PDA

View Full Version : Google bends to DMCA? whats next?


nikolatesla20
February 7th, 2006, 14:16
Try this:

Go to Google. Type in the following search:

olly hits snake

Press the "Google Search" button or press Enter.

Now in the first results page, scroll down to the bottom and read the notice.

-nt20

naides
February 7th, 2006, 15:08
WTF?

If you want to keep your digital material protected and private,
DO NOT PUBLISH IT IN THE WEB

If they want diffusion and publicity, essentially for free,
Assume your material will undergo mitosis

SiGiNT
February 7th, 2006, 15:51
If you read the body of the text - there is no actual reference to olly - unless you include hollywood - the complaint appears to have originated from the porn industry - I suppose with a stretch of the imagination you could strongarm google to stop finding references to cracking tuts - if you are the tut's author and hold a copyright - taken to the total extreme, seach engines could be outlawed because 90% if not more, of the material on the web is "protected by copyright" - every time you print a web page without the author's express permission you are violating ths DMCA - ABSURD - REALLY ABSURD - at least some countries, I believe France is one have deemed the DMCA to be invalid.

SiGiNT

Woodmann
February 7th, 2006, 16:12
Fucking Google, what a load of pussies.

First they agree to Chinas demands by placing filters on google.cn.
Now some whiny baby is all pissy because they were to lazy to protect thier copy-righted images.

Why did the phrase "olly hits snake" reveal the wonderful disclaimer from Google ?
Because A search of the document that perfect 10's sent to Google has a bunch of links to images. So google just blocks the entire site list from the results, not just the image.

Quote:

Question: Why does a search engine get DMCA takedown notices for materials in its search listings?


Answer: Many copyright claimants are using Section 512(d) of the DMCA, a safe-harbor for providers of "information location tools." Whether or not the search engine would have been liable for infringement by materials it links to, it can avoid the possibility of money damages by following the DMCA takedown procedure when it gets a notice. See What does a service provider have to do in order t...? ("http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=129"); What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c...? ("http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=440"); Does a service provider have to follow the safe ha...? ("http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=588"). The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification ("http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf"). For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions ("http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi"). For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright ("http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi").


512 states:

Quote:
Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)?


Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512.

Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the allegedly infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing.


And lastly:

Quote:
Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?

Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.


I didnt know Google was an ISP. I mean, yes they provide an internet service but, I think we are stretching the "classical" definition of ISP just a wee bit. the DMCA is applying the rules as they see fit.
Google is so terrified of being sued. Can the DMCA sue a bot ?

The DMCA is so contradictory it's a joke. Google has tons of money, dont they have a few people from the EFF on retainer ? Shit, they could just buy EFF for that matter and not be a bunch of pussies.

Listen up you fuckers who have some extra "capital" floating around.
It's time to build a search engine to start crawling the internet for all content -nude pics -my free space -bullshit.
Google is only going to please the share holders from this point on.

Woodmann

Oh shit, the most important part. Perfect 10's chose to pick on Google because most of the sites they are complaining about are servers in countries that dont give a shit about the DMCA. They can piss and moan all they want but someone justs hits the delete button. 50 emails to abuse and viola! gone in an instant.

Kayaker
February 7th, 2006, 16:30
It's so comforting to know that Google is now protecting the world from both copyright violations and the lie known as Tianemen Square.
I think I'll change my home page back to Yahoo...

nikolatesla20
February 7th, 2006, 17:07
This really sucks. Gone soon are the days when you could find some nice stuff thru Googling or searching the 'net. The NET is turning commercial by the minute, and the problem is half the commercialism is crappy crap stuff.

They figure out how to strongarm Google to stop displaying certain searches, but nobody can seem to figure out how to really get rid of spam? I'm quite sure Perfect10 has a few spammers in its arsenal as well!

Now we need a 3rd country search engine that works great...soon Woodmann and Exetools and the like won't show up on Google either!

Actually I dont know if their filters are fully functional yet. I took the first "offending" link and tried out the search:

hxxp://www.google.com/search?hs=toF&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Abby+Essien+hitwgang&btnG=Search

and it still seems to give me a link to a pic

-nt20

bart
February 7th, 2006, 17:27
www.boingboing.net i couldn't resist guys

Woodmann
February 7th, 2006, 18:40
Nice link bart.
I had no idea this shit with Google goes back a few years.

Woodmann

LLXX
February 8th, 2006, 00:20
This is ridiculous. Google is only indexing publically accessible content. As naides said:
Quote:
[Originally Posted by naides]If you want to keep your digital material protected and private,
DO NOT PUBLISH IT IN THE WEB

If they want diffusion and publicity, essentially for free,
Assume your material will undergo mitosis
The idiots that don't know how to keep things private should be at fault, not Google.

Ever since the DMCA and all that other shit, all I'm seeing is a gradual, but noticeable decline in the atmosphere of the Internet. Commercialism has become rampant, almost like a plague. It's completely against what the Internet was originally built for: to distribute and share information freely, and the dream that in the future everyone will have free, rapid, and unrestricted access to all the information on Earth. (Just read through Fravia's Searchlores...)

Down with the DMCA!

Silver
February 8th, 2006, 06:51
I agree with the points made, but here's a devils advocate.

Google is a private company. You are using the services of a private company. If that private company chooses to alter the services it provides, that's its legal and express right. If they wanted, Google can simply return 1 search result for every search. They can drop all references to, say, China. They can do *anything* they want. It's their data.

Look at it this way. If Amazon stopped selling books on home improvement, what would you do? Nothing. You'd simply say "ok, Amazon are being stupid, I'll just go to Barnes & Noble/Borders/whoever instead". Yes it might piss Bob Vila off but it's not "wrong" per se.

Amazon refusing to sell a certain category of book is no different to Google refusing to return a certain set of search results. Both, as service providers, are choosing the data they supply as part of their service.

The real problem here is that Google has become "the Internet". Everyone forgot they were a profit making company and for some unknown reason thought they were this marvellous hacker-geek-netuser-friendly magnanamous organization who gave their resources away for the betterment of the intarweb. Google pulled off the greatest marketing coup in years - everyone thinks Google is their friend, not a company looking to make money.

Google have been manipulating search results since day 1 (think Adsense, at the very least). The only reason this is different is because those 4 letters appeared, and fortunately the DMCA means nothing outside the US.

CluelessNoob
February 8th, 2006, 09:27
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Silver]Google pulled off the greatest marketing coup in years - everyone thinks Google is their friend, not a company looking to make money.


Could be, but with crap like this they will be reversing that "friend" image pretty quickly - driving people to use other search engines.

EDIT: Also, I have to agree with the statement:

Quote:

If you want to keep your digital material protected and private,
DO NOT PUBLISH IT IN THE WEB


Why are they putting "high quality" images (yeah, right) where a friggin' search engine 'bot can find them. Isn't that stuff usually username/password protected?

nikolatesla20
February 8th, 2006, 10:05
I agree Silver, these are valid points. The only problem is now it begins a slope where eventually ISP's will also be bending to the will of the corporate domination, and then the "internet" will truly be dead. Well, until wireless is more rampant at least. But I guess this has been going on for a while, so now I am not so alarmed anymore.

This is also one reason I chose not to get a gmail account. I have gotten invites, but then I read that Google is going to use those accounts for other purposes, etc, and that privacy issues come into the picture. So I declined for now.

-nt20

SiGiNT
February 10th, 2006, 17:31
OMG!

The bastards have really gone over the edge -

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41525

SiGiNT

naides
February 10th, 2006, 18:48
OK Satan, here are my counter-arguments


Quote:
[Originally Posted by Silver]I agree with the points made, but here's a devils advocate.

Google is a private company. You are using the services of a private company. If that private company chooses to alter the services it provides, that's its legal and express right. If they wanted, Google can simply return 1 search result for every search. They can drop all references to, say, China. They can do *anything* they want. It's their data.

NO. A private company has limits, both legal and moral. A private hospital has your health and personal infomartion. Just because they are private and it is their data, they cannot violate your thust and sell or in any way exploit your data.

A private company may choose to only serve people of some favored ethnicity or religion. They can and will be interdicted for discrimination.
Private does not mean above the law or the tacit rules of acceptable behavoir. if a private entity chooses to go above the rules, it will be penalized legaly, and perhaps socially BOYCOTT.



Look at it this way. If Amazon stopped selling books on home improvement, what would you do? Nothing. You'd simply say "ok, Amazon are being stupid, I'll just go to Barnes & Noble/Borders/whoever instead". Yes it might piss Bob Vila off but it's not "wrong" per se.

Amazon refusing to sell a certain category of book is no different to Google refusing to return a certain set of search results. Both, as service providers, are choosing the data they supply as part of their service.


If I were Bob, I would sue Amazon for damages and discrimination, and I bet you I would win. An entity that serves the public is bound by standards of conduct, and cannot or should not arbitrarily choose not to sell a particular segment of the public. If you are public or claim to serve the public, you are bound by some laws and standards. As I said before, before discriminating against a particular segment, no mather how hateful you find it, you better get you arguments in order.

Google sells information in the form of searchable web catalogs. I find it objectionable, while perhaps not necessarily illegal to filter out certain information.

this behavoir infringes the rights of the users either in China or in the USA, and both behavoirs should be condemned, if you believe in freedom of speech and free access to knowledge, which in my humble opinion, is the center point of the internet


The real problem here is that Google has become "the Internet". Everyone forgot they were a profit making company and for some unknown reason thought they were this marvellous hacker-geek-netuser-friendly magnanamous organization who gave their resources away for the betterment of the intarweb. Google pulled off the greatest marketing coup in years - everyone thinks Google is their friend, not a company looking to make money.

Google have been manipulating search results since day 1 (think Adsense, at the very least). The only reason this is different is because those 4 letters appeared, and fortunately the DMCA means nothing outside the US.



I am not talking as a lawyer, rather as a libertarian, in the old, enlightment sense of the word.

Woodmann
February 10th, 2006, 23:11
Howdy,

Google is a public company. As such they are bound by the SEC.
They cannot conceal anything if the public requests it.

What they do as a public company will hold them responsible to the share holders of Google. If the share holders do not wish to participate in any lawsuits, Google will respond as they have. Money is the bottom line when a company is publically traded.

This does not make Google bad, it just makes them pussies.
The share holders dont give a shit because it's all about the money.
For those of us who are searchers, it makes them look bad.

They went to all the trouble of becoming probably the best search tool to becoming some entity that is willing to sell out.
Yes, the 99% of people dont care or will never know but,
These will be the same people who will allow the Google desktop and never know they are being raped.

My last few days of looking into Google's actions have led me to believe that Google has sold out and can no longer be trusted.
I also will not trust the Google/*nix union.
It seems to me that they are willing to do anything to gain a microsoft type advantage that is strictly driven by dollars.

Woodmann

SiGiNT
February 11th, 2006, 01:51
Woodmann,

I take it you are not going to run out and get the new toolbar, so that as Google oversees your documents and data, you can conveniently retrieve them from work? - why do I hear very faintly in the background BWWAAAAA HA HA HA!!!!!, could that be a government? - or specifically HS????

Yeah I'm paranoid, but it doesn't make me a bad guy!

SiGiNT

JMI
February 11th, 2006, 03:28
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

Regards,

SiGiNT
February 16th, 2006, 16:42
Hmmmmmmmm - and he's a Democrat - go figger!

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41682 ("http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41682")

SiGiNT

Woodmann
February 16th, 2006, 16:56
Check out this editorial cartoon:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/ ("http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/")

Woodmann

Woodmann
February 16th, 2006, 19:13
Howdy,

I have spent the last 2 hours reading about this Google fiasco.
There seems to be some mis-understanding about what is being perceived as censorship.
Most of the articles I have read are dealing with this as a censorship issue.
Google is a for profit company and free to make their choices.
The deal they made with China is censorship BUT, that is China.
We have known all along that China censors what their population is allowed to see.
I dont agree with Yahoo turning over information to China in an effort to jail someone who was critical of the politics of China.

What people are missing is that Google caved to some infraction of the DMCA. It seems they are not willing to check into these allegations and instead, just block an entire site.
It is an issue of copyright infringement.
Google presented the story of being pressured into doing something they didnt want to do YET, they made no real effort to just block the alleged infringing content, they blocked entire sites.

As I write this, I do not know if they have restored any of the blocked links.

Like all useless government panels, the current one dealing with Google, Yahoo, Cisco et al; will yeild nothing.

Perhaps it will reveal that you just use another search engine like Alta and see the content that Google has blocked.

Woodmann