Slashdot Log In
What the Pirate Bay Verdict Could Mean For Google
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Apr 18, 2009 08:17 AM
from the google-trends-should-be-interesting-to-watch dept.
from the google-trends-should-be-interesting-to-watch dept.
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?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Google will have to pay (Score:3, Insightful)
The pirate bay case means google may have to pay when people use google to download copyrighted material.
Almost sounds like the internet will be treated like a broadcaster on radio stations where money is payed to musicians when a song is played.
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Funny)
Hello, my name is Inigo Monbooyah. You killed my attention span with all those questions. Prepare to die.
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why sue TPB and not the downloader?
Because TPB is in breach of the law? If they were going after the downloader you'd be arguing that they should be suing TPB. But fear not, with IPRED, they'll be going after the downloader, too!
Google provides a search mechanism for internet content, some of which infringes copyright. TPB provides a search mechanism for downloadable content, some of which infringes copyright.
Google maintains an index of where to find things on the internet, which searchers make use of to get what they want. TPB has a tracker, listing where to find downloads, that searchers make use of to find what they want
Google store a cache of large parts of their searchable content, keeping a copy on their servers to make searches faster. TPB... oh wait.
Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:4, Informative)
But if you link to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", with the text "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!" you can't claim that you had no idea what it was.
Sure you can. How many things are listed in Pirate Bay? Millions? I doubt that anyone who works their actually knows more than a small percentage of the site, its just an automated database. Its like saying that Google "knows" that when I search for "X-Men Wolverine torrents" that its serving up copyrighted material.
Well, a more or less directions for you the user to do something illegal and not the actual content itself...
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Insightful)
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?!
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the only way to settle this, because you are obviously not going to listen to anything I say.
As you obviously didn't read what I said. Who at TPB actually goes through and reads ALL of the comments, all of the file descriptions? No one probably. TPB is a DUMB service, it, as a site and a system, has no knowledge of what crosses through it. If someone had to hand enter all of the data, or TPB somehow woke up one day to find itself Skynet, then yes, it would be aware that someone typed "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!".
Do you think /. is aware of our current conversation? Does anyone on the staff of the site actually know that we're having this conversation? And more pertinently, would they know if I told you where to go download the crappy Comic Book Movie of the Week? Probably not, and more so they are not responsible for this discussion (or say, if I told you where to by drugs/illegal firearms/etc).
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Google are not stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Google are not stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
As a thought experiment, what if somebody (such as me) came up with a program that used some of the ideas behind torrents and distributed processing, and created a distributed, decentralized search engine? Say that this program became popular enough that it could create an index large enough and fast enough that it could rival google. Say that some people used it to find and download copyright infringing content.
How would this work, legally, if somebody decided to send a DMCA take down notice? Also, if this distributed search engine were in the position that TPB is in right now, what would be the result? Who would be sued, et cetera?
My guess is that it would be in the same position as programs such as BitTorrent and Transmission: no legal action can be taken against the program because it is just a dumb set of instructions and requires the use of a person to intentionally infringe on copyright.
By the way, I actually plan to implement something similar to this eventually in the future, but if somebody else wishes to run away with the idea, be my guest. Also, try to tell me about it, if you get a chance...I'd be interested to see where the idea goes.
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they required to actively prevent copyright infringement? Are they in fact hosting anything that infringes copyright?
Youtube would have to co-operate because they store the uploaded videos, so if a video is infringing then Youtube is liable. TPB only stores a .torrent file, which isn't under copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in the eyes of the copyright cartel, they want everyone to believe they're the same thing. However, even if you play nice, there's no guarantee that the cartel will be nice to you for cooperating with them anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But to my knowledge they've never cooperated with the countless photographers claiming copyright infringement through their Google Images service. Yes, that's just pointless bitching, but consistency requires either cooperating with both or don't listen to either. Instead, we only get another instance of the golden rule: "he who has the gold makes the rules". Pity.
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right - assuming differences of degree do not matter. But they do [wikipedia.org]:
"The key issue in the copyright infringement case was the so-called Sony safe-harbor principle that was set by the Supreme Court 21 years ago in Sony v. Universal Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The ruling stated that, "...the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial non-infringing uses." (Sony 464 U.S. at 442). Grokster argued that proof of reasonable, actual or potential, non-infringing use, is sufficient to fulfil the ""substantiality"" requirement. The RIAA and MPAA argued that Sony safe-harbor requires proof that the non-infringing use is the primary one; an incidental non-infringing use is not enough."
In other words, the difference between google and The Pirate Bay, which is blatantly obvious to the layman, is also recognized by the law.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The tool is different than the intent (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
Google indexes web content, but if you want the content you put online to not be indexed by Google, you have a mechanism to do that and even to request your site's crawled content be removed.
But most people don't want that. If it wasn't for Google, their website wouldn't generate much if any traffic or revenue.
If Google and TPB are so similar, the question should be, why aren't more people trying to take advantage of the popularity of bittorrent?
I think some people are. From what i hear, it seems that so
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:4, Insightful)
That is exactly what is happening. The newspapers are going after Google for money. They want to charge Google for the headlines and short blurbs on the Google News page.
Essentially, everything on the web is copyrighted, Google has money, so people are going to start going after Google. Precedents like this are going to make things worse.
For the moment, the attacks will be fairly non-obvious, but the *AA will push for increasingly draconian copyright laws. Eventually, if they are not stopped, excessive rules will kill the Internet. For those with a sense of history, one can have either a small network with lots of control or a big network with lots of users and lax controls. What made the internet successful was the relative lack of control. Let's hope this doesn't change.
Parent
Re:Google will have to pay (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's quite simple, really: You don't fuck with Google, because Google fucks back.
sad. very sad.
essentially, "one dollar, one vote" or "might makes right"
in this sense, goog is no better than the mafiaas! even though they might be fighting for things we care about (for now) it makes them no better if they are simply a 'giant with a big stick'.
so what we're saying is that only the rich corps can afford justice.
if this doesn't show that american justice is FUCKING BROKEN .... ;(
(sigh)
Been there already (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Been there already (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, there'a a huge difference between Google and TPB. It's willfully obtuse to pretend there isn't.
1) Google crawls the Internet and indexes content for searching. It presents search results in the form of hyperlinks to the sites of the people providing the content (exactly the way the WWW was intended to work). Yeah yeah, there is Google Cache, Google News, and Youtube, which occasionally gets them into trouble, but they make efforts to carefully remain within the realm of fair use, including removing copyrighted material from Youtube. One could argue that the WWW would not be able to function without search engines like Google.
TPB, on the other hand, is a website that contains a user-editable index of torrent files people are willing to share. In other words, TPB doesn't crawl for general content that is already publicly available. TPB then facilitates the transactions between users by functioning as a tracker. Torrents are useless without a tracker, so this is a critical difference. Google would not be able to provide the same service as TPB. Yes, you can find torrents via Google, but that is because Google has indexed a tracker like TPB and is just linking to their site.
2) Most of the content accessible through Google is legal, in the sense that the people who own the copyright have shared it explicitly on their website, which is crawled by Google. Most of the content on TPB is not legal, in the sense that the people sharing the files do not own the copyright and are not within the realm of fair use.
3) The content in both Google's search index and TPB's website is trivial to update to remove content that is in violation of copyright. Google willingly does so, usually at the notice of copyright holders. Google also removes content they don't necessarily have to, like Google Streetview images, when requested. TPB consistently refuses to remove content brought to its attention, and often responds with rude, immature, and insulting remarks. [thepiratebay.org]
Everybody stop pretending Google and TPB provide the same service. They just don't. Period.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The WWW would not function without DNSs and search engines like Google in the same way that BitTorrent would not function without trackers and search engines like TPB. The WWW is just a bunch of protocols used to connect people with each other to exchange information. That principle is no different from BitTorrent. The only difference is that the information storage can be scattered with BitTorrent, and that the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not a lawyer yet. I'm not your lawyer. I'm not anyone's lawyer. This is not legal advice.
There's "Google Cache."
I'm on your side with respect to the conclusion that Google and TPB are vastly different. However, you're barking up the wrong legal analysis tree to get there. Here's a very dirty, quick, and sloppy (but analytically pointing in the correct direction for legal argument) differentiation between Google and TPB:
The difference is the transformative nature of what Google provides (the first factor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TPB the website does not host any content, only links to that content. Typing into Google "filetype:torrent movie" is EXACTLY the same as typing the search term into the Pirate Bay. TPB was convicted of "assisting making available", not actually making the content available. I can click on any of those search results to start downloading the movie hence Google are definitely "assisting making available". Hence they are the same thing.
Phillip.
Intent (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't the key difference between them simply, "intent"?
What does The Pirate Bay intend to do, versus Google's intent?
Its the plain confirmation of rotten society (Score:3, Insightful)
and how justice is under the paid service of the corporations, not to mention legislators, and the charade of a fair and free society is being maintained despite corporations and wealthy do not have any problems ignoring and bypassing laws through the power of money if they feel the need. and all is rationalized behind a twisted interpretation of 'freedom' coupled with capitalism.
no. im not socialist. but im this close to being one from what i saw in the recent years.
I think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between them and an ISP though, at least in the case of The Pirate Bay, is that they don't carry any information that's copyright, only information -about- material that's potentially copyright. How many blocks of what size are available, what the hashes are for those blocks, etc.
Google actually has copies of nearly everything on the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the law in some countries already distinguishes between providing access to information other people publish and publishing it yourself. Using German law as an example because that's where I am reasonably sure of the details:
-If you are directly responsible for illegal material being on the internet (as in uploading the stuff to a service like Rapidshare and making it publicly accessible), you can be sued and prosecuted. No doubt about it. But as I understand it, the Pirate Bay does not fall in t
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
So the tracker gives clients the ability to be their own search engine, whereas google keeps all their data private.
Is that the difference between good and bad ?
Trackers are bad because they empower individuals, search engines are good because they can be easly be controlled from within.
One day leaders will see freedom as a good thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The verdict explicitly addresses this point and states that due to TPB running the tracker and thus being intimately involved in the sharing of copyrighted material any comparison with Google is false. They were not convicted because TPB is hosting a bunch of torrent files, they were convicted because they were running a tracker.
Moreover, while TPB site itself contains the Torrent files, Google only has links to such files.
And again, the "colour" of the bits is what matters, as already said before TPB site itself was not the issue in the trial, it was that the guys conspired to help people commit copyright infringement.
Not that I am in favour of that shit... :(
Formatting (Score:3, Insightful)
The Difference is (Score:5, Insightful)
Google can afford billion dollar lawyers.
Here's what Google should do (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I know how to satisfy the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Two key differences (Score:5, Insightful)
1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.
2. TPB hosts the BitTorrent tracker files. Google does not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you, exactly. .torrent files through google and it seems people think that is all you need. .torrent file is worthless without one or more well-visited trackers.
You can find
A
Google does not provide well-seeded .torrent files. TPB does/did.
Secondary, Google itself does not prefilter on that kind of content, thus remaining neutral. And they react on take-down notices for links, so nothing will happen to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation. Google is a common carrier.
That you think TPB exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation is your interpretation of what TPB exists for. If TPB facilitates copyright violation, it is due to the actions of its users, just as Google's data caching is due to the actions of its search routines.
Alright, so Google has a lot less links to controversial content than TPB. Let me then ask you, would TPB be exonerated if they started linking to non-copyrighted content, and if so, how many such links would it need to have in order to atta
Sure (Score:3, Interesting)
incorrect article, incorrect title (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely incorrect. Until the appeal has been determined in the case in years, this thing is still in legal limbo. Even new cases will "await the appeal decision".
Thus, this means nothing. The appeal will be everything, as was expected in the first place. All we have is a case of bad reporting/moral panic by forbes.
Re:losing battle (Score:5, Insightful)
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: [slashdot.org]
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.
Parent