It's getting harder with Google though, as their algorithms seem to be tuned against it. I'm prety sure torrents of very popular things like current movies and music etc. are still easy to find just due to overwhelming popularity, but it's the more "fringe" stuff that has really suffered in accessibility over the past few years --- the stuff that you can't even easily find or purchase a physical copy of.

The double standard is incredible. Google would be well served defending the open web by supporting sites such as torrentz (via legal resources or otherwise), its unfortunate that the PR aspect prevents such a thing.

How would assisting copyright infringement benefit the open web?

I see the mention of double standards but it seems very odd to me that someone would support copyright infringement (grabbing films etc.) and deem it acceptable yet we'd balk at someone either:

a) not paying for software we were selling, or b) not paying for a software service we were selling.

It doesn't add up.

Torrentz.eu provided links torrents but also provided a takedown feature where copyright holders could remove the torrents.

Whose to say that all the torrents were copyright infringement. Or even that copyright infringement laws applied equally in all parts of the world.

Google also provides links to torrents. That's the double standard.

The law is not stupid, if 90%+ of what you do aids illegal activity you're going to feel the heat. Google's proportion is much lower. It's not a double standard as much as a subjective demarcation. No one would take down a torrent site with 90% legal material and processes to remove offenders.

Why would that benefit Alphabet/Google? They have been working hard at their image of a service provider friendly to the needs of copyright owners (think of how Youtube handles DMCA requests and performs geoblocking based on IP licensing).

> friendly to the needs of copyright owners (think of how Youtube handles DMCA requests and performs geoblocking based on IP licensing).

You mean complying with the local laws? That seems to be something that they have to do.

YouTube goes above and beyond the law in favoring copyright holders. Historically, it doesn't take notices with any legal force to get videos removed or forcibly monetized, just an (often automated) entry in YouTube's system; an appeal against a copyright claim (whether fair use or pure bogus) is decided by the claimant; and (for a long time, but I think not anymore?) claimants kept the money earned while their claim was active, even if it was rescinded.