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

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)

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: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

[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

[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: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.