There is a case to make that Google is a tyrannical monopoly over several business sectors, and that more needs to be done to compete with them.
But of course, if more search engines had a position of power of the same position as Google and could compete, the fight against piracy would be exponentially harder for copyright believers as now they would have several corrupt corporations to keep in line. A pirate downloader would have more alternatives to seek out what he wants.
Don't copyright believers know that there are legions of black-marketeers who cannot WAIT for the day that the Pirate Bay finally gets shut down by the authorities? That they cannot wait for that vacuum? And all the profit that comes from the advertising? Illegal downloaders do not exist because there are pirate webstes: pirate websites exist because there are illegal downloaders. And as long as that remains true, you will always have those willing to fill that market whether out in the open or behind TOR.
And just as you have the police always willing to point to the temporary statistics whenever they do a drug bust about drug use going down, so too will you have legions of copyright believers pointing to temporary studies of piracy reduction after MegaUpload gets shut down. Those markets, without exception, will keep on being filled as long as the market exists. Why else are advertisers so bold to show themselves out on the open on these sites?
How do you really stop it from happening? You end the prohibition, of course.
As far as I can tell, one big thing that gets in the way of battles against revenge porn is copyright.
If somebody else is doing the filming, i.e. the ex-boyfriend jerk, according to copyright he has full control over that porn. So you have to say copyright must be made irrelevant when passing laws to take the revenge porn down in order to look the least bit sane.
And if the victim had the copyright that also would likewise be irrelevant.
It doesn't matter either way. And it is ridiculous of copyright believers to say that copyright should be involved at ALL, along the lines of "we wouldn't be able to do the right thing here if it wasn't for copyright". Total babble. As well as all the other irrelevant things they try to tie in the strictly economic theory of copyright such as plagiarism, trademarks, quality assurance, branding, defamation, libel and - putting it bluntly - blasphemy via remixes.
Very good post. We must all raise hell whenever derivative works are slandered as "cheap cat videos from the internet".
Copyright advocates do not believe that derivative art is real art. And they would feel no shame whatsoever in calling for deviantArt.com to be shut down in the name of "artists rights".
Ownership of expression is at odds with freedom of expression, despite the rationalisations from the other side. I have heard some people say that copyright should be an "exception" to free expression because somehow derivative art is not real art in the "property" sense and therefore it is disposable, and I have on the contrary heard that copyright is PRO freedom of expression because it supposedly brings about expressions that would not have been possible otherwise.
But the attitude really being expressed here can be better summed up like this: they believe it is necessary to sacrifice some expressions in order to preserve other expressions, and more worryingly that they consider themselves fit enough to know where to draw the line between freedom and ownership. I say this is unjust. And I have plenty of historical examples of what happens when you get folk who consider themselves fit to draw lines like that.
I don't have to believe in copyright in order to help artists make a living. I am against pirates taking something from artists without giving anything in return, and I am against pirates exploiting the artist's faith in the empty promises of copyright.
But I ALSO believe this with respect to derivative artists, too. If there is one thing pirates and copyright believers have in common, it is that they both see derivative artists as disposable.
That is why I do not believe in copyright. Assurance contracts are how you fund artists, and they are also how you secure equality for derivative artists. Because the WORK is what we are paying for, not the pseudo-product. And the work put in by derivative artists is JUST as laborious as original artists and therefore deserves all the same protection of property. Therefore, to get this equality we must abolish copyright and harness assurance contracts.
A drug dealer can be in the moral wrong by using lack of regulation to mix soft drugs with hard drugs to keep customers hooked. They may also not check for I.D., foster other kinds of crime and violence, and encourage corruption among departments of justice, politicians and corporations (e.g. banks).
Likewise, a pirate can offer deals no one can compete with as his own little "gateway". They don't have to put BBFC/PEGI ratings on films to protect kids from adult content, encourage money laundering, fraud, and have some pirates armed with sawn-off shotguns, and encourage corruption among courts who will not stop them, tech-utopian politicians and corporations (e.g. Google. And banks.)
So the answer to your question can be "yes". But you're still going to have do a lot better than that.
The situation is even more "I Am Spartacus" than it seems. People can and do openly reveal their identities and say in public that they pirate copyrighted content in full view of law enforcement and artists/artists' publishers.
But they can't be chased down. Because there's too many of them.
Secrecy in courts must be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
For one thing, the NSA may be determined to keep certain court evidence secret from the public precisely BECAUSE they will have violated the 4th amendment to get that evidence. I know GCHQ has been caught doing this, for example. That is one of the knock-on effects everybody forgets about when it comes to debates over that amendment.
And as for "embarrassment" here, in my view there is nothing to be embarrassed about. If there was an unjust search carried out in the name of an unjust war (the war on drugs) based on something that was nobody else's business but those students', the only thing that must be felt when trying to carry forward some justice is pride, not shame.