![]() |
Quote:
Google may not be able to reliably determine "number of potentially copyrightable objects" on a site, but they could use something simpler like a count of pages. 100 DMCAs with 500 pages = severe penalty 100 DMCAs with 500,000 pages = slight or zero penalty edit: Looks like google are already evaluating this. Right hand column: "URLs requested to be removed as a percentage of the specified domain's indexed URLs." http://www.google.com/transparencyre...ns/?r=all-time |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Every torrent site, filehost aggregator or any other pirate sites knows how to game that stat and they're already doing it. They index every query ever ran on their site as an individual page that Google indexes. You can search for "Megan Fox and Morgan Freeman sex tape" on Filestube and within hours that's the number one google result. That percentages of pages stat is bullshit. Pirates would LOVE for Google to use that (and Google probably will) because it's so easily manipulated. Do you actually believe less than 5% of the material on ThePirateBay is pirated? Do you actually believe less than 1% of the stuff on Filestube is pirated? Pirates would love you to believe that's true but it's complete horseshit. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Pirates will rot in hell under the command of Satan sent by Jesus Christ
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That means Google is setting of what actually is a legal precendent. Now the next time a site like Isohunt or Torrentz.eu is dragged to court, they cannot scream "we're just a neutral search engine like google" anymore like they did since times immorial. No policy against repeat offenders, you're not like Google. Period. The importance of what Google just did is not simply that piracy sites will start getting less of Google traffic, although that is very important too. But their latest move also provides a weapon to sue piracy search engines like Isohunt/Torrentz.eu/Filestube/Filetram into oblivion. |
How does a private company changing its policy set a legal precedent?
|
It is not exactly a legal precedent of course. But it is quite common nowadays for courts to take into account community standards and practices of big respectable companies such as Google. When Isohunt and the likes start screaming next time "we're like google" any good lawyer will simply ask them "where is your repeat infringer policy similar to the one that Google implemented". There are good chances that courts will side with that arguement.
|
Quote:
and say see where just like Google , we exempt our own stuff too , and then just USE Google , including their repeat infringer policy afterwards. it not the "legal precedent" you want unless it universally applied. |
I wonder how much Google regrets releasing their transparency report. :)
I think that they loved the pirates until they had to create a division within Google to respond to DMCA requests. I see how many we send them ... it's pretty crazy. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc