Slashdot Mirror
Is Google Silently Removing Posts?
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?
but it would certainly go a long way towards the perception of their actions as, "good form".
The Google tin foil hat is about to be launched. This is a ruse to drum up demand.
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
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.
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.
Slashdot: Wildly Speculative Realms of Unfounded Rumor for Nerds. Stuff that Could Conceivably Matter if in Fact True.
I had first post, and now it's gone!
on everything from Abba to Zappa
So posts on ZZ Top are safe? Good.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Or don't ever use something free
EVER? Uh... where can I buy some bottled air then?
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.