Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google To Block Piracy-Related Terms From Autocomplete

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the micromanaging-expectations dept.

Censorship 275

An anonymous reader writes "Google is making changes in the way it presents web search results to try to exclude links that may be tied to pirated content. In a move enthusiastically praised by the RIAA, Google says it will not include terms closely associated with piracy from appearing via autocomplete. The company acknowledged that it can be hard to know what terms are being used to find infringing content, but 'we'll do our best to prevent Autocomplete from displaying the terms most frequently used for that purpose.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


google can... (1)

Nineteen-Delta (1892866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34423888)

Google can kiss my shiny met.. ....!

Re:google can... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34423914)

This was released yesterday by wikileaks. It's earth shaking news.

Re:google can... (4, Informative)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424072)

Google search is basically a shopping catalog now. Here is where you go when you want INFORMATION:

  • 1337x.org
  • alivetorrents.com
  • bitsnoop.com
  • bt-chat.com
  • btmon.com
  • extratorrent.com
  • fenopy.com
  • kickasstorrents.com
  • limetorrents.com
  • monova.org
  • newtorrents.info
  • seedpeer.com
  • sharereactor.com
  • thepiratebay.org
  • torrentdownloads.net
  • torrentfunk.com
  • torrenthound.com
  • torrents.net
  • yourbittorrent.com

Re:google can... (2)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424304)

Entertainment wants to be free!

Re:google can... (3, Interesting)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424410)

I love it when people get upset at the "information wants to be free" adage, but I don't even think it's very wise. The real kicker is that, thanks to Internet, information is in fact free for most intents and purposes. The risk of getting into trouble is absolutely negligible, and it will only get smaller as the pipes get thicker and copying gets cheaper. And they will get thicker and cheaper, even though Internet's performance level is already obscene when compared to the time most of us were born into.

Re:google can... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424458)

And yet the same people who proclaim "information wants to be free!!!" seem to get their panties in a twist when that same meme is applied to GPL code. Apparently it only wants to be free if it's copyrighted music/movies/books and proprietary software.

Re:google can... (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424532)

It wants to be free, not locked in proprietary software. Where's the inconsistency?

Re:google can... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424608)

Because 'Free as in Richard Stallman' is not an accurate description of the nature of information.

Licenses are artificial.

Re:google can... (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424798)

I see.

You want it "free" as in "free market:" rip off everybody and run away with all the money?

Because that's only scenario I can think of where (L)GPL can be considered not free.

Re:google can... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424538)

Please post your SSN, all your credit card numbers (including security codes from the back), bank account numbers, birthday, mother's maiden name, first pet's name, name of your best friend, all of your medical records, etc...

After all, if information wants to be free, why are you trying to thwart that?

Re:google can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424584)

I've got it locked behind my own proprietary DRM method, but if you manage to crack it and find the information, you are welcome to share it with your friends.

Re:google can... (2)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424650)

Wow, learn to troll. Start by trying to say something at least remotely related to my post. I am not trying to thwart anything. So far, I did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent my SSN from being published. There is nothing I can do. Millions of people can get my real name in seconds, and my credit report in minutes. I am not freaking out, you are!

Re:google can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424884)

Since we're talking about search engines, torrentz.com searches most of the above.

Torrents (1)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34423902)

Is torrnet on that list? I know allot of good uses for torrent.

Re:Torrents (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34423980)

Of course, but they are just pulling it from auto-complete, not search. Now surprise considering that typing "Despicable Me" would magically have torrent behind it. This is just moving the hookers from the street to the alley.

Re:Torrents (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424746)

I don't see it as exactly moving the "pirate" stuff.

I see it as Google had probably already planned on tuning the auto-complete to remove a lot of pirate search terms because, quite frankly, its not helpful for anybody that those be there.

There is probably a lot of other things that will be down-favored in this same move, but Google gets to turn to the RIAA and say "See what we did for you!" by focusing its forward face on the coincidental removal of things the RIAA wants removed.

Re:Torrents (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34423992)

"Torrent Sites"

Still shows up in autocomplete for me (using Torr). So obviously they haven't linked Torrents to Piracy directly.

To directly answer your question,using "Torrn" Torrnet.com is in the autocomplete listings.

Re:Torrents (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424098)

Or at least, it does right now. Does anyone know when this change has or is scheduled to happen? It seems a bit fishy that nothing is actually being filtered out yet. And the article doesn't seem to make mention of it (on a quick skim through)

Re:Torrents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424696)

They're just watching all searches that came via this article. They'll filter the top 70-80% of searches.

torrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34423906)

*anything* torrent

I support this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34423926)

Especially if they bury the links to torrent sites. I was looking up how to fix full screen for metro 2033 for a friend that couldn't get it out of windowed mode and gave up after more than half the links were to various torrent sites.

It's true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34423936)

It's true! I went to type in 'constitutional hi-jacking', but it didn't auto-complete. When I hit the search button, I got back a bunch of results about fascist corporatism.

Less Popular (3, Interesting)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34423952)

I can see this directly leading to Google becoming very slightly less popular for search. There were many good reasons to use AltaVista back in its day..

Re:Less Popular (3, Informative)

shuz (706678) | more than 3 years ago | (#34423990)

You mean yahoo? (which acquired AltaVista)

Re:Less Popular (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424200)

He meant Bing which Yahoo now uses.

Re:Less Popular (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424560)

No, he literally meant AltaVista, it enjoyed quite wide use before Google came along, and then it pretty much vanished into the ether.

Re:Less Popular (2)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424836)

Just adding to your post...AltaVista was pretty much the search engine to use. Then it started becoming one of those portal sites that everyone loved back then, the actualy seach text field becoming buried between animated gifs adn tons of ads. Then thankfully Google came along and cleaned house with it's clean and minimal interface and smarter search engine. AltaVistas answer was raging.com, which actually until not too long ago was a google-like clean interface to AltaVista search. It did not save them from becoming insignificant however. This was actually one major accomplishment by Google. It turned things around and made clean interfaces popular again and many other sites started reconsidering their UIs as well.

Re:Less Popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424198)

I can see this directly leading to Google becoming very slightly less popular for search. There were many good reasons to use AltaVista back in its day..

Not really, I noticed a long time ago when they started doing this for por-

Uh, *ahem* yes, well, they already do this for some things, so I imagine it won't be difficult to extend it.

Re:Less Popular (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424292)

Among the people who are too cheap to pay for movies, music, or games, and are also too lazy to type their search out? Yes, I'm sure they're going to exhaustively research competing search engines and remember to not use google, so that they have less typing to do.

Google has got to be terrified of that, I mean they're going to lose out on so much advertising revenue from companies that make products for cheap, lazy people. Knockoff "Clapper" manufacturers for example, are going to move to altavista.

Still popular (4, Insightful)

MonChrMe (1849782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424436)

It won't even affect it - It's only autocomplete, not the search itself.

Basically all this means is that the freeloaders (I prefer not to use the term pirate) will need to type 'torrent' manually instead of having it pop up magically. Big deal... given the lengths some of them go to already an extra eight keystrokes (including the space) isn't going to dissuade them one bit.

Google can't magically stop people using the terms outright as it would affect a lot of other searches as well. For instance, someone searching for a water torrent stock photo... Google isn't doing anything to affect that.

AltaVista didn't even have autocomplete, IIRC, and they've not said anything about it changing search results at all.

Re:Still popular (4, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424808)

It won't even affect it - It's only autocomplete, not the search itself.

So you mean that I can't just type in "Arr" and have it fill in "Arrrr" for me, or "pieces o" and have it come up with "pieces of eight"?
Paint me fo'c'sle pink, that's blatant discrimination, it is!

Re:Still popular (1)

MonChrMe (1849782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424924)

No, you'll be fine.

I did make a point of saying 'freeloaders'. Talk Like A Pirate Day will be completely unscathed. :)

Re:Less Popular (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424760)

Google is an advertising company. Why should they care about attracting people who aren't interesting in paying for anything?

Re:Less Popular (2)

machine321 (458769) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424774)

I thought that's what Baidu was for. The only downside is most of the text is encrypted with indecipherable characters.

Like what? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34423964)

Arrrr!, walk the plank and shiver me timbers?

Re:Like what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424010)

I was thinking "Somalia"!

Re:Like what? (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424302)

Actually - I'd love it if Google Took this approach.

Google: Okay. We've done as you've asked, we removed references to piracy in autocomplete, now wheres our money?

RIAA: What the hell? I just entered "Iron Ma" in there and the 3rd thing on the list is "Iron Man 2 Torrent".

Google: Yeah but notice if you enter "Jolly R" - there's no mention of Jolly Roger anymore.

RIAA: That's not exactly what we were looking for...

Google: -And if you enter "Blackbea" - no mention of blackbeard anymore...

RIAA: Okay okay. We get it.

Google: And this! "Rubber chicken with a"

*RIAA storms the room*

Terms Such as ( +1, Helpful ) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34423966)

Wikileaks [wikileaks.org]?

Yours In Moscow,

P.S.: Please offer kindest regards to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her directive for U.S. diplomats to spy on U.N. officials.

Ooook, (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424002)

then i am to start using other search engines for these searches. lets see what will win. pagerank (tm) or freedom of information and knowledge. i think it will be the latter. even with altavista, i was finding what i wanted. it wont hurt too much for it to take it slightly more time.

Re:Ooook, (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424040)

Good luck with that boycott. (BTW, does altavista even have auto-complete?)

Re:Ooook, (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424162)

who cares about auto complete ffs. im not a 59 year old idaho mom.

Re:Ooook, (1)

MonChrMe (1849782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424492)

Autocomplete is the only thing that's changed... they're not stopping you from typing it manually and they're not censoring sites or search results.

So, if you're boycotting Google over this, apparently it's *you* that cares about autocomplete.

no (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424700)

im WARNING them over this change, as a customer. they may have changed only autocomplete. fine. but, im making my opinion known, in case they may err in changing more stuff.

Re:Ooook, (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424634)

I like it, it can be quite helpful

It allows me to chose the right synonyms to get to what I want often.

Also, it's useful with the calculator, but that's hardly piracy related I hope.

Re:Ooook, (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424168)

pfft, auto-complete? Never needed it, and it's mostly just more annoying "web 2" crap the obscures useful previous search results while refining a search. fuck auto-complete.

Re:Ooook, (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424078)

lets see what will win. pagerank (tm) or freedom of information and knowledge.

Ooh, ooh, I can answer this one. Pagerank(tm). Easily.

Re:Ooook, (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424242)

no. the latter. pagerank (tm) doesnt have a shit of a meaning, if i cant find what i want. period.

Well damn... (3, Insightful)

Irick (1842362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424006)

Now they will have to actually type out their coppywrite infringing query. Well thanks alot google for making illicit deeds slightly less convenient.

Re:Well damn... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424456)

I'm waiting for the proxy search engine that provides auto-completed popular "pirate terms" then just queries Google for the results.

Lapdog (3, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424018)

This move makes them look like a lapdog shill. The bigger they get, the more they are learning they have to play ball with the politicians and mafiaa in order to please the other plutocratic overlords. Moves like this help them stay out of the legal crosshairs and keep friends in high-places (back scratching deal making kind of places).

Seriously, since when is linking to data crime! It seems like we are seeing more and more stories with asshats lawyers and lobbyist and congressfucks who think this way. God forbid hosting it, but linking to it? Get real. Idiots.

Re:Lapdog (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424178)

They haven't stopped linking to anything, this only changes what pops up in the auto-complete. All this means for you is you need to spend maybe an extra 0.2 seconds per search as you finish typing your query. Not only did you fail to RTFA, you apparently lacked the reading comprehension to parse TFS and even the title. While I may not be thrilled with what Google is doing here, let's try not to spread rumors.

Re:Lapdog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424876)

Whew! Excellent defense of your favorite company, Google fanboi! Scanning emails and passwords, proclaiming that only criminals care about privacy, and blocking search terms that lobbyists don't like...none of these things phase Google's foot soldiers.

Re:Lapdog (-1, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424726)


Please stop talking like a rebellious 13-year-old. It makes your position appear juvenile and immature. You're using emotionally loaded language to target corporate scapegoats in order to remove your own guilty feelings. Removing the artists from the debate and replacing them with greedy corporate stereotypes makes you feel less bad about not paying content creators for their work. I realize Slashdot has become a piracy advocacy site in the last few years, but come on. "Mafiaa?" It's embarrassing to see that.

Seriously, since when is linking to data crime!

You won't find child porn on Google either. There's plenty of data they avoid.

Re:Lapdog (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424830)

It used to be imperialist pigs, now its plutocratic overlords. I love how you can rank how far left the site is by counting the latest buzzword:

The champion (957 results): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=plutocratic+overlords+site:dailykos.com [google.com]

HuffPo is surprisingly lagging behind with only 132: http://www.google.com/search?&q=plutocratic+overlords+site:huffingtonpost.com [google.com]

Perhaps it too is getting taken over by plutocratic overlords?

Re:Lapdog (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424848)

This is what happens when Google tries to be Apple. Gotta cut deals, gotta play nice. We have the Google TV to thank for this.

Ha Ha, Joke's on Google (2)

BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424032)

Now that Google is proving the feasibility of removing piracy-related terms from Autocomplete, the obvious next move by the ??AA will be to insist (or get their legislators to write laws insisting) that the piracy-related terms produce bad or no search results.

Torrent linked to piracy on google (1)

shuz (706678) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424082)

I did a search for torrent on goggle the second link goes to a piracy site. I did the same search on Altavista and the top ten results a different torrent clients that I can use to utilize said torrent that I am interested in. Given the term I would say the Yahoo result is more relevant. So maybe google is just trying to keep its searches relevant all while spinning the change in a positive light for a few specific industry interests?

Replacement for Google? (3, Interesting)

Banichi (1255242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424096)

I quit using Yahoo back in the day because it impinged on my give-a-damn. Too many ads, not enough do-what-I-want simply, quickly, or silently. Google's bare bones front page was exactly what I wanted in a search engine.

Is there any sort of replacement for Google in that same vein? A bare bones search engine I can set as my home page and expect not to be impinged on by irritants like someone else deciding what I may search for?

Also, does it mean anything for the non automated search function of Google's HTTPS feature?

I'm OK with this.. (3, Informative)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424102)

..because I find Google Autocomplete to be bloated and annoying. Many of the changes they've made to their basic search page are bloated and annoying, too. I shouldn't have to wait for some javascript crap to load up and run just to do a basic web search. The new image search is OK though.

Re:I'm OK with this.. (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424320)

Similar here: if I'm looking for information about a movie or TV show, usually about 80% of the autocomplete options Google suggests are piracy-related; at least it might now display something that's actually useful to me.

Re:I'm OK with this.. (1)

DarthBling (1733038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424638)

I too find these extra features to be bloated and annoying.

And since I've disable all scripts from Google's main page (i.e no more autocomplete or instant preview), this latest change by Google doesn't even affect me.

Guilt by association? (4, Interesting)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424108)

Google's famous for proclaiming that their policy is to not be evil.

They're associating strongly here with the RIAA and MPAA, organizations which are widely considered to be evil, and making decisions based on their input.

I'm not going to say flat-out that Google's being evil, and breaking their ethics policy, but if you lie down with pigs then you may well come up covered in mud...

Re:Guilt by association? (1)

clampolo (1159617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424210)

I have more respect for Microsoft. Microsoft never pretends to be anything other than a corporation trying to maximize profits. Google try to pose as friend by supporting some open source projects, but when it comes to issues like sucking up to the Chinese, censorship, and net neutrality we see their true colors.

Re:Guilt by association? (2)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424384)

Every organization is going to end up being somewhat hypocritical.

What I'd like to see from Google--what would make them genuinely different--is a free and open admission of where they've screwed up and what they could do to fix it. ...and what they -will- be doing, to boot.

Having a little "Google Confessional" link off the front page would be good for that, I think.

It would go a long way towards mollifying some of the critics if they're shown to be self-aware and making strides to better themselves.

Not that that'll ever happen, o'course. It's "bad for business" for any company to admit fault. Leaves 'em open to liability, don'tchaknow.

Re:Guilt by association? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424396)

The MAFIAA's evil has to do with choice of tactics, such as suing people without proper evidence and such.
Say what you want about Google's move here, it has nothing to do with that.
The assocation you're making only makes sense for those who insist that torrenting movies and music for free is a right.

Google's idea will be DoA (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424118)

I see that Google also eliminates the word 'porn' from its auto complete...but when you complete it yourself and hit 'enter', results are shown instantly.

Given that consumers of pirate stuff always know what they want, I submit that Google's idea will be as they say, 'dead on arrival.'

The (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424140)

"The" is often used to find pirated content. Will it be removed from Autocomplete?

Backfire... (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424174)

I'm trying to search for "Pirates" because I want to pay for the Johnny Depp trilogy, but I'm not getting any results...screw it, I'll just download it.

Re:Backfire... (1)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424348)

Just search for Johnny Depp, you should be able to find it.

Or, since you want to pay for it, try amazon, netflix, blockbuster (before they go bankrupt), or google without autocomplete.

The one thing that got Google business was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424176)

...accurate search results.

Hiding stuff -- for what ever reason -- makes your search results inaccurate. Other search engines will be getting more business because the internet treats censorship the same way as it does damage. Sorry, but it's true. This is like trying to prevent water from flowing downhill.

Good move indeed (5, Interesting)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424222)

All they need to do is block all major movies and records and artists from autocomplete.

In fact, they should remove them from search results altogether--why, that would send the MAFIAA into paroxysms of joy, right?

Re:Good move indeed (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424534)


I haven't seen very many movies or heard any music lately that feels like it was worth my time or money. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Lip service for the MAFIAA, not evil (2)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424228)

NOTE: I'm using the https search option on a verizon wireless connection.

If you type in "how to pir" it won't finished with "pirate music".

BUT if you type in "download", "download free music" and "download limewire" are the 2nd and 8th autocomplete entries, respectively. And if you type in "pirate", it give a sponsored link from The Pirate Bay in autocomplete!

I have no idea what they're talking about--does it not apply to secure searches? I honestly can't think of any more blatant search terms to include.

Reasonable (3, Interesting)

BCoates (512464) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424330)

This seems pretty reasonable; when you search for the name of a popular movie (for example), " torrent" is almost always one of the top autocomplete hits, and the results you get from that are usually garbage or worse. There's probably a ton of people getting trojans and viruses, or scammed, by these sites by mis-clicking. They're not making it any harder to access this stuff intentionally, they're not being filtered from the actual search results.

Re:Reasonable (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424594)

A better question is whether or not it will actually decrease copyright infringement. I can't speak for everyone, but I can't ever think of a time that I was typing in the name of some artist, movie, television show, book, etc. that I ever clicked on the auto-completed torrent link. If I really wanted a torrent, I'd just type in the full search term, but honestly I wouldn't even be searching on Google as I'm already aware of any number of sites where I could find what I was looking for.

I don't believe that a large number of would-be pirates got their start be clicking on an auto-complete because they were curious about what a torrent was. I'm also not sure how often people misclick on results either, so I would say the number of people getting trojans, viruses, etc. from this is probably much less than a ton, especially considering they could easily verify that they clicked on the wrong search term before actually visiting any of those sites.

Sounds like an utterly pointless change made to placate the *AA's of the world who are actually stupid enough to believe that this will put an end to piracy.

Pornography (3, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424346)

This will be a successful plan because Google's previous blocking of pornography-related terms from autocomplete was a spectacular success at preventing people from finding pornography.

Autocomplete, guys, not the actual search... (3, Informative)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424354)

Guys, Google's not changing their search results. Just words that show up in autocomplete.
So if, for example, you start typing "call of duty 7 cra", it's not going to offer "crack", but it will offer "crazy", "crap", etc. Anyone looking for a crack is going to take the extra second to type it out and press enter. This isn't actually going to deter anyone.

Re:Autocomplete, guys, not the actual search... (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424680)

If they removed the pirating terms... "call of duty cra" would return "call of duty crashes" as the first result. I don't have any of the COD games, but I found it funny.

Let's keep our heads (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424476)

I'd like to point out that this is *ONLY* autocomplete. They're not doing anything about search results, but they're preventing copyright infringement-related terms from appearing in autocomplete - RTFTitle.

As most slashdotters have probably noticed, they do the same thing for pornography. Searching "midget fis" doesn't suggest anything, but there are 71k results for "midget fisting" (isn't it terrifying?) if you just go ahead and hit enter.

Frankly, Google's autocomplete shouldn't be the reason that an otherwise non-infringing person finds out about thepiratebay.org. IMHO, this is a good thing.


Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424478)

It never asked me if it could copy my stuf !! Never asked me if it could reproduce my photos !! Never asked me to even bend over !! Teh Google IS EVIL, make NO MISTAKE !! It WILL EAT YOU UP AND SPIT YOU OUT all for 1/20th of 1 cent.


pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424734)

Ah, you must work for a "newspaper". Learn to use robots.txt like the rest of the planet.

A suggestion (1)

The Mgt (221650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34424652)

>The company acknowledged that it can be hard to know what terms are being used to find infringing content

They could start with the names of all currently showing films and current chart singles. I'm sure the MPAA and the RIAA would be just thrilled.

in which case, a search for RIAA should fail auto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424660)

since they are not only intimately associated with piracy issues, they force many into it.

Autocomplete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34424682)

Wouldn't it just be simpler if they just got rid of autocomplete altogether?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account