6 ms·

Tell that to Google.

by olegk 17y ago

kingkilr 17y ago
There's a level of naivete to this line of reasoning that makes this amusing. Both Google and The Pirate Bay allow you to search for torrents. The critical element that's missing making what Google does criminal is Mens Rea. The Pirate Bay's got it, and Google doesn't.
tptacek 17y ago
There's no reasonable comparison. Virtually every torrent index leads off with a link to Hollywood movie torrents.
- omouse 17y ago
  So does Google: http://i.imgur.com/Wy8cQ.png http://i.imgur.com/Wy8cQ.png Note the "quick" links to Hindi movies, movies & tv, music. How many of those are legal torrents?
  - tptacek 17y ago
    I see a clear difference between editorial promotion of copyvio versus algorithmic promotion of copyvio, especially when the latter is made possible only by the former. You clearly disagree.
    - omouse 17y ago
      Those "quick" links are editorial promotion by Google. Algorithms don't pick those links.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        Quick links on websites are algorithmic.
        omouse 17y ago
        I'm fairly certain they aren't. Do you mind if I ask if you've worked for Google?
    - dmnd 17y ago
      The implementation details of category or quick links shouldn't matter. How do you know that a particular torrent index's frontpage category links are not also algorithmically generated?
      - tptacek 17y ago
        Because I'm neither willfully nor casually stupid.
        dmnd 17y ago
        Maybe I'm being pedantic, but you need a better explanation than you have offered olegk. Google wrote their quick link feature with the intent of applying it to all URLs they index. Torrent index sites categorise their content with the intent of applying it to all torrents they index. If the vast majority of URLs on the internet were infringing copyright, would you still support Google's right to index them? I wonder what percentage of an index needs to refer to infringing content before allowing users to search the index is considered facilitating infringement. This percentage seems to be (a large part of) what judges use as evidence of intent.
grellas 17y ago
Google is not similarly exposed to liability just because its search function can be used to facilitate infringement. The issue here is one of potential liability for contributory infringement. When a party's technology is being primarily used for infringing purposes, and its independent, non-infringing uses are at best marginal, such a party can be held liable for contributory infringement of the copyrights at issue. That in essence appears to be what the court concluded here. Contributory infringement, though, does not extend to technologies that can only incidentally be used for infringing purposes - were it otherwise, then any technology involved in facilitating an infringing use could be swept in (e.g., the manufacturers of hardware devices used to play the infringing material). This line of legal reasoning has gradually evolved from the 1980's Betamax case through Napster to a variety of iterations in the modern law. It is a complex area of law but, in essence, it defines a level of culpability by which the law deems it fair to impose liability on a party not directly infringing on copyrighted materials but whose technology facilitates such infringement. Here, the court concluded that IsoHunt was sufficiently culpable to be held liable in spite of the fact that it can be used for innocent purposes as well. Google's search function, on the other hand, obviously has major uses apart from those facilitating copyright infringement and Google is nowhere close to being a contributory infringer even though its technology might be misused for this purpose.
- jellicle 17y ago
  But Google's business is actually 99.99% infringing. Everything is copyrighted, including but not limited to this website. (Under current U.S. law, Federal government publications are nearly the only thing not copyrighted.) In no case has the copyright owner expressed permission for you to copy the copyrighted text to your computer. And yet, that is very very close to 100% of Google's business - locating copyrighted texts and sending users to them in order for those users to copy them, presumably illegally, to their computers. Only in the very rare case (.gov websites, users finding their own websites) is the user not infringing copyright. Nor is it possible for the user to determine whether he/she is infringing copyright; for example, the text on a .gov website could be written by a government contractor and therefore be copyrighted.
  - 17y ago
ErrantX 17y ago
I want to highlight what another poster says: with "law" like this Mens Rea is crucial to the issue. You can also find child porn on Google if you know how: but no one would consider them a distributor or a facilitator.

Tell that to Google.

by olegk 17y ago

Tell that to Google.

There's a level of naivete to this line of reasoning that makes this amusing. Both Google and The Pirate Bay allow you to search for torrents. The critical element that's missing making what Google does criminal is Mens Rea. The Pirate Bay's got it, and Google doesn't.

tptacek 17y ago

There's no reasonable comparison. Virtually every torrent index leads off with a link to Hollywood movie torrents.

omouse 17y ago
So does Google: http://i.imgur.com/Wy8cQ.png http://i.imgur.com/Wy8cQ.png Note the "quick" links to Hindi movies, movies & tv, music. How many of those are legal torrents?
- tptacek 17y ago
  I see a clear difference between editorial promotion of copyvio versus algorithmic promotion of copyvio, especially when the latter is made possible only by the former. You clearly disagree.
  - omouse 17y ago
    Those "quick" links are editorial promotion by Google. Algorithms don't pick those links.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Quick links on websites are algorithmic.
      - omouse 17y ago
        I'm fairly certain they aren't. Do you mind if I ask if you've worked for Google?
  - dmnd 17y ago
    The implementation details of category or quick links shouldn't matter. How do you know that a particular torrent index's frontpage category links are not also algorithmically generated?
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Because I'm neither willfully nor casually stupid.
      - dmnd 17y ago
        Maybe I'm being pedantic, but you need a better explanation than you have offered olegk. Google wrote their quick link feature with the intent of applying it to all URLs they index. Torrent index sites categorise their content with the intent of applying it to all torrents they index. If the vast majority of URLs on the internet were infringing copyright, would you still support Google's right to index them? I wonder what percentage of an index needs to refer to infringing content before allowing users to search the index is considered facilitating infringement. This percentage seems to be (a large part of) what judges use as evidence of intent.

grellas 17y ago

Google is not similarly exposed to liability just because its search function can be used to facilitate infringement. The issue here is one of potential liability for contributory infringement. When a party's technology is being primarily used for infringing purposes, and its independent, non-infringing uses are at best marginal, such a party can be held liable for contributory infringement of the copyrights at issue. That in essence appears to be what the court concluded here. Contributory infringement, though, does not extend to technologies that can only incidentally be used for infringing purposes - were it otherwise, then any technology involved in facilitating an infringing use could be swept in (e.g., the manufacturers of hardware devices used to play the infringing material). This line of legal reasoning has gradually evolved from the 1980's Betamax case through Napster to a variety of iterations in the modern law. It is a complex area of law but, in essence, it defines a level of culpability by which the law deems it fair to impose liability on a party not directly infringing on copyrighted materials but whose technology facilitates such infringement. Here, the court concluded that IsoHunt was sufficiently culpable to be held liable in spite of the fact that it can be used for innocent purposes as well. Google's search function, on the other hand, obviously has major uses apart from those facilitating copyright infringement and Google is nowhere close to being a contributory infringer even though its technology might be misused for this purpose.

jellicle 17y ago
But Google's business is actually 99.99% infringing. Everything is copyrighted, including but not limited to this website. (Under current U.S. law, Federal government publications are nearly the only thing not copyrighted.) In no case has the copyright owner expressed permission for you to copy the copyrighted text to your computer. And yet, that is very very close to 100% of Google's business - locating copyrighted texts and sending users to them in order for those users to copy them, presumably illegally, to their computers. Only in the very rare case (.gov websites, users finding their own websites) is the user not infringing copyright. Nor is it possible for the user to determine whether he/she is infringing copyright; for example, the text on a .gov website could be written by a government contractor and therefore be copyrighted.
- 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

I want to highlight what another poster says: with "law" like this Mens Rea is crucial to the issue. You can also find child porn on Google if you know how: but no one would consider them a distributor or a facilitator.