Google Censors "Piracy Terms" From Instant Search 246
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."
Bloody Hell (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bloody Hell (Score:5, Funny)
Oddly enough, other piracy related search terms like "pegleg", "eyepatch" and "jolly roger" are still auto-completed.
Re: (Score:2)
Prosthetics department (Score:2)
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:Bloody Hell (Score:5, Funny)
"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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"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: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score: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"
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 [2600.com] of things that Google is going to start censoring from their search results, any minute now.
Re: (Score:2)
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 somethi
Re:Bloody Hell (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, my searches on "nine-pounder", "pieces of eight", "scurvy dogs", and "Arrrrrrr" all totally failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
YET.
ftfy
Re:Bloody Hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bloody Hell (Score:4, Funny)
Well, you robbed them of profit that they never even had, so yes. You are a very, very evil individual.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [pineight.com] have been doing a good job of hiding the Pirate Party's existence from voters.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [pineight.com] 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!
Rear window captions (Score:2)
So I have a 75% hearing loss.
Patronize cinemas with rear window captions [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The difference is you watch a truckload of commercials in the hopes that maybe, just maybe you will buy Pirelli [pirelli.com] tires, Gerber [gerber.com] baby food, a few cases of Bud [budweiser.com], some Pepsi [pepsi.com], Doritos [doritos.com], throw some Orville Redenbacher [orville.com] in the microwave, vote for LOCAL_POLITICIAN, replace the windows [hansons.com] in your house, drink Florida orange juice [http], pick up the phone and call Binder & Binder [binderandbinder.com], enroll in classes at Phoenix [phoenix.edu], get a couple Sham Wows [shamwow.com] for your friends, tune in for the BIG_STORY [kcrg.com] at 6 o'clock, stay at the HI Express [hiexpress.com] tonight, ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Applies only to incomplete words (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a story about "google censors search terms when you click search".
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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!
Scientology Uses DMCA to Delist Critic's Website (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Warez Terms (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the new standard will be to prefix with a z, so that you can autocomplete zbittorrent.
Get a grip! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily believe everything I read in a summary...
Awesome! (Score:4, Informative)
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./ [ixquick.com.] *
* google it for more details!
Re: (Score:2)
Out of print (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 distrib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Goode idee, thanks yuu. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
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/ [ixquick.com] .
I'll sue! (Score:2)
That extra strain on my enter-finger builds up, you know! I could get carpal tunnel 0.00004% faster!
Why does this always happen? (Score:2)
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.
Keywords not even really necessary (Score:3)
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.
Censor is a bad word choice here. (Score:2)
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).
Does not jibe 100% with "do no evil" (Score:3)
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.
Out of interest... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I could spend hours looking for that information but equally someone MAY have that to hand right off the bat. Your answer is
probably prudent (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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/ [morewords.com]
http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/rapid/ [morewords.com]
http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/torr/ [morewords.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
More? (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to forget the word Google. I can find pirated software using google and hence should be censored.
So what? (Score:3)
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
Maleware issues? (Score:2)
Not saying big companies aren't performing CYA.
Re: (Score:2)
Trial balloon? (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
America, entertainment industry's bitch. (Score:3)
even google now. no wonder they are producing stuff like american idol etc to keep the public sleeping.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's blacklist is oddly weak (Score:2)
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/ [2600.com] 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 ot
how about "censoring" dealers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's true! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)