[nenreme]

> They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately.

I think you meant "They're not censoring content that you aren't able to access legitimately".

This is bullshit. There are a lot of things you can't buy (especially in smaller countries) but which are available on pirate sites. Heck, you can't even watch Netflix own shows in some countries using Netflix because Netflix geoblocked them.

[no_wizard]

You are right to believe this is hogwash. I'll concede that all day.

However, you knowingly are getting content that the content rights holders have deemed is not going to be published in x area. Netflix has a right (and some would say a duty) to enforce whats in their contractual deals with content/rights holders in pursuant with being able to do the business they do.

So the question is: you can't get that content, that much is clear. Why does that mean you should be able to pirate that content because its not distributed in the way you like it to be? This isn't medical care. This isn't news stories. Its TV shows and music and movies. These are pleasure items after all.

Does that mean you are entitled to this content because they don't offer it in a way you find acceptable?

Edit: really any content getting downloaded illegally (colloquially known as pirated) I haven't ever seen someone argue that the content say, saved a life, or was so important to x that it had to be done.

Lets be real: what we're talking about here isn't subverting a totalitarian regime and allowing citizens to talk on the world stage. I reckon most if not all of these sites just shuffle illegal copies of digital goods.

[krzyk]

Some countries allow such content, so Google shouldn't remove it from results in such countries.

E.g. in Poland if you have bought a copy of given software, you can download if also from the site and use whichever version you prefer (but only one) - this is a fare use case.

Example would be if given software is in a poor way DRM protected and you would like to run it on an OS that doesn't support DRM.

Or in the days of games distributed on CDs, we were downloading those pirated versions (while owning a proper one) because they didn't require a CD to be always in the computer.

[no_wizard]

Perhaps. They are making blanket filters because its going to mostly apply in most countries google does business in.

You could argue that they should apply it to a country by country specifics, sure. Though i fail to see how its google's problem if you can or can't find a website per se. They are, yes a search engine, and that is what google.com's primary purpose of use is. What they aren't saying, nor have they really ever guaranteed, is that they will give you unfiltered results. Its actually quite the contrary. It's google's indexing and filter algorithms that make it so effective in the first place.

With all that said, there is always an alternative. Google's a private company. They can't shut down these websites. They aren't even attempting to do that. They are just making casual access more complicated I suppose more than anything.

Its within their right to do that.

(Notice how no one seems to be scoffing at Bing, its all about what Google does or doesn't do)

[Null-Set]

I am entitled to the content because someone who has it is offering it to me.

[no_wizard]

Nope. That is definitely not true. There are legal (or for ease of understanding) legitimate channels for getting content. If you are unable to procure that content using those means....that means you don't access that content.

What we used to call 'going without'.