Google Removes Links In Response To Complaint

2»

Comments

  • That_Annoying_KidThat_Annoying_Kid Sire of Titles Join Date: 2003-03-01 Member: 14175Members, Constellation
    the fact that google states why they pulled the links makes it okay with me, they didn't just pull them, they told us why

    google is still win, and yes controlling info over the net would be obscenely powerfull (MGS2 anyone?)

    but this doesn't distrub me much
  • RatRat Join Date: 2002-12-24 Member: 11486Members
    I'm of two minds on this issue. The hellion in me gives mad props to google for using the DMCA's own complaints to their benefit while staying within the confines of the law.

    However, I have a friend from high school that goes to Rensellear (sp?) Polytechnic Institute (henceforth RPI) and was close friends with Jesse X (don't know his last name and wouldn't post it anyways) who got <i>personally</i> sued by the RIAA for his phynd engine on RPI's student networks. This litigation flew in the face of facts that made the RIAA look like idiots: ie, the phynd engine was nothing more than a search engine that then indexed results--not some "local area napster network"--, the actual files were being shared via the <i>university's</i> resnet and were available regardless of the phynd engine's existence, Microsoft Windows has a search engine <i>built into the operating system</i> that does exactly what the phynd engine did--no more, no less--by simply locating and cataloging available files on the RPI resnet that matched the search string. Jesse X was made issues of <i>Rolling Stone</i> along with three other upper-crust college students sued over similar issues. Mind you they were sued approximately 150 THOUSAND US DOLLARS per each song that was deemed "shared" on these "local area napster networks" (read university owned, operated and maintained resnets) for a sum total of 98 billion dollars (i believe jesse's suit was around 250 million).

    It's things like the above anecdote that scare the bajeezus out of me. Individuals being hunted down and persecuted for doing nothing more than streamlining existent code and allowing people to use the new code to aid their ability to locate that which they desire. Rather than going after the universities whose networks the law violations were occuring on and made possible by, the RIAA went after individuals, namely college students without the financial capacity to afford high-level lawyers and litigation costs, much less the amounts sought in the lawsuits. That sort of darwinian predatory impulse makes things like the Google/DMCA/Kazaa Lite issue much more ominous towards future information availability
  • OttoDestructOttoDestruct Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7790Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom of speech. If I want to make a website describing how I would perform **** sex with the President, noone can stop me. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO limitations to the internet. If parents don't want their kids to look at that stuff, then they should buy a filter. Even now, our government is scouring our webpages, chat logs, and phone calls, all in the name of our protection. They use poor justification of public safety against terrorism to empower their illegal acts. I don't care what you think is a bad website, noone can stop the free flow of every type of information. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Just as you have the right to put it up, they had the right to put those links up, and they also reserve the right to remove them. Its their search engine, they did it willingly, after the request. And yes there should be limitations.
  • XeroXero Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8565Members, Constellation
    Sure, they did it willingly. But they wouldn't feel led to remove indexes if there wasn't legal pressure being put on them. The fact is, the DMCA is practically telling Google to censor the links or face a lawsuit. This is pretty much violating the freedom of speech, because it's a "shut up or face the consequences" statement.
  • RatRat Join Date: 2002-12-24 Member: 11486Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--Xero+Sep 4 2003, 09:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xero @ Sep 4 2003, 09:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, they did it willingly. But they wouldn't feel led to remove indexes if there wasn't legal pressure being put on them. The fact is, the DMCA is practically telling Google to censor the links or face a lawsuit. This is pretty much violating the freedom of speech, because it's a "shut up or face the consequences" statement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    And under US law, which is nice and murky on copyright/trademark disputes, despite the fact that Kazaa is based off some island in the West Pacific, google.com, by knowingly allowing links to their program, which when operated within our nation's boundaries is <b>illegal</b>, could very well be held accountable for providing greater access to this illegal software and aiding its dissemination. Let's put it this way: as soon as the DMCA notified google.com that illegal programs were being accessed via their site, google.com had to respond in some fashion. The fashion in which they responded is intelligent and completely legal, yet leaves the information available to those seeking it.. Therefore, it's an exercise in covering their **** from frivolous lawsuits. That's called fiscal and managerial intelligence.
Sign In or Register to comment.