Slashdot Mirror
How The DMCA Affects Search Engines
An anonymous reader writes "Here is an interesting article regarding the application of the DMCA safe harbor provisions to search engines. This is what causes Google to remove links from its search results and to put a disclaimer at the bottom of the page stating "In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed [x] result(s) from this page." The article is published in the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, and there is a direct link to a pdf version of the article."
is that these links get extra attention.
For example, search for Kazaa Lite and look at the DMCA link at the bottom. The notice lists the URLs which they've had to remove.
Google's way of fighting the man?
the police telling a newspaper they cannot publish the street corner where drugs are being sold in the city they serve.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The DMCA Takedown process is really just a way to scare users into backing down. Those familiar with the law would know that users can send a counter-notification swearing that they're not really infringing, and then the provider has to reinstate the work but still gets to enjoy the liability shield of having complied with the DMCA Takedown rules... and then the copyright holder has no choice but to go after the user directly if they want to keep going.
Of course, in a majority of the times, the copyright holder is correct and this actually prevents a needless cause from going into the overworked court systems. The makers of Kazaa Lite could send Google a counter-notification to get back into the system, and then Shawman Networks would be in the uncomfortable situation of having to file a US-based lawsuit, despite trying to otherwise stay out of US jurisdiction.
But a search engine I can't name made me take it down because it includes information on circumventing their search technology to find DMCA information.
Thank goodness the 23 page article has an abstract.
Know why asian economies are leaping ahead by leaps and bounds? You just go out and do things, without millions of lawyers and others trying to leech of the whole business.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
It's crap like this that absolutely works to destroy the usefulness and wonder of the Internet.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I just gotta love Google for this. They hide the results, but you can still access them. This means two things:
1. People are made aware of what the DMCA does
2. People from the Free World where the DMCA does not apply can still access the information
I still think prohibiting search engines from linking to certain materials is a bad idea, though.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
sorry for feeding the troll but,
File sharing programs are by no means illegal, sharing files isn't illegal either, just some files whose "owners" don't want anyone to have without giving them money and eff will debate that
The primary effect the DMCA has on Search Engines and other Internet sites that allow user posting is that it forces the site operator to make a decision for themselves over whether a work is infringing before the court case... and then puts its thumb on the scale. If they refuse to comply with a proper takedown notice they'll be liable to the copyright holder, while if the needlessly take take down the piece they will lose nothing or very little unless they're a major paying customer.
No wonder most companies, when confronted with a DMCA Takedown letter choose the path of least resistance.
>Since when is the search engine responsible for the content they generate by just following links on the web (forgive me if I'm unfamiliar with how Google crawls the web)?
Since the DMCA. It's now illegal to link to illegal material. Read the article or see the past cases for more information.
Kazaa had Google remove several links to Kazaa Lite pages, and not long ago Scientology tried the same against a Scientology-critical site.
While some here cheer that Google put a reference to the the Kazaa Lite pages removed (or rather to the DMCA notice which includes the URLs of those pages), effecly nullyfing the effect, it is worrying me instead.
Fact is that Companies and Organisations can force the removal of Links from Search Engines, and if those Engines don't act as smartly as Google here (be it due to fear of lawsuits from those Organistions or due to simple lazyness) we might not even notice it....
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
Dear Slashdot users,
If you would like permission to legally view the content of search engines such as Google, contact SCO licensing where we can provide individual licenses for only $699 per search engine or a bulk license of $10^699 for all search engines.
If you do not comply I will publicly brand you a Linus long-hair and GNU hippy, and will ask Microsoft for money to sue you with.
Yours faithfully,
Darl McBride,
CEO SCO Inc.
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, and University of Maine law school clinics. Do you know your online rights? Have you received a letter asking you to remove information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity? Are you concerned about liability for information that someone else posted to your online forum? If so, this site is for you. Chilling Effects aims to help you understand the protections that the First Amendment and intellectual property laws give to your online activities. We are excited about the new opportunities the Internet offers individuals to express their views, parody politicians, celebrate their favorite movie stars, or criticize businesses. But we've noticed that not everyone feels the same way. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users. Chilling Effects encourages respect for intellectual property law, while frowning on its misuse to "chill" legitimate activity.
Nothing like educating the public about the dangers of the DMCA/etal by linking them to EFF and the like :).
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
This is ridiculous. I think the US (government) should stop pretending their laws apply to online material just because people can access the internet from their country. I mean, why on earth do I have to have censored search results?
It would be just as silly if people in the US couldn't do searches on certain words because my country thinks it's not OK for the search engine to provide such results.
If they want filterning then they should run such filters on google.com only. I can't see how the DMCA should apply to google.it or google.com.ar or any other such domain.
Diego Rey
diegoT
... is a search engine in a free country? ;)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Well, basically the idea is one of shelter. If you do what you need to do to qualify for it, you're sheltered from legal actions you'd otherwise be exposed to. But it's just shorthand for an idea -- there are various safe harbor provisions in the law, and they differ in terms of what the prerequisites are to take advantage of them and what they protect one from.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Ok i've got some serious questions here:
1) If I link to a site that links to a site that has DMCA violating speech, does that mean my site is violating aswell? what about google? If so, how far does this chain go?
2) What if someone links to a google cache?
3) Can I say DMCA violating things to my lawyer? What about to a public court?
4) If I violate the DMCA outside America, will the FBI trick me into going to Rome and then drug me and take me back to the USA?
5) If I say something that violates the DMCA on national TV will viewers be breaking the law by watching, and will Tivo be breaking the law by recording it? will these people also require a trial?
6) If I wear DMCA violating clothing can the police confiscate it if it means i would be breaking public nudity laws? (ie it could be underwear too)
7) Im i allowed to violate the DMCA while engaged in sexual intercourse in the state of Florida? What if its consensual?
8) When praying, is it ok to attempt to tell God that the shift key will disable some CD copy-protection systems?
9) On violating the DMCA, certain evidence would be submitted to court, such as video/audio tapes containing said violation. Who owns this evidence, who can see it and how does the freedom of information act apply to it?
10) I thought of a way to circumnavigate X device, am I liable under the DMCA if the thought is in my head? what would happen if i talked about it in my sleep? Could i write about it in a private diary? an online journal? a letter?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
and would be happy to answer any questions people have about it. --CWW
``And unlike much of this other "Free World" you speak of, we can still vote.
And since we can vote, we can work to get rid of it.''
Attacking this point specifically:
Yes you can vote, but you may not be able to get rid of the DMCA. To do that would require there being a party that would abolish the DMCA, and that party getting elected (or at least powerful enough to abolish the DMCA). Since politics is about much more than the DMCA alone, such a party would likely have other things in its programme that you don't like. And that others don't like. And then either not get enough votes to kill the DMCA, or introduce other laws that you would not want to have.
Since the US' political system is ill-suited to more than 2 parties, the chance that you (plural) can vote for a party that 1) will abolish the DMCA, and 2) otherwise suits your tastes is quite slim.
The issue is that you can't vote for or against one issue, you vote for a party and it's entire programme.
Did I mention that the corporations will probably try to influence public opinion in such a way that they become more powerful?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.