"Pirate Google" sets sail to show copyright hypocrisy

I've wondered how Google seems to avoid the trouble that the Pirate Bay does, all I've been able to conclude if that TPB is up front and Google is sneaky about it.

And don't forget they have that treasure chest to buy politicians too ;)

I'm really curious to see what happens next for TPB, after the revelations came to light about the judge's conflicts of interest. Conflicts, plural, being the case, a member of multiple copyright groups, some with at least one lawyer against TPB.

I'm also curious to see if Google will set its search protocols to exclude torrent files, I don't see it happening since that could cut into their financial bottom line. There were rumors that they were thinking about putting massive computers afloat on ships outside of any national jurisdictions, this could be part of the reason why.

The one thing Google certainly do is sue TPG for copyright infringement for use of its name in the domain. Count on it.

They're not really at all similar, as Engadget *and* the creator of this "Pirate Google" readily admit.

Your headline isn't particularly accurate, either, as the intent appears to be an effort to create a dialogue about hypocrisy, where none may even exist.

Two *key* differences:

1. Google has greatly expanded uses and functionality. This is an important legal distinction.
2. Google is on record saying that they do what they can to curb piracy. No one expects someone to completely curb every instance, because if that were the expectation, a service like Google could not exist. The Pirate Bay, on the other hand, embraces piracy. (And, if they don't, they sure picked a dumb name.) They make no effort to remove content that is blatantly not legal to distribute. In fact, they make it easier to find that content. Again, I'd love to see a statistical breakdown of what type of content is downloaded via links from the Pirate Bay, because I bet it would shatter the myth that it's used as a legit method of transferring legal content.

Again, I think you guys are making conclusions that don't actually appear in the article, but the problem I see with the Piracy issue is this:

Record Labels < - - - - - - - - - - - - > Pirate Bay

Each end of this graph represents an extreme argument that isn't very practical, and on some levels, absurd. All of those dashes in the middle represent varying degrees of thought. Mainly, consumers trapped between two schools of thought that just prolong the idiocy that is restrictive file formats.

Just to get an idea of what I'm arguing against, a question or two:

Do you support the idea that people should be able to share copies of digital content (movies, music, etc.) that they purchased?

Do you believe that the Pirate bay should be required to make a concerted effort to take down links to content which is undeniably a copyright violation?

Google has always had problems because of what they do. Some people found that the sites they used to purchase items from were being spidered at that exact moment (or just had very bad security) - and google ended up with their credit card numbers

The same for goggle earth, took pictures of people who did not want their pictures / house/yard / etc. on the net

It;s in the nature of what they do, unavoidable

Okay, I'm going to make a nuanced point here:

I see people saying that the Pirate bay provides copyrighted material. Copyrighted where? In the US? The US doesn't hold juristiction over the entire planet, as much as people like to think. In Sweden, where the Pirate Bay is located, the US patents don't apply.

So, to say they are providing search capability to illegal files is inaccurate. Illegal in the US, sure, but not everywhere.

In Sweden, where the Pirate Bay is located, the US patents don't apply.

1) Copyright has nothing to do with patents.

2) And this is the important one:

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, usually known as the Berne Convention, is an international agreement governing copyright, which was first accepted in Berne,Switzerland in 1886.

Most importantly:

The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.

Guess who signed it? (Besides almost everyone.)

Sweden 1904-[20]08-01

SOURCE and SOURCE

As you can see, your point doesn't hold much water.

Also:

In addition to establishing a system of equal treatment that internationalised copyright amongst signatories, the agreement also required member states to provide strong minimum standards for copyright law.

Forgive my slip of the tongue (fingers?), I meant to say copyrights.

You are correct with the Berne convention. The difference with Sweden is that there is no law making it illegal for a service that can be used for illegal purposes to operate. The copyright laws only apply to the files themselves, not to pointers (like torrents).

My point is that to say what they are doing is illegal is oversimplifying things. There will be years of international legal wrangling before we know whether what they do is illegal or not.

The difference with Sweden is that there is no law making it illegal for a service that can be used for illegal purposes to operate. The copyright laws only apply to the files themselves, not to pointers (like torrents).

But, that's pretty much the case everywhere, because there's no precedent, because it's never been an issue. This is all new territory. They were tried based on Swedish interpretations of Swedish copyright law, so I'm not sure your prior argument that this has something to do with US jurisdiction has anything to do with your new argument in #1.12.

At any rate, I don't think it's an oversimplification, I think it's something that will need to work it's way through the court system, yes -- to build a case history. Thus far, legal opinions seem to hold that it *is* illegal, based on some very specific parameters that The Pirate Bay fell into, concerning the way they run and operate their business.