I think one problem is that selective enforcement is the reality of all sorts of policing. I remember reading somewhere authoritative that the average person commits dozens of illegal acts every day.
So one question is in whose interests the enforcement is carried out, and who then gets the wrong end of the stick. One example is the correlation between minor drug busts and race. In our case, the entertainment industry has the political and economic clout to get the laws enforced in a way that meets its needs.
I think the comments contrasting Google with the much smaller search engine outfits that got busted are on point here. Yes, Google returns a higher proportion of "legal" results, but so what. It presumably returns more sanctionable ones as well. Just because a bank robber goes to church on Sunday doesn't mean he doesn't rob banks.
I was joking earlier about the proliferation of awesome badges that appear on these shut-down sites; one implication is that the government is throwing a lot of money and time at this effort. Could these resources be better used in some less punitive way, or in some way that supports new legal and business models that might enhance value for content creators?
Edit: One reason I think the answer is "No" is because the real strategic objective here, or at least one of them, is to once and for all smother net neutrality in its crib. Another good reason to leave Google alone.
http://almiraatblog.files.wordpress....n-internet.jpg