), Google is being criticized for search results that
display sites that feature pirated content. Even when seemingly innocent
searches are made, such as just a movie title, sites featuring pirated content
are displayed. This means that even when individuals are not intending to watch
pirated material, they may end up doing so accidentally.
It is already known that many people use search engines in
order to find pirated material online. As this article states, in the
report Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy, it is stated
that 74% of those surveyed have “admitted to using a search engine for wither
discovery of pirated content or for navigating around what the MPAA calls
‘domains with infringing content.’”
However, putting the people who are blatantly seeing illegal
content, who is actually to blame when innocent individuals end up doing
something illegal online? On one side, an individual searching for a movie
online, and finding a download link for that movie should have the common sense
to understand that this is not legal, nor it is ethical. Movies are extremely
expensive productions that make those expenses in order to entertain the
public, and get their money. With
this said, it should be obvious to any user that a movie would not be posted on
the internet and available for download for no price at all.
Though, because these users were not intending to search for
pirated material, and yet the material still appeared in their search, how can
they be to blame when they click on the link and then find what they are
looking for? The user, in this case, is trying to be cautious and may not
actually have any malicious intent in his/her search. In this case, it could be
at the fault of the search engine itself for allowing those results to appear.
The search engines will ultimately be held responsible for being the tool that
users use to find malicious content, whether intentionally searched or not. In
this case, a search engine would be similar to a person who did not commit a
murder, but because this individual aided in committing a murder, he/she is
still held responsible and charged.
It should be in the best interest of the search engine to
not only block sites that contain pirated content (as Google states they have
plans to do in the referenced article), but also to block certain searches from
the user. For example, Instagram blocks certain hashtags to prevent the display
of some inappropriate material. Hashtagging obscenities will not lead to a
stream of images with those hashtags. Instead, it will lead to an empty page.
In the same way, in order to prevent search engines from aiding in finding
pirated content, they should block certain words or phrases. For example,
searching a movie title and then “torrent” should either disregard the word
torrent, or disregard the search completely.
Although controlling the search words and phrases made by
the users could solve the issue of leading to pirated content, it would greatly
impede on the freedom of the individual on the internet. This is, after all,
the United States of America where people should be allowed to search what that
desire, even if it is incriminating.
In conclusion, solving the issue of pirating websites
appearing in search results only creates more problems, making the ideal
solution difficult to find. In my opinion, it is of the responsibility of the
users to recognize when they are impeding on illegal content and should
navigate away from those sites. While the search engines also hold some
responsibility in limiting the search results, it would be unethical to limit
what people can actually search. Therefore, the combined solution of search
engines limiting search results and
internet users being educated and cautious while using the internet is the
ideal solution to this problem.
"Although controlling the search words and phrases made by the users could solve the issue of leading to pirated content, it would greatly impede on the freedom of the individual on the internet."
ReplyDeleteI was waiting for that kind of statement. As someone who "knows people who torrent," I know *they* would be very shocked, amongst millions of others (maybe thousands perhaps), to have a censored Google. Of course, I'm sure there might be some censors possibly, but as far as I can tell, Google seems quite uncensored. Either way, while Google is a facilitator of torrenting, although indirectly, censoring would be like banning guns (just a comparison) -- it doesn't change the fact that guns exist and can still be found, it just makes it a bit more difficult. Good find, Rita.
I agree that attempting to censor Google is a unreasonable way to prevent piracy. There are many other search engines other than Google and to censor Google would mean you would have to attempt to censor them all. Censoring Google would also mean that there are certain results or websites which are restricted and it would make more sense to filter that on a internet service provider level.
ReplyDeleteA solution such as filtering searches including the term "torrent" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of torrents. Using torrents is not inherently illegal because it is simply a way to exchange data. There are plenty of companies that legally offer free software through the use of torrents. It would be unfair to block the use of a service because it can be misused.