Google has been true to its pre-Christmas word about getting ever so slightly tougher on copyright infringement by killing some terms users look up via its ubiquitous search engine. The company said in December that it would play nice with the big name record labels, TV networks, and movie studios, by providing better protection …
Time to sue google
google is no officialy a CRIMINAL corporation. who is ILLEGALLY censoring LEGAL WORDS.
it should not be too long before Google get sued for it's OPENLY CRIMINAL ACTION and association with know gangster such as RIAA/MPAA
Re. Time to sue google
WTF are you on? Google don't owe anybody, least of all you, any favours and they can damn well add and take words from their search/autocomplete apps as and when they wish.
@Time to sue google
Your articulate, well reasoned and carefully explained argument has conviced me.
letters and/or digits.
Mectron, I do hope that was a <---
Time to use google :D
Google for "dmca complaint google fox". Look carefully at first link ;) . Change "fox" as needed.
It pays to learn the laws :)))
I can spell torrent!
There, that wasn't too hard was it?
Start to type 'Linux Torrent' - no auto results.
Type 'Linux Tor' - no auto results. 'Tor Linux' works though.
Uh, thanks for the protection, Google.
Why use Google?
There are several plug-ins for browsers that do torrent searches.
They work rather well.
Not actually totally killed
I had a test of this and it only seems to stop auto suggesting until you type key word fully. e.g. When you type 'utorrent' as soon as its completed, its autocomplete business as usual...
If You Failet 3rd Grade Speelling ...
... this cud be a prolem 4 sur.
As mentioned, uTorrent is missing from the suggestions list. The only thing I've ever downloaded using uTorrent is Ubuntu ISOs.
Torrents are legitimate, thank you very much.
Torrents are legitimate
Indeed they are, but I'd recommend you confirm the SHA1 or stronger hash of the .ISO file afterwards if you are intending running it as an operating system.
What we need...
...is someone to launch a pirate server into space with wireless Internet capabilities. Just like the Radio Caroline offshore broadcasts of the 1960's. Sure they will pass laws against that too, but unless they want to deploy an anti-satellite system to kill it off it should be fine for a few decades of vacuum packed goodness.
Just thought. Photocopiers can potentially breach copyrights! Lets outlaw them too. Similarly, fax machines, scanners and while we are at it, lets block this bloke too:
Gosh knows hew might be used for some nefarious copyright infringement in the future so lets do a complete job of it.
Space station caroline
The problem with space station Caroline, other than the ginormous cost is you still need to get your internet uplink from somewhere - another satelite or basestation. That's going to come under someones jurisdiction...
Pirate satellite not needed.
There are plenty of compromised Windows PCs out there seeding torrents completely unknown to their legitimate owners. My sources tell me it's a small scale activity done by crackers not interested in running botnets for other purposes, but who like their favourite movies and music to be made widely available to the world at large, without the seeding being traceable to them personally. Also helps further to discredit the copyright enforcers when they try threatening and suing innocent people who have'nt done anything.
Well, having them in autocomplete gives the impression that Google is suggesting or encouraging this sort of thing, so taking those terms out strikes an appropriate balance between attempting to censor the web on the one hand, and visibly suggesting piracy to people on the other.
So I don't see this as something to be concerned about. It's a reasonable response that will help to avoid a situation in which U.S. courts might force Google to take undesirable actions.
Yes, but ...
It equally hinders those who want to report illegal file sharing, so the sum total is bugger all, really.
And don't forget, it also hinders those who want to buy a copy of the 1926 Garbo movie.
In all, it's a bit like curtailing the auto-fill on "rucksack" so as not to encourage suicide bombers.
But autocorrect still works
Type "Linux turrent" into Google and it automatically corrects to "torrent". So even if you can't type you'll get your warez through the Goo.
Free, as in beer
Linux Werez? That's an interesting concept...
Just stop using google
i will be loyal to the search engine that doesn't censor my interweb
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
Well, as the first poster so inelegantly almost got near to touching on, it is slightly worrying where this kinda of thing could go.
And even though it is evidently a token gesture from Google towards the music and movie industry it is still a step in the direction of censoring the web based on the demands of big business, which if taken to anything more than a token gesture is a concern I think worth worrying about.
so its just auto complete then
The firefox search field still functions as original. So if the censor those from the autocomplete that still leaves: non auto complete version of Google, mobile google.com. search fields in various browsers that are set to google, scroogle, google toolbars, other search engines, TPB, Extratorrent, etc. Yes Google has really got us by the short and curlys on torrents.
The precedent however is what is spooky. I dont like that they can make an agreement with <entity> and then certain words return no results. Good news is that it is not a mandate by the gov.com....well yet at least so it leaves it open to other providers to fill that void.
Well that's absolutely stymied them then. Until they remember that key located directly below backspace, what is it again?
Or use an actual torrent search engine. Or rely on RSS feeds.
To quote "Google said last month that it was working to stop copyright-infringing websites making cash off its AdSense advertising platform."
Has Google looked at the content on you tube lately? Have they? I still see ads up there...
Am I the only one who sits at a new machine, starts typing into google and then goes "wtf the button... ooo right... auto search..." *click* and lets face it most of us use the little box in the top right hand corner to search for things.
Right, so how come when I search for "127 hours orrent", Google offers to correct me with "127 hours torrent"?
Why even bother, Google? Just stick to doing what you do well, search.
Thin edge of the wedge?
Duck Duck Go
Just one more reason to jump off the google ship:
Still works for me...
Maybe they only kill the results on .com, not .co.uk?
In any case, even if I was looking for a torrent and Google won't help, I'd ask Yahoo/MSN/etc, no biggy. And surely the torrents indexing files themselves have their own search tool. Maybe more a gesture of goodwill on Google's part?
Still against their sworn neutrality stance, I have to agree with that though.
Oh what bollocks
Any tech savie user has any decent torrent/warez sirtes already in their favs folder, this is minor pandering by google to appease the riaa mpaa and really has no effect at all on anyones ability to pilfer warez. Or legtimate distros!!!!!!
Last time I looked.
Bittorrent was a both a net protocol and a legitimate enterprise.
Someone needs a slap around the head.
Re: Last time I looked.
If you compare the volume of copyright infringing content available via a torrent and legitimate content available via a torrent it might lead you to the conclusion that torrents are almost exclusively allowing access to copyright infringing targets.
Under pressure from copyright holders, google has tweaked it's auto complete to be less likely to offer potentially copyright infringing material, the ability to still google Linux distros shows it's probably appropriate.
Where it's all going to end
As many people have succintly pointed out, torrents have many legitimate uses. However (as always) the man is about 3 years out of date. I've noticed an increasing trend amongst filesharers to simply use a filehosting service (Rapidshare springs to mind although there are many others). Break the file in question into bite-size chunks. Anonymise them by calling them "nnuwenfuhfewifh.r00" and so on, and then post the links in various online forums.
Filehosting is cheap, and has the advantage that unlike torrents, the files will always be available. Hardcore freetards will pay the filehoster to have multiple downloads/no limits, and ocassional freetards will simply take their time.
If you make the online forums subscription only, it becomes very very hard to police.
This system has the added advantage that there is never any case where a downloaders PC can be considered to be an uploader - so cases where torrentors are accused of "making available" copyrighted work disappear.
Also, because the file is (typically) password zipped *and* broken into chunks, there's no way the hosting company can know what it is.
Oh well, at least google have removed ".torrent" from autocomplete ....
- JLaw, Kate Upton exposed in celeb nude pics hack
- Google flushes out users of old browsers by serving up CLUNKY, AGED version of search
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine
- Twitter declines to deny JLaw tweet scrubdown after alleged iCloud NAKED PHOTOS hack