Google Refuses to Index Huge Streaming Movie Portal Homepage

enigmax
February 20, 2013
178
DMCA,
google,
Movie2K
Print

One of the Internet’s largest indexes for streaming movie and TV show content is locked in a dispute over the removal of the site’s homepage from Google’s search engine results. Movie2K, the 240th most-popular site in the world according to Alexa, had its main page delisted following a copyright complaint from Paramount Pictures and efforts to have it reinstated have failed. Google says it will not review the situation, even though the infringing material in question is no longer present.

As it comes under massive pressure from rightsholders, Google’s day to day copyright-related decisions – and indeed those of rightsholders – are coming under increasing scrutiny, largely thanks to the existence of Google’s Transparency Report and the DMCA takedown archive at Chilling Effects.

Through these reports we can look at copyright claims and the actions taken by Google, which overwhelmingly follow the US DMCA to the letter. Today, however, we look at an instance where the search engine appears to be going quite a bit further.

Movie2K is a site dedicated to indexing streaming movies and TV shows. Its indexes are huge and with as little as two clicks mountains of premium content – including movies still in theaters – will play in an embedded window.

To give an idea of how big the site is, Alexa ranks Movie2K as the 240th most popular site in the world but on a local level things are even more impressive. In Germany, for example, the site is ranked 19th, making it more popular than Twitter, Amazon, Apple, PayPal and Microsoft.

However, Movie2K is struggling to correct what it sees as an injustice. In March 2012, Paramount Pictures sent a copyright complaint to Google asking it to remove from its search listings two links to the movie Transformers: Dark of the Moons. However, while one was a specific URL, the other was Movie2K’s homepage.

As a result, for nearly a year Movie2K’s homepage has been absent from Google search results, despite requests to have it reinstated.

“We have received and reviewed your message. At this time, Google has decided not to take action based on our policies concerning content removal and reinstatement,” the search engine told Movie2K in April 2012.

During the months that followed Movie2K kept up their efforts but despite the Transformers movie not being listed on the site’s homepage or present at the URL listed in the DMCA complaint, Google still refuse to reinstate the site’s homepage to its listings.

“Thanks for reaching out to us. We have received and reviewed your DMCA counter notice. At this time, Google has decided not to take action based on our policies concerning content removal and reinstatement. We encourage you to review [link] for more information about the DMCA,” the company wrote in a recent email.

Google add that should Movie2K remove the allegedly infringing content from their entire site (the Transformers movie in question is currently available on another URL) and promise not to put it back, then Movie2K can let them know.

What appears to be happening in this particular instance is that when asked to remove a specific link Google responded as they are required to under the law. However, faced with a URL removal by Movie2K but a subsequent relisting of the content on another URL, Google considers the content as still up, a major problem if the URL is the site’s main page.

Movie2K admin Terry believes that Google is hinting at an even more aggressive solution to becoming re-listed.

“So they want us to remove all links which are somehow copyright infringement, that’s the only way we can have our index back listed on their search engine,” Terry told TorrentFreak. “That might happen to every other site, to thepiratebay, to mega.co.nz.”

But considering the infringement issues many content providers have with the site, is Google justified in issuing tough demands to Movie2K before reinstating its listing?

“If Google wants to filter all websites with infringing links, then they will need to do the same with a lot of sites in the world, especially with our competition like 1channel.ch and kinox.to since they all have copyright infringing material on their homepages,” Terry says.

The Movie2K admin concludes by saying that Google’s efforts against infringement are not only hurting his site but are actually boosting the chances of Internet users being harmed by malicious content.

“Delisting has a terrible effect. If you compare our Alexa stats we are still growing, but a lot of people aren’t able to find our site on Google and are instead diverted to malicious and virus infected websites,” Terry says.

“The bad guys have recognized that our website index is not listed on Google and are trying to make profit from their sites with similar names that appear in the results instead. Google knows that but they don´t care and in this case they are supporting such malicious and virus infected websites.”

While the rightsholders whose content is linked from Movie2K will be wholly unsympathetic to the site’s plight, this situation further highlights how Google is being forever drawn into the copyright debate. The decisions it makes have to strike a balance between the interests of many parties including those of rightsholders, site owners and the general public, not to mention their own.

Google received 14,380,699 takedown requests last month and is apparently struggling to keep up with demand, to the point where it has been forced to limit the number of complaints copyright holders can file. Rightsholders argue that this problem can be solved immediately if Google simply delists offenders’ sites.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

Name goes here

Well, luckily there are other search engines than Google…
- Romet6
  
  Are there?
  - Guest
    
    duckduckgo
    ixquick / startpage
    yandex
- Christopher Kidwell
  
  None that are as big, as full of content, etc.
  
  Google isn’t really following the law here, they are asking for MORE than the law calls for.
  - icec0ld
    
    Removing something from Google is like removing a word from the dictionary. Just because it’s gone doesn’t mean it wont be used.
- DoobyDoo
  
  Too bad they all suck
Guest

Remember when google used to be good?
- Guest
  
  Long time ago… When YouTube was cool.
  - GreenPirate
    
    Google did not own YouTube back then, right?
- NewWorldStoner
  
  In some ways, Google are still good. It is governments that are evil. They have created laws prohibiting information in order to “protect us”. So we can argue about whether or not Google should bow to these laws, but ultimately everyone knows we simply need to abolish them altogether. They only serve to propagate corporate greed as opposed to the benefit of the people.
  - Carlton
    
    Government is not forcing these takedowns. They are caused by private requests, not court orders. Movie2K is losing its listing due to collusion between Google and Paramount Pictures.
    
    This behavior by Google creates a golden opportunity for a competing search engine who will only do takedowns based on due process of law, not mere third-party accusations. We’ll see what develops.
    - Guest
      
      Of course it’s the government, Google would have nothing to fear if it wasn’t for the DMCA for example, see.
    - Guest321
      
      It is the government forcing these takedowns. Do you think any company wants to waste their manpower and resources for taking down millions of links everyday when their business depends upon those links staying intact? If the government didn’t enact laws that forced them to do it, Google would pay no heed to Hollywood’s request at all. It’s a case of either abiding by the law or face a lawsuit and risk getting fined billions if they lose.
    - NewWorldStoner
      
      Exactly, without addressing the root of the problem, the illness will keep coming back. Why waste energy treating symptoms when what’s needed is to eradicate the cause of the illness.
    - NewWorldStoner
      
      While the government are not actively enforcing the takedowns, the fact remains without government created laws such as the DMCA, this issue wouldn’t exist. Saying that this has nothing to do with government is like addressing the symptoms of a problem, but ignoring the root cause.
    - guest
      
      created laws in response to CORPORATE influence…..
    - highboi
      
      so if i dont comply with a take down the government wont pursue me at all? (pretending that i own google)
    - Frogger
      
      The law is only for those without money :)
    - The_Doorman
      
      Your comment brings to mind an article I read that Udacity (and online college) has a class about how to build your own search engine. Apparently over 200,000 people have taken the class. Would be interesting to see if anyone sees things the same as you (and I) do. I would look forward to that engine, and probably use it exclusively.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    Yes and then again, no.
    
    First, Google’s motto is “Don’t be evil” not “Be Good”. There’s a big difference. Google quite simply has vested interests in being able to operate and are facing a horde of experienced lawyers whose main interest on behalf of the MPAA and RIAA are putting google out of business completely.
    
    That means Google ensures they have their own back covered. Whether this is strategy meant to eventually allow a revision of the DMCA is anybody’s guess, though Google’s almost aspbergerish collection and summation of takedown data suggests something of this kind.
    
    And the reason Google has to cover their back to this extent is because the DMCA is, plainly put, insane.
    
    As a footnote it might interest some to know that “de-listing” doesn’t mean you can’t find it. Every link google has “taken down” is still available for non-US users.
    
    Meaning once again, VPN is your friend.
    
    That said, as Carlton has it, Google are playing a very dangerous game. Once the inevitable court case hits – from the MPAA or initiated by google – Google may very well be able to walk into court and demonstrably prove they’ve done everything they could and then some while the takedown senders have abused the DMCA and the principle of “good faith”.
    
    But by that time, will Google still be the go-to search provider for the US, or will people have realized they have to use one based offshore, such as baidu?
    - NewWorldStoner
      
      I’m just pointing the root cause of the issue here. To make an analogy, you’re saying that apples come from trees, while I’m pointing out that actually they come from seeds.
      
      Of course Google has interests in proactively enforcing takedowns in order to avoid expensive lawsuits and stay in business, but arguing whether this is a good or bad thing does not amount to anything as we are ignoring the underlying cause.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “To make an analogy, you’re saying that apples come from trees, while I’m pointing out that actually they come from seeds.”
      
      Actually, my point is that apples are pretty good. The problem is that the tree itself is rotten to the core.
      
      In a sane open market, No mapmaker would have to suffer censorship of what their published maps point at. It’s a given that such a mapmaker will suffer unless it passes the harm done on to it’s customer base (who will seek better maps elsewhere).
      
      Saying “google is good” or “google is bad” fails to adress the point that Google itself, being a corporation, has no conscience. It will act at the behest of market forces and government law.
      
      You are correct in that the rot comes from the government. I’m simply trying to say that any evaluation of a company which starts with a moral evaluation is starting with a false assumption.
    - nonamthanks
      
      Expensive lawsuits is only a sideline in this, what they are more likely after is to limit the expense of handling DMCA complaints.
      
      Google handles a lot of DMCA complaints per day. If they remove the 25% biggest offenders, it is likely that the volume of complaints will either go down, or will be focused on other areas.
      
      When you read the story about BREIN and others complaining about DMCA notice caps, you can understand that Google seems to have an interest in keeping the volume of complaints to a level that they have budgeted staff and money for. No longer indexing sites that generate a significant number of complaints is in their financial interest, their operational interest, and gives them the ability to claim to be good corporate citizens, thus avoiding more FTC scrutiny.
    - Guest321
      
      Having to invest millions of dollars just to pay for the staff & servers handling DMCA notices is ludicrous. Google can afford the resources because they are so big. A small business would never be able to fulfill such requests and would have to shut down. Any law that expects this out of a business is insane. That’s why the DMCA simply needs to be abolished.
      
      This is what happens when a law is bought and paid for by evil corporations. It completely goes against human nature and benefits nobody expect the vested interests of a few parasites.
    - nonamthanks
      
      The problem is really that there are plenty of parasites out there trying to make a living off of other people’s work, and the real issue Google faces is that as long as they keep listing the parasites, the real owners of the content will DMCA them.
      
      Something has to give, and it’s not likely to be copyright law or DMCA. That means Google is left with fewer and fewer good choices.
      
      As Google is just in many ways a parasite itself (without other people’s content, it’s a null). They know which side of the bread the butter is on, and they know that without content, they have nothing.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “As Google is just in many ways a parasite itself (without other people’s content, it’s a null). They know which side of the bread the butter is on, and they know that without content, they have nothing.”
      
      Which is why the decline of Google’s indexing functions are already opening the market for other actors.
      
      What Google did to others by providing a superior service can as easily and as quickly be done to them. A new provider, however, will not put itself in a similar vulnerable position.
      
      So it really isn’t quite as you say. Either the DMCA gives, or we say hello to Google’s replacement.
      
      Right now, looking at the field, that would be Baidu or Yandex. Meaning we get as many torrents as we want, served alongside chinese or russian propaganda.
      
      There is no indication what so ever that the copyright sect will ever declare itself satisfied. As long as there is a functional internet at all, filesharing remains untouched.
      At one point or another Google will simply have to make a stand or close down voluntarily. I find the latter rather unlikely. And I think google is well aware of this. They’d have to be idiots not to.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “… If they remove the 25% biggest offenders…”
      
      How?
      
      We’ve been down this road before, I think. You keep failing to grasp just how easily the same entity being blocked today turns into a different URL tomorrow.
      
      Google does not have the power or resources to keep even one single webpage off the index, if the people putting the website up are motivated to keep changing the name, domain, or host.
      
      Does this boil down to your “Hogwarts” solution where wizards from Google wave their wands and “remove or block domains”?
      
      I’ll tell you what happens if they try. First, Googles index ceases to work.
      Next, everyone notices google no longer seems to be able to produce correct results.
      
      Finally, everyone switches over to some other search provider who does.
      
      Pirates, meanwhile, are not affected as any forum or IRC channel can provide the proper adress or magnet link anyway.
      
      Yeah. Google has the option here, but the results aren’t what you claim:
      
      1) In reality Google can be slowly bled dry by ever increasing demands – because the MPAA/RIAA will not stop while the internet still exists. Google is pretty big though so it has some time to consider before the pressure becomes overwhelming.
      
      2) Or Google commits quick suicide by the method you outlined above. They aren’t that stupid.
      
      The third option is that Google gears up to actually fight.
- One-Eyed Willie
  
  Yea. I am actually considering not using Google anymore. I don’t want to encourage their cowardly actions by making them revenue.
  - icec0ld
    
    Add block works for this better than not visiting their sites. Google runs many of the add net works. Course I will point out some of your chosen sites and youtubers won’t receive revenue. Make a note of who you want to support and white list them
    - zarathustra2k1
      
      This.
- anon
  
  Yeah, me neither.
- Carolina
  
  Ggle lost it’s balls.
Anonymous

So… File a counter DMCA notice?

Afaik: Someone sends DMCA, they are now *forced* (or face liability) to take down the content. The one affected sends a counter-DMCA notice, they are now forced to put the content back?

If the original DMCA sender isn’t happy he can then file a lawsuit against the person hosting the offensive material.

Am I missing something?
- PelouzeTF
  
  The host would re-instate the material after a 14 day period and notify the complaining party that a counter-dmca has been filed.
  
  That obviously gives the complaining party a 14 days period where the material cannot be reinstated so that they can pursue initial legal actions such as an injunction against the host in addition to other measures, a subpeona for example.
  
  Of course, it’s not wise for someone to file a counter fraudulently (especially for lulz) because then you would have sworn under penalty of perjury that you own the materials..
  - Guest
    
    True but then again DMCA’s are also filed under penalty of perjury that you own the (rights to the) materials…
    - PelouzeTF
      
      Indeed, and if a person/company falsely claims to own materials that are removed that they do not own the rights to, the disadvantaged party can indeed (and if circumstances warrant such action) seek reparation.
  - MadAsASnake
    
    You seem to be forgetting that a fair number of DMCA takedown notices filed don’t meet that standard in the first place…
    - FearMe
      
      What is the point responding to a corporate paid troll voicing fake opinions?
    - PelouzeTF
      
      I dare say you’re correct there.
  - FearMe
    
    Ha! The corporate tantouze is back!
    - PelouzeTF
      
      1) I have no affiliation with any corporations
      2) I never went anywhere.
  - Guest321
    
    “Of course, it’s not wise for someone to file a counter fraudulently (especially for lulz) because then you would have sworn under penalty of perjury that you own the materials.”
    
    Yes, of course the law only works one way doesn’t it? The corporate parasites of Hollywood (i.e. your paymasters) can file false DMCA notices by the thousands everyday with no repercussions but when common private individuals do the same, they can go to jail for it.
    - PelouzeTF
      
      Paymasters lol – Its astounding the level of denseness some of you guys achieve each and every day.
      
      Who are your paymasters Guest 321, The Secret Simpletons Society ?
      
      The law works both ways,
      
      1) Someone files DMCA to remove copyright infringing content.
      2) Poster of material receives copy of said DMCA. Host removes content
      3) Poster of content disagrees because they rightfully own said content and files a correct counter DMCA.
      4) In 14 days, the host returns said content to active online status
      5) Likely after legal advice, filer of Counter notice starts legal proceedings for wrongfully filed DMCA and associated damages.
      
      You know how many Counter DMCA’s I’ve received in 10 years.
      
      Zero
      
      And not because the person who posted the content doesn’t have an avenue with which to reverse the removal decision and seek reparations…..Its because they didn’t own the material, had no right to post it or infringe on my rights and would have had their ass handed to them in a court of law.
      
      If common private individuals file a counter dmca for content that they actually own the rights to, how exactly would they go to jail for it ?
    - BuddhaFacePalmed
      
      Right, so if I bought a song on itunes and then put it as bgm for one of my videos on youtube, it gets pulled by an automated DMCA notice system, I’m in the wrong because i don’t own the copyright to play that song and i’m not allowed to use it at all in my videos which has nothing to do with the song?
    - Guest
      
      Yes, You would be in the wrong as you will be committing copyright infringement. When you bought your CD etc. you are not allowed to share the CD or rip it to share with anyone as this is a breech of copyright infringement.
      
      By having the music from said CD that you own as background music on a video that you have made and uploaded to Youtube you are therefore sharing that music with anyone that views the video and thus you are in breech of copyright infringement. This is the thought mentatility of the copyright holders even though I completely disagree with it.
      
      Someone uploaded a dancing baby video to Youtube and the person is being sued for copyright infringement because of the background music is copyright. I think the person is suing back using the “fair use” argument. This case has been going for a few years and is now going to reach court. Whatever the outcome is will no doubt have an effect on what can be uploaded to Youtube.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “you are not allowed to share the CD or rip it to share with anyone as this is a breech of copyright infringement.”
      
      Fortunately quite a lot of national jurisdiction differs with this. For the US and the UK you are, regrettably, correct.
      
      “Someone uploaded a dancing baby video to Youtube and the person is being sued for copyright infringement because of the background music is copyright.”
      
      Copyright outfits in various jurisdictions have tried to argue that mobile phone ringtones constitute “public performance”, that having a radio on in the workplace counts as “commercial exploitation” – going as far as in belgium to insist that Cab drivers pay public performance licenses…the list goes on.
      
      Moral of the story is that any law which CAN be abused, WILL be abused. And that is why copyright in itself is a very bad restriction on property rights – there are few ways to limit it in order to effectively shut the door on copyright trolls without abolishing it entirely.
      
      As long as copyright law is valid for noncommercial copying, the mission statement of any copyright enforcement agency must unavoidably in the end be to in practice render the human rights pertaining to free speech and communication null and void.
    - Guest321
      
      A man walks into an electronics store with his wife and buys a light bulb After payment, shopkeeper says, “That’s not enough, Sir. You only paid for your use of the bulb. Your wife and kids at home will also experience the light coming out of the bulb. So you must pay for all of their use too”.
      
      That’s copyright for you in a nutshell.
    - PelouzeTF
      
      Yes, that is correct. You can’t (or shouldn’t at least) use a copy-written song as a backing track for a video the you upload to the internet.
      
      If you do, it is fully legal for the copyright owner to DMCA your upload. For example, Youtube even has their DMCA configured so a rights-holder can specify if the infringement relates to the whole video, the audio only, or a specific segment of the upload.
      
      Even if they didn’t offer those options, the video could still be removed by the rights-holder and the uploader is then free to contest in court if they feel they have “fair use” rights for the backing track of their upload.
      
      Of course, the most sensible option would be to just not use a copy-written song for a backing track in the first place being that there are many free alternatives available.
    - icec0ld
      
      So your argument is because no one has had a successful counter DMCA that all DMCAs are legit?
      
      A counter DMCA puts all of the fees and responsibility of proof on the person filing the counter DMCA. This is a guilty until proven innocent situation. Put simply the system is rigged. Even false DMCAs have never been contested successfully in court.
      
      This isn’t jail. This is completely unreasonable liability and fees for a counter DMCA. A DMCA on the other hand, has no liability for any damages, no requirement of real proof they own the content. I can DMCA anything you own right now on the internet and I would see zero repercussions while you would have to put everything on the line to fight me. It’s absurd.
    - PelouzeTF
      
      “So your argument is because no one has had a successful counter DMCA that all DMCAs are legit?”
      
      No, my point was that after a decade of using the DMCA system, I myself, have never once recieved a counter claim for content I own the rights to that I had to remove. That was a point and not an argument and had nothing to with the legitimacy of all other DMCA’s.
      
      “A counter DMCA puts all of the fees and responsibility of proof on the person filing the counter DMCA. This is a guilty until proven innocent situation. Put simply the system is rigged. Even false DMCAs have never been contested successfully in court.”
      
      In terms of fee’s for a Counter DMCA, there are none. You file it, the host puts it back up after 14 days. No fee’s involved. Now, if you lie under penalty of purgery that the material is yours and the rights-holder takes umbrage to that lie and the potential re-instatement of what they rightfully own, sure your going to incur some costs. But remember, it would have been your choice to file the false Counter DMCA that brings you to that situation …… and no one elses.
      
      You have to ask yourself “What would you prefer” ?
      
      To be able to upload material online with almost impunity like you currently can (including copy-written) and should someone DMCA the copy-written material, in 99% of cases it ends there.
      
      Or have to prove to a host that you own the material before they display it, so that they aren’t liable for your uploads ?
      
      Personally id prefer for each uploader to have to prove that they own the material before a host displays it…..but I know that would put a huge burden on hosts for them to retain safe harbor. And I really don’t think that you want that either ;)
      
      “This isn’t jail. This is completely unreasonable liability and fees for a counter DMCA.”
      
      Like I said, there are no fees for a Counter.
      
      “A DMCA on the other hand, has no liability for any damages, no requirement of real proof they own the content.”
      
      Thats not true. The DMCA requires certain infromation to be presented as proof of ownership of copyright. A description of the materials, examples of representative works, a website URL if applicable.
      
      As for damages, the process is exactly the same in reverse as a traditional rightsholder would have to go through.
      
      “I can DMCA anything you own right now on the internet and I would see zero repercussions while you would have to put everything on the line to fight me. It’s absurd.”
      
      You could, but in 10 minutes id have a counter filed. That won’t cost me anything and nothing is on the line (except potential losses like monetary or traffic) while my content is reinstated in the next 14 days.
      
      Then I would have to consider whether the potential cost to sue you would offset those losses that I may have potentially incurred due to the false counter notice. In some cases it is and some it isn’t. But as for repercussions, there definitely could be some, so as decisions go, filining a false counter is very unwise.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    All fair as described. Which brings us to the automated take-downs, none of which can be said to have been sent “In Good Faith”.
    
    This is the core of the argument against the current system. If HBO is informed their takedown tool is generating hundreds of false positives every week, then HBO can not be said to be “in good faith” in continuing to use it.
    - PelouzeTF
      
      I don’t disagree with you.
      
      HBO clearly feels it’s sufficient and I’m sure countless other companies do to.
      
      Scraping for results and sending automated notices is not (I feel) the most accurate method by far that a company should employ to remove potential infringements.
      
      Being that the DMCA is almost 15 years old it is woefully outdated to the internet environment that it currently tries to cover. And I personally would welcome a revised version.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “And I personally would welcome a revised version.”
      
      I’m sure you would. One where anyone claiming a privilege, true or false, can run anyone else off the net, going by your previous arguments.
      One where “Freedom of speech” no longer exists in practical terms.
      
      Fortunately, technology progresses far faster than any law and will do so while there still is an internet at all.
    - PelouzeTF
      
      Not at all.
      
      But I think something a little more balanced can be achieved. The bones of the current system (which is generally adhered to by most countries) is a reasonable base but when it was implemented the online environment was totally different.
Guest

Another case of the Google got no balls disease again.
bakapinkuu

Dirty little secret: If every link to allegedly-infringing content results in a site delisting, Google will have nothing left to index but corporation websites. Then again, that might be the goal.
- Predator
  
  Actually may be not even the corporations web site since any corporation can claim that the website of the competitor is infringing. By the way this is why I am no longer using Google anymore. When I search the web I need good results and not corporate censored BS propaganda and advertisements.
  - babydingo
    
    so which search engine do you use?
    - Predator
      
      Start Page, Ixquick, Altavista, Yahoo. By the way Movie2K is a direct competitor to utube. This explain why Google is so Zealous. Google search engine is obviously declining.
    - Guest
      
      Fuck Yahoo. They’ve started filling their search results with sponsored links that can’t be excluded.
    - Anon
      
      USE BING INSTEAD!
    - Guest
      
      Bing’n my shling! That’s a good thing!
    - http://www.theidiotspace.blogspot.com/ King_Hermy
      
      Long fact short, Dogpile is more accurate than Google.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      “By the way Movie2K is a direct competitor to utube.”
      
      In short, google is simply not wasting any effort – and get to blame the rightsholders. Neat.
      
      Then again, I can see it from Google’s perspective. The DMCA notices are more or less gutting the US Youtube version, so “why”, says Google, “should our competitor feel less heat?”
    - http://www.facebook.com/homeofthebadguys Skeleton Skellington
      
      DUCKDUCKGO FTW!
    - Kevin Grech
      
      DuckDuckGo uses Google’s search engine afaik
    - http://www.facebook.com/homeofthebadguys Skeleton Skellington
      
      At least they don’t censor shit like google.
    - James Newmark
      
      No, Startpage uses Google’s engine. DuckDuckGo is independent.
    - Predator
      
      Let me try DUCKDUCKGO.
  - One-Eyed Willie
    
    So which one do you use? I just switched to Bing because I don’t have time right now to see which is best.
    - Anon
      
      DuckDuckGo.com is best
    - highboi
      
      i love you man (all homo if thats what your into), guess i wont be using google anymore.
    - Grr
      
      Doesn’t DuckDuckGo use Google’s and Bing’s search results ?
    - afndimrdandi
      
      Yandex!
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      If you want chinese government propaganda with your torrents, why not baidu? :)
    - Anon
      
      The true way to go is YaCy. I got some problems with installing on archlinux, but it should not stop you.
    - midas
      
      duckduckgo
      
      trust me
- nonamthanks
  
  Dirty little secret: the internetwebs aren’t just made up of infringing material. Maybe the one you see, but not the one the rest of us see.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    Always the entertainer, oh-troll-of-many-names, eh?
    
    Go read up on copyright law. Then start sanity checking just how much of ANY published material is verifiably non-infringing.
    
    I think you’re in for a surprise. again.
    - nonamthanks
      
      I would say keep your insults to yourself.
      
      stop being an idiot
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      You say a lot of things. Many of which appear to assume the internet is run by magic and can be swiftly changed by the Mountain view Wizards.
      
      “stop being an idiot”
      
      Is that Church-of-Copyright code for “Stop bringing facts to the table!“?
      
      Because otherwise, as usual, you are merely offering us rare irony there.
      
      I see we shall have to pass on the “Baghdad Bob” moniker with honor to a worthy claimant.
    - http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
      
      oh-troll-of-many-names
      
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All
      
      I’m just saying…
  - Pelham123
    
    “Dirty little secret: the internetwebs aren’t just made up of infringing material”
    
    They are to corporations who have a vested interest in saying so. That’s what the original poster meant. Ask YouTube how many infringement allegations come from competitors looking to kneecap the competition.
    
    A “sanity check” on whether something is verifiably non-infringing is irrelevant, Scary, because allegations don’t need to be verified to get results.
- http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle
  
  or page after page of…………..
  
  In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
anonymous

more and more Google is going down the road of aiding in censorship. for something that is meant to be a mere search engine, a finder of information, it seems to be playing the game of entertainment industries lackey. i wonder how long before this attitude comes back to bite it in the arse, because if it thinks what it is doing is going to protect it from prosecution, it had better think again. it has already found out a number of times that the more it tries to appease the industries, the more it is demanded to do.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Gear-Mentation/100003097514663 Gear Mentation
  
  I wish they would get on with taking Google to court and teach it that lesson.
- Predator
  
  You mean down the drain?
- One-Eyed Willie
  
  The problem is that I don’t think that companies like Google are even aware of the fact that the more you try to appease the worse it gets. Where are they going to read about that? TorrentFreak? lol
  - NeoToasty
    
    They could learn a thing or two if they’d just stop by Torrentfreak once in a while. I bet someone from Google has stopped here to take a look for at least once.
- NeoToasty
  
  The problem is that Google went from a basic company/mere search engine into, overtime, a corporation with assets, a video streaming site, software developer and so much more. I’ve noticed the different.
Guest

I told you before… Google is an evil internet gatekeeper.
- Guest
  
  It’s not Google’s fault, they will blame the RIAA for twisting their arms over this.
  - Whatever
    
    Those Google replies seem very much automated responses to me. It doesn’t look like arm twisting at all.
    
    Google counter-DMCA script:
    Scan received counter claim content.
    If no counter claim number found then ignore request.
    Else continue
    If 1st message then delay a set time depending on how busy we want people to think we are. Send message one.
    Else delay for defined time and send message two.
    
    Google is helping everyone down the drain by complying to every demand. The most compliant version will always be used by MAFIAA, judges and politicians as a default requirement.
  - ItsTheSasquatch
    
    Obeying an unjust law is as bad as creating one, and enforcing an unjust law is worse. If Google won’t fight, they’re part of the problem.
    - NewWorldStoner
      
      True, but with disobedience it’s like they are only treating symptoms of a disease without treating the underlying cause – the disease itself. The disease, of course, is government.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      Civil disobedience only works from an individual citizen side, because law enforcement stands helpless against even 1% of the citizenry in implemented dissent.
      
      From a corporate side, however, one court case is all it takes.
      
      That said it’s a good thing Google is giving us all these dual-use tools, innit?
Anon55

If someone could make a decent decent search engine that ignored DMCA notices and could stay up in a similar way to TPB, I would set it as my homepage and use it.
- Dude
  
  try out yacy
Mr. Ava T.

Does Google only do this for google.com? A search for Movie2k on .co.uk returns a result.
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  It’s regionalized.
  
  Meaning that yes, if you access the Google UK, Google Sweden, or Google germany website and do your search, all the de-listing is magically gone.
  
  This may be why Google accept the “de-listing” – in real terms, it only impacts, very specifically, the particular part of the US consumer base we might term “sheep”.
  - Violated0
    
    I hope that is true. After Google dexindexed a site based on a French court order then finding the site dexindexed from google.co.uk as well should not have been.
    
    I have checked and by entering “movie2k” into google.co.uk then many pages are returned with http://www.movie2k.to/index.php being right at the top.
    - Scary_Devil_Monastery
      
      Yandex, Baidu, and Yahoo at least consistently return movie2k immediately when trying from Sweden.
      
      I’ll be trying it from home, using my vpn and switching geo’s around. But as far as I can see you should be able to simply change the indexing criteria by accessing a different google domain.
      
      Half my next month’s salary says someone is already writing a meta-search engine which can include, at will, both results from chilling-effects and results from search engines/domains A through X. And which will likely end up as a firefox/chrome plugin.
Chuck

This is funny. People forget that Google has the right to do whatever the hell they want with their listings. It’s their site. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Problem solved.

Now, I don’t agree with them choosing to not list the site, but the bottom line is, it is their site.
- Guest
  
  Actually there are limitations such as anti-discrimination laws. But yeah in general they can do w/e they want.
- Carlton
  
  “If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Problem solved.”
  
  Sure, if you don’t like it, don’t use it. But this hardly solves the problem.
- afndimrdandi
  
  I agree it best to avoid Google search, but that won’t get Movie2k’s homepage back in the search results.
GreenPirate

Google is dead! Long live DuckDuckGo!
- Who
  
  problem is DuckDuckGo is US based. and it will eventually be hit by the MPAA/RIAA/DOJ @ some point.
anon

The YouTube.com home page currently has links to several “Harlem Shake” videos. Technically that song is copyrighted, http://oystermag.com/azealia-banks-starts-twitter-beef-with-diplo-releases-harlem-shake-video .

So according to Google’s logic they’ll need to remove YouTube.com search results from Google…
Mr Magoo

Try http://www.altavista.com/
It is very goooooooooood…
- jdjdhdjdj
  
  Thank-you. Finally a search engine I can filter within last week, month, or year. Duckduckgo blows unless you like 5 year old search results. Altavista is my new homepage.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    For an old hoser like me, seeing altaVista in use again almost makes me wonder if we’re going to see a return of netscape as well.
    
    It’s telling. Google replaced every other search engine on the market, becoming a giant fast.
    
    And yet, now all the competitors it displaced are once more gaining market shares. The lesson is clear. base no IT business within US borders.
- Mario
  
  VOLUNIA (italian search engine) is the 2nd best alternative to BING.
steve

This is nothing new.
anon

All this talk about google… Hows Bing with DMCA takedowns?
Who

“Movie2K, the 240th most-popular site in the world according to Alexa”

who the fuck is Alexa? 240th most popular? LOL so there is 240+ streaming sites? and they are bitching about not getting indexed by google? LOL your not very big if you are the 240th. and Y is google still indexing the 1st largest? Y hasn’t the MPAA complained about it?
- Anyone
  
  240th overall
  not just streaming sites
  
  as said in the article in some countries they are bigger than facebook
  
  also, this is alexa: http://www.alexa.com
  - Who
    
    so are they basing this from each different IP that hits or all the hits from the only IP’s that hit?
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  Alexa is the site which ranks the popularity of all other sites by number of queries and hits. Has been for ten years.
  
  When you see the rankings of which sites are most popular at the moment, Alexa is where those numbers originate from. Where have you lived, under a rock? :)
  
  “LOL your not very big if you are the 240th.”
  
  Worldwide. It’s a bit like ranked 240 in the Fortune 500′s. In order to be “small”, given the amount of sites in existence, you more or less have to add two 0′s at the end.
  
  I’ll give you a hint. Movie2K trumps battle.net, microsoftonline.com, and is within 20 ranks of AT&T. By worldwide ranking.
Anon

Pick your favorite unlawful activity, Google (or any search engine) would likely delist it. Why not? Or expressed another way, what other illegal activities do you think SHOULD be listed?

Who here can build a case for why something based upon infringement and therefor breaking the law should be listed in the first place? This has little to do with the Mafiaa, y’know. More and more, pirates are just having an argument with reality.
- Anyone
  
  everything should be listed, google should be neutral
  
  if the content is against the law in the country it is hosted the police should move against it, otherwise it should be left alone
- joexxx
  
  Moot argument. Google search doesn’t host any copyrighted content.
  Whether something is infringing or not is for the court of law to decide. Once the decision is made, the content can be taken down based on the decision.
  ONLY the court of law can make this decision.
- Guest
  
  anon
  
  Google is the biggest repository of copyright infringing links in the world, bar none. Movie2K is absolutely nothing compared to it.
  
  Therefore Google should delist itself from its own search results.
  
  But of course they won’t as they’re wretched hypocrites.
- Guest
  
  So if a thief uses a public toilet and is later caught, even after said thief is imprisoned you should lock down that toilet forever.
  
  Gotcha, Anon. You just earned yourself some Pelouzey jizz for that.
  - Scary_Devil_Monastery
    
    I must say I’m happy to see him back, assuming this is our entertaining friend of old.
    
    Bobmail made a good attempt, but it’s apparently quite hard to present that many misunderstandings, false assumptions, and willfull cluelessness into a single sitting as “Anon” can, apparently without effort.
    
    I think we must call this a sort of genius. I’m sure there must be a demand for it somewhere.
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  Well, well, the real Baghdad bob returns in glory. welcome back.
  
  “Pick your favorite unlawful activity, Google (or any search engine) would likely delist it.”
  
  Like a journalist or documentary will take pains not to mention places where crimes are taking place? Like newspapers will not publish information about how drug dealers operate in a city?
  
  Like a detective novel will refrain from mentioning criminal methods which might work in real life?
  
  Best comparison though, like the makers of a road atlas will tipp-ex out a location exposed as being the site of a potential crime?
  
  “Who here can build a case for why something based upon infringement and therefor breaking the law should be listed in the first place?”
  
  Repeat of the above, but added …and the censorship will take place on a say-so without being tried in a court.
  
  Not even in China or Russia of the 1950′s did any nation so casually accept information about location to be censored by law.
  
  “More and more, pirates are just having an argument with reality.”
  
  …says the guy who doesn’t realize his argument demands the abolition of journalism and road maps because he hasn’t a clue what is actually being “listed” by Google.
  
  Good to see you back, “Anon”. Bobmail was getting dull.
- icec0ld
  
  Only Bob talks this much about reality while ignoring it. Welcome back.
anon

there’s always Bing and/or Yandex
Andrew Lee

Well as usual they fail to get the bigger picture.. People are going to share no matter what happens and new sites do not need Google for their fame.

I guess people have forgotten just how powerful word of mouth can be.

Piracy says one thing and that is they’re doing it wrong because people support what they love. Sure it’s going to happen but a big majority of it would be reduced to people with no income. “I’m not saying that makes it right either.”

This is what needs to happen.

1. We need same day global release dates.
2. Online access the same day as theaters.
3. Companies that treat the fans like fans instead of criminals.
4. Fire the MPAA,RIAA, and all others alike.
5. Try to actually connect with the fans for fucks sake. I mean come on it’s 2013 and the internet and technology are not something for the rich only these days.
6. The VCR did not put you out of business so stop treating the internet as you did the VCR when it was new.
fucku

u know what is funny is that DMCA just buy shares in google then have google play by the share holders games. this is just bs….

i dont see how a hyperlink can show infringing anything its not
just because u can click the link and get to a page to download something means nothing. maybe they should not hyperlink the links maybe just have them as plain text that seems more of a easy way of this bs to stop
- joexxx
  
  DMCA doesn’t have anything to do with this. DMCA doesn’t apply to google search.
  It’s a private agreement between google and content parties.
  Google stands to lose here in the long run since it does not provide content, nor does it provide consumers of the content.
joexxx

It’s time to stop using Goggle. A search engine that is playing vice police is not a search engine anymore.
MisterPickle

Did anyone try using the movie2k.to site? Is there a way to watch a movie that does not involve registering and giving them a credit card #?
- Violated0
  
  I gave Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters a quick spin on the Stream2k link and it played first time with no log-in or CC details needed. I have not looked around enough to see your problem but it can only apply to some.
  
  Well as that movie copy is only a damned Cam then my viewing soon ended where I will find better quality later.
Wallace

I just now did a Google search on “movie2k” … these were the top three results:

http://www.movie2k.to/tvshows_featured.phpwww.movie2k.to/index.php
http://www.movie2k.to/genres-movies.html

This is delisted? Most companies would pay to be “delisted” in such a manner.
- Wallace
  
  …the third result was their index.php. I forgot TF blocks website posts.
I’m Lovin It

I’ve never heard of Movie2K before this … never would have tried the .to extension either.

But it looks promising. Thanks Paramount!
https://thepiratebay.org/user/manOtor/ manOtor

If the world really needs rules for the webz, the first and most important rule should be, that the kind of power Google (or facebook, etc.) has should never be allowed in one hand! And much less a corporate one!

This kind of power needs to be wielded by the people.
- joexxx
  
  People are the ones that give the google its power and take it way.
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  This power IS wielded by the people. Now that Google is bending over backwards in order to reduce search functionality, Yahoo, and altavista are back. Even Bing is recommended.
  
  And I’ve even heard baidu offers great torrent searching – if you don’t mind having it served with some government propaganda in mandarin.
shertink

How about China’s search engine, baidu dot com? And google has google-translate.
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  Well, the online community in China is estimated to be a few hundred million strong 60%+ of whom are estimated to be active filesharers. I think we can safely assume that as long as you don’t mind having the Chinese government provide the advertising, baidu will probably rock for finding media.
iMeZiv0x

Well, I guess now, I don’t need to use a search engine to go there!! Thanks DMCA :)
http://twitter.com/Power2All Power2All

Thank you for a new website.
Never heared of them, but now I will :)
Anon

searchanddestroybook DOTCOM

This is the other side of the Google story—the unauthorized book that Google does not want you to read. In Search & Destroy, Google expert Scott Cleland, shows that the world’s most powerful company is not who it pretends to be.

Google pretends to be a harmless lamb, but chose a full-size model of a Tyrannosaurus Rex as its mascot. Beware the T-Rex in sheep’s clothing.

Google has acquired far more information, both public and private, and has invented more ways to use it, than anyone in history. Information is power, and in Google’s case, it’s the power to influence and control virtually everything the Internet touches.
- joexxx
  
  Don’t use google and you take away its power.
  - Techanon
    
    except that google is literally everywhere with its analytics, api and adsense services.
    Which means that NOT using google means you putting an extra effort in blocking all the http requests to google services.
    - Anon
      
      The API thing is really annoying. Some sites can’t even register an account or publish an ad without access to Google servers.
      
      But if you want to block their network for Good, save those IP ranges. Currently I am using Kaspersky firewall for that.
      
      74.125.0.0/16 (Google)
      64.233.160.0/19 (Google)
      216.239.32.0/19 (Google)
      209.85.128.0/17 (Google)
      216.33.229.160/29 (Savvis + GoogleBot)
      64.68.88.0/21 (GoogleBot)
      8.8.8.0/24 (Google DNS)
      70.32.128.0/19 (Google, Doubleclick)
      173.194.0.0/16 (Google)
      64.68.80.0/21 (Google)
      66.102.0.0/20 (Google)
      108.177.0.0/17 (Google)
      66.249.64.0/19 (Google)
      72.14.192.0/18 (Google)
      192.178.0.0/15 (Google)
      198.108.100.192/28 (Google)
      216.33.229.144/29 (Google)
      209.185.108.128/25 (Google)
      216.109.75.80/28 (Google)
      64.68.64.64/26 (Google)
      64.41.221.192/28 (Google)
      142.250.0.0/15 (Google)
      207.223.160.0/20 (Google)
      108.170.192.0/18 (Google)
      216.58.192.0/19 (Google)
      172.217.0.0/16 (Google)
      199.87.241.32/27 (Google)
      70.90.219.48/29 (Google/Comcast)
      70.90.219.72/29 (Google/Comcast)
    - joexxx
      
      That’s ok. Don’t use google search.
      That’s where it makes of all of its money anyway.
nonamthanks

Welcome to the next step, where Google takes all that link removal data and starts to apply it.

Listing movies.to on Google would be self defeating, as they clearly have a heavy history of infringing links. Google cuts down the number of DMCA complaints they have to handle and cuts down their expense by removing and not listing pages from this site.

This is the sort of thing that should be a warning for others. Clearly Google is starting to look at the bigger pictures in this area, and seem ready to take action that will limit their liability and expenses in this area.

The times, they are a-changing, even if some people don’t like it.
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  “This is the sort of thing that should be a warning for others…”
  
  I find your lack of common sense disturbing.
  
  You DO realize, I hope, that all you have to do is type http://www.google.de, http://www.google.se, or http://www.google.uk and all those sites magically reappear?
  
  You ALSO realize, I hope, that not very many of google’s competitors does de-index searches to anywhere near that extent?
  
  Do the math. Google annihilated Yahoo and altavista…and yet they are suddenly back, surging in popularity.
  
  Baidu is looking for any chance to get itself established in the western world as a Google alternative. Neither of those care about the DMCA or de-indexing.
  
  In fact, there is only one result of this “trend”. Google is rapidly becoming less attractive to use as a search engine. It rose from nothing to being the arguably the biggest IT company around. It can sink just as fast, when someone else does to Google what Google did to Yahoo.
  
  And the only lesson the market takes with it is that to succeed, first do not give the MPAA/RIAA an inch.
  
  “The times, they are a-changing, even if some people don’t like it.”
  
  So they are. More holes are shot through the basis and justification for copyright and IP in general every passing day.
Nameless

Let’s all go to Bing, and lets see how Google likes losing business. There we can find what we want with out worrying about someone taking it offline.
- Anyone
  
  as if MS is any better
- Who
  
  this is Y using torrent’s is better. all you need to do is use the torrent search on the torrent site(s) that you like. no messing around with ANY of the search engines.
FindJind

ok thats jsut downright crazy when you think about it man. Wow.

AnonProxy.da.bz
Indiagrt

wht the shit am able search movies2k.to in google.co.in .. the Indian version of Google.. is this shit happens only for US version of Google or.. Google might have started indexing the site.. please see the link below…

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Movie2K.to&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Brett Cooper

If say Google Drive has copyright content, will google.com be removed until all copyrighted content is removed from google.com.
frozar

Wonder if TF plans to write about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/18wiop/germans_couldnt_see_many_of_the_russian_meteor/
Bananas

i just google Movie2K and it was the first result
ItsTheSasquatch

Google is playing the role of Neville Chamberlain; the MaFIAA is Adolf Hitler. You know they’ll be coming for you regardless of how much you appease them, right? You can either fight them now, or continue caving in to demand after ridiculous demand and face a stronger enemy later.

Granted, the MaFIAA probably won’t murder millions of Jews. They will, however, subjugate the internet, further corrupt our legal system, undermine our property rights and the right to free speech, subject an untold number of citizens to absurd fines and imprisonment, etc., etc.
- Scary_Devil_Monastery
  
  “Google is playing the role of Neville Chamberlain; the MaFIAA is Adolf Hitler.”
  
  I can envision a youtube hitler parody running MPAA/RIAA captioning right now. Things are not going well for the first church of copyright. If Google keeps up trying to appease them, Google opens the market for alternatives – especially so given that the takedowns are rather often not legitimate. And what Google’s replacement takes to market will be the lesson that it’s best not to give the MPAA/RIAA a single inch.
  
  If Google stops it’s “obedient little lamb” routine and turns up in court one day toting the sheer number of false positives generated, every rightsholder relying on an automated takedown tool will be toast. It may be enough to start a real challenge of the DMCA in and of itself.
  
  Some sect members in the copyright church must be aware of this which is why their claims keep getting more and more desperate every passing day.
anon

“Google …..don´t
care and in this case they are supporting such malicious and virus
infected websites.”

– Google are supporting malicious virus infected sites because they
won’t help a criminal organization earn off the back of copyright work.
We can only conclude that Terry is a demented 15 year old.
- icec0ld
  
  By delisting legitimate sites they are opening the ease of which one can get a page listed as movie 2k to spread malware that harms users of the internet everyday.
  
  Piracy on the other hand is harmless.
  
  Yeah. I’ll take meaningless piracy over the spread of even more malware any day thanks.
Violated0

This is clearly bigger news than it seems when Google is no longer just a passive follower of DMCA law (in their skewed way) when they are now starting to take an active role in being Copyright Police.

Deindexing a site’s home page, instead of links to infringement, should be kept as a last resort. In this regard it is shameful to hear that Google say that they won’t even undertake reconsideration.

Does Google so quickly forget the likes of SOPA, PIPA and ACTA where their own electronic butt would be on the line? United we stand which is why they should be gentle on censorship and stick to what the law says.

Let me put it this way when it your judge the illegality of a site based on the number of DMCA take-down notices then Google itself is the biggest piracy haven in the known Universe! Links to links to links to infringement where we well know that those in the MAFIAA do not care about number of links when it is all about attacking the key points… like Google.

Walking down that path will not serve them well. There is only one valid answer and that is to stand on the line of the law and to never take one step more.
NotTodaY

We need something new..a new offshore search engine
http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

best advert in history this, although i knew the site already. was keeping it to myself lest it become infested and attract the wrong kind of attention, well that didn’t work
salvagesalvage

I never even heard of Movie2K and now it’s open in another tab.

Thanks Paramount Pictures!
asashii

its a Phishing virus website anyways, use a better website, know one cares, nothing to see here, move along!
Ghost

Who is Terry – a ghost? Is google dealing with ghost?
ane92

Terry sounds like a cry baby. Reality is if he wants to make a living out of copyright infringement then he is going to face problems like this or even worse face fines and prison and some point. That’s just the nature of the business he chose to get into.

I do enjoy sites like these from time to time to watch a movie while I’m bored at work. However I don’t have much sympathy for people getting rich off of piracy and then complaining when google removes them or the police arrest them. If you can’t stand the heat then stay the fuck out of the kitchen, as they say.
dwightstegall

Looks like Movie2k resolved the situation since they are again listed on Google https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=movie2k
dwightstegall

I use Google most of the time, but have links to many other search engines. I see no reason to stop using Google.
Pingback: Paramount Censors Torrentz’s Torrentless Homepage from Google | TorrentFreak
Pingback: Paramount Censors Torrentz’s Torrentless Homepage from Google | Best Seedbox
Pingback: Paramount Censors Torrentz’s Torrentless Homepage from Google | We R Pirates
Pingback: Paramount Censors Torrentz’s Torrentless Homepage from Google : TrafficPrivacy
http://twitter.com/cinebixx cinebixx

is it true?

http://www.cinebixx.com
Sinner

This is what you get when you make a google search….pretty depressing…

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Google Refuses to Index Huge Streaming Movie Portal Homepage

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed