×

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!

UK MPs: Google Blocks Child Abuse Images, It Should Block Piracy Too

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the blacklist-provided-by-democracy dept.

United Kingdom 348

nk497 writes "If Google can block child abuse images, it can also block piracy sites, according to a report from MPs, who said they were 'unimpressed' by Google's 'derisorily ineffective' efforts to battle online piracy, according to a Commons Select Committee report looking into protecting creative industries. John Whittingdale MP, the chair of the Committee — and also a non-executive director at Audio Network, an online music catalogue — noted that Google manages to remove other illegal content. 'Google and others already work with international law enforcement to block for example child porn from search results and it has provided no coherent, responsible reason why it can't do the same for illegal, pirated content,' he said."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

348 comments

Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958565)

Come on self-entitled brats. Lets hear why you should be allowed to have all the stuff you want for free.

It always comes to this, might as well get it out of the way early.

Re: Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958577)

Because the best way to argue against them is with insults and the lack of an actual argument. Seriously, if you're going to start the debate, at least provide something tangible.

Re: Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (4, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 7 months ago | (#44958669)

Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence.
Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image.
Copyright is theft!
The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one.

Re: Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (4, Informative)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 7 months ago | (#44958743)

To reply to myself. Sentences for making child porn on the first page of search result is 25+ years. Texas being most awesome by handing out a 290 year sentence! Go Texas.

Re: Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (4, Interesting)

tmosley (996283) | about 7 months ago | (#44959159)

I know right? Why use our brains when we "think" of the children? No need to have sentences that mesh with the crime. After all, why should there be any difference between the sentences for downloading a couple of images into your cache and kidnapping, violently raping, torturing, and then murdering a hundred children? I mean, that's practically the same thing right?

Re: Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#44959035)

I want to know what we block after piracy?

If we can block child porn and pirate sites, we can also block everything else that somebody, somewhere doesn't like. Right?

Shooting the messenger isn't the way to stop piracy (or child porn for that matter). All it does is drive it underground.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#44958635)

You can pay if you like. I choose not to.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958999)

You can pay if you like. I choose not to.

And why do you feel you're entitled to simply choose not to pay for things?

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 7 months ago | (#44959115)

When you ask it that way, it is far too easy to answer it with "And why do you feel that other people are entitled to limit what I do on my computer?"

Totally agree. (-1)

mozumder (178398) | about 7 months ago | (#44958671)

Piracy is the death of culture.

No artist wants to give away their work without some payback. This could be money, or even bartering for other art, the way Eddie Van Halen did Michael Jackson's guitar solo in 'Beat It' for free, because they both respect each other's creation.

Piracy just doesn't add any value to society at all... it just turns people into mindless consumerist zombies addicted to artistic consumption, without producing any art in return.

These days, we just have millions of leeches that download without returning any sort of value.

Even the early BBSs had an upload to download ratio requirement.

The worst part is that people haven't figured out that's it's perfectly fine NOT to watch a movie, listen to music, or play a game they didn't pay for. It's as if these consumers feel entitled to feed their consumerist addiction.

Re:Totally agree. (4, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about 7 months ago | (#44959071)

Totally disagree, as I am a hobbyist artist, and I never asked for any payback.

So your base assumption is wrong.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 7 months ago | (#44958673)

Personally I still get all of my content legally (generally via rental now, ie LoveFilm and Spotify), but if the industries keep acting the way they are, they kind of get what they deserve.

You can't keep ignoring reality either. I have no idea of the real figures, but the vast majority of my friends watch TV shows and listen to music illegally. It kind of sucks, but it's how people are. Expecting everyone to ignore free sources of entertainment is slightly like expecting everyone to use film cameras when digital is available. Or expecting people to go into a dark room full of strangers just to watch a new movie. If they want to keep making money, they should embrace change, rather than fight it tooth and nail.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (4, Insightful)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | about 7 months ago | (#44958681)

Nobody is entitled to make money

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#44958871)

And no one is entitled to someone else's work.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 months ago | (#44959013)

They are if you choose to share it. If you don't want other people to know about it then keep it to yourself. Then only you and the NSA will know.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#44959163)

Government protection for a business model that's failing (for whatever reason) is a very slippery slope.

(Before answering, consider that the music industry's golden years were when people used to freely record music which was being broadcast by radio...)

No business should expect that profits will always go upwards to infinity. Every market will plateau. Some markets will collapse. Some will no longer be able to support a huge amount of middlemen (which is who's inventing the figures for 'losses' by the music industry, despite all independent studies to the contrary).

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44959001)

Nobody is entitled to make money

That is true, but if we distribute free copies of everything, we deprive the creator from any chances of even theoretically making money (by offering people actual value). Ultimately that leads to commercial entertainment not being profitable, and we can say goodbye to complex things like GTA V, which cannot happen at all without strong financial backing.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (2, Insightful)

Zedrick (764028) | about 7 months ago | (#44958683)

Who don't you explain why we should not have all the stuff we want for free?

It worked fine for at least 50.000 years of human history, artists, musicians etc happily continued creating "culture" without getting payed for it 70 years after their deaths.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958919)

Who don't you explain why we should not have all the stuff we want for free?

It worked fine for at least 50.000 years of human history, artists, musicians etc happily continued creating "culture" without getting payed for it 70 years after their deaths.

You kind of have two arguments there: 1) people should have stuff for free and, 2) artists' works shouldn't be creating profit after 70 years of the author's death.

I agree that the latter is problematic, but strongly disagree with the first one. I think it's reasonable that the time and effort a creator puts behind a work is rewarded appropriately. Of course from a consumer's perspective it would be optimal to get everything free, but it's good to see the world as a whole.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958799)

The best kind of pirates are those who just say "because it's there and I want stuff for free". You have more balls when you say it like that, instead of starting the usual pile of lame arguments like "no one loses anything if I make copy", "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway", "it was too expensive", "media cartels are evil", and so on.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958865)

Because robbing the U.S is my life's dream.

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958941)

How about "why do you think the ability to make infinite copies at zero cost should entitle you to infinite money", when I too can make infinite copies for the exact same cost?

Re:Piracy rationalizations in 3... 2... 1... (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 7 months ago | (#44958969)

I'm a proud pirate. I think the whole system is corrupt and indefensible. I think there is a role for IP, but compared to where we are now I think we'd be better off scrapping it all together. I have been known to actually buy stuff, but only when it saves me time over piracy. Sadly, it is often more convenient to pirate (especially software and video).

Please Mr Google... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958579)

Just filter out every mention of UK Members of Parliament and their policies from your search results for, say, 28 days, and see how keen the censorious, self-aggrandizing, cockwombles are on compulsory filtering after that.

The more you know ~~* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958585)

British MPs receive kickbacks.

Child abuse != Piracy (5, Insightful)

gwstuff (2067112) | about 7 months ago | (#44958587)

Child abuse and piracy are not comparable. Child abuse is human depravity pushed to such an extreme that is justifiable to use it as a reason to defy common sense. Piracy is simply deviation from the rule of law - it does not warrant ubiquitous censorship of the kind that is being proposed.

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958653)

Or to put it less emotively:
Images of child abuse are illegal. Pirated content is not illegal.
Distributing child abuse images is illegal. Distributing pirated content is illegal.

It is far easier to block content whose presence is always illegal, than content whose illegality depends on the context in which it is found.

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (5, Insightful)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | about 7 months ago | (#44958737)

I'm pretty sure possession of pirated content is illegal too.

The problem with their argument is that it is impossible to determine what is piracy and what isn't. You can't block every .mp3 on thepiratebay: some musicians purposefully put their work up there. You can't determine it by file name: many artists use the same names for songs as existing songs...

You can look at illegal child porn images and instantly know that they're illegal, but you can't just look at a file and know either way if its illegal or not

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (4, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 7 months ago | (#44958785)

I'm pretty sure possession of pirated content is illegal too.

I guess it depends on where you live, in my country it's a civil offence. Not illegal though. Then again I've long since come to the conclusion that Cicero [wikipedia.org] was right on the subject of "laws being made, to simply criminalize the population" to paraphrase. What's funny, is that people think this is new...except when it's not.

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#44958901)

In your country ... do they not teach you that a 'civil offense' is a law violation as well? It most certainly is 'illegal'. It may not be 'criminal', but its still illegal.

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958837)

Where I live (Netherlands) possession of pirated content is NOT illegal.
Even downloading (for personal use) is NOT. Uploading (==distribution) IS.
On everthing else I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 7 months ago | (#44958949)

I'm not convinced that possession of "pirated" content is illegal. How can they tell whether a particular file is pirated or not unless they can prove exactly where you obtained those bits from and that the person distributing it did not have the right to distribute it?

Also, how can they police the cases where someone legally ripped a CD they owned and then managed to lose their CD? Are those bits legal or illegal?

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (2)

AlecC (512609) | about 7 months ago | (#44959049)

But you cannot determine whether a particular file is pirated. See the fiasco at the Hugo Award ceremony when an automatic anti-piracy device cut of the streaming coverage because they were playing copyrighted music - which they had licensed. Child porn is illegal at all times. A music file or film may be legal or not, depending on circumstances. iTunes distributes copyrighted music: should it be blocked? Co can I tell the difference between iTunes and jTunes, its pirate cousin?

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#44959127)

I'm pretty sure possession of pirated content is illegal too.

No, it isn't. Copyright infringement is only a crime when done on a commercial scale. For personal use it is a civil offence, but one that is widely tolerated (e.g. for time shifting, format shifting etc.)

Note also that this is alleged pirate material. If Google is going to be forced to act on all allegations by blocking content then I'm alleging that all government websites infringe my copyright. We already know that there is no consequence for repeated fraudulent allegations.

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958773)

Not to mention that facial recognition is a much easier algorithm to program than figuring out which torrent file is legal and which one isn't. It wouldn't be fair to block all content that has .torrent in it, now would it? I'm pretty sure their next move will be to accuse Google for harboring CP by linking to CP related torrents. I'm no expert in the field but I'm pretty sure that torrents aren't conveniently labeled "kiddie porn".

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958701)

This is something those numb nuts will never understand.

May be explainable by the number of UK police / political figures and indeed SIR's (individual the Queen has bestowed knighthoods upon) which participate in child abuse.

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (0)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 7 months ago | (#44959129)

You're right, they're certainly not equal, but you got it completely backwards. Child abuse is a mere inconvenience inflicted on meaningless mortals who in all honesty have minimal worth in this world. Piracy is the amoral disrespect and deprivation of the innate, God-given wealth of our Supreme ruling elite and should be considered the real and most fundamental crime against the entire human race. If anything, Google should have moved to block piracy long before child abuse and other merely pedestrian crimes.

At least that's how the media cartels would portray it.

Re:Child abuse != Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44959213)

Not child abuse, but child sex and sexualization. Make no mistake, a video or image of a child being beaten, tied up and burned, or cut apart with a chainsaw is perfectly legal. It is the SEX that is evil, not the harm or abuse.

But of course, the push to put piracy on the same level as either is exactly equal in its asininity.

Block the politicians sites as well (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958595)

If you want censorship, you should be willing to accept censorship directly as well.

Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is not (5, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | about 7 months ago | (#44958601)

Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is not.

Pretty easy to understand, numb-nuts.

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (0)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 7 months ago | (#44958809)

So how does a machine recognize the difference between a war photo of a bloodied child and a photo of civilian child abuse?

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (1)

Havokmon (89874) | about 7 months ago | (#44958825)

So how does a machine recognize the difference between a war photo of a bloodied child and a photo of civilian child abuse?

I don't think it's recognition, as much as definition.

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#44958913)

One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (1)

Havokmon (89874) | about 7 months ago | (#44959117)

One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.

Not hard-pressed:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse [thefreedictionary.com]
tr.v. abused, abusing, abuses
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.

IMHO, Your definition exceeds the actual definition.

Now define piracy in a way that's machine detectable, and what you'll really have is the ultimate DRM.

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (3, Informative)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 7 months ago | (#44958935)

Okay a more concrete example. Would you consider censoring this very famous photo that appears in this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc). The photo meets all the mechanical criteria for a child abuse photo. Sure, it should be easy to put exceptions for such famous images into your child porn recognition algorithm, but this would mean erecting a prude's verion of the Great Firewall, crewed by gatekeepers who decide whether it's okay for the masses to see a controversial image.

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#44958839)

Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is not.

It is not an impossible task. It is a difficult one. But we're fundamentally simply talking about two data analysis tasks. One is visual data, the other is textual data... and some checksums. Someone who can reasonably take on the former ought to be able to take a serious stab at the latter. Google doesn't want to, because they fear they will be forced to; probably true.

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#44958953)

It *is* an impossible task because while *all* child pornography is illegal - no exceptions - redistribution of copyrighted contents is illegal when the right owner didn't consent to it and legal when he did. It's the same thing as with photos of people - in some jurisdictions, you're only allowed to publish photos of people who consented to it (with perhaps some exceptions), but how do you divine the presence or absence of consent from the photo itself?

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (1)

Mirar (264502) | about 7 months ago | (#44958855)

I doubt it is machine recognizable. Feel free to point out a source.

But "child abuse" is slightly easier to use as a reason to block off anything. You hit the
internet with a sledgehammer on "child abuse" reports, blocking off just about anything
you feel like - sometimes "child abuse".

Most countries these days have block-lists that were supposed
to block "child abuse" sites but now contains a lot more (often including critics).

You can probably sledgehammer the internet on "piracy" reports too if you want to continue
to cripple the internet.

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958877)

Or...it could be the fact that the "think of the children" crowd have pressed for so hard and so long that not taking proactive steps to remove child abuse images, and AFAIK only child porn*, that one will minimally be demonized in the press as a child porn promoter and at worse either arrested as a child porn producer (where in the UK, again AFAIK only for child porn, to make a copy is to produce) or have all sorts of government regulations and restrictions placed upon you. In short, as has been stated plenty of times, the "think of the children" crowd is used as a basis to usurp all sorts of liberty and again is being used to extend power into even unrelated areas.

To pretend any of this is a technological issue really misses the point.

*Back in the real world, similar rules apply for various professions about signs of child abuse and being required to take proactive steps. I'd think it to be of note that (a) most child abuse that occurs is neglect and is ironically the kind is least likely to be followed up over said proactive steps and (b) the next leading form of child abuse is of the physically beating kind, but a lot of that gets delayed as well since an abuser is most likely to leave a mark where clothes are likely to hide it and unlikely to seek medical treatment precisely because of the reporting laws (admittedly, doctors and nurses may well report it anyways, but I imagine the reporting laws are really there so doctors and nurses are allowed to follow up on suspected abuse instead of having a hospital supervisor going "it looks like a fall to me, so work on your next patient"). Regardless of what you believe about government imposing itself for the right reasons to curtail a person's liberty, this seems a perfect example of a slippery slope.

Re:Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about 7 months ago | (#44959177)

But think how much it would cost to try to create and implement such system? It's a logical step - if Google can't do it, let's find some contractor company who will do it for us. Oh, the owner of this company is a nephew of a said MP? Well, it's a strange coincidence, of course!

And, after all, we can always change law back after several years of abusing this broken system.

Obviousness (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958613)

Child pornography is quite obvious without further investigation, copyright can be very complex and right can be claimed by a lot of people. The system can also easily abuse to remove perfectly legal content. But seems that UK MP like to compare pears and apples.... (or that they don't have a clue about what they are talking about)

Re:Obviousness (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958679)

>Child pornography is quite obvious without further investigation

Not really.

* Female parent takes a photo of her child naked in the bath as some kind of happy memory, which she then uses to embarass him in front of his first girlfriend or whatever when looking at a family album (heck, who doesn't have parents like that?)
* Drawings classify in the UK (which is something I don't agree with), which bans a lot of Japanese stuff (I can have sex with a 16-year-old girl, but can't have a drawing of a 17-year-old anime character naked)
* 16-year-old takes a photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend naked

Real child abuse is abhorrant, but might not be easily recongizable either.

Say, if a six-year-old got punched in the face by another six-year-old to the point where it left a bruise. I'm sure you'd have people whispering that his father did it or something.

Re:Obviousness (3, Informative)

Shoten (260439) | about 7 months ago | (#44958767)

>Child pornography is quite obvious without further investigation

Not really.

* Female parent takes a photo of her child naked in the bath as some kind of happy memory, which she then uses to embarass him in front of his first girlfriend or whatever when looking at a family album (heck, who doesn't have parents like that?)
* Drawings classify in the UK (which is something I don't agree with), which bans a lot of Japanese stuff (I can have sex with a 16-year-old girl, but can't have a drawing of a 17-year-old anime character naked)
* 16-year-old takes a photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend naked

Real child abuse is abhorrant, but might not be easily recongizable either.

Say, if a six-year-old got punched in the face by another six-year-old to the point where it left a bruise. I'm sure you'd have people whispering that his father did it or something.

Your point about intent and effect is entirely valid...except that the question here is not about how you would define "child porn," but how the law does. And under the law, all of the examples you describe are classified as child porn. This is a problem, yes, but it's not relevant to the current argument. Google must adhere to the law, and they do.

Kiddie Porn is the gateway drug. For the censors. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958617)

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

Re:Kiddie Porn is the gateway drug. For the censor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44959033)

While I agree that real child abuse is abhorrant, I do understand the logic in this.

Esp. if someone downloads an image onto your computer and you can't prove that you didn't download it.

Felony vs infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958619)

Child porn: felony
Piracy: infringement

Two completely different classes of "crime".

Re:Felony vs infringement (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 7 months ago | (#44958829)

In the corporate future, making the corporation lose $1 of revenue will be an offense punishable by instant death. Judge Dredd will head the copyright crimes department.

Re:Felony vs infringement (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#44959075)

You'd probably like Continuum.

Alec (from 2012, in 2012): Someone just shorted $3.5 million of shares in Exotrol stock.
Kiera (from 2077, in 2012): Shorted? What does that mean?
Alec: It's complicated. But basically, they bet against the company being profitable, successful...
Kiera: Is that legal?
Alec: Strangely, yes.

:-)

Because people would stop using Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958631)

What really kills me is that when I come across the many pirated sites that Google links to, the sites are supported by AdSense! Google is not only linking to them, they're paying them to stay open. I've even reported a few of the really obvious ones, but a month later I check back and nope, still got their AdSense up.

Google really doesn't care as long as people use Google and they're making money.

Simple reason, expenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958633)

Blocking child porn is a common good and great PR; so while Google doesn't get paid for their efforts they are earning positive public reputation for their expense.

Blocking piracy costs Google but gains them nothing unless the industry wants to pay Google's expenses

apples to oranges (2)

Taibhsear (1286214) | about 7 months ago | (#44958639)

Child porn is illegal to own. Pirated content is not.
Sharing child porn is a criminal offense. Sharing pirated content is a civil offense.
Even if google blocked it people would use a different search engine to find it. Stop playing whack-a-mole and do something constructive.

Re:apples to oranges (4, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about 7 months ago | (#44958907)

Detection of copyrighted material is also problematic in that it is not always readily apparent whether a particular entity has the legal right to distribute certain works and what does or does not constitute fair use and/or legal distribution. The works themselves are not illegal.

Re:apples to oranges (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#44958927)

Pirated content is not.

Uhm, yes it is.

Re:apples to oranges (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44959081)

no, the current definition of the law makes it illegal to make available, not private use

Hey, look what else this could do (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 7 months ago | (#44958649)

Why, we could completely block organizing efforts for those political parties that are advocate independence for parts of the UK: How do you like that, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, and Scottish Nationalists? And then maybe get rid of those pesky Green parties, and then the Liberal Democrats too, just to be on the safe side.

Re:Hey, look what else this could do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958801)

While you're making idiotic slippery slope arguments, why not suggest that highway guardrails are one step away from locking up the population in Auschwitz.

They are very different (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958651)

Child porn can be identified without input from the content creator (looking at content is all that's needed), piracy cannot, you need to ask the content creator if it's piracy, and real piracy will attempt to hide who is the content creator to make that process difficult (and often the content creator will lie, we've seen this happen many times over on youtube where a big network steals some youtube content and then send them a takedown request for posting the content that the network decided to steal).

So to actually implement this google would have to accept inputs from supposid content creators to have whatever they want blocked, that sounds ripe for abuse to me, maybe I'll get these MPs' sites blocked for pirating "my" content.

Google can't block piracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958663)

Because then it'd have to shutdown YouTube.

Re:Google can't block piracy (1)

Mirar (264502) | about 7 months ago | (#44958873)

Easy. Block off UK from all Google and all Youtube.

Re:Google can't block piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958911)

Or the rest of the civilized world.

No comparison (1)

Dan East (318230) | about 7 months ago | (#44958667)

One is a crime against "the innocent" (I know, I know - think about the children!), while the other is unauthorized use of the commercial properties of specific businesses. It is reasonable to expect that the more disseminated and prolific child pornography is, the more children would be abused in the creation of more images and video. Thus by directly fighting child pornography, Google is protecting children. On the other hand, when it comes to pirated material, the only supposed (and I say "supposed" because numerous studies have shown this isn't the case) damage is to a corporation's profit margin.

To me, it comes down to expecting Google to do the work of policing copyrighted material, which should be the responsibility of the copyright holders, not some middle-man search entity.

Re:No comparison (3, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | about 7 months ago | (#44958745)

Exactly.
This is like saying that because the SWAT and the FBI handle situations involving murder and hostages, that those departments should be more than capable of finding my lost kitten.
Then proceeding to complain that they are not doing so.

Yet another creeping power grab (4, Interesting)

JosKarith (757063) | about 7 months ago | (#44958675)

What a surprise. Start with the slam-dunk of getting them to ban CP (After all if you don't agree it should be banned you must be a pedo sympathiser) , then turn round and say "Well you can block that illegal content, what about this?"
What next, demand Google block sites of banned political parties? Disallow all dissenting opinions? Silence religions you don't like? This is why we shouldn't have allowed the thin end of the wedge in in the first place. Give centralised control an inch and it'll take a mile.

Rent-seekers are out in force today (0, Troll)

benjfowler (239527) | about 7 months ago | (#44958699)

If the content producers succeed in demanding -- and getting -- the right to force other people to prop up their business model at their own expense, it could open the gates of Hell for anybody with an oversized sense of entitlement to do the same.

Google are quite within their rights to tell the "creative" industry parasites to go and fuck themselves. If people are stealing their stuff, it's THEIR problem that their failing business models aren't keeping up with reality.

There's ALWAYS some arsehole out there who thinks the world owes him a living.

How do I go about it? (2)

Brandano (1192819) | about 7 months ago | (#44958715)

How can I use Google to access pirated content? Google can stop indexing torrent sites, I guess, but a link to a torrent file is not automatically an index of copyright infringement (the Humble Bundle site would be blocked for example, as well as several Linux distros), and I don't think you can hold Google liable for the content hosted on third party sites. And once you create a blacklist of "torrent sites" then other mechanisms kick in, distributed tracking, magnet links, links exchanged on forums, on mailing lists, via sneakernet. What Google could do is to tell this guy "Give us a list of sites to block, backed by a judge's signature, and well'exclude them from our search results. But you will be held liable for any error in the supplied list, and it will be your duty to keep it up to date".

Obvious solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958747)

All copyrighted media should start including some child porn.

Commercial Piracy Vs. Casual Piracy (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 7 months ago | (#44958751)

Commercial piracy sites are rather easy to identify.

I'm not entirely fond of where the internet is heading these days but at the same I do understand the never-ending battle against the various crapmeisters and scammers that ruin the internet experience.

But why can't they also turn this question around: shouldn't content providers be required to make their content available at fair market prices in all regions to benefit from this type of law?

(Note: On principle I do not like how governments are requiring search companies and social media to enforce their "will", treating these companies as an extension and enforcer of their rule. Where is the limit? I do not expect to see one, ultimately)

Solution: Block the UK (2)

Insightfill (554828) | about 7 months ago | (#44958861)

If it makes it any easier for the MPs, I'm sure that Google would just be willing to block off the UK instead.

"Google"? (1)

Mirar (264502) | about 7 months ago | (#44958869)

Why Google? I thought UK blocked everything they felt like from the internet,
regardless of provider?

There's something very wrong... (1)

SlovakWakko (1025878) | about 7 months ago | (#44958939)

...with lawmakers who equal child abuse with unlicensed use of intellectual property. Kudoz to Google for spending serious effort on the first one, and not diverting it to the second one.

So much for free enterprise (0)

operagost (62405) | about 7 months ago | (#44958959)

Imagine that every day, you came into work and your boss said, "You already do A, why can't you do B?" Repeat every day until the entire alphabet is exhausted, and so are you.

We pay a lot of taxes already to have law enforcement do the job. It's not the job of businesses to actively police their users, any more than it's the job of a farmer to put cameras in every acre in case someone tries to plant some cannabis.

who cares about search engines ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958967)

whats funny is that these people think that by asking google to ban "piracy" it will actually make it go away or something...

even if google wont give me a result when searching for the pirate bay, i can still type the URL ...

so whats the point ? who actually uses google to search for pirated stuff anyways ?

What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44958973)

"Well, Google blocks piracy sites, it should block dissenting opinions about government too."

Stupid politicians (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 7 months ago | (#44958975)

I mean really, searching for Images through a Google webpage is why Google can block child porn.

Torrenting has nothing to do with Google.

Do these politicians really believe Google is the main server of the Internet?

I will agree that Google could stop search results for prolific torrent sites, but seriously, people who pirate are not starting their day searching for content on Google.

Here we go (4, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 months ago | (#44958983)

Mission creep. It always happens. First it's to prevent "child porn" or "terrorism". Then someone gets a bright idea - "but we can get x this way too!". And then someone else wants to use it for their pet agenda. What you end up with is police in body armor and assault rifles storming your house to confiscate files in a civil (not even criminal!) case, Kim Dotcom style.

anti-piracy??? (2)

l3v1 (787564) | about 7 months ago | (#44958989)

"Google's 'derisorily ineffective' efforts to battle online piracy"

It's an indexing&search engine for cryin' out loud, not a censoring body (thankfully). Censorship falls into government territory, they should censor and block sites if they can, not force the censorship tasks onto a company. I do not want to understand why these - and other similar - people can't fathom what they're dealing with. Derisorily ineffective my a**. They are pretty effective in what they do, which is provide results for your queries. They might want to actually regulate search engines though laws, but they wouldn't like the backlash from the people, so they seem to try to force the task onto the companies (especially Google, go figure).

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." The second, let's deal with all the idiot politicians.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but .... (2)

King_TJ (85913) | about 7 months ago | (#44958997)

Doesn't the ability to comprehensively search for such things as child abuse photos OR pirated software aid the authorities in tracking it down and stopping it at the sources, just as much as it aids someone trying to download it?

And it should block the Tories too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44959021)

...they are offensive to me. Ah, and the Republocrats and the Jihadists and... BLOCK ALL!

There is no "online piracy" (4, Insightful)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 7 months ago | (#44959051)

Whatever this is, it is not "online piracy".

No ships have been illegally seized, not a single cutlass has been brandished. There has been no disturbance of the lawful transfer of goods from one entity to another. No one is being held for ransom.

Violating a licensing "agreement" involves no theft of moneys, nor theft of tangibles, nor theft of services. Making and distributing an unlicensed copy of software, a book, a movie, or music may in some cases reduce the potential for future sales, but that is not a reduction in current value. It only affects speculative value. That is not nice, and there should probably be some legal protection against it, but it is not theft.

Until the legislators who are attempting to write laws start using English words appropriately, there can be no good laws written to cover this new economic activity. Appropriating verbiage from maritime law because "piracy" sounds so menacing is bullshit, plain and simple. Perhaps those who are misusing the word so much should be sent to the waters off Somalia to learn what it means.

Easy answer for google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44959173)

I'm sure google could easily implement this: If the UK government provides a list of "pirate" sites, google will try hard to remove any links to such sites from any search results it sends to UK addresses, at a cost of £1 each time a link is removed. As usual in computer stuff, no guarantees of things working well... Google, in the spirit of not doing any evil, could also display a notice that "9263 links were removed from the results, by request of your government. Showing the remaining 13.

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

Loading...