The Business of Software

I was wondering if google can do something to exclude cracks sites from the search results. I think it will reduce the losses of small businesses like us. A good number of the people who download utility softwares first look for cracks before they decide to purchase.

Regards.

I don’t think you can do much to stop the cracks / keygens. If someone really wants to crack you software they will. The people that regularly use cracked software do not use google to find the patch. There are lots of dedicated serial / warez search engines.

Try to think along the lines of would they have purchased anyway.

Should google censor/block sites, is that yoor question??
Slippery slope...

Yes. If someone wants to crack my software, he/she will. I am not concerned about the crackers.

The concern is about people who need the software for some use. Even if there are warez/crack sites, do people use search engines like google to find out those sites? I mean, they must first get the information about those sites, right? And other major search engines (msn, yahoo) should support this.

And I do think, a good percentage of people will buy the software if there were no cracks. Not all people download the software for fun. Many want to get some work done using our software. And if they get the free cracks, they just don't think about buying.

Regards.

NO, google should not be policing it's results. It starts with crack sites and ends with "the government doesn't want this information out in the open".

One could argue it already started with the latter.

For every 1 person who writes a crack, there are maybe 10,000 or 100,000 who would be tempted to use it.

Most of the 10K or 100K who would use cracks, aren't hardcore pirates or crackers, are inexpert, and probably do use Google or other search engines to find it.  If you have access to a search keyword inventory tool (Overture's one seems to have keyword counts for crackz and warez blocked), you will see people do use search engines to find cracks.

I'm sure many of the 10K or 100K, who do cracks, do it because it's easier or cheaper or just because they can.

Lots of people assert you can't do anything about it. But do they have proof for this assertion?  Many people buy bootleg DVDs at car boot sales, but when they can't get them, if they really want to see the movie, many would actually buy  a legit copy.

So IMHO if you cut into cracks, you may increase your sales.

Don't forget, though, if you can't search for warez, you might never know that there is one out there for your product.

"I was wondering if google can do something to exclude cracks sites from the search results."

Here's a crazy idea: Ask them.

When Napster was alive in its original form, I used it, just because it was available. I have bought legitmate music before and after Napster. So it goes same for the software. I want people to buy my software but if its available for free,  many many not want to pay.

Also for all who says piracy can't be stopped (in this way), do you know music industry joined (otherwise enemies) and killed Napster. Ofcourse, there were other reasons why Napster died. Also people are still using other P2P softwares  now, but still there was some attempt by music companies in fighting piracy caused by Napster.

"NO, google should not be policing it's results. It starts with crack sites and ends with "the government doesn't want this information out in the open"."

That's the typical FUD argument that everyone uses. If we let them do X, next thing you know they are going to be able to do Y. It just never works that way. We give the government the right to control our lives on a day to day basis and "in general" they don't abuse it. Why? Because when the abuse gets bad enough we smack them for it.

But I see nothing wrong with Google not listing sites that are known to be involved in illegal activity. That is a far cry from letting the government ban certain types of information.

But I agree with another poster who wondered if you had simply tried contacting them about it.

What does what Google (a corporation) do, or doesn't do, have to do with the government anyway.

If Google were to choose not to publish something on their web site, that's not censorship, that's editorial decision. Just like when a newspaper chooses to publish some of the letters they receive, but chooses not to publish others.

Politics aside, there are some practical considerations to consider.

1. As was noted, hackerz use dedicated search sites (e.g., astalavista).

2. Given that there is an underground network, above-board tools like Google are useful (and safe) to *US* so we can monitor what's being done with our work. I mean, sure, you don't want any piracy, but since #1 tells us it's there, you're better off if you can monitor it (e.g., release a new version when the old one is cracked)

3. Warez sites are not safe. People visiting and downloading from these sites will be sorry in the longrun, once they discover the spyware and trojans they've been infected with.

Let's ask a related question: Does Google filter any other types of sites today? Think about credit card and bank account phishing sites. There are probably thousands of sites out there right now that copy Citibank. Do these sites show up in Google search results or are they filtered?

I honestly don't know the answer but I'm sure that no one would have a problem with Google specifically filtering this kind of deceptive and even illegal site. So why would warez sites be any different? Only because many people don't really see pirating software as illegal.

I'm posting anon so I don't become a target, but I've had two products out for many years.  One was cracked.  The other I put some effort (3 days?) into making it very hard to crack (and some crack-detection code too!) and it has yet to be cracked. 

Yes, if some uber-cracker got involved, he could disassemble the whole thing and that would be it.  But those guys are probably busy trying to break into banks.  The rest of the crackers just aren't good enough to beat my protection, which means no cracks on the protected software so far.

And it isn't too hard.

You can detect if you're running in a debugger (search Google--lots of examples).  You can put checksums into your code and check them at run time.  Make anti-crack/licensing code inline (for C/C++) and sprinkle it around so it can't be easily avoided/removed.  Come up with a simple macro that hides your strings that you don't want seen, etc, etc.

Everyone says to give up, but I disagree, and so far I've been right (knock on wood).

This page is a good resource that helps you see the possibilities:
http://www.inner-smile.com/nocrack.phtml

Scenario:

1. there is a site someone wants to hurt
2. he breaks into that site and QUIETLY add keywords like "warez", "kid porn" etc. into HTML code
3. Google bans the site, owners wonder why traffic drops
4. owners discover why the traffic dropped and go through a hassle with Google to remove the ban

That's why Google should not censor search results.

One thing I love are the 'crack' sites where are really virus / trojan installers.

I've no problem at all with Google listing all pirate sites -- legit or virus installers.  If someone's trying to get your software for free, they're playing russian roulette with their PC and will soon learn it's cheaper to just buy the product.

For what it's worth, I've found that Google already does cut out warez sites from the search results.  If I need to see if there's a 'crack' for our product out there, I need to look elsewhere.

Really?

http://www.google.pl/search?hl=en&q=warez&btnG=Search

Anyway, if Google starts banning "warez" sites, than they will simply start calling it "stuffz" or "zeraw" or whatever.  It's a losing game.

Even more cunning would be for the warez people to start calling their stuff "e-books" or something like that... to confuse the search engines. Innocent sites would get hurt, since Google will not have the manpower to manually check what the site really is about.

If this was so simple (find the site & ban it), we would not have the problem with snuff films and kid porn proliferating on the Net, would we?

"2. he breaks into that site and QUIETLY add keywords like "warez", "kid porn" etc. into HTML code"

So we need to be concerned for the poor webmaster who lets someone break into his site and doesn't detect it? Hmmm... I'm not going to lose any sleep over that one.

Hmm, it seems to me none of you have ever heard of or subscribed to giganews, easynews, and the alike.  Because if you had, then you would know that the issue is much less solved asking Google to block such queries than it could be if you went to these news sites and did the same.

It's not simple because it is a moving target. It is cheap and easy to get a site setup. The warez guys could move every day if they wanted to. That's why it is a losing battle. And calling it "e-book" wouldn't help the warez sites because they would become lost in the millions of legitimate sites. They NEED a term that is searchable and distinct in order to do business.

For those who suggest that google should police the Internet, I have a better idea - why not asking Microsoft instead. Microsoft could block all those words sending to any search engines, and best of all, they could be automatically updated via Windows Update!

"NO, google should not be policing it's results. It starts with crack sites and ends with "the government doesn't want this information out in the open"."

Google should not be cataloging anything that can aid in the commission of a crime.  By indexing warez sites, google is doing just that and are contributing to the amount of software piracy.  Perhaps someone will find another way to find cracked software, but why make it easy for them?  That's like leaving your keys in the car door when you park and then being surprised when the car is gone and then thinking you had absolutely nothing to do with it.  How google can index warez sites and at the same time censor search results in China (just so they could get into that market) is completely irresponsibile.

And why would google even care about warez sites being listed?  They think all software should be free.  Of course, they are an advertising company now.

>Really?

Yeah Roman, Really.  If I search for '[product name] crack' or '[product name] warez' on Google, I get nowhere near the same number of hits as I do using Yahoo.

Fortunately, all the results I've found to date have only been trojan installs which claim to be cracks for our product, but I'd never have found them through Google.

Why I asked Google to filter search results is because Google has become spiderman of the web. And as Uncle Ben said: "With great power, comes great responsibility".

And since we care about spamming, we should also worry about piracy and try to find ways to fix it.

As far as how Google will tackle the problem, I have some ideas and google need to talk to me. :)

Regards.

> 2. he breaks into that site and QUIETLY add keywords like "warez", "kid porn" etc. into HTML code

Or he deletes the site
Or he turns it into a phishing site
Or he uploads a CGI script which uses the hacked site to send spam
Or he transfers the domain name to himself (if he gets that password)
Or he messes up the content, so it no longer ranks on the relevant keywords.

Really if a site is changing, it's not up to Google to guess whether it is a genuine change or a change as a result of a hack that it should ignore.



Anyway changing subject.

Go to google and try some searches

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=warez

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=pirate+microsoft+software

Now it amazes me that on these search phrases Google is accepting ads - we're not just talking computer generated results.  For the 2nd one, for example, I see an ad offering "for only $42.75 get access to thousands of applications".  For the 1st one, there are several ads including an expensive colored top sponsor link offering music, movies and games downloads.

Now Google isn't just showing machine generated relevant listings,  they accepting money to advertise sites/services that bill themselves as "warez"-this and "warez"-that...

(beating on a horse that everyone's ignored):

> we should also worry about piracy and try
> to find ways to fix it.

That's exactly why it's important that Google not filter. How do you hope to find that someone has cracked your work if you can't search for it?

When it happens, don't you want to know about it? Don't you want to know if it's just stolen serial# that you can put on your blacklist? Or if it's a weakness in your checking algorithm, so you can bury it better?

You might gain a smidgen of security if Google didn't show this, but you'd also rob yourself of your only means of defense.

"Now Google isn't just showing machine generated relevant listings,  they accepting money to advertise sites/services that bill themselves as "warez"-this and "warez"-that..."

You learn something new every day.  While I have long known that warez was being indexed by google, I did not know they were earning ad dollars on it.  This is something that should be very simple for google to police.  Ads are supposedly reviewed before going live.  Why they are accepting these ads is outrageous.  To me, and IANAL, this is aiding and abetting (aid and abet: To actively, knowingly or intentionally assist another person in the commission or attempted commission of a crime.).

What's next? Search on "getting whacked" and you see google ads for hit men.

I'm sure this is old news to most of you, but google getting sued because "google suggest" helps a searcher find cracked sites by suggesting warez-like search terms while the user types a query:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/18/1629253

Google, the King of Search, claimed to have no way of filtering suggestions.  They can bring us google earth and other cool stuff, yet can't do a filter.

@Mike:

"By indexing warez sites, google is doing just that and are contributing to the amount of software piracy."

Disagree.  Google is enabling people wanting illegal software to get it and as I understand it, there is no money to made by either party.

"Perhaps someone will find another way to find cracked software, but why make it easy for them?"

They have.  News sites do far more damage and they even have custom indexing engines for this purpose alone.

"That's like leaving your keys in the car door when you park and then being surprised when the car is gone and then thinking you had absolutely nothing to do with it."

Wrong, it more like trying to hold gun manufacturers liable for murder; bad analogies aside now.

"How google can index warez sites and at the same time censor search results in China (just so they could get into that market) is completely irresponsibile."

Good point; I recall the BMW incident as well.  I don't completely disagree with what you are trying to do but I take issue with your methods.  It's not Google's job to stop pirating software nor to make it harder for them.  They could be a good citizen and filter the traffic, I agree but I won't hold it against them if they don't nor do I think they have a responsibility to do so since Google, by most, is THE search engine.  There is just too many ways legit sites get filtered as a result and hack sites will simply defeat the filters and find ways around this:  We already know they have too.

And the real problem, as someone alluded too above, is not google and search engines.  If you can't find your favorite crack via google or yahoo, you'll find another means to discover it and there are plenty out there -- I've given you one example.  Another is torrents.  Another is P2P.

man, its for deeply intelligent threads like this that I enjoy coming to BoS.

Im with the people in favour of making google cut out the warez sites.  how hard can it be for them to block arbitary words based on their context afterall?


the whole 'hack3rs will just use different terms' argument is just rubbish, when they switch google can just start blocking their new terms as well.

if search engines aren't held responsible for the contents of the web, who is?

re: zeraw

http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=zeraw&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Hm, Roman sure seems to know a lot about this stuff. Thanks for the tip.

"if search engines aren't held responsible for the contents of the web, who is?"

Ummm, the content providers hosting the information.  That would be the web, ftp, and news servers that house the data.

"how hard can it be for them to block arbitary words based on their context afterall?"

You are missing the point.  Just because they can does not mean they should.  It's not their job nor is it their responsibility.  I could argue freedom of information here.

I, for one, rely on google to search crack sites to see who has illegal copies of my software.  In in this case it provides a valuable tool/service for me.  Coupled with google's page ranks, I know how often to cycle by security algorithims.

Additionally, who says google and others should put forth any of their money to do such a thing?  Bad analogy:  It's like saying all police officers should work for nothing and be nothing more than volunteers running around making sure bad guys are off the streets.

Then to propagate this into: Google should filter illegal conent.  OK, define illegal content so that there is never a mistake which is impossible.  If a mistake takes down a web site, who should pay then?

Forcing google and others to put up funds to make the Internet "safe" and "clean" is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard on this forum.  Why should google and others put up this kind of money because a select few choose to make illegal content available on the web.

" re: zeraw

http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=zeraw&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Hm, Roman sure seems to know a lot about this stuff. Thanks for the tip."

Just the first thing that came to my mind.

Other reasons why Google shouldn't censor ANYTHING:

1. they are an almost monopoly, and should excercise their power with caution
2. mistakes they would surely made would be harmful for some small guys (not necessarily because they get hacked, even if we support the dubious idea that once you let yourself get hacked, anything that happens to you is your responsibility - it's like saying "it's you fault you got pregnant" to a rape victim (after all, she could have a gun in hand and shoot the rapist, no?)
3. Google's power is that they are trusted to bring an objective picture of the Web; if they openly censor one thing, how can we be sure they don't censor secretly other things (eg., queries like "alternative search engine" :-))

BTW: if Google censors warez sites, how will the police look for them?

:-P

"Then to propagate this into: Google should filter illegal conent.  OK, define illegal content so that there is never a mistake which is impossible."

This particular situation is about as black and white as it gets.  Warez is a copyright violation - period.  End of discussion.  Google is helping to perpetuate it by helping others find it.  And as it turns out, google is even earning revenue off of it by their Adwords/AdSense.  It's that last part that I find very disturbing and anyone with a even a infinitesimal sense of right and wrong would also take issue with it.

And who is talking about ***forcing*** google to do anything.  I just would like to see them have enough guts and integrity to decide that making money on ads having to do with warez and assisting criminal activity by serving up websites that deal with it is just not okay.  But Google has already shown it lacks guts and integrity with the China thing.

Search engines routinely bar sites that try to use questionable techniques to increase search engine rankings.  They have no problem doing that.  Why is such a big deal to delist websites that deal with illegal activity?

And last I checked, Google has quite a bit of cash.  Enough that they can afford to serve gourmet lunches, buy up companies and offer lots of free software and still have some left over.  How much work is it to ban sites with warez content from their engine?  I just don't buy that it's a big deal or would cost a lot of money.  I just happen to think it's the right thing to do. 

By the way, free speech does not mean you have to communicate.  It means you have the right to communicate and also the right not to communicate.  They don't have to serve up every single website under the sun, moon and stars.  They have taken the gutless way out by saying we do not censor the web, i.e., we will not make choices regarding what we report - we report everything (except China).  I don't think anyone is wanting censorship.  But when someone is assisting criminal activity, that is black and white.  What part of that don't you get?

> Other reasons why Google shouldn't censor ANYTHING:

You don't get it

Nobody is talking about censorship. It's about asking Google to make an editorial decision.

Censorship is what the government does. It prevents anybody from discussing a subject, in *any* publication.

Editorial is what every publication does. It is simply a particular publication choosing what to publish, and what not to.

When a newspaper decides it doesn't want to accept adverts for illegal drugs, hitmen, etc., or doesn't want to publish every wacko letter from every wacko,  it is NOT censorship. It's called editorial decision. And it's the newspaper acting as a responsible corporate citizen, and protecting its own reputation in the process.

Google would have to employ "editors" to screen WWW content (or to respond to and check validity of complaints), and if they're going to censor out who they believe are crAcKerz, why wouldn't they censor out islamic terrorist sites who are certainly more dangerous to the world than crackers? And how do they define "terrorist," as defined by the U.S.? U.K.? Russia?

That's why they're not in the censorship business! (The thing with China is a blacklist provided by the chinese government, not Google deciding what's appropriate or not).

They already employ editors, see for example:

http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=13219&topic=361

and

http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=58&topic=360

(Incidentally the 2nd link says they act on claims of copyright infringement, but only if you file a DMCA complaint, and BTW all your DMCA complaint info will be published on chillingeffects.org)

And I believe all AdWords ads are reviewed (which makes it even more surprising that they accepted these ads)

I really can't believe that employing some human editors, for what is now the worlds' biggest web publication (and insanely profitable), is an undue hardship or a bad thing.


BTW realistically, I don't think Google is likely to do anything about it, especially after I read the 2nd link above...  So anybody who is concerned about their software being cracked, needs to find other approaches to deal with the problem.

Interesting... actually S. Tanna that second link seems to imply they will in fact remove links at least to sites illegally hosting your app ("YOU MUST IDENTIFY EACH SEARCH RESULT THAT DIRECTLY LINKS TO A WEBPAGE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS INFRINGING MATERIAL.") I suppose you could argue if it's a serial to your app, since you "wrote" the serial key it is therefore copyrighted.

I imagine that infringing material would include cracks and serials, because they are measures designed to circumvent copyright protection, which I understand to be illegal under the DMCA

Earl

re: "actually"

I think, my implication that I perhaps didn't make clear, is their policy says they will remove material, but I can't see a lot of material being removed, because their policy (whether intended to or not) is so severe as to discourage legitimate complaints.

To get anything removed: you must file a DMCA complaint (hard), against each search result (what if a site has thousands of pages with your pirated software listed on each one?), and agree to your DMCA complaint being forwarded to chillingeffects (which may well make you the victim of unwanted attention from say slashdot, etc., and is probably a big deterrent to complaining in itself)

It seems to me that they've made removing material an entirely legal process (perhaps the least they can get away with), rather than also allowing any editorial process.

"... their policy (whether intended to or not) is so severe as to discourage legitimate complaints."

Having looked over chillingeffects site, my opinion of Google just went down another notch.  It is completely apparent that Google has no interest whatsoever in dealing with this and makes the process so onerous that very few actually go through with it in part because it doesn't seem to yield any effect.  From my own 10 minute analysis, it doesn't look like Google acts on the complaints it does get:

1) http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi?search=software

This yields not too many complaints over a several year period.

2) I randomly selected one example:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=2137

The "plaintiff" in this case states quite correctly:

"It's quite clear simply from the domain names and the content of the websites that the purpose of such sites are strictly to violate the rights of copyright holders. Google has a reputation of integrity and quality in the industry and I would appreciate the same attention to this request by removing the offending links from the google.com index and any services that obtain data from google.com."

3) I then looked at one of the sites listed, cracksearchengine.net, and discovered google has not removed it from their engine, and in fact they have some 45000+ hits:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.cracksearchengine.net&btnG=Google+Search

Conclusions:

Google is spidering a site that is clearly in the business of aiding and abetting copyright infringement. And it seems Google assists the criminal sites (with the chillingeffects posting) and deters the victims from even complaining about it by putting up barriers.  This from the company that says don't be evil.  What a joke that is turning out to be.

The DMCA complaint by itself is more than enough and even that shouldn't be wholly necessary in many instances.  In the case of warez sites, by inspection they have the purpose of encouraging copyright infringment.  So if a software company goes after them by following the Google process, Google goes to bat for the warez sites by seeing that your DMCA comlaint is forward on to chillingeffects.  Whether they actually remove the link to the plaintiff's products is unclear.  What is clear is the offending sites themselves are not banned.

I think one way to curtail Google in this regard is to get a large enough class action suit with big enough players that it forces Google to take this seriously.  They would have to be very big players indeed.  Not too likely, but you never know.

Another way is to continue to blog about these issues because no company wants bad PR.  And google, once a golden child, is accumulating quite a bit of bad PR.

"You don't get it

Nobody is talking about censorship. It's about asking Google to make an editorial decision."

OK, so let's not call it a censorship but an editorial decision. How does that refute my arguments (those which you didn't respond to) ?

Okay Roman

> 1. they are an almost monopoly, and should excercise their power with caution

That spins both ways.

They are a huge, and claims to "do no evil", therefore they shouldn't trample on other people's rights and copyrights. (And yes helping people find warez or crackz is trampling on copyright holders rights - they basically admit as much by removing infringing listings if you jump thru enough DMCA hoops)

Perhaps the most notable thing is that it's the small shareware guys and micro-isvs, who are the least able to defend their rights.  They are the least able to file DMCA complaints, or take the attention from chillingeffects/slashdot.  The Microsoft's and Adobe's are able (with lawyers and money and the BSA) to defend their rights if they wish.


> 2. mistakes they would surely made would be harmful for some small guys (not necessarily because they get hacked, even if we support the dubious idea that once you let yourself get hacked, anything that happens to you is your responsibility - it's like saying "it's you fault you got pregnant" to a rape victim (after all, she could have a gun in hand and shoot the rapist, no?)


Google indexes what the content of the site IS

Not what it ought to be, before it was hacked.

They remove say phishing sites

They remove "unsafe" images when you do an image search and you have safe-search on.

If they can filter porn on images... they can filter other things.




> 3. Google's power is that they are trusted to bring an objective picture of the Web; if they openly censor one thing, how can we be sure they don't censor secretly other things (eg., queries like "alternative search engine" :-))


It's not censorship for them to make editorial decisions

They already make editorial decisions and omit many sites by many criteria

They also make editorials decisions about what advertising to accept (some AdWords ads are refused, but amazingly they seem to accept AdWords ads for Warez)

What is the problem with asking for them to make another editorial decisions, and support the rights of small businesses who are being ripped off.

It's no different from the newspaper not printing every wacko's classified, or the Yellow Pages not having a section labelled "drug dealers" or "hitmen"

Mike BTW

Try these

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Acrackz.ws

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Acracksearchengine.net

Which are the first 2 sites referenced in the letter you cited.

The first one, displays this at Google "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org."  which links to this letter (a different letter from a different company): http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1309

The second one (which is complained about in your cited letter) still comes up in the google results.


Roman - Point for you about this: Google is ALREADY making editorial decisions of this type. Just, apparently, not always.

Thanks S. Tanna.

So it can work, at least sometimes, and Google uses the chillingeffects as a means to document why it removed content.

But that's not enough in my opinion.  Warez sites are blatantly criminal, Google obviously knows this but is deficient in taking responsibility for what it is doing by listing the sites in the first place.  They clearly don't want to do it themselves but will do so when forced and they want to have a mechanism in place that let's them say  "Johnny over there made me take it out."

Google - take some friggin responsibility on your own for what your search engine does instead of hiding behind your lawyers.

@Mike Stephenson:

"This particular situation is about as black and white as it gets.  Warez is a copyright violation - period."

If it's so black and white then why is it so hard to stop?  I disagree.  It's not black and white.  Porn sites are fighting google on this and then there was the BMW case where BMW was knocked off Google's index.  So please explain how if it's so black and white how mistakes still happen.

"Google is helping to perpetuate it by helping others find it."

Talking about what is already out there perpetuates illegal behavior?  This is totally flawed thinking.  This is like saying we should take all the crime show TV shows off the air because they propogate murder.  CourtTV, Discovery Channel.  Stealing software has been around much longer and before Google.  I use to run of the original C-NET BBSes in the 80s and illegal software was just as much of a problem then as it is today.

"And as it turns out, google is even earning revenue off of it by their Adwords/AdSense."

This is like saying advertisers that pay for commercial time during CourtTV's Cold Case Files make money at the expense of someone's murder and this, in your words, propogates to complete the circle of thought you are conveying.  I disagree and I think it's flawed thinking for the reason I've already given above.

"And who is talking about ***forcing*** google to do anything.  I just would like to see them have enough guts and integrity to decide that making money on ads having to do with warez and assisting criminal activity by serving up websites that deal with it is just not okay.  But Google has already shown it lacks guts and integrity with the China thing."

Now here, I don't totally disagree.  I said, above, that Google could be a good citizen and try to filter content but, again, I don't know how this could work and not have mistakes.  I would fearful of my own web site not being found because my product's names are being filtered incorrectly.

"Search engines routinely bar sites that try to use questionable techniques to increase search engine rankings.  They have no problem doing that.  Why is such a big deal to delist websites that deal with illegal activity?"

This is off topic.  It's a different crime all together.  Although in the sense of stealing I suppose it's the same thing.  But I find the correlaiton not enough to draw the same conclusion that the filter technique for a process can be applied in a general sense to all the web's content where one has no ability to control that change.  So you're mudding the waters and trying to confuse the issue I think with that statement.

"And last I checked, Google has quite a bit of cash."
This, again, is irrelevant.  So what?  Bill Gates has lots of cash and he has 90% of the desktop market.  Why don't we ask him to put filters into Windows to accomplish what you want done?

"How much work is it to ban sites with warez content from their engine?"

At least, here, you admit it costs money to do what you're suggesting.  But the fact you have to ask seems to contradict your insinuation that it should not cost much.  OK, I may be putting words in your mouth here but it certainly seems you think the expense, relatively speaking, is small when you state "And last I checked, Google has quite a bit of cash ...", "I just don't buy that it's a big deal or would cost a lot of money."  And you may be correct too, but since you don't know, you can't state this.  You have no facts to back this statement up.

"By the way, free speech does not mean you have to communicate."
I did not state this.  I said I could argue free speech!

"It means you have the right to communicate and also the right not to communicate."
This is not entirely correct either but I'll agree with the idea in this context.

"They don't have to serve up every single website under the sun, moon and stars."
And what is the point here?

"They have taken the gutless way out by saying we do not censor the web, i.e., we will not make choices regarding what we report - we report everything (except China)."

Ah, name calling, OK.  Gutless, I assume, is your term for not doing what you think is the right thing to do?

"I don't think anyone is wanting censorship."
Ooo, a contradiction to everything you said up to this point.

"But when someone is assisting criminal activity, that is black and white.  What part of that don't you get?"

PROVE IT, Mike.

"It's quite clear simply from the domain names and the content of the websites that the purpose of such sites are strictly to violate the rights of copyright holders."

Quite clear, really?  I bet if my 97 year old Grandmother saw an illegal site that she would not be able to tell the difference between it and a legit one and there are plenty of grandmothers and fathers out there.  I highly doubt it's quite clear.  I believe it is suspicious and could be looked into but I would never say "quite clear."


"Google has a reputation of integrity and quality in the industry"

Oh no they don't.  No business owes any of us anything that which we don't pay for.  Searching the Internet with Google last I checked didn't cost my anything extra. 

Obviously, they should have some level of wanting to please customers to stay in business but we are afforded various freedoms and protections in this country (US) and being nice & having integrity is not law.

"Google is spidering a site that is clearly in the business of aiding and abetting copyright infringement."

I say so what.

"And it seems Google assists the criminal sites (with the chillingeffects posting) and deters the victims from even complaining about it by putting up barriers.  This from the company that says don't be evil.  What a joke that is turning out to be."

Operative word here is "seems."  If you can't prove it then don't say it.  Again, I use google to find who is stealing my software.  Without this great feature of Google, how do I find out who is stealing my software, Mike?  You seem to avoid this question.

There's an old saying that you shouldn't shoot the messenger.  I think Google should be left alone.  Google's indexing should be leveraged against the theifs stealing software and heavily fined.  It's not that hard to find these folks.  I'm in the ISP business and I'd be lying if I told you I don't track who my dial-in customers are.

I think the ISPs that harbor the theives should be cooperating with one another to help stop it.  The actual people caught stealing should be heavily fined and imprisioned.

If you buy into Mike's arguments for going after Google, create class action suuites, etc... Then you should not stop there -- it means you should be going after Microsoft as well and all this is flawed thinking.  It's totall nonsense.

Agagin, stealing software has been around before google as I already pointed out.  There are plenty of other sites doing a far better job of indexing stolen software: News groups, torrents, and P2P yet Mike, here, ignores all this.  Mike seems to have grudge against Google for reasons beyond what he's stated.

Eric, I don't agree with several of your opinions, but I think this one's is particularly off-base:

>> "And as it turns out, google is even earning revenue off of it by their Adwords/AdSense."

> This is like saying advertisers that pay for commercial time during CourtTV's Cold Case Files make money at the expense of someone's murder and this, in your words, propogates to complete the circle of thought you are conveying.  I disagree and I think it's flawed thinking for the reason I've already given above.

I think you will find Google isn't just carrying advertising for sites discussing warez, but for sites which encourage and propogate the use of warez.

It'd be more like TV carrying ads for hitmen - i.e. carrying ads encouraging an obviously illegal activity.

I can't see how you (or Google) can justify that.

@S.Tana

"It'd be more like TV carrying ads for hitmen - i.e. carrying ads encouraging an obviously illegal activity."

Well, we know this illegal to do.  You can't create a TV commercial advertising the fact you go out and kill people with hitmen.

And sites that promote the hack sites, ummm, like what?  I think I covered this when I mentioned News indexing sites.

Analogies aside:
The point is well taken.  Sites that don't actually engage in the activity of allowing you to download stolen software are just as suspicious and I agree with that thought process.  But, for me and others it seems, it's quite a stretch for us to say they are, factually, engaged in the act itself.

I offer up newzbin's site:
http://www.newzbin.com/

Do a search there on "microsoft office" and look at all the links for free software you can download.  You do the same search on Google and the first link was Microsoft's web site.  In fact, when I did this search, the whole first page was a page full of links to Microsoft and the Apple web site for Microsoft office.  Newzbin, in contrast, gave me a full page of crack sites where I could actually retrieve the software.

Yet, based on these facts, Mike chooses to single out Google.

I think I made my point quite clear.  Try the above mentioned execise for yourself for the proof.

Eric,

I really am not interested in any further discussions with you on this topic.  You have your opinions, I have mine, they are mostly diametrically opposite and so be it.

Have nice day.

You guys arguing the should's and shouldn'ts of Google or other mainstream search engines are way offbase. IMO, the debate itself makes no sense.

Google is a for-profit company. It's not an outreach, a political pressure group, a library public or private. Google indexes shit because it fits into their business model and it makes them money. Google will do or not do whatever it takes to increase or maintain their revenue.

I think the confusion arises because 99.9999% of the time, Google appears to operate as an egalitarian equal-access commons, so onlookers then infer that Google "should" be burdened by responsibilities normally incurred by public institutions.

Google aligned itself with the Chinese government for exactly one reason: it's an enormous market and they wanted in and that was the cost of doing business there. So it then became apparent that "do no evil" was always a marketing line and a bit of idealistic Bay Area college student hubris. They're not above or below doing anything, unless (I hope) there is shown to be a direct connection between their business activities and actual deaths of innocent people.

If we're going to talk about removing certain types of sites, what about child porn, Myspace profiles of under age kids, etc? There are MANY "causes" that have a higher profile than warez.

I actually think it's remarkable that a commercial enterprise is willing to operate what amounts to a public commons of information. Personally I would rather that legitimate search engines not be f*cked with.

Last point: the ability to draw together a publicly available database of the entire internet is exceptionally powerful. So powerful that I find it a marvel that it is permitted even in free societies.

I thought you people were software engineers. Didn't any of you take an AI course?  Politics/ethics aside, the reason why Google can censor the internet in China is because the Chinese government just hands over a list of the sites it wants blocked. Given there is no such official list of warez sites, how exactly do you geniuses propose that Google modify its search engine so that it doesn't index warez sites? 

It is not just some trivial problem that can be easily solved. The problem is even magnitudes more impossible to solve given the sheer amount of information google is indexing. I would like Mike Stephenson and S.Tanna to go ahead and start your lobby. If you succeed, perhaps you could also pressure congress to force computer scientists to solve all those pesky NP-complete problems that have been bugging them for decades. World Peace would be nice to have, also.


That rant aside, everyone knows that real pirates get all their cracks from USENET, P2P networks, BitTorrent, specialized networks dedicated to pirated software, and their buddy who brought home the photoshop CDs from work.

Nobody's criticising them imperfectly filtering

But I am criticising them for

(a) not removing warez sites that they have been made aware of (see the link I cited previously)

(b) accepting paid ads for sites promoting warez, when, as I understand, all paid ads are reviewed by a real human being.

(c) making the process of complaining about warez sites, an onerous legal process (file a DMCA complaint), rather than something an editorial process.

and perhaps (d) not even trying to filter at all

Now, none of (a), (b), (c) [or in my opinion (d), but that's a different issue], is rocket science.  In fact as far (a), (b) and (c), they aren't even really about search technology, they are about their editorial processes.

> Google is a for-profit company.

Yes it is, but that doesn't excuse any possible behaviour that they might engage it.

All  publishing companies make editorial decisions about what to publish and what not to do publish.

They make many of those decisions on the basis of the organization's ethos/morality/etc, and on a business basis, of building and protecting their brand reputation (which is often more valuable than a few extra short-term bucks).

Google is no different. For example, they chose to oppose giving the info the US government wanted in the recent porn case... because it doesn't fit their internal ethos, and because they believe it helps protect their brand reputation (protecting user's privacy)... even though it would probably have been cheaper (and more profitable) in the short-term for them just to quietly give the info to the government.

"If we're going to talk about removing certain types of sites, what about child porn, Myspace profiles of under age kids, etc? There are MANY "causes" that have a higher profile than warez."

I agree completely, but this is JoelOnSoftware, not JoelOnChildPorn or JoelOnMySpace.  Also, already Google looks at child porn much diffently than warez.  To their credit, Google removes sites related to child pornography:

"When we find or are made aware of any child pornography, we remove it from our products, including our search engine," spokesperson Steve Langdon said in an e-mail statement to The Associated Press. "We also report it to the appropriate law enforcement officials and fully cooperate with the law enforcement community to combat child pornography."

I would like to see some interest from google et al. with warez sites in search engines.  In the very least, I do not like the fact that Google promotes warez sites in adwords and in doing so, profits from illegal activity.  I hope no one here defends that behavior.  I can personally attest that these ads, at least some of them, are indeed reviewed by humans.  Some time ago, I had a google adword initially rejected because one keyword was in uppercase.  In this particular situation, it was correct usage since it had to do with a particular spec (e.g. ISO xxxx not iso xxxx).

S. Tanna's: your criticisms are right on the money.  And just so I am not accused of singling out google, I do feel this applies to all search engines.  Google just happens to be the subject of the thread, which is why I didn't mention others along the way.  There is a LOT to like about google.  It is the best of the engines in my opinion, I use it daily and they do a lot of things right.  And Sergey, to his credit, admitted Google erred in their deal with China.  I don't know many CEOs that are that forthright in admitting errors.

I entirely agree with Tana and Mike, google is *clearly* responsible for providing easy access to copyrighted material in a situation where it is almost certain to be downloaded and distributed freely.

Where I think they fall down though is I dont believe that they go far enough...its not just software that is at risk here but writing and art as well.
If I perform any search, *any search at all* I can find easy and immediate access to vast amounts of copyrighted text and many copyrighted images.  I can, if I choose, easily download those directly to my harddrive, view them and distribute them willy nilly without the owner of the copyright having any control over this.

its not enough to merely force google and the other search engines to protect our software, we need to join forces with other content creators and ensure that copyrighted material is unavailable by default *unless the copyright owners have given permission in advance*.

Hackers distributing copyrighted software is only the tip of the iceberg, any random search at all (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=random+search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) provides access and the means to illegally download copyrighted material regardless of the desires of the content creators.


what we need here is a 2 pronged approach, we need the browser companies and the search engiens to work together to ensure that access is only granted to *any* copyrighted material if specific permission is given, and the relevant license agreed too.

I also agree with those further up who have suggested that responsibility does not stop with the search engine...the operating system itself provides many easy methods for breaching copyright laws...I can make an arbitary number of copies of just any file at all that exists on my desktop.


Copyright protection isn't just the problem of the copyright owner, it is a problem that everyone needs to hepl with, from the federal government down to the man onthe street we *all* need to play our part in protecting other peoples copyright.



Copyright worldsSmallestViolin 2006

Very good Mr Violin - except I never made anything like a suggestion of forcing Google to do anything, and neither me nor Mike, made anything like most of your other extreme strawman arguments either.

If you go back to my previous comments, you'll see the main things I would like is google themselves to take a more considered editorial approach, and not to accept advertising money from sites involved in blatantly illegal activities.

Put it this way: What is the moral justification for Google accepting ads from warez sites?

"Very good Mr Violin - except I never made anything like a suggestion of forcing Google to do anything,"

I never said you did.  mike OTOH  said:
"I think one way to curtail Google in this regard is to get a large enough class action suit with big enough players that it FORCES Google to take this seriously"

or am I misinterpreting his words?

"and neither me nor Mike, made anything like most of your other extreme strawman arguments either."

I dont understand why you consider them to be strawman arguments? 
are you seriously saying that you dont believe that copyrighted works should be protected?

or that you dont believe that search engiens should be responsible for protecting copyrighted material?


"..<snip>things I would like is google themselves..<snip>... not to accept advertising money from sites involved in blatantly illegal activities."

activities illegal in which countries/states exactly?  for instance I believe that oral sex is illegal in some (one?) states...should they filter for that?  downloading movies is perfectly legal in sweden...I live in new zealand and can use programs to time shift my television programs legally, wheras I believe they are illegal in australia....
how exactly would you like google to handle these issues?

"Put it this way: What is the moral justification for Google accepting ads from warez sites?"

*huh*?  what is the moral justification for google accepting ads from escort agencies?  from companies selling guns?  from companies that sell stuff made using child labour in third world countries? form pornography?

how far exactly does their moral responsibility go?  who is the final arbiter of what is moral?

seriously, even putting aside the technical issues (which are pretty magnificent, how the hell are they supposed to tell the difference between "Fix your window cracks now" and "window cracks for download" ?)....why are they suddenly responsible for making sure their consumers obey whatever laws happen to apply in the country that they live?


I dont want to be seen as unduly critical, but you have to be..intellectually challenged...to think that asking google to begin making 'editorial decisions' about one topic wont lead to an avalanch of "well, they do it for X, so why not do it for <insert personal moral righteous stand here>"
suddenly google will be in the unfortunate position of being held to blame for supporting Utahs polygamy relationships by providing access to a definition of the word, and making images ofthe lifestyle publicly available.

seriously, for the love of all that is good and holy, please dont screw the internet up for the rest of us just because you want to screw an extra few dollars from your software products.

"I never said you did.  mike OTOH  said:
"I think one way to curtail Google in this regard is to get a large enough class action suit with big enough players that it FORCES Google to take this seriously"

or am I misinterpreting his words?"

I wasn't advocating that a class action suit should be done, only that it would be one way to get the intended result.  I prefer non-litigious means where an organization comes to the conclusion that what they are doing isn't really okay and then changes their behavior on their own determinism, rather than being forced to do so.  But in the end, if what an organization does is damaging and lighter methods (like suggesting they change) do not work, then legal methods are an option.  I did suggest another method as well, one in which I am personnally doing, which is to talk disparagingly about what they are doing that is not okay.  This can generate bad PR and no company wants that.  It can be very effective.  I was indicating an opinion that I doubt google on its own would change its MO, especially after the China thing.  I hope I am wrong and I will write to Google about warez AdWords.  I'm curious to hear what they say about it.

Google can and does make editorial decisions and they can accept ad money on whatever they want.  Out of curiousity, I did some checking to see what sorts of keywords google considers either unethical, illegal or both (or some other unstated reason), and will not accept advertising money.  Here are a few results:

Adwords appear: warez, porn, teen porn, yahoo, microsoft
Adwords don't appear: child porn, beastiality, rape, google

The juxtiposition of google and the other non-appearing AdWords is coincidental.  I just find it peculiar that they don't have adwords for the keyword google.

Google can increase its revenue from all sorts of ads.  But I don't see commercials on TV, that I know of, for pornography.  Perhaps the FCC regulates TV advertising in the US - I'm not sure.  There are areas that are gray, but many are black and white.  I would hope that on a software developer forum, there would be some agreement that copyright violations are unlawful and hence, black and white.

"seriously, for the love of all that is good and holy, please dont screw the internet up for the rest of us just because you want to screw an extra few dollars from your software products."

I really hope that is just a bad choice of words.  Getting paid for your hard work and reducing theft is not "screwing a few extra dollars from your software products."

"Adwords don't appear: child porn, beastiality, rape, google"

LOL. 
yeah, because showing adwords on warez searches is *exactly the same* as showing them on searches for child porn.

"I would hope that on a software developer forum, there would be some agreement that copyright violations are unlawful and hence, black and white."

so you would agree with my earlier suggestion that google (and other search engines) be held responsible for the availability of other copyrighted material as well then?

or is it just copyrighted *software* that you are concerned about?

for instance, this search here:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pictures+of+the+moon&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

brings up many copyrighted images and text that I can download and view/read at the click of a button.

in your opinion, is it a good thing or a bad thing that google makes this copyrighted material available?


"Getting paid for your hard work and reducing theft is not "screwing a few extra dollars from your software products."

I would be interested in you counrty of origin?  in america there is a distinct legal difference between theft and breach of copyright, does that same difference exist in your country?




but really the only question I am interested in you answering is this one:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pictures+of+the+moon&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

in your opinion, is it a good thing or a bad thing that google makes this copyrighted material available without the consent of the copyright owner?

You didn't answer my question, violin, by wondering off instead into

(a) what is illegal and what isn't, in another [my question was about morality not law]

(b) what results google shows in response to some innocuous queries.


So again:  What is the moral justification for Google accepting **ads** for warez sites?

Google apparently considers some types of ads beyond the pale - and doesn't accept ads of those types (presumably because they would damage Google's reputation) - but how come they seem to consider warez **ads** morally acceptable?

"You didn't answer my question, violin, by wondering off instead into"

nope. I didn't answer your question because as posed it was a stupid one.

"So again:  What is the moral justification for Google accepting **ads** for warez sites?"

your argument is that they shouldn't do this because you find it morally wrong.
my argument is that google provide many ads for things that various people I know find morally wrong.

why do you expect/demand google's set of moral beliefs coincide with you?


"but how come they seem to consider warez **ads** morally acceptable?"

<shrug> why wouldn't they?  its not theft, its not child abuse, its just some cheap bastard downloading my software and using it without paying.
They aren't saying I, as one of their users, should do it, they are simply providing information and letting me make the decision.

where is the deep moral crises you seem to be describing here?


hell, if they were going to start enforcing moral codes anywhere I would rather that they begin 'editorially removing' content relating to ways for software developers to deny users control over their own computers, in my opinion its an immoral practice and should be stoped.

who is with me!?!?!?

The difference between us, is that I think accepting ads for warez sites damages Google's reputation and brand image. It certainly damages their image in my eyes.

When you're a small ISV, and the money from selling your software is what keeps food in your mouth and a roof over your head, it's hard not to see warez as theft, and google accepting ads to promote warez sites, as assisting others in that theft.

"The difference between us, is that I think accepting ads for warez sites damages Google's reputation and brand image. It certainly damages their image in my eyes."

<shrug> I dont know what to say to that except I dont understand why.  you seriously think that google have a duty to deny others information based on what *you* think is moral and right?

When you're a small ISV,...<snip>...it's hard not to see warez as theft, and google accepting ads to promote warez sites, as assisting others in that theft."

I dont agree.  I have no problem understanding that warez isn't theft.
It just isn't.
Your statement is like saying "When you're a pink tomcat its hard not to see a watermelon as a rocketship..."
maybe thats true in your case, but most people aren't entirely blind to the facts.

There is money I am not paid because people use my software and apply someone elses key, money I would very happily spend on paying a bill or taking a holiday, but its not the end of the world.

To be honest I dont see people using my software without payment as an entirely bad thing anyway...Microsoft for instance built up their monopoly via a *vast* amount of piracy on behalf of their users...if it weren't for that I doubt they would be in the position they are today.

<shrug> peace Tanna, but remember that by asking google and the other search engines to 'edit' the information they deliver on moral grounds, you are denying others information and opening the way for more information to be edited on moral grounds.
sure, they have already been forced to do it some...why make a bad problem worse?

not to mention that what you want...the removal of content based on keywords is technically impossible to do well anyway and will ultimately result in (a) google having to hire people to individually vet each and every webpage delivered, (b) the warez community moving to the recognizable phrase 'mr buckhams software store' as their new key, and (c) me personally being unable to find good pron because some made group of do gooders over in Iran have got together with george bush and have pressured google to 'editorially remove' all that type content as being immoral.

think of the pron! wont *someone* think of the pron?

Violin,

"LOL. yeah, because showing adwords on warez searches is *exactly the same* as showing them on searches for child porn."

Of course child porn is not the same thing and I never indicated it was; it's far, far worse than warez.  My point was that Google apparently has some policy on what it will or will not accept.  I have no idea what criteria they use to determine whether it's okay to earn money on a given keyword.  I sure would like to know their position on it. I merely provided examples of keywords where it earns ad dollars and keywords where it does not earn ad dollars.  Warez is one where they profit and I just find that reprehensible.

"so you would agree with my earlier suggestion that google (and other search engines) be held responsible for the availability of other copyrighted material as well then?"

I'm against copyright violations of any kind.  When it is software, it is just a little closer to home.  Presumably, there is settled law on copyright violations with regard to what Google can and can't do.  I can only assume that Google is on firm grounds with what they serve up as search results, perhaps operating under "fair use."  You'd have to ask them or a lawyer.  I never indicated Google was violating copyrights anywhere, only that they are aiding and abetting copyright violations by listing warez sites in their search results.  But to make matters worse, they profit in the aiding and abetting of copyright violations with regard to warez.  That's it.

"I would be interested in you counrty of origin?"

US.

"Of course child porn is not the same thing"

then *why* do you keep bringing it up in these discussions? 
their policy for child porn is entirely different to their policy for protecting your software because its an *entirely different* issue.


"Warez is one where they profit and I just find that reprehensible."

yes, you clearly feel very strongly about it.

"I'm against copyright violations of any kind. "

you are missing my point I think.  <shrug> or maybe I jsut made it badly.


"only that they are aiding and abetting copyright violations by listing warez sites in their search results."

by that argument so is MS by making it so easy to copy computer files, so is your browser by allowing you to download them and so is your computer manufacturer by providing you with harddrive space.

google can be used to search for a heap of stuff, some of that stuff is illegal in some countries, or viewed as immoral by some people.
if google were to remove (or refuse to accept ads for) everything that fell into either one of those categories they would become utterly useless for anything.

"US"

in that case its time you learnt the difference between theft and breach of copyright.  they are two different laws, two different crimes and you are old enough to understand the difference.

WSV - forget it - it's not worth discussing.  I've made my points more than once.  Maybe you just plain disagree with what I've said - that's totally okay with me if that's the case.  Or perhaps you are just trying to incite me or you have some other purpose entirely.  If it's disagreement, fine.  We're done as I have nothing new to say.  If it's inciting or some other purpose, we're also done as I have no interest in playing that sort of game.

> To be honest I dont see people using my software without payment as an entirely bad thing anyway...

So we get down to the nub of it, justifying piracy. Maybe you don't mind have your property misappropriated, but I do mind having mine.

As for your Google argument: Enough with the slippery slope argument:  Google already edits out some warez sites (and many other sites by other criteria too).  Google even AGREES that they should edit out warez sites, and they don't take your position that anything goes (or to fire a strawman back at you: perhaps you are saying they ought to be compelled to list sites that they don't want to?).  The links have been given previously in this discussion.  The sky hasn't fallen in yet as a result.

The issues are

lack of consistency (they edit some warez sites but not others, even when a human being is made aware of them),

editorial process and obstacles (they make it hard to remove warez sites, e.g. DMCA, legal procedures, lawyers, rather than an editor take a look at each case),

lack of pro-activisim (they wait till somebody complains about a specific site and don't seem to invoke their editorial process otherwise),

and the apparent inconsistency of editing out some warez sites, and generally agreeing warez sites are not okay for their listings, but accepting advertising $ from others.

"WSV - forget it - it's not worth discussing."

it is.  it *really* is worth discussing.  if you are going to try and persuade google to 'editorially remove' the information *they* provide to *me* then I think you and I have a *lot* to talk about.

If you just want them to remove ads on moral grounds from the results they show *you* then I agree that its not my business.

"Maybe you just plain disagree with what I've said - that's totally okay with me if that's the case."

clearly I do disagree.  we are, in fact, having what is known as a disagreement.  this means a full and frank exchange of views and possibly the opportunity to see things from a different POV and the possibility that we will both learn something.

For instance I dont expect to see you calling copyright crimes 'theft' anymore, that is a label that comes from an ignorance which you no longer have. 


"If it's disagreement, fine.  We're done as I have nothing new to say."

That is a shame, I would really love to understand more about your POV.  are you *really* advocating that google filtering results and ads based on the moral opinions of segments of its users is a good thing?
or do you believe that google should be making an exception just for your *personal* moral opinions?




"If it's inciting or some other purpose, we're also done as I have no interest in playing that sort of game"

I am genuinely interested in discussing these issues with you.  your opinions are just insane from any reasonable POV, and I would dearly love an opportunity to learn more about them.

Certainly it seems to be that since you are advocating the removal of information from the internet, you should be able to muster a decent defence of that action without resorting to a vague claim to a moral highground.

The issues of copyright and law are somewhat more complicated than might be suggested by your 'its all black and white', 'theft or no theft angle' and I would dearly love to see you display some understanding of the deeper complexities before I join your push to have google and the other search engines cleanse the internet of all that you find immoral.

"So we get down to the nub of it, justifying piracy."

Im sorry?  where did I justify piracy?  I make my money from selling software and feel very strongly that software should be either paid for, or not used at all.


"Maybe you don't mind have your property misappropriated, but I do mind having mine."

you have had your property misappropriated?  now *that* is theft!  have you reported it to the police?

or have you just had your creative content distributed without your consent?  *that* is a copyright crime.

I have pointed out the difference already, if you continue to make this mistake I will be forced to assume you are making it deliberately and dishonestly instead of through honest ignorance.


"Google already edits out some warez sites (and many other sites by other criteria too). "

and that disproves the slippery slope argument *how* exactly?

"perhaps you are saying they ought to be compelled to list sites that they don't want to?)."

I could certainly see an argument for giving search engines a kind of common carrier status, yes.

"The links have been given previously in this discussion.  The sky hasn't fallen in yet as a result."

Im surprised that you would have expected it to.  the issues raised by 'editorial removal' of information from search engines are not issues that will culminate in the sky falling in.  They are issues that will gradually mount over time.


"lack of consistency (they edit some warez sites but not others, even when a human being is made aware of them),"

so you disagree with their right to make such editorial decisions?

"editorial process and obstacles (they make it hard to remove warez sites, e.g. DMCA, legal procedures, lawyers, rather than an editor take a look at each case), "

*huh*?  you are upset because they insist that you actually go through the legally defined process for dealing with copyright infringement?

that is the problem with the kind of sloppy thinking that leads to calling copyright crimes theft, it leads to these kinds of sloppy conclusions.

"lack of pro-activisim (they wait till somebody complains about a specific site and don't seem to invoke their editorial process otherwise), "

again, that is the *correct* process for handling copyright infringements.  once it is pointed out they are required to remove it.

"and the apparent inconsistency of editing out some warez sites, and generally agreeing warez sites are not okay for their listings, but accepting advertising $ from others. "

presumably no one has complained about those others?  all you have to do is follow the correct legal process for dealing with infringement of your copyright licenses and all will be well.

1. Didn't justify piracy?

> To be honest I dont see people using my software without payment as an entirely bad thing anyway...

There are several other comments in there too, about how piracy helped Microsoft for example. (With the implication that pirates are almost doing s/w authors a favour)



2. And piracy is a form of misappropriation.

Misappropriation means to "appropriate [acquire] wrongly"

Sure it's not theft in the same sense as carrying belongings out of somebody's house, but it's still helping yourself to somebody else's property.

Would it be okay to sneak a DVD out of blockbuster, and sneak it back in, without paying, if you knew nobody else was renting the movie on the night? 



3. As for the rest of your comments:

Look it's pretty simple - Google already makes editorial decisions, including partly feedback from their users, and partly from whatever editorial processes go on internally.

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make editorial decisions about warez and crackz sites, without somebody having to threaten them with a DMCA complaint.

I'm quite sure that Google does make editorial decisions about other types of sites to remove, even before somebody threatens them with a lawsuit.

Also when they can refuse an AdWords ad because one of the letters is incorrectly capitalized, or because the landing page has a pop-up, or because the text of the ad contains some content that they don't like.... it's certainly within their capabilities to refuse an advert for a site whose entire purpose is software piracy. But they choose not to.

One last point:

> so you disagree with their right to make such editorial decisions?

No,  you're the one who apparently thinks they perhaps should be compelled to list even things they don't want (and BTW when shall we start requiring the New York Times to print this they don't want too?).

I'm the one who says they have a right to make editorial decisions...  My point is that they make editorial decisions on what they think is good for their business and their brand image... and I believe it will serve their business and brand image better to slightly adjust their editorial policy... because their current policy, is my view, in need of some changes.

"1. Didn't justify piracy?"

huh?  thats not justifying piracy.  thats just expressing my opinion on the matter.


"There are several other comments in there too, about how piracy helped Microsoft for example. "


yes.  piracy *did* help microsoft.  how does expressing that opinion justify someone else committing a crime?

"(With the implication that pirates are almost doing s/w authors a favour)"

I dont agree I was implying that.  I was just stating what I see as a fact, thereby explaining why I personally dont get too stressed out by it.

To go from that to claiming that I was justifying piracy feels like quite a leap.

If I explain why Im not scared of being hit over the head with a hammer, is that implicitly justifying people who attack others with hammers?



"Misappropriation means to "appropriate [acquire] wrongly"

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/MISAPPROPRIATION

"Sure it's not theft in the same sense as carrying belongings out of somebody's house, but it's still helping yourself to somebody else's property."

no, its not.  its breach of copyright.  study up on it for gods sake.

"Would it be okay to sneak a DVD out of blockbuster, and sneak it back in, without paying, if you knew nobody else was renting the movie on the night?"

I dont know.  I personally wouldn't do that...it would be breach of copyright.  but it wouldn't be theft. 




"There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make editorial decisions about warez and crackz sites, without somebody having to threaten them with a DMCA complaint."

?? there is also no reason why they should.  its their editorial content after all.




"No,  you're the one who apparently thinks they perhaps should be compelled to list even things they don't want "

actually, I said that I could see an argument for making them a kind of common carrior, which is *slightly* different.

"and BTW when shall we start requiring the New York Times to print this they don't want too?)."

LOL.  if you cant see the difference between the NYT and google then I think this conversation has reached the end of your ability to follow it.

"... because their current policy, is my view, in need of some changes. "


right.  and the insanity of that POV is what we are discussing :)  Im glad youve kept up so far...

"Misappropriation means to "appropriate [acquire] wrongly"

Sure it's not theft in the same sense as carrying belongings out of somebody's house, but it's still helping yourself to somebody else's property."

The truth of the matter is that most of us are not lawyers, we do not parse every word we say or write and when we use the words theft or misappropriation, we really do understand the distinction between theft of a physical item vs. copyright infringement or piracy.  Theft is still used colloquially to mean piracy and many copyright advocates still use the term.  Some software companies (e.g., Intuit) also use the term theft or piracy to mean the same thing.  I doubt the term will disappear any time soon when referring to piracy, at least not in prose, even though it may not be legally correct in every land.  Most of us here, however, know what is intended when such terms are used.  After all, this is Joel On Software.

" Theft is still used colloquially to mean piracy and many copyright advocates still use the term"

theft is used as a term by because of the emotional impact behind it. 
I am a very strong copyright advocate, I rely on copyright protections for my income and job, and yet somehow I appear to be able to avoid an entirely incorrect term.

If I steal something from you, you no longer have it.

If I illegally take a copy of your program, you still have it.

see the difference?

If I steal your money, you have lost something you once had. 
If I distribute your software in breach of your copyright license you have lost nothing you ever had, although you *might* have lost something you *may* have had in the future.  possibly.

see the difference?

come on guys, you *are* computer programmers, right?...you clearly have an understanding of the impact of a misused word....better to settle for precise communication that may not have quite the impact you would like than to twist words and thus obscure your real meaning.

seriously, why not say exactly what you mean instead of relying on 'oh, everyone knows how I meant this word to be interpreted' type gobblegook.

using a word because it has a greater emotion impact instead of because it actually means what you want to say is both intellectually dishonest and rather lazy.

"I really am not interested in any further discussions with you on this topic.  You have your opinions, I have mine, they are mostly diametrically opposite and so be it.

Have nice day."

Well if you didn't want a debate, then you should have kept to yourself.

"(a) not removing warez sites that they have been made aware of (see the link I cited previously)

No, it's not Google's job to cencor what is already out the web. 

"I entirely agree with Tana and Mike, google is *clearly* responsible for providing easy access to copyrighted material in a situation where it is almost certain to be downloaded and distributed freely."

How is this any different than a public library?

And "almost certain to be downloaded and distributed freely." 

Now that's a stretch.  I often do searches and will click on the #20 and find warez sites but then I'm entering "warez" as a search item.

"Where I think they fall down though is I dont believe that they go far enough...its not just software that is at risk here but writing and art as well."

Have any of you ever visited a museum and taken pictures?  Photocopied pages out of a book?

Google is not falling down, there showing partials of content.  The porn industry went after google on this very premis.  They tried to say that pictures shown on Google seraches were copyright infringment.  Google won their case on the grounds that:

1.  The picture was usually a lower quality than what they cached.
2.  The size of the picture was reduced to a thumbnail size.
3.  A link was given to the original content showing who owned the copyright.

On the last point, the porn industry tried to say that Google used their content in an unauthorized way that dilluted it's value.  Google won this on the grounds of something along the lines if you don't want it out there, then don't put it on the web.

"n your opinion, is it a good thing or a bad thing that google makes this copyrighted material available without the consent of the copyright owner?"

It's a good thing.  I've been publised and thanks to google my work is more well known.  I'm fully credited for my work as well.  And this again is no different than making content available via public library.

And this is off base.  The OP was about crack sites.

This whole topic is funny to me.  Those of you who agree that Google should filter copyright material have common agreements that are:

1.  ignored the fact that there are better search engines designed to find cracked software.  And insist on targeting Google; singling them out.

2.  You insist on targeting Google when people who are actually stealing & cracking your software go unmentioned.  You all have plans like a 2 pronged approach to go after google.  Why not put your energies into, um, I don't know, like the people who actually stole the software in the first place?

3.  You all agree to divert your attention when you can't argue facts to childporn and copyright material.  And you all do so far as to ignore basic laws & cases and current news events.

It's hilarious to read some of these posts.  At the same time it's a bit scary.  I wouldn't want a bunch of uninformed people coming after me because they all thought it was the right thing to do.  Thank goodness for having laws in place to protect us from these witch hunts.

The reason we're discussing Google, is it's the topic of this thread.  I also said right near the start that if you want to do something about your software being cracked, then Google is only a minor issue, and not a good place to start.


Your porn thumbnails analogy is doubly off-base.

(a) You're talking about the legal issues.  The law is only a minimum standard of behavior.

What I'm talking about is what Google *chooses* to publish (for example in ads they accept) and what Google chooses not to publish.  The point being they already choose not to publish some things which they consider unacceptable or damaging to their brand image - but somehow they don't consider carrying warez ads damaging to their brand image - I simply think they should reconsider.

You and violin seem to be stuck in a loop of thinking that I would like to see Google forced to do something, despite the fact that I've said the opposite several times.


(b) The porn sites, are the copyright holders, and they put their content on the web to be accessible. Therefore they should not be heard to complain, when it is accessible.

That simply isn't analagous to warez sites.  When a warez sites puts a copy of Photoshop or whatever online, they are doing it against the wishes of the copyright holder.

"I would like to see Google forced to do something, despite the fact that I've said the opposite several times."

heh.  you *really* like mincing words, dont you.

you *are* intending/hoping to *force* them to do something.
You are hoping to do it via a form of pressure other than legal pressure, but the only difference between saying 'I hope to force them to change their editorial decisions by taking them to court' and 'I hope to persuade them to change their editorial decisions via negative PR' is the form that the coercion is taking.

seriously, why not cease talking in feel-good gabble and start speaking honestly?  The only people you fool when you dress your words up like that are those who are on your side anyway.

Mr Violin you're deliberately quoting out of context.  Read the whole sentence in context. It says the exact opposite of what you imply.

I never made any suggestions about any kind of PR campaign either. You invented that whole cloth.

Organizations and people, make decisions all the time. They make some of those decisions out of consideration, courtesy, and respect, for other people, and other organizations.  Publishing organizations (of which Google is one) even make publishing decisions about what to publish, and what not to publish, out of consideration, courtesy, and respect, for other people, and other organizations. 

Showing respect, consideration, courtesy, for other people, and other organizations, isn't just altruistic, it also helps protect and improve their brand-image.  In the long-run, when organizations demonstrate values that earn respect, their brand-image improves.  In the long-run, when organizations demonstrate the opposite, their brand image goes south.

It's pretty simple.  It's not rocket science.  I really can't see why you don't understand this, since it's been explained several times (unless of course, you're deliberately misunderstanding, but that wouldn't be the case would it?).

Google can do what they want.  But I would prefer them to not accept warez ads, because it's (a) the right thing to do, and (b) in the long-run, it would be in their own interests to remove these ads.

He knows he is misquoting you.  That's part of his schtick - to play some silly, pathetic, twisted game.  It's really quite pathetic.  Replying to anything Violin says is an utter waste of your time.  That's what he wants you to do.

His MO, in his own words, is:

"I debate individuals who are stupid enough to disagree me, or make statements with which I disagree....and I do so rudely, insultingly and with arrogance."

Reference:
http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=6099&Posts=32

S. Tana, Violen, and Mike:

Nice chatting.  I'm done.  I made my points.  I think you all, outside of our disagreement points, have valid points.

I do think Google could help but not sure how.

Maybe a new thread on how to fix the problem instead of mulling over who is more responsible would be better suited for us?

I enjoyed the debate and I have the up most respect for your non-name calling and un-misquoted, and un-mincing quotes. :)

Folks tend to get passionate about their cause and I think that's admirable even if, as I think, misplaced in parts.

Funny... I was contacted today by a company that needs help with the Macrovision libraries to secure their software.  I thought about these recent comments.

ah well...

" It says the exact opposite of what you imply."

oops, sorry.  I did not intentionally misquoet you there, your original quote was:
"You and violin seem to be stuck in a loop of thinking that I would like to see Google forced to do something, despite the fact that I've said the opposite several times."

aside from that accidental misquote however, the rest of that post of mine still stands, it was made intending to rebute your full quote, not the misquoted version.

You are playing with words to dance around the fact that forcing google to change their editorial decisions is *exactly* what you want to do.  if it wasn't you wouldn't even be posting to this thread.

"He knows he is misquoting you. "

oh bollocks.  I post to crazyontap in that style bceause it allows me to vent and let off steam.  when I post to BoS I use a different style because the CoT style is not appropriate.

....even when I do post to CoT in my more abrasive style, I dont use the 'rebute a misquote' method of arguing because it is, frankly, rather boring and sad. 

Frankly if I cannot rebute what someone is actually saying then I just agree with them.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not interested in forcing Google to do anything, before you stop pretending that I am.

Everybody, even you (although you pretend otherwise), knows that it's perfectly possibly to have an opinion on something without wanting to force others to confirm to your value system.

So give it a rest violin, you've been exposed now.

"How many times do I have to say that I'm not interested in forcing Google to do anything, before you stop pretending that I am."

<shrug> until you stop talking about using social pressure to 'encourage' them to change their editorial decisions maybe?

you are playing stupid word games instead of just being upfront about what you want, until you admit that we are not likely to have an intelligent conversation.

"it's perfectly possibly to have an opinion on something without wanting to force others to confirm to your value system."

yep.  but if you dont want to change a thing then usually you dont talk about ways to make that thing change.

<shrug> stop pissing about and be upfront about what you want and lets have an interesting conversation about the benefits or otherwise.

"So give it a rest violin, you've been exposed now. "

huh?  exposed as what?  someone who enjoys posting to CoT, a forum specifically dedicated to allowing people to let off steam?
I do worse things than that.  sometimes I drink milk from the bottle as well.  how exactly does that affect our specific conversation?