There be pirates but we can't find them.
October 2, 2009 4:43 AM Subscribe
Googling for the Piratebay brings up less results than before, and no front page at all, as well as give you an interesting notice at the bottom of the page - "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 16 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org." The notice is unavailable.
But The Pirate Bay itself is the top hit, so it seems kind of pointless.
posted by Harald74 at 4:49 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Harald74 at 4:49 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I (and a whole bunch of TPB connected people I talk to on twitter) only noticed it today - so yes, Chilling effects are probably getting to posting whatever notice they have soonish. The front page of The Piratebay isn't returned in the results which seems a bit odd, when others are.
posted by dabitch at 4:49 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by dabitch at 4:49 AM on October 2, 2009
Yes, Harald74 , the pirate bay is still top hit, I've just never seen a DMCA complaint notice on google search results before, that's what I find interesting.
posted by dabitch at 4:50 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by dabitch at 4:50 AM on October 2, 2009
Interesting, sure, but I wonder why they didn't go after the TPB link itself. But then again, I usually don't see that much rhyme or reason in the "war on digital piracy".
posted by Harald74 at 4:53 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by Harald74 at 4:53 AM on October 2, 2009
Well that's doubly interesting.
1) That Google can be forced to remove results. For what legal reason exactly?
2) That they didn't link to some corporate PR legal mumbo jumbo page, but instead to an EFF site.
posted by DU at 4:56 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
1) That Google can be forced to remove results. For what legal reason exactly?
2) That they didn't link to some corporate PR legal mumbo jumbo page, but instead to an EFF site.
posted by DU at 4:56 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yes, Harald74 , the pirate bay is still top hit, I've just never seen a DMCA complaint notice on google search results before, that's what I find interesting.
These have been around for at least the past 5 years. I remember the first notice I saw came up when searching for KaZaa/KaZaa Lite in 2004.
posted by puffin at 4:56 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
These have been around for at least the past 5 years. I remember the first notice I saw came up when searching for KaZaa/KaZaa Lite in 2004.
posted by puffin at 4:56 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you know what The Pirate Bay is, why do you need to Google it? Or is this just a concern for those people who get their URL box and their Search box confused?
Anyway, doing the Google query in the first link in this post, I get the Wikipedia article that links to the site in the first result, a link to the Browse Torrents page in the second result, and a couple of other sites that mention the URL thepiratebay.org in the excerpt. So, clearly, this DMCA complain hasn't been very effective.
posted by Jimbob at 4:57 AM on October 2, 2009
Anyway, doing the Google query in the first link in this post, I get the Wikipedia article that links to the site in the first result, a link to the Browse Torrents page in the second result, and a couple of other sites that mention the URL thepiratebay.org in the excerpt. So, clearly, this DMCA complain hasn't been very effective.
posted by Jimbob at 4:57 AM on October 2, 2009
TPB wasn't the top hit for me, although it was when I googled for just "piratebay". (3 results removed.) Searching for "mininova" succeeded as expected and had no results removed (or at least none reported).
When Google is our memory and search results can be unpersoned, are we living in a Stalinist police state?
posted by DU at 4:58 AM on October 2, 2009
When Google is our memory and search results can be unpersoned, are we living in a Stalinist police state?
posted by DU at 4:58 AM on October 2, 2009
The DMC notice is sent by en entity called Destined Enterprises, who seems to be have tried taking on Google (LGT Google search on the ChillingEffects.org domain) earlier too.
posted by Harald74 at 4:59 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by Harald74 at 4:59 AM on October 2, 2009
If you know what The Pirate Bay is, why do you need to Google it?....clearly, this DMCA complain hasn't been very effective.
The interesting thing is not how well the bear dances, but that it dances at all.
posted by DU at 5:00 AM on October 2, 2009 [23 favorites]
The interesting thing is not how well the bear dances, but that it dances at all.
posted by DU at 5:00 AM on October 2, 2009 [23 favorites]
Peter Sunde on twitter: Ok, someone from Google can please reply: why is "thepiratebay.org" (the frontpage) removed from your index?
posted by dabitch at 5:01 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by dabitch at 5:01 AM on October 2, 2009
Yeah, Google has been doing the DMCA notice/chillingeffects thing since, like, the whole Operation Clambake fiasco in 2002.
posted by maqsarian at 5:01 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by maqsarian at 5:01 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I've just never seen a DMCA complaint notice on google search results before
It'a fairly commonplace.
posted by fire&wings at 5:02 AM on October 2, 2009
It'a fairly commonplace.
posted by fire&wings at 5:02 AM on October 2, 2009
2) That they didn't link to some corporate PR legal mumbo jumbo page, but instead to an EFF site.
This, I think, negates the "evil" tags in this post. Google aren't doing this because they're evil and nasty. They're doing this because of legal obligations that they clearly aren't actually very happy about. As with the recent controversy over Google revealing the identity of a blogger, we can't expect corporations to fight for freedom for us. They're going to do whatever's (a) not illegal and (b) costs the least. You can't expect anything else of them.
posted by Jimbob at 5:04 AM on October 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
This, I think, negates the "evil" tags in this post. Google aren't doing this because they're evil and nasty. They're doing this because of legal obligations that they clearly aren't actually very happy about. As with the recent controversy over Google revealing the identity of a blogger, we can't expect corporations to fight for freedom for us. They're going to do whatever's (a) not illegal and (b) costs the least. You can't expect anything else of them.
posted by Jimbob at 5:04 AM on October 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
It'a fairly commonplace.[citation needed]
Dude, just Google it!
Google has been receiving a growing number of Cease & Desist notices and takedown demands – now averaging 30 a month – in the three years the search engine has been sending notices to Chilling Effects. - And that's from 2005.
posted by Jimbob at 5:13 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dude, just Google it!
Google has been receiving a growing number of Cease & Desist notices and takedown demands – now averaging 30 a month – in the three years the search engine has been sending notices to Chilling Effects. - And that's from 2005.
posted by Jimbob at 5:13 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've just never seen a DMCA complaint notice on google search results before.
Congratulations! You never search for shady things.
posted by rokusan at 5:13 AM on October 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
Congratulations! You never search for shady things.
posted by rokusan at 5:13 AM on October 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
It'a fairly commonplace.[citation needed]
Well, here are a bunch of DMCA notices sent to Google since 2002. If you want to see the notices on Google itself, I guess you can start searching.
posted by maqsarian at 5:14 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well, here are a bunch of DMCA notices sent to Google since 2002. If you want to see the notices on Google itself, I guess you can start searching.
posted by maqsarian at 5:14 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Crap, this is the link I meant to post. The other one works too, though.
posted by maqsarian at 5:16 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by maqsarian at 5:16 AM on October 2, 2009
rokusan : hehehe - I guess not. Contemplated making this an askme instead, and that "evil" tag was meat to have a ?
posted by dabitch at 5:19 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by dabitch at 5:19 AM on October 2, 2009
Contemplated making this an askme instead
Admit it: you got scared away by those freaking dancing jack-o-lanterns all over the page!
(Creeped me right out.)
posted by rokusan at 5:24 AM on October 2, 2009
Admit it: you got scared away by those freaking dancing jack-o-lanterns all over the page!
(Creeped me right out.)
posted by rokusan at 5:24 AM on October 2, 2009
Oh my god, those jack-o-lanterns are fucking terrifying.
posted by maqsarian at 5:29 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by maqsarian at 5:29 AM on October 2, 2009
Don't worry, the wise guys will find a new way to exchange music and movies. There were kazaa, shareaza, edonkey, emule (which is still working and quite well), and now torrents - and with all web 2.0 and ajax tools, it's getting much easier to create some totally new sharing network.
posted by Incense Man at 5:36 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by Incense Man at 5:36 AM on October 2, 2009
As I recall, Web 2.0 was invented to exist outside the jurisdiction of any legal system, if indeed it exists at all.
posted by cillit bang at 5:42 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by cillit bang at 5:42 AM on October 2, 2009
cillit bang: "As I recall, Web 2.0 was invented to exist outside the jurisdiction of any legal system, if indeed it exists at all."
Unless you have found a good colo provider on the Moon, I sense a problem with this plan.
Whatever happened to Sealand, anyway?
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:57 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Unless you have found a good colo provider on the Moon, I sense a problem with this plan.
Whatever happened to Sealand, anyway?
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:57 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Fewer results. Fewer.
posted by rusty at 5:58 AM on October 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by rusty at 5:58 AM on October 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
If you know what The Pirate Bay is, why do you need to Google it?....clearly, this DMCA complain hasn't been very effective.
Depends. Was Google providing deep links to Pirate Bay torrents before? Like if you searched for "download star trek", would it go to Pirate Bay? That's the kind of stuff they want to block — the casual downloader.
posted by smackfu at 6:02 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Depends. Was Google providing deep links to Pirate Bay torrents before? Like if you searched for "download star trek", would it go to Pirate Bay? That's the kind of stuff they want to block — the casual downloader.
posted by smackfu at 6:02 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
What exactly is the problem here? Looks like Google was legally obligated to remove a link to one of the largest facilitators of copyright infringement on the net. And judging by the search results of "pirate bay", they did a pretty half ass job of it.
FUCKING CHILLING GESTAPO WORK RIGHT THERE HOLMES.
posted by foot at 6:05 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
FUCKING CHILLING GESTAPO WORK RIGHT THERE HOLMES.
posted by foot at 6:05 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
This, I think, negates the "evil" tags in this post. Google aren't doing this because they're evil and nasty. They're doing this because of legal obligations that they clearly aren't actually very happy about. As with the recent controversy over Google revealing the identity of a blogger, we can't expect corporations to fight for freedom for us. They're going to do whatever's (a) not illegal and (b) costs the least. You can't expect anything else of them.
Agreed. The tone to the disclaimer is telling: they're publicly admitting that they've suppressed some search results (not a standard practice, unfortunately), explaining why they've suppressed them with a pretty strong connotation of 'yeah, we know it sucks, but the G-men are forcing our hand,' and getting around the restriction that they can't identify the removed URLS by pointing to a third-party listing hosted by a group that's unapologetically anti-censorship. Short of openly flaunting the DMCA and getting sued to hell/raided by the feds, I'm not sure what else you want them to do.
posted by Mayor West at 6:05 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Agreed. The tone to the disclaimer is telling: they're publicly admitting that they've suppressed some search results (not a standard practice, unfortunately), explaining why they've suppressed them with a pretty strong connotation of 'yeah, we know it sucks, but the G-men are forcing our hand,' and getting around the restriction that they can't identify the removed URLS by pointing to a third-party listing hosted by a group that's unapologetically anti-censorship. Short of openly flaunting the DMCA and getting sued to hell/raided by the feds, I'm not sure what else you want them to do.
posted by Mayor West at 6:05 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
This, I think, negates the "evil" tags in this post. Google aren't doing this because they're evil and nasty. They're doing this because of legal obligations that they clearly aren't actually very happy about. As with the recent controversy over Google revealing the identity of a blogger, we can't expect corporations to fight for freedom for us.
I agree with most of this, although I'd like to lodge a mild formal protest to an underlying premise. I think I should be able expect people, including incorporated groups of people (especially if such groups enjoy the legal rights of people, separate from the rights of the individuals themselves), to put ethics above profits.
posted by DU at 6:18 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I agree with most of this, although I'd like to lodge a mild formal protest to an underlying premise. I think I should be able expect people, including incorporated groups of people (especially if such groups enjoy the legal rights of people, separate from the rights of the individuals themselves), to put ethics above profits.
posted by DU at 6:18 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
one of the largest facilitators of copyright infringement on the net.
Heh. "Facilitators."
You know who else is in on it? The browser makers, and those damn computer makers.
I mean, they give people a tool that includes a simple Control-D to duplicate a file that they only paid for one copy of, and a drag-and-upload method that's so easy a child could do it... and what happens? The complete destruction of civilization as we know it, that's what.
Goddamn Apple. Those motherfuckers at Mozilla. Fucking Dell.
posted by rokusan at 6:19 AM on October 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Heh. "Facilitators."
You know who else is in on it? The browser makers, and those damn computer makers.
I mean, they give people a tool that includes a simple Control-D to duplicate a file that they only paid for one copy of, and a drag-and-upload method that's so easy a child could do it... and what happens? The complete destruction of civilization as we know it, that's what.
Goddamn Apple. Those motherfuckers at Mozilla. Fucking Dell.
posted by rokusan at 6:19 AM on October 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Even the letter B is not safe! (Look at the end of the search page)
posted by ymgve at 6:29 AM on October 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by ymgve at 6:29 AM on October 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Hm. So the letter B was running a child pornography ring?
He always did look sort of shifty, I guess, like a fat man with his belt too tight.
posted by rokusan at 6:33 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
He always did look sort of shifty, I guess, like a fat man with his belt too tight.
posted by rokusan at 6:33 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I wonder how many searches I've done that have mentioned this, my average search doesn't have me scrolling all the way to the bottom of the page so I wouldn't even know.
posted by haveanicesummer at 6:33 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by haveanicesummer at 6:33 AM on October 2, 2009
It seems to me that the first people to blame here are the Pirate Bayers themselves. After all, their defence during their Swedish and Dutch trials has always been: "Look, we just provide links, Google does that too, are you going to take on Google?".
Clearly, somebody in the recording industry thought: "Well, now that you say it..."
Can't see anything "evil" in that, except if you refer to TPB's business model for profiting from other people's creations without their consent.
posted by Skeptic at 6:34 AM on October 2, 2009
Clearly, somebody in the recording industry thought: "Well, now that you say it..."
Can't see anything "evil" in that, except if you refer to TPB's business model for profiting from other people's creations without their consent.
posted by Skeptic at 6:34 AM on October 2, 2009
I think I should be able expect people, including incorporated groups of people (especially if such groups enjoy the legal rights of people, separate from the rights of the individuals themselves), to put ethics above profits.
That's good in theory, but this is, unfortunately, about more than ethics. It's about the actual law of the land. If Google were to ignore the DMCA notices, it would cost them. If they were to fight the DMCA notices, it would cost them. And judging by the sheer amount of notices they get, it would cost them dearly. And to what effect? The end result, whether they win or lose, wouldn't actually get that stupid law off the books.
I interpret the "Don't be evil" motto to mean "Don't sell people's email addresses to spammers, don't install spyware on people's computers" etc. I don't interpret it to mean "Disobey laws", no matter how shitty they may be. Because if they start disobeying bad laws, why shouldn't they disobey good laws?
Protip: I am not dios.
posted by Jimbob at 6:34 AM on October 2, 2009
That's good in theory, but this is, unfortunately, about more than ethics. It's about the actual law of the land. If Google were to ignore the DMCA notices, it would cost them. If they were to fight the DMCA notices, it would cost them. And judging by the sheer amount of notices they get, it would cost them dearly. And to what effect? The end result, whether they win or lose, wouldn't actually get that stupid law off the books.
I interpret the "Don't be evil" motto to mean "Don't sell people's email addresses to spammers, don't install spyware on people's computers" etc. I don't interpret it to mean "Disobey laws", no matter how shitty they may be. Because if they start disobeying bad laws, why shouldn't they disobey good laws?
Protip: I am not dios.
posted by Jimbob at 6:34 AM on October 2, 2009
If Google were to ignore the DMCA notices...
I'm not suggesting they do. That why my mild formal protest was in re: the underlying premise of "we can't expect corporations to fight for freedom for us".
posted by DU at 6:39 AM on October 2, 2009
I'm not suggesting they do. That why my mild formal protest was in re: the underlying premise of "we can't expect corporations to fight for freedom for us".
posted by DU at 6:39 AM on October 2, 2009
Why doesn't google just replace the suppressed result with quick note that the result was suppressed? They could legally include the domain name but without any hyperlink, and a link to a summery of the DMCA takedown request, namely who filed it.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:40 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by jeffburdges at 6:40 AM on October 2, 2009
removed the misunderstood evil? tag that was lacking its question mark
posted by dabitch at 6:43 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by dabitch at 6:43 AM on October 2, 2009
And the people don't never get justice
And the women don't never get respected
And the problems don't never get solved
And the jobs don't never pay enough
So the rent always be late; can you relate?
We livin in a police state
just kidding
posted by shakespeherian at 6:47 AM on October 2, 2009
And the women don't never get respected
And the problems don't never get solved
And the jobs don't never pay enough
So the rent always be late; can you relate?
We livin in a police state
just kidding
posted by shakespeherian at 6:47 AM on October 2, 2009
So a pirate walks into a bar with a paper towel tucked into his pirate cap. He approaches the bartender and says ...
wait for it
"Arrrr. I've got a bounty on me head."
posted by jbickers at 6:52 AM on October 2, 2009 [12 favorites]
wait for it
"Arrrr. I've got a bounty on me head."
posted by jbickers at 6:52 AM on October 2, 2009 [12 favorites]
Thank you, Rusty. Fewer results, less information. If that's confusing, think of it this way: fewer lightbulbs, less light.
posted by jdfan at 6:53 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by jdfan at 6:53 AM on October 2, 2009
Hm. So the letter B was running a child pornography ring?
My guess is that the letter B is associated with 4chan's random board (aka /b/) which would explain it.
posted by hellojed at 7:05 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
My guess is that the letter B is associated with 4chan's random board (aka /b/) which would explain it.
posted by hellojed at 7:05 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Today's Sesame Street was brought to by the number 5 and the letter [REDACTED]
posted by DU at 7:07 AM on October 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by DU at 7:07 AM on October 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
I don't think google should waste their lawyers time on every DMCA request. But they could replace each suppressed result with one tactful brown line saying why the result is missing, like:
One result within the domain thepirate.org has been suppressed by a DMCA takedown request from Destined Enterprises.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:08 AM on October 2, 2009
One result within the domain thepirate.org has been suppressed by a DMCA takedown request from Destined Enterprises.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:08 AM on October 2, 2009
I can't use google anyway, my bandwidth is all tied up in downloading torrents.
posted by mcstayinskool at 7:11 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mcstayinskool at 7:11 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think we're safe, as long as there are other ways of finding information on the net...
Incidentally, I'm not 100% sure I see a direct equivalence between TPB and Google: Google just spiders everything out there, unless there's a robots.txt stopping them from doing so. Good, bad, legal, illegal - it will all be in there. It's automatic. But people upload torrent files to TPB; they can add them to categories, there's a comments function for people to discuss the torrents...Google is set up to search everything, TPB is set up to assist people to share torrents, nothing else.
Or am I wildly off-base here?
posted by Infinite Jest at 7:16 AM on October 2, 2009
Incidentally, I'm not 100% sure I see a direct equivalence between TPB and Google: Google just spiders everything out there, unless there's a robots.txt stopping them from doing so. Good, bad, legal, illegal - it will all be in there. It's automatic. But people upload torrent files to TPB; they can add them to categories, there's a comments function for people to discuss the torrents...Google is set up to search everything, TPB is set up to assist people to share torrents, nothing else.
Or am I wildly off-base here?
posted by Infinite Jest at 7:16 AM on October 2, 2009
Google should be like a good dictionary that includes the word "fuck". It should return all search results no matter what their legal/ethical/moral standing. Allow user search filters if need be but always allow the option of including everything.
If a site is breaking a law, go after that site...not the search engine that points to it.
posted by rocket88 at 7:26 AM on October 2, 2009
If a site is breaking a law, go after that site...not the search engine that points to it.
posted by rocket88 at 7:26 AM on October 2, 2009
No, I don't think you are. The user/social aspect makes it a lot more than "just a search engine". But then, torrents aren't necessarily copyright infringing files. Just all the good ones ;)
posted by dabitch at 7:26 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by dabitch at 7:26 AM on October 2, 2009
I would like to run a colo on the moon.
posted by jessamyn at 7:28 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by jessamyn at 7:28 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Depends. Was Google providing deep links to Pirate Bay torrents before? Like if you searched for "download star trek", would it go to Pirate Bay? That's the kind of stuff they want to block — the casual downloader.
Yes. You could do a "myMovie filetype:torrent" and you'd get tpb hits straight to the torrent.
posted by jmd82 at 7:34 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yes. You could do a "myMovie filetype:torrent" and you'd get tpb hits straight to the torrent.
posted by jmd82 at 7:34 AM on October 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Oh well, it's not like Google doesn't serve a bunch of functions other than helping people find Warez - it's not YouTube.
posted by Artw at 7:40 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 7:40 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Something is missing here. The only ones who should have a copyright claim on TPB's front page is TPB, and clearly they're not the ones behind this. I can't wait to see the takedown notice. (Hurry up, EFF!)
> Google is set up to search everything, TPB is set up to assist people to share torrents, nothing else.
So? Torrents are not, in themselves, illegal.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:41 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
> Google is set up to search everything, TPB is set up to assist people to share torrents, nothing else.
So? Torrents are not, in themselves, illegal.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:41 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I would like to run a colo on the moon.
The ping time is insufferable.
posted by rokusan at 7:45 AM on October 2, 2009
The ping time is insufferable.
posted by rokusan at 7:45 AM on October 2, 2009
I would like to run a colo on the moon.
The ping time is insufferable.
Cooling is pretty cheap though. And your fiber won't be cut by a clueless backhoe driver. (Alien invasion, OTOH...)
posted by DU at 7:49 AM on October 2, 2009
The ping time is insufferable.
Cooling is pretty cheap though. And your fiber won't be cut by a clueless backhoe driver. (Alien invasion, OTOH...)
posted by DU at 7:49 AM on October 2, 2009
Oh duh! Google does link the takedown request! But only down at the bottom of the page.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:49 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by jeffburdges at 7:49 AM on October 2, 2009
Or am I wildly off-base here?
A little. Google has always controlled what is included in their index and what is removed: it's not as if the whole company is on auto-pilot. It's seemed to be everything on the Internet because it's so big and so much of it is automated, but Google's never claimed that it was "the entire Internet" even if that's how we treat it. I mean, I'm sure you have heard people complain that their site was not in Google, or used to be "highly ranked" and is now the 300th hit for "cute kittens" or whatever.
Whether Google deploys an algorithm or an intern to vet, sort and cull items in their index, it's still an editorial process that is happening all the time. The DMCA notices is just one way of probably thousands that the index is updated.
Again, this is different from how Google seems to work n practice, of course.
Or are we really arguing that Google itself, a for-profit company, should be content-neutral like an electrical utility?
I mean, we can't even get net neutrality from ISPs, and now we want it from online advertising companies?
Good luck.
posted by rokusan at 7:50 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
A little. Google has always controlled what is included in their index and what is removed: it's not as if the whole company is on auto-pilot. It's seemed to be everything on the Internet because it's so big and so much of it is automated, but Google's never claimed that it was "the entire Internet" even if that's how we treat it. I mean, I'm sure you have heard people complain that their site was not in Google, or used to be "highly ranked" and is now the 300th hit for "cute kittens" or whatever.
Whether Google deploys an algorithm or an intern to vet, sort and cull items in their index, it's still an editorial process that is happening all the time. The DMCA notices is just one way of probably thousands that the index is updated.
Again, this is different from how Google seems to work n practice, of course.
Or are we really arguing that Google itself, a for-profit company, should be content-neutral like an electrical utility?
I mean, we can't even get net neutrality from ISPs, and now we want it from online advertising companies?
Good luck.
posted by rokusan at 7:50 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Looking at the results, what the hell is piratebay.com? It promises some P2P bullshit, but kept trying to load so many scripts that I just backed the fuck out.
posted by klangklangston at 8:01 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 8:01 AM on October 2, 2009
> Looking at the results, what the hell is piratebay.com? It promises some P2P bullshit, but kept trying to load so many scripts that I just backed the fuck out.
And that's pretty much what it is. No connection with thepiratebay.org, of course. I am surprised that it still shows up that high on google, though.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:08 AM on October 2, 2009
And that's pretty much what it is. No connection with thepiratebay.org, of course. I am surprised that it still shows up that high on google, though.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:08 AM on October 2, 2009
Looking at the results, what the hell is piratebay.com? It promises some P2P bullshit, but kept trying to load so many scripts that I just backed the fuck out.
its the napster du jour, I'm told. The fact that something is against the law seems unfair to some people.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:09 AM on October 2, 2009
its the napster du jour, I'm told. The fact that something is against the law seems unfair to some people.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:09 AM on October 2, 2009
WHEREAS Ironmouth is a Good Citizen who Obeys Laws even if he finds them unfair
BE IT RESOLVED that MetaFilter, LLC enact the following into law:
Ironmouth has to send me all his money.
posted by DU at 8:16 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
BE IT RESOLVED that MetaFilter, LLC enact the following into law:
Ironmouth has to send me all his money.
posted by DU at 8:16 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
The fact that something is against the law seems unfair to some people.
It quite often is.
posted by rocket88 at 8:19 AM on October 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
It quite often is.
posted by rocket88 at 8:19 AM on October 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
This is a ridiculously poor post.
As pointed out above these notices appear on Google all the time. There is nothing unusual or notable about this case other than the notice hasn't been posted yet - it will be.
Piratebay is still one of the first results when searched.
Everyone is still using Piratebay.
There is literally nothing to see here.
posted by fire&wings at 8:34 AM on October 2, 2009
As pointed out above these notices appear on Google all the time. There is nothing unusual or notable about this case other than the notice hasn't been posted yet - it will be.
Piratebay is still one of the first results when searched.
Everyone is still using Piratebay.
There is literally nothing to see here.
posted by fire&wings at 8:34 AM on October 2, 2009
Looking at the results, what the hell is piratebay.com?
An opportunistic crook of some sort.
posted by rokusan at 8:45 AM on October 2, 2009
An opportunistic crook of some sort.
posted by rokusan at 8:45 AM on October 2, 2009
> I would like to run a colo on the moon.
Aside from the latency making any kind of hosting operation a bad business proposition, what you host there would still be subject to international law, and possibly the whimsical dictates of an entrepreneur in Nevada, assuming his claims are observed by the other countries eyeing stakes. International copyright is observed and enforced through treaties; as long as you're not operating under the flag of any treaty-signing nation, you can get away with whatever you want. But it will be easy to cut you off at any terrestrial uplink operating in a compliant country.
(And I would like to thank space.com for introducing me to Virgiliu Pop, Space Lawyer, research specialist at the Romanian Space Agency, who if he didn't exist would have to be created for the benefit of somebody's near-future sci-fi novel.)
posted by ardgedee at 8:51 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Aside from the latency making any kind of hosting operation a bad business proposition, what you host there would still be subject to international law, and possibly the whimsical dictates of an entrepreneur in Nevada, assuming his claims are observed by the other countries eyeing stakes. International copyright is observed and enforced through treaties; as long as you're not operating under the flag of any treaty-signing nation, you can get away with whatever you want. But it will be easy to cut you off at any terrestrial uplink operating in a compliant country.
(And I would like to thank space.com for introducing me to Virgiliu Pop, Space Lawyer, research specialist at the Romanian Space Agency, who if he didn't exist would have to be created for the benefit of somebody's near-future sci-fi novel.)
posted by ardgedee at 8:51 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Jimbob: "If you know what The Pirate Bay is, why do you need to Google it? Or is this just a concern for those people who get their URL box and their Search box confused?
<boggles>
Are you serious? The alternative you imply is not knowing what The Pirate Bay is, in which case why would you search for it? Why do people use Google for anything, then?
I think the implication in the article here is that the Pirate Bay search is used as an example, because it's obvious that it will come up in a search for itself. Other searches that would turn up the result are also censored. As DCMA takedowns become more common, an ever-increasing percentage of Google searches are going to include these notices.
People who are (rightfully) upset at this: Google's hands are pretty much tied. It's a symptom of the corruption of our government that these things happen. The right way to fight this is write your Congressmen about the DCMA (which most lawmakers still regard as an overwhelming success), and to make it a voting issue.
Also, contribute to the EFF.
posted by JHarris at 8:54 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
<boggles>
Are you serious? The alternative you imply is not knowing what The Pirate Bay is, in which case why would you search for it? Why do people use Google for anything, then?
I think the implication in the article here is that the Pirate Bay search is used as an example, because it's obvious that it will come up in a search for itself. Other searches that would turn up the result are also censored. As DCMA takedowns become more common, an ever-increasing percentage of Google searches are going to include these notices.
People who are (rightfully) upset at this: Google's hands are pretty much tied. It's a symptom of the corruption of our government that these things happen. The right way to fight this is write your Congressmen about the DCMA (which most lawmakers still regard as an overwhelming success), and to make it a voting issue.
Also, contribute to the EFF.
posted by JHarris at 8:54 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
its the napster du jour, I'm told. The fact that something is against the law seems unfair to some people.
posted by Ironmouth
He was asking what piratebay.com is, which is in no way related to your "napster du jour" thepiratebay.org which in itself is a website which indexes torrents so it is only like Napster in the way that TV Guide is like a movie theatre.
Also I think it's unfair that gay marriage is illegal in many locations of these United States. Arguing against illegal downloading on the merit that laws are somehow good and fair simply by the merit that they ARE laws is insane.
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:09 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ironmouth
He was asking what piratebay.com is, which is in no way related to your "napster du jour" thepiratebay.org which in itself is a website which indexes torrents so it is only like Napster in the way that TV Guide is like a movie theatre.
Also I think it's unfair that gay marriage is illegal in many locations of these United States. Arguing against illegal downloading on the merit that laws are somehow good and fair simply by the merit that they ARE laws is insane.
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:09 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Around here in Argentina we had a quite infamous judge getting Google and Yahoo to remove her from searches and pictures as they "damaged her public image". I remember I putzed around and you could get back the results if you just changed from Google Argentina to Google US, say. Luckily, it seems the original ruling was overturned and there's almost nil chance of her trying this shit again.
posted by Iosephus at 9:21 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Iosephus at 9:21 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Warez freaks are sooooooooooooo oppressed.
posted by Artw at 9:37 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 9:37 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Rokusan: A little. Google has always controlled what is included in their index and what is removed: it's not as if the whole company is on auto-pilot. It's seemed to be everything on the Internet because it's so big and so much of it is automated, but Google's never claimed that it was "the entire Internet" even if that's how we treat it.
I see what you're arguing here. Still feel like there's a difference though - Google would like to be 'the whole internet' (really, they'd like to be able to claim that they index everything, witness Books and Earth, etc). I realise they do remove material, and obviously rank what appears in their search results. But still, can't help but see a difference from the Pirate Bay: TPB doesn't provide search results from other sites, it provides search results from material that has been uploaded to TPB. Obviously, the original files aren't on TPB, but the torrent files are, and the metadata about those files is.
ChurchHatesTucker: So? Torrents are not, in themselves, illegal
Correct of course. But how many of the torrents on TPB are legal? Not many, I suspect (can't check for myself as I'm at work and TPB is filtered). The name of the site is something of a giveaway, no?
I guess the difference I'm seeing is similar to the Betamax decision: "substantial non-infringing uses". Most of what you retrieve via Google search, most of what you retrieve via TPB is illegal.
posted by Infinite Jest at 9:43 AM on October 2, 2009
I see what you're arguing here. Still feel like there's a difference though - Google would like to be 'the whole internet' (really, they'd like to be able to claim that they index everything, witness Books and Earth, etc). I realise they do remove material, and obviously rank what appears in their search results. But still, can't help but see a difference from the Pirate Bay: TPB doesn't provide search results from other sites, it provides search results from material that has been uploaded to TPB. Obviously, the original files aren't on TPB, but the torrent files are, and the metadata about those files is.
ChurchHatesTucker: So? Torrents are not, in themselves, illegal
Correct of course. But how many of the torrents on TPB are legal? Not many, I suspect (can't check for myself as I'm at work and TPB is filtered). The name of the site is something of a giveaway, no?
I guess the difference I'm seeing is similar to the Betamax decision: "substantial non-infringing uses". Most of what you retrieve via Google search, most of what you retrieve via TPB is illegal.
posted by Infinite Jest at 9:43 AM on October 2, 2009
I always found Youtube's case interesting. They use commodity hardware and sharding, but this calls high latency writes/deletes:
posted by geoff. at 9:48 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
An interesting DMCA issue: YouTube complies with takedown requests; but sometimes the videos are cached way out on the “edge” of the network (their caches, and other people’s caches), so its hard to get a video to disappear globally right away. This sometimes angers content owners.It'll be interesting if companies will be forced to comply with takedowns within a certain window. It could throw the entire idea of sharding across commodity hardware out the window, or at least for content providers. Welcome to every other industry and why they use expensive Oracle/SAP racks, it is for the auditing above all else.
posted by geoff. at 9:48 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I guess the difference I'm seeing is similar to the Betamax decision: "substantial non-infringing uses"
Funny, I'm guessing that about as many people used Betamax to keep film of their wedding as use Pirate Bay to download Linux distros.
The difference is that in those days, courts accepted that time shifting or keeping copies of stuff you recorded off the TV or radio or backups of copies you owned was fair use.
Good luck trying to make that argument to the RIAA today.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:51 AM on October 2, 2009
Funny, I'm guessing that about as many people used Betamax to keep film of their wedding as use Pirate Bay to download Linux distros.
The difference is that in those days, courts accepted that time shifting or keeping copies of stuff you recorded off the TV or radio or backups of copies you owned was fair use.
Good luck trying to make that argument to the RIAA today.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:51 AM on October 2, 2009
The missing results are being held captive by the American Police Force!
Soon, Montana will be under pirate attack!
Just as soon as they find a waterway that will take them to Hardin.
posted by orme at 9:56 AM on October 2, 2009
Soon, Montana will be under pirate attack!
Just as soon as they find a waterway that will take them to Hardin.
posted by orme at 9:56 AM on October 2, 2009
> The name of the site is something of a giveaway, no?
No. In the same way that 'Queer' doesn't mean quite the same thing to people who use it in different ways.
I guess the difference I'm seeing is similar to the Betamax decision: "substantial non-infringing uses". Most of what you retrieve via Google search, most of what you retrieve via TPB is illegal.
There are plenty of clearly legal uses for bittorrent, and many more that are gray (orphaned works, etc.) Whether that tips towards a ridiculous standard like "substantial" I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
More to the point, TPB merely points at content. I, personally, have a problem with the concept of copyright since it's clearly an infringement on free speech (I can't repeat what he said.) Attacking a site like TPB is doubleplus problematic (you can't tell people that I'm going to repeat what he said.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:09 AM on October 2, 2009
No. In the same way that 'Queer' doesn't mean quite the same thing to people who use it in different ways.
I guess the difference I'm seeing is similar to the Betamax decision: "substantial non-infringing uses". Most of what you retrieve via Google search, most of what you retrieve via TPB is illegal.
There are plenty of clearly legal uses for bittorrent, and many more that are gray (orphaned works, etc.) Whether that tips towards a ridiculous standard like "substantial" I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
More to the point, TPB merely points at content. I, personally, have a problem with the concept of copyright since it's clearly an infringement on free speech (I can't repeat what he said.) Attacking a site like TPB is doubleplus problematic (you can't tell people that I'm going to repeat what he said.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:09 AM on October 2, 2009
I didn't get the pirate bay's front page as a search result. Remember that google has tons of servers and they don't all get synched up at the same time. It's possible that two people can search and see different results. I did get something called "piratebay.com" which didn't load either way.
There were a couple sub pages on thepiratebay.org, but not the front page.
posted by delmoi at 10:18 AM on October 2, 2009
There were a couple sub pages on thepiratebay.org, but not the front page.
2) That they didn't link to some corporate PR legal mumbo jumbo page, but instead to an EFF site.They've always done that.
This, I think, negates the "evil" tags in this post. Google aren't doing this because they're evil and nasty. They're doing this because of legal obligations that they clearly aren't actually very happy about.A C&D isn't a legal obligation; anyone can send one to anyone to else for any reason, although sending a DMCA notice to someone for something you don't actually own the copyright for can get you fined.
What exactly is the problem here? Looks like Google was legally obligated to remove a link to one of the largest facilitators of copyright infringement on the net.Again, a C&D isn't a legal obligation. It's just a threat to sue you if you don't do it, it doesn't mean they have a case.
But people upload torrent files to TPB; they can add them to categories, there's a comments function for people to discuss the torrents...Google is set up to search everything, TPB is set up to assist people to share torrents, nothing else.Amazon does the exact same thing except they host the actual content, as well as just the torrent. Torrents are not the problem, the legal problem is that the pirate bay is generally geared toward copyright infringement. In the U.S. at least if your service is "primarily geared" towards piracy, then it's a problem. And that's based on how the services are marketed, not how they work. Also TPB has a tracker, without which the torrents wouldn't work.
Cooling [on the moon] is pretty cheap though. And your fiber won't be cut by a clueless backhoe driver. (Alien invasion, OTOH...)Actually, I think cooling would be pretty difficult, because there's no medium to carry off the excess heat. Now undersea collocation. That's an idea.
posted by delmoi at 10:18 AM on October 2, 2009
Depends. Was Google providing deep links to Pirate Bay torrents before? Like if you searched for "download star trek", would it go to Pirate Bay? That's the kind of stuff they want to block — the casual downloader.
That hasn't really changed.
The most common way to Google for a torrent of something is to use the search words "[thing that you want] .torrent". Using your Star Trek example, the Google results I get show isohunt first, followed by Pirate Bay. The Pirate Bay links are good, and in fact lead to comprehensive lists of available Star Trek torrents.
In other words, the DMCA complaint, while mystifying, hasn't really hampered the ability to find torrents on Pirate Bay. No amount of legal wrangling is going to eliminate torrents or other forms of file sharing.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:20 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
That hasn't really changed.
The most common way to Google for a torrent of something is to use the search words "[thing that you want] .torrent". Using your Star Trek example, the Google results I get show isohunt first, followed by Pirate Bay. The Pirate Bay links are good, and in fact lead to comprehensive lists of available Star Trek torrents.
In other words, the DMCA complaint, while mystifying, hasn't really hampered the ability to find torrents on Pirate Bay. No amount of legal wrangling is going to eliminate torrents or other forms of file sharing.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:20 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"Actually, I think cooling would be pretty difficult, because there's no medium to carry off the excess heat. Now undersea collocation. That's an idea."
You don't need a medium for things to cool, as heat is energy and would dissipate into a vacuum.
posted by klangklangston at 10:33 AM on October 2, 2009
You don't need a medium for things to cool, as heat is energy and would dissipate into a vacuum.
posted by klangklangston at 10:33 AM on October 2, 2009
But still, can't help but see a difference from the Pirate Bay: TPB doesn't provide search results from other sites, it provides search results from material that has been uploaded to TPB. Obviously, the original files aren't on TPB, but the torrent files are, and the metadata about those files is.
Oh, I wasn't arguing TPB was akin to Google. I was just arguing that if we expected Google to index everything without prejudice, we're expecting too much: they always have censored and shown preferential treatment. Heck, preferential treatment is their whole schtick.
But what the heck, devil's advocate on the other point, even though that isn't what I meant: a torrent file being uploaded is really just a pointer, a locator, a guide to a real piece of information, wherever it is on the internet (it's many places, I suppose, but still). You submit it, and TPB adds that info on how to locate the actual info to its index.
Similarly, go use Add Your Site to Google. You submit a locator in the form of a URL, which is a pointer, a locator, a guide to a real piece of information somewhere else on the Internet. Google adds that pointer to its index.
So, yeah... pretty damn similar. A torrent file is just annoyingly long to type out, so they're usually uploaded, while a URL is shorter and so is usually typed. But that's not much difference.
posted by rokusan at 10:35 AM on October 2, 2009
Oh, I wasn't arguing TPB was akin to Google. I was just arguing that if we expected Google to index everything without prejudice, we're expecting too much: they always have censored and shown preferential treatment. Heck, preferential treatment is their whole schtick.
But what the heck, devil's advocate on the other point, even though that isn't what I meant: a torrent file being uploaded is really just a pointer, a locator, a guide to a real piece of information, wherever it is on the internet (it's many places, I suppose, but still). You submit it, and TPB adds that info on how to locate the actual info to its index.
Similarly, go use Add Your Site to Google. You submit a locator in the form of a URL, which is a pointer, a locator, a guide to a real piece of information somewhere else on the Internet. Google adds that pointer to its index.
So, yeah... pretty damn similar. A torrent file is just annoyingly long to type out, so they're usually uploaded, while a URL is shorter and so is usually typed. But that's not much difference.
posted by rokusan at 10:35 AM on October 2, 2009
Now undersea collocation. That's an idea.
[ insert sonar 'ping' joke here ]
posted by rokusan at 10:36 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
[ insert sonar 'ping' joke here ]
posted by rokusan at 10:36 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The name of the site is something of a giveaway, no?
Whoa, now I know how to make a legal filesharing application. Just name it "legalfilesharingapplication.exe"!
posted by DU at 10:37 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Whoa, now I know how to make a legal filesharing application. Just name it "legalfilesharingapplication.exe"!
posted by DU at 10:37 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Google Removes The Pirate Bay Home Page From Search Results
posted by futureisunwritten at 11:14 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by futureisunwritten at 11:14 AM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
klangklangston: Radiative cooling isn't very effective at temperatures you'd want to run a server at. Vacuum is a good insulator for things that are cold (the contents of your thermos) and a good conductor for things that are hot (stars). Blah blah blah Boltzmann's Law blah blah.)
posted by hattifattener at 11:23 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by hattifattener at 11:23 AM on October 2, 2009
If I understand what's going on, TPB has a lock on a counter-suit. Their front page wasn't infringing anything.
Of course, the damages for filing a false takedown are ridiculously small ($2,500 max IIRC) so it makes sense to use it for harassment purposes, assuming you have staff lawyers.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:26 AM on October 2, 2009
Of course, the damages for filing a false takedown are ridiculously small ($2,500 max IIRC) so it makes sense to use it for harassment purposes, assuming you have staff lawyers.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:26 AM on October 2, 2009
Maybe it's because I'm caffeinated, or maybe y'all are especially witty today.
posted by aniola at 11:28 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by aniola at 11:28 AM on October 2, 2009
The construction in Kinakuta had better freaking hurry up and get done.
posted by Stunt at 11:55 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Stunt at 11:55 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wait. This is what took TPB off of google? Seriously?
On complaint of this?:
Infringed Work or Right:
http://www.occash.com
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:38 PM on October 2, 2009
On complaint of this?:
Infringed Work or Right:
http://www.occash.com
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:38 PM on October 2, 2009
Note that the takedown may be NSFW, since the content producer is a porn studio.
Given that, I don't understand why thepiratebay was singled out since almost every torrent site is listed in that complaint.
It also shows that a smart torrent site just limits viewing torrents to logged in users, and then they will never show up in the search results, and are immune from this kind of thing.
posted by smackfu at 12:39 PM on October 2, 2009
Given that, I don't understand why thepiratebay was singled out since almost every torrent site is listed in that complaint.
It also shows that a smart torrent site just limits viewing torrents to logged in users, and then they will never show up in the search results, and are immune from this kind of thing.
posted by smackfu at 12:39 PM on October 2, 2009
If Crank 2 taught me anything it's that porn people need pay too.
posted by Artw at 12:45 PM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 12:45 PM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
It also shows that a smart torrent site just limits viewing torrents to logged in users, and then they will never show up in the search results, and are immune from this kind of thing.
Depends what your end goals are. TPB's are to shove it in the man's face and being the most popular torrent site around, making required logins a non starter.
posted by jmd82 at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2009
Depends what your end goals are. TPB's are to shove it in the man's face and being the most popular torrent site around, making required logins a non starter.
posted by jmd82 at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2009
Funny, I'm guessing that about as many people used Betamax to keep film of their wedding as use Pirate Bay to download Linux distros.
Only because VHS won.
Or are you seriously claiming that the amount of home video recording was insignificant?
(Not to mention that the time-shifting abilities of VCRs is fair use, while most of the usage of TPB is not)
posted by ymgve at 1:20 PM on October 2, 2009
Only because VHS won.
Or are you seriously claiming that the amount of home video recording was insignificant?
(Not to mention that the time-shifting abilities of VCRs is fair use, while most of the usage of TPB is not)
posted by ymgve at 1:20 PM on October 2, 2009
Again, a C&D isn't a legal obligation.
But a DMCA takedown notice is a legal obligation, or it at least carries with it a set of legal consequences. That's a big part of what makes the DMCA so malicious and dangerous.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:38 PM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
But a DMCA takedown notice is a legal obligation, or it at least carries with it a set of legal consequences. That's a big part of what makes the DMCA so malicious and dangerous.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:38 PM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wait. This is what took TPB off of google? Seriously?
Heh. That's hilarious.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:42 PM on October 2, 2009
Heh. That's hilarious.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:42 PM on October 2, 2009
There are plenty of clearly legal uses for bittorrent, and many more that are gray (orphaned works, etc.) Whether that tips towards a ridiculous standard like "substantial" I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Well yeah, I fully agree with what you said here, but TBP isn't equivalent to bittorrent. (I'll drop out here because my point was quite narrow, I was arguing against the TPB argument that 'we're OK, we don't do anything Google doesn't do' only).
More seriously: I can't get into the Pirate Bay; is anyone else having problems?
posted by Infinite Jest at 1:54 PM on October 2, 2009
Well yeah, I fully agree with what you said here, but TBP isn't equivalent to bittorrent. (I'll drop out here because my point was quite narrow, I was arguing against the TPB argument that 'we're OK, we don't do anything Google doesn't do' only).
More seriously: I can't get into the Pirate Bay; is anyone else having problems?
posted by Infinite Jest at 1:54 PM on October 2, 2009
Are you serious? The alternative you imply is not knowing what The Pirate Bay is, in which case why would you search for it? Why do people use Google for anything, then? I think the implication in the article here is that the Pirate Bay search is used as an example, because it's obvious that it will come up in a search for itself.
That's fair enough, but as a few other people have said, it's much more likely people will go to search for "Star Trek Torrent" or "Download Harry Potter", in which case Google's removals don't prevent you getting to anything.
posted by Jimbob at 2:01 PM on October 2, 2009
If you know what The Pirate Bay is, why do you need to Google it? Or is this just a concern for those people who get their URL box and their Search box confused?
On Chrome, they are the same box.
posted by Obscure Reference at 2:29 PM on October 2, 2009
On Chrome, they are the same box.
posted by Obscure Reference at 2:29 PM on October 2, 2009
The Pirate Bay has indeed returned in searchresults now (that was quick), and according to marcin (translated) Peter Sunde contacted the company named in the takedown, who said that they had filed no such complaint and:
"We haven't used that business name in well over a year."
posted by dabitch at 2:52 PM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"We haven't used that business name in well over a year."
posted by dabitch at 2:52 PM on October 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
TPB is down like a clown, Charlie Brown, at 4PM Pacific.
I'm a Mininova guy, myself.
posted by porn in the woods at 4:02 PM on October 2, 2009
I'm a Mininova guy, myself.
posted by porn in the woods at 4:02 PM on October 2, 2009
> Hmm. I just googled "the pirate bay" and look what came up! Shocking!
Goodness! We must have been googling wrong all this time!
I'm wondering what actually went on here. dabitch's comment is verrrry interesting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:32 PM on October 2, 2009
Goodness! We must have been googling wrong all this time!
I'm wondering what actually went on here. dabitch's comment is verrrry interesting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:32 PM on October 2, 2009
I often wonder about spurious takedown notices. ISPs (and perhaps even Google) are so quick to jump on them, do they ever do any diligence? Is there any incentive to?
posted by rokusan at 8:54 PM on October 2, 2009
posted by rokusan at 8:54 PM on October 2, 2009
Google: Pirate Bay booted off search by mistake from C|net
"Google didn't provide any details about what caused the error but at this point it doesn't seem to be some kind of orchestrated effort to bring down The Pirate Bay--at least on Google's part. According to Google, it was just a goof."posted by dabitch at 2:15 AM on October 3, 2009
When Google is our memory and search results can be unpersoned, are we living in a Stalinist police state?
And yet people can't put their personal mail on gmail, their business on Google Apps, and so on and so forth. Hell, Google are busy Disneyfying literature, running a smash-and-grab and recopyright for themselves, and people who normally use "Disney" as a swear world cheer them on. Bill Gates was an amateur by comparison.
Google should be like a good dictionary that includes the word "fuck". It should return all search results no matter what their legal/ethical/moral standing. Allow user search filters if need be but always allow the option of including everything.
Google themselves have chosen to use delisting as a club - game their engine? Get delisted. They've threatened people who've sued them with delisting. They've agreed to delist and filter results for totalitarian regimes. It's a bit late for Google to suddenly come over all "Don't touch our sacred listings!"
Looking at the results, what the hell is piratebay.com?
An opportunistic crook of some sort.
And they say irony is dead.
posted by rodgerd at 3:00 AM on October 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
And yet people can't put their personal mail on gmail, their business on Google Apps, and so on and so forth. Hell, Google are busy Disneyfying literature, running a smash-and-grab and recopyright for themselves, and people who normally use "Disney" as a swear world cheer them on. Bill Gates was an amateur by comparison.
Google should be like a good dictionary that includes the word "fuck". It should return all search results no matter what their legal/ethical/moral standing. Allow user search filters if need be but always allow the option of including everything.
Google themselves have chosen to use delisting as a club - game their engine? Get delisted. They've threatened people who've sued them with delisting. They've agreed to delist and filter results for totalitarian regimes. It's a bit late for Google to suddenly come over all "Don't touch our sacred listings!"
Looking at the results, what the hell is piratebay.com?
An opportunistic crook of some sort.
And they say irony is dead.
posted by rodgerd at 3:00 AM on October 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I wish I could favorite rodgerd's comment ten times over.
posted by dabitch at 6:20 AM on October 3, 2009
posted by dabitch at 6:20 AM on October 3, 2009
If you know what The Pirate Bay is, why do you need to Google it? Or is this just a concern for those people who get their URL box and their Search box confused?
Well, anecdotally, from my observation since the hammer came down, searching directly on TPB brings up much worse results than searching with Google on TPB. TPB may have been silently disabling some of the searches as a result of the outcome of their trial, but Google did still search the site successfully even after that. I guess Google has been clamped down now ...
posted by krinklyfig at 3:04 PM on October 3, 2009
Well, anecdotally, from my observation since the hammer came down, searching directly on TPB brings up much worse results than searching with Google on TPB. TPB may have been silently disabling some of the searches as a result of the outcome of their trial, but Google did still search the site successfully even after that. I guess Google has been clamped down now ...
posted by krinklyfig at 3:04 PM on October 3, 2009
"Google didn't provide any details about what caused the error but at this point it doesn't seem to be some kind of orchestrated effort to bring down The Pirate Bay--at least on Google's part. According to Google, it was just a goof."
OK. That doesn't surprise me either.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:05 PM on October 3, 2009
OK. That doesn't surprise me either.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:05 PM on October 3, 2009
Looking at the results, what the hell is piratebay.com?
An opportunistic crook of some sort.
And they say irony is dead.
Stop explaining my jokes, Mom.
posted by rokusan at 2:24 AM on October 5, 2009
An opportunistic crook of some sort.
And they say irony is dead.
Stop explaining my jokes, Mom.
posted by rokusan at 2:24 AM on October 5, 2009
« Older Pension Fund Follies | 360° Yoga Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
How long has this been going on?
posted by Ziggy Zaga at 4:47 AM on October 2, 2009