Mississippi Attorney General Says Its Google's Fault He Can Find Infringing & Counterfeit Items
from the really-now? dept
We've discussed in detail in the past how different states' attorneys generally work: they pick a company they want to shame, for their own political benefit and just start making accusations against them and demanding they "answer" for them, even when they have no legal basis to their arguments whatsoever. Usually, one AG will start this, and then dozens of the others pile on as well, and they just keep putting on more and more pressure -- again, without any legal basis whatsoever -- until companies feel the need to "settle" to shut the AGs up, and then the AGs celebrate with lots of press coverage about how they brought down some big, bad company. It's kind of amazing how often we see this same pattern.It appears the latest target of a bogus attack from Attorneys General, starting with Mississippi's Attorney General Jim Hood, is Google. Hood, apparently, has found some infringing and counterfeit goods online (shock! horror!) and has decided that Google is responsible for this:
"On every check we have made, Google's search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games," Hood said. "This behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior."Of course, Hood has no legal mandate over copyright. At all. But, what the AGs normally do -- and Hood is doing here -- is use their broad, vague mandates towards "consumer safety" to pretend they have a mandate.
Hood didn't buy Google's explanations that it only removes content from search results in a narrow set of circumstances, pointing out that Google blocks child pornography and has removed content that glorifies the Nazi party. "Why will Google not remove websites or de-index known websites that purport to sell prescription drugs without a prescription or provide pirated content?" Hood asked.
What Hood is really doing, however, is not protecting consumers, but showing off his own technological ignorance of how search works. Yes, you can find infringing works via Google. But finding that content isn't Google's fault, but the fault of those who put that stuff up on the internet. A good Attorney General would use that information to go after the people actually breaking the law by putting such works up. But, you know, that takes work and actually proving someone broke the law. By blaming Google instead, it takes away all of the actual work and having to prove that someone actually was guilty of counterfeiting/infringement. And, of course, it can only lead to censorship. If Google is somehow ordered to magically know how to stop such content from being found, the only way to do that is to vastly overblock, removing tons of legal content.
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: attorney general, copyright, counterfeit, jim hood, mississippi
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google loves infringing content.
Technically, legalistically, you're right as always, Mike.
But as usual, wrong morally. Everyone has SOME slight obligation to prevent crime, and tacitly admit that crime is going on.
And under common law, corporate "persons" are not free to just do as they wish without any regard to the society that permits them to exist. But lawyers have so tangled that up with statute that we've lost requiring corporations to act in public interest -- and they DO act only to gain money, no concern for the far larger societal values.
Your usual defense of Google is answered by my tagline:
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike's "no evidence of real harm" means he wants to let secretive mega-corporations continue to grow.
05:37:03[g-370-3]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
Nothing? I guess that makes you an accessory to crime, then. Go ahead and turn yourself in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
oops. sorry, i forgot linking is a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
And why are you singling out Google? What about the other Search providers? I hear your argument but its so full of holes, I just don't understand why you waste so much time on one provider? I have no real love for Google but is sure seems like you're burning a lot of discussion capital by focusing on one provider.
Lastly, you've shown flashes of insight and a level of understanding how copyright is hurting the economy and technological advancement. Are you fully supporting copyright? I am sort of confused what your stance is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
True enough. +0.05 pts
"And under common law, corporate "persons" are not free to just do as they wish without any regard to the society that permits them to exist."
Again, true. +0.05 pts
Congratulations! You've made ONE 10th of one point.
You only have 999,999.9 pts to go to advance to level one,
the Google-has-the-obligation-to-police-the-internet Level. Keep up the good work!
"Where Mike's "no evidence of real harm" means he wants to let secretive mega-corporations continue to grow."
We're sorry, but your attempt to warp past the Slippery Slopes and over the Widest Chasm of Wildest Fantasy has failed.
Would you like to START OVER?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
Sure, the AG could go after google, but what about the servers they use, the companies who manufacture the components in those serves, and indeed, copper.
Copper has been used in furtherance of ALL the most heinous cyber crimes, e-theft and counterfeit drug peddlings, online cyber-e-bullying, and cyber-e-online-internet-cybering. ALL OF THEM.
While my inference is incorrect technically and legally, morally, copper must go. Will you join me, sister, in this noble endeavour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
If you apply the concept that since it can be used for illegal purpose then who ever is associated should be punished. A Ford car did a hit and run the other day. Ford should be punished for making something the could be used illegally. A gun was used in a crime. Guns should be banned. But lets go even further. Some random person committed a crime. We should ban people then that would solve all the problems. Wait, that would work. I guess you were right OOTB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
If you apply the concept that since it can be used for illegal purpose then who ever is associated should be punished. A Ford car did a hit and run the other day. Ford should be punished for making something the could be used illegally. A gun was used in a crime. Guns should be banned. But lets go even further. Some random person committed a crime. We should ban people then that would solve all the problems. Wait, that would work. I guess you were right OOTB.
Your analogies totally miss the mark. Google is not an inanimate object like a gun or car. All of the search providers have a responsibility to make sure their ecosystem is not used to facilitate crime. What would happen if banks, investment companies, S&L's and credit unions all said they had no responsibility to combat money laundering? Banks really just move money around. They could advance the same arguments as Google and all of its apologists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
But it is a tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Pro-copyright trolls are also tools, and by discrediting the pro-copyright argument, they encourage piracy.
Perhaps the AG should seek to ban TechDirt trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
You do know indexing is automated, right? Not even Google has the resources to vet every single webpage ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
This is incredibly important. After minor updates to the algorithm (Panda and Penguin) people lost a lot of business and had to spend hours redoing their content to deal with the changes.
I imagine that if the RIAA/MPAA forced Google to change their algorithm, it would cause damage on a mass scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
A tool was what I was basing my analogy on. Your analogy doesn't work since the method of transferring is based on the fact that it is a bank job to transfer money. Google's job is to provide a search engine. They find servers that come online. There is no way to determine if that server is legal or illegal. If it is a web host then there could be 10000+ sites on that server. There job isn't to figure out what is and isn't illegal that is what a lawyer does. Sure, I can go on Google and find a couple things I would know are illegal but I would also find things I didn't know where legal. Then some of those things may be illegal in different country and some may be illegal in a different state? Who keeps track of that? How do you determine what is illegal? You anti apologists keep saying to magically remove the illegal stuff but don't provide a way to do that. Using my analogies again, that is like saying make it so a gun doesn't fire when it is being used illegally.
In the end if it does become a third party responsibility, you will only be shooting yourself in the foot. A search engine is to powerful a tool for it to go away. Having search engines be responsible will only cause them to mirror out and disappear. That same thing has happened to Pirate bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Who is more competent to know what is infringing or not?
Certainly not Google, imagine Google starting to decide what is legal or not, suddenly they could just decide that all content from the RIAA and MPAA is infringing and take everything out of their listings.
That responsibility is not Google's is from "content owners".
Further apparently content owners don't like liability that much, since they know full well that even they cannot find out what is legal or not and they make mistakes too like taking down legitimate business that could sue them.
The only people who believe that crap from the MAFIAA is the people paid by them to believe in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
They know the party won't last forever and are just trying make as much money off it now as they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Money is tightly controlled and generally has much more serious criminal levels attached to it. Information doesn't (unless you p*** off the government/corporations).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
The server is always legal.
What transpires on that server may or may not be illegal.
In the real world, we hold the bad actor accountable, not every person near where he acts. No separate-but-equal rules for online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
"Your analogies totally miss the mark. Google is not an inanimate object like a gun or car. All of the search providers have a responsibility to make sure their ecosystem is not used to facilitate crime. What would happen if banks, investment companies, S&L's and credit unions all said they had no responsibility to combat money laundering? Banks really just move money around. They could advance the same arguments as Google and all of its apologists."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
That's pretty funny since the "censored" post has a number of followup comments refuting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
When you say that the post was "censored" because nobody could offer a refutation, you're just lying. On two counts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Are you 12?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
My friend, you have a shit car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
We have police and attorney generals whose job it is to prevent crime (well... not legally). I pay my taxes which pays them. That is as far as my obligation goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
You don't want to end up like Cpt Ahab do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
Okay then, answer me this (I know you won't). Which of these two scenarios best meets your requirement to "prevent crime"?
1. Google caves to AG's grandstanding and delists websites allegedly engaged in "illegal activity". AG claims success! Meanwhile said illegal activity continues unabated, but is a tiny bit harder to find on the internet. Or...
2. AG's leave Google alone and do their damn job, using proper law enforcement tools to locate "illegal activity" (easy to find, look on Google!) and stop it from actually occurring.
I genuinely believe you're not smart enough to see the correct answer here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
They're "only" preventing terrorism by spying on us, per your "logic."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So how do you propose search engines are supposed to identify every piece of infringing material from any given search result? Even the big labels get it wrong more often than not.
Crying that you think something is wrong without providing ideas to support that whine is what small children do. Is that all you have left to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In this case, he waves his hands and says "That's Google's problem" and compares it to Walmart selling stolen goods.
I certainly hope that I don't need to explain why that is a ridiculous comparison., since it has already been beaten here 72 million times (give or take a few million).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We noticed. You are wasting it exhaling in our direction.
And since you brought the subject up, have some advice: try breath mints.
Seriously man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IF he never repondes to you again the fault is with you for actiong like a brat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope. Just a bunch of weasel words. Does Mike think that copyright infringement is immoral? We don't know. He refuses to say. Lots of other questions he won't answer either. It's so cute how you sycophants rush in to say that Mike has already answered the questions. Some of you say that, and others say he won't answer the questions because it's me asking. LOL! Which is it? The fact is he hasn't answered and he won't answer because MIKE MASNICK IS A TOTAL FRAUD. I FUCKING dare Mike to have one, honest conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Boy, you sure know how to win a guy over. Gosh, why isn't he rushing to the keyboard to answer you? The mind boggles.
Its over bro. You've lost. Man up and take it on the chin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He has stated over and over again that he thinks it's immoral.
You'd know that if you actually read this blog or gave a shit about this subject.
I disagree with him. A lot of copyright infringement - allowing your radio to copy an unauthorized radio station broadcast, for example - is perfectly moral and legal too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course he does. He can't defend his beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, at this point, I would really rather appreciate it if you would hold your breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do something useful for a change like walking in front of a bus, humanity would be grateful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I will ask over and over and over and again and again and again.
Why is he SO SCARED to say whether he personally thinks infringement is immoral?
What's he hiding?
Ask him yourself. Mike is too scared to answer no matter who asks. He's INCAPABLE of having an honest discussion.
I'll derail thread after thread, reminding everyone over and over of what a fake Mike is.
He can prove me wrong with one simple post where he directly and honestly addresses the issues. He will NEVER do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You exhibit all the signs of insanity.
You aren't Travis Tygart, you know. You aren't in a position to actually affect any change on Mikes life, unlike Travis with Lance Armstrong. You aren't in charge of any sanctioning body, or in fact anything. You are a bit player here and tthat's all you'll ever be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really think a lot of yourself, don't you?
TD will go on with or without you, just as it would with me.
Sure you can put on your moral superiority hat and tilt against that windmill all you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I understand you're trying to prove Mike is some kind of terrible person, but the fact that you're a lawyer and resort to childish badgering is kind of astounding.
Also, you don't seem to understand the fact that the pushing and derailing you attempt only strengthens the resolve of everyone here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Every time your little fuck buddies like horse with no name insist that hidden posts are enhancing discussion and debate is a reminder how either out of touch with reality you all are, or how delusional you think that such moral panicking is working.
Fine, so you're honest and upstanding. Every time your fuck buddies complain that dissenting views are being shut down this quote will be repeated for all to see. You're not here to discuss. You're not here to debate. All you're here to do is do an impotent job of keeping information about your heroes suppressed.
Maybe you should ask Nazaire for some tips on how to be batshit crazy. He already does it in the courts; you could learn a thing or two from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, using the same logic with cars
Ford is even worse then all the other car companies, since they're the first ones to sell affordable cars for the middle class and poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if Mr. Hood is on the take? Maybe he just doesn't want his friends to be found...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, I'm sure that if Google is shut down all those "illegal websites" will magically vanish never to re-appear again... right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A problem as old as the hills
But ol' Walt would sell you a state inspection sticker for $100, no matter what shape your rusted-out, supercharged time bomb of a vehicle was in. Criminal action, and one which endangered other drivers and even passers-by. And unfair to those who paid to properly maintain their cars.
It's the phone company's fault, I say! Mega-corporation with deep pockets, profiting handsomely by cleverly "looking the other way". Sue them! Shut them down!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
I doubt that any of the inbred morons, the drunk hillbillies, the racist rednecks, the illiterate hicks, or the drug-addicted bigots living there have the intellectual capacity to use Google...so what's to worry about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, Tennessee Williams, George Ohr, Vernon Dahmer, Medgar Evers, Elvis Presley, Sam Cooke, Bo Diddley, Jim Henson, Morgan Freeman, James Earl Jones, Oprah Winfrey... etc. etc. off the top of my head.
Rednecks one and all! And illiterate, I'm sure!
I think the only bigot here is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
Thank God for Mississippi!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
Add those to your list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Man, this new Rolex look-a-like will be nice on the campaign trail. I should campaign against counterfeit products, as I am very experienced in such dealings."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see what you did there. Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is obvious. Google can't make money on child porn or Nazis, so they get blocked.
Bogus prescriptions, infringing content and fake designer clothes.... well, there are obvious free speech implications there.... right???
Fuck Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exclusive: SEARCH ENGINES FINDS WEBSITES ON INTERNETS!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact Libraries are like ships for pirates (librarians). They should all be burned and the librarians hanged!!!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Technical illiteracy and spouting decrees just makes you look stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No worries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caution
So to avoid further disruption to their future anti-Internet proposed laws it is time for them to neuter or to kill Google.
DCMA take-down notices have shot through the roof since then when millions of links get censored monthly. In this modern World of punishing lawful linkage then both sides of the infringement fence are happy to declare Google as the King of Piracy even if for very different reasons.
So today the Copyright Cartels flex their power over the Administration by having an Attorney General attack Google with much more due.
All part of the downfall of Google who sits and takes it like some masochist. Most ironic in all this is that other search engines are much less censored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The little boy who pointed out that the Emperor is naked is clearly responsible for the Emperor being naked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]