There have been many who compare Google to ThePirateBay. The technical front may be more of a grey area that can be debated back and forth, but the line that defines the differences between Google and ThePirateBay may be a little more blurry on that technical side after one observant user spotted Google’s hosted web app that allows users to access BitTorrent trackers.
People who are frustrated at the guilty verdict handed down to ThePiratebay, to which the admins have currently vowed to appeal, have been quick to draw comparisons between ThePirateBay and Google. One user went so far as to create a mash-up website called ThePirateGoogle – a website that has since been blocked.
Even though lawyers have been contemplating the legal implications of the guilty verdict for Google, one observant user noticed a feature in the Google AppEngine that may be a surprise to many. It’s a service known as IPNM which allows users to use BitTorrent trackers to upload to friends – an app that is currently hosted by Google.
It should be noted that the service has been running for about a month now, but it’s confusing that when Google cries foul over people comparing them to ThePirateBay when they, in turn, offer an app that provides a similar service themselves. While it doesn’t appear that the service is searchable yet, what’s to stop someone from creating a private forum and running the BitTorrent service through IPNM? That much isn’t clear. What also isn’t clear is whether or not the service is filtered.
Still, this won’t do much to quell those who say that there is a double standard going on here – more than likely re-invigorate the debate.
For reference, when some people refer to the “Google double standard”, there are those who believe there is a legal double standard when it comes to looking at how Google operates and one of the reasons why ThePirateBay was found guilty. As referenced in the article regarding the legal implications towards Google, ThePirateBay was found guilty based on the fact that it is possible to download copyrighted material through their services. There are those who say that given that it is possible to download copyrighted material through Google in some form or another, then there should not have been a reason that ThePirateBay should have been found guilty – thus, why is Google allowed to operate in Sweden thanks to this ruling? So essentially, the “Google double standard” to some is not a criticism towards Google, but rather a criticism towards this point in the ruling that was handed down against ThePirateBay admins. It’s “double standard” because one site can operate in such a way while another website can’t in a similar fashion. It’s “Google” because the comparisons are primarily referencing Google.
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.
Related Posts
- The Pirate Google Launches
- Google Removes, Reinstates Pirate Bay in Search Results
- Google Broadens Wireless Access to Its Services
- Trackers, Google and Filesharing. Is there a difference?
- Google Offers Free Office Bundle To Rival Microsoft
Loading ...
I wish people would shut up about Google. If they want to have a double standard, LET THEM! If they want to have a tracker with Batman on it, FINE. Many many site say they don’t have copyrighted material on them but they do. We should leave Google alone.
I’m not sure you understand what’s being compared, it’s not about copyrighted content because obviously TPB doesn’t have copyrighted content – it merely links to content that could be copyrighted in a similar fashion to Google. What’s in it’s index can’t 100% be controlled since it’s partially user generated to an extent.
Sorry, but that’s BS. IPNM is not a feature in or of the AppEngine, but an App running on top of it. Which means that Google doesn’t offer it as a service, but hosts it, in the same way a web hosting provider may host a tracker server.
IPNM is also by far not the only P2P app running on top of Google’s App Engine. Littleshoot for example is making extensive use of the App Engine:
http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-905.html
Very well, you can say it’s not explicitly endorsed by Google, but the app is, nevertheless, hosted by Google. I never said it was the only app either.
In any event, it doesn’t really defeat the argument that there is a double-standard going on here.
How is it a double standard? Hosts usually aren’t in the business of screening client content before it’s published and there’s nothing inherently illegal about the bittorrent protocol.
Their terms of use are explicitly against violating intellectual property too (and you better believe if the app was shown to be violating copyright it would be pulled so fast your head would spin).
http://code.google.com/appengine/terms.html
I’m confused, could you explain what it is you want? You wont be happy until Google removes all references to bittorrent from their index, and bans anything to do with filesharing from appengine?
How could you possibly think this is a good thing, why are you hassling them for being liberal and open?
The Google App Engine is a means to host applications on server hardware that YOU own or lease… in the same way that a LAMP stack does… Google is NOT hosting a torrent tracker in Russia,
The author of this article is an idiot.
It’s nice to know that users have the ability to split hairs. It’s ironic that users come to me and tell me how I fanboy Google all day long and yet I see none of that here. Seriously, was the point of the article missed on everyone?
If not, here’s the lowdown. A decision by a judge on TPB case said that if there is potential for copyright infringement to occur on a given service, then that website is held liable. Google is currently hosting a web app that can be used for copyright infringement. Why, then, can’t both sites operate in the same country legally if a court decision says such a thing about the laws of Sweden?
I’m happy to correct a small detail like this, but this is a side issue that some of you are making such huge mountains out of mole-hills.
Funny, I just used google today to find some torrents which were ironically on ThePirateBay! Go figure!
RT
http://www.privacy-web.net.tc
What exactly is going to happen to TPB from this whole ordeal?
What a crappy article. Wasted my time.
Pens and pencils are tools that could be used for copyright infringement. Shouldn’t they be involved?
The problem with this article isn’t the point you make in the comments. That point is valid. The problem is that the article doesn’t make the “web host” point at all.
“…when they [Google], in turn, offer an app that provides a similar service themselves.”
For a website to “offer” an app means to the general public that Google developed this application, and is wanting the world to use it. Google offers the application Google News. GoDaddy does not offer ZeroPaid, just because they’re your domain registrar. Your host doesn’t offer ZeroPaid, either. In short, this article reads all wrong when it comes to the point you claim to be trying to make, so you better fix that up before you start saying users are misinterpreting it. It’s your own choice of words that causes this issue, not readers being silly ;D
And I don’t believe anybody is going to get Google in trouble for offering their App Engine service. The only debate sparked here is over your terminology xD
I’m getting the sense that some of you are actually just reading the headline and scrolling down to criticise me without actually reading the article (not saying everyone is doing that, but some of you I’m pretty sure are guilty of this sort of thing).
1. In no way did I say in this article that I think there is a double standard going on here, only to highlight the debate of the double standard.
2. Every single paragraph in this article either links to or references ThePirateBay or explicitly has “ThePirateBay” in there, thus making it very obvious that this article is talking about ThePirateBay. A point that some of you probably missed either accidently or intentionally.
3. I’ve editted the article to include a nice long paragraph to define the “Google double standard” since so many of you seem to either accidently or purposely misinterpret this point in the article. The original article actually spells out what I’m talking about throughout and if you’ve read any previous articles, you’ll be even more likely to know WTH I’m talking about. Now that I have the definition in there, it should be twice as obvious to know that the viewpoint being held by those who think this way actually is and where it comes from.
…and for those who still think I blindly just hate Google, you can feel free to read this recent article – http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86161/chinese-government-mandated-search-engine-blacklist-leaked/
I appologize for any confusion some may have in reading an unbiased report that discusses a side of an issue that others tend to ignore because some find it an unpopular opinion.
being legal does not equal being a pussy. Being smart is not being a pussy.
If ever there was a time for Admiral Ackbar, this is it boys!
If ever there was a time for Admiral Ackbar, this is it boys!
Same project on GAE Java SDK
http://a-torrent.appspot.com