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?
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 ;-)
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
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
-----
95%+ used for illegitimate activities
-----
We don't prosecute the makers of rolling paper just because people roll joints. Plenty of pre-rolled cigarettes are available at low cost.
We don't prosecute Aldrich, the primary provider of sodium cyanide, even though its product is deadly.
What legal grounds do you think you have to prosecute Kazaa? They don't advocate drug use or murder. File-sharing? OOOOOOH! Lord save society.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
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 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.