Google in Trouble for Suggesting Illegal Software 370
JehCt writes "Google is being sued over the 'suggest' feature built into its latest toolbar. InfoWorld reports: 'ServersCheck, a small company that makes network monitoring software,' is complaining that, 'If ServersCheck is entered, Google generates suggested search terms such as serverscheck crack, serverscheck pro crack and serverscheck keygen which lead to pirated software.' In an apparent public relations blunder, Google claimed to have no way of filtering suggestions. However, Google can and does filter because the toolbar won't provide suggestions for keywords like 'porn'."
No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Informative)
The exhaustive results of google search is one thing, but making suggestions to illegal activity in the toolbar is taking it a bit over the line.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
If an ad happens to offer free software, the target of the complaint shouldn't be Google but instead the business that is actually breaking the law. That's what makes sense to me.
Google should be able to take the ads down and halt service of those ads if an inquiry is warranted.
Otherwise, I've got a great business plan:
1. Make a piece of shill software.
2. Have your friend start a business that cracks it and offers it throu
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Informative)
To clarify, this isn't Google's AdWords advertising that's under scrutiny. It's the 'suggest' feature of the new toolbar. Similar to what's found here [google.com].
Personally I don't care for the feature. If I'm going to search for something I can type it in myself. If I make a mistake, Google has taught me that spelling correctly isn't as important as it used to be
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess this means a lot of people search for these things. But it's probably fair to complain about Google actually suggesting these search terms.
I personally disagree with this complaint, but I understand it.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with suggesting those search terms? First of all they are search terms. Searching for them isn't illegal. Getting pirated copies is. Second, some of those have dual meanings that are hard to filter. Cracks could relate to things that are not software related, how would the software know the difference? Finally, not every one of those are necessarily illegitimate. Cracks have their legitimate uses. Every gamer I know cracks their single player games that they paid for, so that they don't have to keep the cd in the drive when playing. People with legitimate copies of windows crack them so they don't have to go through the activation process every time they format / reinstall.
DMCA, yeah, yeah...That law needs to be rescinded.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google Suggest is a brand name for a search engine running against a database of collected popular combinations of search terms. It is no more an set of actual suggestions from Google as the term "suggestion" is used in casual conversation than Microsoft Office is an actual "office", or Microsoft Sam and Mary are actual little people living inside your computer that talk to you, or than Mozilla Firefox is a flambeed mammal.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
At least posting this comment will zero out the effect (no means to undo the mod)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is probably too obvious, but because the messenger has billlyuns and billllyuns of dollars and the people that are actually doing something illegal are A: hard to catch and B: have (by design, or because they're the type of people who find it difficult to get a legitimate job) few available assets.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Interesting)
What will they say to the shareholders when profits go down 80%?
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because moderators believe in hope, however ill conceived it may be.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Funny)
I hope I get mod point s again soon.
I hope I don't get metamodded for moderation abuse.
I hope this comment doesn't get modded down.
I hope that was the preview button.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Insightful)
this guy sounds like he's taking it a little overboard. but you are correct, google made a mistake saying they couldn't filter them out when they do regularly filter results anyways (china's google for instance?)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the reasons that Google can't effectively filter in the States is that in English (and, I assume, most other languages), one word can have multiple meanings. There are many reasons that the word "crack" (or some such) and the name of a piece of software can legitimately be on the same page. They don't even have to be related -- multiple entries on the same pag
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is, I am afraid, incorrect. Google is a US company, and censors according to the requirements of US law everywhere (though in some countries it censors under local laws too, as in the cases of China, France, and Germany). Google.cn, google.de, google.fr, google.co.nz, etc etc, all censor the same results that get censored in the US, complete with the standard DMCA notice, even though the DMCA is not in effect in any of those countries. I contacted Google about this when I noticed it, and they pretty quickly confirmed that this is indeed the case.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:2, Insightful)
No one is going to believe that technical restrictions shit, especially not from Google. I mean, they didn't believe it from Napster (they were lying, too) and they're definitely not going to take that line from Google, which is widely considered to be a collection of some of the smartest people in technology.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the first hit [sharewareconnection.com] using the search terms "serverscheck crack":
Shareware Connection periodically updates pricing and software information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it. Software piracy is theft, Using crack, password, serial numbers, registration codes, key generators (keygens), warez is illegal and prevent future software development.
How would you go about filtering this site? Curious.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what about if those words were being used for legitimate purposes? (Admittedly, I can't think of any legitimate reason most people would do so)
At any rate, I think Google is on the right side trying to remain value-neutral with respect to content as much as possible. They have to respond to pressure on things like pornography sometimes, but if the system is built upon the way people are actually using it, the less they mess with their system the better it should be.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this gains any kind of traction, it will probably lead to the demise of the suggest program. All someone has to do is preform a few actions (create a product, website, preform searches, etc.) and then they can sue Google.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's exactly like page-rank. If you go searching for "Santorum" because you're looking for Senator Rick Santorum's personal website, you're not going to find it as the first result, because more pages link to spreadingsantorum.com than they do linking to the senator's site... But instead of the content of the web dictating what come
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Informative)
They very likely *can't* do that with the product they have today. It is a technically possible solution that Google could impliment, but not one that they are capable of today.
In regards to the pornography, Google probably determined that porn showed up far too often when searching for something unrelated. They likely hardcoded the application to avoid displaying those hits.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:2)
The way I see it, the only reasonable solution for Google is to have no special cases at all.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is not a legitimate use.
Not in the same category as using a no-cd crack to play a warez copy of a game, I'll admit. But I bet the EULA and/or license for the game forbids you from using such software.
A crack or a keygen may make it much easier for you to run software that you are entitled to use, and using one in such a situation might not (and probably will not) result in litigation, but that does not mean it's a legitimate use.
grnbrg.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3)
Re:ethicitimacy or moritimacy? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, fine then. I take issue with the choice of the word "legitimate!"
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Informative)
No, because this violates copyright law, and is not in the EULA.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of legitimate uses, but, it's a minor convenience, so it shouldn't be a big deal. It's not like you can't search for those words, it just won't suggest them.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, yes. They should be able to.
From a business standpoint, I don't see why Google should be compelled to modify their code for the benefit of ServersCheck or any other party who would complain about the behavior of the tool.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:2)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see how this can be difficult. All Google is doing is querrying it's databases for the most frequent search terms that match ServersCheck*. Its kind of hard to classify in what contexts should certain phrases not be suggested. I mean, if I started typing "G4 Cube", it might be perfectly legitimate for google to suggest "G4 Cube Cracks", not because I want to search for craked software for a G4 Cube but because the cases for this machine were known to develop cracks. The word has many meanings, and if you can figure out a way to programatically determine whats ment by a short phrase worth of context, then it has alot more practicall uses then filtering Google.
Keygen, I could see just skipping over for suggestions. Not as many legitimate uses. Of course, that starts down a very slippery slope, especially when you think of things like Google.cn
This can be a bad thing (Score:2, Insightful)
If there is an automated way, what is there to prove that a competitor is not doing it?
Does that mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is what the article seems to imply, and knowing how Google does things, I would bet money on it.
So, in other words they are being sued for an algorithm that is based on input from people based on their behavior, so of course Google is to blame (bigger pockets and a name than random anonymous joe smoe that actually did the searching).
The thing that sucks is because the 70-80 year old judge that probably cannot do anything besides use a push button telephone is actually going to ponder this for more than the 20 seconds it takes a technology minded person to ponder it.
Its just an algorithm based on user input. Much like searching for miserable failure [google.com]. Google may or may not collectively agree with the result of such search, but they did not dope their search database with the information. It just happened. Shit happens.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:2)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:3, Informative)
If a company is losing lots of money to piracy, that means most of the time that they're charging too much - high school economics has told me more than enough to figure out that charging less means more sales, and the
That's not the way the world works... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, do you see the inherent flaw in letting warez kiddies dictate the pricing structure of your product?
Photoshop must be the most widely cracked software out there, second only to Windows XP (just a guess). It's not terribly expensive - $700 or so, right? - and there are both low-cost and free alternatives (Photoshop Elements, the Gimp, etc.). Does that stop anyone from cracking Photoshop CS? Nope.
Supply and demand dictate the price of your product. ServersCheck and Photoshop CS are not high-demand mass-market consumer products. They're priced accordingly. And since they're used by professionals, there's a return on the investment. Theoretically, ServersCheck will maximize your uptime. My legit copy of Photoshop CS has allowed me to generate thousands of dollars of income for my company (not that I couldn't have done that with the Gimp, but I've been using Photoshop since version 2.51 and I'm pretty set in my ways).
While supply and demand controls pricing, you hope that your product sells enough to recoup your investment in development, distribution, and marketing, along with covering your recurring expenses and perhaps a bit of profit on top of that. If not, you cut expenses. Adobe is a publicly traded company; while cutting the price of Photoshop CS2 might push a few more units out the door, that would come at the expense of profits and perhaps result in a net loss. Cue the shareholder revolt in 3...2...1...
Finally, the whole warez culture is not about being able to use software that you can't afford. It's all about hoarding, the digital equivalent of those ladies who live with 50 cats. It's irrational. Why you would want to hitch the pricing of your product to that sort of thing is even crazier.
k.
Re:That's not the way the world works... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too Bad! (Score:3, Insightful)
Telling Google to filter those selections is rediculous! If the company doesn't like people supplying cracks/serials then go after the offender... not Google just because they no they exist. I'm tired of all this crap. Pretty soon the MPAA and RIAA will go after Google because they index illegal mp3 and movies. What the hell is wrong with this world?
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:Too Bad! (Score:2)
Re:Too Bad! (Score:2)
Re:Too Bad! (Score:2)
Re:Too Bad! (Score:2)
serverscheck professionel
serverscheck pro
serverscheckpro
serverscheck review
5 of 10.
Re:Too Bad! (Score:2)
I'll tell you what's wrong... Thieves steal, then the crowds side with the thieves. That, and people can't spell ridiculous.
The wonderful thing about the US legal system (Score:3, Insightful)
a. tossed out of court;
b. found totally without cause; or
c. settled because the group/person being sued doesn't have enough legal firepower or deep pockets to fight the case.
I predict that Google, who have just a teeny bit of money, isn't too worried about this one.
Now, if it were say a Linux distro being sued by say a Unix license owner who claimed they had stolen their code, that's another animal, but that's because most distros don't have deep pockets or lawyers to throw on fires for no good reason.
Yes unless the animal is a 800 pound blue gorilla (Score:2)
But yes this is another story of sue happy america. Got to love the US of A. Especially the fact that it is an ocean away.
No Porn Suggestions?! (Score:2, Funny)
I was wondering when this was going to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Since then I've been wondering when the major search engines were going to be sued because they link to illegal content such as child porn and pirated software.
It'll be interesting to see how this pans out and if Google does lose you can surly expect to see others joining in against them and others due to the precedent it sets.
Re:I was wondering when this was going to happen (Score:3, Informative)
That's too broad of an interpretation, I believe. The specific law, as I recall, involved made it illegal to distribute certain kinds of information (which they should have found unconstitutional, but that's another problem), and they found that linking to the information violated that law. I'm pretty sure the court in that case did not articulate a general rule that it is categor
Re:I was wondering when this was going to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the same lawsuit with a defendant of higher moral character would have had a different result (eg., Google).
In some cases, the judge can't seem to look at the law instead of the defendant. I think 2600 was one of those cases. The judge saw scary hackers and seem to react "they must be stopped". It was a stupid ruling from a stupid judge. Don't expect that to slow Google down one bit.
Why are they suing Google? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why are they suing Google? (Score:2)
Re:Why are they suing Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats like charging someone with a crime because he knows where the neighborhood crackhouse is.
Re:Why are they suing Google? (Score:3, Interesting)
The company representative even says this. He doesn't care so much that search results link to warez and crack sites, when you search for the terms "warez" and "cracks" along with the company name.
He's concerned that legitimate customers, who just want to find the website, are being encouraged to search for warez and cracks
Play with this feature w/o the toolbar (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Play with this feature w/o the toolbar (Score:2)
Hmm, the Learn more [google.com] link on the Google suggest page is broken.... but I was able to google for the right link: http://labs.google.com/suggest/faq.html [google.com]
So this is that assinine feature that I found (Score:2)
Thank so much. I was wondering why google at one point was trying to complete my search terms for me. It was driving me crazy because the number one search term at that time for Mythbusters was concerning their sexuality.
Re:Play with this feature w/o the toolbar (Score:3, Interesting)
Based on Searches (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Based on Searches (Score:2)
It is very likely that Google COULD implement some special case filtering, but as you point out, it could cost a lot of time and resources. I think they are actually concerned that caving in would set a precident that would just snowball.
At the same time, Google has proved time and again that they are very capable of scaling their applications, so I bet they could work out something... it's just a hell of a lot easier to not get the ball moving in that di
They're right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're right (Score:2, Funny)
The internet is really really great.
TREKKIE MONSTER
For porn!
KATE MONSTER
I got a fast connection so I didn't have to wait.
TREKKIE MONSTER
For porn!
KATE MONSTER
There's always some new site.
TREKKIE MONSTER
For porn!
KATE MONSTER
I browse all day and night.
TREKKIE MONSTER
For porn!
KATE MONSTER
It's like I'm surfing at the speed of light.
TREKKIE MONSTER
For porn!
KATE MONSTER
(spoken)
Trekkie!
TREKKIE MONSTER
(sung)
The internet is for porn! The internet is for porn!
Why do you think the net was born?
Porn! Porn! P
Can they filter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can they filter? (Score:3, Insightful)
"ServersCheck Crack Me Up"
I know it's silly, but it's a legitimate search with serverscheck that has the word crack in it. So now I could not see a site that, say, legally criticized the ServersCheck company?
I can see why "keygen" is tough, because I can't think of many legitimate uses for either that, or warez or something... but really, while they may HAVE the tech to monitor and filter, tha
Oh it's google so sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
He's trying to get Google to change the Suggest results. Van Laere uses Google's tool for analyzing Web traffic and found that about 93 percent of ServerCheck's customers come to their Web site by way of the popular search engine.
"We don't have any problems with the fact that in Google you can find illegal copies of our software," Van Laere said. "There are people who will never buy the product at the end of the day.
So they really weren't harmed, they just want some google cash! I noticed they refiled the suit. Did the first one get thrown out? Why is litigation always the first thing companies do? It seems they can't try just working out their differences by communication. If 93 percent of your customers are coming by way of google, do they really want to have the term servercheck blocked? They can block porn because it's an input term, not an output suggestion. See the difference?
why no "porn" suggestions: (Score:2, Funny)
faq 404 (Score:2, Interesting)
Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:2)
Re:Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:2)
They need something for the schools, and for the under-5 machine-home network if they truly don't want their software pirated (though I'd be more worried about losing sales to competitors in their case).
Re:Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:2)
Re:Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:3, Interesting)
And that last one is the guy you WANT to learn your software, and should be providing a $23 CD to with a license to monitor under 5 nodes. If he gets used to using it on his home network, he'll come to you for the $1500 license when he gets h
Seems Fair (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that I've stated teh obvious, this seems a perfectly fair thing to ask, both legally and ethically, even considering free speech, and the fact that the present model is ultimately based on the actual results/user request - which is a really nice way incidentally.
Google Suggest, even if GOOG would probably want to potray it as more of a user t
Re:Seems Fair (Score:3, Insightful)
What ServersCheck is asking Googles is to stop suggesting that people search for Serverscheck crack, when they were possibly trying to just search for ServersCheck.
The specific terms are irrelevant. ServerCheck is asking Google to make an exception to their algorithm, which says most people who entered "ServersCheck" were looking for a link to a product called "ServersCheck Crack." So what if most people entering "Word" are looking for a link to "MS Word" according to their algorithm? Would it be fair f
Common Carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC
So why is Google filtering the stuff?
Or would they not be common carrier?
Fundamental problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Aggregated information is just that: information. It is not owned or copyrighted by anyone. The judge should simply rule that Google is not the one to sue, because they do not own the fact that 1000 people searched for this result.
No worries. (Score:5, Insightful)
I Never Knew Keygens Were Pirated (Score:2)
Can anyone get to any "pirated software"? All I find are links to crack programs or keygens, which is good since it's what I searched for. Now then, are cracks & keygens illegal? In the US, does the DMCA make the answer yes? Fair enough if so, but should Google withdraw the data and apply the US law across the world? Of course this is only one step away from
Common problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Just for kicks I tried the following queries:
Photoshop
Paintshop
Autocad 2005
3d Studio Max
Fruity Loops
Windows 2000 Pro
Office 2003
Soundforge
*All* of them resulted in illicit entries appearing in the suggestions box.
that's crazy talk! (Score:5, Funny)
Why is this illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Could that lead to a new kind of Defacement ? (Score:2)
So it would be theorically possible that one of your concurrent launches a big "google suggest defacement attack" by doing tons of searches in google that leads google to suggest, for example, "sucks" or "morons" when your company names is entered ?
Well I suppose any 'feedback' technology can be abused those days and it is only a question of who is willing to pay more than what is po
With great power ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a US Case (Score:3, Informative)
I must say though, if we're going to get serious about monitoring the content on the internet (not saying we should...); this needs to be handled as international law because it's just retarded to do this on a country by country basis...
I read the posts, and no one is making this point (Score:5, Insightful)
Google shouldn't have to filter a damned thing.
Software to crack your own property is morally proper, no matter what laws the rich bastards have purchased. The "license to use, but you don't own this disk or the software" idea is manure. You buy it, you own it. That's how physical transactions work. An author of a book doesn't get to tell you how to read, store, or dispose of the book after you purchase it. Well, right now he can't. Wait a couple of years.
This is how people lose faith in the law. Make enough stupid, vicious laws to make powerful people happy, and soon no one respects the law, since they KNOW it's a scam to make powerful wealthy people happy.
I'm starting to see the end of the internet as we've known it. It's turning into corporate-controlled 21st century TV, complete with vice squads and corporate private cops busting people.
Time to start building encrypted darknet transmission systems, kids. The dark times are starting.
Fitlering different things (Score:4, Insightful)
This company's going to get shot down if they face Google in court. Their example of filtering is the opposite of what they're complaining about. They give an example of Google not offering suggestions for "sex", which means Google is filtering the input keywords. They then complain that Google doesn't exclude "servercheck keygen" from the result set for "servercheck", which would involve filtering the output set. Google's response will be, quite properly, "Yes, we can look at keywords and not offer any suggestions for a certain set of keywords. But that's not what you're asking. You're asking for us to filter the set of suggestions returned for potentially any set of keywords and remove certain suggestions but not others. And what criteria do we use to decide what's legitimate? "keygen" is entirely legitimate as a keyword for software to let authors generate license keys to issue to buyers of their own software, after all.".
Slippery Slope with Dominoes (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientology not wanting any critic sites suggested.
RIAA not wanting any alternative music/non-big 4 music sites suggested.
It would never end, and we end users are all poorer when censorship happens.
And don't think for a moment this company won't ask to have other download sites removed the moment it is proved it's possible. Google's defence has to be that it's not possible in an automated system.
Lastly, filter out crack and it will simply become cr@ck. You get the idea.
Filtering results VS. Blocking searches (Score:3, Informative)
Here we have a classic example of not understanding how things work. It is relatively easy to prevent searches for specific items such as "porn", "pussy", etc. One simply provides a list of terms in the program that result in no search being performed. Here is some psuedo-code.
@banned_words="porn","pussy","dick";
foreach word in @banned_words {
if ( @search_terms=~m/$word/ ) {
$naughty=1;
break;
}
}
return 1 if ($naughty);
do_search(@search_terms);
As one can see, it is a very simple operation which, as other have pointed out, is easily circumvented.
Filtering the results is a much trickier proposition because there is context involved.
The same code applied to results would prevent results containing "pussy cat" from appearing in a search for "cat". It would also prevent any referrence to someone named "Dick" from appearing in, say, a search of Vice Presidents or actors.
In the case of the results listed ("serverscheck crack", "serverscheck pro crack", and "serverscheck keygen")trying to filter "crack" and or keygen would result in a large number of valid sights being block for OTHER searches. Imagine the results from search on ssh-keygen if one filters "keygen" out of the results.
A very simple solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Should Google Filter Anything? (Score:4, Informative)
Nation X: "We don't want our nation mentioned in the same search results as 'democracy'! "
Religion X: "We don't want our religion mentioned in the same search results as 'evolution'! "
To paraphrase that great thinker, Yoda, "Once you start down the path of filtering, forever will it dominate your destiny."
Or was it "Start down path the filtering of once you, destiny dominate it forever your will." Something like that. But then he said a lot of stupid stuff when he was drunk.
Not a publich service. (Score:3, Insightful)
In ths case, we're not talking about filtering individual web pages but suggested search terms. Sure, they could filter those too, technologically. However, we get the same problem; It's going to mean some poor sap going through each search term and trying find the offensive or illegal ones. They could try just filtering some terms, but then you get things like this, with them being called hypocrites.
In the end, between the additional logistics required to filter every time someone complains and the additional drain on computer resources to do so, it's a more acceptable business decision to get the whiney people to go away than to try to appease them.
MSN too (Score:3, Funny)
Page 1 of 1,548 results containing "MS Cracks" (0.12 seconds)
Web Results
Page 1 of 1,673,265 results containing MS Cracks (0.10 seconds)
That's why we use Google :)