content (exactly the way the WWW was intended to work). Yeah yeah, there is Google Cache, Google News, and Youtube, which occasionally gets them into trouble, but they make efforts to carefully remain within the realm of fair use, including removing copyrighted material from Youtube. One could argue that the WWW would not be able to function without search engines like Google.

TPB, on the other hand, is a website that contains a user-editable index of torrent files people are willing to share. In other words, TPB doesn't crawl for general content that is already publicly available. TPB then facilitates the transactions between users by functioning as a tracker. Torrents are useless without a tracker, so this is a critical difference. Google would not be able to provide the same service as TPB. Yes, you can find torrents via Google, but that is because Google has indexed a tracker like TPB and is just linking to their site.

2) Most of the content accessible through Google is legal, in the sense that the people who own the copyright have shared it explicitly on their website, which is crawled by Google. Most of the content on TPB is not legal, in the sense that the people sharing the files do not own the copyright and are not within the realm of fair use.

3) The content in both Google's search index and TPB's website is trivial to update to remove content that is in violation of copyright. Google willingly does so, usually at the notice of copyright holders. Google also removes content they don't necessarily have to, like Google Streetview images, when requested. TPB consistently refuses to remove content brought to its attention, and often responds with rude, immature, and insulting remarks.

Everybody stop pretending Google and TPB provide the same service. They just don't. Period.

Re:Been there already

[click2005]

I wonder how long this will last. The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA/AP/FACT/Whoever will keep making more and more demands until eventually they'll go after Google too.

How long until they start asking for Google to unlist a site that has something infringing their copyright?
How long until they start asking for IPs of people who searched for copyright infringing material?
How long until they ask Google to only list 'authorized' links for copyrighted search terms?

Google is one of the few companies visibly making a lot of money off the internet these days. They'll all want a bigger piece of
Google's pie before long.

Re:Been there already

[bug1]

2) Most of the content accessible through Google is legal, in the sense that the people who own the copyright have shared it explicitly on their website, which is crawled by Google

So are you saying that "making available" information is equivalent to a grant of copyright license when a website does it, but its a copyright violation when TPB does it ?

Just because its on a website instead of a torrent doesnt make it more legal.

Re:Been there already

[Sumbius]

Money is what the law is all about! And that is exactly what Google has and TBP doesn't.

Re:Been there already

[Night Goat]

Well said. That's probably one of the most succinct posts I've seen on Slashdot.

Re:Been there already

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Well that wraps things up. Goodnight everybody!

Re:Been there already

[gomiam]

Most of the content on TPB is not legal, in the sense that the people sharing the files do not own the copyright and are not within the realm of fair use.

AFAIK, fair use doesn't apply in most EU countries, Sweden included. As such, your argument is moot. Please base your assertions in the appliable law.

Talking about methods of index creation, may I remind you that Google also allows users to add to the index database?

Btw, immatureness isn't yet punishable by law.

Re:Been there already

[Savage-Rabbit]

2) Most of the content accessible through Google is legal, in the sense that the people who own the copyright have shared it explicitly on their website, which is crawled by Google

So are you saying that "making available" information is equivalent to a grant of copyright license when a website does it, but its a copyright violation when TPB does it ?

Yes because what Google facilitates access to is intended for freely accessible by the content creator. If it's systems do facilitate access to copyrighted material, Google will remove references to that material in it's systems on request. TBP on the other hand, unlike Google, deliberately responds with insults and cheesy humor to such requests. Of course this is a gross oversimplification of what the guy was trying to say but hopefully it made things a little clearer for you.

Re:Been there already

[lacoronus]

If by "manners" you mean "compliance with the laws", then yeah - manners it is.

Re:Been there already

[Kneo24]

You're missing the point. Google cache's the information too. the TPB doesn't. They just give you one big link that points to a lot of other people who have it.

Re:Been there already

[horza]

1) So TPB is a website that contains a user-editable index of links people wish to share with others? Sounds like Yahoo! to me, which is how the Internet functioned before Google came along. I can see TPB morphing into the Google of torrents.

Google responds politely to takedown notices, whether legal or not, as it's a business beholden to their shareholders and public image can affect share price. It's harder to blackmail TPB as they aren't responsible to anybody. Politics aside, this doesn't change the nature that technically they do the same thing.

2) So what percentage of legal/illegal content should there be that tips you from completely innocent to doing jail time?

3) Google is based in the USA and subject to US law. TPB is based in Sweden and is under Swedish law. TPB is quite under its rights to refuse US take-down notices and understandable to be rude to US companies trying to bully it with false legal threats.

Phillip.

Re:Been there already

[TheoMurpse]

I'm not a lawyer yet. I'm not your lawyer. I'm not anyone's lawyer. This is not legal advice.

There's "Google Cache."

I'm on your side with respect to the conclusion that Google and TPB are vastly different. However, you're barking up the wrong legal analysis tree to get there. Here's a very dirty, quick, and sloppy (but analytically pointing in the correct direction for legal argument) differentiation between Google and TPB:

The difference is the transformative nature of what Google provides (the first factor of the US's fair use analysis) and effect on the market of the original work (the fourth factor of the US's fair use analysis). This defends Google against a primary infringement suit premised upon their Google Cache or image searches (see Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.).

As for secondary liability (which is what the TPB guys were found guilty of), Google doesn't induce, while TPB does. Google likely has immunity from secondary liability via the DMCA. If not, they do rightfully control what they've indexed, and they respond to takedown requests, e.g. Google doesn't knowingly aid infringers. Thus, they're likely immunized from a successful suit premised upon any form of 2dary liability (inducement, contributory, or vicarious).

TPB would be found liable under the inducement theory for sure, just like Grokster was. You don't get to actively encourage piracy via your software/service and get away with it. Nor should you.

Re:Been there already

[TheoMurpse]

If they stored it (pretending they're in the US, because I don't know Swedish law), they'd have been found to be primary infringers, not secondary infringers.

They were found to be secondary infringers. What theory of 2dary liability, I'm not sure, as I can't read the decision, and the news reports in English I've seen talk about "assisting" infringement, which doesn't distinguish between inducement, vicarious, and contributory liability.

Re:Been there already

[horza]

TPB the website does not host any content, only links to that content. Typing into Google "filetype:torrent movie" is EXACTLY the same as typing the search term into the Pirate Bay. TPB was convicted of "assisting making available", not actually making the content available. I can click on any of those search results to start downloading the movie hence Google are definitely "assisting making available". Hence they are the same thing.

Phillip.

Re:Been there already

[Alef]

One could argue that the WWW would not be able to function without search engines like Google.

The WWW would not function without DNSs and search engines like Google in the same way that BitTorrent would not function without trackers and search engines like TPB. The WWW is just a bunch of protocols used to connect people with each other to exchange information. That principle is no different from BitTorrent. The only difference is that the information storage can be scattered with BitTorrent, and that the connectivity of an average peer is generally less reliable (PCs instead of servers).

Google also removes content they don't necessarily have to, like Google Streetview images, when requested.

Now you're talking about content that Google stores. The correct equivalent would be Google removing links from search results.

TPB consistently refuses to remove content brought to its attention, and often responds with rude, immature, and insulting remarks.

So it's their attitude that is the problem?

Re:Been there already

[quickOnTheUptake]

This is just FUD.

How long until they start asking for IPs of people who searched for copyright infringing material?

If they did have the audacity to request it, Google would tell them to shove it. Google would just say, and any reasonable court would agree, that they have no reasonable way to know what anyone was actually searching for. Just because I search for the string "Dark Knight" doesn't mean I am attempting to violate copyright by downloading the movie, I might actually be considering going to it and looking for reviews, or show times, or maybe I am just looking for a blog called "dark knight" or an article on a little known mediaeval warrior or . . .. At least in the US, our courts, for all their shortcomings, maintain a pretense of not warranting fishing expeditions.

How long until they ask Google to only list 'authorized' links for copyrighted search terms?

Again, if they were retarded enough to bother, Google would tell them where to go. What possible reason would Google have to comply? What law could possibly be interpreted to compel them to honor the request?
(If this post was meant to satirize alarmists I'm truly sorry.)

Re:Been there already

[slashdotjunker]

This post is a good example of why it's futile to try to legislate this stuff. Your post is so sensible yet so wrong. You want to draw a line and say everything on the left is "providing information" and everything on the right is "indexing information". Where you choose to draw the line is immediately obvious. But, everyone draws the line in a different place!

It is the nature of computer systems to build up layers of indirection. Like answering the question "When is a fetus alive?", everyone has a different idea of when information becomes "alive".

Does Google == TPB?

Google tells me where to find torrent trackers. A torrent tracker tells me where to find a torrent. A torrent tells me where to find bytes 1000-3000 of a file.

TPB is a torrent tracker. A torrent tracker tells me where to find a torrent. A torrent tells me where to find bytes 1000-3000 of a file.

I guess I'm "willfully obtuse" because I don't see a "huge difference" here.

Re:Been there already

[ScentCone]

So what percentage of legal/illegal content should there be that tips you from completely innocent to doing jail time?

Who cares? In this case we're talking about an organization that was formed around the specific notion of deliberately ripping off copyrighted material, regularly and publicly talks about that being their purpose, and named itself in the spirit of deliberately doing so. They exist to facilitate the acquistion of pirated content. Of course, you know that, and you're being deliberately disengenuous.

Re:Been there already

[rts008]

I guess I'm "willfully obtuse" because I don't see a "huge difference" here.

No, you're not, and there is not a "huge difference", as you recognize.

Your 'problem' is that when Big Media Cartel hands you a glass of their 'wonderful koolade', you recognize it as the goat piss it is.

Reform copyright laws back to sane levels, and most of this crap will just disappear. The insanity of copyright is the driving force behind TPB and similar outfits.

Re:Been there already

[noidentity]

Yes, I believe Google should stop helping people find copyrighted content online. I think they actually did this for a few minutes several Sundays ago, when all searches were failing.

Re:Been there already

[lacoronus]

Google also removes content they don't necessarily have to, like Google Streetview images, when requested.

Now you're talking about content that Google stores. The correct equivalent would be Google removing links from search results.

Which they do. Try searching for x-men wolverine origins torrent on Google.

Re:Been there already

[DJRumpy]

Google would willingly remove any copyrighted item from it's cache if requested. Would TPB remove any requested item from it's website?

Saying the two are the same is at best a very far stretch. At it's worst, it's no better than the legalese that someone like the RIAA would try to use to tie someone who downloads a single song to 1000's of lost sales.

TPB's only purpose is to facilitate finding copyrighted material on the web. Google's purpose is to facilitate finding any content on the web by crawling every website that allows it, BUT with the proviso that they will remove any contested content that may be picked up by a crawler.

They are NOT the same.

Re:Been there already

[VGPowerlord]

Google would willingly remove any copyrighted item from it's cache if requested. Would TPB remove any requested item from it's website?

No, and they even have a page that says so on their site.

"(we used to have a nice graph here, but it's simpler to just say: 0 torrents has been removed, and 0 torrents will ever be removed.)"

Re:Been there already

[daveime]

Yes, I did ...

10 results shown, 6 removed due to DMCA notices ... by my reckoning, that means that 62.5% of the links to illegal copyrighted material ARE STILL ON GOOGLE !!!

Now are you telling me Google is so naive, that they don't know what "x men wolverine origin torrent" implies ?

Are do they just pay lip service to the DMCA requests they DO receive, and meanwhile leave over half the illegal links in plain view, reaping in adwords, sponsored links and other revenues.

Google are far worse than the Pirate Bay, you're just too blinkered to see it.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

So are you saying that "making available" information is equivalent to a grant of copyright license when a website does it, but its a copyright violation when TPB does it ?

No, reread what I said. I said the degree to which Google and TPB assist in the process of copyright infringement is vastly different. There is no granting of a copyright license.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

Manners are what the law is all about !

Despite what you want to believe, your willingness to comply with notices of copyright infringement on your website says a lot about your intent and motivation. The maturity of your responses indicate your respect for other people and the law. A judge will take all of this into account when rendering a verdict and determining what reparations, if any, need to be made.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

Well, it's not so much the method of index creation that matters. What matters is that Google provides a general service for finding content on any publicly available website it has access to (while respecting robots.txt, etc). TPB provides a specific service of finding .torrent content that other people have explicitly indicated they are willing to share. They then go a step further and facilitate that transaction.

Btw, immatureness isn't yet punishable by law.

No, but your willingness to comply with takedown notices is factored in cases like these. It is quite simple for TPB to remove infringing torrents if they are brought to their attention. They refuse to do so. That doesn't help their case.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

What that means is that the precedent that is being set could be used against google and others in the future...

I don't really see how that is possible. I'm not sure if the legality of search engines like Google has been tested, but if somebody wanted to, there are plenty of small fish to fry to set precedent. TPB is really not the same thing, so I don't see how it could be used in a case against Google.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

So TPB is a website that contains a user-editable index of links people wish to share with others?

No, TPB is a user-editable index of torrents, which contain hashes of the file to be shared and a tracker url. TPB is also a tracker (or set of trackers) that file-sharers use to coordinate the exchange of chunks of the files so that they can be put together in the right order. It is a distributed version of what Napster used to be.

So what percentage of legal/illegal content should there be that tips you from completely innocent to doing jail time?

It's not about percentage of content. It's about intent. If the vast majority of the Google index is links to legally shared content, and they make efforts to removed links to illegally shared content when it is brought to their attention, one can argue that their intent is entirely innocent. If the opposite is the case, that argument is much harder to make.

Google is based in the USA and subject to US law. TPB is based in Sweden and is under Swedish law. TPB is quite under its rights to refuse US take-down notices and understandable to be rude to US companies trying to bully it with false legal threats.

Yeah, well fine, let's see how far it gets them. Copyright law is fairly universal. The provisions of things like fair use vary from country to country, but even in Sweden it is not legal to rip a copyrighted movie and distribute it to everybody for free. While TPB is not doing this directly, they are facilitating the process. Their unwillingness to comply with takedown notices, whether in the right jurisdiction or not, says a lot about their intent.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

The WWW would not function without DNSs and search engines like Google

The web would function without Google, it just wouldn't be very useful. Services like Google make it more pleasant to use. Without Google, I can still access any publicly available website.

BitTorrent would not function without trackers and search engines like TPB.

That is correct. Without a tracker and a .torrent file, there would be no way to find peers and piece together the shared content.

The correct equivalent would be Google removing links from search results.

Which they will do if it is brought to their attention. The thing is, it's not very helpful because if the page changes it will be reindexed. And other search engines will also have that page indexed. So, it is pretty futile to send takedown notices like that, and most copyright holders won't bother.

So it's their attitude that is the problem?

As I've said in other posts, your willingness to cooperate can help your case. There is a difference between breaking the law and breaking the law with contempt. They will be treated differently in a courtroom.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

Google tells me where to find torrent trackers. A torrent tracker tells me where to find a torrent. A torrent tells me where to find bytes 1000-3000 of a file. TPB is a torrent tracker. A torrent tracker tells me where to find a torrent. A torrent tells me where to find bytes 1000-3000 of a file.

I would say it is pretty different. After Google provides the link to the tracker, it has no other part in the process. TPB, however, is required from the very beginning of the process to the end. There would be no way for the transaction to take place without TPB saying, "Hey, here's a list of peers, here's a list of checksums, that guy over there has these chunks, this guy has those, you have this many chunks you can share with other people, etc."

Remember the case against Napster? Napster never hosted any of the infringing content, but they were essential (in some ways less essential than TPB), to the process of connecting peers together so they could share files.

If TPB simply hosted a searchable index of places to download torrent files, and individual users had to run their own trackers, that would be a lot different (and more like what Google does). That would never work, though, because the anonymity of the process is what makes it appealing to most people.

Re:Been there already

[shutdown -p now]

So it's their attitude that is the problem?

Their intent (in aiding known copyright infringement) is the problem. Their attitude only serves to demonstrate that they had that intent.

Re:Been there already

[shutdown -p now]

You can't tell the difference because you approach a legal problem from a technical perspective. It's the same as with the concept of "derived work" - technically, it doesn't make sense, since bits are bits - they don't "remember" what they're produced from, so in theory, encrypting the file so that there is no common byte sequences makes it totally different. Legally, those "bits" have memory, and the same byte sequence can be a derived work or not depending on how it was produced. To a techie, attempting to define all things in strict logical and mathematical terms, it doesn't connect, but from a common sense point of view the meaning and intent are obvious.

Here, it's the same thing. The difference between Google and TPB is obvious; I don't know anyone who knows either and is really ignorant enough to not be able to tell the difference. Any attempts to muddy the water here are always deliberately "playing fool" - you know full well there is one, and you know that everyone else knows, too.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

Would Google not index an ordinary HTML web page where someone threw up an MPEG file containing a newly-released movie and a description? What if someone else provided a web page containing a collection of links to such pages, with the actual content provided elsewhere?

Well, a copyright holder could request Google remove the page from their index, but as I said in a different post, it's fairly futile to do that. What a copyright holder can do instead, though, with help from Google, is find the actual website hosting the infringing material. This may still be somewhat futile, but less futile than simply removing an index entry.

That's all that's going on here, and it is the fundamental problem.

No, it really isn't. Again, as I've posted elsewhere, the index of torrent files is secondary to TPB's function as a tracker. The BitTorrent tracker more or less directly facilitates transactions between peers, and the process can't happen without it.

Are book publishers going to start suing libraries that provide their card catalogs on-line next? Are librarians destined to go to jail for aiding copyright infringement every time they point a potential copyright infringer towards the material they are searching for?

Well, if librarians notice copyright infringement, it is their responsibility to either stop it or notify authorities. Most users of libraries, however, operate within the realm of fair use.

But this reflects what the users do, not any conscious plan on the part of TPB.

Perhaps, but that makes it harder to argue in favor of the operation. TPB has the option of removing inappropriate torrents, which they do not. If TPB is used mostly for illegal file-sharing, there isn't much to say to defend it. It is one thing to say a service can be used to share files illegally, and another to say it is being used to share files illegally.

YouTube is filled to the brim with unauthorized copyrighted material that does not qualify for "fair use".

Yes, you are correct. But Google will remove such material if a copyright holder brings it to their attention.

I've seen examples of my own technical pictures, provided on my personal web site, indexed and cached in Google's image cache, that have been illegally used by someone else on the web. So, should I be suing Google, or should I go after the infringer? Apparently, according to TPB verdict, Google should also be hearing from my lawyers. After all, they're the one letting other people find that illicitly-copied material of mine.

Several things: the Google image cache is within the realm of fair use, on top of that they only store a small thumbnail, they display a copyright notice when they show the thumbnail and publish a link to the image, and they show the context from which the image was taken so users can see it is part of a website and not deprive the website of ad revenue. One can say Google has made a good faith effort to prevent copyright infringement while still allowing content to be found. I don't think that argument can be made for TPB.

Given how ridiculous the expectations of some copyright holders are even in the case of dealing with Google (e.g., not wanting Google to provide an index and brief, fair-use-qualifying excerpt of news articles), I just don't have a lot of sympathy with laws that are pushed so far towards copyright holders wishes (and a pony)

I generally agree. But if you look at the legal notices on TPB, many of them are very reasonable requests for removal of explicitly infringing torrents. It's a simple matter to remove them, so they should just do it. Telling them to "sodomize themselves with retractable batons" is not a good way to respond to legal notices. Whether or not copyright is abused and over-leveraged is beside the point. Regardless of what you might think about copyr

Re:Been there already

[Haeleth]

I can see TPB morphing into the Google of torrents.

Only if torrents move entirely to a trackerless model. Till then, TPB and its ilk will always be directly facilitating content transfer, rather than merely indexing links.

So what percentage of legal/illegal content should there be that tips you from completely innocent to doing jail time?

There shouldn't be any such simplistic thing, or it would be possible to frame innocent people by adding illegal content to their tracker faster than they can remove it.

Instead, it should be a question of intent. If people are wilfully refusing to remove links to content that is obviously illegal, even after they have been formally notified of this, then they clearly intend to facilitate copyright infringement. If the vast majority of material they are indexing is illegal, and they are proudly bragging about the fact that they have no intention of doing nothing to alter that situation, then they clearly intend to facilitate copyright infringement. Note that TPB fails both these tests, and Google passes both.

TPB is quite under its rights to refuse US take-down notices and understandable to be rude to US companies trying to bully it with false legal threats.

Impressive that you can almost make out TPB to be the victim here! Poor pirates, being "bullied" by the nasty big corporations. But fear not, here comes Friar Tuck!

Back in the real world: it is true that TPB does not face sanctions under the DMCA if they ignore DMCA takedown notices. That does not alter the fact that publicly boasting about their refusal to remove links, even after the copyright holder has formally notified them that the link is being used to infringe copyright, demonstrates a clear intent on their part to assist the violation of copyright. And only the most deliberately obtuse of pro-theft Slashbots could possibly believe that such behaviour has anything in common with Google's.

Re:Been there already

[Alef]

The WWW would not function without DNSs and search engines like Google

The web would function without Google, it just wouldn't be very useful. Services like Google make it more pleasant to use. Without Google, I can still access any publicly available website.

BitTorrent would not function without trackers and search engines like TPB.

That is correct. Without a tracker and a .torrent file, there would be no way to find peers and piece together the shared content.

Well, if you don't have a DNS, which in a sense are the trackers of the web, you would have to know the (current) IP of the site you want to connect to.

Regardless, I thought your point was that Google and similar services are an integral and necessary part of the web, and therefore should be treated leniently. That is, since there is no real alternative, we have to accept what bad it brings. Maybe I misunderstood?

My point was that services such as TPB are equally important for BitTorrent to function. Should we accept effectively banning one way of exchanging information and not the other? To me, that seems arbitrary.

So it's their attitude that is the problem?

As I've said in other posts, your willingness to cooperate can help your case. There is a difference between breaking the law and breaking the law with contempt.

Certainly, I agree. But my question is, should the attitude make the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law? Especially if you do not think what you are doing is illegal.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

Well, if you don't have a DNS, which in a sense are the trackers of the web, you would have to know the (current) IP of the site you want to connect to.

No, not really. See, this is the problem. If you generalize enough, you can remove all significant distinctions from everything. I mean a semi-truck and a pickup truck pulling a trailer are essentially the same things right? So why do you need special training and a license to drive a semi-truck?

A tracker, as the name implies, tracks connections between peers, and the distribution of file chunks, and the verification of checksums. Neither Google nor a DNS is involved as intimately in a given transaction as a BitTorrent tracker.

Should we accept effectively banning one way of exchanging information and not the other?

No, but nobody is banning all BitTorrent trackers, just as they aren't banning all search engines. A collection of copyright holders identified one tracker being used for primarily illegal purposes and are attempting to have it shut down because it is the easiest (albeit probably futile) way of killing the torrent swarms facilitated by it.

But my question is, should the attitude make the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law?

Certainly not. But it is hard to argue innocence in a case like this if clear copyright violations are brought to your attention and, in addition to simply refusing to comply with a takedown notice, you publicly display your contempt for copyright law.

Especially if you do not think what you are doing is illegal.

Well, there is a civil way to resolve such disputes...a courtroom and a judge. You can have a lawyer assure you are in compliance all you want, but legal gray areas like this are ultimately decided in the courts. If you are found to be in the wrong, a judge is more likely to be lenient with regard to reparations if you conduct yourself in a mature and responsible way throughout the process.

Re:Been there already

[Alef]

If you generalize enough, you can remove all significant distinctions from everything.

We seem to disagree somewhat as to whether there are significant principal distinctions, aside from the technical ones.

According to the court, which specifically addresses these issues in the verdict, the difference between services like Google and TPB is essentially that TPB allocates storage space on their servers for .torrent files, and that the storage of these is not to be considered transient.

The question, of course, is whether or not the .torrent files really should be considered part of the information that is transmitted through the service. It would seem that according to the court, providing the .torrent file relating to copyrighted material constitutes making that material available, or at least helping in making it available. It should be interesting to see what the appeals court might have to say.

No, but nobody is banning all BitTorrent trackers, just as they aren't banning all search engines.

Maybe not, but I would certainly think twice before running a tracker today. The people behind TPB were convicted for helping making 33 specific films/music albums available, even though they were not aware of these particular files. It is not clear to me exactly what measures you are required to take to remain inculpable.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

It would seem that according to the court, providing the .torrent file relating to copyrighted material constitutes making that material available, or at least helping in making it available.

The .torrent files are downloaded from their website. So, yes, they are provided by TPB. The .torrent files do contain the critical information needed to setup a torrent swarm with the TPB tracker. So, again yes, TPB is aiding and abetting copyright infringement.

The people behind TPB were convicted for helping making 33 specific films/music albums available, even though they were not aware of these particular files.

This is the key. Did they know about the infringement taking place using their service? It is quite clear they did. Everybody is aware of the content available on TPB, so the operators were most certainly aware of it. They were also informed of it, but did nothing to stop it. They can deny that they knew about 33 specific instances, but who is actually going to believe they don't know their service is used for massive copyright infringement and little else?

Re:Been there already

[hkmwbz]

Ultimately the IFPI said that Google is working with them to stop piracy.

That sucks. When did the IFPI turn into a governemnt law enforcement agency? The only right thing to do is to refuse to cooperate unless there is a court order. But I guess Google is too afraid of being sued to stand its ground.

Re:Been there already

[hkmwbz]

#1 is irrelevant. #2 is baseless speculation. #3 is irrelevant as well, and TPB would honor Swedish court orders to take down content. But DMCAs are obviously useless, which is why the TPB guys are making fun of idiot American companies who think US law has any value in the rest of the world. So your entire argument is basically BS.

Re:Been there already

[Alef]

The .torrent files are downloaded from their website. So, yes, they are provided by TPB.

Nobody is disputing that the .torrent files can be downloaded form their website. Although, the files may very well refer you to another tracker, and .torrent files from other places may refer you to TPB's tracker.

The .torrent files do contain the critical information needed to setup a torrent swarm with the TPB tracker. So, again yes, TPB is aiding and abetting copyright infringement.

Well, it is not illegal to provide a tool that can aid in commiting copyright infringement. ISPs are also critical for a swarm to function, yet they are exempt from liability. The reason is that they are covered by the European 2000/31/EC directive, concerning the legal aspects of information society services. In fact, the court establishes that TPB is indeed also an information society service, with regard to the directive. The reason TPB is not let off the hook, the court argues, is basically that a service provider is only allowed to keep copies of data for the duration required by the transmission, if they are to be held without responsibility. And TPB keeps .torrent files.

What is not immediately obvious to me, is that the .torrent files are part the data that the directive refers to.

This is the key. Did they know about the infringement taking place using their service? It is quite clear they did.

They knew that infringement took place, correct. It has not been established that they knew of these specific files, however. You can bet YouTube knows that copyrighted material is being distributed on their site as well, even if they remove specific clips brought to their attention. Because they act on takedown notices, their situation is different from TPBs. But where do you draw the line? How much effort is required preventing infringement? That, we do not know.

If you set up a public BitTorrent tracker/search engine, you can be sure people will use it for copyright infringement. What this verdict says is that you can not take a neutral stance as to what people are doing with this service (like slashdot does with comments, for instance).

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

Not sure why I should respond to you, but,

1) Not irrelevant at all. If you think so, please elaborate. The question at hand is, does TPB assist in acts of copyright infringement? My argument is yes, because it runs a tracker that facilitates said infringement. Before you respond, you might want to read the rest of my posts on this subject.

2) Have you ever used either Google or TPB? I would hardly call my statement baseless speculation. However, if you can tally up some numbers for me indicating it is not true, I will accept that.

3) Again, please elaborate. I think I've explained my position well enough in other posts.

So your entire argument is basically BS.

Thanks for contributing to a constructive discussion of the article.

Re:Been there already

[Rutulian]

The reason TPB is not let off the hook, the court argues, is basically that a service provider is only allowed to keep copies of data for the duration required by the transmission, if they are to be held without responsibility. And TPB keeps .torrent files.

Ok, I agree that is a shaky argument to make. I don't think it is an argument that can ever be made against Google (the original topic) or any number of other search engines, though, because of the specific circumstances. If it ever is, I will have to eat my words, but as of now I am not alarmed by this verdict.

Because they act on takedown notices, their situation is different from TPBs. But where do you draw the line? How much effort is required preventing infringement? That, we do not know.

In gestures of good faith, there are rarely strictly defined lines. So I cannot answer your question. But if they felt they were acting in good faith, then that is at least an argument they could use in their defense with examples to back it up. Unfortunately, they were not able to use that in this case, but it was their own doing.

If you set up a public BitTorrent tracker/search engine, you can be sure people will use it for copyright infringement. What this verdict says is that you can not take a neutral stance as to what people are doing with this service (like slashdot does with comments, for instance).

There are ways to discourage such use, such as requiring registration and logging IPs. You are correct in that the neutral stance position is being threatened, but there is a dilemma here, and this goes back to one my original arguments. On Slashdot there is plenty to say and talk about without engaging in things like libel, or copyright infringement. So, for the most part, that doesn't happen on Slashdot. That makes Slashdot's position in court much more defensible if they are ever accused of being an accessory.

BitTorrent is a protocol specifically designed for the efficient exchange of large files. It just so happens that most large files people wish to exchange are copyrighted media/software files. Several Linux distributions run trackers to distribute isos, but there really isn't a lot of other activity out there. Smaller files are more efficiently distributed via HTTP or FTP, so most people don't bother setting up a tracker if that is all they are doing (ex: distributing code they have written or images they have created). So public trackers like TPB end up primarily used for copyright infringement. Neutral stance or not, that makes their position much harder to defend in court.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of the media conglomerates. I do think copyright is overused and abused, but I'm not going to pretend TPB is without fault. I know a lot of people on Slashdot are anti-censorship, and I value free speech as well, but I don't see why we should defend sites that are serving limited constructive or legal purpose, and are instead used almost entirely for illicit activities.

Re:Been there already

[gomiam]

Well, it's not so much the method of index creation that matters

If it doesn't matter so much, why do you expend two whole paragraphs to details the indexing differences between Google and TPB?

No, but your willingness to comply with takedown notices is factored in cases like these.

Willingness (unwillingness in this case) which may, as well, be supported by consultations with attorneys. In such a case, "asking" (though a C&D is hardly asking) TPB to stop doing something that an attorney has said is legal is moot: TPB will comply or not on their own, since they aren't really breaking the law.

Anyway, since the judge seemed to have links to the accusers which may throw doubts about his impartiality, all this discussion may be as well be useless.

Intent

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the key difference between them simply, "intent"?

What does The Pirate Bay intend to do, versus Google's intent?

Re:Intent

[Jeff DeMaagd]

This intent bit is something that escapes a lot of posters here. Tools can be used for good or bad purposes. When considering the legitimacy of a tool, its primary intended purpose is taken into consideration.

Even if Google didn't cooperate with the IFPI, they should get plenty of protection because the search engine wasn't built with aiding copyright infringement in mind. I think it would take a very convoluted argument to say that The Pirate Bay wasn't built and operated with aiding copyright infringement in mind.

Re:Intent

[erroneus]

Intent is only relevant when it is convenient to recognize intent. When it becomes inconvenient to factor in intent, then it becomes ignored. For example, the "intent" for selling ad space on the pirate bay is to help pay for the internet connections and the hosting and power and stuff like that. The judge in the case ignored the intent and claimed they were a commercially driven activity.

It is becoming increasingly clear that law is falling away from even the appearance of being impartial and ruling by law.

Re:Intent

[peragrin]

The law is always falling away. it is a side effect of being 10-20 years behind the times. But like gravity it is also staying with us slowly.

An accountant should be able to quickly determine if the pirate bay is telling the truth. it won't take much unless the TPB leaders have done some clever book keeping to hide money. If they are doing the later then they should pay up. If however if the majority of their revenue is going to servers, and bandwidth then they are telling the truth that they really aren't in it for the money.

Just remember the biggest crooks in the world have gotten caught because they were greedy and didn't feed the government the governments desired share.

Re:Intent

[Flaming Foobar]

An accountant should be able to quickly determine if the pirate bay is telling the truth. it won't take much unless the TPB leaders have done some clever book keeping to hide money. If they are doing the later then they should pay up. If however if the majority of their revenue is going to servers, and bandwidth then they are telling the truth that they really aren't in it for the money.

Beging profitable isn't really required to be commercial. If they are selling ad space, they are doing business regardless of where the money is going.

Re:Intent

[shutdown -p now]

What does The Pirate Bay intend to do, versus Google's intent?

TPB admins were notified that some of the torrents they link to are used to distribute content in violation of copyright; in some cases, repeatedly. In all such cases, they refused to look further into it, much less take down the torrents.

Note that not taking down in such a case is not in and of itself a crime, of course - but if the notices were true (i.e. if copyright infringement actually did take place), then TPB becomes liable for willfully aiding it (since they were warned). Of course, quite a few of those notices were true. Thus, they cannot claim any illegal material that is being distributed with their aid is purely accidental, and is not the intended use of their service.

Google, on the other hand, complies with DMCA and other local equivalents where they exist, and in general will remove any content from their search cache upon request. So they can reasonably claim that any illegal material that comes up in their search result is purely accidental, and is not the intended use of their service.

Re:Intent

[hkmwbz]

TPB admins were notified that some of the torrents they link to are used to distribute content in violation of copyright; in some cases, repeatedly. In all such cases, they refused to look further into it, much less take down the torrents.

As they should. The TPB guys don't have the time to spy on their own users. And DMCA has no effect in Sweden, so no wonder they made fun of idiot Americans who thought it would help. Serving them with a Swedish court order would get them to take down content, though. As with all carriers.

Re:Intent

[shutdown -p now]

As they should. The TPB guys don't have the time to spy on their own users. And DMCA has no effect in Sweden, so no wonder they made fun of idiot Americans who thought it would help.

Sweden has its own DMCA-style law (which was explicitly referenced in the ruling, by the way). Not taking down content isn't illegal in and of itself, but you lose your "common carrier" / service provider status if you do not do so after an explicit notification of violation, and the violation is later found to be factual.

Its the plain confirmation of rotten society

[unity100]

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.

Re:Its the plain confirmation of rotten society

[icebraining]

You can expel the humans, but the pigs will take their place...

I think

[maroberts]

..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.

Re:I think

[Anpheus]

The difference between them and an ISP though, at least in the case of The Pirate Bay, is that they don't carry any information that's copyright, only information -about- material that's potentially copyright. How many blocks of what size are available, what the hashes are for those blocks, etc.

Google actually has copies of nearly everything on the internet.

Re:I think

[lacoronus]

Since the information (blocks, hash) is used as a tool for the "main crime" of copyright infringement, the file is considered an accessory of the crime.

Storing it, refusing to take it down on request, and doing all that with the admitted intent to commit copyright infringement, is what killed TPB.

Re:I think

[Hurricane78]

Hey, I have an idea. I create a web site that is a service for the RIAA, MPAA and so on. It indexes all torrents from all trackers, so they can track the uploaders down. It is free for personal use ("everybody can track down those...uhum...greedy bastards...uhum..."), but will cost large sums for commercial use (eg **AAs). And I will call it btjunkie.org. Two things that appeal to the **AA, because it reminds them of their biggest other activity.

Be close to your friends. And closer to your enemies. :)

Re:I think

[Flaming Foobar]

They are neutral carriers of information and therefore should, in law, be held harmless.

You could say that about anything! Try starting a library of child pornography and see if the justice system thinks you are a neutral carrier of information...

There are huge differences between the Google and TPB, and it's unbelievable how people keep spouting "They are essentially the same" when the only similarity is they both store information about other information! People who think what kind of information it is (info on web pages vs torrents to pirated software etc), how it's gathered (spider vs uploading), how it's intended to be used (duh), how it's displayed, the ratio of legal to illegal content or use etc don't matter are fooling themselves. It's being überpedantic about one small detail while ignoring the blatantly obvious.

Besides, the only reason why there are links to links to illegal torrents in Google is beacuse it indexes sites such as TPB. If the torrent sites were to be taken offline, the problem with Google would get fixed, too.

Re:I think

[icebraining]

"Killed"? http://thepiratebay.org/ - works for me.

"Don't worry - we're from the internets. It's going to be alright. :-)"

Re:I think

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I think this is what safe harbour is for. All the copyright holder has to do (and they do) is send Google a takedown notice and they'll generally comply. Try sending a takedown notice (or even a friendly request) to TPB and see what happens.

Re:I think

[TheGratefulNet]

you make a STRONG point! google CACHES data! if anything, you can find more 'pirate' data, actually in the cache, via google.

why wasn't this mentioned at the trial??

Re:I think

[Lonewolf666]

Actually, the law in some countries already distinguishes between providing access to information other people publish and publishing it yourself. Using German law as an example because that's where I am reasonably sure of the details:

-If you are directly responsible for illegal material being on the internet (as in uploading the stuff to a service like Rapidshare and making it publicly accessible), you can be sued and prosecuted. No doubt about it. But as I understand it, the Pirate Bay does not fall in this category.

-If you provide a "general purpose" service that provides access to all sorts of stuff others have put online, you are not automatically liable. But you may be required to block or remove illegal content once you are made aware of it. How much effort you have to put in the blocking is still being worked out in the courts.
Typically, your ISP, Google and the Pirate Bay would fall in this category. If it is true that TPB has outright refused to remove links to copyright violations, they would have lost that lawsuit in Germany. But then again, the law that regulates this is only a few years old and Sweden may not have an equivalent yet. So you'd really need to ask a swedish lawyer about the TPB case.

Nonsense

[Fenresulven]

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.

Re:Nonsense

[bug1]

Googles search engine tracks web content, TPB tracks bittorrent content.

Can you really not see a similarity, do you think a court of Law understands technology better than slashdot ?

Maybe the TPB has to do is rename their tracker to search engine and hide behind google.

Re:Nonsense

[ChienAndalu]

Mod parent up.

The article blatantly ignores this fact and is therefore rubbish.

Re:Nonsense

[EyyySvenne]

Accually the verdict talks loosely about the tracker and more about how the torrent-files are the "tool" of the criminal in this case and since the torrent-files are saved on the harddrives of TPB (as compared to just temporarly going through, like in the router and proxy case) they are not granted immunity according to directive 2000/31/EG. The tracker is harder to categorize since it does not save any files, it just routes client connections pretty much.

Re:Nonsense

[lacoronus]

Mod parent up.

Also, even though the torrent files are illegal, TPB could have avoided liability by removing them on request.

They could also have avoided liability by not admitting to piracy being their business idea. Hosting infringing content is OK. Not removing infringing content is OK, as long as you can claim to not be purposefully aiding the infringement. For example, by contacting the uploader and then going back to the complainer saying "look guys, you say this is your stuff, but the uploader, Svenne Banan, says it is his stuff. Can you guys settle this, because we'll be in breach of our Service Level Agreement with Mr. Banan if we just delete the torrent."

TPB refused to remove the files and stated that their goal was piracy. This made them liable according to paragraph 18 and 19 of the Law of Electronic Commerce, based on directive 2000/31/EG. (In Swedish: Lag (2002:562) om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster.)

Re:Nonsense

[xtracto]

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.

Moreover, while TPB site itself contains the Torrent files, Google only has links to such files.

And again, the "colour" of the bits is what matters, as already said before TPB site itself was not the issue in the trial, it was that the guys conspired to help people commit copyright infringement.

Not that I am in favour of that shit... :(

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia: "the fact that a tracker does not actually host or distribute any copyrighted data itself"

It seems a number of factual errors were not proven - commercial and hosting, so it should be overturned on appeal. The intereting bit is WHY such a perverted decision came about. Intimately involved? Sorry, to label the Yellow Pages, Google or a telco as being 'intimately Involved' does not wash either.

Re:Nonsense

[Hurricane78]

Mod grandparent and parent down.

Their posts blatantly ignore reality and what siblings said, and are therefore rubbish.

Yeah, I have a pretty fucked-up family, I know. ^^

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Googles search engine tracks web content, TPB tracks bittorrent content.

Can you really not see a similarity, do you think a court of Law understands technology better than slashdot ?

My cat understands technology better than slashdot.

And it's not like it's a particularly bright cat.

Re:Nonsense

[bug1]

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.

Re:Nonsense

[tiananmen tank man]

How is that different from using trackerless torrents and getting the hash info from the web that google indexes?

Re:Nonsense

[bug1]

TPB refused to remove the files and stated that their goal was piracy.

AFAIK if TPB could even possibly be considered a common carrier then its legally irresponsible to remove a file, they would lose any chance they had of being considered a "common carrier" and might become liable for all content that has and will passes through them.

Re:Nonsense

[lacoronus]

Common carriers are protected under paragraphs 16 and 17. Para 16 states that if you are just transferring the information, you're not liable, as long as you don't initiate or alter the information. (There's more but that's the gist of it.) That's the "common carrier" paragraph.

Para 17 says that if you just facilitate a transmission without altering the data, you're not liable. Specifically, your copies of the information must be deleted as soon as the transmission ends, and you may not store it in a permanent way. The information must be transient, in particular, it must be deleted as soon as the originator deletes their copy or makes their copy inaccessible. This is also "common carrier"-ish; more specifically, it is the "caching proxy" paragraph.

But TPB hosts the torrent files, meaning that they are not a "carrier", nor a "facilitator", as they do not merely transfer information, nor just facilitate the transfer in a transient way. This puts them under paragraph 18: a provider that accepts information from one user, stores it in a permanent way, and distributes it to others. For example, I can create a torrent file, upload it to TPB, and then delete my copy of the file without it disappearing automatically from TPB.

And under paragraph 18, you must remove material that is infringing as soon as you have an awareness of obviously infringing material. Which the torrent files were, and TPB didn't.

Then there's paragraph 19: You must have intent to commit infringement. TPB certainly did - they have gone on record saying that so many times that there's no point in protesting.

Re:Nonsense

[Carewolf]

Moreover, while TPB site itself contains the Torrent files, Google only has links to such files.

No you got it upside down. Torrent files _are_ links, so TPB only contains links to files, while Google actively caches popular content, and thus contains not only links but the actual copyrighted material.

Re:Nonsense

[lacoronus]

That's a completely different court case.

Just because a different sequence of events can lead to the same the end result doesn't mean that all sequences are of equal legal status.

If what you describe is possible and found legal as far as Google's involvement is concerned, then that doesn't make TPB innocent, since they did host torrent files and did run a tracker.

Re:Nonsense

[lacoronus]

In the language of the court, the torrent file is an accessory to the crime of copyright infringement.

That is, when a person decides to commit copyright infringement, they create a torrent file and upload it as part of the act of infringing the copyright.

That is why TPB storing the torrent files is such a big deal.

Google is a completely different case, since they comply with the paragraphs that absolves them of liability - despite hosting infringing material. TPB didn't.

Re:Nonsense

[gilgongo]

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.

Moreover, while TPB site itself contains the Torrent files, Google only has links to such files.

The nature of the torrent files is surely academic. Torrent files essentially point people to the content to be downloaded. The difference you cite is like the difference between me saying you have a DVD in your hand ready to give to me so I can put it into my DVD player, and you having the telephone number of a guy who will give it to me. It's irrelevant. Either way I get the content. Either way you're facilitating me getting that content, and either way you have the intent to do so.

Re:Nonsense

[Gunstick]

TPB runs 3 services

www.thepiratebay.org is the searchengine (just pointers)
torrents.thepiratebay.org contains the torrent files (just building instructions)
tracker.thepiratebay.org is the tracker (the building engine)

Without the tracker I think they would not be guilty. So DHT torrents would be absolutely fine.

Re:Nonsense

[bug1]

So if TPB didnt store the torrent file locally, if they just facilitated the storage and retrieval of the torrent file from a 3rd party site, then they might be a common carrier ?

Re:Nonsense

[MoonlightSeraphim]

yes ...

Re:Nonsense

[hkmwbz]

Moreover, while TPB site itself contains the Torrent files, Google only has links to such files.

On the other hand, Google links DIRECTLY to copyright-protected content like images, text, audio, etc.

TPB site itself was not the issue in the trial, it was that the guys conspired to help people commit copyright infringement.

As does Google in that case.

Re:Nonsense

[hkmwbz]

Also, even though the torrent files are illegal, TPB could have avoided liability by removing them on request.

They would have. On request from Swedish courts. DMCA does not apply in Sweden.

They could also have avoided liability by not admitting to piracy being their business idea.

They admitted to no such thing.

Re:Nonsense

[bug1]

Ahhh, my libertarian nutbag comment for the day!

How ironic that that you posted anonymously.

Formatting

[howman]

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...

Re:Formatting

[nine-times]

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.

Wait, so you're saying that the difference between Google and TPB is that TPB is better? So the only thing keeping Google from being guilty is relative incompetence at providing results? What if their searches improve to provide better results and information about those results?

Like what if they allowed you to sort results on torrents by how many seeders there were? That would be a legitimate search option for legitimate torrent use. Would that make Google guilty of the same things as TPB?

The Difference is

[That_Dan_Guy]

Google can afford billion dollar lawyers.

Re:The Difference is

[TheGratefulNet]

the fight with 'mighty google' and the justice dept is one I'd PAY to get at ticket to.

wait - what am I saying - I'll just wait for the replay on the torrents.

but I do want to see the 2 behemoths battle it out. anything that takes google down a notch (in humility) would actually be a good thing. I worry a lot about GOOG being the new evil empire (seriously).

Re:The Difference is

[crispytwo]

Or Google and the rest of the search engines can close their doors and say FU too! i.e. "It's too risky to provide information about information."

I think this sets a terrible and slippery precedent...

This is pure bullhickey

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is pure bullhickey

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're the bullhicker. TPB says 80% of their torrents link to material that does not infringe copyright. But it's not a game of he said she said anyways. A torrent is simply a link and this ridiculous verdict will be overturned by more competent jurists.

Re:This is pure bullhickey

[iksbob]

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.

The thought of subscription-based streaming service does not impress me. Such a service seems like it would combine the worst of several existing solutions - the mobile connectivity issues (and associated fees) of internet radio, playlist formation from a large music collection, and the subscription fees of satellite radio.

I think you pointed out the real issue: Content owners are trying to regain control. Control over a market means the ability to exploit it - something corporations will do at the drop of a hat. Any [individual/consumer/non-corporate entity] who recognizes these links would try to resist assertion of such control (that is, unless they want to be exploited). That diametric opposition of interests leads to the big business vs. the public situation seen today.

Re:This is pure bullhickey

[rts008]

This means streaming services. pay a monthly fee and gain unlimited access to all the music you want.

Already been tried, and failed completely.
Have you already forgotten the whole "Plays For Sure" debacle?
People do not want locked into a 'rent your music' plan.
They want the freedom to do what they want with it once they get it, and the media cartels want to kill that freedom, and keep control of the media exclusively and forever.

Re:This is pure bullhickey

[zen-theorist]

Except that people always like free stuff.

Here's what Google should do

[bogaboga]

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.

Re:Here's what Google should do

[spikenerd]

Good idea! Let's give the media industry authority to have anything stricken from search engines with a mere accusation. They'll never abuse that power. The whole burden of proof thing is overrated anyway. (NOT!)

Re:Here's what Google should do

[nurb432]

Eventually they will have no choice but to be a digital version of swiss cheese.

It wont be a matter of 'being responsible' it will be a matter of staying out of court.

Re:Here's what Google should do

[Draek]

I believe that was exactly his point. Show me a Turing machine, and I'll show you how it can be used for copyright infringement. Show me a link between two Turing machines, and I'll show you how to transmit copyrighted material over it. Show me any technology meant to make Turing machines more usable, and I'll show you how it helps people infringe on others' copyrights. Take down anything that could be used for copyright infringement out of Google, and you're left with absolutely nothing.

The beauty of computers is that so little is needed to do so much, and the wonderful oportunities it gives to the creative mind. The problem of computers is that many people who don't understand such facts fear them so much, and end up making court rulings like this one that leave us, the technologically and mathematically adept, completely flabbergasted.

Re:Here's what Google should do

[rts008]

You can't be serious.
That would be like asking Google to bail out the sinking Titanic with an eyedropper.

Why don't we have NASA pull Mars in closer so it will be easier to go with the Mars Mission.

Now I remember why I marked you 'foe'. Too stupid for words.

I know how to satisfy the RIAA

[kurt555gs]

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.

Google is untouchable...

[drfool]

Google has way too much invested in the internet to seriously be the target of any similar such lawsuit.

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:

• The RIAA backs off.
• Record Companies stop giving the RIAA money.

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.

It means nothing to google.

[d-r0ck]

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.

Re:losing battle

[mpeskett]

Why should the name make any difference? If providing the exact same service under a different name would be legal, then TPB should be just as legal.

Hell, what if TPB changed name to "The Not-Pirates-At-All Bay"? I know TNPAAB doesn't quite roll off the tongue so well, but if it would make them legally acceptable then why not?

Two key differences

[Shimmer]

1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.

2. TPB hosts the BitTorrent tracker files. Google does not.

Re:Two key differences

[Shimmer]

Sorry, I think I should've said "tracker servers" rather than "tracker files". I'm not very familiar with the BT protocol.

Re:Two key differences

[richie2000]

3. Google caches and hosts lots of copyrighted content. TPB does not.

Re:Two key differences

[buchner.johannes]

Thank you, exactly.
You can find .torrent files through google and it seems people think that is all you need.
A .torrent file is worthless without one or more well-visited trackers.

Google does not provide well-seeded .torrent files. TPB does/did.

Secondary, Google itself does not prefilter on that kind of content, thus remaining neutral. And they react on take-down notices for links, so nothing will happen to them.

Re:Two key differences

[lacoronus]

4. Google complies with legal takedown notices. TPB does not.

Re:Two key differences

[tg123]

1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.

2. TPB hosts the BitTorrent tracker files. Google does not.

so the real difference is in the technology that the pirate bay uses ?

if you were to say google hosts mp3 files in its caches...

Re:Two key differences

[oneirophrenos]

1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.

That you think TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation is your interpretation of what TPB exists for. If TPB facilitates copyright violation, it is due to the actions of its users, just as Google's data caching is due to the actions of its search routines.

Alright, so Google has a lot less links to controversial content than TPB. Let me then ask you, would TPB be exonerated if they started linking to non-copyrighted content, and if so, how many such links would it need to have in order to attain the status of a "common carrier" such as Google? Surely you must agree that if we draw a line here it is going to be a very arbitrary one.

2. TPB hosts the BitTorrent tracker files. Google does not.

Trackers and .torrent files indeed do facilitate file sharing, illegal or otherwise, but do not in themselves contain copyrighted material. Trackers provide the means for sharing of material, but so does Google's filetype:torrent search. Google, on the other hand, contains loads of copyrighted material in the form of cached content, yet few have a problem with this.

To some this might seem like nitpicking, but the distinction really isn't clear-cut here. We can't say that TPB is illegal and Google is not, and just use a plea to so-called common sense. Easy arguments such as "but TPB link to more illegal files" or "they have a Pirate in their name for chrissakes" just don't cut it here.

Re:Two key differences

[tg123]

4. Google complies with legal takedown notices. TPB does not.

So pirate bay guys goes to jail for being juvenile little so and so's ?

surely there is another way ?

Re:Two key differences

[Computershack]

That you think TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation is your interpretation of what TPB exists for.

Wrong. The fact that 99.999% of its results are for copyrighted material, the fact they refused to remove the links when told about them and the judgment handed out in a Swedish court on Friday proves that's what it exists for.

Re:Two key differences

[lacoronus]

So pirate bay guys goes to jail for being juvenile little so and so's ?

Yeah, pretty much.

A bunch of kids who fooled themselves into thinking that the counter-intuitive conclusion they drew from their reading of the law was correct. Much like US tax protesters.

Re:Two key differences

[TheGratefulNet]

1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.

baby and bathwater. nuff said (?)

...cherry-picking is fun(damental)

Re:Two key differences

[TheGratefulNet]

hosting torrents is not the issue and you know it. regular home servers could host the .torrent files and the mafiaas would still complain about something, probably the 'search' function.

its legal whack-a-mole with the mafiaas doing anything they can to stay in the 'content ownership' business.

game's not over, folks. we all know that.

creating martyrs will backfire on the so-called entertainment industry, you watch (no pun intended)

Re:Two key differences

[stewbacca]

Look at the front page of both sites . One offers direct downloading of copyrighted material, the other offers a blank search box. I could have prosecuted this case with those two sentences.

Re:Two key differences

[stewbacca]

Well one role of law is to "teach them a lesson". Why would being a juvenile so-and-so absolve anyone from abiding by the law? You know, even the name of the site is inviting litigation against them. They could have always played along and they wouldn't be going to jail.

Re:Two key differences

[lacoronus]

1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.

That you think TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation is your interpretation of what TPB exists for.

No, the guys behind TPB were on record saying that. Really. It's in the court documents.

Re:Two key differences

[CopaceticOpus]

1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.

TPB links to any content it knows about in torrent format, without regard to its copyright status. Google links to any content it knows about in all sorts of formats.

Suppose that 80% of TPB's links point to copyrighted materials, but only 10% of Google's links do this. Still, it would not be fair to only prosecute one of them.

2. TPB hosts the BitTorrent tracker files. Google does not.

What doea a tracker do? It simply points to internet locations where data may be found. It's just another type of search engine! The tracker hosts no copyrighted material.

Re:Two key differences

[chammy]

With DHT you don't need a tracker...

Re:Two key differences

[0111 1110]

and the judgment handed out in a Swedish court on Friday proves that's what it exists for.

All that proves is that you can get pretty much anyone in the world to do pretty much anything you want if you pay them enough money. Linking to copyrighted material was legal in Sweden. This verdict may change that, but all it shows is that Swedish judges are as human as anyone else. First the former prosecutor of the case and now a judge. Is the former prosecutor still working for the entertainment industry? Peter Sunde and the rest are heroes and maybe some will be martyrs. In a contest between a few lowly torrent tracker administrators and some of the largest, richest, most powerful corporations on the planet should anyone really be surprised by the verdict? It has nothing to do with justice.

Re:Two key differences

[gilgongo]

1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.

2. TPB hosts the BitTorrent tracker files. Google does not.

Point 1 is very relevant. However, please explain what point 2 has got to do with anything at all here.

Re:Two key differences

[gilgongo]

Google does not provide well-seeded .torrent files. TPB does/did.

Depends what you mean by "not providing" though, doesn't it?

And BTW of the time of writing TPB is most definitely to be referred to in the present tense.

Re:Two key differences

[shutdown -p now]

That you think TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation is your interpretation of what TPB exists for. r. If TPB facilitates copyright violation, it is due to the actions of its users

The easiest way to judge on the purpose of a particular service is to observe how said service is mostly used in practice, especially when such use is widespread knowledge, of which the service provider is obviously available.

Re:Two key differences

[Gunstick]

not really.

The tracker's purpose is to federate the downloading process. If there is no DHT, it's the tracker which tells who else is connected to the torrent so you can effectively get your parts. The tracker is a functional part in the downloading process.

If TBP get judged, it should not be because of the search engine, but because of the tracker.

Re:Two key differences

[CopaceticOpus]

it's the tracker which tells who else is connected to the torrent so you can effectively get your parts.

This is what I'm saying. Google points out web servers which are hosting content over http. The tracker points out computers which are hosting torrent content. These are just different ways of telling your computer where to find data. Either way might or might not point to data which is under copyright.

Re:Two key differences

[A Life in Hell]

Trackers and .torrent files indeed do facilitate file sharing, illegal or otherwise, but do not in themselves contain copyrighted material. Trackers provide the means for sharing of material, but so does Google's filetype:torrent search. Google, on the other hand, contains loads of copyrighted material in the form of cached content, yet few have a problem with this.

To some this might seem like nitpicking, but the distinction really isn't clear-cut here. We can't say that TPB is illegal and Google is not, and just use a plea to so-called common sense. Easy arguments such as "but TPB link to more illegal files" or "they have a Pirate in their name for chrissakes" just don't cut it here.

You are suffering the standard slashdot disease of "the law is a like computer and i can interpret it as computer code" syndrome. In reality, the law cares very deeply about intent - as you would expect for a system designed to deal with humans, and not code, and hence far cares less about technicality than would be nessesary for your argument to hold water.

This is why there are the crimes murder1, murder2, murder3, manslaughter, and negligent homicide, as well as the non-crime of self defence. They are all the same activity (killing a human), but the intent and motivations are what matters

Google shows a very clear intent, to indiscriminately index the web. They have been completely consistent in this regard. The pirate bay crew, on the other hand, have repeatedly said _publically_ that they exist to facilitate piracy, as a form of civil disobedience. As maddox says, civil disobedience is still disobedience, and the law treats it as such.

I do believe the law should be changed. But to say that the TPB crew did not break it as currently written is folly at best. And, to be honest, I think they knew that - it wouldn't be civil disobedience if they did not.

Re:Two key differences

[91degrees]

That you think TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation is your interpretation of what TPB exists for.

I'm not sure I understand this argument. I guess part of my misunderstanding is whether you actually believe that or whether the legal system should simply accept this.

I find it hard to believe that TPB is intended for any purpose other than copyright infringement. I consider a frying pan to exist for frying food, and a paper clip to be designed for clipping pieces of paper together.

Would you make the argument that legislation intended for sports equipment safety and electricians tools be applied respectively to these items on account of the fact that they can be used for these purposes?

Sure

[Vexorian]

In a world in which a misinterpreted US law applies on Sweden, of course google can be a target as well.

Re:Sure

[lacoronus]

Get real. TPB was found guilty according to Swedish law and Swedish law only.

The fact that some things that are illegal in the US are also illegal in Sweden does not mean it's the big bad imperial USA stomping all over the independence of another country.

incorrect article, incorrect title

[poetmatt]

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.

Re:incorrect article, incorrect title

[poetmatt]

No.

Literally no matter who was guilty/not would simply mean who shells out for the appeal (appeals are not free when convicted of cash amounts in the states, not sure if it's the same in sweden). Appeals are what set things in stone. Ex: the bilski case with the "business stuff can't be patented" that raised the bar on patents: it was not the case that was the issue, but the Appeal. There are lots of reasons judgments might be disagreed with between judges or errors or just infactual things, etc.

The thing is, this is not the highest court. This type of issue needs to go to the highest court. It is also the biggest mistake to take these people to court if the article about PirateParty being the 3rd biggest political bloc in sweden is accurate.

However, there is an entirely separate issue: if the appeals court has 0 understanding of technology, then they will probably make a horrible ruling thinking that this is just "the same as stuff from 100 years ago". Judges don't really like to set new precedents, and appeals tend to force that. On the flip side, the previous judge may have made this easier to appeal by nature of how he chose to give out the charges and for what. "assisting in copyright infringement" is quite different than saying that piratebay infringed directly, and makes a difference on the appeal.

No.

[denzacar]

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.

Re:No.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

There's a delicate art to creating analogies. Identifying situations with similarities is the easy part. The real trick is identifying two situations without differences relevant to the situation. It's those differences that sink analogies.

For example, there is a difference between The Pirate Bay and Google, namely intent (as the OP and others have correctly identified). Intent makes all the difference when it comes to courts, and people in general. That means that analogies between TPB and Google will be rendered essentially meaningless.

Re:No.

[TheoMurpse]

You can't prove intent

Keep telling yourself that; it will remain a false statement. Your realize that intent is a required factors to demonstrate in 99% of all of criminal cases in the US, right? It's called mens rea.

Re:losing battle

[denzacar]

Well hey guys, you could have gotten away with it if your fucking name wasn't The PIRATE Bay..

And that would have made everything OK? Getting away with it?
Isn't that exactly what RIAA's and their lobbyists are doing? Getting away with it.

To quote another slashdotter, quoting Martin Luther King:

From Letters from a Birmingham Jail, by Martin Luther King, Jr:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

" One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

Stay strong, guys.

What about Slashdot?

[xirusmom]

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...

Re:What about Slashdot?

[Ant P.]

/. has been attacked by litigious scumbags before, and came out on top. The RIAA is nothing special.

Re:"Safe Harbour"

[damona]

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...

Liability

[portnux]

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?

Re:Liability

[xirusmom]

I guess the parallel could be better made for the guns. Pirate bay provided the tool for the "crime"... So, in this case, guns DO kill people?

Re:Liability

[portnux]

I don't see it. The tool would be the internet, the computer, the torrent client. I would think a better comparison to Pirate Bay and piracy would be the phone book and serial killers. Both are nothing but lists of possible victims with their addresses.

This is totally inaccurate

[Brendan DeBeasi]

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

Re:This is totally inaccurate

[julian67]

100% agree.

Why is almost everyone saying that Google and PirateBay are doing the same thing? Is this some kind of mass delusion? Self deception? Or have we all learned disingenuous lawyers' tactics from crappy TV dramas? It was always a lame justification, a poor diversionary defensive posture, and never had any chance of being taken seriously outside of the lowest common denominator world of duh intarweb.

Here's the big news:

PirateBay ***runs a torrent tracker!!!*** Google doesn't!!!! OMG!!! OMFG!!!

Please somebody show me the Google torrent tracker. I use PirateBay's tracker daily, but if Google is running a tracker I want to use it. As every dedicated leecher knows More+Bigger = Better+Faster. Where is it?

TPB is nothing like Google

[BestNicksRTaken]

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?

It's because...

[robbrit]

Google is "too big" to fail.

Why would google fight a court case?

[Yacoby]

Surely Google wouldn't bother with fighting a court case, if it was a smallish country like Sweden, they would just buy the country...

WORLD OF DIFFERENCE.

[Computershack]

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.

3 basics remedies

[mauriceh]

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!
 

Re:3 basics remedies

[ScentCone]

When an unfair judgement happens in a court of law

That's very interesting. But how does it apply in this case? An organization that proudly named itself after and continually celebrated it role in ripping off artists and businesses was found to be actively supporting exactly that activity. Unless by "unfair" you mean "not harsh enough," but you don't seem to mean that.

If a large number of websites post just one "infringing" link on their pages, then the law becomes moot

Interesting! And if a large number of people held musicians chained up in their basements and forced them to provide free entertainment for them, would that also make kidnapping laws moot? If everyone steals cable service, does that make any law against it moot?

What's it like to have such an acute case of moral relativism? Does it hurt?

Re:3 basics remedies

[mauriceh]

It has already been quite clearly demonstrated that the artists are rarely the recipients of the revenue.
Face it, the traditional music and media distribution industries are obsolete, and are rather like the old steam railroads, unable to adapt, and thrashing around trying to stay alive with an outdated model.
If you feel so strongly about this, show your support and buy some shares of Blockbuster.

Re:3 basics remedies

[ScentCone]

It has already been quite clearly demonstrated that the artists are rarely the recipients of the revenue.

Nonsense. The artist is the recipient of whatever the artist agrees to when they form and sign a contract. Some artists start their own record labels to have more control over the process, and some artists want absolutely NOTHING to do with marketing, liability insurance, copyright arguments, distribution, etc., and they'd rather have someone who specialzes in such things do all of that work. You know, a publisher. Some people are professional violin players and some people are professional publishers. Whatever deal those two people strike between them is up to them. Your laughably sophomoric notion that it's appropriate to rip off the artist's work because the artist has chosen to let someone else handle their business affairs while they focus on making music (or other creative works) is really you saying, "This artist is so dumb that she's chosen a record label to do business with, and I hate that, so I'm going to steal her stuff to teach her a lesson." Now, why you'd want to consume the creative works of someone you hate is a second, and mysterious issue.

Face it, the traditional music and media distribution industries are obsolete

So why do you care about an artist that has made the choice to work through a publishing company? If you consider someone to be obsolete in their thinking, and just thrashing around in their attempts to shape a career and make a living, why don't you just ignore them? There are plenty of artists willing to use your shiny new "give everything away for free" business model, and I'm sure they'll all be thrilled with the proceeds that they'll get from project a that it took them years to create, and won't mind having to litter their web site with simpering "please donate" links to PayPal. If you think an artist is wrong headed or obsolete or evil for using a publishing company, why do you find it so hard to just ignore them? Or do you still want what they create, and just don't want to pay what they're asking? Do you have any intellectual integrity?

If you feel so strongly about this, show your support and buy some shares of Blockbuster.

How about I just meet the artists I respect and do business with them in the manner they have chosen? If I don't want their works enough to agree to the terms they have chosen when offering their work for sale, then I must not want it enough to acquire it. The difference between us is that you're willing to use the lame "I'm teaching them a lesson by stealing from them" excuse as a way to justify ripping off entertainment for free. Pretty embarassing for you, I guess, but then you clearly have only a spoiled child's view and sense of entitlement on the issue.

Yes. Well beyond reproach...

[TwoScoopsOfPig]

...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.

Re:Yes. Well beyond reproach...

[TwoScoopsOfPig]

Stop drinking the koolaid. AIG got a bailout because of their donations to key members of the government:

It was the set up for an analogy, jackass.

Besides, with AIG removed from the picture, the various contrived securities at the core of this would have even less basis for existence, all the companies tied up in this would be forced to pay out on their debts and financial institutions worldwide would be fucked royally, whether they bought these securities or not.

Yes AIG was a central player in fucking this up, but the method they used tied the whole fucking world to their sinking ship.

This is a global fucking market. You and the rest of your idiot isolationist brethren have yet to figure out that we Americans are no longer on an island with administrative duties for the world (and never should have been) - we have consequences that follow our actions.

So. While AIG does not deserve this for any reason, they still have a shitstorm to clean up. People say not to give the clean up responsibilities to the people who fucked it up. I say we treat them like the overgrown children they are and make them clean up their own mess - if we don't, the next companies to do this shit will feel completely invincible.

AIG's donations have zero to do with this. Why would we pay them back for screwing up? The total they donated ($330446) is a mere 0.000003888% of the $85 billion they received from the Fed. There is no way the donations were the root impetus for the rescue.

I know I want to give someone just over 257228 times the amount of money they give me, especially when they fuck up.<sarcasm />

I dont think

[nurb432]

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".

It means absolutly nothing...

[neural.disruption]

I like to be brief so I am going to put it in simple terms:

• Google is a Partner with some anti-piracy orgs;
• Google removes copyright content when asked to (remember youtube, Google Books, etc, etc, etc);
• Pretend you have made a map of your neighbourhood:
  1. If someone sells drugs in some part of it you are not liable in a case against the selling of the said drugs;
  2. You didn't check the place for illegal activities, and are not required to unless you're an officer of the law investigating the place;
     (this would be a metaphor for indexing in case you haven't notice);
• As much as I like some of the attitudes of TPB they have sometimes behaved almost like children when asked to remove .torrent files of Cped material, so that only proves that they are unwilling to help anti-piracy orgs;
• Torrents are useless without a tracker, TPB is a also a tracker so that makes them an active entity in the violation of copyright, Google does not actively engages in copyright violation(it once did in google books but they do not anymore);
  1. This works much like drug trafficking, just because you are just driving a truck full of drugs without caring about your cargo it does not make unliable before the law, only if you were totally unable to check the cargo(TBP can check the torrent to which they serve as a tracker);

What if they did?

[Reziac]

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?

Re:What if they did?

[julian67]

What if the moon really was made of cheese?

Re:What if they did?

[Reziac]

An AC replies,
=======
Is their torrent tracker used for copyrighted content, or are they just serving things like Linux distros, public domain works or their own materials which they have a right to distribute?

          Let's imagine Google finds that in your Gmail box you're keeping a lot of pirated warez.

          What's going to happen?
=======

Let's imagine Google doesn't look. See no evil and all that. Now what?

Google is not TPB

[stewbacca]

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.

crap article

[burris]

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.

The tool is different than the intent

[mcrbids]

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!

Re:The tool is different than the intent

[iamnothere900]

Intent matters. It's not the tool, it's the act!

We gun owners say the same thing. Many people don't care or understand the difference.

Re:The tool is different than the intent

[ozbird]

The difference is a gun is, and always is, a weapon; a crowbar is not.

Re:The tool is different than the intent

[mcrbids]

Guns are tools too!

A nice, full-choke shotgun loaded with bird shot is a wonderful way to get mistletoe out of trees, for example. They're also a nice way to impress that chick wearing leather boots and a cowboy hat at the kind of bars I personally steer well clear of.

Re:The tool is different than the intent

[andersa]

I have made it a habbit of carrying a crowbar whenever I go outside, in case a resonance cascade happens nearby.

Re:The tool is different than the intent

[Haeleth]

Tell that to the headcrabs. :P

Seriously, though, while guns are inherently weapons in the technical sense, they aren't inherently aggressive; they have plenty of valid sporting uses, many of which don't even involve killing things. Contrast with something like an RPG (in the weapon sense), for which I'm struggling to think of a non-violent use. Apart from as an ornament, if you're into mujahideen chic.

Re:Google are not stupid

[tebee]

Yes, but if you follow the link to copy of the takedown notice, it conveniently has a list of links where you can find the offending content!

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.

And yet another site will take it's place

[Krakadoom]

So will it be Goobay .. Piroogle perhaps?

The bigger problem is lawsuit trolls

[Trerro]

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.

Re:The bigger problem is lawsuit trolls

[Creepy Crawler]

Then your answer should be rather clear. That is, to purchase a CoLo server in another country with no easy links back to you.

Something of the sort would start with a purchase of a anonymous Visa card from a place like Wal-Mart, load it with funds, purchase DNS/CoLo from another country, and set up shop via local free wifi points or use TOR to upload the required starting material.

Re:help

[rts008]

While that would be cool, Google would be foolish to get into this without being dragged into it. The big difference is Google being based in the USA would be staring down the barrel of US Media Cartel's BFG 9000 and their bought Gov't.
TPB being in Sweden has a little more wiggle room against US copyright, until WTO and ACTA kill the sovereignty of USA's trade partners and make us all one big happy global consumer under the Corporate America Umbrella.

Hah! Think the world is in turmoil now with nationalistic conflicts?
Wait about 20-30 years the way things seem to be heading and see the mess the Corporate Wars cause. The world is slowly turning into one big Cyberpunk game, with no way to pick up your dice and go home.

Sorry for the rant-still getting my coffee down! :-)

What does it mean for Google?

[Real1tyCzech]

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.

Re:What does it mean for Google?

[Gunstick]

hmm, cool, so just adding the complete web index into piratebay's search engine will make it legal?

Will a search page frontend to google which adds filetype:torrent to the search be illegal?

Re:What does it mean for Google?

[Real1tyCzech]

No, genius.

Miss the 80/20 bit? They can be purely a tracker *and* be legal...

All they need to do is stop hosting torrents to copyrighted content.

Why do you people have to try so hard to make something simple so complicated?

Safe Harbour sounds really murky

[tg123]

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

Just shutdown internet

[gmuslera]

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.

Another stupid Slashdot article

[bonch]

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.

Time for the next step: P2P search engine

[Dutchie]

Let's roll.

No such thing as untouchable

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.

Could apply to many search engines

[wshwe]

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.

Re:Could apply to many search engines

[Dan541]

So we just have to email illegal content to the MPAA.

Re:Google are not stupid

[collinstocks]

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.

TPB is a torrent search engine, and so is Google

[RPoet]

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.

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.

Re:TPB is a torrent search engine, and so is Googl

[stewbacca]

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.

Not only was it not Swedish ...

[Mateo_LeFou]

.. 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=

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No major effect on Google unless...

[jwkckid1]

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

I'm sorry but

[thewils]

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.

Oh, for god's sake

[91degrees]

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.

Re:losing battle

[Dan541]

Why should the name make any difference?

The name is important because idiots highlight themselves by believing, "if it's in the name it must be true."

Idiots need to be more identifiable so having a weak argument available to them such as "Why would you compare yourself to Google when the name of your site is The PIRATE Bay?" helps.

Re:Sweden!=US; DMCA protects Google in US

[lpq]

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.

Undoing mismoderation

[Petrushka]

n/t

so where is tracker.google.com?

[Eunuchswear]

Or maybe google doesn't provide the same services as TPB?

Sweden may disapear from the web

[dyshexic]

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

Re:losing battle

[denzacar]

And people who can't grasp the possibility to use a quote describing one situation to describe another situation that is not necessarily 100% equal to the first and perhaps give certain inspiration and insight into the resolution of the problem being faced - should not get their panties in a bunch over quoting on slashdot.

Or maybe they should. Stress IS bad for one's health.
As the matter of fact it reminds me of something that came to me during a nap.

 
And I had a dream that one day this world will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do."

I had a dream that all such people would die from high blood pressure, aneurysms or just plain shoot themselves.

I had a dream that they will leave no offspring behind, thus removing their genes from the gene pool and thus improve the human race.

I had a dream today.

Re:Google are not stupid

[collinstocks]

Ah, yes. But that was more than just a search function.

Re:"Safe Harbour"

[Prune]

Fuck you rotten twat