Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

http://torrentfreak.com/google-now-censors-the-pirate-bay-isohunt-4shared-and-more-111123/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

by llambda • 15 years ago

134 84 15 years ago

torrentfreak.com

redthrowaway3• 15 years ago

Searching for "torrent" lists tpb as the first result for me, as does "tpb" and "thepiratebay". Similarly, "isohunt" returns the expected site, and isohunt.com ranks third for "iso". It doesn't seem to matter whether or not I'm logged in.

mburns• 15 years ago

The third sentence (in bold):

"Google’s blacklist prevents the names of sites appearing in their Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed."

geuis• 15 years ago

All of the search terms showed up just fine in the auto complete and instant for me.

andrewtbham• 15 years ago

From the article "Google’s blacklist prevents the names of sites appearing in their Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed."

ricree• 15 years ago

The search results themselves are unchanged, but the instant suggestions are. From a couple quick tests, this seems to be the case for me as well, though it would be easier to be sure if I had results from a year or so ago to compare against.

For example, "the pirate ba" returns "the pirate balthasar", "the pirate bar", and "the pirate bar" in several different cities. Amusingly, "bittor" doesn't complete to bittorrent, but does include at least one "piracy" related term. It also has a torrent client as its top result.

Spelling suggestions don't seem effected for now. "bitorent" suggests "bittorrent". "thepirtebay" shows results for "thepiratebay".

redthrowaway3• 15 years ago

Well I don't see what the issue is, then. They do the same thing for porn or anything else that could be remotely offensive. I don't have a problem with that. They aren't blacklisting torrent sites; they're just not suggesting them.

ars3• 15 years ago

Extremely inaccurate title, torrentfreak should be ashamed.

The results are "censored" only from autocomplete, not from the index itself.

sweely• 15 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree.

ernesto992• 15 years ago

TorrentFreak here...

They do censor these words right?

The title is correct but we can't always include all nuances. We hope most of our readers will take the time to at least read three sentences :)

I considered " Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More From Their Autocomplete and Instant Services Until A User Types In The Complete Term" but that seemed a bit too much.

But yeah, I'm very ashamed.

yanw3• 15 years ago

Not all editorial action is "censorship", the sites in question are still indexed. And I think you are aware why they are doing it considering the pressure on them from politicians and harmful laws introduced all the time. The title is link-bait.

ars3• 15 years ago

Suggested title:

"Google no longer autocompletes The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More".

Or.

"Google no longer suggests The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More in search bar".

jonhendry3• 15 years ago

How about "Google stops catering to lazy incompetents"?

jacoblyles• 15 years ago

Torrentfreak does not feel shame.

sampsonjs• 15 years ago

I have no beef with Google doing this, but "censor" is a fine and accurate word for any kind of voluntary suppresion, even if it's now as pejorative as Nazi. Network TV censors rarely stop an entire show from airing, for that matter. e.g. "The show was heavily censored before airing". Let me guess what's next: a fatuous civics lesson on how it's not really "censorship" since Goog isn't the US government.

ars3• 15 years ago

I put censor in quotes because it's barely censoring - the results are still there in the search, they just don't autocomplete.

wmf• 15 years ago

This doesn't really explain the back story. Google's autocomplete used to suggest searching for torrents (e.g. type "the dark knight" and it would autocomplete to "the dark knight torrent" because so many people have searched for that). While this was certainly a boon to certain sites, Google has no obligation to provide it (considering that autocomplete didn't even exist for many years). Google's new policy for pirated stuff is the same as for porn: if you're explicitly looking for it they will find it for you, but they won't suggest it. This particular article is just complaining about some new fine-tuning of the same policy.

ernesto992• 15 years ago

This is true, but by Google's filter is not as smart as you would expect and the filter is too broad.

Why include the word "BitTorrent" as it's the trademark of a fine US tech company?

Why include ALL variations of searches with the dictionary word "torrent"?

These decisions appear to be quite arbitrary, which is dangerous when we're talking about censorship.

billpatrianakos6• 15 years ago

I'm sure the "bit" in "BitTorrwnt" is used because people don't know the difference as use the brand name as if it were the same as the technology. Do like Rollerblades? I much prefer inline skates. See what I'm saying?

The real solution would be to solve the piracy problem and have the BitTorrent protocol go back to being widely used for its intended purpose. It wasnr intended as a piracy tool, it was intended to be an efficient, decentralized file sharing tool like p2p networks. If those protocols were being used to share the newest office memo in the company network or just non piracy related files in general then there'd be no need to the restriction and it's unintended consequences and we could revert the autocomplete policy.

It's the rule breakers that made it this way and that's where your frustration should be directed. But I'll admit that's pretty hard these days. I'm only 25 and I'm the exception but the rest of my generation and younger seem to think piracy is fine and have this sense of entitlement about it. That needs to stop.

It's pretty clear this isn't arbitrary just like the Rollerblade example I gave before. Typical users often think you have to type in a URL into the search engine. They never use the address bar! They get from site to site using a 3 step process. 1) Go to search engine of choice. 2 Type in desired URL 3) Click the first result. Those people are the reason the filter is so broad, but in the end it's the pirates who created the need for a filter to begin with.

tzs• 15 years ago

I'd certainly like to see less pirated stuff in search results that aren't explicitly asking for it. Several times I've been trying to find reviews or discussion of relatively obscure math books, and the top several pages of search results have all been for pirated copies of the book.

The funny thing is most of those don't even actually work. The sights are often just directories linking to the alleged downloads and the links are bad.

yanw3• 15 years ago

I don't agree with the terminology, it's not "censorship", the sites in question are still indexed the keywords don't get autocompleted is all.

billpatrianakos6• 15 years ago

These people are abusing the terminology. They know they are supporting piracy. They know it's illegal. Theyre counting on ignorance, exaggeration, and this new Sense of entitlement to free music, movies, and software that's infected the younger generation (at least in the US, and I'm only 25 but it applies to my peers too). They're using these great ideals like freedom as shields and in the end they're going to hurt all of us because of it. They want to act innocent as if they're being persecuted unjustly. It makes me so mad that the freedom of the web might be restricted and it's these same people who say they love freedom so much who gave law makers the excuse to be able to do it!

dpkendal• 15 years ago

I don't see the problem. They're only blocking the terms from suggestions and requiring you to hit return to finish your search for these. As long as you can still get the same results, I'm happy.

This post should probably be retitled to "Google no longer suggests or instantly searches for..." or some variant.

jellicle2• 15 years ago

Yeah, if you just start typing "isohunt " and watch the Instant suggestions, you can see what they mean. Try typing "youtube " or "yahoo " and Google knows just what you mean, right away. Isohunt? Not so much. Typing "torren" gives me suggestions for the Torrens system, apparently a system of land titles in Australia. Who knew? But I'm guessing the number of people who complete that word with a "t" rather than a "s" is in the ratio of tens of thousands to 1. Unless the Torrens system is a lot more popular than I think it is.

Oh, Google. Do we have to fight about every little thing?

Here's what's best for users and arguably, best for Google in the long run:

"Google search tries to find what the user wants to find"

Here's what best for Google in the short run:

"Google search tries to find what is most profitable for Google, Inc."

I'm pretty sure you want to do the first one, not the second one, to maximize the long-term advantage to your company. Companies that intentionally make their product shittier do not actually do well in the long run. None of them. And frankly, trying to "compromise" with the RIAA/MPAA/etc. is foolish. They're paid to push toward a position which is untenable for Google. No matter how much you compromise, they'll be back next year with a further demand. In the end the RIAA/MPAA do not want to co-exist with you; they want the internet to consist of two buttons, one labeled "Buy Music" and one labeled "Buy Movies". So in the end you can't satisfy them. Why try? Nobody at the MPAA will thank you for this.

1010011010• 15 years ago

Google gets sued by organizations all the time. They don't censor the results -- except when commanded to by law enforcement. They can't "compromise" with the police. And note that this filtering applies only to suggestions, not to actual results.

Google wants to make the internet free. Organizations like the RIAA/MPAA/BSA want it to be their own private AOL.

yanw3• 15 years ago

Sigh. If this small gesture would appease those trying to ruin the internet with stupid copyright laws and delay their stupidity then why not? there is no harm there, the sites are indexed, this is by no means "censorship" and some lawyer could argue in court that with autocomplete Google is helping pirates or whatever. This is a non-issue.

jonhendry3• 15 years ago

Searching for 'torren' is ambiguous.

If you search for 'torren' and probably any movie, song, game, book, or program, Google will probably divine your intent and give you the results for related torrents.

IMHO, if you can't manage a better query than just 'torren', you are probably a moron and don't deserve access to any torrents.

JonnieCache3• 15 years ago

I said this before last time around on this non-issue:

Google are not preventing people reaching tpb results.

They are declining to actively push these results unbidden upon people.

The massive, fundamental difference between these two things should be obvious.

Do we really think it's unreasonable for google to decline to actively point it's users towards largely illegal material which they had not explicitly requested?

Google is a publicly traded, for-profit corporation. They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it.

paganel2• 15 years ago

> They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it.

Google has built its business on other people's content, is that simple. But then it started to gradually "steal" more and more of said people work, until it became the giant corporation that you mention.

And before people start down-voting me, just imagine a giant like IBM (let's say) building a search engine that steals other people's content (because that's what things like Google Places have become) and then making tons of money on the back of it. Hell will break loose.

JonnieCache3• 15 years ago

I agree that Places and other similar parts of google's business are highly ethically suspect, far more so than the user profiling and data retention that are more often talked about.

I don't understand how it's related to this particular issue though.

Dylan16807• 15 years ago

I don't know what the problem with that would be. I would love to at least try out a Watson search engine.

kgen• 15 years ago

Hmm, how is this any worse than reddit or stumbleupon or delicious "profiting" from sharing everyone else's content? It's just reorganizing the information that is already available?

gldalmaso• 15 years ago

I think we are reaching a point in history where giant corporations are reaching a state-like status where corporate policy begins to have the weight of law in the sense of how many people are affected by it outside the company; corporate public relations and agenda becomes diplomacy with several different states, concerning different interests for the parties involved.

Not that these things weren't true when the corporations started, but as they scale, so does the influence and responsbaility.

It reminds me of the old Cyberpunk 2020 rpg book where corporations have they own law, police, etc.

billpatrianakos6• 15 years ago

I'm with Jonnie here. This whole outrage is ludicrous. This is like NAMBLA throwing a hissy fit over Google not showing suggestions for search terms like "kiddie p0rn".

Like he said, the results are still there, just not the autocomplete. And stealing content? Where? A music service isn't a radical new idea and I'm sure they could have just as easily done it whether they stole content or not.

This is a for profit company. There's money to be made and I really don't see anything unethical about their new Music service. You want to talk about stealing?! Let's talk about the sites moaning about Google not autocompleting queries that are likely looking for pirated material. Now those sites are stealing. The disgusting thing about them is that they want to hide behind "freedom" and "censorship" as a way to distract or even excuse what they do.

I'm just shocked at how many people feel theyre entitled to free music, movies, software, you name it! You're not entitled to shit. I often wonder how many of those same people are in business for themselves. I'd venture to guess not many at all.

Make no mistake here, censorship, SOPA, Protect IP are all bad things. But websites that obviously, actively, and often openly break copyright laws cannot be taken seriously when we talk about freedom and censorship. It's like the KKK hiding behind the bible to support bigotry or politicians hiding behind Patriotism to pass the Patriot Act. By using those things as shields you're essentially shitting on the very thing you say you value so much.

Copyright laws have been on the books since before the web and while there's a point to be made about some parts of those laws going too far, the simple concepts of creators being able to defend themselves against the unauthorized distribution (theft) of their creations is something we should all be able to get behind. If we can't then I had better get out of the programming business because sooner or later my own colleagues will be diving for the freedom to be able to hijack and give away what I create for any price they want without any permission from me.

bad_user4• 15 years ago

I upvoted you and I agree with what you're saying.

However, while copyright itself is an economically and morally valid concept, the current copyright law is not.

It's simply not OK for copyright protections to last for 100 years (and growing, as long as Disney is still around), when something like 10 years should be enough. It's also not OK to sue parents for singing Happy Birthday to their child in a 20 secs YouTube video. I also don't think it's OK to sue anybody for singing a song, unless he does it for commercial purposes. It's also not OK to demand tens of thousands of dollars for a single song you downloaded illegally. Or to sue children or grandmas.

Another problem is that sharing is in human nature. If you can't find a way around that (like putting a tax in every Internet connection that should take care of any illegal song or movie downloads) than it's also unjust to punish people for doing something which is in their nature (it's like punishing people for having sex).

It's not that copyright is unjust. The concept is OK, the authors need to live too. But they went way too far (and not for the benefit of the authors ;))

grecy2• 15 years ago

I agree.

To keep the discussion going, how would you feel if in the future, Google removed the "offending" sites from it's index entirely?

billpatrianakos6• 15 years ago

Do you mean offensive sites in general or just these file sharing sites?

For torrent sites I think I'd be pissed. I'm no fan of piracy and I'm not an apologist for those sites at all but I don't think it's Google's place to do that. Google's mission is to index and organize the world's information and blacklisting websites like that would be hypocrisy. Even if we all agreed it was okay for one site it becomes a slippery slope where Google can use that for their own or their partners' benefit. There'd be an exodus and Google would slowly lose market share from that point on.

It's one thing to stop making it so easy to find a site that you barely have to type 2 letters before you get what you want. Its an entirely different thing to limit access to certain sites. If its not on Google then it doesn't exist on the Internet for all intents and purposes. We're back to emailing each other links in that case.

This should be as far as Google reaches on this short of banning these sites. From there it's the job of users to stop supporting piracy and law enforcement to shut down illegal sites in their own jurisdictions using the current laws and without creating new laws to prosecute people unless it's absolutely positively necessary.

nitrogen• 15 years ago

I think the problem people have with Google's control over the search results is that they (perhaps mistakenly) expect Google to be an impartial facilitator for accessing the world's information. It could be argued that organic placement of piratical content in autocomplete and instant searches is a desired outcome, as it shows the average person what's "out there" on the web. Removing actually-popular searches from the autocomplete and instant results is, in a way, lying about reality. People may be thinking, "If they're lying about this, what else aren't they telling us?"

From my perspective, if those of us arguing for things like shorter copyright terms are to have any success convincing the broader public (whose access to information is largely through the media conglomerates), maybe having those people accidentally stumble upon torrent sites when they search for their favorite movie or pop idol is a good thing.

Not because we want them to pirate the content, but because we want them to know that technology provides another way -- that there is a conceivable, technically possible existence that doesn't depend on a controlled feed of entertainment from the existing media players. If only they could experience the digital utopia that could be created if not for the impossibility of negotiating licenses, they might be willing to support a reform of copyright that is in the best long-term interests of society as a whole, both creators and customers.

jellicle2• 15 years ago

Out of all those users typing "torren" in Google's search bar, what percentage are trying to reach "torrent" and what percentage are trying to reach the Torrens land title system? Because right now Google is only showing me Torrens, and I suspect 99.99%+ of all users typing "torren" want torrents.

Just so you know, the lame arguments you are making are not new or novel. Throughout history, all episodes of censorship have been met with the response that the material isn't REALLY censored, not for sufficiently determined readers. Douglas Adams provided the definitive mocking of that idea:

>`But look you found the notice didn't you?' >`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'

Just because it's not 100% effective - Arthur did find the notice, after all - doesn't mean it's not censorship. The word has never meant that. Google is attempting to make this material less available to people who want to get it, and is succeeding. 100% effectiveness is not part of the definition, and never has been.

jonhendry3• 15 years ago

"Out of all those users typing "torren" in Google's search bar, what percentage are trying to reach "torrent" and what percentage are trying to reach the Torrens land title system? Because right now Google is only showing me Torrens, and I suspect 99.99%+ of all users typing "torren" want torrents."

Type into search field: baldur's gate torren

Response: Showing results for baldur's gate torrent

You were saying? Looks fine to me.

richardw5• 15 years ago

So if someone types "child por" in, should Google autocomplete if a common request is "child porn"?

Also, don't call the guy's argument lame, just answer it. Be civil.

bad_user4• 15 years ago

When I search for "torrent" on Google, the third result is The Pirate Bay, and when I search for "torren" The Pirate Bay is the first result, with a suggestion to correct the word to "torrent". Of course, as you may know, results are relative to the user profile Google builds about you.

     Throughout history, all episodes of censorship
     have been met with the response that the 
     material isn't REALLY censored

Citation needed. To me, a material is either forbidden or not forbidden. There are no gray areas.

Of course, smart governments that yield control in subtle ways, like the US government, have been using tactics like disinformation to hide the truth in a mountain of noise and I can see how Google could do the same thing. However this is not censorship.

quadhome• 15 years ago

Where is there a public domain index?

mMark• 15 years ago

I see no problem with this.

It's not "censorship" as TorrentFreak wants to linkbait. All results are still indexed, even sites that are obviously piracy related.

All Google is trying to do is cover their asses when it comes to contributory infringement.

If they were ever sued search engines are USUALLY safe. The exception being when sites actively push users towards pirated content - as we've seen through cases such as the isoHunt case where having a "Top Torrents" list that had mainly studio IP condemned them to heavy losses.

I think the last thing anyone wants is Google to lose a copyright infringement case. The precedent would be the gold standard against search engines and would be enough to start knocking out indexers and torrent sites all over the place.

If they see cause to do a bold move such as this to protect themselves, I say all the more to them.

gwern• 15 years ago

https://torrentfreak.com/googles-anti-piracy-filter-110712/ astonishes me. The autocomplete stuff actually matters that much? I would not have guessed it, which is just another reminder that I am a geek whose Internet usage differs considerably from much of the population.

artursapek2• 15 years ago

Recently I noticed that Google Chrome has a custom search built in for what.cd (a huge, exclusive music sharing website). When logged in, typing in the URL "what.cd" and hitting space brings up "Search What.CD Artists:" Autocomplete also continues to suggest "what.cd faq" as the first result for "what."

It makes sense though. What.CD is a tacit community, much less known about than any of the more "mainstream" file-sharing networks mentioned in this article. I wonder if Google is consciously just leaving it alone because reckons it can afford to. This move is no doubt a PR move and a legal precaution (understandably). It's just funny how they've been selective against the public networks.

murz• 15 years ago

Chrome adds sites that you visit to your list of search engines [1]. It's not built in.. typing in what.cd and hitting space does nothing for me.

[1] http://superuser.com/questions/276069/google-chrome-automati...

artursapek2• 15 years ago

Whoops, you're right. My bad

nextparadigms• 15 years ago

I'm fine with this move, but I hope this is as far as they are about to go. I really hope this isn't a precursor to much more aggressive censorship, like removing those sites from the index or giving them a much lower priority in the search results even when you're specifically looking for them.

I know Google is the easy target for RIAA/MPAA and their politician allies lately, but Google really doesn't have to "give in" at all here. At least not until a law like SOPA gets passed. But until the ink is dry on a passed law like that, Google doesn't have to do any concessions.

The only reason I could see them doing this anyway is by trying to appease the content industry when making content deals with them for their own services, but for Google's sake, I hope they won't be going that road, because there won't be any turning back. They will just ask for more and more censorship in future deals. They just need to tell them that's absolutely off the table in negotiations, and not even agree to start the negotiations before they acknowledge that.

draggnar• 15 years ago

or just stop using google - at least that would be an option if they took more agressive steps at censorship, which I don't think they will, these seem obvious.

The key is that it is not written into law.

prophetjohn• 15 years ago

I don't find this to be particularly surprising or outrageous. If someone types in "thep", what are they supposed to suggest "thepiratebay.com - download free..."? I think it's a little misleading to say that Google is censoring anything. They're just modifying the Instant algorithm so that they're not suggesting infringing content to their users.

OoTheNigerian• 15 years ago

My people have a saying, "it is from clapping that dancing begins."

I specifically do not have a problem with this. However, each 'moral' step Google makes takes it nearer to dancing and wanting to be the conscience of the web. One day Google might go SOPA and decide to stop linking to sites that America decides support terrorism.

I am afraid of when US embargos will mean country domains will stop being indexed. It is dangerous the way Google is so powerful that they can determine the success of other sites.

In the words of PG "I worry, I worry". Not for now, but the future.

drivebyacct2• 15 years ago

I wonder if some of the reaction to this is with a consideration in mind, of Google's search being essential for finding things... and the threat of censorship from them affecting discoverability and cohesiveness that Google enables.

richardw5• 15 years ago

Possibly related:

I sell a shareware app. Google has been helpfully suggesting the suffixes 'crack' and 'keygen' for years. Today it isn't - wonder if it's related to the original topic or if it's just a blip.

VonLipwig• 15 years ago

The title is misleading. Google still indexes these sites and they still appear in the sites search results.

All Google is doing is saying they don't want sites like this to be found quicker or stumbled upon using search helpers like auto-complete. If they want to make it so you need to explicitly hunt down sites which make copyrighted material easily accessible to be download then what is the problem?

Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

Related Stories