Google and DMCA

[epere4]

Have you tried to look for the word "kazaa" in Google?

I did it some minutes ago and got this message (in Spanish): En respuesta a una queja que recibimos con referencia al Digital Millennium Copyright Act, hemos quitado 3 resultado(s) de esta página. Si lo desea, puede leer la queja DMCA con respecto a los mencionados resultados.
The translation is (more or less) In response to a complain made in reference to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have taken out 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you can read the DMCA complain about the mentioned results.

You can read that "DMCA complain" here (http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=861) (and you can also find out which adresses were censored).

[Neo Neko]

It's up to 4 now. Interesting. Basically they are moving against all the sites providing kazaa lite or any Kazaa program that has had the adware crap removed or it's functionality improved.

[epere4]

I don´t know exactly how the system works, because now I am getting 2 pages blocked when searching for "kazaa" and 3 for "kazaa lite". Besides, the number of pages blocked may vary between different Google versions (meaning English versión, Spanish version, Dutch version, etc).

But that´s not the point, is it? ;)
This thing is like having a forbiden section in a library. But Google is leaving a back door opened by letting us read the letter sent by those people (Sharman Networks, in this case) and know the names of the forbiden books. So we can search for them somewhere else ;)

[mudda_t]

1. Are they getting paid to leave out those results?

2. Why should a search engine block results with complaints?

3. If they block those results do they block porn results?

4. If a number of churches contacted google with complaints over porn results and asked them to block them, would they?

5. If someone complained about mod chips, cable boxes, dish cards, cd writers, dvd writers, tape decks, etc, etc, etc, would they block all those results?

6. Is this a form of censorship by google?

7. Why didn't google just say no to the complaint? Why would they give in so easy?

8. Does this issue deserve more attention?......YES!!!

9. Will I ever trust google search results again?......NO!!!

[Angelus]

What's the point of this blocking of sites tho? When I did it, I was able to find kazaa and the kazaa lite sites.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by mudda_t
1. Are they getting paid to leave out those results?

No.

Originally posted by mudda_t
2. Why should a search engine block results with complaints?

If it is important to their target audience or they are legally liable.

Originally posted by mudda_t
3. If they block those results do they block porn results?

By default google does block alot of them yes.

Originally posted by mudda_t
4. If a number of churches contacted google with complaints over porn results and asked them to block them, would they?

If google was funded by said churches or the lists contained obvious links to things that were legally actionable then yes.

Originally posted by mudda_t
5. If someone complained about mod chips, cable boxes, dish cards, cd writers, dvd writers, tape decks, etc, etc, etc, would they block all those results?

No they could not. It would be like trying to block all things containing the word breast or dick. Which would deny you the opprotunity to research breast cancer or visit Dick Cheyneys web page. Simply put pages would have to be excluded by context as well as content. Which requires that someone actually read those pages and that something more than the words on the page be used to judge this. So these pages would actually have to be researched before being added to the list or excluded from a search.

Originally posted by mudda_t
6. Is this a form of censorship by google?

No it is not censorship. If it were it is verry innefectual as the root links to the sites excluded are provided in the link at the bottom of the page. Google is a privately owned company. As such they can allow or block what they like. It is in their best interest to block as little as possible. Save where they are legally liable. If they were a govenrment run, owned, or funded opperation there would be more basis for a censorship claim. But it is not.

Originally posted by mudda_t
7. Why didn't google just say no to the complaint? Why would they give in so easy?

Simply put they were threattened with legal action if they did not comply. And if they had to deal with littegation and prosecution that costs them money that could have otherwise gone to employees paychecks, shareholders bottom lines, or re-investment in the company. So not complying made no sense.

Originally posted by mudda_t
8. Does this issue deserve more attention?......YES!!!


At best it deserves marginal attention. It is nothing earthshaking or catastrophic. But it is something people should be aware of.

Originally posted by mudda_t
9. Will I ever trust google search results again?......NO!!!

Why not? They have shown themselves to be more than amiacable in this situation and to not block results without just cause. So far they have behaved quite responsibly and respectable.

[mudda_t]

Legal Action? Googles a search engine, they're not hosting the sites!


EDIT:
You know what, I'm done with school and this thread reminds me of it, those boring classes talking about issues like this.
My father did give me some other advice "to each his own". With that added I'm done with this thread.

p.s. Thanks much for clearing it up KpeX. I decided to delete much of what I posted and only leave a little. :D

[KpeX]

@ mudda_t

You're clearly misunderstanding the issue here. This isn't about morals, or even P2P apps. A complaint was made by Sharman Networks regarding Kazaa Lite, which IIRC is the adware free version. A complaint was made about infringing on Sharman's copyright, not on the copyright of any movies or music.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by mudda_t
Question for Neo Neko:
How then is kazaa/lite so different from mod chips, cable boxes, dish cards, cd writers, dvd writers, tape decks, etc, and programs freely available on THIS site and on many others? Not to mention all the other p2p progs out there.


It's really quite simple. They are not redistributing pattented items outside their pattent. In other words the companies that sell mod chips, cable boxes, dish cards, cd writers, dvd writers, tape decks, etc are all quite legal. Save the dish cards which tend to come largely preprogramed for pirating content.But it is not illegal to own one of those cards. Just to use it. Same goes for all those things. They are not illegal in and of themselves. It is all in how they are used. Kazaa Lite OTOH is illegal in and of itself. It would be different if Kazaa Lite were a new client written from scratch. But it is not. It is the pattented and copyrighted KMD stripped of unwanted fluff and hacked to opperate differently. Violating the license of the original software. Hence a legaly actionable offense.

Originally posted by mudda_t
If google is going to open pandoras box with kazaa why aren't they doing it with everything mentioned?

Because there was a real issue with Kazaa Lite and not with everything mentioned.

Originally posted by mudda_t
Legal Action? Googles a search engine, they're not hosting the sites!

Yes but being found to facilitate illegal activities is often just as bad as having done them yourself. It puts you in position that is hard to defend.

Originally posted by mudda_t
Also, please humor me a little and go to google and search for "porn" and tell me they're doing a good job at blocking it. While your at it do a search for "p2p software" or "download p2p software" and tell me why those arn't being blocked, isn't kazaa a p2p program?

Please be careful with your tone. There are some mods that would have striked you for that alone. And I ask you to go to google and check the prefferences link. I think the "Safe Search" section is most pertinant. Unless you change it by default it is always set for strict filtering. Or more specifically "Use strict filtering (Filter both explicit text and explicit images)". And porn tends to fall under the explicit category. Set google to not filter your results and then humor me by typing in "kiddie porn". This is a superb example of google filtering out offensive results on their own. You will not find a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. But one thing you are also not likely to find is a link to any or many pages with kiddie porn. But if you do find any be sure to report them to the propper authorities!! Most links are to doccuments about prossecuting sites for having hosted kiddie porn. Let me tell you it is out there. Sick bastards. But google filters that out on their own. And they have done that for a long time. I am sure it is a full time job for several people over at google.com.

Originally posted by mudda_t
You know what, I'm done with school and this thread reminds me of it, those boring classes talking about issues like this.
My father did give me some other advice "to each his own". With that added I'm done with this thread. :)

To each his own is fine. It's when each shares their own that problems generally arrise. If the creator of Kazaa Lite had kept it to himself there would be no problem now. But he did not. If people made rips for themselves and never shared them that would be fine. But they often do not. See where this is going?