Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Piracy Communications Google The Internet Technology Your Rights Online

Google Categorically Refuses To Remove the Pirate Bay's Homepage (torrentfreak.com) 90

Posted by BeauHD from the not-on-my-watch dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: This year alone, at least 15 separate takedown notices ask Google to remove ThePirateBay.org from its index. Most of these are sent by the reporting agency Digimarc, on behalf of book publishers such as Penguin Random House, Kensington Publishing, and Recorded Books. This year alone, at least 15 separate takedown notices ask Google to remove ThePirateBay.org from its index. Most of these are sent by the reporting agency Digimarc, on behalf of book publishers such as Penguin Random House, Kensington Publishing, and Recorded Books. Over the years, The Pirate Bay's homepage has been targeted more than 70 times. While there's no shortage of reports, TPB's homepage is still in Google's index.

Since TPB's homepage is not infringing, Google categorically refuses to remove it from its search results. While the site itself has been downranked, due to the high number of takedown requests Google receives for it, ThePirateBay.org remains listed. Google did remove The Pirate Bay's homepage in the past, by accident, but that was swiftly corrected. "Google received a (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down request that erroneously listed Thepiratebay.org, and as a result, this URL was accidentally removed from the Google search index," Google said at the time. "We are now correcting the removal, and you can expect to see Thepiratebay.org back in Google search results this afternoon," the company added.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Categorically Refuses To Remove the Pirate Bay's Homepage More

Google Categorically Refuses To Remove the Pirate Bay's Homepage

Comments Filter:

  • At least they did something not evil on this one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by weilawei ( 897823 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @07:07PM (#57053138)

    'Nuff said.

  • Because ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @07:18PM (#57053186)

    ... without Google, how would we ever find ThePirateBay.org?

  • Google ThePirateBay.org so we know how to find it.

  • In much the same fashion as Guns don't kill people, People kill people..., sites that allow users the freedom to work within, and well outside the copyright infringement law, are not liable for misuse by those same users.

    For example: The cash dollar, or Euro/yen/yuan, can be used for millions of legitimate bartering transactions. Yet, there are categorically provably a small percentage of illegal transactions that result from the sheer anonymity of these cash trades.

    It's fair to say Google has developed t

  • we need a real search engine (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    One that actually indexes the entire internet

    • Not a bad idea. Google is manipulating results too much. Search engine results need to be relevant, so there does need to be some AI involved, but not to the point where it gives some sites advantages over others.

      • If there are rules, the rules can be gamed. Doesn't matter what they are, someone will find a way to game them for their own benefit. That's why Google stinks of ass these days. It has become too big and there are too many players gaming the system for it to function properly, without Google themselves doing manual intervention left and right, further corrupting the system every time they make a change, which in itself only serves to give more rules for the players to game.

        The only way to provide a good sea

  • Digimarc is guilty (Score:3)

    by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @08:01PM (#57053424)

    Did they not send a request, under penalty of perjury, that thepiratebay.org was infringing their copyright when infact they knew it did not?

    • No, the complaint made, "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." The "good faith" and "belief" weasel words in the code basically excuse almost anything in respect of what they claim is infringing. Good faith is typically defined as, "Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others." Since the complainant's position is that infringers should be fined/jail

      • There's got to be a point where they can't use "good faith" when they're requesting the same url over and over again with content never changes and is always rejected.
        15 times this year alone.

        • Maybe 15 is the exact number of times there has been any change at all to the internal HTML of the home page. Then they have plausible deniability on that "good faith" argument. No less a horrible lie, but one that isn't provably a lie.

  • While the site itself has been downranked, due to the high number of takedown requests Google receives for it, ThePirateBay.org remains listed.
    [...]
    "Google received a (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down request that erroneously listed Thepiratebay.org, and as a result, this URL was accidentally removed from the Google search index,"

    Sending a false (I'm sorry, "erroneous") DMCA take-down request should get future take-down requests by the submitting entity downranked and de-prioritized in the qu

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Just how many false (I'm sorry, "erroneous") DMCA take-down request are ok? I'd say no more than 3. After receiving 3, then all take-down requests from that source and copyright holder should be illegal. The source or copyright holder should have to go thru the normal court process.

      DMCA take-down process is good in theory; however, in practices there way way too many improper or invalid notices.
      Is there any centralized metrics gathered where all DMCA take-downs and results are listed? I don't think so.

  • They had to say it not once but twice. This just proves that it must not only be important but that the editors don't do ANY editing. I don't even think they HAVE editors anymore here, just automated repeaters. With all this talk about AI one would think at least THAT would catch something so freaking obvious. Wow They had to say it not once but twice. This just proves that it must not only be important but that the editors don't do ANY editing. I don't even think they HAVE editors anymore here, just automated repeaters. With all this talk about AI one would think at least THAT would catch something so freaking obvious. Wow
  • If I search for "The Pirate Bay" on google all I get is proxies and some articles. Meanwhile, same search in duckduckgo places the .org as first hit.
  • I think you may have repeated yourself, I think you may have repeated yourself.
    Fuck a duck, I would expect people posting articles to /. to actually fucking proof read their own shit.

    • "I would expect people posting articles to /. to actually fucking proof read their own shit."

      Welcome to slashdot. You must be new here.

      • i'm not, I am just amazed at how something that fucking obvious is overlooked. I get annoyed at grammar and spelling errors all the time (especially mine, so I try to proof read my own shit) and it's just annoying how someone can miss something so fucking obvious.
        I see it all the time, but at least on /. I can comment on it. Most sites have removed the ability to comment. It spreads fake news apparently.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close