BitTorrent Sites: Google’s New Anti-Piracy Search Rules Will Help Us

Today Google began a new initiative that basically buries the search results of websites that have a substantial amount of "valid claims" of copyright infringement filed against it. But, as the BBC reports, two major file-sharing sites are saying that the new way in which Google is organizing the search results will likely drive even more traffic directly to their domains. So just who are the two sites making these claims? The Pirate Bay and Isohunt. Both sites also claim that Google search results are not their main source of traffic.

"That Google is putting our links lower is in a way a good thing for us. We'll get more direct traffic when people don't get the expected search result when using Google," said The Pirate Bay in a blog post. "The thing we don't like with this is… they're dictating terms."

Isohunt owner Gary Fung claims that only 21 percent of its traffic comes directly from Google.

"We have plenty of torrent links to non-copyright infringing content, and we'll be adding 1.4 million more from the Internet Archive soon," he wrote on an Isohunt forum.

Fung also questioned the validity of the removal notices, because he claims that they could be spammed.

Source: BBC

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    greevar says:

    They won't stop until they have absolute control over the internet so that they can turn things back to the way they were in the late 20th century where they were the only distributor of content and their relationship with the audience was a one-way street.

    They want to stop file-sharing, this much is true, but they also want to stop user-generated content, because that competes with their offerings and they certainly don't like to have to compete, they want a monopoly to dictate what we get to experience. They are fully aware that all art is created by taking pieces of prior art. They blatantly do this all the time to everyone else, but can't allow others to do the same with the content they built from other content. They also want to stop artists from breaking away from their "stable" of artists. If they can't control and monopolize an artist, they try to destroy any hope of them succeeding independently.

    Google is being complacent, even participatory, in the content industry's pursuit of creating a read-only internet.

  2. 0
    greevar says:

    This is a total waste of time. Where will it stop? The RIAA/MPAA will just keep demanding more and more obedience from Google, as they always have. They're just encouraging more of this behavior from these greedy bastards.

  3. 0
    Overcast says:

    Yeah, these companies in tech should know by now that a 'viral trend' can make or break a company. I don't agree with pirating software at all, but then I don't care for Google playing games with search results either. Google can fall just as quickly as they rose – just like AOL, Netscape, IBM, and quite a number more companies.

    I mean the point of a search engine – is just that – to search the web; not to try and dictate to me what site I should go to and which I should not visit, it only becomes a less useful tool then. There have been and will always be people who just want stuff for free; companies can choose to focus on innovation for the honest customers or they can chase their own tails trying to stop 'piracy'.

    Google is built on 'free' – not sure why they are even willing to cater to the concept of censorship and political pressure. I mean – all I have to do is point my homepage to Yahoo and forget about Google – it's not even hard nor would it cost me a cent – and if enough other people do the same; Google could be the Netscape of this decade. Because in the end, I just need accurate search results – I don't so much care what page I use to get them. Many of the others – Bing and Yahoo are decent enough to find what I need.

    But mostly – it's 'piracy' today – what's next tomorrow? Political viewpoints? Religious viewpoints? Of course that's next, it always is.


Leave a Reply