The torrent watchdogs of the Internet have a beef with Google’s instant search feature and the way it deals with word “torrent” and related searches (bittorrent, utorrent). That is, instant search won’t suggest any sites unless the term in question is completely spelled out.
To some, Google’s handling of the situation is the equivalent of censorship, and while the argument is understandable, the fact Google reveals search results for the fully-spelled words in question works against that position.
The real issue is Google’s capitulation to the entertainment industries, because they’re the ones who lobbied Google to remove torrent-related results from the instant search feature.
On one hand, it’s easy to see where this fits in Google’s “Do No Evil” approach. From their perspective, they’re protecting copyright holders from piracy. On the other hand, however, the fact that Google’s willing to adjust their results to satisfy the RIAA, et al, is disappointing. It’s not Google’s job to go after downloaders.
They are simply here to present pertinent information based on the search term entered.
Instead of having Google “censor” their instant search capabilities -- mind you, these torrent-related searches still return Google+Search&aq=f&oq=">a slew of results once the term is completely entered -- it would make more sense for these entertainment entities to use Google search to find and report those who may be infringing on these copyrights.
But then again, as we learned with the PS3 ruling, these entertainment giants would rather attempt to hide information they’re scared of instead of adjusting their content delivery platform to meet current technology standards.
Obfuscation is not prevention, and if these entertainment entities think those looking for torrents won’t be able to find them just because Google’s instant search doesn’t suggest anything, they’re so far behind the curve, it makes one wonder how they’ve managed to stay monetarily relevant.