Mississippi Attorney General Says Its Google's Fault He Can Find Infringing & Counterfeit Items
from the really-now? dept
We’ve discussed in detail in the past how different states’ attorneys generally work: they pick a company they want to shame, for their own political benefit and just start making accusations against them and demanding they “answer” for them, even when they have no legal basis to their arguments whatsoever. Usually, one AG will start this, and then dozens of the others pile on as well, and they just keep putting on more and more pressure — again, without any legal basis whatsoever — until companies feel the need to “settle” to shut the AGs up, and then the AGs celebrate with lots of press coverage about how they brought down some big, bad company. It’s kind of amazing how often we see this same pattern.
It appears the latest target of a bogus attack from Attorneys General, starting with Mississippi’s Attorney General Jim Hood, is Google. Hood, apparently, has found some infringing and counterfeit goods online (shock! horror!) and has decided that Google is responsible for this:
“On every check we have made, Google’s search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games,” Hood said. “This behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior.”
Hood didn’t buy Google’s explanations that it only removes content from search results in a narrow set of circumstances, pointing out that Google blocks child pornography and has removed content that glorifies the Nazi party. “Why will Google not remove websites or de-index known websites that purport to sell prescription drugs without a prescription or provide pirated content?” Hood asked.
Of course, Hood has no legal mandate over copyright. At all. But, what the AGs normally do — and Hood is doing here — is use their broad, vague mandates towards “consumer safety” to pretend they have a mandate.
What Hood is really doing, however, is not protecting consumers, but showing off his own technological ignorance of how search works. Yes, you can find infringing works via Google. But finding that content isn’t Google’s fault, but the fault of those who put that stuff up on the internet. A good Attorney General would use that information to go after the people actually breaking the law by putting such works up. But, you know, that takes work and actually proving someone broke the law. By blaming Google instead, it takes away all of the actual work and having to prove that someone actually was guilty of counterfeiting/infringement. And, of course, it can only lead to censorship. If Google is somehow ordered to magically know how to stop such content from being found, the only way to do that is to vastly overblock, removing tons of legal content.
Filed Under: attorney general, copyright, counterfeit, jim hood, mississippi
Companies: google
Comments on “Mississippi Attorney General Says Its Google's Fault He Can Find Infringing & Counterfeit Items”
It’s the states fault I can use roadways to get to the fleamarket to buy counterfeit items.
Google loves infringing content.
“But finding that content isn’t Google’s fault, but the fault of those who put that stuff up on the internet.”
Technically, legalistically, you’re right as always, Mike.
But as usual, wrong morally. Everyone has SOME slight obligation to prevent crime, and tacitly admit that crime is going on.
And under common law, corporate “persons” are not free to just do as they wish without any regard to the society that permits them to exist. But lawyers have so tangled that up with statute that we’ve lost requiring corporations to act in public interest — and they DO act only to gain money, no concern for the far larger societal values.
Your usual defense of Google is answered by my tagline:
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike’s “no evidence of real harm” means he wants to let secretive mega-corporations continue to grow.
05:37:03[g-370-3]
Re: Google loves infringing content.
So what have you done to prevent it aside from whining uselessly on websites like Techdirt?
Nothing? I guess that makes you an accessory to crime, then. Go ahead and turn yourself in.
Re: Google loves infringing content.
which crime?
oops. sorry, i forgot linking is a crime.
Re: Google loves infringing content.
Oh come on! How the flipping hell is Google (search engine) or Yahoo, or Bing is supposed to know if and when something is infringing when the provide search results?
And why are you singling out Google? What about the other Search providers? I hear your argument but its so full of holes, I just don’t understand why you waste so much time on one provider? I have no real love for Google but is sure seems like you’re burning a lot of discussion capital by focusing on one provider.
Lastly, you’ve shown flashes of insight and a level of understanding how copyright is hurting the economy and technological advancement. Are you fully supporting copyright? I am sort of confused what your stance is.
Re: Google loves infringing content.
How does simply not listing evidence of the crime prevent the crime? Wouldn’t having it listed do a better job of reaching criminals, as it would give law enforcement an easy way to find out what was going on?
Re: Google loves infringing content.
“Everyone has SOME slight obligation to prevent crime”
True enough. +0.05 pts
“And under common law, corporate “persons” are not free to just do as they wish without any regard to the society that permits them to exist.”
Again, true. +0.05 pts
Congratulations! You’ve made ONE 10th of one point.
You only have 999,999.9 pts to go to advance to level one,
the Google-has-the-obligation-to-police-the-internet Level. Keep up the good work!
“Where Mike’s “no evidence of real harm” means he wants to let secretive mega-corporations continue to grow.”
We’re sorry, but your attempt to warp past the Slippery Slopes and over the Widest Chasm of Wildest Fantasy has failed.
Would you like to START OVER?
Re: Google loves infringing content.
As always, my dear lady, you’ve got the right gist but failed to follow it through to its obvious moral and correct implications.
Sure, the AG could go after google, but what about the servers they use, the companies who manufacture the components in those serves, and indeed, copper.
Copper has been used in furtherance of ALL the most heinous cyber crimes, e-theft and counterfeit drug peddlings, online cyber-e-bullying, and cyber-e-online-internet-cybering. ALL OF THEM.
While my inference is incorrect technically and legally, morally, copper must go. Will you join me, sister, in this noble endeavour?
Re: Google loves infringing content.
The further you travel down that rabbit hole the worse it will get.
If you apply the concept that since it can be used for illegal purpose then who ever is associated should be punished. A Ford car did a hit and run the other day. Ford should be punished for making something the could be used illegally. A gun was used in a crime. Guns should be banned. But lets go even further. Some random person committed a crime. We should ban people then that would solve all the problems. Wait, that would work. I guess you were right OOTB.
Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
The further you travel down that rabbit hole the worse it will get.
If you apply the concept that since it can be used for illegal purpose then who ever is associated should be punished. A Ford car did a hit and run the other day. Ford should be punished for making something the could be used illegally. A gun was used in a crime. Guns should be banned. But lets go even further. Some random person committed a crime. We should ban people then that would solve all the problems. Wait, that would work. I guess you were right OOTB.
Your analogies totally miss the mark. Google is not an inanimate object like a gun or car. All of the search providers have a responsibility to make sure their ecosystem is not used to facilitate crime. What would happen if banks, investment companies, S&L’s and credit unions all said they had no responsibility to combat money laundering? Banks really just move money around. They could advance the same arguments as Google and all of its apologists.
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
“Google is not an inanimate object like a gun or car.”
But it is a tool.
Re: Re: Re:2 Google loves infringing content.
“But it is a tool.”
Pro-copyright trolls are also tools, and by discrediting the pro-copyright argument, they encourage piracy.
Perhaps the AG should seek to ban TechDirt trolls.
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Your analogies totally miss the mark. Google is not an inanimate object like a gun or car.
You do know indexing is automated, right? Not even Google has the resources to vet every single webpage ever.
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Except yes, it is. And no, I don’t mean Google the corporate entity, I mean Google the search engine based on an algorithm. The fact Google have caved on previous occasions and naffed around to skew the algorithm to placate various “moral” handwringers does not change that it is an inanimate product and can’t pass a Turing test.
Re: Re: Re:2 Google loves infringing content.
“skew the algorithm”
This is incredibly important. After minor updates to the algorithm (Panda and Penguin) people lost a lot of business and had to spend hours redoing their content to deal with the changes.
I imagine that if the RIAA/MPAA forced Google to change their algorithm, it would cause damage on a mass scale.
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Lowest got it right.
A tool was what I was basing my analogy on. Your analogy doesn’t work since the method of transferring is based on the fact that it is a bank job to transfer money. Google’s job is to provide a search engine. They find servers that come online. There is no way to determine if that server is legal or illegal. If it is a web host then there could be 10000+ sites on that server. There job isn’t to figure out what is and isn’t illegal that is what a lawyer does. Sure, I can go on Google and find a couple things I would know are illegal but I would also find things I didn’t know where legal. Then some of those things may be illegal in different country and some may be illegal in a different state? Who keeps track of that? How do you determine what is illegal? You anti apologists keep saying to magically remove the illegal stuff but don’t provide a way to do that. Using my analogies again, that is like saying make it so a gun doesn’t fire when it is being used illegally.
In the end if it does become a third party responsibility, you will only be shooting yourself in the foot. A search engine is to powerful a tool for it to go away. Having search engines be responsible will only cause them to mirror out and disappear. That same thing has happened to Pirate bay.
Re: Re: Re:2 Google loves infringing content.
Is a question of competence really.
Who is more competent to know what is infringing or not?
Certainly not Google, imagine Google starting to decide what is legal or not, suddenly they could just decide that all content from the RIAA and MPAA is infringing and take everything out of their listings.
That responsibility is not Google’s is from “content owners”.
Further apparently content owners don’t like liability that much, since they know full well that even they cannot find out what is legal or not and they make mistakes too like taking down legitimate business that could sue them.
The only people who believe that crap from the MAFIAA is the people paid by them to believe in.
Re: Re: Re:2 Google loves infringing content.
Sorry, I’m not buying it. Their are tons of sites engaged in infringing activities that are beyond the reach of law enforcement because they’ve deliberately located in countries with weak IP laws. If a US bank had misgiving (not an adjudication) about a foreign bank or suspicious transactions, it simply will not complete the transaction. Google likes to wash its hands in the Holy Water and maintain there’s really nothing they can do about it. That is bullshit, they don’t want to do anything about it because they make money by their inaction.
Re: Re: Re:3 Google loves infringing content.
100% true.
They know the party won’t last forever and are just trying make as much money off it now as they can.
Re: Re: Re:3 Google loves infringing content.
So, what should Google do? Refuse to index websites hosted in countries with weak IP laws?
Re: Re: Re:3 Google loves infringing content.
Money is a special sort of ‘information’ that is not (meant to be) infinitely duplicatable, unlike all the info on the internet.
Money is tightly controlled and generally has much more serious criminal levels attached to it. Information doesn’t (unless you p*** off the government/corporations).
Re: Re: Re:2 Google loves infringing content.
” There is no way to determine if that server is legal or illegal.”
The server is always legal.
What transpires on that server may or may not be illegal.
In the real world, we hold the bad actor accountable, not every person near where he acts. No separate-but-equal rules for online.
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Of course the slimeballs here at Techdirt censor a logical post that they can’t refute…
“Your analogies totally miss the mark. Google is not an inanimate object like a gun or car. All of the search providers have a responsibility to make sure their ecosystem is not used to facilitate crime. What would happen if banks, investment companies, S&L’s and credit unions all said they had no responsibility to combat money laundering? Banks really just move money around. They could advance the same arguments as Google and all of its apologists.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Google loves infringing content.
Awwww.. Hurt your head on that windmill?
Re: Re: Re:2 Google loves infringing content.
That’s pretty funny since the “censored” post has a number of followup comments refuting it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Google loves infringing content.
lol. Not a single one of those “refutes” the point the OP made.
Re: Re: Re:4 Google loves infringing content.
You may not believe the refutations are valid. That’s OK. But they were posed. If you disagree with the refutations, then make your case. That’s the essence of discussion and debate, which you apparently wish to avoid.
When you say that the post was “censored” because nobody could offer a refutation, you’re just lying. On two counts.
Re: Re: Re:2 Google loves infringing content.
“Of course the slimeballs here at Techdirt censor a logical post that they can’t refute.”
Are you 12?
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
“…an inanimate object like a … car”.
My friend, you have a shit car.
Re: Google loves infringing content.
I’ll disagree with your basic premise. I think people have a moral obligation to not commit crime. However, I don’t think that everyone has a moral obligation to prevent crime. If I see someone running down the street with your purse in their hands, I have no obligation to stop the thief. It may be nice of me to do, but I am not morally obligated to do it.
We have police and attorney generals whose job it is to prevent crime (well… not legally). I pay my taxes which pays them. That is as far as my obligation goes.
Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
That statement really depends on the crime. Inter-racial marriage, same sex marriage, homosexual acts, spitting, not wearing a helmet when biking, etc. All of these have been outlawed, but the moral grounds are lacking.
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Jaywalking! Seriously, what kind of an idiot crime is that? Let Darwin deal with it… 🙂
Re: Google loves infringing content.
Little blue, have you been reading the ravings of the tricordist again?
You don’t want to end up like Cpt Ahab do you?
Re: Google loves infringing content.
Looks as though it’s time for Groklawians to do a little digging to see if perhaps there’s a connection between the Mississippi AG and Redmond, WA.
Re: Google loves infringing content.
“Everyone has SOME slight obligation to prevent crime, and tacitly admit that crime is going on.”
Okay then, answer me this (I know you won’t). Which of these two scenarios best meets your requirement to “prevent crime”?
1. Google caves to AG’s grandstanding and delists websites allegedly engaged in “illegal activity”. AG claims success! Meanwhile said illegal activity continues unabated, but is a tiny bit harder to find on the internet. Or…
2. AG’s leave Google alone and do their damn job, using proper law enforcement tools to locate “illegal activity” (easy to find, look on Google!) and stop it from actually occurring.
I genuinely believe you’re not smart enough to see the correct answer here.
Re: Google loves infringing content.
I have no moral or ethical requirement to stop a crime. I also have no legal requirement to report or stop a crime. As usual, you are trying to foist your own personal morals on everyone else, completely disregarding the fact that while some morals are shaped by the community/society one lives within, such things are entirely personal. Morality is an ambiguous concept that defies any true definition.
Re: Google loves infringing content.
Then quit whining about Google, Cathy.
They’re “only” preventing terrorism by spying on us, per your “logic.”
Oh look! Pirate Mike thinks that intermediaries have no responsibilities whatsoever. Shocker! Wake me up when you nut up and are willing to discuss issues directly and without weasel words. Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath waiting. I know you’ll never be a man and actually say something definitive about what you believe. You’re too scared to ever take an actual position on something that matters. Nobody runs from a discussion about his beliefs faster than Chicken Mike, King of the Techdirtbags.
Re: Re:
And once again, you provide no substance to a discussion. I’ve heard teenagers give a better argument.
So how do you propose search engines are supposed to identify every piece of infringing material from any given search result? Even the big labels get it wrong more often than not.
Crying that you think something is wrong without providing ideas to support that whine is what small children do. Is that all you have left to you?
Re: Re: Re:
“So how do you propose search engines are supposed to identify every piece of infringing material from any given search result?”
In this case, he waves his hands and says “That’s Google’s problem” and compares it to Walmart selling stolen goods.
I certainly hope that I don’t need to explain why that is a ridiculous comparison., since it has already been beaten here 72 million times (give or take a few million).
Re: Re:
Do we still get to use overreaching hyperbole, or do have exclusive rights to that?
Re: Re: Re:
“or do ^you^ have exclusive…”
Re: Re:
Don’t worry AJ, you only have about 16 years to go before you’ll be old enough for a job.
Re: Re:
“Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath waiting”
We noticed. You are wasting it exhaling in our direction.
And since you brought the subject up, have some advice: try breath mints.
Seriously man.
Re: Re: Re:
He just thinks he’s The Doctor.
Re: Re:
Mike Masnick has stated his beliefs, you just keep ignoring him when he does and respond by claiming he doesn’t.
IF he never repondes to you again the fault is with you for actiong like a brat
Re: Re: Re:
Mike Masnick has stated his beliefs…
Nope. Just a bunch of weasel words. Does Mike think that copyright infringement is immoral? We don’t know. He refuses to say. Lots of other questions he won’t answer either. It’s so cute how you sycophants rush in to say that Mike has already answered the questions. Some of you say that, and others say he won’t answer the questions because it’s me asking. LOL! Which is it? The fact is he hasn’t answered and he won’t answer because MIKE MASNICK IS A TOTAL FRAUD. I FUCKING dare Mike to have one, honest conversation.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
MIKE MASNICK IS A TOTAL FRAUD
Boy, you sure know how to win a guy over. Gosh, why isn’t he rushing to the keyboard to answer you? The mind boggles.
Its over bro. You’ve lost. Man up and take it on the chin.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are literally making Blue look sane.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Does Mike think that copyright infringement is immoral? We don’t know.”
He has stated over and over again that he thinks it’s immoral.
You’d know that if you actually read this blog or gave a shit about this subject.
I disagree with him. A lot of copyright infringement – allowing your radio to copy an unauthorized radio station broadcast, for example – is perfectly moral and legal too.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He says he thinks that it’s a waste of time to discuss the ethical element of copyrights. You can disagree with him about that, but I don’t see how it’s “weasel words”.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
He says he thinks that it’s a waste of time to discuss the ethical element of copyrights.
Of course he does. He can’t defend his beliefs.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And let me guess. Google’s to blame for your horrendous reading comprehension skills.
Re: Re:
Mike! Y u no debate me!?
Re: Re:
So by your logic, since movie theaters are intermediaries between Hollywood and the public, they’re responsible for piracy, right?
Re: Re: Re:
The National Association of Theater Owners has been on the forefront in the fight against piracy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google has also complied the same way the theaters have, but you didn’t answer my question…are theater owners responsible for piracy acting as intermediaries for content?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess they’re not doing a very good job then.
Re: Re:
” Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath waiting.”
Actually, at this point, I would really rather appreciate it if you would hold your breath.
Re: Re:
why is this guys ip not made public
Re: Re: Re:
Day after day after day, post after post after post, I’ll keep reminding everyone that Mike is too chicken shit to discuss his beliefs. Your solution? Out my identity. Classic Techdirt. The sycophants love privacy until it’s not convenient for them. You fit in well here.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Out your identity? Conveniently for you, we still have no idea who you are.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Actually, we just. Don’t. Care. Love and Hate are not opposites. Empathy and Antipathy are. Even if you hate someone, you are empathetic with them, as they are driving your mood.
Re: Re:
AJ this “why won’t you debate me” is getting tiresome.
Do something useful for a change like walking in front of a bus, humanity would be grateful.
Re: Re: Re:
AJ this “why won’t you debate me” is getting tiresome.
I will ask over and over and over and again and again and again.
Why is he SO SCARED to say whether he personally thinks infringement is immoral?
What’s he hiding?
Ask him yourself. Mike is too scared to answer no matter who asks. He’s INCAPABLE of having an honest discussion.
I’ll derail thread after thread, reminding everyone over and over of what a fake Mike is.
He can prove me wrong with one simple post where he directly and honestly addresses the issues. He will NEVER do this.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny thing is, you aren’t convincing anyone with your crusade. The only things you are doing is driving up mikes clicks and his revenue from advertising, acting childish and polarizing people against you.(except the one or 2 who are already in your camp, singing to the choir, etc)
You exhibit all the signs of insanity.
You aren’t Travis Tygart, you know. You aren’t in a position to actually affect any change on Mikes life, unlike Travis with Lance Armstrong. You aren’t in charge of any sanctioning body, or in fact anything. You are a bit player here and tthat’s all you’ll ever be.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
{Chuckle} Derail a thread?
You really think a lot of yourself, don’t you?
TD will go on with or without you, just as it would with me.
Sure you can put on your moral superiority hat and tilt against that windmill all you want.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you want this question answered so badly?
I understand you’re trying to prove Mike is some kind of terrible person, but the fact that you’re a lawyer and resort to childish badgering is kind of astounding.
Also, you don’t seem to understand the fact that the pushing and derailing you attempt only strengthens the resolve of everyone here.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have the argumentative style of a 5-year-old. Grow up.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“derail thread after thread”
Every time your little fuck buddies like horse with no name insist that hidden posts are enhancing discussion and debate is a reminder how either out of touch with reality you all are, or how delusional you think that such moral panicking is working.
Fine, so you’re honest and upstanding. Every time your fuck buddies complain that dissenting views are being shut down this quote will be repeated for all to see. You’re not here to discuss. You’re not here to debate. All you’re here to do is do an impotent job of keeping information about your heroes suppressed.
Maybe you should ask Nazaire for some tips on how to be batshit crazy. He already does it in the courts; you could learn a thing or two from him.
Re: Re:
I would suggest that some of these comments are getting totally out of hand, damned abusive and possibly close to libellous. No way to track this obvious nut-case down? Someone probably knows who he/she is. Could be a little girl, judging by the childishness and lack of substance of the comments.
So, using the same logic with cars
It’s Ford’s fault that I can run over and kill someone with my Ford car. It doesn’t matter if I ran them over by accident, or did it on purpose. Ford should be charged with being an accomplice to tens of thousands of murders where the killer used a Ford car to run someone over.
Ford is even worse then all the other car companies, since they’re the first ones to sell affordable cars for the middle class and poor.
So, Google’s making it easier for law enforcement to find lawbreakers. And it gets attacked by the Attorney General for it.
I wonder if Mr. Hood is on the take? Maybe he just doesn’t want his friends to be found…
Re: Re:
Which is indeed the point… if as stated:
Then it must be just as “easy” for the owner of said content etc to find it so where are the gazillion lawsuits against the actual perpetrators.
Of course, I’m sure that if Google is shut down all those “illegal websites” will magically vanish never to re-appear again… right?
A problem as old as the hills
Years ago, the local phone directory in my area contained listings… and even an ad… from Walt’s Automotive Service Center. (Sound like the phone company was “profiting handsomely”, right, Mr. AG?)
But ol’ Walt would sell you a state inspection sticker for $100, no matter what shape your rusted-out, supercharged time bomb of a vehicle was in. Criminal action, and one which endangered other drivers and even passers-by. And unfair to those who paid to properly maintain their cars.
It’s the phone company’s fault, I say! Mega-corporation with deep pockets, profiting handsomely by cleverly “looking the other way”. Sue them! Shut them down!
Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
This is a state which didn’t ratify the 13th Amendment to the Constitution — the one that bans slavery — until THIS YEAR.
I doubt that any of the inbred morons, the drunk hillbillies, the racist rednecks, the illiterate hicks, or the drug-addicted bigots living there have the intellectual capacity to use Google…so what’s to worry about?
Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
Yeah.
William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, Tennessee Williams, George Ohr, Vernon Dahmer, Medgar Evers, Elvis Presley, Sam Cooke, Bo Diddley, Jim Henson, Morgan Freeman, James Earl Jones, Oprah Winfrey… etc. etc. off the top of my head.
Rednecks one and all! And illiterate, I’m sure!
I think the only bigot here is you.
Re: Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
Anomalies?
😉
Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
Here’s a truth bomb, launching straight from my home outside of Meridian, Mississippi: You’re a fucking idiot.
Re: Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
Here’s another: The Alabama State Motto:
Thank God for Mississippi!!!
Re: Oh, wait..."Mississippi"?
Nothing to worry about there.A State that makes War on Women and loves to Teach its Children Jesus Fake Science.
Add those to your list.
I find it odd, all these politicians can find counterfit goods. I never find counterfit goods. What must they type in the searchbox.
Re: Re:
Search results change based on your search habits. If they search for counterfeit stuff a lot and browse pages related to such stuff, Google’s algorithm will bring up more related pages.
“Man, this new Rolex look-a-like will be nice on the campaign trail. I should campaign against counterfeit products, as I am very experienced in such dealings.”
no one has posted that if there legal alternatives that were as good as the reported illegal methods, there would be no problem with links being posted everywhere, there would be no need for any company to spend their own money protecting an industry that doesn’t want to pay to protect itself, doesn’t want to adapt to the digital age, doesn’t actually want to do anything at all to meet customers wants but then expects to be able to get governments everywhere to protect it, get laws changed back to how they were hundreds of years ago, prevent the advancement of media and loads of other things, get customers classed and treated as criminals, receiving longer jail sentences than someone committing a real, serious crime like rape, robbery, murder etc and wonder why they are looked at as being the scum of the earth that, like the governments, no one trusts, no one gives a flyin’ fuck about and cant wait until it no longer exists!! the whole industry is nothing short of a fucking joke that couldn’t last a week if it weren’t for all the bribes it throws around, getting itself looked after by corrupt politicians and law enforcement agencies!
So, in a shocking twist, the search engine returns what you ask for. Clearly, we shouldn’t go after the people providing the material. Clearly, we shouldn’t go after the people receiving the material. Obviously, we should go after the streetmap telling the druggies how to get to the buy.
I see what you did there. Nice.
Hood didn’t buy Google’s explanations that it only removes content from search results in a narrow set of circumstances, pointing out that Google blocks child pornography and has removed content that glorifies the Nazi party. “Why will Google not remove websites or de-index known websites that purport to sell prescription drugs without a prescription or provide pirated content?” Hood asked.
The answer is obvious. Google can’t make money on child porn or Nazis, so they get blocked.
Bogus prescriptions, infringing content and fake designer clothes…. well, there are obvious free speech implications there…. right???
Fuck Google.
Exclusive: SEARCH ENGINES FINDS WEBSITES ON INTERNETS!"
Shock! Horror! Hold the front page! Stone the blasphemers!
Libraries index things too. Some of those things show you how to do illegal things. Quick, shut down the libraries! Shoot the librarians!! Knowledge is a bad thing.
Re: Re:
In fact libraries and librarians are even worse! They maintain copies of this information and will LOAN it to you , no charge.
In fact Libraries are like ships for pirates (librarians). They should all be burned and the librarians hanged!!!
/s
Attorney General Jim Hood should post a list of those dangerous drugs he is talking about, I am willing to bet that there are people out there who would like to stay away from the dangerous drug counterfeits that he is mentioning.
Re: Re:
So get after the host providers.
Technical illiteracy and spouting decrees just makes you look stupid.
No worries
Google has the best legal team in the industry. I doubt they’re going to worry about this nonsense, or have any trouble smacking it down. Or agree to anything that hurts them.
the more idiots like this that are given important, powerful roles, the more it becomes apparent just what idiots they are!! funny how as soon as their is something going on that these people cant control themselves, how they have no clue at all about how to control these different things, that everything is Google’s fault! Google could do more, i agree. for a start it could start to stand up to fucking idiots that want to make a name for themself by getting Google to do something that is easily got round. then they could stand up for their customers, you know, the very people that put Google where it is today. then it could start seriously protecting the internet, the thing that made it what it is today. if it doesn’t want to do that, then take notice of every friggin nut job with a title that comes along and tries to blame it for everything and just shut down! problem solved!!
It’s not Google’s fault, it’s the creators fault. Stop creating and there won’t be copies made.
Caution
Keep in mind that Google played a large part in the downfall of SOPA being the only Tech company who could buy a seat at the table. Clearly back then they all of them blamed Google and not the 13 million public who voiced their protest.
So to avoid further disruption to their future anti-Internet proposed laws it is time for them to neuter or to kill Google.
DCMA take-down notices have shot through the roof since then when millions of links get censored monthly. In this modern World of punishing lawful linkage then both sides of the infringement fence are happy to declare Google as the King of Piracy even if for very different reasons.
So today the Copyright Cartels flex their power over the Administration by having an Attorney General attack Google with much more due.
All part of the downfall of Google who sits and takes it like some masochist. Most ironic in all this is that other search engines are much less censored
Miss. AG’s logic:
The little boy who pointed out that the Emperor is naked is clearly responsible for the Emperor being naked.