An issue gone too far…or maybe not? The Pirate Google story…

1
April 29th, 2009

Much debate has been undergoing since the launch of the PirateGoogle, which is in fact a simple website that uses the Google custom search script to search only for .torrent files, similar to Google searches, but we will get to that later. This website is a mere chunk of wood thrown into the huge gaping flames of the internet piracy problem.

Apparently, it was a clever response from an anonymous coder who wanted to express his thoughts when it comes to the Pirate Bay trial. The PirateBay has been sued last year for promoting the copyright infringement of other. One of the main defenses at the trial was that Google also had in their search indexes .torrent files and that the Pirate bay basically shares the same functionality as Google search engine. The trial, which ended bad for the four owners of the the Piratebay (imprisonment and fines of $3.5 million ) raised a controversy regarding Google’s supposed guilt, that they also act as a gateway to .torrent files.

Coming back to the Pirategoogle, it’s mysterious owner chose to speak about the site and its role in this heated discussion. When asked “Why launch a website like this” He’s/She’s response was the following “The purpose of the site was simply to provoke discussion on issues such as piracy, net neutrality, and the power of the Internet as a disruptor of more traditional forms of media,” . An interesting statement from someone who clearly wants to continue this troublesome yet important debate.

He went on saying “Although the site has received a great deal of support, it has also spawned many detractors. I absolutely understand the argument that a comparison between The Pirate Bay and Google is much more nuanced then simply ‘they both search copyrighted material,’ and think this criticism is quite valid.”” We can deduct from this that he/she is just trying to keep the debate rolling until it can be reached a reasonable and fair conclusion. She /He continued with “the Internet is a great equalizer, an individual such as myself is able to reach the world as effectively, and perhaps in an even more profound way than large corporations or politicians with deep pockets and connections in high places. The threat to the established media industry and others like it won’t simply be mitigated by winning a few lawsuits or shutting down a few popular websites. These issues are fundamentally pervasive to our cultural development and as such their resolution can only be achieved by reconciling both the needs of industry and the public at large.” Quite intriguing and somewhat philosophical comment which points out the fact that this isn’t an issue that can be ignored or diminished with a few lawsuits but in fact it should be treated with “care” and understanding for both sides.

What the public needs? I personally don’t think that they “need” access to unreleased blockbusters, games or music…. , I can only say that I think we all are waiting for a peaceful solution of the “problem” but it isn’t as simple as shutting down a few websites.

Comments

  • Why do artist support these new laws? These laws hurt most artists and help only a very few. Of the money made on copyrights only 1 or 2% goes to artists. Movies and TV shows pay the artists up front so they make nothing off of copyrights. Most recording artists have poor contracts in which they get pay mostly up front and a small percentage if any money remains after handling costs. Recording artists don’t get paid for radio play just the songwriters. Book writers get paid mostly up front and a small percentage unless they were able to force a good contract, which few are able to. Why should these large companies risk money if they get rich off of copyrights that keep paying year after year. If they need groups for live shows just being back old groups that already have a following. Piracy is not stealing but it is close, add time to copyrights is like piracy(stealing from the public domain) but legal or maybe illegal depending on who is setting on the supreme court. The supreme court just ruled that the law that put songs that had been put back under copyrights was illegal.

Leave a Reply