Google Removes Kazaa Links, Keeps Sponsored Links

Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Empiric · 2003-09-06 11:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

When Napster did it, it was cool and unique.
When Kazaa did it, is was merely cool.
When Kazaa Lite did it, it was down to just another corporation, profiting from piracy.

Besides, last I heard, the Kazaa network is rapidly becoming useless, probably due to most everyone going "read-only". And probably everyone on Slashdot knows what the obvious, technically-properly-done successor is, so I won't even mention it.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?

Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by bersl2 · 2003-09-06 11:12 · Score: 1

With any luck, they'll go after Gnutella and eDonkey providers first, and only then Freenet... :(
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Sevn · 2003-09-06 11:16 · Score: 4, Informative

And probably everyone on Slashdot knows what the obvious, technically-properly-done successor is, so I won't even mention it.

Nope, no idea. Kazaa has been working great. That and I've been using Irate a lot lately and freaking loving it. Just today I got ten COMPLETELY LEGAL songs and I liked all of them but 2. What technically properly done successor are you talking about?

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

How can they go after freenet? "We know you have encrypted files on your computer which may or may not be our copyrighted material." It could just as easily be my home movies I uploaded to freenet so my family could see them.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Zocalo · 2003-09-06 11:19 · Score: 5, Informative

the Kazaa network is rapidly becoming useless
You must have some hefty expectations then, because KLite is telling me right now that there are "3,914,228 users online | 788,202,332 files (5,910,272 GB)" being shared. That hardly seems anywhere near "useless" to me, and I doubt it's going to get that way for a while either.
Remember, many of the people on there are not "technically" inclined; they are just average Janes and Joes who found out about Kazaa by word of mouth/email from friends when Napster went under. Until Kazaa's successor is known to the average man in the street Kazaa is probably going to remain king.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by bersl2 · 2003-09-06 11:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

That doesn't preclude them from trying... after all, they have started becoming more innovative in the method of attack (i.e., the P2P-Porn bill). And do not forget, this is the RIAA; they do not let such things as facts and logic get in their way.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by An'Desha+Danin · 2003-09-06 11:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh, and ethics. Don't forget ethics.

--
Anything you might ever need to say about anything has already been said better by Penny Arcade.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by gl4ss · 2003-09-06 11:27 · Score: 2, Informative

except kazaa lite isn't a corp, rather a hack of the original 'kazaa media desktop'. i'd rather see most of the people move away from kazaa though, to better alternatives.

but kazaa is so easy in ms sort of way that nontechnical people like it.

-

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 11:37 · Score: 2

Let's just feed them Gnutella now, and then eDonkey.

And keep your mouth shut about that other one. It's not ready for prime-time yet, and once it is ready it's going to put an end to this foolishness.

Although -- I could use some help building up the tradition of discussing basic free speech issues over on Frost-wot. The more of a tradition it has of actually worrying about protecting the 1st the better.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by lewp · 2003-09-06 11:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like Kazaa (Lite), and am very technical. Not at all because it's easy, either. It's by far the biggest network around, and that means something when you're looking for more esoteric content. You know, like kiddy porn.

I'd like to see a cross platform solution take off and leave the shady KMD and its almost equally shady hack in the dust, but until that happens it'll remain yet another reason I keep a Windows box on my network (but only with NAT behind OpenBSD).

--
Game... blouses.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:48 · Score: 0

I'll come in again.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Kpt+Kill · 2003-09-06 11:49 · Score: 3, Informative

When Kazaa Lite did it, it was down to just another corporation, profiting from piracy.

exactly how is kazaa lite profiting from anything? its completely free and promotes and integrates tools that in my opinion help the network, things such as the integration of peer guardian, automatic node hopping, AVI preview, auto find more sources... and many more. To say its profiting is just crap
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Empiric · 2003-09-06 12:31 · Score: 1

Yes... it would have been more accurate to say corporations profiting from Kazaa Lite, as all three of the original story's linked sites do, taking PayPal or Visa.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Spy+Hunter · 2003-09-06 12:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wow, iRate is awesome! Doesn't seem like the architecture is very scaleable, though. I wonder if this concept could be made P2P, while still having a reasonable guarantee that the music you get is Free? I think Bittorrent could be used as a model. The server could store all the available music, and send it out to people sometimes, but clients could download songs from each other when possible to reduce the bandwidth load on the server. That way you can download from other people, but if you use a server that guarantees it only has Free files, you won't have to worry about unknowingly committing copyright infringement.

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Cyno · 2003-09-06 13:03 · Score: 1

I don't see how they could go after freenet. I don't think they're smart enough and freenet is fairly well protected.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 13:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

Gnunet is going to be the real nightmare for the RIAA.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 14:15 · Score: 1

It looks like it has the right idea anyway. How far along is it in practice?

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 15:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

There's not much content. It's pretty unpopular. I don't think it will become popular until there is a Windows port and I don't think that will happen until a couple of the more popular ones get attacked by the RIAA.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by stinkybob(2) · 2003-09-06 16:24 · Score: 1

Who wants to break out the IRC bots??? The Undernet will rise again!!
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by jbottero · 2003-09-06 16:47 · Score: 0, Troll

Ethics??? Ethics never stopped Slashdotters from downloading copyrighted material, God forbid that the copyright owner have some say in the matter. Oh, I know this will get me the *flamebait* mod, but honestly, is the only reason that Slashers seem to have no problem with walking all over someone elses copyright because it's a BIG corporation? Ya sure! Not money out of YOUR pocket. If it was, you might think differently.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by sg_oneill · 2003-09-06 17:41 · Score: 1

You make the grave mistake of assuming we all actually agree that Intelectual property is a meaningful 'right' in the age of the internet.
I am not a historian, but I'd speculate strongly that the reason copyright was created, was to protect early publishers from having there work stolen by the larger cartels. This would of been related stongly to the high capital costs of establishing printing press. If one was going to sell the family farm to buy a press, one would want to make sure that the local works etc printed would not be stolen by monopolists.
A similar reasoning could be applied to the musical records produced in the 1900's. Again related to high production costs. But what happened is that 'the star system' was created and that meant that again and again local talent was overlooked by punters to ensure only the international cartels got full access to the hip pockets of music fans. The kids wanted micheal jackson rather than local band X.
In the age of the internet however production costs are low enough that a local band can afford to produce musical works, even on a welfare buget, and distribute them cheaply, perhaps over the internet. This allows small labels to compete with the large labels on production and distribution costs, and in doing so removes the verry reason copyright was needed.
Of course the big labels still have the star system, and the existance or absence of artificial copyright wont make a lick of difference to the small distributer, cos its the 'star system' that keeps em down anyway.

So nah. I just dont see why we need intelectual property. The laws required to maintain it remove cheap distribution channels like KAZZA from the market and just give more power to the cartels. Precisely what the original 'right' was there to protect against.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by An'Desha+Danin · 2003-09-06 17:52 · Score: 1

Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Math lesson for you:
2(wrong) != right
Are people entitled to download whatever they want off the internet because they hate the RIAA/they don't want to pay for it/CDs cost to much? No, obviously not, piracy is illegal and immoral. Is the RIAA entitled to defend their rights? Yes, of course they are, they're essentially being robbed. Are they justified in being complete and utter asses about it, preying on people's fears and misconceptions to accomplish their own ends? No, that's just as immoral as anything the pirates are doing.

--
Anything you might ever need to say about anything has already been said better by Penny Arcade.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 18:32 · Score: 0

Opps! I knew I'd get modded bad for speaking the truth, but I see it turned out "troll", not "flamenait". It's too bad Slash mods are not open minded.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by olderchurch · 2003-09-06 21:17 · Score: 1

I think i am entitled to download music. I have about 500 CDs and i paid too much for each and every one of them.
So do I get a nice fat check from the companys with an accompianing letter that they are sorry that I paid too much and will lower their prices. No, they didn't even lower their prices. Prices only went up in the last ten years (that is until yesterday).
So I think i am entitled to download at least enough music to compensate me for the excessive money that I paid on all the cds I own.
And then there is always the thingie about copy protection and CSS, which will not allow me to make a copy for backup purposes or view a DVD on my Linux machine. Come on, The entertainment industry got it comming!

--
Disclaimer: This opinion was created without the use of any facts
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 23:56 · Score: 0

Gnunet has weaknesses created by the ability to link traffic. We need a blind salted keyword query system for that, and that's still in pre-paper stages...
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by 1u3hr · 2003-09-07 02:11 · Score: 1

When Kazaa did it, is was merely cool.
When Kazaa Lite did it, it was down to just another corporation, profiting from piracy.
What bullshit is this? KAzaalite is Kazaa with the popups/spyware/adware crap removed. Who is profiting (and how) from Kazaa Lite?
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by tuba_dude · 2003-09-07 11:56 · Score: 0

You assume greed is a basic part of human nature, or if it isn't, that everyone is greedy anyway. Sorry buddy. Some of us have heard of this crazy thing called the Open Source movement...people are, get this, giving their work away! As in *no* money involved! Woah... Now sure, there are people who care about nothing but money, but at least half of us here are a bit more intellegent than that.

--
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by tuba_dude · 2003-09-07 12:01 · Score: 1

Immoral, eh? I swear, greed is like an all-purpose blinder. Some people just can't see that other people think differently about possessions and money.
I think everyone involved is being stupid about it. The recording companies are desperately clinging onto their old business model of "suck the customers dry, leave nothing for the artists", the people grabbing music in symbolic attempts to 'kill off' the recording companies, and the artists for still signing with big record companies after all this shit.

--
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by nutznboltz · 2003-09-08 01:11 · Score: 1

is the only reason that Slashers seem to have no problem with walking all over someone elses copyright because it's a BIG corporation?
Actually it's a cartel of big corporations who fail to deliver a quality product at a reasonable price.
Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-19 16:16 · Score: 0

Mentor II

We are so sick and tired of your anti-piracy schemes, did you ever think that this
Commercialized tactics of copywrite infringements are going to push us away?
Your wrong. Just like the hacker, we are freedom fighters of information. yes you on the other
hand are paid to track us down, to use us as scapegoats, and prosecute us so you
have the upper hand in your company. What are you afraid of? The truth? Are you so
wrapped up in your selfish ways to get promoted, to look like a hero, that you never
see what information was created for? It was created for me, my brother, and all of
the people that seek it, at the cost of effort and time, not the dollar bill that pays
your gas money to work, or your dinner plate. i work, i work on building houses, to
to pick up your trash, to serve you when you come to my restaurant, we are everywhere.
you may stop one of us, but we..the information seekers will continue to use our
neighbors wireless internet to send our information to the masses and there is no
stopping us. go ahead, pull your so called "plug" on the file swapping software that
the consumers use on a daily basis, is that were it all begins? Your wrong. is it
going to scare me when I read the headline in the paper "kazza user sentence to 5 years"
going to scare me? Your wrong. I have had it with your monopolized way of life, you
can cheat peoples lives in court, wage wars on foreign land for oil, beat our innocent
bystanders for going 10 miles over the speed limit, raise our taxes, punish our weak...
but we are the robin hood of the internet, we will steal from you and give to those
who live in a real society were there is no million dollar home to go to, or that corvette
that sits in your 6 car garage that never runs...we are pirates and you can never change
that. deal with it like you always have and stop bitching about it.....leave us alone!!!

Ex|d@us

I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

I keep seeing this posted all over the place but, I don't know where the quote? is from. Can someone clue me in?

Re:I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:13 · Score: 0

The simpsons, Kent Brockman welcomes the new ant overlords he thinks has taken over the spacecraft when Homer goes in to space ;-)
Re:I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by Mitreya · 2003-09-06 11:14 · Score: 3, Informative

That's a quote from simpsons:
"Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we've just lost the picture, but what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over- 'conquered' if you will- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthman or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves." -- Kent Brockman
Re:I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by avayre · 2003-09-06 12:15 · Score: 1

In addition to the Simpsons, the quote also appeared on Futurama. Earth President stated a variation when the Omicronians demanded the finale to Single Female Lawyer.
Re:I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by the_2nd_coming · 2003-09-06 12:28 · Score: 1

the simpsons. when Homer goes into space on the Shuttle, he lets out a colony of ants that were intended for an experiment (a useless one, though I can not remember what now, it was funny)

Kent Brockman was doing a news cast and saw an ant floating close to the Shuttle camera making it look huge. he screemed that the planet is being taken over by giant ants and they wnet to comercial.

when they came back, Kent had a piece of poster board over his shoulder that read something like "We heart ants"

and he then was quoted as saying "I for one, welcome our new ant overlords"

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by KarakSindru · 2003-09-06 13:06 · Score: 1

"No we'll never know if ants can be trained to sort tiny screws in space.."
Re:I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by the_2nd_coming · 2003-09-06 13:46 · Score: 1

Thanks, god that was funny :-)

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-07 23:42 · Score: 0

I must have been on Slashdot for a long time when I'm not surprised a post that asks a question is modded insightful.

I haven't been here long enough to understand why this happens though, is it some sort of double irony? An in joke?

(I expect +3 Insightful for this post)

Haha by ascalon · 2003-09-06 11:14 · Score: 1

Official Kazaa Lite K++ Website Kazaa Lite K++ is a FREE, clean and highly improved version of Kazaa. K-Lite Codec Pack for playing all your downloaded movies. www.kazaalitekpp.com/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages I thought the title said "Google removes Kazaa links?" Maybe I need to read the article again.

Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:01 · Score: 0

No, they removed the old links. These are the new links. Long live the links !
Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 18:25 · Score: 0

The Kazaa Lite guys have tons of links to their website and tons of mirrors, this is just a slash in the water from Sharman Networks, by the time they get their next complaint to Google, the K-Lite people will already have another "official" .com or .tk or whatever...

Two different issues! by writermike · 2003-09-06 11:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Sharman never complained that Google infringed on the rights of downloaders to pirate from Kazaa versus Kazaa Lite. Sharman complained that Google infringed on Kazaa's copyrights.

Whether or not Google has links to other sites that openly advocate piracy doesn't really have much to do with the Kazaa/Kazaa-Lite debate, methinks.

--
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.

Re:Two different issues! by Dark+Nexus · 2003-09-06 11:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Psst..... both infringe on copyrights!

The difference is that the other copyrights aren't held by Sharman.

--
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
Re:Two different issues! by blibbleblobble · 2003-09-06 21:56 · Score: 1

'Cos being able to download full albums can't possibly be legal, right?

i noticed this too by fuckfuck101 · 2003-09-06 11:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

and it's still not hard to find links with kazaa lite, or anything to do with illegal nature.

a far more pressing issue for me is why doesn't google remove links for "kiddie porn" or "illegal porn" or "rape pics" or something?

or is it a case of one rule for one, another for everybody else?

--
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.

Re:i noticed this too by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · 2003-09-06 11:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

and it's still not hard to find links with kazaa lite, or anything to do with illegal nature.
< snip >
or is it a case of one rule for one, another for everybody else?

This is precisely why they shouldn't filter out any search results. If they filter only some some "illegal" (keep in mind that legality is a function of locality) links, they are, in effect, endorsing the others. Your sacred cow may not be mine, and everyone's kink is someone else's horror.

Search engines merely provide a searchable index to content. I don't see how they can be seen as guilty of copyright infringement, so long as the page descriptions are kept short enough to qualify under "fair use". An impartial tool like a search engine is not a place to enforce morality, since morality is subjective by its very nature.

I should close by saying that I don't personally condone the examples you've given, but the people involved in the creating of that content are the wrongdoers, not Google.

--
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
Re:i noticed this too by C10H14N2 · 2003-09-06 11:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps because if you filter out such terms it would be reasonably impossible, save for physically marching to every university library on the planet, to research all manner of subjects.

The fact that anything is abhorrent, no matter the severity or lack thereof, is precisely why information on it should be available. Someone typing in AskJeeves "how could you kill eight million Jews" should be able to pull up the text of the Nuremburg trials without risking a lawsuit for attempted murder or copyright infringement of the estate of Stanley Kramer.

That principle is far more in the public interest than whether or not Britney Spears' royalties are at stake, let alone her record label or the company profitting from piracy of her music, which is why you will find the issue of filtering at the top of the issues concerning the American Library Association.

http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Asso ciation/Offices/ALA_Washington/Issues2/Civil_Liber ties,_Intellectual_Freedom,_Privacy/Civil_Libertie s,_Intellectual_Freedom_and_Privacy.htm
Re:i noticed this too by Guppy06 · 2003-09-06 12:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

"a far more pressing issue for me is why doesn't google remove links for "kiddie porn" or "illegal porn" or "rape pics" or something?"

Because it's easier to filter out one or two specific brand names than a few thousand different metaphors and spellings.
Re:i noticed this too by ReallyQuietGuy · 2003-09-06 14:06 · Score: 1

Someone typing in AskJeeves "how could you kill eight million Jews" should be able to pull up the text of the Nuremburg trials
But what should Google return if that someone types in "how do you kill eight million jews" instead?
Re:i noticed this too by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 17:08 · Score: 0

But what should Google return if that someone types in "how do you kill eight million jews" instead?

This, apparently.

"Feeling Lucky" takes you to this site, rather unfunny joke:

A guy walks into a bar in Argentina. He sees a familiar character, albeit much older now, sitting at the bar. He approaches, examines his face, and asks:

"Excuse me, but aren't you Adolf Hitler?"

"Vy yes, I am Adolf Hitler."

"But I thought you were dead!"

"Ach. I get a lot of dat. But in fact, I am chust biding my time, planning a scheme to kill fifty million Jews and eight of der Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders."

"What?" the guy exclaims. "Why would you want to kill eight of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders?"

Hitler turns to another fellow sitting at the bar next to him. "You see vat I mean? Nobody gives a damn about da Jews!!!"
Re:i noticed this too by Phroggy · 2003-09-06 18:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

a far more pressing issue for me is why doesn't google remove links for "kiddie porn" or "illegal porn" or "rape pics" or something?

Perhaps because any automated way to do this is absolutely guaranteed to generate false positives, resulting in legitimate sites getting their links removed for no valid reason, which Google considers unacceptable, which means the only way to do it is to verify each site manually, which means Google staff would be surfing for child pornography, which most of us would consider unacceptable. I certainly wouldn't want that job, would you?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:i noticed this too by cra · 2003-09-06 19:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

The locality-issue is important in all this. Like here in Norway it's perfectly legal to download music or movies *for personal use*. As soon as I start to sell copies, or share my downloads with kazaa or similar programs, then I break the law.

Another this is this; Because something is illegal, should it be illegal to get information about it? Take drugs, for example. What if I wanted to find out something about the effects of, say, heroine? Would google or anyone else be able to know that I actually wanted some totally legitimate information about the subject, rather than a list of pushers? Would google know that when I searched for "kiddie porn" and "Thailand", I was looking for a place to report my neighbour that I suspected foul play at his holiday? Would google know that when I searched for "How to make a bomb", I just want to see if that stuff under my sons bed can be used to make a bomb and should be taken away before an accident happens? Would google know that I wanted to find out how to totally uninstall kazaa, not to download it?

Bottom line: It is not illegal to search for information about things that are illegal. I think Internet is too good a place to find out about things to be cencored. And I regret to say that I think the americans lead the way there by suing anybody for nothing. (I guess I'll get sued for saying this. . .) I understand people/companies that would do this to avoid getting sued, but I think it is the wrong way to go.

--
This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for higher security.
Re:i noticed this too by danila · 2003-09-06 21:18 · Score: 1

Absolutely. And know Google proves (with each example) that it can filter the results. So when next evil organisation comes to Google and asks to remove some links, Google will have no excuse not to do that. We know for sure that many people don't have the resources to fight for the right in the courts. And we also know that in many cases just some negative feedback was sufficient to force people to abandon their software or web projects. Imagine when would a DMCA accusation do!

IANAL, but I am not convinced that Google qualifies as "ISP" and so must remove the links. Why didn't they challenge it in KaZaA case or earlier with Scientology, I do not know.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:i noticed this too by blibbleblobble · 2003-09-06 22:02 · Score: 1

"a far more pressing issue for me is why doesn't google remove links for "kiddie porn" or "illegal porn" or "rape pics" or something?"

Because the list of people who do such searches is more useful than removing the search?

Because it would just le/\d 2 a speling modifikation w@r and massive keyword pollution when 'disney lyrics' becomes the keyword for searching porn?
Re:i noticed this too by Ian+Jefferies · 2003-09-06 22:09 · Score: 1

"a far more pressing issue for me is why doesn't google remove links for "kiddie porn" or "illegal porn" or "rape pics" or something?"

Because it's easier to filter out one or two specific brand names than a few thousand different metaphors and spellings.

Google does already try to do this... visit the preference settings and play with the SafeSearch settings.

Ian.

--
A physicist is an atom's way of thinking about atoms
Re:i noticed this too by SvendTofte · 2003-09-06 22:55 · Score: 1

Sadly, Google is subject to locality (and thus, legality.)
Re:i noticed this too by denisdekat · 2003-09-07 02:45 · Score: 1

Yeah google is full of it :( They banned an independant news source recentrly -> http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/1640341.php I almost feel a wave of censorship coming to the net, I mean, how else are the corporate giants going to control the media? The internet is killing them and Dean is proof of that. They have tried so hard to pus that Lieberbland, Gepfart and whoKerries .... Internet prefer Dean...

--
photoplankton
Re:i noticed this too by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-07 09:26 · Score: 0

"since morality is subjective by its very nature."

except for murder i think, everybody but your local thugs, drug lords, dictators, and assorted serial killers condem murder.. for the most part i would guess,

guess what's the funniest part... by Dreadlord · 2003-09-06 11:16 · Score: 5, Funny

in other news, KaZaA users are searching for KaZaA Lite using KaZaA itself, installing it, and getting rid of KaZaA for good!

--
The IT section color scheme sucks.

Re:guess what's the funniest part... by Thing+1 · 2003-09-06 12:32 · Score: 1

in other news, KaZaA users are searching for KaZaA Lite using KaZaA itself, installing it, and getting rid of KaZaA for good!

When I installed Kazaa Lite, it automatically copied the installer into My Shared Folder.
I think that's great, a sort of viral marketing. ;-)
As to the AC replying to you, I tried a search of "kazaa lite" and I got many, many results. The top two had 107 and 108 people sharing them, took about 2 minutes to download (via DSL; one came at 35Kb/s, other at 13Kb/s), and were the latest version in English (well, one was 2.4.1, other was 2.4.2 -- more people were sharing the latter).
They also had the following languages (although shared by fewer people, in some cases one): German, French, "Netherlands" (Dutch?), Norwegian, "Brazil" (Portuguese I presume), Swedish, German, Czech, Spanish, and Italian. And I only let the search run for about a minute.
However, I'm not sure whether Kazaa Lite will actually clean up the damage done by Kazaa -- you may need Ad-Aware or similar software to remove the spyware.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:guess what's the funniest part... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 13:38 · Score: 0

Read the subject to that AC

Are you smoking crack? by __aailob1448 · 2003-09-06 11:17 · Score: 1, Informative

Kazaa-lite/K++ are simply hacked versions of kazaa that remove "bad" features (spyware, ads,..) and add "good" features (more extensive searches and whatnot). This is done by a few p2p enthusiasts and is available for free. Nothing to do with corporations or whatever.

Re:Are you smoking crack? by ogre2112 · 2003-09-06 12:06 · Score: 1

Yea, I found that comment odd also. If having banner ads on their site makes them an evil corporation, quite a few of us are going to hell..

At the risk of repeating myself... by Pig+Hogger · 2003-09-06 11:17 · Score: 4, Informative

... click on my signature to get the cen$ored google links...

Re:At the risk of repeating myself... by pod · 2003-09-06 11:41 · Score: 1

Google links to the links as well. The notice at the bottom of the results page points to a page listing the blocked sites.

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Re:At the risk of repeating myself... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:43 · Score: 0

Lots of people have sigs disabled, so why not just paste it into your post instead?
Re:At the risk of repeating myself... by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 11:57 · Score: 3, Funny

" Google links to the links as well. The notice at the bottom of the results page points to a page listing the blocked sites."

Hosted by the "Chilling Effects" clearinghouse. When I asked Wendy Selter if they could turn the text into links her answer was that even though they thought the DMCA was unconstitional this was the best they felt they could do. I guess they aren't ready to be the object of a court case over this.

So... You'll have to cut/paste the links.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi? NoticeID=789

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.

Re:Surely you don't mean Bittorrent? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:18 · Score: 1, Funny

I doubt it. I think he meant Usenet.

Time for us to run our own search engine by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Google is a single point of failure, and the people running it seem determined to fail.

We need a peer to peer search engine. We could build it out of the current peer to peer network search engines, which all suck, BTW. I think I would put up with long-running searches for non-censored results.

One method might be to use something like Filter Proxy. This proxy looks at all the web pages you visit and indexes them. If we can share and search each others proxies, our own browsing will be the indexing of the internet, thus avoiding having to write a spider and obey robots.txt and stuff like that.

At a minimum, we need to get the project started and start using it, building up the databases.

Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by Dorothy+86 · 2003-09-06 11:29 · Score: 1

There is one. Share Reactor but, it only searches freenet, and supports Edonky/mule

--
Game Overdrive - Gaming News
Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 12:03 · Score: 1

Read Google's policy: http://www.google.com/dmca.html

Specifically: "It is our policy to document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act. A copy of the notice will be sent to a third party who will make it available to the public."

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by bizcoach · 2003-09-06 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think robots should be used for indexing because of privacy concerns (I don't think it's good when anyone can check who visits which website when), and robots.txt should definately be honored by a search engine. There are good reasons to include some parts of some websites from the serach engines, and robots.txt is the way to specify that.

I do like the idea of a p2p web indexing and search system, but I think this can be successful only if it's fast. (If it isn't fast too few people will use it, and then it cannot possibly work well.)

I think this calls for serious computer science research into how to make such a system sufficiently fast.
Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by SanityInAnarchy · 2003-09-06 13:42 · Score: 1

A network of proxies that do not log. Every time you create a proxy, you give it a few peers to connect to. Every day or so, your proxy would download the indexes from all its peers and merge them into its own index. That way, changes would slowly trickle across the network, and you would only have to check the nearest proxy when doing a search.

The problem is, Google used the DMOZ database. The RDF document for that is 1.2 gigs, last I checked. I hope our index can be considerably smaller (or we use rsync), but more importantly, that it can be searched quickly, from one machine.

One alternative is some sort of distributed computing thing. Each machine would have its own index, and when you do a search, it travels out on the network, and each machine only checks its own index, and sends the results back to you.

The most crucial part, though, is making sure it's anonymous. I don't want a log of my browsing flying around a p2p network.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by Narphorium · 2003-09-06 15:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

What about a system where each node could act as a bot for a specific subject. Then each node would be linked up to other relavent subject nodes.
In essance it would be like a the DMOZ Opend Directory Project except with P2P bots instead of manual maintanance.
For example Node A searches only for movie reviews. Anyone seaching for anything related to movie reviews would be pointed to Node A.
Node B would find results for movie stars and therefore be linked up to Node A.
Each node could could handle multiple subjects and many nodes could have redundant subject coverage.
It wouldn't necessarily be a direct replacement for Google but it could provide some interesting results.
Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 16:07 · Score: 0

How about using www.stumbleupon.com
Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by blibbleblobble · 2003-09-06 22:10 · Score: 1

"Google is a single point of failure, and the people running it seem determined to fail. We need a peer to peer search engine."

Surely all we need is an open-source Google that anybody can run on their server?

Admittedly, p2p data sharing would be useful for doing the indexing, rather than me getting 8 million hits per day from googlebots running in student dorms, but all it would take is a googol of googles, with a significant number of them in the free world.
Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by SanityInAnarchy · 2003-09-07 02:27 · Score: 1

There'd have to be lots of redundancy built in. Imagine if the "sex/pr0n" node was a p133...

And, for that matter, we wouldn't be being fair if we let the admins of each node decide what it was being used for.

I think the whole thing should grow completely organically. Every time you go to a new site, it not only gets indexed, but you are invited to classify it. The closest node to you would have most of its subjects be things you visit a lot, or things you search for a lot. The searches could branch out in p2p fashion, so it could be as slow and annoying as Gnutella, but even in such a case, the system would learn over time which subjects should go where.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

Of course they are by evilroot · 2003-09-06 11:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Of course such phrases can be considered %100 legal. Suppose you sell complete, legal albums from your band on your website. Being excluded from Google results would be quite damaging.

Also, belive it or not pr0n is perfectly legal and one of the single most profitable businesses on the Internet. "Full length movies" etc are buzz phrases from porn sites, and if Google starts filtering that too how much further is it to content censorship? For a Slashdot story I really don't like the pro-copyright law spin on this article. Terminating links for whatever reason is a bad thing. Go after the sites themselves for infringement, not search engines.

Re:Of course they are by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Go after the sites themselves for infringement, not search engines

Look at it this way. Whats the easiest way to go after the multitude of sites that one might intrepret as infringing? Easy, go after the search engines. Theyre the ones used as hub to find these sites. Is it fair, not really, but is a hell of a lot cheaper that going after 1000 sites. The engines want to stay alive, so they comply. Sure they make a stand when ever they can ( some of them ) but in general, self preservation wins.
Re:Of course they are by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

The result will simply be a search engine in a foreign country which doesn't have to obey such a ridiculous law.
Re:Of course they are by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:04 · Score: 0

Well, it sounds like Google has had its time on top, just like Lycos and Altavista before it (at least, in my experience/preference). Where's the better one that is offshore/foreign? I'm ready to switch.

Google: It's been fun, but if you're going to filter results for non-corporate projects, I can't use your service. What's next, blocking Wine because Microsoft asks you to?
Re:Of course they are by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-07 01:12 · Score: 0

If you have something to say to google, perhaps saying it as an AC halfway down a slashdot story isn't the best way to deliever your message.

Legal trends against google? by zapp · 2003-09-06 11:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

It seems that there's been a trend lately for blaming a search engine for what can be found using its services. It is not google's responsibility to maintain the content of the Internet.

If i search google for "Child pornography" ... it is not their fault if some comes up.

If I search for mp3s or full movie rips, its not their fault. They are an indexing service, not a filtering service, nor a content provider.

blah people are stupid.

--
no comment

Re:Legal trends against google? by Klaruz · 2003-09-06 12:11 · Score: 1

We're just going to see the same thing as drug culture if this keeps up. Instead of calling it marijuana, we get about a million other words. That's just the tip, I know around where I grew up there were lots and lots of local/friend only words for it too.

The same thing will happend for cults, file sharing clients, acme widgets, and anybody else who sends a search engine a dmca form letter. It's going to get harder to find things until you know what to look for.
Re:Legal trends against google? by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 12:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Google seems to be fighting back as best they can without getting caught in a legal trap. What they actually do makes a mockery of the law. They remove the links, forward the notice to Chilling Effects, and post a notice about the removal linking to the notice at Chilling Effects. The notice has to contain the specific links to be removed, so within the notice are the links Google removed.

The people at Chilling Effects don't turn the text of the notice into links for you, so you'll have to cut/paste. Can you blame them? (Don't bother asking them to. I asked, and they're not ready to be the butt of a lawsuit.)

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:Legal trends against google? by Cyno · 2003-09-06 12:56 · Score: 1

This "trend" started when Judge Kaplan in the MPAA v. 2600 case said that linking to something is a "distinction without a difference".
Re:Legal trends against google? by Cyno · 2003-09-06 12:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Instead of calling it marijuana

You mean Cannabis? Marijuana is the derogatory term the US government uses to refer to that harmless plant.
Re:Legal trends against google? by Nucleon500 · 2003-09-06 13:43 · Score: 1

Here's an idea: let's have browsers that automatically create links from obvious URLs, like many mail and news clients do. This would also help with Slashdot, since people are so darn lazy. That counts as prior art, BTW.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:Legal trends against google? by mattdm · 2003-09-06 15:50 · Score: 1

Yeah, just like "poppy" is the derogatory term the US gover'ment uses to refer to what we all really know as the Papaver.
Re:Legal trends against google? by lxs · 2003-09-06 20:49 · Score: 1

it's called shooting the messenger.
Re:Legal trends against google? by Przepla · 2003-09-07 01:06 · Score: 1

The people at Chilling Effects don't turn the text of the notice into links for you, so you'll have to cut/paste.

Not really. You can use browser extensions to avoid pasting URLs into address bar.

--
When in doubt, go to the library. - Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Re:Legal trends against google? by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-07 02:04 · Score: 1

What a boring solution. I'd much rather get rid of this stupid assault upon my free speech rights.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:Legal trends against google? by Wolfrider · 2003-09-07 19:56 · Score: 1

--This still sets a bad precedent for anyone looking to censor search engines.

--I would much rather have had google's reps say something like, "Ok, we can remove all references to KLite, but that means we're also going to have to remove all references to Kazaa itself as well" and see how fast Kazaa backed down.

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??

I can't believe people haven't attacked this guy. by I'm+a+racist. · 2003-09-06 11:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

The submitter of this article seems to be a bit of an asshole.

I still can't believe they expect that phrases like 'complete albums,' 'full-length movies,' and 'Napster lives' are to be interpreted as '100% legal.

Might I refer you to the first ammendment?

--

Down with Saudi Arabia!!!

Get it straight. by mindstrm · 2003-09-06 11:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not about what is legal or not, it's about complying with a DMCA request.

Google will remove what they need to in order to avoid a DMCA dispute, the path of least resistance. Any other removals would constitute more work on their end.

Re:Get it straight. by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 12:33 · Score: 1

The do quite a bit more work on their end. They want to stop this follishness as much as we do. These notices are a pain in the ass for them. What they do is to strictly comply with the law and document what they did for all to see; which means that you can find the list of links removed, and who wanted them removed carefully kept in the Chilling Effects database where they can link to it.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:Get it straight. by TheRealBlueEAGLE · 2003-09-06 14:37 · Score: 1

As has been said, google.com isn't supplying kazaa lite and is therefore not liable according to the DMCA. The paragraph used in the complait is intended to be used against the sites that actually supply the infringing file(s).

The fact that the lawyers at google.com doesn't see that proves that they don't do their job.

The fact that google.com bends over to such (unsubstantiated) threats proves that they are spineless and I recomend that everyone finds a [url=http://metasearch.dk]better[/url] searchengine to use.

--
If pro and con are opposites, what is the opposite of progress?

Next version of Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:20 · Score: 0

"Sorry, no results for the term 'Kazaa Lite'"

Google: "Don't be evil" by cubal · 2003-09-06 11:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Remembering that google's motto is "don't be evil", we again see some of their rather odd decisions. First it was "pornography is alright, but hate isn't", now it's "copyright infringement is wrong, but open advertising of piracy is ok"...

hmm, could it be that "stuff that could get us sued is evil", and "stuff that we get paid for is fine by us"?

Just a thought.

Re:Google: "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:27 · Score: 0

This is a case where Google either has to abide by the law, or fight in court. They choose to abide by the law in probably the best way possible. They include a link telling people what they're not allowed to offer as search results. Google DOES honor the DCMA in ads when requested to. For example, I was selling some things on Amazon, and they wouldn't let me run my ads because Amazon said I was using one of their trademarks. After a little research, they accepted that Amazon's TOS did allow me to use their name in the ad and I wasn't misrepresenting things, and the ads were reinstated.
Re:Google: "Don't be evil" by Snowspinner · 2003-09-06 11:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

They didn't remove hate across the board. They removed it in Germany, which has extremely strict hate speech laws, which Google was probably running afoul of.

Nor did they say anything about copyright infringement being wrong. They complied with a DMCA request. The DMCA being the evil thing that it is, they were, quite likely, in violation of it.

In other words, both cases were not Google being evil, they were the law being evil. Google is not the legislative body in either the US or Germany, so that's not really their fault.

--
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Re:Google: "Don't be evil" by Jahf · 2003-09-06 12:12 · Score: 1

Why do I never have mod points when I need them, and never get a chance to use them when I have them?

The parent of this post should be getting +1 Insightful, but instead will have to live with this note until someone else gets it.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:Google: "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:34 · Score: 0

meanwhile you should get -1 Redundant.
Re:Google: "Don't be evil" by podperson · 2003-09-06 13:25 · Score: 1

Not that I remember every decision Google ever made, but what's "rather odd" about deciding hate is worse than pornography?
Re:Google: "Don't be evil" by cubal · 2003-09-06 16:55 · Score: 1

I'm not saying pornography is worse than hate, rather that "don't be evil" seems to be applied to a rather selective definition of evil. Arguably, pornography and hate are both evil (issues of magnitude notwithstanding)...
Re:Google: "Don't be evil" by SEE · 2003-09-07 10:40 · Score: 1

could it be that "stuff that could get us sued is evil", and "stuff that we get paid for is fine by us"

How about, "We will link anything until we get a credible threat that could shut down or seriously harm Google, and even then we'll do as little as we need to end the threat, and we'll subvert our own compliance as much as possible without restoring the threat."

I get results... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:21 · Score: 0

when I search for "Kazaa Lite". Here they are.

Re:Surely you don't mean Bittorrent? by jjhlk · 2003-09-06 11:21 · Score: 1

I agree, sort of.

I don't think BitTorrent sucks, but it isn't what it's hyped out to be. (not by the author, mind you) It isn't a proper P2P tool at all. I think it would be Ok if a server seeded the file and offered a torrent, so that if lots of people started getting it they'd save some of the initial server's bandwidth. But then again, if you're going to be hosting files, expect to pay for bandwidth!

BitTorrent certainly doesn't compare to Kazaa or eDonkey (where I can find the most obscure files).

Google was required to remove the links by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:22 · Score: 0

Kazaa sent Google a DMCA takedown notice. They were required by law to remove the links. That is the only reason they are gone. You might notice on the bottom of the page, it explains that some results have been censored, and it points you to the notice.

I am sure that if someone sends a DMCA takedown notice for the sponsored links, Google will remove those as well.

Kazaa sucks. Kazaa Lite Rules. by SatanicPuppy · 2003-09-06 11:23 · Score: 1, Interesting

Kazaa lite is the only way to fly. I've used it since it first came out, not because it "made it easier to pirate songs/movies/etc" but because it came out ad and spyware free! If you use plain kazaa, you're a fricking idiot.

I don't see how anyone can jump up on a high horse and claim kazaa is better/worse than kazaa lite. Like, its magically not the same filesharing if you're using Kazaa lite. As far as I'm concerned, kazaa is just a crippleware version of Kazaa lite.

Just my opinion.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.

Re:Kazaa sucks. Kazaa Lite Rules. by thefogger · 2003-09-06 11:56 · Score: 1

Whoa, there...
while filesharing is legal, things like Kazaa Lite are not. That software is a sewere violation of copyright since they're redistributing Sharman Networks' Client modified and without permission. Of course, if one says "I'll download warez & copyrighted mp3's only" one might as well say "The hell with software copyrights".

Cheers, Fogger

--

Um... I didn't do it!
Re:Kazaa sucks. Kazaa Lite Rules. by sLaSheDagain · 2003-09-06 12:30 · Score: 1

Kazaa v's Kazaa lite, who cares? Don't you people know there are free, open source alternatives that access the same network?

You people are sheep.
Re:Kazaa sucks. Kazaa Lite Rules. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 13:07 · Score: 0

Don't you people know there are free, open source alternatives that access the same network?
No, we don't know, because idiots like you keep assuming it's obvious and don't actually say what those alternatives are.
Re:Kazaa sucks. Kazaa Lite Rules. by EzInKy · 2003-09-06 14:35 · Score: 1

For Linux/BSD users:
Go to Freshmeat or Sourceforge and do a search.

For Windows users:
You see the box at the top of your browser? Yes, the one with the long strong a characters in it. Uh huh, that's the one....

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

From the sound of everybody else's replies... by bersl2 · 2003-09-06 11:24 · Score: 0, Redundant

I think I failed it.

The BitTorrents have it!

Re:What is more sad? by AceM2 · 2003-09-06 11:28 · Score: 1

And worst of all...... Some people find it necessary to post and rip on people just because they enjoy a tv show ;) The Simpsons is a comedy (mostly) show, of course people are going to find funny quotes from it and start quoting it. It's a little silly sometimes, but geeze loosen up and have a quick free laugh.

DMCA Notice by CausticWindow · 2003-09-06 11:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why are Google always linking to the Chilling Effects website? Why aren't they hosting the DMCA Notices themselves?

Would they still be in DMCA violation if the DMCA notice with the removed links were hosted by them?

What about Chilling Effects? Are they in DMCA violation by hosting those notices?

--
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life

Re:DMCA Notice by OverlordQ · 2003-09-06 12:23 · Score: 1

Why are Google always linking to the Chilling Effects website?

Because they can?

Why aren't they hosting the DMCA Notices themselves?

Because they dont have to

Would they still be in DMCA violation if the DMCA notice with the removed links were hosted by them?

The notice has nothing to do with the offence.

What about Chilling Effects? Are they in DMCA violation by hosting those notices?

Show me the part in the DMCA that says you cannot publish said notices.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Re:DMCA Notice by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 13:40 · Score: 1

"Show me the part in the DMCA that says you cannot publish said notices."

It's my suspicion that Chilling Effects (which is composed mostly of lawyers) is waiting quietly for someone to send them a takedown notice for their notice -- although Chilling Effects are being careful not to link the URLs because of Judge Kaplan's ruling.

If I were a judge and a case like that came before me I'd have a hard time keeping from laughing long enough to write an opinion.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:DMCA Notice by SEE · 2003-09-07 10:44 · Score: 1

Google is linking to Chilling Effects instead of hosting themselves because it minimizes their liability. They aren't providing links to potentially infringing sites, they're linking to a site that gives the addresses of places that are potentially infringing sites.

Chilling Effects might arguably itself be violating the DMCA, but they've volunteered for this duty, and are a bunch of lawyers, and don't have a lot of money to make themselves a potentially juicy target, while suing Google could bring in cash.

Um, why was this posted? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:31 · Score: 0

This story is only going to help get all KaZaA Lite links censored. Is this still /. ??

Interesting sidenote by smiff · 2003-09-06 11:31 · Score: 1

The DMCA grants Online Service Providers immunity from some forms of copyright infringement. To maintain safe harbor status, the OSP must register with the copyright office, assign someone to take DMCA complaints, inform users of their policies, and comply with takedown requests. As far as those requirements go, Google is in compliance.

However, as soon as an OSP takes control of their content and/or sells the content, they lose safe harbor status for that content. So it is possible Google could be held liable for their sponsored links even if they comply with takedown notices.

More information at Chilling Effects.

Re:Interesting sidenote by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 12:45 · Score: 1

"So it is possible Google could be held liable for their sponsored links even if they comply with takedown notices."

It's been a while since I looked into how their sponsored links work, but even then it was very automated. I don't think they could be said to have control over them.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.

Re:how long does this progam take to run? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:31 · Score: 0

ever.

Google pulled a fast on on the RIAA by m.dillon · 2003-09-06 11:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

You guys are idiots. Google pulled the links, but they also put a link up to the original DMCA notice that was sent to them which... guess what? LISTS THE BANNED SITES!

So now instead of these sites being deep in the list of results, they are now front and center, and probably getting far more hits then they were before the notice was sent.

Re:Google pulled a fast on on the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:03 · Score: 0

Yea.. Uh.. I think most people with an IQ above 20 have realized that by now, dumbass.

OMFG YOU GUYS R TEH IDIOTS!
Re:Google pulled a fast on on the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 15:35 · Score: 0

This was discussed many times in the previous article. dillon is therefore a karma whore. In fact, this new story is supposely an update, where different links were taken down for different reasons. So, it has even less relevance.

Mod this down.
Re:Google pulled a fast on on the RIAA by danila · 2003-09-06 22:12 · Score: 1

Bullshit. The results used to be on the first page, now they are just linked to in the bottom of the page.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Successor by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-09-06 11:35 · Score: 4, Funny

And probably everyone on Slashdot knows what the obvious, technically-properly-done successor is, so I won't even mention it.

Actually paying for stuff?

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Re:Successor by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

I went to the music store today and was thinking about buying some... but the two I wanted were $18.99 each! $19 freakin bucks for a piece of plastic with some sounds on it. Needless to say, I did not buy.
Re:Successor by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:53 · Score: 0

I actually thought you were going to say "needless to say, I sucked it up and handed over my plastic". That's certainly what the majority of people do, which would presumably be why it's needless to say it. But kudos to you. Bravo! or Brava!
Re:Successor by Kwil · 2003-09-06 12:26 · Score: 0

Good for you, you've just exercised the ability of choice that capitalism provides.

Now, if you just went home and downloaded it instead you've just subverted the system that makes capitalism work -- that of providing value for an exchange.

--
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Re:Successor by dakryx · 2003-09-06 12:27 · Score: 1

Inquiring minds want to know did you still acquire said songs?
Re:Successor by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:28 · Score: 0

I already had the songs. I'll buy the CD's on Amazon or somewhere else cheaper.
Re:Successor by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 14:21 · Score: 0

the $19 isn't for the piece of plastic dumb ass
Re:Successor by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 14:59 · Score: 0

Part of it is. Part of it is for the artist. Part of it is for the store. But most of it goes to none of those people.
Re:Successor by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 16:05 · Score: 0

Now, if you just went home and downloaded it instead you've just subverted the system that makes capitalism work -- that of providing value for an exchange.

Subverting capitalist consumerism is a Good Thing, especially the crap that oozes out of the so-called music industry.
Re:Successor by Empiric · 2003-09-06 18:37 · Score: 1

Taste the irony here.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Re:Successor by W32.Klez.A · 2003-09-06 20:27 · Score: 1

Try a non-chain music place, and if you can find one, head over to the used bin. If you're not sure you want to buy used CDs because of possible scratches, ask the clerk/manager/owner if they reface them. The local place here does, and they sell the CDs at about 8 dollars apiece. Basically, you buy a new CD for 8 dollars, and the smaller places a lot of times have a more varied selection for people with discriminating tastes. Hell, I live in a shithole town, so depending on where you are, you're more than likely going to find a place like that, no problem. Try it, you might like it.
Re:Successor by DA_Chef · 2003-09-06 20:45 · Score: 1

Approximately quarter of the price goes to retailer. 1/10 might go to artist. But I'm surprised that cd's in the US cost as much as cd's in Finland even though here we have massive taxes, for example 22% VAT.
Re:Successor by AchmedHabib · 2003-09-07 00:10 · Score: 1

Bah! 19$ is nothing. I have to pay 25$ for new CD's and 20$ for not so new, like Audioslave. Some may get down to 19$ but if they are below that, the are usually some compilations of 30 year old music in very poor quality. Yeah! Go EU!

3 years ago, some taxes were removed from the CDs and the price dropped to about 16-17$ for new CDs but that lasted for about half a year and in 3 years the price has raised form 16$ to 25$. Do I feel ripped off? Yes I do, and the amount of CDs I buy is limited these days. Before I would buy a CD that I might like. Today I want to be damn sure that I like the entire CDs before I buy them. Also the fact that I can save money from buying DVDs from USA and get them shipped to EU and still save money should sound some alarm bells. :) And thanks to the EU, parallel importing of CD,DVD,books etc is now forbidden so there is only one channel to control the price.
Re:Successor by fenix+down · 2003-09-07 14:07 · Score: 1

And yet somehow I don't care.

Re:how long does this progam take to run? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:36 · Score: 0

no, because eventually the variables run out of space and wrap around, so that variable + 1 = something much farther than one from variable

forbidden words by frovingslosh · 2003-09-06 11:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

but I still can't believe they expect that phrases like 'complete albums,' 'full-length movies,' and 'Napster lives' are to be interpreted as '100% legal.'"

By this logic, SanityInAnarchy's own post would be illegal, as the post uses the exact same words that it suggests should in some way be illegal to search for or index. Once we have forbidden words we have a very small step to forbidden thought.

One can argue that the piracy should be illegal, but it's a far stretch to say that a link with any of these phrases should not exist on Google. There are invalid uses of the phrases, but there are many valid uses as well, including a group that might not wish to sell their soul to a major label and the RIAA and might want to make their "complete albums" freely downloadable on the Internet. It's a shame or worse that an RIAA mentality might hamper their ability to do so.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:forbidden words by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:47 · Score: 0

Yeah, how are people supposed to find my webpage without those words? Here's a sample of my blog.

The guy behind Napster lives about a mile a mile from my house, and boy, his mansion sure looks nice.

I'm going into the studio next week to complete albums I'm working on with my musical partner.

I just can't watch full-length movies without having to get up and go to the bathroom at least once.

What if I post the DMCA'd links here? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

If I post the links for Kazaa Lite downloads that Google had to remove here on Slashdot, will Slashdot get a takedown notice? If so, will Slashdot comply? Moderators, please mod this up so that it will show up in the Google/Google News search index!

a. http://www.kazaagold.com
b. http://mp3download.com
c. http://www.kazaalite.tk
d. http://www.kaaza.com
e. http://doa2.host.sk
f. http://www.k-lite.tk
g. http://www.kazaa-file-sharing-downloads.com
h. http://www.kazaalite.nl
i. http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/mirror.htm
j. http://www.kazaa-download.de
k. http://www.zeropaid.com
l. http://www.kazaalite.nl/downloads.htm
m. http://kazaa.infos-du-net.com
n. http://www.kazaa-lite.tk
o. http://www.kazaa-lite.info

Re:What if I post the DMCA'd links here? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 13:43 · Score: 0

Uh, Google has a link to those sites right on the search page anyway. Go look for yourself.
Re:What if I post the DMCA'd links here? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 13:47 · Score: 0

No, Google has a link to a list of the url's in non-link form. And if other people have made this list and linked them, great. More ways for people to get there.

He was already +2 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:40 · Score: 0

by default with the karma bonus. Only one person modded that post up.

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:45 · Score: 0

Might I refer you to a single word in his statement: interpreted

Context by syukton · 2003-09-06 11:49 · Score: 1

"but I still can't believe they expect that phrases like 'complete albums,' 'full-length movies,' and 'Napster lives' are to be interpreted as '100% legal.'"

It's all about context. I can say that I "would never download complete albums and full length movies from the internet no matter how long napster lives." and that statement is 100% legal to make--and it contains all three phrases which the original poster questions as "100% legal".

--
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.

Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 11:52 · Score: 0

Regardless of how you say it, it's still 100% to say! That's what freedom of speech is about. The government can't prohibit you from speaking such things. It's not obscenity and it's not threatening speech.

There's an easy solution to this... by Ab0rtRetryFail · 2003-09-06 11:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

As somone on the other side of those ads (LEGAL ones, I assure you), I DO recall a solution to this problem. If the term Kazaa is trademarked (I'm not sure if it is or not), KaZaa can cite a trademark violation and Google will take the ads down.

Of course, Google gets payed everytime a searcher clicks on that Kazaa Lite ad, so they probably won't PROACTIVELY take them down. Would YOU shut down a revenue source like that??

Usenet archive is real problem by Jacek+Poplawski · 2003-09-06 11:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Please read this .
I mean following fragment:

FOR GOOGLE GROUPS, YOU MUST IDENTIFY EACH MESSAGE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS INFRINGING MATERIAL BY ITS MESSAGE-ID.

So, they bought DejaNews, they own probably only existing complete (?) Usenet archive, and NOW they want to censure it!

I don't care about links, if you want link you can find it in many places. Problem is Usenet archive. There is no other place where you can find posts from 1995 or even 1992.

Dear google, I fsck your link database, but leave Usenet archive unchanged, you are not creators of that content!

Re:Usenet archive is real problem by ccevans · 2003-09-06 14:30 · Score: 1

In that case, Google will probably put a link to the infringing material somewhere with a notice that it is infringing, similar to what they did with their search engine results.

As for you saying that they want to censure it, I believe you are incorrect. They must censure it to avoid a very expensive lawsuit.
Re:Usenet archive is real problem by Reziac · 2003-09-06 18:12 · Score: 1

I read thru Google's DMCA page in your link, and it looks like Google is trying to make it as tedious and *difficult* as possible for anyone to request a takedown. Frex, the request has to be submitted by mail or fax (not email); it has to be identified to the absolute specific link or usenet post, etc. IOW, it looks to me like Google is circumventing the DMCA to the best of their ability without falling afoul of anyone's hyperactive lawyers.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Usenet archive is real problem by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 18:26 · Score: 0

I belive the real term is "censoring history". Too many people want to do it today. The nazis would like that too.

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by glenrm · 2003-09-06 11:53 · Score: 1

Somebody needs to take on the DMCA on first amendment grounds... Are there any cases yet?

--
Onward to the Aether Sphere!

"complete albums" by Jacek+Poplawski · 2003-09-06 11:59 · Score: 1

Why "complete albums" could be illegal? First google answer for these words was
Amazon listmania. Is Amazon illegal by your logic?

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:00 · Score: 0

Might I refer you to the first ammendment?

Might I refer you first to a dicttionary?

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:05 · Score: 0

I found that weird as well. Why was this story posted at all?

btw are you using your username and link to the Ethnic Cleansing game in satire, or are you serious?

IANA - does it contravene the DMCA? by aacool · 2003-09-06 12:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google can only return results that are registered domain names. It is in effect a front end to the IANA - In the words of the IANA themselves "The IANA serves as a bookkeeper in recording the assignments that are made. In Internet terminology, the record-keeping service IANA performs is called a registration service, and IANA serves as a registry."

The IANA of course delegate the right to distribute IP address blocks to the RIRs(RFC 2050), who in turn do so to the ISPs. Thus any other search engine can prepare a spider-generated (or otherwise) list of results. For Google to remove a few links from their results does not in anyway change the reality that the IP addresses continue to exist and therefore potentially contravene the DMCA(not that I agree with this in the first place). the IANA, RIRs and ISPs therefore potentially contravene the DMCA - why then would Google take the step of removing links from their results? I'm sure Google has some kind of disclaimer relating to URLs people visit from their results - you can visit more gross sites than kazaalite!

Full Disclosure: I deployed some CRM software for Google in 2000

Re:IANA - does it contravene the DMCA? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:12 · Score: 0

I've seen Google results with just numeric ip addresses.

Better get use to it... by mgblst · 2003-09-06 12:08 · Score: 1

In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 post(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results.

Re:Better get use to it... by Jacek+Poplawski · 2003-09-06 12:11 · Score: 1

What post do you mean?
Re:Better get use to it... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 14:14 · Score: 0

He's just regurgitating what the Google search results say to score some karma.

K-lite is ok, Long live altnet by Moloko_Plus · 2003-09-06 12:08 · Score: 1

Yes i do agree, K-Lite does deserve my respect, ive been following k-lite for about a year now and i dont understand why that person said "kazaa is dying due to read only" Sounds more like an RIAA rep just trying to strive us away. Of course, 95% of the time i use Altnet, 4% IRC, 1% K-Lite these days. The thing about kazaa is that i cant find group releases on there in their proper formats, seems like all i find is divx movies. And so much viruses and illegal pornography.

Re:What is more sad? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:09 · Score: 0

The saddest thing of all is that you care about all that enough to post a flame.

amazing.... by cypherwise · 2003-09-06 12:09 · Score: 1

go ahead and search for kazaa-lite on google.
you will find a direct link to the official Kazaa-Lite website.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=kazaa+lite&btnG=Google+Search

Obvious by deke_2503 · 2003-09-06 12:18 · Score: 1

You can legally say any of those phrases in just about any context you want. Since this is slashdot, I should cover my ass and mention that I do NOT mean anything regarding fire or crowded theaters. With that said, think about it: free speech. I can say "I download full albums of copyrighted material on the internet," and it's not illegal. Why not? Because I have free speech. Now, if I do in fact do such things, that may or may not be illegal, depending on my locale. But the fact remains that if I don't do it, and say I do, the worst that can happen is get subpoenaed and my computer checked by the FBI or RIAA (since they probably have the power to raid dorm rooms now). As long as they can't prove I've done anything, I'm ok.

Speech about illegal things is still protected, last I checked.

-dave

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:19 · Score: 0

Might I refer you first to a dicttionary?

I'm sorry, but what is a dicttionary?

Thanks! by Dog+and+Pony · 2003-09-06 12:24 · Score: 2, Informative

That and I've been using Irate a lot lately and freaking loving it. Just today I got ten COMPLETELY LEGAL songs and I liked all of them but 2.

Thank you, thank you and thank you! :D I didn't know about this project, but I just downloaded it and I am on my third song... of which the two first was great, and this one will probably rate a "Not bad".

This is just so way cool, thanks again!

Now I'll just compile a list of some bands I know that provide free and legal MP3s and contribute some unless they haven't got them yet. Is there anyway, anywhere you can see what is already in the database? So as not to bother the maintainers unnecessarily...

whats the deal with those links anyway? by commodoresloat · 2003-09-06 12:25 · Score: 1

All three are for paid services that operate under the name Kazaa and they claim to offer clients for all platforms that will let you download all the stuff mentioned. Are these companies offering a separate network, which their pages lead you to believe? Or a separate client (which they claim works on OS X as well as Windows and Linux)? Or just plain old kazaa lite? Their charges are monthly, which leads me to believe they're offering a separate network but that doesn't seem to make sense here the way it does for news servers.

Re:whats the deal with those links anyway? by SanityInAnarchy · 2003-09-06 13:34 · Score: 2

I, for one, believe that those links are merely people along for the Kazaa ride, trying to get you to pay for the "service" of billing you. Or something like that.

I just thought it was worth mentioning that neither Google nor Sharman seem to care about right or wrong, only about potential (however small) for a lawsuit.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:28 · Score: 0

probaly serious, some of us are proud of our race.

Since GOOGLE is now part of THE MAN by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:30 · Score: 1

Is there a search engine on this good green earth
that DOES NOT BOW DOWN to corporate demands?

Please tell me i will move there i'm sick of this
sh*t

While we're at it are there any countries with
NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS WHATSOEVER? I will move my *ss there too

Re:Since GOOGLE is now part of THE MAN by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:35 · Score: 0

It's not about corporate demands, it's about the law.
Re:Since GOOGLE is now part of THE MAN by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 17:24 · Score: 0

Sure, set up a search engine with these guys.

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:31 · Score: 0

He doesn't need the help:

Lastly, I really hate how people are so bad at spelling. I'm not so upset with grammar, since my grammar isn't too great (although it seems better than average). Poor spelling points to a total lack of understanding of our language, and a rather fucked up vocabulary. People who can't spell properly can't possibly understand the relationships between the roots of words, the evolution of English, and so on. Part of it is an educational issue, part of it is pure laziness, and a good chunk of it is built-in incompetence.

From his slashdot journal.

Can anyone tell me what this article means? by fanatic · 2003-09-06 12:36 · Score: 1

Is google good or bad? is kazaa good or bad? are sponsored links good or bad? Is preference for sponsored links good or bad? is preference happening now? did it happen before?

This has got to be the least coherent afrticle I've ever read on slashdot and that's going a ways.

--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody

Re:Can anyone tell me what this article means? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:45 · Score: 0

Google = Good.
Kazaa = Bad.
Kazaa Lite = Good.
RIAA = Bad.
Sponsored Links = Good.
MPAA = Bad.
Re:Can anyone tell me what this article means? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 20:17 · Score: 0

I can tell you exactly what this article means:
1. Go to http://www.google.com/search?q=kazaa right now and scroll down to the bottom of that page.
2. Click on the link that says read the DMCA complaint
3. Go visit each and every one of the 15 sites listed there that the RIAA didn't want you to see. Download Kazaa Lite from at least one of them.
4. Revel in a small sense of victory over the Enemy of the People, the Assholes of the RIAA.
We won this round. Lots more rounds to go though.

Lets just ban speech and get it over with by nurb432 · 2003-09-06 12:37 · Score: 1

This is boiling down to what is free speech and what is not. What is freedom and what is 'trademark/copyrighted/IP/etc'.

Of course i was joking about banning it, but this is where we are headed.. corporations will have total control of everything the government doesnt.

This is sick.

F-them all.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

K-Lite as Stopgap by jpnews · 2003-09-06 12:37 · Score: 1

Kazaa Lite is a stopgap measure, and I, for one, thank them for it. Sharman's Kazaa could not have a more evil intent, unless perhaps they were purchased by RIAA. (cheap shot, ok)

Still, K-Lite helps mitigate the spyware problem, and when Kazaa goes commercial, KL will be a nice alternative.

Slashdot now repeating POSTS as Stories by donnacha · 2003-09-06 12:37 · Score: 1

This is unbelievable.

Just when Slashdot had managed to reduce the number of stories they repeat, they've gone and taken a post made last week in response to the original Google/Kazaa/RIAA story and repeated it as a story in it's own right!

C'mon, how about some actual News for Nerds?

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 12:42 · Score: 0

probaly serious, some of us are proud of our race.

But some of us are insecure and need to resort to things like suport for ethnic cleansing in order to bolster our fragile egos.

Ironic by mantera · 2003-09-06 12:45 · Score: 5, Funny

I just find it pretty ironic that kazaa are complaining about copyright infringement.

Re:Ironic by Wolfrider · 2003-09-07 19:59 · Score: 1

--Especially since I've heard that NO ONE from the company can/will set foot on US soil, for fear of being "detained" and taken to court.

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:Ironic by mantera · 2003-09-07 20:59 · Score: 1

Yeah i wish Google had given them the finger and said "sue me if you dare!".

That would've competed for the lawsuit of the year with Fox News suing Al Franken.

Speaking of legally downloadable... by sniser2 · 2003-09-06 12:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Furthur Network

How about this free speech by jasonhamilton · 2003-09-06 12:49 · Score: 1

"I am going to kill you". ^- That is speech about an illegal activity, and it's not protected.

--
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!

Re:How about this free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 13:45 · Score: 0

That would depend on the context. Threatening someone's life is not okay, but just saying those words does not imply a threat. What if you were telling a story? Or testifying? Or having this discussion?

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by UserGoogol · 2003-09-06 12:59 · Score: 1

Might I refer you to the "Grammer Syndrome" which is a meme I invented and hope to propagate plenty.

And I've already gotten myself a fan out of using the term, who wrote a little Blog write-up on it. To give a Jargon-File-esque definition:

Grammer Syndrome (noun) It is a well known fact that typoes and other errors in English are often found online. Well meaning people will often try to correct these mistakes, but in the proccess they will often make their own mistake. For example, if someone corrects another's grammar online, they have a high chance of accidentally spelling it "grammer." Theologists may use this as evidence towards the theory that God, if real, has a strong yet dark sense of humor. Cynics may use this as proof that many people are stupider than they think.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by kaltkalt · 2003-09-06 13:14 · Score: 1

Copyright law trumps the first amendment. Everyone knows that.

--

Stupid people make stupid things profitable.

For a good time by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 13:16 · Score: 1

try this Google search: Google+Chilling+Effects

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.

Re:For a good time by Reziac · 2003-09-06 18:23 · Score: 1

[follows link] Results 1 - 10 of about 8,360. [Eeep!]

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:For a good time by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 23:30 · Score: 1

Well... Most of it's the Scientology flap. But that counts too.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:For a good time by Reziac · 2003-09-07 15:28 · Score: 1

Too bad censoring the CoS links doesn't make them vanish from the Real World too :)

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:For a good time by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-07 15:36 · Score: 1

Would you like to take a survey? :)

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:For a good time by Reziac · 2003-09-07 15:54 · Score: 1

I dunno... would it help the CoS go, um, off planet? :)

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

NICE! by Sevn · 2003-09-06 13:20 · Score: 1

Very nice! THANKS!. I haven't found any live Frank Black yet but it's still an awesome app.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.

mldonkey, forget kazaa by marcmerlin · 2003-09-06 13:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Baaah, who cares about kazaa when you have mldonkey, which can connect to kazaa and pretty much all the other p2p networks...

Outside the U.S. by FsG · 2003-09-06 13:32 · Score: 1

It was my understanding that Sharman is based outside the U.S. How can they take legal action against an American company like Google?

--
I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!

Re:Outside the U.S. by MadAnthony02 · 2003-09-07 01:09 · Score: 1

Well, they are doing business in the US, which gives them the right to use the US legal system. And as far as taking "legal action", they haven't actually used the courts or sued anyone - they just sent a letter threatening to if their demands were not met, which they were.

--
I have blog like everyone else

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by GigsVT · 2003-09-06 13:44 · Score: 1

Might I refer you to the "No sense of humor" syndrome.

"No sense of humor syndrome" (noun) Often, when someone replies to a post regarding some random topic, he will fail to notice that the poster has deliberately make a mistake, in the name of humor. Cynics may use this as proof that many people fail to realize that other people are actually pretty sharp.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

(offtopic) linking to Slashdot by SanityInAnarchy · 2003-09-06 13:45 · Score: 1

I posted this story, with a couple of URLs that I checked out that linked back to places on slashdot. How do I make sure those URLs stay valid? I'm fairly sure it's that slashdot changed them, not that I pasted them wrong.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Nucleon500 · 2003-09-06 13:45 · Score: 1

Yeah, but you can still talk about infringement. Or at least you should be able to.

--
Litigious bastards

It had to be said by snitty · 2003-09-06 13:47 · Score: 1

Google should have known better, Don't Squeeze the Sharman

--
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree

Re: Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 13:49 · Score: 1, Informative

Or, you could use Mozilla/Firebird, highlight the text and then click on the text with the middle mouse button (mouse wheel on modern mice).

Heres an idea: MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 13:53 · Score: 0

Fuck your an idoit "Duh I cant think for myself, can someone else think for me?". It is not meant to tell you what is good or bad, that is for YOU to decide, it is simply showing you the facts.

abogado del diablo by ArsonPanda · 2003-09-06 14:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

...legality is a function of locality...
...to qualify under "fair use".

Not all localities have the legality of "fair use", so should search engines be subject to infringement laws there? Or is their moral right to fair use less subjective than other morals?

--

--I don't want the world, I just want your half.

Re:abogado del diablo by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · 2003-09-07 18:53 · Score: 1

Not all localities have the legality of "fair use", so should search engines be subject to infringement laws there?

If $company has servers or offices in that locality, by all means! But, aren't all of Google's servers here in the US?

--
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 14:05 · Score: 0

Might I refer you to the "It was a joke" syndrome.

"It was a joke syndrome" (noun) Often, when someone replies to a post regarding some random topic, and he makes a mistake and is called on it, he will claim it was a deliberate joke that someone else did not understand. Cynics may use this as proof that many people fail to take responsibility for their mistakes.

I don't get it by Unregistered · 2003-09-06 14:12 · Score: 1

If i search for kazaa or kazaalite i get a link to kazalitekpp.com 4th and 1st, respectively. How did they remove the links?

Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 15:01 · Score: 0

They removed the ones in the complaint.

Re:Surely you don't mean Bittorrent? by rsheridan6 · 2003-09-06 14:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

BitTorrent wasn't even intended as a P2P piracy tool, it was to help serve up big files that hammer servers, like Linux isos. Anybody stupid enough to run a BitTorrent server with copyrighted material, and leave it up where the public can find it, is begging to be fucked over by the RIAA's lawyers.

--
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 14:59 · Score: 1, Funny

Might I refer you to the "My Dick is the Biggest Dick of them All so STFU!" syndrome?

Often, when people get stupid trying to one-up each other on slashdot I have to whip out my foot-long and beat them about the head and shoulders with it.

If, after that, they still don't have the good sense to STFU, then I just give them a Rodney-Blast(tm) and they are too busy cleaning up to waste anyone's time any further.

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 15:04 · Score: 0

I believe in ethnic cleansing through white-washing. If I can get all them brown honeys pregnant, that means a whole generation of half-white kids. Keep that up for a few generations and them chocolate honeys will be white chocolate and no one will know the difference.

Too bad my aryan fellows don't understand the pricinple of ethnic assimilation. Just call me the Aryan-of-Luv. Make babies not war!

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by kaltkalt · 2003-09-06 15:05 · Score: 1

No, because that's contributory infringement.

--

Stupid people make stupid things profitable.

Alternatives was Re:Kazaa sucks. Kazaa Lite Rules. by sLaSheDagain · 2003-09-06 15:07 · Score: 1

OK, as an examble, if you are a windows user, slide on over to http://www.gnucleus.com/Gnucleus/ And before people start flaming me, this program accesses a different file sharing network to Kazaa, which is probably a good thing. No royalties to Sharman. File sharing without self-inflicted spyware? Who would have thought?

Google is active in censorship, commercial esp by supaflah · 2003-09-06 15:09 · Score: 5, Informative

I have a nonprofit site dedicated to japanese design.
It was number one on google. it is now blocked out, and commercial links to amazon and other booksellers come first.
Apparently there is an agreement between Google and their advertisers to give priority to their pages.
Also, don't forget that google has a well known disrespect for searchers privacy, by placing permanent cookies, and has a long lasting relationship with the Feds, providing profiling information on suspicious searches.
Proof? Well, don't google for it. Googlewatch.org is a good place to start.

--
--- Nothing but Blood and Kosmos

Unbelievable insolence by scrod · 2003-09-06 15:12 · Score: 1

Oh hell, people saying things that could possibly be interpreted as advocating the infringement of some copyrights and software license agreements? On the web? We must condemn google for not censoring them! Silly rabbit, free speech is for corporations!

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 15:16 · Score: 0

Might I refer you to the "White Men have the Smallest Dicks" syndrome?

Everybody knows that no white man who ever lived had a foot-long dick and if he wanted to beat someone about the head with it they would have to be kneeling and 2 inches away from him.

DEAR GOOGLE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 15:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I email this to press@google.com because doing this will definitely get press attention. I'm assuming that the engineers and programmers still run Google and that they are concerned about the chilling effects of the DMCA.

Want to wake up the current population about just how bad the DMCA is? When you search for the DMCA, first link that comes up is an anti-DMCA site. It's obvious that Google is concerned about the DMCA....

Just for one day change the front page of Google to a page that says:

----

THIS PAGE SHUT DOWN DUE TO THE D.M.C.A.

Please contact your Congressperson. Have a nice day.

----

Now just imagine the fire storm...

Google is the best search engine out there. You won't lose people by doing this. This will be the single best way to inform others about the dangers of the DMCA.

I hope this is taken seriously. Please pass it to your supervisor.

cheers
xxxx

Leave search engines out of this by gad_zuki! · 2003-09-06 15:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is like demanding Enron being removed from the yellowpages. Control search engines and you control the net I guess, this is one of the bigger problems of the DMCA. Linking should not be illegal regardless of the site.

Let them fight their battles, but leave unaffiliated third-parties out of it. Google has nothing to do with kazaalite, google has nothing to do with scientology, etc. You would think a GOP administration would defend business like google and free speech, but the DMCA has yet to be challenged and Ashcroft has no problem using it for his own end.

I don't want a goverment sanitized search engine, I want the rawest information I can get.

Google can solve this problem itself. by buggerdchoirboy · 2003-09-06 16:18 · Score: 1

Google may have to remove some links under the DCMA but why not also remove all links to Sharman Networks. Obviously, all links in this or any other dispute should be questioned ;-). Google can implement it's own complaint process. Shut down all links related to a complaint and examine the results themselves. After all, the DCMA can't stop Google from examining the complaintant.

Testing the waters. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2003-09-06 16:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Google is no longer completely controled by the good guys.

Honestly. . .

Who here really believes that THE #1 gateway website of the entire WORLD hasn't been targetted? As we've seen thus far, if you are a Scientologist lunatic, or a Zionist anti-defamationist lunatic, or an RIAA lunatic, then you can make the Google boys jump.

Any guesses as to what a government "We'll cut your fingers off and dump your body" secret service spook can make a Google boy do?

Right now, the jerks on the switch need to be very careful; if they remove pages, they need to do it in such a way as to make sure it doesn't raise world ire to combustion levels. At the moment, it's all about a little here, a little there, warm up that pot bit by bit.

What can you going to do about it?

Stay aware. Bitch loudly. Seek out and re-post 'offensive' material. If somebody doesn't want something read, then make damned sure it gets read.

-FL

--Everybody dies. Why not do it with honor? It's going to suck either way.

Re:Testing the waters. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-07 03:20 · Score: 0

Out of curiosity; have you ever read "The Invisibles", by Grant Morrison? It's a comic book series which is still ongoing; one of the many ways in which a message can be sent.

bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 16:55 · Score: 0

what a complete load of shit, the dcma was one of the worst pieces of garbade...this is a bit off topic, but I'm drunk, so what the hell....if guns were REQUIRED to be carried at all times on all persons....the murder rate would go up 5x, then about 5 years after this happened, people would be much nicer to each other, people wouldn't pull out in front of you, woudl cut in front in lines, and I guaran-fucking-T there would never be another highjacking...

people would respect each other much more, or if not respect, at least fear enough to be nice -lol

Re:Alternatives was Re:Kazaa sucks. Kazaa Lite Rul by DA-MAN · 2003-09-06 17:06 · Score: 1

You sir, are an idiot.

First you claim that there are other free, open source alternatives that access the same network.

> Kazaa v's Kazaa lite, who cares? Don't you people know there are free, open source alternatives that access the same network?

First you claim that there are other free, open source alternatives that access the same network.

>You people are sheep.

Then you have the nerve to insult people for not knowing this fact, without backing up any of your claims!

> OK, as an examble, if you are a windows user, slide on over to http://www.gnucleus.com/Gnucleus/ And before people start flaming me, this program accesses a different file sharing network to Kazaa, which is probably a good thing. No royalties to Sharman. File sharing without self-inflicted spyware? Who would have thought?

Then there is this tidbit, I mean seriously, what the fuck is this! What happened to "open source alternatives that access the same network.".

Sheep indeed!

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum

Those still aren't going to show up... by xactoguy · 2003-09-06 17:21 · Score: 1

...Because Google doesn't index pages which have a query string - which your comment, and this whole article most certainly do have, I do commend you for being a karma-whore, however.

--

And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss

Re:Those still aren't going to show up... by Carlos+Laviola · 2003-09-06 18:37 · Score: 1
Well, here we go.
- The grandparent post was from an AC. I fail to see the whoring.
- Google respects
- Slashdot's robots.txt. If you've never heard of the robots.txt standard, consult the former link.

I was with you until you mentioned the word.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 17:28 · Score: 0

Zionist. Only 2 kinds of people use that word.
Both are so full of hate their ideas are not with the passing of gas let alone the time to read.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Osama or is it Adolf?

Re:I was with you until you mentioned the word.. by Fantastic+Lad · 2003-09-07 15:04 · Score: 1

Zionist. Only 2 kinds of people use that word.
Both are so full of hate their ideas are not with the passing of gas let alone the time to read.

I disagree. I don't hate anybody. Hate is a really dumb emotion. I'm just trying to point at an area in the big picture.

I sort of understand what you're getting at, though. Many terms regarding the Jewish 'problem' are loaded to the point where people would often rather not think about them at all. But to gain a true understanding of the current events playing out in the world, one must be able to call a horse a horse.

'Zionist' is the best term to describe the political group fathered by Theodor Herzl which embodies and fights to establish Zionist goals. --And since not all Jews are Zionists, I can't refer to the group as being the, 'Jews'; as that would be both inaccurate and racist. And I can't call the intiative 'Israeli' either, for the very same reasons.

I use the term no differently than I do the terms, 'Neoconservative', 'Liberal', or 'Trekkie'.

If you are interested in the fascinating history of Zionism and how it currently relates to current world events, you might want to look at this cool essay on the subject. It's quite a stirring read, actually.

-FL

WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 17:32 · Score: 0

Who give a shit about some windows looser and there spyware? KAZA is for windows loosers.

Re:Surely you don't mean Bittorrent? by jjhlk · 2003-09-06 18:07 · Score: 1

And they are! All the time!

A big site went down recently. It may have just been that people didn't realize how much bandwidth they still need to host thousands of torrents served up thousands of times per day.

(I stopped my piracy when I started college though.)

DUPE!!!1 DUPE!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 19:07 · Score: 0

Ha! Another f*cking dupe!!1

...oh, wait

Re:What is more sad? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 19:10 · Score: 0

And your response isn't sad?

Not that mine isn't, mind you, but it's 1 am & I'm tired.

So, yea.. In conclusion, I miss the following things on /.

Hot Grits down my pants
Natalie Portman Naked and Petrified
Beowulf clusters (actually, this one never left..)
meept!
The Karma Whore that started the Karma Kap Klan
Stephen King, dead at age (2^8)-10

Honestly, the whole Kent Brockman Overlords quote isn't that fantastic compared to the original greats.

What's the point of using a search engine? by RinzeWind · 2003-09-06 19:22 · Score: 1

Well, maybe not quite, but I still can't believe they expect that phrases like 'complete albums,' 'full-length movies,' and 'Napster lives' are to be interpreted as '100% legal.'"

So, would you expect to get only "100% legal" results when you use Google? I prefer 100% Internet results.

You miss the point by bigmouth_strikes · 2003-09-06 20:31 · Score: 1

If the first "ammendment" is relevant, then the term "Kazaa Lite" wouldn't have to be filtered out, would it ?

--
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true

And the real crime is by JeanBaptiste · 2003-09-06 20:35 · Score: 2, Funny

All those sites have been censored by google....

but type in 'goatse' into google, and the first hit is a page that shows the evilnasty picture. Here is the return from the google search. Dont click on the top link unless you are a sick pervert.

Kazaalite needs to be censored when THIS FILTH is on the net?!?!??! (not a direct link, only a google search)

get some perspective, people!

Re:And the real crime is by Gleng · 2003-09-07 01:59 · Score: 1

And what's best is that the very, very first link is to the Scientology Google directory.

Rather fitting I think!

--
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"

I don't understand what the issue is... by iCEBaLM · 2003-09-06 21:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Because if you do a Google search for Kazaa Lite you can still easily get there and their sponsored links are still there? What is this article about? It makes no sense.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:I don't understand what the issue is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-06 23:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

BTW, the real Kazaa Lite has no sponsored links on Google. Those links take you to mp3downloadhq.com, which is just a money making scheme ("Only $1 a Month!"), whereas Kazaa Lite is completely free.

Best way by zeroclip · 2003-09-06 23:10 · Score: 3, Informative

And still the best way to get some quick warez is searching for: Name Last modified Size Description [type] ex. Try: Name Last modified Size Description Macromedia exe "Some" interesting results.

Re: Mozilla by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-06 23:28 · Score: 1

" Or, you could use Mozilla/Firebird, highlight the text and then click on the text with the middle mouse button (mouse wheel on modern mice)."

Sure, but that wouldn't be as much fun.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.

A little more information? by Animaether · 2003-09-07 00:01 · Score: 1

Could we possibly get the name and URL of your site ?

Could we also get the search terms used where your site ranked number one ?

Yes, I'm skeptical of your story. Google's search results change all the time, and your story is lacking information.
In addition, I don't see how "commercial links to amazon and other booksellers" can "come first" when your site allegedly is blocked out. "come first" implies that your site "comes later" - which would be impossible if it were blocked out. So which is it ?

Furthermore, you offer no information whatsoever on why you think "amazon and other booksellers" in particular would be ranked above your site. Again, related to the search term(s) used, I'm sure.

As far as Google's methods go - they're not a public service, and don't have any more moral obligation to do the right thing.
They could remove your site on so much grounds as "we didn't like the look on his face" and not be held (legally) accountable.

As for the mention of Google-Watch.org (you forgot the dash) - what can I say ? All the more reason to use Google; I don't see a Teoma-Watch.org, Dogpile-Watch.org or AllTheWeb-Watch.org to give me any type of confidence that at least somebody's watching the alternative search engine.

I could go on and on about Google-Watch itself:
Calling Google a monopoly, "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service", being a good starter.
Considering I just pseudo-listed 3 other search engines off the top of my head, I hardly think Google has a monopoly on internet searches.

Freedom is important by andr0meda · 2003-09-07 00:13 · Score: 1

When google came, it came with freedom. This what made google strong.

Imho, it isn't up to a corporation to decide on what is good and what is evil. It is not even up to the laywers. It is up to us, the people. If 80% of the people on the net are filesharing, then maybe there is something wrong with the pressure corporations have on what should be allowed and what should not be allowed.

Of course a good capitalist isn't supposed to say such things. The good of corporations is never to be questionned. But the globalisation of the socio - economic freedom movements has recently stepped up it's pace to catch on with what has happened over the last few decades in the industry, and the internet has played a catalysing role to level the playground. Are we now to condemn this progression and cling on to the old standards and customs ?

Maybe it is time that the industry adjusts to the new societies and customs, instead of trying to conform a society to industry rules and good practices. Failing to do so is sure to result in socio cultural disaster and will frustrate a world population because it is held back from what it wants.

--
With great power comes great electricity bills.

Re:Alternatives was Re:Kazaa sucks. Kazaa Lite Rul by sLaSheDagain · 2003-09-07 00:18 · Score: 1

Ok, I'll admit I shot myself in the foot and I am bleeding profusely from the wound. I was trying to point out that there were workable alternatives to Kazaa, but I didn't have my facts right. All flames cheerfully received. /me goes and hides in the corner with a supply of industrial size fire extinguishers, awaiting certain death.

Really. by mindstrm · 2003-09-07 01:11 · Score: 1

Perhaps google felt it would make a better point if, knowing they aren't infringing anyway, they just

a) Removed the links, causing quite a ruckus
and
b) Posted the complaint, which includes the links, and causing more of a ruckus.

If the kazaa lawyers got really picky about posting the links, google can always say they really don't have to comply in teh first place.

Sometimes, it's better to let your enemy advance...

How is google, who has billions of links, and the most successful business model on the net, "spineless" for playing little legal games? All this involves for them is removing a couple links... it's EASY.... not a lot of work.

Re: Mozilla by Kuraz · 2003-09-07 01:27 · Score: 1

Or use Opera, doubleclick and select "Go to URL" :)

hee hee hee by Carmody · 2003-09-07 05:21 · Score: 1

The title of this article should be Kaazalite Squeezes the Sharmin

--
God is real unless declared integer

Re:Surely you don't mean Bittorrent? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-07 06:43 · Score: 0

What about freenet? Anonymous file sharing through SSL sessions on port 80 - whats an admin to do to stop that?

Download by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-07 08:43 · Score: 0

Here is a link for the sites censored, other sites where you can download Kazaa Lite, and, for the very lazy, the executable is available here as well.

www.pagansavage.com

Poster is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 00:38 · Score: 0

but I still can't believe they expect that phrases like 'complete albums,' 'full-length movies,' and 'Napster lives' are to be interpreted as '100% legal.'"

---

what kind of trash is this

Re:I can't believe people haven't attacked this gu by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-17 05:38 · Score: 0

You have just read a comment by I'm a racist.
Other comments by this poster:

#1 Kill all niggers and jews!!!
#2 I'm an athiest, and all religions are inherently stupid. But the jew, as a breed, is filth.
#3 All the dirty skins must fucking die!!!!
#4 I hate[..] dirty skins that are fucking up my country
#5 The USA. This land that we took from the featherheads, with just a bit of alcohol and smallpox, and turned into the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. This country was founded through the intelligence, will, strength, and resourcefulness of white people. The principles that define this country were laid down by white people. It's sad to see them being twisted to suit the nigger-lovers.
#6 In a kind of unrelated topic, why are so many vocal /.ers against racism? Is the collective IQ around here really that low?

I'm really puzzled about the smart thing to do here - ignore everything else and just moderate the comment or moderate him down because he would probably kill thousands of people when given the chance to?

Slashdot Mirror

Google Removes Kazaa Links, Keeps Sponsored Links

275 comments