Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Removes Kazaa Links, Keeps Sponsored Links

Posted by timothy on from the conspiracy-or-happenstance dept.

SanityInAnarchy writes "Everyone should remember when Google removed several links that Sharman (owner of Kazaa) claimed were infringing their copyrights. At first, only real results were touched and sponsored links left alone. Well, that sponsored link was removed, but there are quite a few left on a search for 'Kazaa Lite' that, if they aren't infringing Kazaa copyrights, openly advocate piracy. 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.'"

58 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Empiric · · 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?
    1. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Sevn · · 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.
    2. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Zocalo · · 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!
    4. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by bersl2 · · 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.

    5. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by An'Desha+Danin · · 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.
    6. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by gl4ss · · 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.
    7. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Sphere1952 · · 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.
    8. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by lewp · · 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.
    9. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Kpt+Kill · · 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

    10. Re:Sic Transit Gloria Kazaa by Spy+Hunter · · 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?" `":" #");}
  2. Re:I for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords?? by Mitreya · · 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

  3. Two different issues! by writermike · · 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.
    1. Re:Two different issues! by Dark+Nexus · · 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."
  4. i noticed this too by fuckfuck101 · · 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.
    1. Re:i noticed this too by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · · 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.
    2. Re:i noticed this too by C10H14N2 · · 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

    3. Re:i noticed this too by Guppy06 · · 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.

    4. Re:i noticed this too by Phroggy · · 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;
    5. Re:i noticed this too by cra · · 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.
  5. guess what's the funniest part... by Dreadlord · · 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.
  6. At the risk of repeating myself... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    1. Re:At the risk of repeating myself... by Sphere1952 · · 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.
  7. Time for us to run our own search engine by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by bizcoach · · 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.

    2. Re:Time for us to run our own search engine by Narphorium · · 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.

  8. Of course they are by evilroot · · 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.

    1. Re:Of course they are by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Legal trends against google? by zapp · · 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
    1. Re:Legal trends against google? by Sphere1952 · · 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.
    2. Re:Legal trends against google? by Cyno · · 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.

  10. I can't believe people haven't attacked this guy. by I'm+a+racist. · · 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!!!
  11. Get it straight. by mindstrm · · 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.

  12. Google: "Don't be evil" by cubal · · 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.

    1. Re:Google: "Don't be evil" by Snowspinner · · 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
  13. DMCA Notice by CausticWindow · · 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
  14. Google pulled a fast on on the RIAA by m.dillon · · 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.

  15. Successor by Overly+Critical+Guy · · 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."
    1. Re:Successor by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  16. forbidden words by frovingslosh · · 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.
  17. What if I post the DMCA'd links here? by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  18. There's an easy solution to this... by Ab0rtRetryFail · · 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??

  19. Usenet archive is real problem by Jacek+Poplawski · · 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!

  20. IANA - does it contravene the DMCA? by aacool · · 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

  21. Thanks! by Dog+and+Pony · · 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...

  22. Ironic by mantera · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  23. Speaking of legally downloadable... by sniser2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Furthur Network

  24. mldonkey, forget kazaa by marcmerlin · · 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...

  25. Re:whats the deal with those links anyway? by SanityInAnarchy · · 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!
  26. abogado del diablo by ArsonPanda · · 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.
  27. Re:Surely you don't mean Bittorrent? by rsheridan6 · · 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!
  28. Google is active in censorship, commercial esp by supaflah · · 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
  29. DEAR GOOGLE by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  30. Leave search engines out of this by gad_zuki! · · 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.

  31. Testing the waters. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · 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.
  32. And the real crime is by JeanBaptiste · · 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!

  33. I don't understand what the issue is... by iCEBaLM · · 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

  34. Best way by zeroclip · · 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.