Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Google Silently Removing Posts?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the communication-prevents-most-conspiracy-theories dept.

mrbill writes to tell us that several music bloggers believe that Google may be silently removing posts. Those especially prone to conspiracy theories think this may be a part of some greater nefarious action in cooperation with the RIAA. The LA Weekly story cites several sites and email/chat room discussion that points to the only common ground being Google's Blogger platform for sites that have had content mysteriously disappear. This still resides firmly in the wildly speculative realm of unfounded rumor but raises the question, should Google be required to notify a content creator when their IP has been deleted/removed?

121 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. They shouldn't be required... by cmprsdchse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but it would certainly go a long way towards the perception of their actions as, "good form".

    1. Re:They shouldn't be required... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Repeat after me: If you use a free service, you are entitled to exactly what you paid for.

      Repeat after that: If I don't back up my work, one day I may lose it all.

      It's not like either of these things is news, and if it really is a freebie blogging service that Google provides where this is allegedly happening, then of course Google are perfectly within their rights to do anything up to and including shutting down the whole service without notice if they want to.

      It also amazes me that people still trust so much stuff they'd want to keep to free on-line e-mail services, Google's or otherwise. These things do go wrong or get closed down, and you have absolutely no comeback if that happens.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:They shouldn't be required... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Well... nobody has complained the posts were removed (from the fine summary). The problem was that they didn't even notify people they were removing the content.

      Now, what you say is absolutely true; it's a free service and you get what you pay for.

      As someone quoted above, the terms state: "We respect our users' ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share."

      Deleting is OK, deleting without notification is well within their rights, but deleting without notification is hardly "respectful."

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:They shouldn't be required... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      What about the freedom of speech?

      If it isn't illegal - is it permitted to remove it?

      OK - it's the internet, laws have a different meaning and different consequences.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:They shouldn't be required... by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google is not a government entity. Freedom of speech doesn't apply.

    5. Re:They shouldn't be required... by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't be required, but...?

      Wow, you might have set the record for the most terse combination of talking out of both sides of the mouth, mixed with some pretty neat self-canceling logic. Nice one. That's not easy to do. Unless you're a politician or a banker. In which case one can apparently do it in their sleep.

      I'm glad that laws like assault, murder, etc., weren't "composed" with the same, um, cyclical logic, house of mirrors, razzle dazzle. It's kind of like an intellect's version of an Escher drawing. Artistic. Totally dangerous, too, of course. It's no wonder politicians and corporations have such a highly-evolved sociopathic death grip on our so-called "citizens."

      Please don't do it Mr Google, oh no, we aren't saying you can't, just please don't. Okay?

      Priceless, and the first post, to boot. Wonderful, no really.

    6. Re:They shouldn't be required... by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Informative

      No but if these were removed via DMCA take down notices then they are legally obligated to inform the person in question.

      If they were not taken down via DMCA take down notice and were infact just someone like the RIAA asking them nicely then they're 'Do No Evil' motto is starting to fall by the wayside again.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    7. Re:They shouldn't be required... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      ...they're[sic] 'Do No Evil' motto is starting to fall by the wayside again.

      Again? It had it's funeral on 2004-08-19

    8. Re:They shouldn't be required... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Failure flame fails.

      For good study on the difference between "doing good as required" and "doing good as a conscious choice", I refer you to "A Clockwork Orange", A. Burgess, ISBN-13: 978-0393312836

    9. Re:They shouldn't be required... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      For good study on the difference between "doing good as required" and "doing good as a conscious choice", I refer you to "A Clockwork Orange", A. Burgess, ISBN-13: 978-0393312836

      Fascinating debate as that might be, this story (and the book you referred to) is not about doing good but about not doing evil. There's a huge difference between being forced to do good and being forced to not do evil.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:They shouldn't be required... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "Repeat after me: If you use a free service, you are entitled to exactly what you paid for."

      Sorry, I don't feel like lying on your command.

      "It's not like either of these things is news, and if it really is a freebie blogging service that Google provides where this is allegedly happening, then of course Google are perfectly within their rights to do anything up to and including shutting down the whole service without notice if they want to."

      And we have the right to think they are amoral creeps if we wanted to.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    11. Re:They shouldn't be required... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      For good study on the difference between "doing good as required" and "doing good as a conscious choice", I refer you to "A Clockwork Orange", A. Burgess, ISBN-13: 978-0393312836

      Fascinating debate as that might be, this story (and the book you referred to) is not about doing good but about not doing evil. There's a huge difference between being forced to do good and being forced to not do evil.

      I have to disagree with you on there being a "huge difference." A difference, sure, but the biggest part is what they have in common: being forced one way or the other.

      Two sides of the same coin. It boils down to the concept of "free will" or, if you prefer as I do, the more secular "self-determination".

  2. This can only mean one thing: by sstpm · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Google tin foil hat is about to be launched. This is a ruse to drum up demand.

    1. Re:This can only mean one thing: by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really want to use a tinfoil hat in perpetual beta?

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:This can only mean one thing: by Samschnooks · · Score: 1
      I have my own, "The RIAA is a Bunch of Rectum Licking Whores"

      Tell us how you stole music and got away with it.

    3. Re:This can only mean one thing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You've obviously never worn a tinfoil hat before!

    4. Re:This can only mean one thing: by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have my own, "The RIAA is a Bunch of Rectum Licking Whores"

      You shouldn't make them sound so positive. The real RIAA never does anything that pleasing.

      --
      This space available.
    5. Re:This can only mean one thing: by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hey, don't knock it until you've had your rectum licked.

      --
      This space available.
    6. Re:This can only mean one thing: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Where's the "-1 TMI" mod when you need it?
         

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    7. Re:This can only mean one thing: by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Score: -1, Excessively Informative

  3. What do the Terms of Service say? by winkydink · · Score: 3, Informative

    There should be something in there about what Google can and cannot do wrt unsubstantiated rumors and pure speculation. It think it's after the Indemnification clause.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  4. Protection in case this is true by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

    thinfoil hat on.

  5. According to Their Terms I Think They Should by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Informative

    but it would certainly go a long way towards the perception of their actions as, "good form".

    Actually, when they say this about content

    We respect our users' ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share.

    (Emphasis mine) One would hope that entailed at least a notice about why your posting was deleted.

    Although I'm certain the RIAA has a trick for every day of the week to get content deleted instantly. Ex: Quotation of one line from a song without proper fair use attribution listed, DMCA notice sent.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, when they say this about content

      We respect our users' ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share.

      (Emphasis mine) One would hope that entailed at least a notice about why your posting was deleted.

      I don't see how failure to provide notice about why your content was deleted can, in any way, be construed to disparage users' ownership of that content. I can think of many different cases in which a service provider could respect that a user owns some creative content and concurrently removes it from their service consistent with their terms.

      The question of who owns some content and whether it is appropriate to be posted on some service are entirely different.

    2. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Well... they'll just have to start backing-up their blogs to their c: drives, and that way when some get removed off the net, the blogger can instantly restore the censored post (with a note that it was censored). And keep doing it. Until Google bans them completely. And then the blogger can sue for breach of contract.

      Or just shoot the RIAA CEO in the head, which is probably easier and faster.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by skaet · · Score: 1

      The question of who owns some content and whether it is appropriate to be posted on some service are entirely different.

      I agree. Since this is all firmly in the Rumour Camp there's no evidence of what content was actually removed. What's to say the content was not blatantly infringing on copyrighted material? Let's say the user was providing links to torrents or explaining how/where to obtain illegal copies of music/movies. Who's right in that case? Is Google necessarily "evil" for protecting it's own arse and enforcing the studios and artists legal rights?

      Certainly proper attrition is required but if they can remove content why not contact the user to either remove the post entirely (the issue of The Mysterious Disappearing Post is resolved) or simply add a byline within the post something to the effect of "** Some content reproduced here is (c) Example Studio and is not affiliated with the user in any way **" (another legally gray area but more clearly defined than no attrition at all)

      --
      There is no knowledge that is not power.
    4. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      I'd like to second that motion with the addendum that we make it pay-per-view with the proceeds funding anti-*AA lobbyists.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    5. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      What about when they crawl a web page are they responsible to inform the webmaster then as well. I could understand that if someone requests then they could be told, but your demand is excessive. Google runs a service at their own expense. They are not a part of the government. They are allowed to make choices on how their business conducts itself. If you don't like how they conduct business, well its a capitalist society so deal with a another company. That said I think its a bad move for a company that doesn't "be evil".

    6. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last time I cruised around Blogger (I have one there) it was about 100 to 1 ratio of bots and spammers sites, porn ads, and you name it to real user content.

      Very very little actual user updating a blog-type content.

      It's about time they started deleting stuff out of there.

      When an actual, real live blogger says their content was removed I'll be concerned. Otherwise this is probably just a case of "cleaning up a shithole".

    7. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      If they are too stoned to remember which posts they have deleted, how are they ever going to remember to back up their stuff.

      google error? Maybe.

      User error? Highly likely.

      Conspiracy? Did you know too much marijuana can make you paranoid?

    8. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Although I'm certain the RIAA has a trick for every day of the week to get content deleted instantly. Ex: Quotation of one line from a song without proper fair use attribution listed, DMCA notice sent.

      Well, this journal (my abandoned account) has been posted at slashdot since Feb 25 of last year and I'd guess it will stay there.

      I would imagine since slashdot has never been kind to the Reckless Idiots After Anybody, if they were going to demand that posts be removed we'd have heard about it.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    9. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by nazsco · · Score: 1

      I bet most of the posts are links to mp3 anyway. But that is still Evil, Google.

      now, the question is, what is this c: drive you talk about?

    10. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by mackyrae · · Score: 1

      I've had at least one post go missing on my blog. I posted about a belt I'd made that has commands like lspci, lsmod, cat, grep, dd, and others on it. It no longer exists anywhere on my blog, and I don't know why.

      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
  6. Depends on the terms of the agreement ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This still resides firmly in the wildly speculative realm of unfounded rumor but raises the question, should Google be required to notify a content creator when their IP has been deleted/removed?

    Is there any requirement in the agreement between Google and the creator to so do? I highly doubt it. In the absence of such a requirement I don't see any reason to think that they have any such obligation. I searched their web-site and I see no indication that have made any representations to the contrary.

    Now, if the current agreement between Blogger and the content creators is satisfactory, they can take their content elsewhere. Perhaps a competing blog service can offer more agreeable terms and attract more content creators, or perhaps content creators prefer Blogger's service, even with onerous TOS, over the competitor's service for whatever reason (after all, IP policies are the not the end-all here).

    In short, I don't see any reason for people to become histrionic when a service provider doesn't deliver goods that they never promised.

    1. Re:Depends on the terms of the agreement ... by jdunlevy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google's outline of its DMCA procedures for Blogger: They require complainants to "IDENTIFY EACH POST BY PERMALINK OR DATE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS THE INFRINGING MATERIAL." They also have provision for counterclaims, and when they "receive a counter notification," they say they "may reinstate the material in question." But they don't specifically say that they will notify the blogger in response to receiving a claim -- or even in removing a post.

    2. Re:Depends on the terms of the agreement ... by jdunlevy · · Score: 4, Informative
      Though, in the comments on the laweekly.com story, a Rick Klau, "product manager on Blogger" does say [Feb 8th, 2009, 14:16 pm], when taking down content:

      we send an email to the blogger using the address associated with their account and submit the original DMCA notice to chillingeffects.org. If a blogger wishes to challenge the DMCA notice, they can file a counter notice, at which time the original DMCA complainant has 14 days to file suit, or we will reinstate the removed content.

    3. Re:Depends on the terms of the agreement ... by Roxton · · Score: 1

      In short, I don't see any reason for people to become histrionic when a service provider doesn't deliver goods that they never promised.

      In short, I have no patience for ideologues who think that bad faith ends at a EULA. *spit*

    4. Re:Depends on the terms of the agreement ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not required, but it is the decent and polite thing to do. Other than the basic runes of courtesy, nothing says I am required to not snarl at anyone who says good morning to me, but that doesn't make it perfectly OK.

    5. Re:Depends on the terms of the agreement ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      He's a marketer. He lied.
      It's part of the job.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. Is the site getting a new tagline? by SterlingSylver · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdot: Wildly Speculative Realms of Unfounded Rumor for Nerds. Stuff that Could Conceivably Matter if in Fact True.

    1. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, I think that one's already taken by Macrumors.com.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now look, everybody knows that the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the reverse vampires, has been secretly monitoring the meaningless babble of music nerds in order to develop non lethal weaponry capable of putting just about anyone to sleep.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      That could also apply to the Inquirer (www.theinquirer.net). My comment about speculation on rumors: Let's face it, it can be entertaining.

    4. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Slashdot: Wildly Speculative Realms of Unfounded Rumor for Nerds. Stuff that Could Conceivably Matter if in Fact True."

      "..., And Ponies!"

    5. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      "New"? That's been the invisible tagline for a while now, especially when Zonk used to post or when kdawson currently posts stories.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      California attacks to control the Secret Masters of Fandom with the assistance of The Gnomes of Zurich. Take that!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      in order to develop non lethal weaponry capable of putting just about anyone to sleep.

      And they've acquired commercial music radio stations to perform experiments with their progress. It's quite effective.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    8. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of Mac users are NOT nerds. The vast majority of slashdotters are.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    9. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1, Funny

      So, which are you? ;)

      --
      My blog
    10. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Except there are witnesses who say it happened to them and that they are now forced to move server.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    11. Re:Is the site getting a new tagline? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I use Windows at work and Mandriva at home.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  8. WTF? by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had first post, and now it's gone!

    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I had first post, and now it's gone!

      Preview button strikes again!

  9. alphabetically challenged by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 5, Funny
    FTA:

    on everything from Abba to Zappa

    So posts on ZZ Top are safe? Good.

    1. Re:alphabetically challenged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ZZ comes before Za in some sort orders.

    2. Re:alphabetically challenged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ZZ comes before Za in some sort orders.

      And Aa comes after Za in some sort orders.

      Your point?

    3. Re:alphabetically challenged by the+phantom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe ZZ Top is sorted as "Top, ZZ."

      --
      Rhapsody in Numbers
  10. I heard about this a while back.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This blog had some of it's posts removed without warning or explanation.
     
    "Without warning, Google removed three old posts from the blog, and offered no explanation. They then followed by removing Remix Sunday 131, and 132- and offered a brief explanation."
     
    http://palmsout.blogspot.com/search/label/Remix%20Sunday

    1. Re:I heard about this a while back.... by dcollins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's actually a pretty informative example. Google is complying with the legalities of a DMCA takedown notice, and clearly informing the blog owner. The blog owner is responding by saying that they can't narrow down what part of the blog post in question is objectionable, and therefore picking up and moving their blog to another site.

      In this particular case I don't that Google could have done anything one whit better.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  11. Web Sheriff by hack++slash · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh FFS, not those bloody clowns again...

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/27/canada_rocker/
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/14/prince_b3ta_dmca/
    http://torrentfreak.com/village-people-hire-web-sheriff-080215/
    http://stereogum.com/archives/web-sheriff-to-mp3-bloggers-happy-easter-thanks-fo_008539.html
    etc.
    etc.

    But I've figured out a way to defeat them: someone should take Bob Marley's lyrics literally.

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:Web Sheriff by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      But I've figured out a way to defeat them: someone should take Bob Marley's lyrics literally.

      "No woman, no cry." I think we at slashdot have that one covered!

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  12. Free Ride by retech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the end, this is like a hitchhiker bitching when their ride only takes them part way. If it's free, you don't have much to complain about. If you'd like complete freedom, host your own blog, but do it on your own server... with your own lines... etc etc...

    1. Re:Free Ride by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's like if you're hitchhiking from St. Louis to Denver, and someone picks you up and tells you they'll take you all the way to Denver, then kicks you out of the car somewhere in Kansas. What, you haven't seen a building or another car for an hour? Tough shit, pal, get out and walk.

      Free or not, it doesn't matter. If you say you're offering a service to someone, you need to offer it. If you're not willing to live up to the offer, don't make it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Free Ride by retech · · Score: 1

      Or don't ever use something free, in the end there are NO guarantees and since you paid NOTHING you have no loss.

    3. Re:Free Ride by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or don't ever use something free

      EVER? Uh... where can I buy some bottled air then?

    4. Re:Free Ride by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's like if you're hitchhiking from St. Louis to Denver, and someone picks you up and tells you they'll take you all the way to Denver, then kicks you out of the car somewhere in Kansas. What, you haven't seen a building or another car for an hour? Tough shit, pal, get out and walk.

      I think a better metaphor would be that a neighbor invites you to a party at his house, you're enjoying yourself. Then suddenly he turns off the lights for a minute, complete dark. It's fair, they're his lights and he's paying the bill, but it is annoying, pointless, and he did invite you there in the first place.

    5. Re:Free Ride by retech · · Score: 1

      At scuba shops, airgas suppliers and industrial suppliers. And, oddly enough, since they do sell bottled air it comes with a certain set of guarantees. Not entirely sure what your point was, since this is a prime example of getting what you pay for.

    6. Re:Free Ride by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in your mind, there's no obligation unless money changes hands? If you say you'll do someone a favor, do you feel free not to do it unless they pay you?

      How much do they have to pay you to create a sense of obligation in your mind? A penny? A dollar? A thousand dollars? What's your price for keeping your word?

      If you tell someone upfront that you'll only do something for a certain amount of money, then fine; you're under no obligation to do anything unless they meet your price. But once you commit, saying "oh, well, they didn't pay me enough" even if the price is zero marks you as a liar. Honest people do what they say they're going to do, and liars don't, regardless of money.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    7. Re:Free Ride by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Not entirely sure what your point was, since this is a prime example of getting what you pay for.

      That "not using anything free" strictly speaking means not breathing. Just a joke.

    8. Re:Free Ride by ErroneousBee · · Score: 1

      With favours, there is an implied social contract. There are even laws covering it, see promisory estoppel.

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    9. Re:Free Ride by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In the end, this is like a hitchhiker bitching

      Like all car analogies here, it's quite inappropriate and misleading.

      Google is getting FREE CONTENT from bloggers, and SELLING ADS on the pages. It's not a charity.

    10. Re:Free Ride by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      where can I buy some bottled air then?

      http://www.oxygenpod.com/index.php

      P.S. They also sell it on planet Spaceball

    11. Re:Free Ride by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      I think a "WHOOSH" is in order :)

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    12. Re:Free Ride by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      No! That's just wasting the precious bottled air!

  13. Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    google is not evil. you don't believe me. just ask them! better yet google it ...post removed my google!!

  14. They're Afraid by segedunum · · Score: 1

    It's no suprise really. Hell, artists (the people who actually come up with the material) might get the impression that they would get better results and be better off financially going it alone and using blogs and other forums as promotion than they would being protected by the RIAA from all those nasty pirates and copyright violators. The excutives need to be kept in nice suits, BMWs and have enough left over to snort coke off the arses of strippers wearing clear heels. It has little to do with any concrete violation of copyright and everything to do with the prospect of losing the Don Simpson lifestyle.

  15. Please stop. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every week now it seems there is a new target of our collective paranoia. So let's set the record straight for this and all future stories like this. First, the internet is global. The wires, routers, satellites, cables, and equipment are collectively owned by hundreds of companies, scattered throughout every country in the world. Each of those countries feels they have a right to censor or control, to varying degrees, what their citizens say and do. In each of those countries, there are states, counties, municipalities, cities, corporations, organizations, groups, and individuals, all of whom believe they are also entitled to the same thing. Their ideologies are varied, as are their methods, their targets, and their success.

    People have been trying to shut other people up and control them since time began. And people have fought back. Whether Google is censoring or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether anyone fights back. All any of us can do is support anyone who does, and continue to provide the tools to ensure that anyone who wants to listen, can. So if you are one of those being censored by google, step forward, give us your message, and we will do our best to put it everywhere there is an audience for it. Otherwise, can it about the conspiracy theories. They have their laws, and we have ours.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Please stop. by try_anything · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether Google is censoring or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether anyone fights back.

      I'm confused. Fighting back, supporting those who fight back, and bypassing censorship require knowing when censorship happens and who is responsible for it. By that reasoning, it's hard to see how it's irrelevant whether Google is censoring or not.

      "Please stop." Please stop sharing information and doing collective investigation about censorship? Just fight back randomly against... everybody? Even those who don't censor? Work hard to find alternative means of distribution for... all speech? Even the stuff that hasn't been censored?

      It seems more constructive to focus efforts on actual censors and instances of actual censorship. Hence, discussions like this are important and relevant. The facts have to be established before anyone knows what action to take. Whether this particular discussion should have made the front page of Slashdot before the facts were better established is another question (and IMHO the answer is "no.")

    2. Re:Please stop. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I must say that I find it odd. Someone posts a link to a pirated MP3 and that link gets taken down. People define that as censorship?
      Then they wrap it in the flag of free speech and fighting for freedom...

      I would think that posting a recording of someone else as their speech is at best plagiarism. Hey I can see saying that piracy is at worst a civil issue and not criminal. Or that suing your customers is a bad plan. However taking down posts to copyrighted MP3s just doesn't infringe on people's liberties.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Please stop. by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      By that reasoning, it's hard to see how it's irrelevant whether Google is censoring or not.

      Whether google is censoring or not is irrelevant because it is difficult to prove censorship. And the determination of whether censorship is (or is not) occurring is immaterial to our response. And our response should be to copy and disseminate the allegedly censored information.

      "Please stop." Please stop sharing information and doing collective investigation about censorship? Just fight back randomly against... everybody? Even those who don't censor? Work hard to find alternative means of distribution for... all speech? Even the stuff that hasn't been censored?

      I was referring to the wasting of time and energy on guessing whether google is censoring or not absent hard evidence, not everything else you just mentioned. And as an aside, do you find it difficult to connect people's individual statements into a cohesive process? Because you seem to be taking the wrong interpretation to everything individually, which would not be happening if you could look at the larger statement being made.

      It seems more constructive to focus efforts on actual censors and instances of actual censorship.

      Somehow, I don't think a few hundred regular posters and a few thousand regular readers on slashdot will do what over 170 governments to date have been unable to do. But I am open to any argument on how to go after the top fifty thousand major censors in the world utilizing the power of... keystrokes.

      The facts have to be established before anyone knows what action to take.

      A group of people are marching down the street shooting at random passerbys. You are at the end of the street. Do you: a) Stop and ask who, how they are armed, why they are shooting, etc., or b) run like hell?

      Whether this particular discussion should have made the front page of Slashdot before the facts were better established is another question (and IMHO the answer is "no.")

      Nothing would make front page of Slashdot if we had to wait for all the facts to come in... Because nobody would read slashdot. Part of why slashdot is popular and exists is because it provides information quickly, not necessarily perfectly.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Please stop. by try_anything · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I'm getting trolled or not, but....

      And the determination of whether censorship is (or is not) occurring is immaterial to our response. And our response should be to copy and disseminate the allegedly censored information.

      This is a recipe for abuse. Crying censorship is a regular tactic in art (where being comfortably tolerated by the establishment is the ultimate embarrassment,) commerce (get the new super cure that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want you to know about!) and politics. Think of how often conservatives lament the liberal media that keeps them down, and how the liberals went on and on about Fox News hosts who shout over everything their guests say. Being censored is chic and always will be in a society that values freedom.

      In this case the alleged victims are music bloggers, one of the most self-dramatizing and attention-whorish categories of people on earth -- yet these particular bloggers might have a legitimate complaint and might deserve support. You have to take each case on its merits, and you have to withhold help and publicity from attention whores so you can afford to give it to people who have been legitimately wronged.

      Somehow, I don't think a few hundred regular posters and a few thousand regular readers on slashdot will do what over 170 governments to date have been unable to do. But I am open to any argument on how to go after the top fifty thousand major censors in the world utilizing the power of... keystrokes.

      Your fatalism here is out of step with your eagerness for action elsewhere. Plus, why would you expect governments to go after censors? Governments in many cases are the censors, and when the censors are private entities, they are usually acting within their legal rights, so the government rarely helps. It does take keystrokes, or to put it another way, words. The chattering classes don't change things directly by their chatter, but through their chatter (or keystrokes -- maybe we should call them the "clattering classes") they decide how to wield their real power -- voting and consumption.

      Nothing would make front page of Slashdot if we had to wait for all the facts to come in... Because nobody would read slashdot. Part of why slashdot is popular and exists is because it provides information quickly, not necessarily perfectly.

      Point taken. I could go either way, but it seems at this point they need the attention of people who can help them investigate, so later the Slashdot headline wouldn't have to be phrased in the form of a question. It would help focus the conversation a bit ;-)

    5. Re:Please stop. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Someone posts a link to a pirated MP3 and that link gets taken down.

      RTFA. These cases are about music released by record companies (their "right hand") to promote their albums. The blogs in question were giving them free advertising. Then the lawyers, (the "left hand") discovers these same promotional tracks online and complains about it.

    6. Re:Please stop. by BarMonger · · Score: 1

      The blogs in question were giving them free advertising.

      That is completely besides the point. Hiding behind "good" intentions usually does not give you the right to break a law on purpose.

      The blogs might be giving the albums free advertisement, but maybe the record labels don't want that. What if you have a paedophiliac nazi site giving "free" advertisement to the latest Disney movie. I doubt Disney want that.

      Ask the owner before using their material. It's that simple.

    7. Re:Please stop. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The blogs in question were giving them free advertising.
      That is completely besides the point.       That wasn't my major point. Try reading my post again.

      What if you have a paedophiliac nazi site giving "free" advertisement to the latest Disney movie.

      What if you are a braindead retard? Almost as offensive and irrelevant as your argument.

    8. Re:Please stop. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No they are not. If they gave a link to the site that was giving away the tracks then it would be free advertising.
      My wife does digital scrapbooking. A lot of designers will give away kits of artwork on their sites.
      They ask that people link to their sites but not right to the kits.
      They want people to see the other stuff on the sites and maybe buy something.
      Same thing here.
      And it also doesn't matter if it is a mistake by the lawyers. They are within their rights even if it is counter productive.
      The key part of my post is simply posting other people's works without their permission is not an example of free speech!
      Free speech means you are allowed to express your ideas with out fear of going to jail. It doesn't give you the right to take away other peoples rights. In this case the right to have some control over their creation.
      Now if you want to talk about how evil DRM is or even how evil and corrupt the music and movie industry is I am all for it. But this has nothing to do with free speech.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Please stop. by Kamineko · · Score: 1
      > Just fight back randomly against... everybody?

      No, silly! Fight back against 'The Man', of course!

    10. Re:Please stop. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The key part of my post is simply posting other people's works without their permission is not an example of free speech!

      Who said the argument was "free speech"? Straw man.

    11. Re:Please stop. by russotto · · Score: 1

      Every week now it seems there is a new target of our collective paranoia.

      Yeah, we're all paranoid. There's no way we actually have enemies. The idea that large organizations would take it upon themselves to sue thousands of individuals based on the flimsiest of claims is ludicrous. The thought that a company might be selling our information to marketing firms -- or out-and-out criminals -- is insane. And certainly one large company would never co-operate with a large organization to avoid being sued over content from users who are not even paying them. Why, next we'll be claiming that the government and the phone company are conspiring to listen in on our phone calls... We should all just tear up our tinfoil hats and be happy, right?

  16. Terms of Use by chicago_scott · · Score: 3, Informative

    What entity should require Google to inform the IP holder? If the answer is the government through legislation then my answer is no, Google shouldn't be required to notify the IP holder.

    If the answer is that the users of Blogger should be able to hold Google accountable for deleted or lost IP through a Terms of Use agreement enforceable by the Courts, then my answer is yes.

    But the first step would be for the IP holder to not agree to the Terms of Use set forth by Google/Blogger and pressure then to change the terms of service, which state in part:

    o Google also reserves the right to modify, suspend or discontinue the Service with or without notice at any time and without any liability to you.

    o You agree that Google has no responsibility or liability for the deletion of, or the failure to store or to transmit, any Content and other communications maintained by the Service. Google retains the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time with or without notice.

  17. c'mon!!!! by enter+to+exit · · Score: 1
    no conspiracy is complete without Microsoft!!!

    and the bizzare thing is, most of us will think it's plausile no matter how much it contradicts itself.

  18. This happens everywhere... by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    I just posted something that was sure to be modded insightful +5, but it has vanished! Seriously!

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:This happens everywhere... by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      did it have a link to an mp3 of dubious legality?

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    2. Re:This happens everywhere... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Yes. It was an MP3 of Britney Spears' latest song.

      Oh, you said dubious legality, I misread that as dubious quality.

      My mistake, carry on.

  19. POST DELETED by Barny · · Score: 1

    Post deleted by google due to copyright violation.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  20. Re:Using the new "close enough" CPUs by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

    they were pidgins you insensitive clod!

    --
    Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
    Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
  21. riaatoday.blogspot.com by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

    well maybe we can see if it's true.
    http://riaatoday.blogspot.com/
    http://riaatoday.com/
    If you want to be able to post here, send me your e-mail address. ramjet at sfdj.net

    --
    Why bother
  22. You will be assimilated by enricohale · · Score: 1

    Dude, don't use google software for your blog. Wordpress: they'll host it for you, or you can set it up in 10 minutes yourself.

    1. Re:You will be assimilated by mackyrae · · Score: 1

      Blogger can take Slashdot or Digg. Wordpress.com cannot. Blogger lets you have complete control over the site's style. Wordpress.com does not.

      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
    2. Re:You will be assimilated by enricohale · · Score: 1

      There's a digg plug-in for wordpress. http://digg.com/software/Digg_Button_Plug_In_For_Wordpress Here's a plugin that does slashdot, digg, and a whole bunch of others. http://blog.econsultant.com/wordpress-plugin-slashdigglicious-add-button-for-slashdot-digg-reddit-delicious-facebook-google A wordpress blog can look anyway you want. But perhaps you are talking about Wordpress's hosted solution. You might be right about that, i know they host, but i haven't hosted one there myself.

    3. Re:You will be assimilated by mackyrae · · Score: 1

      Yes, I said wordpress.com, not wordpress.org, so OF COURSE I mean their hosting. It goes down after like 10 Diggs, and you have to pay if you want to modify the style. The fact that it has practically no bandwidth is what I mean by "it can't take Digg."

      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
  23. It's a free service by jalefkowit · · Score: 1, Informative

    ... and you get what you pay for.

    --

    Read my blog.

  24. aaaaaarrrrgggh by Eil · · Score: 1

    should Google be required to notify a content creator when their IP has been deleted/removed?

    No, they shouldn't. And if you don't like it, quit being a pansy who wants everything for free and start hosting your own blog on an account that you paid for. Then the only person you can blame for "censorship" is yourself.

  25. notify a content creator? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    How about notify their users.

    Yes, i know they are a private company, not held to constitutional standards, bla bla bla, but what they are doing is wrong.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  26. Re:Google doesnt remove your posts...... by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

    Chuck Norris doesn't need to remove posts. They delete themselves when he looks at them cross.

  27. tinfoil hat by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Those especially prone to conspiracy theories...

    should have more important conspiracies to be theorizing than RIAA teaming up with google.

  28. Re:Google doesnt remove your posts...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Chuck Norris su-NO CARRIER

  29. Hmm.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot posts article about Google silently erasing posts.

    Slashdot goes down (I got all sorts of page errors first time I tried to read this thread).

    Coincidence?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  30. Orkut by starlighter · · Score: 1

    The same thing is happening in the Orkut network, used by millions of brazilian users. Google has added new "spam measures" that are silently removing from communities sight several threads and even scraps. They just need to have any kind of hyperlink at all, to be targeted and removed. They are gone/missing without any chances of recovering, or placed in the "spam folder" (and then you/the admin need to go there and restore them). Just like we are doing with our email accounts, but even worse! I saw several threads/people complaining about this. And some threads were not recovered. Orkut was always bugged and awful, but now it's beyond our imagination. And I can assure you, some threads are not caught without reason. This was a good example of a thread "censored" by Orkut. I have reposted everything inside it, restoring the old lost thread. Use Frontpage Express to open it. http://rapidshare.com/files/196217826/soft.rar.html I recommend that all of you get rid of Google as son as possible and use your own paid hosts, free from any censorship. Better yet - use the PirateBay method of hosting, and you'll be even safer. Youtube have followed the same path, with this new tool used to remove videos with music contents. They don't even bother to contest these measures. Since what they all have done was cooperate with bad people. Sadly, this is not a surprise.

  31. Three Words by imac1701 · · Score: 1

    "Don't Be Evil."

  32. Re:Three Words ("Don't Be Evil") by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    But Google's Evil Prevention Dept. has been cut back due to budget problems. They're now looking for a bailout to prevent "massive and rampant sin".
       

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  33. LOL, Long Time, /. Buds... Long Time Indeed by Bluesee · · Score: 1

    I thought they said they wouldn't be evil? Google... they said that...

    --
    SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    1. Re:LOL, Long Time, /. Buds... Long Time Indeed by Bluesee · · Score: 1

      Wow, my sig totally dates me.

      --
      SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
  34. What do you expect??? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    This is a free site, to post freely anything you want, without paying anything, so if anything happens, you can not blame anyone. If you pay 30/month for a website, that has a posting blog forum on it, and you have backups, and something goes wrong, then you can call and say, please restore the backup.

    If its free, then you can't complain, same as having a hotmail account without a backup system for your emails...what do you expect? You are not in control.

  35. Want paranoia? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    Have you read 1984? They didn't only change/hide the news, but they rewrote history to back the fake news context.

    Now, think of that... Think that Google hosts a big share of information and that share grows every year. Extrapolate that to 10 or 20 years. It doesn't seem so ridiculous, doesn't it?

  36. Priceless by jerryodom · · Score: 1

    Domain Registration $11 a year.

    Hosting $8 a month.

    Blog Software...free.

    Right to censor your own content and deal with Lawyers personally...priceless.

    --
    For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
    1. Re:Priceless by nazsco · · Score: 1

      <quote><p>Domain Registration $11 a year.
      </p><p>Hosting $8 a month.
      </p><p>Right to censor your own content and deal with Lawyers personally...priceless.</p></quote>

      ah, only if it was true.

  37. Please don't stop by Snaller · · Score: 1

    "Every week now it seems there is a new target of our collective paranoia. "

    Except its not paranoia when there are witnesses, who say they were hurt.

    "Whether Google is censoring or not is irrelevant. "

    No you are with an attitude like that. There are people who say they have been the victim of Google, and Google are just ignoring them. That's a problem. And if Google has become #evilgoogle then everybody should know this so they can avoid them. It is very relevant because they are so big as they are.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  38. Re:alphabetically challenged(title) by yzxlyd · · Score: 1

    Maybe ZZ Top is sorted as "Top, ZZ."

    This is so beautiful.

  39. This is a test by yzxlyd · · Score: 1

    This is the most beautiful comment function I've seen.

  40. Test by yzxlyd · · Score: 1

    Test

    1. Re:Test by yzxlyd · · Score: 1

      aaa