Again, if you are incapable of seeing the distinction between a general-purpose search engine which indexes the entire web and a website dedicated overwhelmingly to links to copyrighted content (including categorization features, rating systems, subsections devoted entirely to individual television programs), then we must just view the world differently.
Contributory copyright violation is a long standing element of copyright case law[1].
The parent poster is right under the current law (despite the downvotes). Google Product Search has numerous non-infringing uses, whereas a site that exists to do nothing more than link to pirated content will have a lot more difficulty in showing they aren't contributing to copyright violation.
The biggest, most recent case involving this was Grokster vs MGM [2]
The court found:
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties[3]
Wikipedia has a good discussion of the ruling:
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses. On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claims "a strong demonstrated need for modifying Sony (or for interpreting Sony's standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of [...] lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony.[3]
The key point is * non infringing uses*. The court needs to be convinced that they exist, and this occurs on a case-by-case basis.
You (and I) may not like this law, but that is how it currently is being interpreted.
