Slashdot Mirror
Google vs. DMCA and Scientology
Uebergeek writes "This article at the NYTimes (free registration, blah blah) details how google is dealing with the many complaints it gets from organizations when one of its links potentially violates a copyright (or just irritates the copyright's owner).
Specifically, it talks about how Google is dealing with the Scientologist's complaints about the list of the Operation Clambake site... now Google features a prominent link to another site that shows the complaint that the Scientologists filed, along with the delisted links."
DMCA sucks ass....plain and simple!
In otherwords, Google has shuffled responsibility for the fight onto someone else.
If they believe it should be listed, they should have the courage to list it themselves.
Cheers,
Ian
God Forbid that Google should accurately reflect what's on the internet. People should attack sites if they have a problem, not take other user's right to find the page away from them. This impedes everyone from having an idea of free speech on which the internet was built on. Awful.
Where can I find the page that features "prominent link to another site that shows the complaint that the Scientologists filed, along with the delisted links" without registering for NYT? Someone post it, please? =)
-Berj
How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it?
Maybe the overwhelmingly negative response to CBPTBA (or whatever) will act as a wakeup call.
--
Repeal me, NOW!!!
Thank you.
What kind of person would worship a religion whose highest leaders rely on poor copyright law to enforce their ideals? For that matter, what kind of piss-poor deity is less powerful than a handful of clerks?
Can we get a link that doesn't make my skin crawl?
We'll keep your information private. The following fields are required. NYTimes.com respects your privacy, so we will never share any personal information without your consent.
amar
isn't talking about talking about Scientology gonna get the Travoltronbots after your ass?
Unless Google misspelled "Scientologists" as "Earth Day" that link ins't that prominent
Hey.. when it comes to $cientology the more light you can shed on the bastards, the better!
(Links added to boost Xenu.net's Google rating..)
This story was "on the wire" - published all over the place. How about a better link than the crappy "free reg" NY Times one?
Are we not all against the DMCA? or is taking a stand against it an act of terrorism? If one to sacrafice their liberties for security he shall recieve neither, I don't quite remember the author, nor do I remember the exact wording, if anyone does, would you post under please?
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
It really makes you ponder after you read this article about why Google did what they did. I'm sure it was just to pass the buck, or lower publicity about it.
The fact is, Xenu.net (the site in question here) is based in Norway. I highly doubt they could use the DMCA to have the links removed legally. Luckily for Google, however, this incident has put the DMCA on the spotlight. Now, more than just geeks care about it, especially when it ends up in the New York Times.
The speed of time is one second per second.
Here, let me help you out on getting the Google rank up.
The speed of time is one second per second.
How is it that if some entity puts their information onto the net, where they would like everyone on the globe to see it, that they are bitching that Google is caching their info to ultimately send them to their site.
Beware the evil Scientologist's and their tax shelter for millionaires. If they can't get you with (their interpretation) of The Word(tm), they'll sue you.
"I'm not ashamed I can't function in society like I'm supposed to." - Paul Westerberg
They used the DMCA to get Norweigan authorities to arrest whats-his-name that released DeCSS, no?
What is your Slash Rating?
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
this article looks pretty much the same to me.
What was the site that host's Operation Clambake?
The website that has the Google leters is
http://www.chillingeffects.org
It's rather Ironic that the NYT article discussing the right to link in such a balanced and enlightened manner, itself contains no hyperlinks to any of the sites that it is discussing.
From news.yahoo.com is the same story, no registration required.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
This story was previosly reported here. It seems thet the COS has been messing around with Google for a while now. Read the letter here and some more here. And i tough old stuff was rejected by the /. editors, just beacuse it makes the NYT, does not make it slashdoteable.
--Manuel
"I hate quotations, tell me what you think"
In karate, you forcibly block attacks. In tai chi, you push at right angles and make the attack fly off into outer space without exhausting yourself.
Google is IMHO doing more to keep ideas flowing than they would in a head-on confrontation.
Remember when linking to Xenu.net to use Scientology and not $cientology. How many people use the $ in Google?
From the article:
The church sent a complaint to Google last month, saying that its search results for "Scientology" included links to copyrighted church material that appears on a Web site critical of the church."
So what? are your church's morals and standards so shakey that you cannot take some criticism? Get used to it. you are a public orginization, not everyone is going to like you.
to me this sounds like they (The Church of Scientology) wants uninformed zombies who will never question them instead of informed intelligent people.
I admit that I do not know much about either The CoS OR Operation Clambake. Frankly, neither of them interests me all that much.
I do, however, believe in freedom of information. the owners and operators of "Operation Clambake" have just as much right to present their beliefs and information to the public as does the Church of Scientology. Just the same, the people that want information about The Church will probably want to see both pro and opposing veiwpoints.
I think if they want to get people's cooperation, then they should refute Operation Clambake's information in an orderly and intelligent manner. attempting to completely strike out an opposing veiwpoint in this manner to me just smacks of censorship and fascism. Two things i'm sure most people are against.
Seeing as Scientology fits all the classic signs of a cult, why has it not been properly labled and dealt with? Simply reclassifying it properly would give law enforcement agencies much greater access to investigate and prosecute abuses within the "church" of Scientology and would serve to protect the members from themselves.
The only people who lose when you call Scientology what it is - a cult - are the profiteering people who run it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/21/045320 0&mode=thread
All religions began as cults. Wether it be a dozen blokes in Palestine raising Lazarus or Buddha sat under a tree. Most religions employ symbolism, the deeper meaning of which is rarely revealed to the lay person. Pearls to swine? Scientology doesn't seem to me to be a religious cult, it has no god. It is more of a personality cult. Like the Manson family.
Free Speech? You want fries with that?
Morpheus knows more than you can imagine!
Yesm but why do you say 'was' ?
You should say 'is'. Scientology did not suppress the site, only the google links (cause google is vulnerable under brain-dead US laws)
A google search on the names Moxon and Kobrin yielded this remarkably thorough document about the lawfirm partners...
Unfortunately, the article reads like an account of two warring clans in the Appalachians. How quaint. The important point, which is that Google, which does NOT publish the "contested" information, is being forced to delist it.
The current use of the DMCA is like forcing the phone company to delist businesses anytime someone files a complaint against that business. Until the writer's make clear what a travesty this is, Joe Public isn't going to be concerned.
Hence the reason for having dificulty in defining a cult. Few wish to get uppity Christians on their back
> to me this sounds like they (The Church of
> Scientology) wants uninformed zombies who will
> never question them instead of informed intelligent
> people.
The Catholic Church has been doing this sort of thing for the last 2000 years. As do the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, most of Islam, etc.
No organized religion likes criticism, 'cos faith always withers under the light of reason.
Why don't these sites just opt out of indexing? Its not hard, just throw couple lines of code in your html and bye bye people finding your site on google.
Hacker Media
Amen Brother/Sister!! Do I hear a "Alleluia"?
But of course the Scientologists aren't the only ones in this game. Just look at the Christian Right. It amazes me (especially as a practicing Christian) that these bozos think that a religion that has managed to resist the efforts of the Romans, the Communists, etc. to stomp it out now requires the protection of the US Government in order to flourish.
"Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
http://www.catalaw.com/detox
Detox - because Religion is Ridiculous
1. Perhaps those who are critical of Christian Science would be better served by using P2P networks. For example, instead of publishing these documents on the web, they could set up a webpage describing what can be found on those networks, and then get people to host the documents on their hard drives. Everyone from /. could pitch in and help! Google could then list the website since it contains absolutely no copyrighted material, and Christian Science gets put in the same boat as the RIAA.
2. I couldn't help noticing that Christian Science Monitor is a "US News Source" on Google's "News and Resources" page. Something bothers me about that.
You can find it Here.
One point the article made is that the original controversy caused lots more people to link to xenu.net, pushing it up from 4th in the Google results for "Scientology" to 2nd. I'd like to encourage everyone who hasn't already done so to also do this - maybe it can be pushed up to 1st :-)
Logon: NYtimessucks210
Pass: 12345
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
I think the quote actually said "We are all now the bitches
of the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/Scientologists. So bend over and take it."
Move the "In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed one result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the D.M.C.A. complaint for these removed results." notification to the TOP of the page.
I'm having trouble believing that you really wrote that.
The US government is not supposed to be in the business of "labeling" or "dealing with" cults; or small, emerging religions, to use an unbiased term. I like to think that the government shouldn't be "labeling" or "dealing with" anybody.
Scientology, which is no more of a scam than many well established religions, is as entitled to exist without government persecution as any other group. I may not like them, in fact, I despise them, but a line has to be drawn - the government has no business applying any other investigative standard to the Scientology cult than has been applied to the Roman Catholic church.
In Russia, and in much of Europe, where controls on government intervention in the religious/ideological sector of the economy are not so stringent, the government is free to oppress scientologists, and does so. Read about it at the OCRT website. Other governments use these same powers to quell political dissent, which is why in our society we have had the good sense to deny the government these powers.
There is no way to grant the government the right to protect scientologists from themselves without granting the government the right to offer the same "protection" to other dissidents or nonconformers.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
now we don't have to use that auser@slashdot.org / aslashdotuser account
The notice includes a link to Scientology's complaint on chillingeffects.org, which lists the Web addresses of the material to which Google no longer links. The result is that a complaint could end up drawing more attention to the very pages it is trying to block.
In related news the sales of bullet proof boots has skyrocketed dramatically...
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
The NYT story recommends searching for "helatrobus." Or you can search for Xenu vainquit (no quotes). Then look at the bottom of the results.
The most recent complaint given to Google from the COS deals with Googles own Usenet archive. The process of transferring the burden over to the original web site owner works for web pages. What about the potential for copyrighted material in Google's own Usenet archive? Do they have to contact the original author of the messages which in turn would have to file a counter complaint to keep it in the archive?
This whole thing seems to be going in the direction of the MS case, abortions rights, and campaign finance reform. A lot of time and money put into both ends but nothing coming out. The winner will be the one that had largest resource pool.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I suppose Islam could be counted to, or most religions, for that matter.
Christian Science and Scientology are totally unrelated. The names may be somewhat similar, but the organizations are not affiliated.
The Christian Science Monitor is a highly-respected news source. The Scientologists are not a highly respected anything.
I wonder how much money and work it take to move Google to a small, yet well connected island, and establish a new country for it. That way the search engine can be outside of the jurisdiction of any one country. It can, at that point, simply provide an unadulterated listing of what truly exists on the web regardless of content, location, or laws.
OK, most of that was pretty stupid, but the part about Bill Gates name turns into the anagram "I get balls" had me cracking up.
actually no, the "12 blokes" you refer to are of Jesus' diciples correct? sure they are.
if you read back on it, it was considered a sect of judiasm and similar to a denomonation of Christianity. it EXPLODED on the world within the lifetime of the apostoles (13 guys).
nice try tho.
This also illustrates why we need many search engines. Google, whose size and popularity makes it a prime target, also makes them a prime place to publicize the censorship. Other engines can still link to the articles. For instance, it is still possible to find these links.
http://www.scientology-lies.com/
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/cos.htm
http://www.xenu.net/
If we have many search engines, and other places to find links, it will be difficult for the oppressor to squash the resistance.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Still offtopic but...
My understanding of Tai Chi was that it was developed during a period when teaching the "martial arts" was restricted. Much of the asian martial arts involve the mislabeled "muscle memory" developed through repetitive practice; the "exercises" of Tai Chi (done slowly) teach one moves which become second nature and are quite effective (performed fast) in fighting. This allowed one to learn important martial principles under the guise of slow, medatative, exercise.
Similar principles are used when playing the piano or other musical instruments. Do you think that anyone sight reads "flight of the bumblebee" at full speed? No, first you play it slowly and carefully to insure that every note is played correctly. Then, as you stop having to "think" about each motion you play it faster and it comes out right.
Please do so before refusing to call Scientology a cult. Then go visit: Ex-cult.org.
I call that a clever legal hack. It is legal and imagistic judo at its finest; the more the CoS tries to chill free speech about their actions, the better this technique works (using your enemy's strength against your enemy) and it is all specifically allowed under the current DMCA rules.
Furthermore, it is a technique which even the least-funded pointer site can use. If and when challenges to this method of fighting for free (linking) speech hit the higher courts, I have no doubt that Google will contribute financially as well to the cause, if only through self-interest.And so will I, through the EFF.
Just login with
user: nospam
password: nospam
It works on nearly all free reg sites. (NY Times inclued, last I checked.)
Although the address for the lawfirm that send google the notice was blanked out in the chillingeffects.org site:
[private]
Moxon & Kobrin
[Address]
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: (213) xxx-xxxx
Fax: (213) xxx-xxxx
A quick search on worldpages.com came up with the correct address, so much for that.
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Blvd # 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213)487-4468
Why do these companies/sites always spring up in the USA? It's a shame. Perhaps moving someplace else would be an attractive option for some of these people (Google, Napster etc.) Just don't come to Canada. The US can find a way to throw you in jail if you do so much as sell a Brita to Cuba, I'm sure they can do more.
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
That depends on the style of Taiji you're studying.
Yang style (the most popular) has (in my opinion) been so polluted by New Age nonsense as to be almost totally unrecognizable.
If you want to see Taiji as a martial art, look for Chen style. Much more variation in the movements (there's even a jump-kick...whee), and it seems to make much more philosophic sense (at least to me).
Now, back to your regularly-scheduled rant....
They're the premiere web search engine right now, with multiple companies (like Yahoo) using them as their own search engine.
What kind of power does Google have? It can make a web presence disappear.
Think of it like this: how do most people find sites on the internet these days? Search engines, right? Sometimes they'll find them indirectly but that's only by chance. When they're actually looking for something, they'll use a search engine. Which usually means they'll use Google.
So by removing all references to a particular site, Google can essentially make that site disappear.
And so Google should do exactly that to any web site that belongs to any entity that threatens Google with a lawsuit.
It should prove especially effective against companies, which rely more and more on their web presence.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Let's revoke the church of scientology's tax exemption.
Silly? I don't think so; consider:
Churches in America don't pay taxes. They're recognised as non-profit, socially befeficial institutions and as such, it's historically been seen as worthwhile to afford them tax free status (given that they meet certian requirements).
The Church of Scientology is tax exempt. This despite the fact that they charge for their teachings and venomously attack those that provide these teachings for free (unlike other religions). This makes them more like corporation than a religious organization. Thus, they should be treated as one. Require them to file tax documents like any corporation and be subject to audit by the IRS.
The CoS is a cult; and there's nothing wrong with that. Cults have existed for years throughout the world, and the distinction between "legitimate" and "cult" beliefs is at best a tenuous one. But the behaviour of the church of scientology is that of a corporation (evil and vindictive, but a corporation). Let's let them have their trade secret teachings and go after people with lawsuits for publishing secret teachings and critical views of their religion; but let us also not passively fund this corporation by making it tax exempt.
Just to highlight the word CONTROL you're using and all the nitwits below that are comparing mainstream Christianity, Judiasm or Islam to Scientology, cults enforce their control through the use of not only mental but also physical threats.
You typically don't get your arm twisted if you decide to leave a Episcopalian church, Jewish temple, or mainstream mosque.
First, if Google's management has any sort of head on its shoulders it's not going to compromise its integrity as a web-searching tool in such a way.
Second, if they ever did that to /., say, in response to disparaging comments about them, we'd all scream bloody murder.
Why would you want to advocate "disappearing" scientology websites? Like our civil liberties, what you let them do to the scientologists, you let them do to us. Fight their misuse of the DMCA and the injustice of the DMCA itself to preserve our freedom to speak, don't advocate shutting them up because they want to shut us up.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
There has also been a roundup story about Scientology v. Google at Search Engine Watch. Possibly before Google started directing censored results to Chilling Effects. This is of interest to SEOs and, more generally, to those who are curious about search engines.
The story today is in the New York Times. Essentially the same story, but the audience is different. PHBs might read the NYT. Academics read the NYT. It is a mainstream publication with a reputation for quality.
What if you could convince your Senator or Congress-person to mirror the material? Do they have immunity for this sort of thing? Even if not, I'm sure there's more than one Senator out there who would enjoy ticking of the Scientologists.
I seem to remember that Canadian MP's have immunity for anything that they say in the House of Commons. While this probably doesn't extend to their official websites, it probably hasn't been tested. They could also table the offending material as part of a debate on the subject which would give them a reason to post it. Again, I don't know if any of this would be legal, but it would certainly be interesting to find out. (And I believe that both the US and Canadian governments have more money and more responsibility to do this that google does).
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
It seems that the response time of lawyers to this stuff is much slower than computer-based solutions. Here an idea:
[Lather, rinse, repeat]
-Dave
just because you think you should be allowed to do something, doesn't mean that you should. And just because you feel something you're doing is the right thing to do, doesn't mean that it's legal.
The fancy name for what they're doing is called "avoiding liability." What we call it in the professional world is "covering their ass." Thye've shown that they feel this is right by not only making the letter public, but by adding an extra little "fuck you" to it by not blocking out the delisted links.
Personally, if a religion backed by tons of wealthy people came after me, I'd do the same thing. Google hasn't been around nearly as long as the Church of Scientology, and if I had to guess, probably can't afford to deal with lawsuits coming from well-funded groups.
...to protect you from this kind of thing. Get off your butts and use it!
user: slashdotted69
pw: slashdot
no more registering required! (i really hate registering)
Fabio - Sumare/Sao Paulo/Brazil/South America/Earth/Solar System/Milky Way/Universe
http://www.morroida.com.br
So, the Catholic churchs gets "crucified" for hiding information but the COS can hide all the information it wants (including the death of individuals in their church)?
What is wrong with this picture?
More info here for those of you who aren't familiar with the case. Short story: Canadian citizen living in the US was convicted of the horrible crime of selling water filters to Cuba.
A damn shame. If only he sold guns to South American terrorists, he'd have been fine.
I used to have sympathy for you Americans. Sept 11 was a terrible crime, and hurt so many people. But between the Cuban embargo, crippling our industries for being too efficient and too high-quality, and violating the basic human rights of our citizens because they're not Americans, continuuing to use anti-personnel land mines, and basically pissing all over the Kyoto treaty and anti-ballistic missle treaty, you're doing your damnest to screw the world. You can all go fuck yourselves. (For those of you who actually vote and try to change how the US government acts, I apologize. But you're in the minority.)
And that's not even mentioning the DMCA and SSSCA, which have gotten plenty of airing here and don't even need explaining.
Do your worst moderation, you jingoistic sheep. I've got plenty of karma to burn.
Isn't this essentially the same thing Michael posted last week? here, perhaps
This sig intentionally left justified.
Every day, thousands of geeks and Linux communists from all over the world visit Slashdot to discuss recent news about computers, technology, science, copyright, etc. etc. It's quite a nice community, inhabited by several different species of geeks - ranging from teenagers without a social life to developers of illegal communist "open source" software!
/dev tree. Good job. I don't think you open-sourced the software so much as you opened a text editor.
Incorrect. In communism, everybody is equal and does equal work. Open Source software, by contrast, has a highly hierarchical, almost authoritarian model of development.
I have observed for a long time how these geeks openly promote "open source", which can be rationally explained as copying computer programs and data from one computer to another without paying for the software. Illegal distribution of MP3 music is a fine example.
Incorrect. MP3 files contain no copyrighted code. Thus, the process of ripping songs into MP3's infringes on no existing copyrights, patents, or royalty structures.
Just a few weeks ago, a colleague of mine demonstrated how simple it is to open-source a copyrighted program over to a CD. Just a few clicks on the computer cursor!
So you clicked into the
So act now - raise your voice and speak out! Should dictatorship like this be tolerated?
Of course not. In a modern production society, the men who work under the bridges, move rocks and work in the caves should have ultimate say over how they go about their jobs. They should be able to design new tools as needed when the old ones become stale.
What matters isn't where xenu.net is, but where Google is, and Google is most certainly within the reach of US law.
"The difference between a cult and a religion is about a hundred years."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This was reported before
But yeah, putting that notice ("you can find the censored links here...") at the top of the page would be the icing on the cake.
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
I hadn't thought about this before, but this draws from a long line of precedent. I'm taking a class in late Romantic Literature right now, and we're studying Pierce Shelley. We just read his epic "Prometheus Unbound", which actually shares some of the same tenents. The idea that we are masters of our own destiny, and that we have created our own God in order to enslave ourselves was formulated here as a refutation of Christianity. While Shelley's work would also defy Scientology, which places the external force of an cosmic warlord from "outside" as enslaving us, the idea of breaking free from enslavement is still present.
So while Hubbard's load of crap may seem funny and stupid, it does bear some baggage from the best thinkers of the Enlightenment. I think this is some small part of what makes it attractive to many people now, despite its obvious stupidity.
That said, Shelley and all his ilk would have hated Scientology because it degrades its members in to the lowest form of slavery imaginable, which is why we need great sites like xenu.net (which I've been telling everyone I can about) in order to really get the word out.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
But I spoze in that case Google could just pretend the complaint didn't exist, wait for the scientologists to file a complaint with the court (read: in public) and then link to that document as they comply with the request to remove the links.
It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
Q: How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use?
A: Until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Bru-hahahaha!
If we keep going we can push the critic's sites to #1-#10 and land the official scientology site on page 2 of the listings. :-)
--
Free software isn't free, but expensive software is expensive.
...www.clambake.org and push the church DOWN in the listings?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
helatrobous (adj) - fake or bogus
Example:
I was a sucker to buy the healing device online,
because after suspiciously opening the helatrobous device, all that was there was three resisters in series.
Well, more or less. Being from a different country didn't help a certain Russian programmer much...
If the google staff ever wants to place foot on the US again, that tactic won't work.
I don't really understand your point: I think it's extremely clear what Google did. They were put in a difficult situation by an ill-thought-out law and responded in a way that was both elegant and appropriate: they removed any possibility of legal action towards them, and yet made it possible for people to still find the information ... which is after all the whole point of google. I'm impressed.
OT, but what is the stye commonly taught with tae kwan do? ATA provides little to no information
M. Scott Peck, MD in his book, Further Along the Road Less Traveled came up with these 10 criteria for a cult:
1. Idolatry of a single charismatic leader
2. A revered inner circle
3. Secrecy of management
4. Financial evasiveness
5. Dependancy (followers become dependant)
6. Conformity
7. Special language
8. Dogmatic doctrine
9. Heresy (Peck's definition of this is a little vague; something about the relationship between God and man not being proper)
10 God in captivity (Peck defines this as claiming to know everything about God)
I would add an 11th criterion: You have to give an excessive ammount (perhaps all) of your personal wealth to the organization. Maybe Peck would fit that under conformity or dependance.
Peck notes that prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Church met most of these criteria, and still meets many of them. I suppose that one of the dangers of trying to find an objective measure of something is that you risk placing things you hold to be of value in a less positive light. Exercise for Slashdot readers: Apply these criteria to the Free Software Foundation, and/or the Free Software movement in general.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Irrespective of the validity or not of their claims (clams? :-) Scientology claims to be a legitimate religion. And I'm wondering what might be (or should be) the implications of that. As far as I'm aware, churchs in the US, Canada and Britain enjoy a tax exempt status. Scientology also claims copyright over their beliefs and writings and uses copyright as a weapon to silence their critics and apostates.
What I'm wondering is if official religous writings should even be entitled to copyright protection. Society is providing a benefit to the churches in making them tax-exempt. Thus I think that their beliefs and official exegesis of those beliefs should automatically be in the public domain, open to scrutiny, discussion, publication and criticism.
Spirituality seems to be a fundamental need for many, if not most, people and liberal democratic societies have set up strong constitutional protections and freedoms for the expressions of spirituality. But those protections and freedoms must go in both directions by organised religions or we wind up with abuses such as Scientology.
Very nice! The gender box isn't randomized. They're going to be getting a lot of female registrations :)
Author Bruce Sterling once said...
Never follow a religion created by a science fiction writer.
OK, usually by now I would have seen a comment ranked up to 5 talking about how this is a repeat story, but I don't so I'll post it. This story from 10 days ago talks about this same exact thing. OK, so it's in the Times now, who cares?
a simple act to help fight those criminal nut jobs!
Pooty tweet
Fact Net Dot Org
Pooty tweet
I think a lot of these companies have issues with Google's cacheing of web pages. You can go so far as to get a site pulled, but to remove it from Google's web cache is a whole 'nother legal fight.
Here is the article. I have copied it for your reading pleasure in gross violation of the DMCA.
Google, the company behind the popular Web search engine, has been playing a complicated game recently that involves the Church of Scientology and a controversial copyright law.
Legal experts say the episode highlights problems with the law that can make companies or individuals liable for linking to sites they do not control. And it has turned Google, whose business is built around a database of two billion Web pages, into a quiet campaigner for the freedom to link.
The church sent a complaint to Google last month, saying that its search results for "Scientology" included links to copyrighted church material that appears on a Web site critical of the church. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which was intended to make it easier for copyright holders to fight piracy, the complaint meant that Google was required to remove those links quickly or risk being sued for contributing to copyright infringement.
The site in question, Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net), is based in Norway, beyond the reach of the United States copyright act. The site portrays the church as a greedy cult that exploits its members and harasses critics. Andreas Heldal-Lund, the site's owner, says the posting of church materials, including some internal documents and pictures of church leaders, is allowable under the "fair use" provisions of internationally recognized copyright law.
When Google responded to the church's complaint by removing the links to the Scientology material, techies and free-speech advocates accused Google of censoring its search results. Google also briefly removed the link to Operation Clambake's home page but soon restored it, saying the removal had been a mistake.
At that point, according to Matthew Cutts, a software engineer at Google, it started developing a better way to handle such complaints. "We respond very quickly to challenges, and not just technical challenges but also these sort of interesting, delicate situations, as well," Mr. Cutts said.
Under Google's new policy, when it receives a complaint that causes it to remove links from its index, it will give a copy of the complaint to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse (chillingeffects.org). Chilling Effects is a project of a civil liberties advocacy group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several law schools. It it offers information about Internet rights issues.
In the new procedure, Google informs its users when a link has been removed from a set of search results and directs them to the Chilling Effects site. For example, a search for the word "helatrobus," which appears in some Scientology texts, brings up a page of results with this notice at the bottom: "In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed one result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the D.M.C.A. complaint for these removed results."
The notice includes a link to Scientology's complaint on chillingeffects.org, which lists the Web addresses of the material to which Google no longer links. The result is that a complaint could end up drawing more attention to the very pages it is trying to block.
Mr. Cutts said Google started linking to chillingeffects.org early this month but made no announcement, so it took a while for word to go around online. Meanwhile, Scientology sent Google two more complaints, citing pages within copies of the Operation Clambake site on other servers. All three complaints are now on the Chilling Effects site.
Don Marti, the technical editor of Linux Journal, first wrote about Google's move on the magazine's site. He said he had been so upset about the company's initial response to the Scientologists that he organized a small group of protesters who visited Google's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., where he also lives. Mr. Marti says he now applauds Google's efforts to make the process more transparent. If a letter of complaint simply makes a site more popular, "only a fool would send one," he said.
Helena Kobrin, a lawyer representing Scientology at the law firm of Moxon & Kobrin in Los Angeles, said that Google's use of the letters of complaint would not discourage the church from pursuing further complaints if necessary and that there was nothing in the letters that needed to be hidden. "I think they show very graphically to people that the only thing we're trying to do is protect copyrights," she said.
As part of its new process for handling complaints, Mr. Cutts said, Google added more information on its site explaining how site owners could have their links restored by filing a countercomplaint with Google. (The required forms can be downloaded from chillingeffects.org.) If site owners take this step, he said, they accept responsibility for the contents of their pages.
Mr. Heldal-Lund, a Norwegian citizen, said he would not file a countercomplaint because it would put him under the jurisdiction of United States law. He said that he regretted making so much trouble for Google but was glad that the incident had highlighted the church's pursuit of its critics.
The church, which has beliefs based on the idea that people need to release themselves from trauma suffered in past lives, has taken a keen interest in the Internet since 1994, when someone posted secret church teachings on an online discussion group. Critics say the church guards its teachings closely because it wants its followers to pay for access to higher levels of instruction. The church says that these payments are donations and that it is simply seeking to protect its rights online.
With its Chilling Effects partnership, Google is subtly making the point that the right to link is important to its business and to the health of the Web, said David G. Post, a law professor at Temple University who specializes in Internet issues.
"This is an example where copyright law is being used in conflict with free connectivity and free expression on the Net," he said. Dr. Post said Google's situation highlighted the need for more awareness of copyright issues, including pending legislation that is more restrictive than the 1998 law. The measure is backed by entertainment giants like Walt Disney, but technology companies like Intel have come out against it, saying it would hurt consumers and slow innovation.
Mr. Cutts said that the links to the complaints were not a political statement, just a way to "make sure our users get all of the information that they need." He said that Google had no official position on the copyright act and that so far it had not been involved in political activity or lobbying. But he said it "might take an interest in more of those issues."
The copyright controversy has had an interesting side effect for Operation Clambake. The Google software judges the importance of a page in part by looking at how many other pages link to it. Scientology's complaint set off a flurry of linking to the critics' site, pushing it up two spots to No. 2 in the search results for "Scientology" -- just below the church's official site.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
i mirrored it on a friends webspace, so majcher.com doesnt have to pay for all the traffic
its on http://www.rds-clan.be/hermes/nyt.html
Very nicely done. It's earned a place in my bookmarks!
Your link is fundamentally boring, because nobody goes out looking for information about xenu.net. What people probably want to learn about is Scientology.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Then maybe the hollywood types will drop out and the thing will shrivel up and die like it ought. Yeah, a religion started by a failed science fiction author. Come to think of it, John Travolta must be a complete fucking idiot.
Why not revoke tax exemption for all religous organizations? There should still be an exemptions for non-profit and not-for-profit organizations, but religion shouldn't get a free ride.
Additionally, non-profit and not-for-profit accounting books should be public domain so it's
obvious to everyone which religious organizaions are socially useful and which religious organizations are parasites.
How is what they do different than what Christianity and Islam do?
Replace to "do" with "did". Cheat? Sure. Steal? Yes. Anyone remember the Crusades? Christians decided they wanted Jerusalem, so they tried to steal it from it's rightful (Arab) owners. Fundamentalist Christians also tell their members to refuse medical and psyciatric help, i.e. snake handling, etc. And "posing" as rescue workers? I think that one is obvious.
BTW, before you respond angrily about my godlessness, I am a Methodist Christian. And I do think Scientology is a cult and needs to be dealt with. But your criteria also fits other religious organizations. It strikes me as hypocritical that many here profess to be libertarian and to love their freedom yet demand government action against a cult/reglion on no clear grounds and by using "crimes" that have been committed by virtually all religions at some point in the past.
Whether a term I'm searching for has been censored is at least if not more important than how many web pages contain it; therefore the information should be before the results.
On that basis I think I can safely say that there is less reality to it than the average X-Files episode. I like my science fiction in print or on the screen, not from people hassling me on street corners.
I will continue to be sceptical of anything that calls itself a religeon that spontaneously appears and seems to only benefit it's leaders. I was sceptical of the "Magnificat Meal" group that split off from the Catholic church near where I live, and it turned out to be a scam benifiting only it's leaders (it imploded last year). On a related note - the Japanese movie "A Taxing Woman Returns" is a very entertaining look at a cult set up to launder money
Now just allow it to automatically register and view without having each user to type in a link using a link similar to: Click here to read the article anonymously.
If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
BTW, the proper plural of mongoose is mongooses (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=mongoose), not mongeese
What do you know I wrote a novel
Comparing Jehovah's Witenesses to MLM's is, for the most part, wrong.
:)
1. There is nothing in their belief system that equates number of people converted, to status in their religion. On the smae token, monetary status has nothing to do with this.
2. Most (meaning probably 99%) JW's focus, not on Heaven, but on living on Earth eternally.
3. According to their belief system, of the 144,000 'seats' available in heaven, only a few thousand representatives remain on Earth.
However, the zeal or energy they have in proselytizing, as you said, is more than the match for an MLM
Please mod parent up!
Look up mongeese on http://www.m-w.com/
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
yeah mod parent up
An Education is the Font of All Liberty