Google Censors "Piracy Terms" From Instant Search

Chaonici writes "A few weeks ago, Google promised that, on behalf of the entertainment industries, they would begin filtering 'piracy related' terms from their search system. Now, TorrentFreak reports that Google has lived up to their promise, and certain keywords (such as 'bittorrent' and 'rapidshare') will no longer produce results with the Autocomplete or Instant Search features. The standard search feature, however, continues to display results as normal. Simon Morris of BitTorrent Inc., RapidShare, and Jamie King (the founder of Vodo) are critical of the change, pointing out the many legitimate uses of popular file-sharing technology."

Comments

Bloody Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now I need to find a new search engine... I thought Google was anti censor... and had a don't be evil policy...

Re:Bloody Hell

[RobbieThe1st]

Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete. Big deal. There's plenty of other words in that "censored" list. Now, they can claim to be "helping prevent piracy" or whatever without actually doing anything. I see it as a win-win situation.

Re:Bloody Hell

[dkleinsc]

Yeah, my searches on "nine-pounder", "pieces of eight", "scurvy dogs", and "Arrrrrrr" all totally failed.

Re:Bloody Hell

[DAldredge]

Some might say that downloading a torrent instead of buying the product in question is evil.

Re:Bloody Hell

[mvar]

Yes, as long as this makes the entertainment industry whine a little less, its good. Although no one can say for sure that this restriction won't "jump" into the full search engine sometime in the future

Re:Bloody Hell

[mwvdlee]

Oddly enough, other piracy related search terms like "pegleg", "eyepatch" and "jolly roger" are still auto-completed.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Tim C]

Others might say that doing this opens the door to doing more in the future. So it's auto-completing of "piracy-related" search terms today; perhaps next year it'll be removing search results for wikileaks-style information.

(Yeah, I know, slippery-slope fallacy, etc)

Just because the thing being searched for is arguably wrong, doesn't mean that this isn't also a worrying development.

Re:Bloody Hell

[TheoGB]

Somehow I doubt any search on 'nine-pounder' would fail to bring up something...

Re:Bloody Hell

[nanospook]

So I have a 75% hearing loss. I go to the movies anyways and enjoy the show but can't understand most of the script. So now if I want to do so I should go buy the movie or pay more to rent it? Noooo.. I download it and get the subtitles. I already paid for it. Does this make me evil?

Re:Bloody Hell

[Servaas]

Win-win would be "hey copyright cartels, not only is this infeasible, this isn't even our problem." By taking a stance of "helping prevent piracy" at all they merely legitimize the idea that the current system is working and that search engine companies should act as enforcement agents.

Let's hope that its a too way street then, so now Google is sue able by the media companies? They admitted they can filter the bad stuff right? So any bad stuff that turns up is now Google content and they should be held responsible! Tear it down, tear it down! It be wicked that a large company goes belly up for being a Sony & co lapdog.

Re:Bloody Hell

[cpu6502]

>>>Some might say that downloading a torrent instead of buying the product in question is evil. Some might also say that Refusal to Allow Returns is also evil. Hell even candybar makers have a "satisfacttion guaranteed, or return the product for a full refund" policy. If I buy a movie like Transformers 2, and it's crap, then I should be able to return it. But since I can't, I downloaded it instead and saved myself the money and hassle. Just click "delete" and T-2 is gone forever.

Re:Bloody Hell

[cheekyjohnson]

And some might disagree with that notion. That said, bittorrent's only use isn't copyright infringement. It can be used legitimately as well, and in quite a few cases, it is.

Re:Bloody Hell

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, you robbed them of profit that they never even had, so yes. You are a very, very evil individual.

Re:Bloody Hell

[cpu6502]

FIXED:

>>>Some might say that downloading a torrent instead of buying the product in question is evil.

Some might say that Refusal to Allow Returns is also evil. Hell even candybar makers have a "satisfaction guaranteed, or return the product for a full refund" policy, so why can't movie companies? If I buy a movie like Transformers 2 on DVD, and it's crap, then I should be able to return it. Or at least get store credit.

But since I can't, I downloaded it instead and saved myself the money and hassle. Just click "delete" and T-2 is gone forever. I consider "try before you buy" I perfectly legitimate reason for using torrent.

Oh and before you comment about reviews: Most of them are bought-and-paid-for by the movie companies. You can't trust what you read from reviewers. They often recommend movies (like T-2) that are total pants, due to being employed or getting kick-backs from the RIAA/MPAA-affiliated companies.

Re:Bloody Hell

[HungryHobo]

"can i get pregnant from a dog" however is still autocompleted.
Seriously, I keep meaning to write some kind of program to itterate through all the possible autocomplete options to see all the wierd stuff which turns up.

there's already lots of things which aren't autocompleted.
it's no big deal.
as long as their search still works they can autocomplete what they like.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is evil?

http://www.kubuntu.org/getkubuntu/download

And this?

http://distribution.openoffice.org/p2p/

Re:Bloody Hell

[Requiem18th]

Some times the slippery slope argument is valid, this is one of those cases. The argument that users shouldn't be able to find bittorrent results "too easily" is actually weaker than the argument that users* just shouldn't be able to find bittorrent results so the jump seems imminent.

* Except law enforcement, politicians and members of the MAFIAA of course.

Re:Bloody Hell

[cpu6502]

>>>"nine-pounder", "pieces of eight", "scurvy dogs", and "Arrrrrrr"

Arrrrrr that lass was so curvy, she be carrying two nine-pounders in her chest! So I threw 'er four pieces-of-eight, and she slapped me! Thee scurvy wench.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Dreth]

Do you remember those days when Google didn't have the fancy-schmancy auto-complete or instant-search? I do, because I never used them, so this doesn't affect me in the slightest.

If you're gonna search for The Red Dragon torrent, you KNOW you're gonna have to type it out, instead of waiting for Google to finish the phrase for you. So basically you are whining that you're gonna have to type search inquiries, are we really this lazy?

Re:Bloody Hell

[LordLimecat]

Except that every story on google results censoring so far has been about auto-complete and instant serach only. Pressing search on google is not censored in any way I am aware of.

Re:Bloody Hell

[LordLimecat]

When you go to the movies, you have not paid for the privilege of owning the movie. You are paying for the big screen, the speakers, the chairs, and the building's rent. Just because you can justify it to yourself does not make it legally justified; whether or not you give a whit about what the law says is up to you.

Good try though.

Re:Bloody Hell

[sorak]

Some times the slippery slope argument is valid, this is one of those cases. The argument that users shouldn't be able to find bittorrent results "too easily" is actually weaker than the argument that users* just shouldn't be able to find bittorrent results so the jump seems imminent.

* Except law enforcement, politicians and members of the MAFIAA of course.

How about the argument that users should be able to search for what they want, but Google should have the right to not suggest certain controversial searches?

By your reasoning, here is an entire list of things that Google is going to start censoring from their search results, any minute now.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Yvanhoe]

And because of that policy, they got many trials in many countries because some silly judges consider that what the autocomplete algorithm spouts is what google thinks. As soon as they began to manually remove some terms, they opened the pandora box and became effectively responsible for what they left. Expect autocomplete to soon be very, very heavily censored.

Re:Bloody Hell

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete.

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

Re:Bloody Hell

[Prikolist]

You mean you weren't aware that they were extensively blocking instant search result since the launch? This list went up months ago http://www.2600.com/googleblacklist/

Re:Bloody Hell

[heathen_01]

Not legally justified/Illegal is not the same thing as evil. Upholding the law just because it is the law is dangerous and may cause you to become an agent of injustice. Copyright law (and its associated enforcment and punishment) has been abused far too much by certain organisations that it has lost all respect.

Re:Bloody Hell

[anyGould]

They are, but not in both cases.

Choosing not to auto-complete with "torrent" isn't censoring anything - rather, it's choosing not to encourage it (because people will see the suggestion of adding "torrent" to be support for piracy). A little out of sync with Google's usual MO, but whatever - if you want a torrent, you should know to ask for one.

Removing them from the instant search results is censoring - in my mind, it makes the "instant search" a different engine from the "press enter" search. Of course, it's still Google's choice, but I'll likely turn the instant search off now, since it's clear that you don't get the most honest results that way.

Re:Bloody Hell

[rickb928]

They are legitimizig the media industries' attempt to suppress a protocol's use by marginalizing it. In a small way first, but the camel's nose in under the tent flap.

Bittorrent is entirely useful for downloading ISOs of Linux distributions, encrypted data shared lawfully betweeen any number of parties, and other uses.

If this reasoning were expanded to a simple, logical conclusion, encryption would be illegal for regular people like me to use - since criminals use it to disguise their activities, it can't be permitted for use by anyone except those who can demonstrate a genuine need, and are above reproach. Not a lot of complaints from the media conglomerates about Akamai, for instance.

First they came for Napster,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't using it.

Then they came for LimeWire,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't usign that either.

Then they came for Pirate Bay,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pirater.

Then they came for Spotify,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in Europe.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:Bloody Hell

[LifesABeach]

I think a good "Summer of Code" task would be to put RIAA on the "Censor List", and do it in such a way that Google can't verify its existence. arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Re:Bloody Hell

[jshackney]

The difference is you watch a truckload of commercials in the hopes that maybe, just maybe you will buy Pirelli tires, Gerber baby food, a few cases of Bud, some Pepsi, Doritos, throw some Orville Redenbacher in the microwave, vote for LOCAL_POLITICIAN, replace the windows in your house, drink Florida orange juice, pick up the phone and call Binder & Binder, enroll in classes at Phoenix, get a couple Sham Wows for your friends, tune in for the BIG_STORY at 6 o'clock, stay at the HI Express tonight, ... well, you probably get the idea by now.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

What's wrong with giving back to the public domain from which you borrow from our shared culture to create the media. I will stop downloading the day the media conglomerates start giving back. Copyright is a contract between content creators and society. They haven't lived up to their end by enriching our culture, so why should I live up to my end and honor their state-sponsored monopoly?

Re:Bloody Hell

[Idbar]

Great! Now I have to actually type the full word and hit enter or even worse, click on the freaking search button! Just they way I used to do before I had this annoying instant search. /s

Re:Bloody Hell

[Idbar]

Just try to add some "sleep" to your iterations. Last time I tried a script to gather information from Google, I was banned from searching for a couple of hours.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Travelsonic]

Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete

Wouldn't that be /partial/ censoring?

Re:Bloody Hell

[tepples]

Copyright law (and its associated enforcment and punishment) has been abused far too much by certain organisations that it has lost all respect.

Voters don't appear to think that way, or they'd have signed petitions for Pirate Party legislators' ballot access. But then the MPAA-controlled news media have been doing a good job of hiding the Pirate Party's existence from voters.

Re:Bloody Hell

[bonch]

Wow, Google fanboys will defend anything. A "win-win situation?" This is just the first step in their appeasement of content providers, who they need for devices like Google TV to survive.

Re:Bloody Hell

[bonch]

I think the oxygen level is getting low in your basement.

Re:Bloody Hell

[clydemaxwell]

they didn't censor anything! they just hid certain words they didn't like

Re:Bloody Hell

[clydemaxwell]

1) we're against the principle that google can censor, even in only a subset of their searches
2) i never used it either. but i'm complaining now, rather than when it comes to the full search engine, because people will say 'its been like this in google instant forever'

Re:Bloody Hell

[SanityInAnarchy]

Interestingly, when I type exactly those keywords, the very first hit is on kickasstorrents.com, and it even helpfully suggests "download" as a term. I have noticed certain sites end up at different places before and after I hit enter...

It looks as though the only thing they've done is remove it from possible autocompletions.

Re:Bloody Hell

[SanityInAnarchy]

The results with instant search are different, but I still get tons of torrent results near the top, and Google even helpfully suggests 'download' after I type a movie title and 'torrent'.

So, it's not really clear what or how much they're actually censoring. I still wish they weren't doing whatever it is they're doing, but I don't know how much I care when I can't really even tell what it is they're doing.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Draek]

Actually, business models based on people paying you for your work are the ideal right now. Business models based on people paying you for a copy of your product on the other hand is what's obsolete, and people paying your grandchildren for a copy of your product is what's downright evil.

As they say, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Not an honest day's work for lifetime+70 years' worth of pay.

Re:Bloody Hell

[node 3]

Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete.

That's exactly what "censor" means. Certain words are censored from their search results.

Big deal. There's plenty of other words in that "censored" list.

Such as? I know they filtered their search results to help weed out malware. Also, there may be some words (like "the") which are ignored, but I'm unaware of any legitimate words like "bittorrent" that are outright censored like this.

Now, they can claim to be "helping prevent piracy" or whatever without actually doing anything. I see it as a win-win situation.

Win (Google) - Win (MPAA/RIAA) - Lose (Google's actual users).

There's absolutely no way whatsoever that this helps anyone searching for bittorrent and the like. Search for "ubuntu torrent" and watch as autosuggest/autocomplete completely leaves you flat. Now try the same search on Bing. It's a dark, dark day when Microsoft (Microsoft!!!) provides an outright better search experience than Google, but that's exactly what they're doing.

Re:Bloody Hell

[node 3]

How about the argument that users should be able to search for what they want, but Google should have the right to not suggest certain controversial searches?

Wait, so users should be able to search for whatever they want, but not be able to actually receive results for what they search for?

To continue your "how about" argument, how about users should be able to bitch at Google and call them whatever bad names they want when they start doing something like this? And users should also be able to demand Google rectify this. And Google should[*] be able to deliberate give worse search results than Bing (of all things!).

[*] Actually, I don't know that I think something like this should be wholly without regulation, because the barrier to entry of making a search engine is high, there are so few search engines, and search engines have great power over a great number of people. However, that would require a government looking out for the people, not the corporations, so I guess it's better to put that off for the moment and rely on the people to complain loud enough for Google to reverse this...

Yeah, I know, that leaves us pretty much screwed.

Re:Bloody Hell

[danielsfca2]

Pressing search on google is not censored in any way I am aware of.

YET.

ftfy

Re:Bloody Hell

[h4rm0ny]

What's wrong with giving back to the public domain from which you borrow from our shared culture to create the media. I will stop downloading the day the media conglomerates start giving back. Copyright is a contract between content creators and society. They haven't lived up to their end by enriching our culture, so why should I live up to my end and honor their state-sponsored monopoly?

Ironic for someone to condemn content producers for not giving back, as an argument for taking things without paying. You obviously feel entitled to be rewarded for all the history of culture that media draws on. So when someone pirates Dragon Age, they are entitled to it free because they have already contributed culturally to what went into it? I think they didn't. When someone pirates an artist's music or performance, they are entitled because that artist's work is based on the downloader's contributions to the culture that informed the work? I don't see that. When someone pirates a movie, or a novel or a role-playing game or whatever, they are entitled to do so because they've already earned a right to it somehow? No you mean that as a member of society you should get the rewards of anything in society regardless of whether you contribute back or not. And what you mean when you say "shared culture" is that the sharing should be one direction - yours. If you felt otherwise, you would do as the rest of us do and pay for the content.

And your argument is based on the notion that no value is added, but that the content is merely taken from "culture" and sold back to it as is. Yet, if there is no value added, then why would anybody buy it? And if there is value added, then the whole argument about being entitled to it for free because it's just based on public domain falls apart. If there is value added, then by definition something has been contributed.

Your argument that you only download stuff because it doesn't enrich your culture is self-defeating. If it had no value, you would not want it.

Your statement that the contract between content producers and "society" has not been honoured, is egotistical in the extreme when you presume that you get to speak for society.

Re:Bloody Hell

[node 3]

Copyright law (and its associated enforcment and punishment) has been abused far too much by certain organisations that it has lost all respect.

Voters don't appear to think that way, or they'd have signed petitions for Pirate Party legislators' ballot access.

The one does not follow from the other.

But then the MPAA-controlled news media have been doing a good job of hiding the Pirate Party's existence from voters.

Hmm.... One arm of an industry protecting another arm? Who would've thought!

Re:Bloody Hell

[h4rm0ny]

Actually, business models based on people paying you for your work are the ideal right now. Business models based on people paying you for a copy of your product on the other hand is what's obsolete

I presume therefore that you have some magical means of everyone who wants to see a film or play a computer game or read a book to do so without copies being made? I await with interest to find what manner of magic allows people to pay content producers for their work in the field of computer games, novels, movies, utility software, operating systems without that means being paying for a copy. Sire you could front the money for everything and stick up a website saying: "if you liked this movie, please send me some money to say thank you". And then you can watch the world dry up of anything that takes a lot of time and effort and money to produce.

As they say, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Not an honest day's work for lifetime+70 years' worth of pay.

I find it highly unlikely that you're pirating things because of a protest against copyright terms. I presume you pirate nothing but old Disney Mickey Mouse cartoons, and not anything that was released in the last five years, then? And if you feel that a content producer is being paid more than their content is worth, then you should simply not buy it, rather than take it for free.

There's no moral argument in saying "this isn't worth the money, so I'll let everyone else bear the cost of me having it".

Re:Bloody Hell

[suutar]

I don't see where GP was advocating Google _not returning results_ for a certain search, just that Google doesn't have to _suggest that search_ when the user types the first 3 letters of one of the terms.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Travelsonic]

isn't censoring anything - rather, it's choosing not to encourage it

Looking back at this comment after responding to it once... holy cow, dancing around terminology much?

Re:Bloody Hell

[Travelsonic]

I find it highly unlikely that you're pirating things because of a protest against copyright terms.

An opinion is just that, not inherently indicative of reasons for doing one thing, or another.

Re:Bloody Hell

[Travelsonic]

Assuming this is sarcasm, though there are people who say this shit and actually believe it.

Re:Bloody Hell

[h4rm0ny]

An opinion is just that, not inherently indicative of reasons for doing one thing, or another.

Someone's opinion very often is indicative of their reasons for doing something. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that much piracy takes place because people feel copyright terms are unjust. Most piracy is of media that is current.

Re:Bloody Hell

[anyGould]

isn't censoring anything - rather, it's choosing not to encourage it

Looking back at this comment after responding to it once... holy cow, dancing around terminology much?

Here's where I'm drawing the distinction:
Auto-complete is Google being helpful, like their "you searched for X, did you really mean Y?" blurbs - they're guessing what you really meant to ask based on what popular searches are. So if I search for "Doctor Who", Google is choosing *not* to suggest "Doctor Who torrent", even though it normally would be the best related search. Since people see it as Google "recommending" a search, I can accept them choosing not to put certain words in that auto-complete.
On the other hand, not showing torrent *results* in Instant Search is censoring - I'm asking for something, and Google is choosing not to include it in their results for reasons unrelated to relevance. Granted, it's a sticky subject because Google is always "censoring" (or "filtering") content in the sense that they decide what to put on the front page and what they don't - the difference is that generally they're filtering based on improving the results for the end user. This is filtering for the benefit of a third-party, at the detriment of the end-user.

I've already turned Instant Search off - and if Google starts extending third-party filtering to the main engine, I'll start looking elsewhere for my search results.

Re:Bloody Hell

[TapeCutter]

1. The issue is a proverbial storm in a teacup. Neither instant search or auto-complete are advertised as a complete search list, they are recomendations.

2. What evidence and logic leads you to believe google would cut their own throat, and why would you care if they did?

Re:Bloody Hell

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, it was sarcasm. It's often hard to tell when it comes to these sorts of things.

Re:Bloody Hell

[bzipitidoo]

I switched to Duck Duck Go a few months ago.

Seems to be one of the few search engines that is not doing the annoying link redirection that's become fashionable lately. Click on a link in the search results, and you are first sent to www.google.com/blah/blah/some.website.org, and then redirected to some.website.org. But on checking Google just now, I didn't see that happen. Did they stop?

Re:Bloody Hell

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Nowhere in your rambling did you answer the question of, why should society respect their side of the copyright agreement when the content creators do not? The idea of intellectual property is artificial...one cannot own an idea. It's obvious that content creators need some sort of protection, but the length of copyright is excessive to the extreme. If it hadn't been expanded time and time again I honestly do not believe we'd see such rampant piracy in the music and film industry. I'm a big Buddy Holly fan, the brutha is dead and he cannot benefit from his music anymore. Why is it that I'll not see his work go into the public domain in my lifetime? That is what I rally against. I am fine with copyright, so long as both sides hold up their ends. Until I see ANY work go into the public domain, I refuse to respect copyright.

Re:Bloody Hell

[node 3]

I don't see where GP was advocating Google _not returning results_ for a certain search, just that Google doesn't have to _suggest that search_ when the user types the first 3 letters of one of the terms.

You're splitting hairs. And as far as instant search goes, not showing anything there is the same as not returning results.

Re:Bloody Hell

[bzipitidoo]

If we rent or buy a movie shouldn't we be able to skip the commercials?

Media companies aren't keeping their end of that informal agreement. Cable TV providers once promoted their product by bragging that there would be no commercials. Maybe they hope everyone has forgotten that.

(BTW, did you get any money for all that product placement?)

Re:Bloody Hell

[coolmadsi]

Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete

Wouldn't that be /partial/ censoring?

Yup, removing terms from auto-complete and instant search, a feature most people on slashdot seemed to be completly against and wanted disabling as soon as possible, would count as partial censoring. But if slashdotters have disabled the functionality they would see little difference.

Re:Bloody Hell

[shutdown -p now]

All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete. Big deal.

That was my first reaction also, but there is a catch: they didn't just remove that stuff from autocomplete, they also removed it from instant search - and the latter is the default mode for Google now. Yes, you will still get all results if you type and press Enter (or click "Search"), but how many people have already got used to just typing things in an seeing the results? How many expect results to be different depending on whether Enter is pressed or not? Instant search results certainly look like normal, so I wouldn't expect them to differ.

(on the side note, it looks like they took it out - I've just tried now and "rapidshare" works perfectly fine)

Re:Bloody Hell

[h4rm0ny]

Nowhere in your rambling did you answer the question of, why should society respect their side of the copyright agreement when the content creators do not? The idea of intellectual property is artificial...one cannot own an idea. It's obvious that content creators need some sort of protection, but the length of copyright is excessive to the extreme. If it hadn't been expanded time and time again I honestly do not believe we'd see such rampant piracy in the music and film industry. I'm a big Buddy Holly fan, the brutha is dead and he cannot benefit from his music anymore. Why is it that I'll not see his work go into the public domain in my lifetime? That is what I rally against. I am fine with copyright, so long as both sides hold up their ends. Until I see ANY work go into the public domain, I refuse to respect copyright.

"Rambling"? There's nice! Everything I said was a direct response to what you wrote and is directly related to one of your points. I defy you to point out anything in my post that isn't directly following on from something you said.

The idea of intellectual property is artificial...one cannot own an idea.

Is a big budget movie an "idea". Is a novel an "idea". Is a concert recording of the LSO an "idea". What about a modern computer game like Dragon Age that took numerous people a great deal or time, effort, planning and expense to bring to fruition. It gets pirated. So you have some people willing to pay the cost of the game, and some others who decide they'll put the burden of cost on everyone else. These are real actual circumstances. Is it an acceptable rationalisation of not recompensing those people for their work to say: "you can't own an idea".

You talk a lot about "contracts" and criticise my post for "rambling", but your own post avoids the criticisms I made to you and goes off on a tangent about copyright terms. Piracy of anything released in the last decade can hardly be based on an objection to copyright terms, and yet piracy of such recent media is by far what people are pirating. I'll repeat my critisms of your argument about social "contracts". Content producers are increasing our culture and adding value with each song or movie or novel or computer game. If someone didn't feel there was value, they wouldn't download it. Yet you demand to freely profit from their work in return for a supposed "social contract" which actually has nothing on your side of the contract when you avoid paying. In fact you increase the burden on everyone else by making them pay for you. Can you tell me which piece of content you have pirated which is something you have contributed to through your "social contract" and which you therefore feel entitled to take for free? You also apply your arguments indiscriminately. Can you tell me why Buddy Holly's works being under copyright mean anyone working to produce any sort of media in the last decade should be penalised? People who have nothing to do with Buddy Holly? Unless you are limiting your piracy to things that are very old or have increased costs because they are directly derived from things very old still under copyright, your beliefs are only a rationalisation, not a reason.

Can I at least hope that you bought the last Venture Bros DVDs rather than just downloading them? If not, then as someone who did, I can only say: 0 min 37 seconds ;)

Re:Bloody Hell

[bingoUV]

Search for "ubuntu torrent" and watch as autosuggest/autocomplete completely leaves you flat

But if you want to search for "ubuntu torrent", why not hit "enter" after typing those 2 words?

Re:Bloody Hell

[tepples]

Copyright law (and its associated enforcment and punishment) has been abused far too much by certain organisations that it has lost all respect.

Voters don't appear to think that way, or they'd have signed petitions for Pirate Party legislators' ballot access.

The one does not follow from the other.

If the majority of voters in the United States were to gain a substantial disrespect for copyright, then the majority of voters in the United States would support candidates in favor of copyright reform.

One arm of an industry protecting another arm?

How do you recommend that candidates in favor of copyright reform overcome media blacklists?

Re:Bloody Hell

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

My argument is that copyright protection is a transaction between society and creators. Our payment is a temporary monopoly on distribution, their payment is giving their works to the public domain. One side isn't fulfilling their obligation and my argument really doesn't need to go any further than that.

On a side note...I do own the Venture Bros. DVDs, as well as my other favorite Adult Swim shows. I didn't buy them out of any ethical obligation, but because I wanted the extra content and the physical media. I have plenty of shows on my media server that I did download, but you'll be hard pressed to make me feel guilty since I pay my cable bill every month and I don't see a substantive difference between setting my media server to record these shows as they air and downloading them. Either way, I have made my payment, and like my Tivo using friends, have a large number of shows saved on a hard drive for future perusal.

Re:Bloody Hell

[VanessaE]

Seems to work fine for me. If I type "doctor who" (without the quotes), I get a few suggestions that don't include the word "torrent", and Instant Search results that match. However, if I add the word "torrent" to my terms, my autocomplete suggestions change to those which include that word, and the Instant Search results change to match as well, as though I'd used the press-Enter search to begin with (which is what I normally do - I don't like Instant Search).

The same holds true if I replace "torrent" with the any one of the names of the various popular websites associated with such files, or if I replace "doctor who" with any one of the various movies that are now in theaters.

In other words, there's no search results censorship here; if you don't want a torrent, you won't see such results by default now, and if you do, you add that word like you probably always did anyway and get the results you expected. The only thing that's changed is the autocomplete just doesn't suggest torrent-related results anymore. Whoop-dee-doo.

Either TorrentFreak is overreacting to whatever source they got their information from, or Google's rollout plan was changed after the article was written.

Re:Bloody Hell

[h4rm0ny]

My argument is that copyright protection is a transaction between society and creators. Our payment is a temporary monopoly on distribution, their payment is giving their works to the public domain. One side isn't fulfilling their obligation and my argument really doesn't need to go any further than that.

Yes. I've replied to that argument each time with the same points: it's arbitrary (and convenient) for you to say you represent "society" and that you're therefore going to benefit from other people's work for free whilst some of us pay for you. But I fail to see what in real terms you have contributed to these works that makes you taking them for free equitable. Your argument stops at the point where you have to explain what exists on your side of the "contract". We fulfil our side by paying money for the product which rewards the creators for adding value. You appear not to.

I have plenty of shows on my media server that I did download, but you'll be hard pressed to make me feel guilty since I pay my cable bill every month and I don't see a substantive difference between setting my media server to record these shows as they air and downloading them. Either way, I have made my payment

You seem to have this mental category in which you lump all producers of films, books, computer games, music and now, apparently, ISPs. In the above, you seem to feel that so long as you have paid some money to someone, you've fulfilled your side of the "contract" because you've just lumped all these disparate artists, authors, game designers whatever, into some gestalt entity. Paying your ISP is not paying the content producers for their work, neither in terms of who profits nor in the amount, just as your talking about Buddy Holly still being in copyright has no bearing on modern movies or computer games.

Incidentally, you state how you paying your cable bill every month entitles you. Is it correct to say that if, as with pirating media, you could reap the benefits of having that connection without actually paying for it, you would not voluntarily send your ISP that amount each month. Is it not true that their ability to cut you off has a bearing on your paying. If so, it carries no moral weight.

Re:Bloody Hell

[node 3]

If the majority of voters in the United States were to gain a substantial disrespect for copyright, then the majority of voters in the United States would support candidates in favor of copyright reform.

Again, that does not logically follow, except for very large values of "substantial disrespect". There are far too many other issues that few people are going to make this a litmus-test issue.

One arm of an industry protecting another arm?

How do you recommend that candidates in favor of copyright reform overcome media blacklists?

That's another example of why that does not necessarily follow. A functional democracy needs a functional media.

Re:Bloody Hell

[node 3]

Search for "ubuntu torrent" and watch as autosuggest/autocomplete completely leaves you flat

But if you want to search for "ubuntu torrent", why not hit "enter" after typing those 2 words?

You shouldn't have to, that's not how Google works otherwise.

"HItting enter" is a workaround for a problem that was deliberately self-inflicted by Google. I could understand if doing something like this made Google's search service better for the consumer, but it doesn't. In fact, it does the exact opposite. There's absolutely no upside in this for the user. If they're going to make it worse, they should at least be able to show that it's in an attempt to make it notably better in some other way, and "appeasing the RIAA/MPAA" does not count.

Re:Bloody Hell

[bingoUV]

Should? Google doesn't agree, obviously. Guess whose idea of "should" has more traction in Google search - yours or Google's.

So many other ways of Google search are popular, and arguably even more convenient than opeing www.google.com and typing in your query, that it isn't even funny.

Re:Bloody Hell

[tepples]

that does not logically follow, except for very large values of "substantial disrespect".

Because the entertainment industry lobby is far bigger than the prosumer and librarian lobbies, it would take "very large values of 'substantial disrespect'" to change the major parties' position on copyright. I agree with you that such expression of disrespect has not yet materialized among the general public. Therefore, copyright has not yet "lost all respect", as heathen_01 had claimed.

A functional democracy needs a functional media.

Are the political news media functional in your estimation if they don't cover certain areas of law or serious candidates holding certain views? I don't think so.

Re:Bloody Hell

[node 3]

that does not logically follow, except for very large values of "substantial disrespect".

Because the entertainment industry lobby is far bigger than the prosumer and librarian lobbies, it would take "very large values of 'substantial disrespect'" to change the major parties' position on copyright. I agree with you that such expression of disrespect has not yet materialized among the general public. Therefore, copyright has not yet "lost all respect", as heathen_01 had claimed.

The rampant so-called piracy people engage in would disagree with your conclusion.

People don't really respect copyright all that much (a term like, "lost all respect" is meaningless, so it's not terribly usefule to argue for or against it literally, but you know what he meant by that).

Your argument, on the other hand (and that which I was replying to), was that because the people haven't voted for candidates that reflect this view, then therefore it cannot be true. My point is that the one does not follow (and I think in this last post, you have agreed with me on this).

Voting and democracy in general, especially in its republican form, is not so simple and straightforward.

What you're saying is that there is no significant anti-copyright bloc. That's true. But that does not mean people haven't lost respect for copyright. If you want to argue over the use of hyperbole like "lost all respect", that entirely sidesteps the issue and isn't a very interesting topic.

A functional democracy needs a functional media.

Are the political news media functional in your estimation if they don't cover certain areas of law or serious candidates holding certain views? I don't think so.

That's my point. The media has failed us (and then blamed *us* for their failure). Anyway, they have failed us, and are one reason why people's votes don't necessarily match up with their beliefs and self-interests.

Re:Bloody Hell

[node 3]

Should? Google doesn't agree, obviously. Guess whose idea of "should" has more traction in Google search - yours or Google's.

Who said otherwise? Obviously I'm just giving my opinion. Likewise, guess who has more traction in what my opinion is, me or Google? It's me. Google has given their opinion, I'm giving mine.

I'm not sure exactly what it is you think is wrong or confusing about this.

So many other ways of Google search are popular, and arguably even more convenient than opeing www.google.com and typing in your query, that it isn't even funny.

Again, no one is saying otherwise. The point is that Google is deliberately degrading the quality of their search engine, and doing so in a way that has absolutely no value to the one doing the searching. It's just simply worse for their users. I'm not sure why you think there's something wrong in complaining about this.

Re:Bloody Hell

[bingoUV]

Well, for me, Google deliberately degraded the quality of their search engine when they started refreshing the page even while the user is typing. This killed the 1% of the time when I tried this on www.google.com with javascript enabled.

That behaviour was a trap by Google to acquire this power over their users. You surrendered, by gettting used to it.

Re:Bloody Hell

[MaDeR]

"Don't be evil" went to trash bin log ago. China censorship.

Applies only to incomplete words

[PARENA]

The summary is misleading. This only refers to incomplete words. If you type "bitt" or "rapidsh" you won't get the (desired?) results, but if you type "bittorrent" or "rapidshare" you will get the results you expect.

Apart from that, it's quite childish. Also "pirate" gives me results leading to The Pirate Bay, for example.

Re:Applies only to incomplete words

[bughunter]

Yes, it only applies to autocomplete. But since this story hit the media a month ago, I've been watching how I use autocomplete, and learned something:

I use autocomplete to help me phrase my search terms, almost subconsciously. Any geek knows that phrasing a search is the key to getting proper results. I will frequently use the autocomplete to validate or invalidate several attempts at phrasing the search before I hit enter. Same goes for spelling. Autocomplete results in me creating more successful searches with more pertinent results.

Now, I seldom use this for porn because, 1) i use filestube as my porn search engine, and 2) I usually don't need help phrasing a search for "big butts." (And, I've noticed that Google autocomplete stopped working for pornstar names a long time ago, far earlier than their announcement in late 2010.)

But, for torrents, autocomplete is sometimes a valuable tool. No, I don't need it, but the responsiveness of autocomplete is an aid to the thought process of editing the search phrase. If they start extending their autocomplete bannination to other topics, I'd start getting concerned. Right now it's only the top of a slope which may or may not be slippery.

But "its just autocomplete" isn't a valid excuse, for several reasons. Google is making editorial decisions when they're relied upon to be a neutral, content-independent indexing service. It scares some people because, there's no easier and more effective way to censor something than to cripple its index entries. What's next?

Re:Applies only to incomplete words

[Bloopie]

The summary is misleading. This only refers to incomplete words.

Hence the wording in the summary: "certain keywords . . . will no longer produce results with the Autocomplete or Instant Search features. The standard search feature, however, continues to display results as normal." [Emphasis mine]

Jeez, doesn't anyone even read the summaries anymore before complaining?

Re:Applies only to incomplete words

[Sky Cry]

This is irrelevant. The solution to this problem should involve layer man-hours, not developer man-hours.

Re:Applies only to incomplete words

[LordLimecat]

I have yet to see a story about "google censors search terms when you click search".

Re:Applies only to incomplete words

[binkzz]

I have yet to see a story about "google censors search terms when you click search".

That's because Google censors searches for those stories.

Re:Applies only to incomplete words

[jc42]

I have yet to see a story about "google censors search terms when you click search".

That's because Google censors searches for those stories.

Well, I decided to test this out a bit. I asked google, yahoo and bing to search for "google censors search terms when you click search". They all found exactly the same list of matches: one. They both linked to your message.

OMG; they're all censoring stories about google censoring things!

Re:Applies only to incomplete words

[balbus000]

I didn't think much of this move until I tried it out. Still not a huge deal but...

Google is not filtering the results, they are blocking them. So if you type "bitt" the instant search shows nothing, but when you type "bitte" the instant search will show bittersweet, etc.

Is there any reason why they couldn't have just filtered the results so that "bitt" would show this instead of nothing at all?

Re:Applies only to incomplete words

[arbitraryaardvark]

the headline is wrong too.
it says "pirate terms" when it actually means "pirate" terms. quote mark is in thew wrong spot, changing the meaning.

Not a big deal

[cpu6502]

This just means Google will not autofill "torrent" just as they don't autofill "breast".
      - But that certainly hasn't stopped people from searching for porn, and won't stop them from searching for free music/TV shows either.

Re:Not a big deal

[ViperOrel]

The problem is that they filter "breast" on what they think might be offensive to us.
They filter "torrent" based on what is offensive to an industry.

If beef gets its panties in a twist, does this mean they'll start filtering "vegan" and vegetarian?

Re:Not a big deal

[TheRaven64]

The problem is that they filter "breast" on what they think might be offensive to us.

No, they filter breast on what they think might be offensive to the 'think of the children' crowd. They filter 'torrent' based on what is offensive to a different pressure group.

If they were filtering based on what might be offensive to you, then it would be opt-in.

Re:Not a big deal

[tris203]

however they will return suggested results for

"how to pirate music"
and
"how to annoy the RIAA"

Warez Terms

[CynicTheHedgehog]

Back in the day, searching for illegal downloads using normal search terms didn't really yield any useful results. Instead, you had to add "z" to the end of everything ... for example "warez", "mp3z", "serialz", etc. And now "torrentz" I suppose. So I doubt that censoring copyright-infringement vernacular will have any impact whatsoever on legitimate uses of P2P software, especially considering that normal search terms will result in any number of legitimate MP3/video download sites. And for crying out loud, it's on the *instant* search, which has got to be the least useful feature I have ever seen in any search engine.

Re:Warez Terms

[toetagger]

...you had to add "z" to the end of everything ... for example ... "torrentz"

And how exactly will adding a z at the end help solve the problem that the search term doesn't auto complete? You man that if I type bitt... it will auto complete to bittorrentz for me? How cool would that be? Next, I search for Oba... and get Obamaz, cool!

Re:Warez Terms

[Zedrick]

Warez were called warez long before there were any kind of search-engine to search for warez with.

Re:Warez Terms

[pipatron]

You mean before there were computers that could search through text, or what do you actually mean by this?

Re:Warez Terms

[blueg3]

Perhaps the new standard will be to prefix with a z, so that you can autocomplete zbittorrent.

Get a grip!

[jareth-0205]

Just press like you used to! Jeez, they just don't want people in sensitive places getting potentially dodgy links coming up on their screens. I know when i'm at work I'd rather not have pirate sites coming up on my search result screen while I'm typing...

Re:Get a grip!

[xtracto]

If people do not want to have results from their incomplete searches on the screen as they type they must turn off Google Instant.

What Google is actually doing is prioritizing the display of certain search terms which are common (and should appear at the top of the search) due to a request by a third party. So, what is next? they will stop showing Tea Party movement web pages because the current government asked nicely. Even though I do not share the TeaParty principles (shit, I am a "leftist, socialist, populist, brownist" Mexican) I expect a search engine not to censor certain results just because someone asked.

Re:Get a grip!

[need4mospd]

they just don't want people in sensitive places getting potentially dodgy links coming up on their screens.

Did you even read the first sentence of the summary? That is not the reason they're filtering auto-complete.

taken from the article:

It’s taken a while, but Google has finally caved in to pressure from the entertainment industries including the MPAA and RIAA.

Re:Get a grip!

[jareth-0205]

I don't necessarily believe everything I read in a summary...

Re:Get a grip!

[shutdown -p now]

They don't filter out pirate sites, they filter out search keywords. You can still hit one, quite easily in fact - enable insta search and type "pir", and you'll see "pirate bay" as the first hit.

Awesome!

[just_another_sean]

That's great, so now I just have to start my search with "torrent" or "arrrr" and I won't have to suffer through Google's rediculous "instant" crap? Sign me up!

In all seriousness; if you like Google just blacklist it for JavaScript, no more instant results. Or search from the address bar. Or, best option IMHO, use https://ixquick.com./ *

* google it for more details!

Re:Awesome!

[DAldredge]

Why not simply buy what you are downloading?

Re:Awesome!

[maxwell demon]

Why not simply buy what you are downloading?

Can you fail more in reading comprehension?
Or do you believe that everyone who dislikes Google Instant must also do copyright-infringing downloads?

Re:Awesome!

[just_another_sean]

Goode idee, thanks yuu. :-)

Re:Awesome!

[DAldredge]

I live in reality. And the reality is that the vast majority of torrents contain pirated files. Anyone looking for legal content will already be smart enough to find it via other methods.

Re:Awesome!

[f3rret]

You realize you can turn instant search off, right?

Re:Awesome!

[sorak]

Nope. TFA is complaining because Google will not suggest "torrent". If you type in the name of a movie, Google will not suggest "movie torrent", but if you type "torrent", Google will make suggestions that contain the word.

As for autocomplete, Google has a setting that will disable it. Look under "Search Settings" in the upper right corner.

Re:Awesome!

[just_another_sean]

My comment was more of a jab at Google's "instant" results. I am not going to pretend I've never downloaded anything illegally but I can say without reservation that it's been a long time. That is because 1) I spent a considerable amount of time I might have spent downloading illegally turning my collection of over 500 Grateful Dead and Phish tapes (obtained legally and with the bands' blessing) plus my collection of CDs into OGGs and 2) becuase of the slow but steady progression toward saner, legal distribution options on the part of the general mass media (hulu, netflix, comedy central and other network websites).

I don't need to "pirate" (arrr!) anymore because I don't mind paying for good content and I don't have to jump through stupid hacks to get said good content.

But go ahead and generalize; anyone who searches for "torrent" must be sea faring, murderous scum. No one is *really* downloading a Linux dist, the latest LibreOffice or a game update to a Blizzard title via Bittorrent.

Re:Awesome!

[elsJake]

Such as ?

Re:Awesome!

[maxwell demon]

I live in reality.

And in reality, people can't read. Yes, that makes sense.

Again, his comment did not, I repeat: did not in any way refer to downloading (legal or illegal), despite the fact that the word "torrent" appeared in it. The word "torrent" appeared in it only as a new (not very good) way to disable Google Instant.

The comment expressed dislike of Google Instant, and remarked that you now can get rid of it by simply starting your search with "torrent" or "arrrr" (I guess the latter isn't a good search term anyway if you are seeking for illegal downloads; but then, maybe there's a convention to use "arrrr" in the file names of infringing files ...)

Re:Awesome!

[just_another_sean]

Good to know, I never really bothered to check for that because, as mentioned, I typically use ixquick and for the occasional time I turn to Google (image search!) I tend to have JavaScript turned off. I really only noticed on other people's computers.

Re:Awesome!

[just_another_sean]

Yeah, sorry. I didn't know what you meant at first but just noticed the extra "." I put in the link.

The correct link is https://ixquick.com/ .

Re:Awesome!

[DAldredge]

"Sometimes, there are no valid "other methods." Then you do without. You aren't entitled to have your ever last little whim satisfied.

Re:Awesome!

[just_another_sean]

I think at this point we're just feeding the troll... I wouldn't bother, he obviously has a stick up his arse about something. Thanks for jumping in though. As mentioned in another post I really was just taking a cheap shot at Google's instant crap.

Re:Awesome!

[sorak]

I personally don't mind it, but I have seen complaints because it is opt-out, which causes problems for people who don't allow cookies.

Re:Awesome!

[HeadSoft]

Why not simply buy what you are downloading?

Not all Linux distros are for sale?

Re:Awesome!

[shermo]

No one is *really* downloading ... a game update to a Blizzard title via Bittorrent.

I don't know how much torrent traffic there is, but a few million people downloading a 5 gb WoW patch would be reasonably significant wouldn't it?

Re:Awesome!

[DAldredge]

If you are looking for a Linux distro and have to use google instant search to find it perhaps, just perhaps, you aren't qualified to install it?

Re:Awesome!

[Trickyager]

Why not simply buy what you are downloading?

...Because Ubuntu ISOs aren't for sale...

Re:Awesome!

[DAldredge]

http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/cds

This is a good thing

[Kashell]

The last thing I want at work is for my legitimate searches to autocomplete with warez sites and the like.

If anything, though, it shows that google's instant search mechanic is a failure -- not the actual searching for warez.

I'll sue!

[TheSpoom]

That extra strain on my enter-finger builds up, you know! I could get carpal tunnel 0.00004% faster!

Why does this always happen?

[Haedrian]

Every single time Google removes certain words from Instant , its censorship.

No its not.

You can still type it in, hit enter and get your results. They just don't want to 'suggest' them for you - for various reasons.

So if you type 'tor' you won't get "Torrents! Download all your favourite stuff for free!" until you press enter. Big deal. Same happens for a bunch of adult terms.

Re:Why does this always happen?

[chichilalescu]

actually, your analogy is kind of wrong. Google is the nice guy you can ask for directions; usually, he tries to complete your question before you finish it. Now, he decided he wouldn't allways do that, so you have to finish your question.

Re:Why does this always happen?

[Krau Ming]

wrong analogy. if you walk up to some guy on the street, let's call him oh i don't know, Mr G. Oogle, and say "Hey, G. Oogle, where can i find some music for a discount price...y'know, spelled P--I--R--A...". If Mr G. Oogle doesn't tell you how to get discount music, is he performing an act of censorship? obviously not. if you became town crier and were yelling to everyone how to get free copyrighted materials off the internet and Mr G. Oogle pulls up in an unmarked minivan with no back windows, gets out and mugs you, then THAT is censorship. and done in style no less.

Re:Why does this always happen?

[bonch]

The Google fans are out in full force to convince everyone that this is okay and not a big deal. If this was Bing or some other company's search engine, you'd be singing a different tune.

Keywords not even really necessary

[ifrag]

Given that filenames have taken a relatively standard form in torrent circles, the material can be found without specifying any more than the general name form.

Simply using: "[name of show] s##e##" will typically lead to torrent results without any other keywords. Usually occupying at least the top few listed results.

Re:Pre-punishing system SUCKS

[Haedrian]

If I'm looking for "Torrential Rains in [Country]" at work or at a public location, I dont' want google to offer me

"Free Torrents for your favourite shows" or whatever in the instant search results. If I truly AM looking for torrents, I can easily type in "Torrents" and press that magic button on top of the right shift.

BAM. Torrents.

Just if you're not activly looking for them, you won't stumble upon any. Is this so hard?

Censor is a bad word choice here.

[TheReij]

I'd say remove. They aren't censoring the search, they're just removing it from the autocomplete queue. Alarmist alarmism is alarming.

I bet the Bittorent guys are F'ing pissed right now. It sucks that a great technology like Bittorrent immediately gets the spotlight on it's seedier uses as opposed to the really good ones (like legitimate releases of software that take the load off of individual servers).

/in before the google hate?

Re:Censor is a bad word choice here.

[Travelsonic]

They aren't censoring the search, they're just removing it from the autocomplete queue

Uh... isn't editing or removal a part of the basic definition of censorship?

Does not jibe 100% with "do no evil"

[blind biker]

And yes, if you want to know, I am not sure "pirates" are evil. A decade ago I was rather clearly against software, music and video "piracy". Not anymore.

Re:Does not jibe 100% with "do no evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not 100% anti-piracy, but I tend towards the do without if I'm unwilling to buy*, and I certianly don't want my child accidentally stumbling across anything dodgy and these things being excluded from the instant search are generally dodgy in a legal sense. As long as these things aren't being blocked from an explicit search I don't have a problem with it, and if my daughter starts explicitly searching for things I think she shouldn't be then I can talk to her about it.

*Though I tend to make an exception for a few TV shows until they come up with a reasonable distribution method at a reasonable price.

Hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

My company is Warez Brothers! I can't help that this was my family given surname!

You are taking away legit business from my company!

Re:Hey!

[oodaloop]

Most people spell that Juarez.

Re:Hey!

[Hawke666]

Only people who don’t know how to pronounce “warez”. (Hint: It’s pronounced just like “wares”)

Re:Hey!

[oodaloop]

And Whoosh sounds just like douche.. Give yourself one.

Out of interest...

[TheoGB]

...is there somewhere a good stat showing the percentage of illegal uses of torrents compared to legitimate ones?

Re:Out of interest...

[TheoGB]

*yawn* Google is simply an aggregator. I said 'good' and by that I meant by implication 'trustworthy', which isn't something I can readily tell from the stuff I read in Google, though the majority of it cites between 89% and 99% illegal, leaving the sort of "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE TO LEGITIMATE USERS" posturing look a little silly from the Torrent sites... if it's remotely accurate.

Now I could spend hours looking for that information but equally someone MAY have that to hand right off the bat. Your answer is akin to suggesting I should just try to code a perfect MP3 player rather than question if anyone has links to ones that might fulfil my criteria already.

probably prudent

[Trepidity]

As others have noted, they're not filtering any results. They're just not suggesting piracy-related terms in the autocomplete, along with some other filtered terms like sex-related terms. Probably a prudent decision, because while returning search results for a query the user entered is fairly safe legally, prompting the user with something illegal that they didn't actively look for might be more questionable. Not sure if they could actually be liable, but it at least is less solid.

Baby/bathwater

[mwvdlee]

Besides "bittorrent", "rapidshare" and a couple of other, the following words are now also unable to auto-complete:

http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/bitt/
http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/rapid/
http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/torr/

Re:Baby/bathwater

[AaxelB]

The "baby/bathwater" saying is only applicable when the proverbial baby is actually valuable in some way. Preventing only the autocompletion of a few random words seems more like throwing the soap suds out with the bathwater.

Re:Baby/bathwater

[blueg3]

And only relevant if you need Google to help finish words for you.

Interestingly, "t" through "tor" autocomplete (to words not including "torrent"). Once you've typed "torrent", you get multiple-word suggestions that include the word "torrent". If you add more letters, like "i" (the prefix to "torrential"), it returns to normal autocomplete behavior.

Re:Baby/bathwater

[ThatsNotPudding]

To be joined by Freedom , Privacy, Rights...

More?

[Bert64]

They should also filter searches for other things that are used to facilitate copyright infringement...

FTP, IRC and HTTP - all have been used for downloading warez a lot longer than bittorrent or rapidshare.
Microsoft & Windows - the most popular platform both in terms of being copied, and in terms of being used by those that do the copying (far less linux users use warez, because there is far less software for linux that its even possibly to acquire this way).
Any form of commercially sold media - if everything were given away freely, there would be no "pirates"...
And dont forget anything to do with ships or seafaring, pirates need ships...

Re:More?

[oodaloop]

And shoes. Nearly every pirate in the world uses them, and they can freely access them without any kind of restriction anywhere in the world, frequently for low prices and for cash in black markets. Won't somebody think of the children?

Re:More?

[iammani]

Not to forget the word Google. I can find pirated software using google and hence should be censored.

Not surprising

[snookiex]

They didn't get rich listening to a bunch of "whiners", but those having the money. Although, they provided a way to not look so "evil". Now Google is prisoner of his own debts, just like a politician funded by doubtful sources.

So what?

[Restil]

They're not censoring anything, they're just filtering the results of the annoying autocomplete, which I hate anyway. If someone is really looking for a linux torrent, they'll just have to click the damn button. The absolute legitimacy of torrents will not be denied in spite of this.

-Restil

Re:So what?

[Travelsonic]

They're not censoring anything, they're just filtering...

Uh... that part [editing it out so autocomplete doesn't have said term] sounds like it treads on the basic definition of censorship to me.

Unfair

[tris203]

I’m sure rapidshare won’t be very happy about this

especially considering
mediafire
filedude
fileape and many many other file sites still work

Re:duckduckgo.com

[TheGratefulNet]

I do keep trying this one. it has so-so returned results but still not 'great' yet.

at least its not rude and invasive like google is.

Maleware issues?

[Drethon]

Considering the higher percentage of malware to result in piracy compared to most everything else, perhaps they are just trying to avoid the malware sites...

Not saying big companies aren't performing CYA.

Re:Maleware issues?

[Locke2005]

In my experience, Maleware issues are nowhere near as big a problem as Femaleware issues!

Trial balloon?

[moxley]

This could be a trial balloon to see what the public response is.

You know, get the headline without actually censoring their regular results, see what happens. I hope that any public outcry/criticism reminds them of their old corporate tagline "don't be evil," and reinforces that censorship is ridiculous and wrong, and that it could hurt their reputation, especially among the sort of people who are active on slashdot (geeks/IT workers/generally above average intelligence).

It's not a matter of whether you support piracy (and of course, all of these technologies have other, what society would consider "legitiate" uses as well) - it's that censorship is unacceptable, especially from such a dominant and important tool.

Re:Trial balloon?

[arkenian]

So I have an interesting alternative take on this all. Mainly: I use google _AT WORK_ where porn and illegal file sharing are both a problem. I absolutely, 100% don't want autocomplete/instant search for porn, because it could get me in trouble, if I type in 'pen' and got 'penis' instead of 'pending' and someone happened to be looking at my screen who was offended.... Even illegal file sharing.... Yes there are plenty of legitimate terms, but this is an easy algorithm to prevent illegitimate uses (from the corporate acceptable use policy's perspective) from showing up on my screen. So yes, I view this as protecting me.

Re:Trial balloon?

[misexistentialist]

Instant search tends to censor searches that aren't extremely popular, so censoring it is almost a reduction of censorship. When I tried using it I usually ended up forced into irrelevant searches based on what other people wanted, so I preferred to censor 100% of suggestions by turning it off.

Avast! Pirate terms...

[binaryseraph]

This is going to make finding 'eye patches,' 'wooden legs,' and 'rum' a little tough to find.

It is still a problem for developers

[bhlowe]

I'm a developer and it is still a problem and still irksome.
When I typed my product name into google the auto complete suggests currently suggests the following pirate related searches:
PRODUCT crack
PRODUCT key
PRODUCT activation code

Every one of those sites leads to a malware site or adware site that definitely does not include keys, activation codes, or cracks.. but are definitely bogus results.

No longer suggested are:
PRODUCT torrent
PRODUCT rapidshare

Fair Enough

[Tuan121]

Eh I think this is fair enough.

They don't shown porn related stuff on the instant / suggestion, but you can still search for it (believe me, you can).

So now they don't come up with torrents and stuff automatically, but you can still search for it if you want. I can see the logic, if someone was innocently searching for like "How I Met Your Mother" to see some info about it, and the first thing that comes up is an automatic link to "How I Met Your Mother Season 1 Torrent". Doesn't that kinda make Google not as innocent any more as opposed to someone specifically searching for that torrent? In this case you would have someone residentially finding out about and acquiring the torrent via Google alone.

I know that is stretching and I'm taking this logic with a grain of salt.. because of course they aren't intentionally putting torrents on top, it's just the algorithm maybe choosing it. But still, food for thought..

Anyway, I'm OK with this kind of automatic filtering.

America, entertainment industry's bitch.

[unity100]

there is no more polite way to say it. the entire country has become a whore bowing to every whim of a group of corporations. even the technically incorrect, capricious ones like these - thinking that censoring certain words will accomplish what they want.

even google now. no wonder they are producing stuff like american idol etc to keep the public sleeping.

Re:America, entertainment industry's bitch.

[misexistentialist]

If there is a law against copyright infringement, directing everyone looking for a review of a movie towards rapidshare is pretty clearly going to qualify as incitement. Even when liability is not an issue, do people really need to be shown results for "butt sex" when they are looking for a recipe for butter-cream frosting?

Google's blacklist is oddly weak

[Prikolist]

Just a few more in the list, and just as weak as their previous filtering attempts. Someone put up this site almost immediately when instant search came out http://www.2600.com/googleblacklist/ and it points quite a lot of funny examples or words that do or don't get filtered very inconsistently. Mind you, if you enter "bit" it shows bitcomet (a bittorrent client), doesn't filter out eMule and other non-torrent P2P programs, and for "thep" or "pir" the first result is thepiratebay. Doesn't filter out any other trackers that I know of either. For autocomplete it's no different, even better - shows an ad for thepiratebay on top of the suggestions and lists more torrent clients.
Clearly it's not an effective censorship/filtering of any sort, which leads me to wonder why exactly is it that way. I doubt Google programmers are stupid and would miss a lot of obvious things. What's more likely is that they aren't comfortable with this either and try to block as little as possible - just enough to satisfy managers and/or companies complaining.

Re:ease of use

[Isaac Remuant]

I think that what's considered relevant is anything that can easily lead to piracy for the average user.

And, as you've heard in this comments, it's easier to associate torrents with piracy as the only relevant use that they have (I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it's a common claim).

The other means you suggested are viewed mainly as:
IRC -> Chat. FTP -> Storage of webpage related content.

I hate auto-complete

[Paspanique]

Cool! I hate that feature, it's actually a good news. Now if they could only drop that feature altogether... I turn it off on my pc, but I frequently use other machines

how about "censoring" dealers

[k6mfw]

When doing a search on some particular device, I get tons of results that point toward dealers selling crap or worse, links to ebay listings. I remember years ago when I search for something, i..e JVC 5000U, I get various articles (useful ones, not promotional junk) or webpages by individuals describing how they use or hack such items.

Re:how about "censoring" dealers

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'd mod you up if I could! Google searching is starting to become a nuisance since just about every search dumps a bunch of vendors on your lap when you're looking for topical information. I've had slightly better luck with Bing, but I'm sure they'll go the same route if their market share starts to increase.

Re:how about "censoring" dealers

[adolf]

You're just being vague -- it's no wonder you don't like the results.

JVC has made approximately six million things and named them all "5000", from a vintage U-matic player to an in-dash CD player to a DV camcorder. It is, apparently, their favorite number.

It's not even clear to me, as a human, which 5000-series JVC product you're wanting to know more about. How is Google supposed to figure it out? I -think- you're asking about a gy-5000u DV camcorder, based on the context here and my implied human biases, but it's just a guess.

Quit making Google guess for you, and you'll get better results. Searching for JVC GY-5000U or JVC GY-5000 U both come up with a myriad of reviews and discussions and commentary. There's some sales-related stuff in the results, for sure, but it's not as if you have to trip over them to find what you're looking for.

(Meanwhile, putting "forum" in the search terms pretty much eliminates the sales-related stuff, but also eliminates most other static web sites. *shrug*)

I don't think this is very different at all from how things worked back in the day, unless you count the uncanny pedantry that was a mid-90s DEC-owned Altavista.

Re:This is not censorship

[Travelsonic]

Uh... look up the definition of censorship, you idiot.

Common Carrier...

[umask077]

Well its been my experience that if you censor any content your are responsible for all content on your servers. So good opens itself up to legal liability by making this change. The might skate the line by allowing main searches to find torrents and rapid share but this I suspect is just a first step.

Google's New Mantra

[calderra]

Google's New Mantra: Do Evil.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Prosthetics department

[tepples]

other piracy related search terms like "pegleg", "eyepatch" and "jolly roger" are still auto-completed.

Substantial non-infringing use here. Pegleg and eyepatch are medical terms.

Re:Prosthetics department

[kernelfoobar]

Luckily 'whoosh' is not censored...

Re:Prosthetics department

[ifiwereasculptor]

And damned be whoever hinders Roger's pursuit of happiness.

Rear window captions

[tepples]

So I have a 75% hearing loss.

Patronize cinemas with rear window captions. If there are none in your area, find other hard of hearing people and petition each cinema to install rear window captions. If the petitions fail, hire a lawyer.

Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws

[tepples]

You are paying for the big screen, the speakers, the chairs, and the building's rent.

Under national disability discrimination acts applying to public accommodations, one ideally should be paying for the rear window captions.

Just because you can justify it to yourself does not make it legally justified; whether or not you give a whit about what the law says is up to you.

Likewise, just because movie theater operators can justify failure to install captions to themselves does not make it legally justified; whether or not they give a whit about what the ADA and foreign counterparts say is up to them.

Scientology Uses DMCA to Delist Critic's Website

[tepples]

You have yet to see this story. (Google keywords used: site:slashdot.org google scientology)

Out of print

[tepples]

Because the copyright owner won't sell me a copy at any price. Where can I buy a lawfully made copy of Disney's Song of the South? Or the English version of Nintendo's Mother (which exists as a prototype)?

It's true!

[Locke2005]

I just googled "shiver me timbers!" and got zero results!

Epic Fail

[houghi]

metallica filetype:torrent

GOOGLE IS EVIL

[ammorais]

After verifying the truthfulness of this allegations only one phrase came to my head.

GOOGLE IS EVIL

warez works!

[imp7]

warez still seems to work with instant search :)

Suddenly...

[dvoecks]

Downloads of Avast! antivirus drop significantly...

"Dont be evil"

[ZipK]

In related news, a Google search for "don't be evil" no longer returns any results.

Re: Minority report

[TapeCutter]

Someone call Tom Cruise, Google may be about to commit corporate suicide.

I don't care!

[neminem]

Instant search is a huge pain, and I turn it off immediately. Then when it decides to randomly enable itself again every so often, I turn it off again! Autocomplete, on the other hand, I will grant is useful and nonannoying, but if it doesn't automcomplete the word bittorrent, and I have to type in the whole thing if that's what I'm looking for... who cares? I usually type the whole thing in anyway, cause it takes longer to wait for the dropdown to finish initializing and then count how many times to press down to get to what I was looking for, than it does to just type the whole query in.

Censorship is removing results from searches. Censorship is *not* removing entirely optional features from searches, that don't affect search results.