IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely

from the here-comes-the-lawsuit dept

Tue, Jun 22nd 2010 12:31pm — Mike Masnick

We just wrote about a DMCA takedown notice from BPI to Google that appeared to be setting Google up for a future lawsuit, and now it looks like the IFPI, of which BPI is a part, is going even further. TorrentFreak, following up on our post about BPI, noticed an even more direct takedown notice from the IFPI demanding that Google block any link to The Pirate Bay.

In light of the serious violations of copyright facilitated by The Pirate Bay service, and in accordance with Google's policies (see http://www.google.com/dmca.html andhttps://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=58&ctx=sibling) we are asking for your immediate assistance in removing from your index, or otherwise disabling access to via your search engine, URLs linking to the website for The Pirate Bay including but not limited to the URLs specified in the attachment to this notice.

Yup. They are directly asking for a blanket ban, which clearly goes way beyond what the DMCA was intended for or allows. But, of course, the real goal here is to set up Google for a lawsuit, which IFPI makes clear later in its letter:

Our use of a notice in this form, as required by Google, is meant to facilitate Google's removal of search results linking directly to infringing web pages and we neither admit nor accept that Google is a 'service provider' for the purposes of the DMCA or that it is necessary to serve, or that Google is entitled to be served, a notice in compliance with the DMCA. IFPI itself and on behalf of the IFPI Represented Companies expressly reserves all rights in this regard.

Nice trick here, right? So even if the courts decide (say as in the Viacom case) that Google needs to have direct knowledge of what's infringing, the IFPI wants to reserve the ability to claim in court that Google isn't even a service provider and doesn't fall under the DMCA's safe harbors. Of course, Google has dozens of judicial decisions on its side, but why should that stop the IFPI.

Then there's my favorite line of all:

Please note that we do not admit that we or the IFPI Represented Companies are responsible for detecting infringing material and notifying you of it.

Yup. The IFPI is blatantly coming out and saying that it doesn't believe it needs to figure out what's infringing and what's not -- that's what Google has to do. Of course, there is nothing in the actual law or in the case law that supports this position. It just looks like the IFPI is taking a flier and seeing if it can drastically overreach on the DMCA and get Google to stop linking to the entire Pirate Bay (something that Facebook has already done), and if Google (hopefully) refuses, then it seems likely to file a lawsuit.

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, dmca, linking
Companies: bpi, google, ifpi, the pirate bay

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:37pm

at the end of the day, the pirate bay has been found liable in their home country, and even a cursory scan of the site shows it to be a primary guide and destination site for violating copyright. what is the upside for google not to remove them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re:
  1. Google is not legally required to take down the material
  2. This is attempt to frame a basis for a lawsuit and not have it just thrown out of court.
  3 That being the case, they might as well fight this one and not have any prior action of theirs to show that they did it for IFPI previoulsy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re:
  "the pirate bay has been found liable in their home country, and even a cursory scan of the site shows it to be a primary guide and destination site for violating copyright. "
  
  The horse has bolted and they're trying to padlock doors that have long rusted from their hinges. Most people know about the site by now, and removing Google links won't stop people linking from other sources, nor will it stop people typing the address in their browser. *Maybe* it will stop a *part* of the infringement, but at this point it's virtually pointless.
  
  "what is the upside for google not to remove them?"
  
  I'm no legal expert, but as I understand it, compliance with this order would put them in a very precarious legal situation. I believe this could be used as precedent to force any kind of censorship from a "copyright holder" who accuses a site of "copyright infringement". It could quite easily kill Google's business as they're forced to not list numerous popular sites (and presumably also thereby break Pagerank).
  
  As ever, it's not about going after the culprits (and, no, TPB still don't directly host the infringing content) but an easy target.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I believe this could be used as precedent to force any kind of censorship from a "copyright holder" who accuses a site of "copyright infringement"."
    
    Then they can't really make this appallingly arrogant statement:
    
    "Please note that we do not admit that we or the IFPI Represented Companies are responsible for detecting infringing material and notifying you of it."
    
    WTF? Google's not the rightsholder, so they can't do anything if they're not told. Or they can remove all traces of something *just in case* it's infringing, and not tell anyone about it if that's how IFPI wants to play.
    
    That's what I'd love to see. All references to anything that might be held by IFPI repped holders removed from all search indexes. Google could take the low road and remove all mention of IFPI or RIAA or what have you from their listings. Google's got the infinitely bigger foot to stomp them with here and they should be careful what they wish for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Duffmeister (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As ever, it's not about going after the culprits (and, no, TPB still don't directly host the infringing content) but an easy target.
    
    This is just way to make it easy for the rights holder to hold someone to the flame even if it is the wrong person. They'd rather "nuke the site from orbit" (it is the only way to be sure) rather than do what would be required of me were I to go after people for infringing my copyrights. They want to have their way and for it to be easy for them as well. They do not regard any part of the equation except profit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:28pm
  
  Re:
  But what is the advantage for IFPI? So Google doesn't list the pirate bay in it's search engine anymore, so what? Others will, and I bet that people that are looking for movies/games/whatever, and don't have a clue, wouldn't go and search "The pirate bay"...they would probably search something like "downlaod free", or something similar. Eventually they would find the pirate bay (or similar) or any of the other million torrent sites.
  
  And those that DO have a clue, already know about TBP, so the impact is zip.
  
  So the theory that they are setting up Google isn't looking so dumb after all...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JackSombra (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re:
  "what is the upside for google not to remove them?"
  Simple, to advoid setting precedence.
  Today it's copyright
  Tomorrow Neo Nazi sites (Germany/France…done and retracted except for local language versions)
  Next day it abortion sites (where ever it's illegal*)
  Next day it's assisted suicide (where ever it's illegal)
  Next it’s criticising the government (Russia, various dictatorships around the world)
  Next its sites that are "insult" to religion X (Most Islamic countries, Ireland and UK)
  
  And so on until search engines are pretty much useless and Google, as s search engine at least, no longer exists.
  Facebook and YouTube can afford to pull content to abide by local laws because finding information is not their core business, Google search is all about people finding what they want and if it becomes too censored people will just go elsewhere and the advertising will follow.
  
  Google tried once before twisting itself to conform to a particular country’s laws (China) and we saw how that worked out...they just demanded more. I would hope they have learned their lesson
  
  Interesting that it's the BPI and not RIAA trying this, my guess is BPI is the RIAA's stalking horse on this, if the BPI lose it does not hurt the RIAA's effort's to much (especially with the anti-British sentiment whiped up by Obama), if they win it gives RIAA a 10 ton sledge hammer to use in their future endeavours
  
  Guess we are about to finally find out two things, what makes legally Google and the like different from torrent indexing/searching sites (as neither host the “illegal content”) and also what happens when a entertainment cartel goes against someone who can turn up with some seriously expensive legal clout
  *Yes they pulled this in the UK before, but only for advertising, not search engine which are essentially two different businesses
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 6:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Anti-British sentiment? Sure you didn't leave out the word 'Petroleum'?
    
    Your points are fine, but leave out the ad hominem, eh?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 11:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Anti-British sentiment? Sure you didn't leave out the word 'Petroleum'?
      
      Huh? I don't see any there.
      
      ...leave out the ad hominem, eh?
      
      How about leaving out references to imagined ad hominem that wasn't really there, eh?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 7:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    but the fair question is this: why should google be exempt of the laws of a country they offer service in? it isnt that they have a single site, they have a google.country-here for almost every country around. they specifically target the markets, why should they be able to ignore the law?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 7:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If we're going to talk laws of a country and fair questions, let's ask this: Why do investigative companies working for the RIAA not require licences to operate in the states they obtain IP addresses and other cursory information from, in spite of the fact that operating without the required licences would constitute as breaking the law in those states?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2010 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You've got to break some laws in order to make someone pay.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 11:45pm
  
  Re:
  and even a cursory scan of the site shows it to be a primary guide and destination site for violating copyright.
  
  Kind of like the Internet in general, huh? And make no mistake about it, they would love to eradicate the Internet in general.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Moo^2, 23 Jun 2010 @ 12:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hell, my human brain is perfectly capable of infringing copyright by memorizing copyrighted material and retell/recreate without consent.
    
    BAN BRAINS!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 23 Jun 2010 @ 4:39am
  
  Re:
  at the end of the day, the pirate bay has been found liable in their home country, and even a cursory scan of the site shows it to be a primary guide and destination site for violating copyright. what is the upside for google not to remove them?
  Googleprovides an automated service. Every "special" request to do something outside of what the algorithms do automatically is a very significant burden.
  
  Bear in mind that simply to block direct links to TPB would be completely pointless anyway - since a Google search for the string "thepiratebay.org" reveals 10 million hits so there are 10 million+ webpages that contain the address (this one does now too!).
  
  How exactly do you propose to block all of this -without basically shutting down the internet. (Oops sorry - I forgot - that was what you were trying to do ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 24 Jun 2010 @ 1:21am
  
  Re:
  At the end of the day, The Pirate Bay has illegitimately been found liable in their home country, and a cursory scan of the site shows it to be a primary guide and destination site for a wide variety of content including. what is the downside for Google not to support them?
  
  ...FTFY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:42pm

So...it expects Google to know every last infringing bit of content on the Internet, and puts the onus on Google to figure it out, despite the fact that - like the Viacom lawsuit happens to highlight - not everything is actually infringing, and some of it may have actually been authorized by the copyright holder?

The IFPI is run by idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:57pm
  
  Re:
  no, they are informing google of a legal ruling (in case they didnt know), which puts them on notice under dmca. pretty much leaves google with few choices that arent going to be expensive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Duffmeister (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Which case and what specifics as it applies in this instance?
    
    Specifics help us to see the point you are trying to make, so that we can discuss what is going on.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nastybutler77 (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "no, they are informing google of a legal ruling (in case they didnt know), which puts them on notice under dmca. pretty much leaves google with few choices that arent going to be expensive."
    
    Don't you ever get tired of being a mindless contrarian shill who's always wrong?
    
    As someone pointed out below, they sent a blanket takedown of the entire TPB site, which includes content IFPI doesn't hold rights to. Which makes this a bogus takedown notice which leaves Google with the choice of ignoring it as such.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 3:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      they arent taking down the site, they are asking google to remove links. basically, there are so many pages and so many links, it would be impossible to weed through "About 1,820,000 results" (according to google search of site:thepitagebay.org).
      
      plus, was the legal judgement against tpb as a whole, or only specific files? answer that one, and you know how the rest of this goes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Brian (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And how many of those 1.8 million links are mention of thepiratebay.org on other sites.
        
        And where do they get off asking Google to remove all links to TPB? They admitted they don't know everything that is and is not infringing and are asking Google to just remove EVERY link. Well last I checked they have no right to ask for removal to other peoples content, be it legally there or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 6:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        normally, site: should only give pages on that site.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Duffmeister (profile), 23 Jun 2010 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It was a foreign court case that is under appeal and has many potential issues revolving around the judge and his pro-copyright leanings and memberships that would cause a US judge to recuse themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 11:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Does the IFPI operate in the US? I realize that the RIAA may be a member, but their site is unclear as to what country they operate from. I ask to figure out the venue for this possible lawsuit of theirs. If not in the US, then would DMCA even apply? Under the DMCA, the rights holder has to notify of infringing material (TPB in and of itself is not infringing material), and as Google does not host those sites they have no legal obligation to block them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2010 @ 12:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    no, they are informing google of a legal ruling (in case they didnt know), which puts them on notice under dmca.
    
    Actually, they aren't following the DMCA process at all and even admit to it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:43pm

I think that someone should send a takedown notice to have the IFPI's website removed from Google as well. Seems only fair since they infringe my copyright on good sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Duffmeister (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re:
  Did the IFPI list the links on their site even indirectly?
  If so this idea of a removal works by their own logic.
  
  How dare they link to infringing content.
  
  Also what about the non-infringing content on the Pirate Bay?
  Is the IFPI making a false claim of copyright ownership on that via the take down notice?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "How dare they link to infringing content."
    
    How dare copyright take away my inherit rights to copy whatever I want (for 95 or more years). HOW DARE IT!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Duffmeister (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think my sarcasm tags got removed.
      
      How dare they remove non-infringing content? How dare they abuse the legal system?
      
      It is much more complicated than a simple yes or no.
      
      Copyright has outstripped it's mandate and no longer keeps abreast with modern technology. I am not saying copyright isn't a good idea, I love it. I just dislike when a good thing goes bad due to corruption and lawyering up rather than being reasonable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Overcast (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      
      How dare copyright take away my inherit rights to copy whatever I want (for 95 or more years). HOW DARE IT!!!!
      
      Like this?
      
      http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/digital-file-check.html
      
      I'm curious - if they have gotten 'rights' to post screen shots of the 'Windows Operating System' from Microsoft - or if they are just posting it without consent?
      
      I'm SURE the Windows EULA mentions that, but I'd have to dig..
      
      Additionally - they have links to Google on their 'Terms of use' page.
      
      http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_about/termsconditions.html
      
      So - I could go to THEIR page, click those links and search for Torrents, right?
      
      So they too are linking to the material.
      
      Kettle - meet pot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brian (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 5:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
      
      -Life-Line by Robert A. Heinlein (1939)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 23 Jun 2010 @ 4:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I see no reason for granting a further term now, which will not hold as well for granting it again and again, as often as the old ones expire... it will in effect be establishing a perpetual monopoly, a thing deservedly odious in the eye of the law; it will be a great cramp to trade, a discouragement to learning, no benefit to authors, but a general tax on the public; and all this only to increase the private gain of booksellers."
        
        An anonymous pamphleteer protesting against the lobbying of the booksellers for an extension of the copyright term set by the Statute of Anne in 1735,
        
        see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How dare copyright be applied retroactively so that corporations can take what should belong in the public domain. HOW DARE IT!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (copyright extensions that is *)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 3:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    funny as hell watching you children dancing on the heads of legal pins. just admit it, tpb is an organized resource to obtain illegal content. the rest is simple.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 3:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So what? I don't think anyone is arguing against it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 5:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why is it illegal?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 23 Jun 2010 @ 4:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      just admit it, tpb is an organized resource to obtain illegal content
      But there is absolutely no way of stopping it
      
      the rest is simple.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Overcast (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re:
  I think that someone should send a takedown notice to have the IFPI's website removed from Google as well. Seems only fair since they infringe my copyright on good sense.
  
  Good point - wouldn't linking to sites with 'trademarked names' also apply then?
  
  So they should block any and all 'trademarked' names of sites as well, including record companies, movie names, corporation names and such...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re:
  They can not be infringing upon anyones copyright on "Good Sense". It is obvious that they do not even have any.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duffmeister (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:06pm

related note ....
Was it not a recent SCOTUS decision that said that a business was a legal entity? Are these not the same people who said accusations are enough? So if three of us complain about real or imagined infringement would they not have to remove the business from the internet as it is an individual?

Seriously though, If they can generate "specific knowledge" of infringement by a general notice that "XYZ website" has infringing content on it, how can that be treated seriously without any substantive information added? It is not enough to genuinely deal with the takedown notice. Also if Google is not the Service Provider how can they be at fault for what others post to their sites? It seems to me this is a serious stretch of the intent and letter of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Duffmeister (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: related note ....
  Paragraph one was intended as humon and my troll bait tag got removed. I'll have to devise a new way to make that evident.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:10pm

Uhm...wouldn't removing links to the TPB violate "search neutrality" (whatever that is)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fletcher, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re:
  Absolutely! I will not tolerate Search Traffic Shaping of any kind! {/sarc}
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:30pm

I am not a lawyer...
Can someone explain to me how Google (or anyone, for that matter) can stay in the search engine business if they submit to this?

I'm serious. If Google will black out websites whenever anyone asks them to, what will be left? Can you name a site that nobody dislikes? (And would such a site be worth finding?) And if it's only upon request by someone who has lawyers on retainer, how long until some law firm offers offers such a "service" for a few dollars? A small price to pay to have something you dislike removed from Google, practically zero marginal cost for the lawyers, and it can be implemented as an automated tool on a lawfirm's web page (until a competing lawfirm removes it from Google, of course).

Am I missing something, or is this a fight Google cannot back down from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re: I am not a lawyer...
  Am I missing something, or is this a fight Google cannot back down from?
  
  Allowing a precedent like this would be an expressway to bankruptcy for Google.
  
  Their income to employee ratio is presently very high, but the kind of resources it would take to become the world's (still ineffective) copyright police would break even the oil industry.
  
  Not to mention the gruesome sight of copyright "industry"'s ongoing mutilation of the long dead corpse of free speech.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 3:34pm
  
  Re: I am not a lawyer...
  "Can you name a site that nobody dislikes?"
  
  JimmyJohns?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 7:46pm
    
    Re: Re: I am not a lawyer...
    Talk to any vegetarian and you'll get an entirely different viewpoint. Jimmy John's is awful.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2010 @ 12:04am
    
    Re: Re: I am not a lawyer...
    Expensive and greasy? Yeah... no.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean T Henry (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:36pm

Search Neutrality
If ANY other search engine has the results and Google does not then the other engines must be violating "search neutrality".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:43pm

If Google does comply with that trash, they will become the biggest hypocritical company after the big fiasco they were a part of with China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:49pm

www.googlesux.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 2:00pm

A light just went on ...
xxx note/entry)

I wonder if google would fund my little plan to cause the IP and content types serious grief and financial ruin. It would be in their best interest after all to see their fall accelerated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 2:05pm

Over there you have the people complaining that Google is biased... and here you have people who actually want Google to become biased...
Great. The world is just spiffy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt P (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 2:34pm

This is the showdown I've wanted for quite some time. It's one thing to sue individuals or even ISPs. Tackling Google is a whole different beast. Get them into this battle and things might start to swing a little differently.

Google is certainly no angel in matters of privacy, but they do thrive on an open internet and thus its in their best interests to fight crap like this. If you've got to pick a giant corporation to side with, might as well be the one most congruent with your goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 3:05pm

Heres hoping Google tells them to shove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 3:14pm

If Google just roles over on this like it has with so many other things in the past, I'll be done with them at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 22 Jun 2010 @ 4:52pm

@ #1, draconian copyright enthusiast:
"at the end of the day, the pirate bay has been found liable in their home country" -- One court decision in one case in a minor country (with some question about the alleged judge's bias) does not overturn the whole of English common law.

I find The Pirate Bay a good place to get material at about its true value, rather than what people who had nothing to do with creating that material *claim* that I should pay, to *them*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 5:25pm
  
  Re: @ #1, draconian copyright enthusiast:
  by your logic, criminals in one country should just move to another country and be free. fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 5:30pm
    
    Re: Re: @ #1, draconian copyright enthusiast:
    Since when is copyright infringement a crime?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 5:37pm
    
    Re: Re: @ #1, draconian copyright enthusiast:
    Umm, they can and they do, depending upon the extradition laws of the country they move do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2010 @ 12:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: @ #1, draconian copyright enthusiast:
      Including fleeing to France from the US if they've committed murder. France will not extradite to a country that has the death penalty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 5:28pm

So lets get this straight... They want to make it illegal to link to a site that links to methods of acquiring copyrighted materials.

Sure you might call BS for saying that tpb provides non-copyrighted material aswell, but it is true. Torrents are an excellent way to distribute open source software without putting a hosting burden on the developers.

Personally I think it's bullshit that tpb is considered unlawful, but this is just ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2010 @ 10:29pm
  
  Re:
  "They want to make it illegal " - no, under dmca, it is pretty much already a foregone conclusion. just scan through google pages for the number of links removed and items pointing to chilling effects. google long ago crossed the bridge, understanding that once it is aware of copyright violations, it needs to remove links to stop contributing to the situation and potentially making themselves liable. remember, this isnt criminal, this is civil, and the standard for liablity in a civil matter is much lower than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that would apply in a criminal matter.
  
  googles actions over the last few years in handling dmca notices makes this one not particularly far off the mark, and more importantly, it does put google at some legal risk if they fail to follow through. it would be almost a certainty that legal action would follow if they didnt take steps.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tracker1 (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 6:34pm

I'd like to see google blackhole asshats.
I mean seriously, what if Google took all member companies of those organizations that attempt to sue it, and they start dropping 1 position a week on Google's for a year, and then stay there? Meanwhile, articles on techdirt and the like start showing in the top 3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. File, 23 Jun 2010 @ 6:20am

BitTorrent?
Really? BitTorrent is hosting infringing content? And Google is wrong for linking to them? Seriously?

When will we get judges who actually understand a LITTLE about the technology they are passing judgement on?

First, BitTorrent doesn't host ANY infringing content... NONE... ZERO... ZIP... NIL... NADA...

They have LINKS to content that OTHER people, sites, etc. have posted. Think of it as phone numbers to businesses which MAY do something illegal.

By these absurd rulings, if a site has LINKS to bomb making sites... or racial sites... or whatever... then they are guilty of that crime!

So... if you OWN a copy of the Yellow Pages, you are HOSTING a list which COULD contain a LINK (Phone number) to a business which COULD be doing something illegal.

So you are as guilty as Google.

Twisted logic? Of course... but less twisted than the copyright monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 23 Jun 2010 @ 8:05am

What about...
Bing? What about Yahoo? What about, oh, basically any search engine accessible? Search on the keywords "pirate bay", and shockingly enough, the first result is going to be The Pirate Bay's URL. Why are they just going after Google? Not that I think they have a toe, much less a leg, to stand on, but if you're going to go out, go out big!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]