Tell that to Google.
The issue here is one of potential liability for contributory infringement.
When a party's technology is being primarily used for infringing purposes, and its independent, non-infringing uses are at best marginal, such a party can be held liable for contributory infringement of the copyrights at issue. That in essence appears to be what the court concluded here.
Contributory infringement, though, does not extend to technologies that can only incidentally be used for infringing purposes - were it otherwise, then any technology involved in facilitating an infringing use could be swept in (e.g., the manufacturers of hardware devices used to play the infringing material).
This line of legal reasoning has gradually evolved from the 1980's Betamax case through Napster to a variety of iterations in the modern law. It is a complex area of law but, in essence, it defines a level of culpability by which the law deems it fair to impose liability on a party not directly infringing on copyrighted materials but whose technology facilitates such infringement. Here, the court concluded that IsoHunt was sufficiently culpable to be held liable in spite of the fact that it can be used for innocent purposes as well.
Google's search function, on the other hand, obviously has major uses apart from those facilitating copyright infringement and Google is nowhere close to being a contributory infringer even though its technology might be misused for this purpose.
That doesn't mean the law is correct and people can reasonably differ on what is or isn't fair under copyright (or even whether copyright should exist) - but that argument is a philosophical one and not one for explaining what the current law is.
Good luck finding any judge that'd agree with you that Google's business is "99.9% infringing".
* http://www.eff.org/wp/iaal-what-peer-peer-developers-need-kn...
I guess that means google image search should be forbidden too as most images are copyrighted.
If he says it's complex I take his word for it.
You can also find child porn on Google if you know how: but no one would consider them a distributor or a facilitator.
Note the "quick" links to Hindi movies, movies & tv, music. How many of those are legal torrents?
If the vast majority of URLs on the internet were infringing copyright, would you still support Google's right to index them?
I wonder what percentage of an index needs to refer to infringing content before allowing users to search the index is considered facilitating infringement. This percentage seems to be (a large part of) what judges use as evidence of intent.