"Show me the part in the DMCA that says you cannot publish said notices."
It's my suspicion that Chilling Effects (which is composed mostly of lawyers) is waiting quietly for someone to send them a takedown notice for their notice -- although Chilling Effects are being careful not to link the URLs because of Judge Kaplan's ruling.
If I were a judge and a case like that came before me I'd have a hard time keeping from laughing long enough to write an opinion.
"So it is possible Google could be held liable for their sponsored links even if they comply with takedown notices."
It's been a while since I looked into how their sponsored links work, but even then it was very automated. I don't think they could be said to have control over them.
The do quite a bit more work on their end. They want to stop this follishness as much as we do. These notices are a pain in the ass for them. What they do is to strictly comply with the law and document what they did for all to see; which means that you can find the list of links removed, and who wanted them removed carefully kept in the Chilling Effects database where they can link to it.
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.)
Specifically: "It is our policy to document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act. A copy of the notice will be sent to a third party who will make it available to the public."
" 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.
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.
"Parents can restrict their children's user's rights, and they can actually parent their kids, watching them while they're on untrusted networks. Just as you wouldn't leave your kid alone on the streets of New York, you shouldn't leave your kid alone while he or she is surfing the internet. Sure, many parents don't have the desire nor time to do these things."
My kids are too old for it now, but when they were younger I had absolutely no intention of monitoring their Internet access, and I'd just as soon the government butts out of my decisionmaking responsibilities. I made sure they understood the difference between the virtual world and the physical world and left them to grow.
(Of course, when my son was 12 and I came home one day to discover that he had taken my computer and turned it into a BBS I was a bit peeved. But I learned how to handle it, and became Sphere.)
"Should governments (ANY government) directly fund the development of an OS?"
Need I point out that it wasn't just our government, but it was our military which funded the development of the Internet? (One of the sneakiest moves in all recorded history for taking over the world, I might add.)
If China wants to participate in putting together a GNU/Linux distro for use on our Internet, it's fine with me -- although it does give me the same sort of creeps I feel about cheering IBM on against SCO. (Go IBM!)
Slashdot Mirror
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday dear Google.
Happy birthday to you.
Now...Was this site 15 or 16?
What a boring solution. I'd much rather get rid of this stupid assault upon my free speech rights.
As long as the P2P code is OpenSource so the poor little kids can just turn the locking code into a nop and recompile, what's the problem?
Japan?
Well... Most of it's the Scientology flap. But that counts too.
" Or, you could use Mozilla/Firebird, highlight the text and then click on the text with the middle mouse button (mouse wheel on modern mice)."
Sure, but that wouldn't be as much fun.
You seem to have ignored the fact that the world has been taken over by multinational corporations. The U.S. no longer rules the world.
Sure, but from long experience we can be certain that will not be used properly.
It looks like it has the right idea anyway. How far along is it in practice?
I could install Slakware just as well as he could, thank you.
My wife, on the other hand...
"Show me the part in the DMCA that says you cannot publish said notices."
It's my suspicion that Chilling Effects (which is composed mostly of lawyers) is waiting quietly for someone to send them a takedown notice for their notice -- although Chilling Effects are being careful not to link the URLs because of Judge Kaplan's ruling.
If I were a judge and a case like that came before me I'd have a hard time keeping from laughing long enough to write an opinion.
try this Google search: Google+Chilling+Effects
"So it is possible Google could be held liable for their sponsored links even if they comply with takedown notices."
It's been a while since I looked into how their sponsored links work, but even then it was very automated. I don't think they could be said to have control over them.
The do quite a bit more work on their end. They want to stop this follishness as much as we do. These notices are a pain in the ass for them. What they do is to strictly comply with the law and document what they did for all to see; which means that you can find the list of links removed, and who wanted them removed carefully kept in the Chilling Effects database where they can link to it.
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.)
Read Google's policy: http://www.google.com/dmca.html
Specifically: "It is our policy to document all notices of alleged infringement on which we act. A copy of the notice will be sent to a third party who will make it available to the public."
" Google links to the links as well. The notice at the bottom of the results page points to a page listing the blocked sites."
? NoticeID=789
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
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.
"Parents can restrict their children's user's rights, and they can actually parent their kids, watching them while they're on untrusted networks. Just as you wouldn't leave your kid alone on the streets of New York, you shouldn't leave your kid alone while he or she is surfing the internet. Sure, many parents don't have the desire nor time to do these things."
My kids are too old for it now, but when they were younger I had absolutely no intention of monitoring their Internet access, and I'd just as soon the government butts out of my decisionmaking responsibilities. I made sure they understood the difference between the virtual world and the physical world and left them to grow.
(Of course, when my son was 12 and I came home one day to discover that he had taken my computer and turned it into a BBS I was a bit peeved. But I learned how to handle it, and became Sphere.)
http://www.redflag-linux.com/eindex.html
The reason Linux took off while BSD languishes can be summed up by this .sig I saw a few days ago:
MS EULA: Sharing is theft, BSD: Sharing is not theft, GPL: Not sharing is theft.
"Should governments (ANY government) directly fund the development of an OS?"
Need I point out that it wasn't just our government, but it was our military which funded the development of the Internet? (One of the sneakiest moves in all recorded history for taking over the world, I might add.)
If China wants to participate in putting together a GNU/Linux distro for use on our Internet, it's fine with me -- although it does give me the same sort of creeps I feel about cheering IBM on against SCO. (Go IBM!)
Like Netscape won browser market share?
Well, we can start arguing about it now then...
I think Microsoft peaked near the end of the last century. It takes time for the money to follow the market trends.