What the Pirate Bay verdict means for search will Google be sued tomorrow? & Forget The Pirate Bay : Here's 3 File-Sharing Outlets To Take On, plus our own.
Torrent websites, movie torrents & bit torrent search
We at Filmclips use Google Custom Search to restrict your searches to Torrent files to find movies etc..??. By appending your query with filetype:torrent. This technique can be used for any type of file supported by Google, this to show Pirate Bay is doing less than Google, and that search doesn't means downloads .
update: Pirate Bay Lawyer to Demand a Retrial: A defense lawyer in the Pirate Bay file-sharing case said Thursday he will demand a retrial after the judge admitted he was a member of copyright-protection organizations.
We can also do what the Pirate Bay does, but we do it with Google. Find a Torrent with filmclips:Peter Sunde on Twitter
When will Google be sued for doing the same ? See http://g2p.org/ for a search engine using Google to find music and more .. and thepirategoogle that find torrents on ...Google, or our in house torrent search are doing exact the same as the pirate Bay but better, we did it also see filmclips torrents.
Pirate Bay Twitter press conference:
Forget The Pirate Bay : Here's 3 File-Sharing Outlets To Take On
found at www.itproportal.com/ April18, 2009
The Pirate Bay might be on the verge of leaving the file sharing scene but like Napster back in the days of yore, even its demise won't mean the end of the P2P.
The closing down of Suprnova and Napster did not slow down the ascent of the file sharing online. So there's no reason why this will happen with TPB.
On the contrary, expect more resilient, more decentralised and evolved ways of exchanging files to come up from the ashes of TPB (assuming of course TPB will come down crashing).
And here are 3 easy replacements for TPB that the content industry will have much more trouble closing down.
Convincing Google to clean up their indexes and remove all torrent files is near impossible as torrent files could be renamed to a number of extensions and even hijack existing popular ones like Microsoft's Word DOC format. Now that would be embarrassing.
(2) Shareaza and other P2P websites
As of yesterday, more than 1.1 million torrents could be found on the website with more than 8 billion dowloads - a near 60 percent increase over May 2008 - and a whopping 9.4 million searches daily.
As for Shareaza, it is an application that allows you to search and download content from four peer-to-peer networks simultaneously including EDonkey2000, Gnutella, BitTorrent and Shareaza's native network, Gnutella2 (G2).
www.Shareaza.com is obviously one of many applications and has a highly sophisticated IP and client filter. Back in August 2008, Shareaza also announced a promising new project called Panthera which could include more robust anonymity features.
Sites like Rapidshare or www.Megaupload.com use ultra cheap bandwidth and the fact that even this bandwidth could be monetised through advertising to launch direct services.
What the Pirate Bay verdict means for search will Google be sued tomorrow?
found at pandia.com April 17, 2009
Last week the Swedish BitTorrent search engine Peer Review lost the first round in the Swedish court system.
BitTorrent is one of the most common protocols for transferring large files, and by some estimates it accounts for about 35% of all traffic on the entire Internet.
Needless to say, The Pirate Bay has been used actively for finding and downloading copyrighted material, and in particular music and video files.
The defendants are Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde, who runs the site, and Carl Lundström, a Swedish businessman who through his businesses has sold services to the site. They have been found guilty of violating copyright laws and sentenced to a year in prison. They have also been given a fine of 30 million Swedish Kroner (US$3.6 million).
The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter points out that the District Court in Stockholm said the punishment was decided with regards to the fact that the complicity of the defendants had entailed “an extensive accessibility-making of other people’s rights”.
In other words: They have been found guilty of making illegal files more easily available, not for uploading illegal files themselves.
Search vs. distribution of files
The defendants will appeal the verdict. They argue that they have done nothing illegal by providing a search tool like this one. The users of the tools commit the crimes, not the toolmakers.
Defense lawyer Per E. Samuelson has argued that “it is legal to offer a service that can be used in both a legal and illegal way according to Swedish law” and that The Pirate Bay’s services “can be compared to making cars that can be driven faster than the speed limit”.
In other words: the defendants argue that he who provides an information service is not responsible for the information that is being transferred. This is an important distinction, as it is relevant for all Internet search engines.
How technology changes the playing field
What we see here is a clash between the old world of the printing press and physical LP/CD/Video production and the new world of online digital distribution.
The record and movie industry keeps on acting as the old world is the legitimate one, and given that Swedish as well as international copyright laws are a product of the old paradigm, they get away with it.
In short: The court argues that the copyright holders are to be paid for each copy of the intellectual property, be it a physical copy or a digital one.
This is in and for itself a very difficult position, given that the technological development has made it impossible for them to stop the copying and distribution of digital files.
There were monks in the late Middle Ages that cursed Gutenberg for the printing press. After all: copying manuscripts by hand was part of their livelihood, and you could argue that the artistic value of their work was higher than the printed copies.
The record companies can no more stop illegal copying of music files than the monks could stop the printing industry.
Search is not the same as distribution
Still, let’s for the sake of argument say that they could win that battle — that they could close down all illegal file distribution through peer-to-peer networks, file servers and websites. Does that imply that they should be able to stop the search engines that help people find the material as well?
Given that the Swedish verdict focuses on the complicity of Pirate Bay, what the media industry is trying to stop is not only the distribution of files themselves, but the tools that help you to search for content, being that legal or illegal.
The Pirate Bay’s marketing tactics have been unwise, to say the least. The name itself implies that they are doing something illegal. In principal, however, there is no difference between Pirate Bay and — let’s say — Google.
Google says that they are activley removing links to copyrighted material.
That might be, but they are also very clear about the fact that their search algorithm is to be objective and neutral, that it is the algorithm that calculates what content is good and relevant and what is not, and that they do not read nor judge the content of the material found.
The Google search engine is not a directory edited by humans, and so you can not blame Google for the content found by the search engine robots, no more than you can blame a map maker for the ugly buildings in your neighborhood.
This is the way it has to be if you are to index a cyberspace of some 1 trillion documents. And it is also the way it has to be if you are to avoid censorship.
If you do a web search on Google today, you will find a large number of web pages that makes illegal use of protected material. This applies to copied text, but even more common is the use of pictures and music.
Indeed, now that web publishing has reached the masses through tools like Blogger, Flickr and Facebook, amateur publishers use Google Image search to find pictures they can use in their blogs and on their home pages.
Google makes all this creativity possible, but they can hardly be blamed for the copyright violations. Because if you do punish Google for this, you risk ruining the very tools that makes the Web such a useful tool for dissemination of information, namely the search engines.
Last week Forbes published an article called Why Google Is The New Pirate Bay. Ben Edelman, a professor at Harvard’s Business School focused on Internet regulation, argues that the media industry may now shift its focus to Google.
“Google now can and does do what the Pirate Bay has always done,” Edelman says to Forbes. “And if they’re prosecuted, they would have much more interesting arguments in their defense.”
The publishing industry vs. Google
Some of these arguments are the same as the ones Google uses against the publishing industry.
Newspapers are blaming Google for cheating them for revenue by indexing their news articles and including them in Google News. Mind you: Google is not reproducing the articles themselves. They are linking to them with a headline, a snippet presenting the content and in some cases a picture.
Given that the newspapers are still living in the 20th century, they apparently fail to see that Google is giving them free traffic this way, and that this traffic is worth much more than any possible copyright infringment that little snippet summary may entail.
Or maybe they are just greedy.
In any case, if they succeded in stopping Google from republishing snippets of this kind (which they can do by adding a line to their robots.txt file), they would seriously weaken the search engine’s functionality and through that the usefulness of the world wide web. Danny Sullivan has a great discussion of this over at his personal blog.
What the newspaper case and the Pirate Bay case have in common, is the media industry’s inablility to distinguish between search and content, and between the map and the world.
They cannot win
The fact is that the music, movie and publishing industries will fail in their efforts.
We are living in 2009. This is a new world, a world where the Internet has become an integrated part of modern society and where the search engines provide an essential part of the infrastructure that makes communication, trade and learning possible. The search engines are as essential to modern living as tap water and electricity.
Over 8000 people joined the Swedish Pirate Party in the 24 hours following the verdict. It has now over 23,000 members, making it the fourth-largest Swedish political party by membership count. The Norwegian communist party Red has started a global campaign in support of The Pirate Bay.
Admittedly, these events do not represent a revolt of the common man against “the media-industrial complex”. The people defending The Pirate Bay are mainly from an age cohort that does not have much political influence.
But if the industry decides to attack search engines that are used by kids, grandmothers, business women and politicians alike, they will soon face a PR disaster of epic proportions. And the main reason is that we can no longer live without well functioning search engines.
There is also another reason, and one that is much more serious for the media companies: Most people no longer consider it a crime to distribute music and movie files to friends and family, nor do they find it objectable to make mashups of images, text and sound found online. When the majority loses respect for a judicial principle, that principle is about to die.
Maybe the media companies should start preparing for the future instead of clinging to the past.
Bible Jokes Ebook on Kindle
this film section:
Search this site
Get pirate bay today google tomorrow in three little steps !