Slashdot Mirror
What the Pirate Bay Verdict Could Mean For Google
explosivejared writes "Forbes is running a story discussing the verdict in the Pirate Bay case and its implications on file sharing, specifically with regard to Google. The article points out what most people on Slashdot already realize: Google provides essentially the same service that the Pirate Bay does. The Pirate Bay case may be far from over, accounting for appeals, but the Pirate Bay's assumption of being unchallengeable was shattered. The article raises the question of whether or not Google is untouchable in the matter. The story is quick to point out how the situation resembles a futile game of cat-and-mouse, but given how the Pirate Bay's confidence was ultimately broken, is Google beyond reproach?"
Isn't the key difference between them simply, "intent"?
What does The Pirate Bay intend to do, versus Google's intent?
..both TPB and Google will eventually be able to rely on the same protection as ISPs. They are neutral carriers of information and therefore should, in law, be held harmless. The Pirate Bays difficulties are that publically they try to deliberately convey an air of behaving unlawfully and dangerously to attract attention. I think the Swedish court bit on this too much, rather than the actual evidence and law. From what I can tell, the legal abilities of the primary Swedish courts don't appear to be too good; previous judgements against Pirate Bay have routinely been overturned on appeal, and I suspect this one will be no different.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The verdict explicitly addresses this point and states that due to TPB running the tracker and thus being intimately involved in the sharing of copyrighted material any comparison with Google is false. They were not convicted because TPB is hosting a bunch of torrent files, they were convicted because they were running a tracker.
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.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Google can afford billion dollar lawyers.
Hello, my name is Inigo Monbooyah. You killed my attention span with all those questions. Prepare to die.
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.
Simply close the internet to all free content. What are we Commies?, why should anything be free?
The internet is here as a vehicle to provide paid content from the RIAA, MPAA BSA ans other for profit businesses.
Any other use, especially if it is involving providing information of any kind for free and not compensating the content owners needs to be stopped, and stopped now.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
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.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
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?
1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.
2. TPB hosts the BitTorrent tracker files. Google does not.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
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.
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.
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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
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.
Yes - try searching for x-men wolverine origins torrent.
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A crow bar is not illegal. I can buy one for as little as $5-$10. It's very useful in construction and demolitions.
But a crow bar can be a terribly violent weapon. Ever banged your shin with one? It would take just a good swing or two to commit murder.
In many jurisdictions, there are laws having to do with "brandishing a weapon", typically in a threatening manner. I can carry a crow bar all day long at a construction site, and nobody would care. If I carried the same crowbar into a fine restaurant, things would be markedly different. If I sold a crowbar to a kid who wanted to help his dad work on the garage, I'd be a nice guy. If I sold the same crowbar to a kid who wanted to off his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend, I could easily be an accessory to murder.
Intent matters. It's not the tool, it's the act!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I think if Google where to start removing links to copyrighted content other than as required by the law, it would very soon cease being the world favorite search engine.
Can you imagine the outcry on here and Geekdom in general if Google decided to censor results in this way? I'm pretty sure some other search engine would appear without these restrictions and quickly become all computer geeks new baby. I'm also sure the Google is shewed enough to realize this.
N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
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?!