Slashdot Mirror
Google Publicizes DMCA Takedowns
dmarti writes "In an apparent response to criticism of its handling of a threatening letter from a Church of Scientology lawyer, the popular search engine Google has begun to make so-called "takedown" letters public. DMCA-censored pages are now two clicks and a cut-and-paste away from the regular search results."
(Posted AC, so I'm not whoring...don't need it anyways, but I expect the site to die soon)
Attention DMCA lawyers: Try to remove a web site from Google's index and you'll probably just make it more popular.
In an apparent response to criticism of its handling of a threatening letter from a Church of Scientology lawyer, the popular search engine Google has begun to make so-called "takedown" letters public. DMCA-censored pages are now two clicks and a cut-and-paste away from the regular search results.
The full text of two new letters to Google, dated April 9 and 10, already appears on the free speech site chillingeffects.org. "I think it's great that they're calling attention to the way the takedown provision can be used to compromise their search results," said Wendy Seltzer, Fellow of Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and co-founder of chillngeffects.org.
Google is still choosing to take advantage of the Safe Harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows web sites to escape liability for copyright infringement if they take pages down in response to properly formed letters.
In a controversial move last month, Google pulled all pages from the anti-Scientology site xenu.net then restored the site's home page amid Internet outcry, just as Linux Journal readers were on their way to visit Google in person to ask for help finding censored pages about the alien warlord Xenu who is a key figure in Scientology's creation legend.
Only the name and telephone number of the attorney who wrote the letters have been removed from the copies on chillingeffects.org. Both of the new letters originate from the Los Angeles law firm of Moxon & Kobrin, where attorney Helena Kobrin has long been Scientology's standard-bearer against church critics on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology and other online fora. Kobrin was not immediately available for comment
The letters are also linked to directly from Google search results. When results would have included a DMCA-censored page, the results page now includes a link to the takedown letter that resulted in the page being removed. A search this morning for site:xenu.net scientology produced the message:
"In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 8 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results."
Failing to act in response to a DMCA takedown letter is not against the law. "They can always choose not to take advantage of the safe harbor," Seltzer said. However, only by complying with the letter and taking pages out of their index can Google escape a possible copyright infringement lawsuit.
Finally, Google has expanded its DMCA page to include instructions for Counter Notification under the DMCA. A webmaster who believes that a non-infringing page is being unfairly censored can write the proper legal incantations and have the page put back into the index.
Google is then required to forward this Counter Notification to the original notifier, and then put the page back in the index "not less than 10 or more than 14" days after Google receives the Counter Notification. If your site is pulled out of Google and you're confused, chillingeffects.org has a web form that will generate a correctly formed Counter Notification.
It is good to see that privately made threats aren't as private as the bad guys want them to be. I seriously have a problem with censorship, especially when it is as blatantly self-serving as from the Church of (Battlefield Earth) Scientology. :/
Oh yeah, I want a refund for my ticket, I didn't realize that it was a fanatical religious movie when I went to go see it
Is everyone actually reading the article before posting? I can't believe the story has been up this long with so few comments. :)
This is the perfect response from google. It's about time people learned what the internet is all about, and stop whining that their crappy stuff somehow made it on the net in the first place.
I mean come on.. google creates a crawler that goes out and finds stuff, they list on their site what they find, and now clueless morons want to make them responsible for having links to that information?????
Security through obscurity.. yeah.. that'll keep em out!
---
" - anonymous
Looks like Google is on the right track. They did kind of step on it when they pulled the Scientology links, but made up for it (kind of). Now it looks like it will take a lot more than just a threat for them to pull pages. Good move!
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Anti-DMCA dot org
Thanks to a bright suggestion, I and probably lots of others have started linking to scientology to help bump xenu.net up in the search engine listings.
It's now number 2 in the rankings which is 3 spots higher than a few weeks ago so perhaps this small form of protest is also working!
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
Google has certainly earned my respect... not only for finding a way to get back at these folks, but also for their ingenuity.
And on top of that, their search engine often has the ability to read minds!
It just goes to show you that throwing money and lawyers at a problem isn't always the only solution. A little creativity can go a long way.
Just look at the things the leaders of the civil rights movement came up with!
It seems as though Google has realized that the majority of people using their search engine are home users, who want to find good pages with information they want. By telling people that the DMCA has resulted in the removal of said pages, it's informing the average user of what laws such as the DMCA actually mean to them!
I think its a fairly bold statement on Google's part, saying that the end user is more important than the corperate jackasses.
-agent oranje.
Of course, someone will come up and say "a slashdotting is insignificant next to the power of a Google Cache."
-Cyc
/.'s 10 Millionth
The more info that is published, the more that this crap is pushed into the public, the more that idiot laws are examined, the sooner that these ass monkey laws will be struck down.
Or so I hope.
Assuming that the topic title is correct, then GO GOOGLE! Fsck the DMCA, RIAA, and MPAA, baby! Let me buy my stuff (legally), and back it up. [For the record (before I'm called a theif), I have never downloaded a single song or movie that I didn't already own.]
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
hmm...we can't seem to get this page taken down or off of google.....let's just send a link in to Slashdot? those uber-nurds will take care of the webserver in no time!
Jesse Newland
The letters from the Church of Scientology are on chillingeffects.org
What a bunch of goobers...
I've been wondering about this for a long time. They cache possibly illegal content, and are certianly distributing some stuff that the authors aren't giving them permission to, as well as possibly linking to sites which violate DMCA (and if they recieve too many letters about this, it could take forever to take down all the sites that are apparently violating the act).
It seems that Google might be breaking some of the current laws, or may break some in the future. IMHO, this is a good thing, because there are so many people who think that Google is an innocent, noble and pure search engine. The law may just be changed so that Google no longer violates it. I would certainly hate to see such a mechanism slip quietly into the night.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
While I wait for the tide to go out again, let's hear it for Google - they seem to be one of the few true 'eyes-open' geek-corporations out there.
It seems to be the exception, sadly, that a company becomes prominent and generally liked all because of their technology and almost non-marketing.
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Does this make google a circumvention device?
I love google just as much (more?) than the next guy, but does anyone think that they could use their monopoly (used loosely) of the search engine world to do things that microsoft is doing? It just struck me that really they can do anything they want and will basically control what people see, because so many people use it. I'm sure if you could mod me flaimbait and off topic, you would. =)
Get Firefox!
You can read the complaints that the lawyers for the church of scientology made to Google here:
1) Complaint #2 -- April 9
2) Complaint #3 -- April 10
And more importantly, go Google for publicizing the links! Yet another reason why Google is the best search engine around.
An even more evil plan would be to send two DMCA complaints for each DMCA complaint published, perhaps one for the first half, one for the second half. The exponential growth of DMCA complaint letters could bring even Google to its knees.
Of course, it'd be hard to generate all these complaint letters. So what you do is, build the Google API into an Outlook virus, which looks for published DMCA letters on Google and sends an automatic complaint. Soon the entire Internet will be crippled by the DMCA deluge...which was sorta the idea from the beginning, I think.
I tried that trick (searching for "xenu.net scientology" in google). The link to xenu.net is up and there was no message about the DMCA. I guess that's good, 'though if it were me I'd keep the DMCA letters up with the relevant site links.
Anybody got any other blocked links to test this system out on?
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
It appears that the CoS pays for a "Sponsored Link" on Google. Specifically, a link to www.drugfreelife.net"
I applaud Google for posting the letters, since posting them might piss off a source of revenue, I would applaud them even more if they would refuse to take CoS money - after all it comes from the wallets of the brainwashed.
1-800-564-8982
/. editors should be familiar with it...
Press 2, then 5228.
Enjoy! All
Posted on Friday, April 12, 2002 by Don Marti
Attention DMCA lawyers: Try to remove a web site from Google's index and you'll probably just make it more popular.
In an apparent response to criticism of its handling of a threatening letter from a Church of Scientology lawyer, the popular search engine Google has begun to make so-called "takedown" letters public. DMCA-censored pages are now two clicks and a cut-and-paste away from the regular search results.
The full text of two new letters to Google, dated April 9 and 10, already appears on the free speech site chillingeffects.org. "I think it's great that they're calling attention to the way the takedown provision can be used to compromise their search results," said Wendy Seltzer, Fellow of Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and co-founder of chillngeffects.org.
Google is still choosing to take advantage of the Safe Harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows web sites to escape liability for copyright infringement if they take pages down in response to properly formed letters.
In a controversial move last month, Google pulled all pages from the anti-Scientology site xenu.net then restored the site's home page amid Internet outcry, just as Linux Journal readers were on their way to visit Google in person to ask for help finding censored pages about the alien warlord Xenu who is a key figure in Scientology's creation legend.
Only the name and telephone number of the attorney who wrote the letters have been removed from the copies on chillingeffects.org. Both of the new letters originate from the Los Angeles law firm of Moxon & Kobrin, where attorney Helena Kobrin has long been Scientology's standard-bearer against church critics on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology and other online fora. Kobrin was not immediately available for comment
The letters are also linked to directly from Google search results. When results would have included a DMCA-censored page, the results page now includes a link to the takedown letter that resulted in the page being removed. A search this morning for site:xenu.net scientology produced the message:
Failing to act in response to a DMCA takedown letter is not against the law. "They can always choose not to take advantage of the safe harbor," Seltzer said. However, only by complying with the letter and taking pages out of their index can Google escape a possible copyright infringement lawsuit.
Finally, Google has expanded its DMCA page to include instructions for Counter Notification under the DMCA. A webmaster who believes that a non-infringing page is being unfairly censored can write the proper legal incantations and have the page put back into the index.
Google is then required to forward this Counter Notification to the original notifier, and then put the page back in the index "not less than 10 or more than 14" days after Google receives the Counter Notification. If your site is pulled out of Google and you're confused, chillingeffects.org has a web form that will generate a correctly formed Counter Notification.
So now when I search at google for "operation clambake scientology" not only do I get www.xenu.net, but I get some paid for "sponsored links" that bring me directly to the media page for the church of scientology.
Well, good for google I guess.
Let's push this to the extreme and submit our own 'DMCA takedowns' to Google on everything possible (Slashdot effect?) so that the average search becomes littered with 'DMCA negative' links!
GPL Deconstructed
Go google!
no text.
me
I love how the publicly available complaint has a complete list of what they want to "block". Oops!
sulli
RTFJ.
Note that Xenu.net includes the infamous OT III text. This tells how the galactic overlord Xenu tricked billions of people into coming to Teegeeack(Earth) for income tax inspections and blew them up. From the text
...
After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called "implanting".
When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.
Part of scientology is to free yourself of these souls. Now does releasing this text not possibly allow a person to rid themselves of these souls by alerting them to their presence? These "special 3d motion pictures" are undoubtedly a technological security measure. The only logical solution from this is that the page is a digital circumvention device specifically disallowed by the DMCA. I believe it is a clear cut issue and that the scientologists are fully within their rights to disallow google to allow people to link to this illegal page. However also keep in mind that scientology didn't enact this security measure, Xenu did, therefore scientology is also in violation of this law. Now if only Xenu can break free of his volcano, come to Earth, and sue the scientologists
I stole this Sig
Are they telling the truth? There's gotta be a lie in there somewhere! The potential irony of a legal team falling foul of a clause in their own boilerplate sounds intriquing.
Hmm. I have read a search for "site:xenu.net scientology" links to the takedown letters. When I try this search, the first hit is www.xenu.net. I wonder if this is because I am redirected to www.google.ca? Anybody have any idea if a search coming from Canada acts differently than a search coming from the US?
Couldn't anyone notify an ISP that a site is infringing whether or not it's true. What if during X-mas someone notifies E-Toys ISP that they are in violation of copyright, of course this may be bogus, but the site would have to be pulled for 10 days minimum. That would draw some serious attention to this bad law. If the coporations can abuse the DMCA what prevents indivuals from turning the tables on them when it counts.
So I spent some time searching for stuff and voting up sites with my Google toolbar. :o)
My (former) wife had previously been married to some a**hole Scientologist, and they tracked her up to Portland from LA and harrassed us. I wasn't confrontational, at first.
They sent obnoxious mail. I taped it to cinder blocks with "addressee unknown, please return" on their mail. The US PS was happy to charge them $20 or so to return those.
However, when two of them pushed into my my living room without my invitation, I excused myself for a moment and came back with a rifle, which I pointed at them, and I told them to leave my premises and never darken my door again.
Then we got phone calls. I shut that down by calling their office and carefully explaining to them that if I got any further harrassment from them I would personally shoot everyone in their f*cking cult, starting with the people in their downtown office and not stopping until I'd found and shot every f*cking Scientologist in the entire state!
That worked. And that's how Scientologists should be dealt with. It's the only "reasoning" they understand. Tar and feathers are gentle approbation, and very appropriate.
I'm getting sick of all the comments complaining about the moderation on certian items. Things like "Mod this one up!" from all the AC's are just a pain to sort through. Do you want the ability to mod somehting? Get and account and login.
And they want to charge me for all this too....
I did the google search mentioned in the article (site:xenu.net scientology) and got no DMCA warning - just the proper links to xenu.net.
I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice.
Don't search for "xenu.net Scientology", search for "site:xenu.net Scientology". You have to include the "site" keyword. The notice is at the bottom of the results page.
I don't think many people are going to see these DMCA notifications, because I don't think that many people search this way. If they know a given site has information on a topic, most of them go straight to the site, don't they?
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
The best thing about this is that the general public may begin to become informed about the DMCA and all of the stupid things that can come of it. Hopefully google will make a point to tell people that the DMCA was the reason the links are gone (read: put it at the top of the page). Possibly if enough people get pissed about the abuse of the law, and the abusivness of the law, it can either be over turned or new legislation can be passed to modify it. Or at the very least, become publicly debated and hated. That might lead to something...
now xenu.net is fighting a losing battle. I work at an ISP and am waiting for their page to load. The site has a lot of links to various public resources, like an alt.religion.scientology archive, the recently de-classified FBI files on L. Ron Hubbard, and various Scientology documents. I guess Scientologists don't want factual information about their group in one easy place for people to see. It also has Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, from The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark which is an excellent book.
If SlashDot let me configure my account with a delay (so I see only stories that are X hours old, and X is configurable by me for my account), then I'd set X to maybe 6.4023 (or some other random number ) and not have to cope with sites being down from the slashdot effect so much.
If they had gave people a default random value for X, then this slashdotting effect would go away altogether for most users. People who really want the latest could configure their account to set X to zero.
No luck. Couldn't find the message when searching for various combinations of "xenu.net", "scientology", and a couple of other scientology-related terms.
It's not as visible or easily accessible a message as the article would lead one to believe.
Or I'm just slow.
scientology is based on the fact that two authors had a bet as to who could write a book and get a cult following first.
they have no right to order google to do anything... they fell for it hook, line and sinker. and now they're a cult based on a stupid book.
religions are defined, old, and well decumented. scientology is not that, they are a cult. it would be a stretch to refer to them as a brotherhood, even.
bah... this seems so stupid sometimes.
A idea for some web content would be a breakdown of what happens during a slashdot effect encounter. What's the most common point of failure? Is it upstream, some aspect of of Apache, not enough file handles?
/. effect. It's a p200 mail server. Maybe I could just put up a simple counter that shows CPU load and other interesting bits.
Seems if we can get a breakdown of some things maybe folks can shore things up a bit. I've always entertained the idea of seeing how long my server could withstand the
Then folks could put their IP on some sacrificial list that people could go and slashdot from time to time.
Just a thought. Then you could have rankings of how long machines could stay up according to their specs and loads and such. Different classes according to upstream capabilities, type of page content and such. Be a gladiator arena of sorts.
The DMCA is shit as is alot of bills and laws passed in Washington these days. I thought about something when I read this.
I'm not entirely sure on this. The PatriotAct that was rushed through Congress has a clause in it stating "If you are searched because of the PatriotAct then it is illegal to make public the fact that you were searched". What would happen if the DMCA was modified like this?
Webpages and site listings disappearing overnight with no reason.
pretty scary
OMG BIG PENIS ATE MY SOUP
Sorry, I had to say, I, I had no choice!
Sir,
Thank you for your hypertext markup language link to an enticing image. If I was not at work, I would be yanking my crank. Spanking the monkey. Doing the twist. Shaking hands with the pope. Have a good weekend.
Yours,
That Dude Who Stands In The Bus Terminal All Day Leering At Young Women
I use Google because I have the warm fuzzy impression that if it's on the net, I can find it with Google and a proper formed query. Now the moment I no longer feel that Google contains a proper representation I have no use for it. although I have become quite fond of the google groups for troubleshooting and nostalgia.
If these spineless suits turns google into a censored site, it would be a sad day for the internet.
And as it have been said before, why not go for the original site instead. Maybe it's easier to "go for Google"(tm) because the responds to their mails.
Maybe the go for Google because of the same reason that I use Google, if it's not on Google nobody will find it. So they cache pages, what about that internet archive(wayback thingy)?
WHY???
Because they were following the law to the T...
They are only protected by the Safe Harbor provision if they honor the Notification letter.
And it can be simply reversed by a Counter-Notification.
This REALLY is the most logical way for this to work. It moves the responibility off of the indexer and puts it on the party publishing the information vs. the party claiming the info is copyrighted.
If "the man" ever shows up at Google's offices, they just whip out the documentation from each party and a copy of the law and say "goodday" to the badge.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
How are links different from library call numbers arrived at from a search through a card catalog?
Now what we need is a site that provides searchability on Google's repository of takedown letters and related links! Shouldn't be too hard, and it seems legal given my understanding of the issues.
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Copyright a copyright - pull a copyright from the copyright office and cut & paste it, then adjust it slightly (derivative work) to your new invention/copyrightable item. But really, I think God holds copyright on all copyrights, either him or the Roswell Grays.
Licence a licence - if someone wants to use GPL they have to meet certain criteria, restricting who/what you can apply the licence to.
Copyright a licence - if someone wants to release something under GPL/whatever then you cannot use our licence without our explicit permission, making GPL a closed open-source society.
Licence a copyright - You may use this copyright only under certain conditions, this sounds like the entire free market system. Sorta franchise.
So since the free market is based on the DMCA^2 that means that..... Actually I don't know what it means, I just confused myself. GPL is retstricted by (2) licence a licence as you can't apply the GPL to say, a Hershey bar, only software and thus there's a prerequisite condition to using the GPL. So is the GPL truly open source.....?
1.I am not a troll, just more of a Rumpelstiltskin.
I'm not a troll, it's just that my thinking pattern is open source, and my vocal cords aren't covered by the DMCA
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
I'm not sure I could think of any other response that Google could've made that would have been any better. By doing this they protect their interests, provide information to the public about why they've taken the actions they have, and if you read the letters you should be able to figure out what site was removed! They effectively sidestep this legal manuever, expose the twits who've harrased them, and give us enough information to find the site we wanted.
:-)
:-( Score one for my favorite search engine!
Actually, it's a bit of a shame that they are hiding telephone numbers etc. on the letters in question. I understand why - to prevent harrasing calls etc. - but hey the letter is apparently public record why not expose them? Seems fair enough to me!
I applaude Google for doing this, it's just a shame I can't read the article in question
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
You should request a refund because it's in a close tie with Waterworld for worst movie of the decade. That and it's a bunch of propaganda from MindNappers, Inc.
(Moderate: -1, Obvious)
Sorry, but we know roughly how search engines work by now, Google in particular.
Think about it. How many people have any reason whatsoever to post a page in support of this wonderful DMCA and encouraging the world about it? _Some_ companies maybe, but I'd suggest few or no home users.
So, considering that most of the internet (if not most of the content used on the net) is input by home users sounding off for their own entertainment, why's that even remotely surprising?
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Anyone else get an ADVERTISEMENT sponsored by Scientology when they searched? ROTFL - like I'd give them a penny!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
thief
Actually, it's a bit of a shame that they are hiding telephone numbers etc. on the letters in question. I understand why - to prevent harrasing calls etc. - but hey the letter is apparently public record why not expose them? Seems fair enough to me! :-)
Fair, yes. B-) But also an excuse for the Church of Scientology's lawyers to demand the letter be taken down. With the contact info removed they can't hide behind a harassment claim. They must expose their REAL reason for trying to get it down: censorship of any negative information about the behavior of CoS and its members.
I'm glad to see Google standing up in this manner. One of the major problems with the DCMA is that, in order for an anonymous poster to keep his site/links up, he must expose his identity. If the web page is critical of a criminal or gang which will harras the poster with extralegal actions once they FIND him, this requirement has a major chilling effect on anonymous speech.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Try this: send them evangelical Christian tracts.
Being an evangelical Christian, I've learned the hard way (unfortunately) how easily people become uncomfortable when asked about their own spiritual lives. What these folks need, plain and simple, is for you to tell them about Jesus Christ.
It doesn't matter whether or not you succeed in converting them or not - if they convert, they'll stop being jerks, and if they don't, they'll probably get so offended at what you are saying that they'll leave you alone. The notion that an all-powerful, all-knowing God will judge the world is quite scary to many people - especially control freaks.
Granted, had I been in your situation, I might have done the same thing you did. But I believe that threatening them only reinforced their own misguided beliefs ("We will be persecuted... etc..") The knowledge of Jesus Christ is a real danger to the organization, and I believe that you could have done them far more harm by sending back a Bible than a cinder block. When people discover that God loves them, they are emboldened to break out of abusive relationships, and it is these abusive relationships on which Scientology depends for support.The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Try finding the voting record for the DMCA. Supposedly, and I've not been able to confirm this, it was passed via VOICE VOTE - no record. However when asked th elawyer who presented on the DMCA in Las Vegas at DEFCON about this he said that it had been passed normally I believe. Anyone know the real answer - and better yet have the real voting record for this damned albatross?! If I find out that ANY of my reps voted for it I can promise they will NOT get my next vote for sure!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
This whole Slashdot Effect (for you German speakers, I just mistyped it as "Slashtot", translates as Slashdead ;-) can be mitigated by Slashdot caching or proxying the small-site pages they link to in their stories. The Slashdot Effect is so predictable by now, I'm surprised nobody has sent them a bill for the over-bandwidth charges their Slashdotted personal homepage has racked up. It seems very appropriate for Slashdot's servers to buffer the load that Slashdot stories generate.
I can certainly see no real legal reason not to mirror content, and there are technological solutions aplenty for the purpose. (I submitted an Ask Slashdot on this topic, but it was rejected.) I really hate to see us all trampling the sites we flock to see
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
But what's your source? All I've ever gotten has been RUMINT and when I asked the lawyer (Dario D. Diaz* - still have his card) in 'Vegas about it he seemed pretty certain that it was a normal vote. Since he'd researched the damned thing (boat hull design provision?!) and had just given a presentation on it I figured he must know more than me and didn't argue with him. I'd love to get a definative answer on this - and better yet a voting record. Can anyone help with solid info?
:-)
*www.fernandez-diaz-law.com is the URL on his card
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Of course, it wouldn't be too hard to forge a DMCA notice with no way of tracing it to you physically, but I would hope that recipients of DMCA filings take the time to contact the complainant and verify things.
"No! Google is a peacful website!" Cmdr. Taco: "Perhaps you'd prefer another target, a *nerdly* target? I grow tired of asking, so this will be the last time: Where is the hidden beowulf cluster of Natalie Portman pr0n?"
Play Command HQ online
IANAL, but as I understand it, in the UK I am entitled to use 'reasonable force' to defend 'life or property' (I believe those are the legal terms, but couldn't be certain). Exactly how reasonable the force used is, is a matter for the first the Police, then the Crown Prosecution Service, and then a Jury, if it ever gets to trial.
There was a recent case in the UK where a Norfolk farmer called Tony Martin was convicted of murder, reduced to manslaughter on appeal, for shooting two burglars with an illegally held shotgun, killing one of them.
Links to news items here and here, as well as the Tony Martin Support Group here.
I don't want to comment on that case in particular, but it does show you that, whilst you don't have to be defenceless, you do have to think a bit about what you do.
Scroll down. The DMCA notice is at the bottom of the results page.
.com results since the DMCA or whatever laws don't apply in other countries... in theory
In theory they would only need to remove the 'offending pages' from the
And the DMCA does affect Google sites outside the U.S., because they're all drawing their results from a database compiled within the United States.
It doesn't matter where the end-user is. American servers == American jurisdiction.
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
Even as science fiction, it's a bad read...
You are right, the movie was almost the most horrible movie I have ever seen (the most horrible being Robot Wars II). I would however say the book was not bad, it was one of hubbards last good ones before he embarked on his trip to wacky world.
I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
(preface-Thisisthebe stPythonsketchever.B est.Ever.)
.
.
.. h,nowonder,Iwassitti ngonthecat.(throwsit intofire)
MontyPython-VisitorsFrom&n bsp;Coventry
AbouttheSketch:
Notonlydidthissketch appearintheFlyingCircus&nb sp;TVShow-Episode12, itwasalsoperformedon theirAlbum-MontyPython's&n bsp;FlyingCircus'.
Thecast:
GrahamChapmanasVICTOR,Caro lClevelandasIRIS,Eric  ; dleasARTHUR,JohnCleese&nbs p;asBRIAN,TerryJonesas&nbs p;AUDREY,TerryGillamasMR.& nbsp;FREIGHT,MichaelPalinas  ; R.COOK
(Sceneopenstoasitting  ; oom.Lowsexylighting- haha-softsexymusic.& nbsp;OnthesofaareVic torandIrisjustbeginning&nb sp;tomakepassesateach  ; ther.)
Victor:Wouldyoumindterribl yifIholdyourhand?
Iris:Ohno,no,notat&n bsp;all.
Victor:OhIris,you'reso&nbs p;verybeautiful.
Iris:Oh,doyoureallym eanthat?
Victor:Ido,Ido,I&nbs p;do.Ithink...I'mbeginning tofallinlovewith&nbs p;you.
Iris:OhVictor.
Victor:It'ssillyisn'tit?
Iris:No,no,notatall& nbsp;dearsweetVictor.
Victor:NoIdidn'tmean that.Onlyjustusbeing soclosetogetherforso manymonthsinthesoft-toy&nb sp;departmentandyetneverda ringto...
Iris:Oh,ohVictor.
Victor:OhIris.(theymove&nb sp;closertokiss;justbefore theirlipsmeetthedoor bellgoes)Whocanthatb e?
Iris:Oh,wellyoutryan dgetridofthem.
Victor:YesIwill,Iwil l.
(Victoropensthefrontdoor.& nbsp;ArthurNameisstandingo utsidethedoor.)
Arthur:Hello!
Victor:Hello.
Arthur:Rememberme?&n bsp;
Victor:NoI'm...  ; nbsp;
Arthur:Inthepub.Thet allthinonewiththemou stache,remember?Aboutthree yearsago?
Victor:No,Idon'tI'ma fraid.
Arthur:Oh,blimey,it'sdark& nbsp;inhere,(switcheslight on)that'sbetter.Only yousaidwemusthavea&n bsp;drinktogethersometime,so&nbs p;IthoughtI'dtakeyou uponitasthefilm  ; ocietymeetingwascancelledt hisevening.
Victor:Look,tobefrank,&nbs p;itisalittleawkward thisevening.
Arthur:(steppingin;toIris) Hello,I'mArthur.Arthur&nbs p;Name.Namebynamebut notbynature.Ialwayss aythat,don'tIVickybo y?
Victor:Really...
Arthur:(toVictor)Isthat&nb sp;yourwife?
Victor:Er,no,actually.
Arthur:Oh,Igetthepic ture.Eh?Welldon'tworry&nbs p;aboutmeVickyboy,Ik nowallaboutone-nightstands
Victor:Ibegyourpardon?
Arthur:MindifIchange therecord?(takestherecord& nbsp;off)
Victor:Look,look,weput&nbs p;thaton.
Arthur:Here'sagoodone,&nbs p;Ihearditinapub.&nb sp;What'sbrown,what'sbrown andsoundslikeabell?
Victor:Ibegyourpardon?
Arthur:What'sbrownandsound slikeabell?Dung!Ha,& nbsp;ha,ha,that'sagood&nbs p;one.Ilikethatone,I won'tkeepyoulong.(th egramophoneplaysthe'Washin gtonPostMarch'veryloud)&nb sp;That'sbetter,nowdon'two rryaboutme.I'llwait& nbsp;heretillyou'vefinished.
(Thedoorbellgoesagain.)
Victor:Whothehell...
Arthur:I'llgetit.It'll&nbs p;befriendsofmine.It ookthelibertyofinviting&nb sp;themalong.
Victor:Look,wewerehoping&n bsp;tohaveaquietevening&nb sp;onourown.
Arthur:Oh,theywon'tmind.&n bsp;They'reverybroad-minded.Hell o!
(Heopensthedoor;Mran dMrsEquatorwalkinand gostraightuptoVictor .
Brian:Goodevening.Myname&n bsp;isEquator,BrianEquator.  ; ikeroundthemiddleoft heEarth,onlywithanL. (wheezinglaugh)Thisis  ; ywifeAudrey,shesmells  ; bitbutshehasah eartofgold.
Audrey:Hello,hahahah ahahahahaha...
Victor:Theremusthavebeen&n bsp;somekindofmisunderstanding,& nbsp;becausethisisnotthe..
Brian:Who'sthatthen?
Victor:What?
Brian:Who'sthebird?
Victor:I'm...
Brian:Yougotanicepai rtherehaven'tyoulove.  ; putshandonIris'sboobs  ; ndgivesawetkiss;Iris screams)Shutupyousil lybitch,itwasonlya&n bsp;bitoffun.
Victor:Nowlookhere...
Brian:Bigginplease.
Arthur:I'llgetit.
Victor:(goingafterArthur)L ook,leavethosedrinksalone.
Audrey:Andthreetinsof  ; eansformeplease.
Brian:Itoldyoutolay& nbsp;offthebeans,youwhore!
Audrey:Ionlywantthree  ; ans.
Brian:Buttonyourlipyou&nbs p;rat-bag.(laughsuproariously)
Audrey:(joinsin)Ha,ha,&nbs p;ha,ha...
Brian:Itwasratherwitty,&nb sp;wasn'tit?Where'smygin?
(Thedoorbellgoes.)
Victor:Whothehell'sthat?
Brian:Oh,Itookthelib ertyofinvitinganoldf riendalong,ashiswife hasjustpassedaway,and  ; e'ssomewhatdistraughtpoorc hap.Ihopeyoudon'tmin d.
Arthur:(openingdoor)Comeon in.
(InwalksMrFreightinu nderpants,sequins,eyemake-up,&nb sp;whitewellies,andnecklace.)
MrFreight:Oh?MyGod,w hatasimplyghastlyplace.
Brian:Nottoogoodisit ?Apintofcrèmede  ; entheformyfriend.Well  ; owareyou,yougreatpoo f?(sitsdown)Bitlumpy .
Iris:Aaaagh!Booboohooo.
MrFreight:I'veaskedalong&n bsp;asimplygorgeouslittlem anIpickedupoutsideth eOdeon.
Brian:Ishesexy?
(InwalksMrCookwitha& nbsp;goat.Freightkisseshim.)
MrCook:Ihadtobring&n bsp;thegoat,he'snotwell.&n bsp;Ionlyhopehedon't goonthecarpet.
Brian:(toIris)Comeon thenlove,drop'em.
Iris:Aaaaaaagh!(runsout)
Brian:Blimey,shedon'tgo&nb sp;muchdoshe.
(Hesitsinchairwhichc ollapses.)
Audrey:Ha,ha,ha,ha,h a,ha,oooooh!I'vewet' em
MrCook:Thegoat'sjust doneabundle.
(Agroupofsingersruno n,dressedasWelshminers.&nb sp;Alltalkatonce.)
Victor:Look,getoutall  ; fyou.Goon.Getout!&nb sp;Getout!
Brian:Ibegyourpardon?
Victor:I'mturningyouall&nb sp;out.I'mnothavingmy  ; ousefilledwithfilthyperver ts,nowlook,I'mgiving youjusthall'aminutet henI'mgoingtocallthe police,sogetout.
Brian:Idon'tmuchlike thetoneofyourvoice.( shootshim)Rightlet'shave&n bsp;adingdong...
All:(singing)Dingdongmerri lyonhigh,inHeaventhe bellsareringingetc...
I didn't know that little tidbit about the congressional record.
But I think the point here, is that if you catch their original remarks on cspan, and hit the record button on your VCR, the congressman does NOT get to barge into your house and edit the tape, ala 1984, to reflect his NEW version of what he said.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
From the article "Google Loves Blogs": "Google weights fresh votes more than older votes... fresh links are more heavily weighted". If that's true, the links from pro-scientology sites like whatisscientology and exactscientology might have lost voting power when they stopped being new. Conversely, linking to xenu.net from your site might only help temporarily.
The shareholder is always right.
The entire concept of "shoot to wound" is utter crap. There are certain basic rules of firearms everyone should know -
1. Always assume the firearm is loaded until you have verified it's status. If you *watch* someone unload it and hand it to you, you *still* treat it as if it were loaded until you check it yourself.
2. Keep your finger out of the trigger well until you plan to fire.
3. You should keep it pointed at the ground unless there is a specific reason to point it some other direction. Yes, even if you know it's unloaded.
3. Don't point the gun at anyone unless you plan to shoot them.
4. Don't shoot someone unless you plan to kill them.
5. Always aim for the center of mass. Trying to aim for legs or hands or heads is showing off, stupid, and likely to get someone (the wrong someone) killed.
Bryan
(who has already told his boss that if he ever strikes it rich he will buy his pager and cell phone from his employer for the express purpose of taking them to the firing range and mounting them on targets)
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
This, of course, varies by country and state.
"Are you on some kind of medication?"
"No"
"Well, you should be."
--Bean
Really? Are you so bad a shot that you don't feel confident shooting at a specific point on a target within 10 feet of you? Remember - these guys were in his living room.
Always get a shot off fast. It keeps them off guard long enough for you to make the second one count.
If you have the time and the ability, a small caliber hole in a non-vital area, such as shoulder or leg will effectively take the fight out of someone without risking anyone's life. It kinda lets them know you really are serious. I wouldn't consider it showing off to take someone's life, and the well being of any family they (or you) might have. Remember too (from an earlier post) the rifle that this guy had was a Ruger 10/22.
The who point is that this escalates from self defense to manslaughter unless you *try* to wound him. Putting a .44 mag in his chest is no attempt to wound him.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
There is a good book written on this concept of "No Duty to Retreat", when someone threatens your life or tresspasses on your property. For example, if someone enters your house, home, land you actually own, like those Scientologists did, you coulda shot and killed them.
So yeah, parts of the USA still have that wild west mentality.
It's still first come, first serve. It'll be the exact same, really.
"Derp de derp."
The law itself is not the code, but the decision to enact it. The part of the code that is public record is their modifications.
The responsibility should not rest with the party publishing the information. From what I've seen at xenu.net, their use falls pretty well within the boundries of "fair use".
You should have zero - zero - burden of legal engagement for doing something lawful.
The party claiming copyright has a right to show it has been harmed. Only a court can decide that. ONLY A COURT. Until one does, nobody else can say what you've done was unlawful. Nobody.
In Amereica you are assumed innocent. (At least that was the ideal, in the dim and distant past.) The publisher can file with a court just as quickly as they can fire off a letter under DMCA. Why go with DMCA? Because "ISPs" can't levy fines for frivolous claims. Meanwhile, the DMCA lawyer can force a victim to pay legal fees (effectively a large fine) with no legal recourse for the victim.
So, what does this pointless legal dance we call DMCA notification actually accomplish? Nothing, at least nothing having to do with protecting a copyright, that's for sure.
It is, however, another step in the direction of "citizen enforcement". Forcing citizens to enforce legal process, on penalty of their own harm, has been on true hallmark of totalitarian governments far into antiquity.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court should have stepped into this on their own motion quite some time ago.
My understanding is that certain states have laws against sueing someone in cases were it's clear there is no evidence to support their position. In other words, COS sues Google to shut up xenu.net, but say all of their claims are obviously unsupportable (I'd guess they are not supportable, but I didn't do any research on the topic). Xenu.net can file countersuit charging that COS is violating this kind of law, and if Xenu wins, COS is forced to pay Xenu's legal fees. Anyone know is COS is located withing the juristiction of one of these laws?
And it can be simply reversed by a Counter-Notification.
If a CN was given, then this goes to court. Considering xenu.net is pretty much one guy vs. a bottomless bank account what do you really think is going to happen in a US court regardless of the merits of the arguments? I don't want to be too cynical here, but even if you know without a doubt that you are in the right, it would still be a gamble to go against the legal knowhow of the CoS. Perhaps if more slashdotters opened their wallets and wrote a letter with an attached check to the ACLU about this, they might take the CoS head on.
Not to mention that the DMCA itself is very copyright friendly to the point of absurdity. Even if a powerful group like the ACLU went against the CoS it would be a mess. Now outside the US, well that's a different story.
The problem of Websites, ISPs and copyright was a bit grey before DMCA. If there was a copyright violation, who was responsible: The ISP or the person who owned the website. Now the ISP can bow out of the way, and the two parties truely involved can duke it out.
The first major problem with the DMCA is that frivilous SLAPP claims of copyright violation can be made, and the ISP still has to follow the same procedure of taking the site down until a counter-claim can be made. Once claim and counter-claim have been made, it should proceed as before in civil-court. (I'm not sure if the claiming party has to make a copyright challenge at this point. There is the penalty for perjury, but the counter-claimer would have to get the claimer in court to prove that -- a costly affair, especially against a party with deep-pockets and a history of dragging court cases out over a decade. (Like $cientology.) Also there is the possibility of "Smurf" attacks: many multiple legal actions against the counter claimer. ($cientology used this tactic to bankrupt the old Cult Awareness Network. $cientology now mans the phones and files of the New CAN.) Under the DMCA, since the counter-claimer is presumed guilty to begin with, they can either fold or risk a long legal campaign.
The second major flaw in the DMCA, is that it subjects anyone in the world to US law. Granted that Google is an American company, and should be subject to the DMCA, but once they have stood aside, $cientology should have to go after xenu.net in Norway, which is its location (I think, might be Dutch) and the nationality of its owner. Under the DMCA, this is not the case. Any claimer and counter-claimer have to fight out the civil copyright case in an American court. That's insane! And it raises the bar even higher for ordinary people to fight deep pockets companies/cults which commit perjury to silence dissent. (As indeed $cientology has in this case. The xenuleaflet contains an entirely rewritten version of the story of Xenu and OT-III by roland.rashleigh-berry ©, with possibly a small fair-use of a section of Elron Hubbard's handwriting. There is no copyright on ideas.)
The elected officials who approved this law obviously never read the full text and thought about the problems. They saw the Power Point presentation, and in their Pointy Haired Politicianess, saw that it was a Good Thing -- It is strong and promtes growth! Idiots!
What needs to be done is to challenge one of these copyright claims (where it is clearly wrong), thrash the bastards in court, collect damages, and slap their pee-pee with a perjury charge. *sigh* And my young piglets are starting to try out their wings over the ice of the seventh circle of hell.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
ABC Television has shown how easily and quickly several hundred people's votes can be tallied; it's been used so select winning videos on "America's Funniest Home Videos" and indicate the crowd's desired response to questions on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." Install the same equipment in the House and Senate, and votes should be taken much more quickly than they are now. I'm not familiar with how electronic votes are taken now, but the few I've seen on C-SPAN usually take at least 5 minutes, often 10 or more.
Of course this won't happen barring a constitutional amendment; obviously the politicians will keep their freedom to lie to their constituents as to how they voted on a bill by hiding it behind a voice vote. However, I think that this increasing tendancy of legislators to lie about their political actions is a very troubling sign that the U.S. Congress seems to be in the process of turing their country into a Communist state, where decisions are made in closed-door meetings that benefit only those behind those doors and where the governed people have virtually no ability to even observe, let alone change, how their government operates.
I think that the people really need to put Congress back under the control of not just the public as a whole but also the two other branches of government. It's pretty clear that the courts are under-equipped to preserve liberty under an increasing onslaught of legislation that have to enforce. The Presidency held its own against Congress (being commander-in-chief of the worlds most powerful army is useful for that), but I could see that situation change as well if Congress continues to abuse its power of the nation's wallet, the President's power can be eroded as well, leaving the country with a political situation not unlike that of China and pre-1991 Russia.
And don't believe it can't happen. Massachusetts offers a pretty good lesson as to what can happen when the legislative branch is allowed to effectively chop off the balls of the executive and judicial systems. The state now is effectively run by two dictators who have prevented governors from advancing any significant political initiatives since 1995. The last two governors got so frustrated with the legislature who continually prevented gubernatorial bills from even being debated and overriding vetoes that they both resigned to pursue federal positions. (No comment on Jane Swift.
For American Slashdotters, I think it's high time we go back to reading Article V of the Constitution and start trying to check Congress by creating amendments using the other method of proposing them: state legislatures. No federal constituitional covention has ever ocurred since the current Constitution was ratified in 1788. It's going to take quite a long time to get 34 state legislatures concerned enough over an issue to call for amendments in a way that bypasses the U.S. Congress. But unless this happens in the next 10 to 20 years to try to check the burgeoning power of the U.S. Congress, I'm afraid the years of the U.S. as a republic are nearing their end. The content of the DMCA and the sleazy manner in which is was enacted shows just how broken our political system is now and underscores the fact that we need to try to get everybody we possibly can, not just a couple of those who work in a white building with a big dome on top of it in Washington D.C., to understand and eventually accept these concerns over individual rights, or we'll continue to lose our rights at an accelerating rate in the years ahead.
[head fills with frightening image of Carrie Fisher screaming "MOMMYYYYYYYY!"]
/brian
Way to go, s390! And way to go, Google.
I've been a long time opponent (putting it mildly) of the scientology cult since I was very little and those Dianetics commercials came on and my dear ol mum explained to me what kind of crackpot blackhole-for-money it is. This Google development absolutely fantastic, not just for the legal benefits of Google starting to respond to DMCA-driven attacks jedi-style (think: blaster shots bouncing of sabers), but also allowing more people to see the disgusting truth behind scientology. Awesome popshot at the DMCA and the CoS.
Makes me think the boys at Google or some of us should start a more powerful "temporary religion" devoted to deprogramming scientologists before they've gone over the edge (search for scientology related deaths to see what I mean).
In the meantime, we all really need to start an 'accidental voluntary' DDoS network to continually cripple official scientology sites. =D
Yall remember - scientology doesn't just suck, it kills. =[
Ummm, there are 100 representatives in the Senate (2 per state; it's the House where representation depends on the state's population) ... If it passed 99-0, there was one person who didn't vote & everyone else voted yes on it.
Ergo, you can safely assume that your local congressperson at the time voted for it, or at the very least, abstained. None of them can claim to have voted against it, after all.
While this does hide their vote, I have to say that on this vote, their views are rather transparent...
One might think that sites like Wired or even CNN with articles on the DMCA would've gotten the top spot.
So it is cool that the anti-dmca protest site beat them out...
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Actually, an electronic vote takes at least 12 minutes. (Remember, legislators need time to walk around and make deals before they vote.) Dong a roll callvote for *every* vote would be highly inefficient.
And you're right. Since the voice vote can be objected to by any representative, not a single one of them had the balls to stand up when the DMCA was passed.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Really? Are you so bad a shot that you don't feel confident shooting at a specific point on a target within 10 feet of you? Remember - these guys were in his living room.
.22 hole in the right place, at other times they can take a .38 in the chest at point blank and not even notice it until they bleed out 20 minutes later - long after they've beaten me and my family to death. Best to aim at the vitals and keep squeezing the trigger until you here that 'click click' sound.
I'm an expert shot. Very, very good at hitting whatever I aim at. But anyone who's had proper training with a gun of any kind knows that 'shooting to wound' is just plain stupid. If you shoot, you shoot to kill - anything else only encourages the enemy to pull a weapon of his or her own and shoot back.
Not only that, it's assinine to think that I'll 'shoot to wound', leaving the assailant alive to possibly kill my family if I miss, or if I hit and it doesn't take the son of a bitch down. Sometimes people drop dead on the spot from a little
Frankly, I can't believe this is Canadian law - it's suicidally stupid in practice. I'd like to see a cite to this effect, and if such a one exists I have to wonder at the sheer naivete at the fools who wrote such a law.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Hmmm... I don't know about you, but for me it works just fine, even in the cache and in the categories.
Maybe this has something to do with me accessing google from Germany (i used google.com though, not google.de) ? But somehow I don't really think so...
What's up ? Did Google revert their (gram: its? her?) decision ? Was this story a merchandising trick all along ?
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
So the Scientology website is on number 1 and xenu on 2... I don't understand why xenu should still rise in popularity. I think it's fair that the first hit for the term "scientology" goes to a scientology website and not a site that criticises it.
Lack of training shows. The first shot is the one you have the most time to aim for. Subsequent shots, if they occur, are taken against a moving target with possible cover who is counterattacking. (If he's not counterattacking, why are you shooting?) That first bullet will go somewhere. The question is where, and who will be in its path. Most modern guns have an extremely limited magazine. For compact carry revolvers, you are looking at only a couple of rounds. Wasting them is unwise. Reloading takes time.
What the hell? Shooting someone anywhere threatens their life. The key areas for a human being are:
Central Nervous is near instantaneous, with little or no recovery options for severe damage. It is also the hardest target to hit, protected by significant bone that can deflect even large caliber weapons.
Cardiovascular takes time to take effect. Certain cases (peripheral arterial damage) can be survived with immediate on-site first-aid treatment by the shooter, a bystander, or possibly even the victim depending on the damage and their state of mind.
Respiratory is one of the easiest to hit, though large caliber weapons are required to penetrate the ribcage. You don't have to hit a lung in order to impair breathing, just rupture the chest wall with a sufficiently large hole. A person can survive for a considerable period of time with such a wound -- I've heard for over an hour, without any first-aid. Provided, of course, they get to a hospital within that time frame. They are rendered unable to help themselves or counterattack relatively quickly, within perhaps 30-120 seconds.
Skeletal/Muscular: Hit the right spot, and the target will lose the use of that limb. Very hard target to hit. Miss, and they will just be in pain. The effects of which will likely be completely negated by adrenaline, or drugs if they are using.
Digestive: Like Respiratory, one of the easiest to hit. Unprotected by any bone structures. Hospital treatment is required within a few days of being shot. Pain is unbelievable. Like Skeletal/Muscular, the effects of which can be completely negated by adrenaline, or drugs if they are using.
Bottom line: Given the choice, you are always better off *NOT* shooting someone -- it tends to really piss people off! Even if that means retreating, being robbed, or whatever. Only when you have no other choice, when you are cornered, when even with your gun the odds are still poor as to whether you (or another person you are trying to protect) will make it out alive, and it is absolutely necessary should you begin to consider shooting another person.
In these situations, even with extensive training, the odds of your being able to hit a precise target are slim. There is no time to control your breathing, no synchronization with your pulse, your posture may be off, and the need to take a rapid shot may compromise your aim. So aim for the biggest target you can get, and shoot to take them down fast. Better to deal with a murder/manslaughter charge after the fact then die during the fight.
All that said, in a major metropolitan city, optimum time for the police to respond to a 911 call is around 10 minutes. Usually it will take longer. Frequently a lot longer. Retreating from a threat, out of your home, places you at a significant tactical disadvantage and greatly reduces the odds of survivability. So in this case, where folks have forced their way in and refused to leave, yes, weapons were warranted. You don't know what those nuts were packing. Better to discourage them from pulling something.
Of course, the best choice is to place them under a citizens arrest for forced entry, and turn them over to the police.
Learn it!
D
M
C
A
Of course you didn't mean that as a serious threat in a public forum where the Co$ lawyers are listening, but anyway let's think about it in a purely hypothetical way.
Such a network could be built now using existing stuff like Trin00, but there are a few problems.
Firstly these use flooding DoS's which affect other bits of the Internet than the targetted host due to maxing out all the nearby routers and their upstream provider.
Secondly the upstream provider will eventually get off their ass and filter the DoS farm IP's.
Thirdly it's arguably wrong to censor any speech, no matter what evil purpose it, in your view and mine, serves.
One can be solved by using less "floody" attacks; some ideas might be plain ol' HTTP request (targets the webserver specifically), SYN floods with the source IP spoofed to another Co$ host (HAHAHA make them DoS each other!), and stuff specific to the target e.g. making a gazillion instances of any server-side scripts run continuously to eat all the CPU and memory. Combining these attacks might be a good idea too.
Two can be solved by spoofing, where possible, and having enough IP's available to make filtering work only temporarily. Do-able, as several high profile never-solved DDoS cases have shown.
Three can be solved by a combination of flexible ethics and remembering what the Scientologists do to those who dare criticise them.
Bob the AC and Chippy the Wonderdog