Google Denies Similarities To The Pirate Bay
from the good-luck-with-that dept
There's been a lot of talk recently from supporters of The Pirate Bay about how the ruling against the site is bad news for Google, because that site can be used just like The Pirate Bay -- and plenty of folks have set up custom searches via Google's tools that limit search results to Torrent files. A Google representative from Italy has finally spoken up about this, claiming (as did the entertainment industry at the trial) that Google is different because it actually honors takedown requests, unlike The Pirate Bay, who tends to ridicule takedown requests. It is, in fact, true, that this is a difference, though in real terms in means very little, since content taken down seems to reappear pretty quickly elsewhere. But if that's the only point of differentiation, it raises additional questions of why the law should state that a company in one industry needs to protect the business models of companies in another industry. From a technical perspective, what the two sites do is quite similar: point you to locations where you can find the content you want. Neither breaks copyright law specifically itself.Some say that Google's willingness to take down links, compared to The Pirate Bay's decision to flaunt them, shows something about intent, and suggests The Pirate Bay team is guilty of some sort of contributory copyright infringement, in "inducing" or encouraging people to break copyright law, but it's quite troubling when someone can be blamed for a crime not for actually committing it, but for producing the technological tools that make the crime possible. What you're left with is a judgment call on intent, and that's particularly troubling when it comes to tools, where part of the interest for the toolmakers is in just enabling technology to do what it can. Suddenly enabling something that disrupts another's business model by creating a more economical and efficient system shouldn't be considered illegal. It's what we normally call progress.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, search engines, torrents
Companies: google, the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Accessory to Murder
If someone tells you that they murder someone and you don't call the cops on them don't you become an accessory to the murder?
Why would music piracy be exempt from that situation? Wouldn't Pirate's By or Google be accessories to the crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accessory to Murder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Accessory to Murder
That is true, but if the gun manufacturer receives numerous letters by police authorities and concerned citizens requesting the gun manufacturer to curtail their sales to those who are not allowed to carry guns, and the gun manufacturer then not only does not abide by those requests, but also turns around and republishes those letters in a mocking manner for all the world to see, that would be tantamount to aiding and abetting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Accessory to Murder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accessory to Murder
They just host torrents, and refuse to take any down other than what are indeed bad torrents (aka viruses/fakes).
Why would music piracy be put in that situation? Would playing a song through a speaker (and even profiting off it) truly be something that warrants being arrested/thrown in jail? Punishment fits the crime is an aspect of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Accessory to Murder
I'm not asking what you think the law should be here, nor for your moral stance on the issue. I'm asking for what the current laws state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Accessory to Murder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accessory to Murder
The situation with TPB is more like if someone claims to you that someone else is a murderer, should you go vigilante cop, judge and jury and punish them yourself, or should you leave that up to the real cops?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accessory to Murder
I KILL PEOPLE.
There. By your own estimations, I am an admitted murderer and you are now legally bound to report me to authorities.
Why are you still sitting there? I just told you that I'm a murderer, and now you are an accessory, right?
Answer to the rhetoric: NO. Of course not, because you have absolutely nothing to go on. Had I given specifics then there would be something to report, but just a random statement, while the PD will file a report if you wish, they won't investigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Accessory to Murder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accessory to Murder
Are you suggesting that Google should spy on those who use its search engine?
They probably already do, but that is immaterial to the question.
I say no, but you are entitled to your own opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accessory to Murder
Here's a good comparison.
Guns can be used to murder people. Murder is against the law.
Pirate Bay was like a website pointing to places where you could buy guns. They sold no guns themselves, only pointed you to places that already sold guns.
Not only that, but USERS post the gun links. It's not like Pirate Bay is actively posting or policing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is a search engine only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is a search engine only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about sports cars
and in response to the gun manufacturer comment above, there are legal uses of guns, from sport to hunting to defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about sports cars
By way of your statement, there should be no manufacturing of golf carts, dune-buggies or other recreational vehicles -- since it is illegal to drive them on public roads?? The masses may not do it, but there are times at which availability to the correct tool is the key to getting the job done properly.
/off-topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about sports cars
I'm pretty sure he was talking about automobiles that are sold as being street-legal, not off-road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The artists aren't stupid. They know that 'p2p' and 'youtube' are simply the modern equivalent of 'radio' and 'music videos' -- which of course the RIAA fought against tooth and nail at the time. It turned out those things are actually free advertising which simply helps sell more CDs and the labels even ended up illegally paying radio stations to play more of their music (payola)
And as has often been mentioned here, artists like NiN and Radiohead are finding that if they allow p2p sharing they can use that to promote sales of the physical 'stamped, printed disk' or special Vinyl pressing, and expand their fanbase who buy tickets to the NIN/JA tour. That's where the real money is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Difference
No, in fact I think that is actually a large part of what this case is really about: their attitude. They weren't really doing anything illegal by Swedish laws, but the judge just didn't like their uppity attitude so he convicted them anyway. That'll teach 'em. Simple.
Google, on the other hand, knows when to kiss ass. Just ask the Chinese government officials who have Larry Page's and Sergey Brin's lip prints all over their butts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Real Difference
TPB runs trackers, while Google does not. This is much more direct assistance than merely linking to a .torrent is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Real Difference
In that case then, all TPB needs to do is shutdown their trackers and they're good to go! Woo hoo!
That isn't exactly what the judge said and I sincerely doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eggs and Hams..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The PB allows users to infringe on copyrights. Of course it does, it's a method of rapidly spreading data amongst a vast group of people. But the fact that the service allows that to happen is being considered 'intent' to CAUSE that to happen. The issue isn't aiding and abetting piracy, but the laughably low legal standard being applied to the proof of 'intent'. The Pirate Bay 'defeat' is not only irrelevant to Internet piracy as a whole, but extremely questionable legally.
A better analogy is this: the road that goes past my house is very poor. Because I am a weird guy with a lot of money, I pay for it to be upgraded to the same grade as an autobahn. People begin to speed on the stretch of road, because they can now go much faster. The police then charge me with assisting speeding.
That is what is being done. The PB case is, in a very real sense, an attack upon technology and innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA
That's because the US has the DMCA which requires Google to take down material claimed to be infringing, whereas Sweden has no such law. Big, big difference. Or at least, Sweden had no such law. This Swedish judge seems to have just made one up for Sweden all by himself, and made it retroactive to boot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intent?
Uh huh, sure.
but the intent is clearly to encourage piracy...It's the PIRATE bay...
How about Google's PIRATE search page?
http://www.google.com/intl/xx-pirate/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intent?
The language of PIRATES, that is! It's obvious that they are trying to attract pirates with that page. That's all I need to see: Google is guilty of piracy! Send Larry and Sergey to the butt slam motel!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're ALL wrong
There are no provisions in copyright law similar to "aiding and abetting" in criminal law, but there are provisions for secondary liability. These are the theories under which Napster and Grokster were forced to close down. But again, Google would be allowed to take advantage of the DMCA exemption for linking services. It's hard to see how they would even be subject to notice and takedown provisions, as is YouTube, for example, because Google doesn't even host torrent files, and torrent files aren't copyrighted anyway, and can't even be copyrighted in the first place.
Google's gonna be fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA is USA only
A DMCA is ONLY a legal document within the USA. Because of this sending one to someone based in another jurisdiction (ie: anywhere else in the world) is at best an exercise in futility, at worst - harassment. So ridiculing a legal threatening notice that has no power to do anything other than put a smirk on a solicitors face in any country than the USA is what any reasonable person would (and IMHO should) do.
If the Copyright license holder wanted allegedly infringing material to be removed they needed to go through due process which includes a nice letter of request explaining it (not a threatening letter), then if that fails, a letter explaining that further action might be taken, then if necessary a trip to the local CIVIL court for an injunction. If that is granted by the court (after right of reply and NOT before like in a DMCA) then the entity (ie: the PB) would be required by LAW to take down the infringing material.
The ONLY reason Google honour DMCA's is because they MUST! If they were based in another country I can guarantee everyone they would Not honour the take down notices unless it was beneficial to them in some way or required by order of court.
This is one of the reasons why the US is so anxious to get the ACTA treaty resolved and made legal worldwide. Then Procedural Fairness will not be an issue in the World and everyone will have to honour DMCA style take down notices on threat of CRIMINAL action (not just civil).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if you isolate the tracker there's no way you can know what kind of material you help people share. The tracker only deals with hashsums, so there's no file contents, file names or other meta data flowing through the tracker.
Brown wrote: The issue isn't aiding and abetting piracy, but the laughably low legal standard being applied to the proof of 'intent'.
If you know a crime is going on and you are indifferent to the consequences of it then that's proof of intent under Swedish law. Since we don't have any DMCA the law doesn't make it clear whether it's enough to react to abuse reports or if you also need to be proactive. So even if TPB removed torrent files that had been reported one cannot be sure that that would be enough, but at least it would mean that the intent would be slightly harder to prove.
It's funny that people say Sweden has weak copyright legislation. To me it seems in many ways to be much stricter than that in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What crime are you speaking of?
Intent to do what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dear Volvo,
It has come to our attention that people are using products manufactured by your company to commit a multitude of crimes, ranging from traffic offenses to robbery, assault and even murder. We are thereby giving you notice under Swedish law of these criminal actions and demanding that you take whatever steps are necessary to prevent your products from being used in this manner or immediately cease production. Your failure to do so will be proof of your intention to help people commit these crimes.
-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It matters a great deal because of the principle involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crock
Same with car manufacturers. If someone uses a car to provide a get a way vehicle, the car makers are liable.
Its crap. The Pirate Bay did nothing but create a Torrent specific search engine. More double standards is all I see. If TPB goes down then yes, ALL SEARCH ENGINES SHOULD GO DOWN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, you are a criminal. And the company that made the tape recorder is guilty of helping you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]