Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship

Google Removes Links in Response to DMCA Complaint 495

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the now-thats-just-scary dept.
dioscaido writes "If you search Google for Kazaa Lite, you'll find the results a bit lacking. Ironically enough, Sharman Networks, using the DMCA, filed a legal complaint to block Kazaa Lite sites. " Google links the DMCA request at the end of the results which contain the URLs in question, but the URLs aren't really the point. It's scary that the DMCA makes URLs a copyright violation. How long before libraries can't index books? Or own them?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Removes Links in Response to DMCA Complaint

Comments Filter:
  • DMCA ... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Ezdaloth (675945)
    Glad i live in Europe, such nonsense seems to be going a little slower here.
    • Re:DMCA ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RonnyJ (651856) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:40AM (#6838573)
      Unfortunately, the same message is displayed on the google.co.uk version, where the DCMA should have no effect - why can't they just have the restriction on the .com site?
      • Re:DMCA ... (Score:5, Informative)

        by zmooc (33175) <zmooc@nOsPaM.zmooc.net> on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:59AM (#6838697) Homepage
        Because the domain is owned by Google Inc, not by an English entity that could be held responsible. The same for the netblock. So it's effectively just an USAian site which happens to have a pointer to it that ends in co.uk.
    • Re:DMCA ... (Score:2, Funny)

      by mordejai (702496)
      Europe?
      I live in Argentina... if that nonsense ever gets here, nobody will give a fuck.
      The same thing that happens with stuff like taxes, traffic lights, etc.
    • Re:DMCA ... (Score:3, Informative)

      by mystran (545374)
      It seems, that when I do the search here in Finland, I get all the links as usually, so seems like the Google block is local to US.

      Just do you google searches through a european proxy or something..

  • Ironic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heironymouscoward (683461) <heironymouscowar ... TBSDom minus bsd> on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:10AM (#6838381) Journal
    KazaaLite is a hack of Kazaa, and thus blatant piracy. But Kazaa itself is dubious stuff, filled with spyware. Sigh. Perhaps we will see a version of KazaaLite distributed through Kazaa?
    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Informative)

      by SnowWolf2003 (692561) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:14AM (#6838413)
      When I installed the latest version of KazaaLite it automatically copied the installation file into my shared folder. Just search for klitekpp242e.exe on Kazaa.
    • Re:Ironic (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JeffTL (667728)
      MUCH AGREED. KazaaLite is clearly crooked, and Kazaa is a piece of junk full of adware and spyware. My advice -- use open source software for filesharing, so you can scan over at least the filenames and comments of the sourcecode, or don't use P2P fileshare networks in the first place.
    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by King_TJ (85913) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:54AM (#6838660) Journal
      I'm not even sure I'd classify Kaaza Lite as "clearly crooked" myself, much less "blatant piracy".

      Here's why I say that:

      Kaaza Lite was an attempt to "de-louse" all the spyware bundled up into Kaaza. If it was truly a piracy attempt (hijaacking someone else's code), they would have changed the name of the software and played things off like it was their own original work. None of this seems to be the case. In fact, every reference to Kaaza Lite I've seen makes it pretty clear that it, indeed, *is* the Kaaza software, except cleaned up so it won't fill your computer with unwanted "extras".
      • Re:Ironic (Score:3, Informative)

        Kazaa's license [kazaa.com] states:

        3.2 Except as expressly permitted in this Licence, you agree not to reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with the Software in whole or part, transmit or communicate the application over a network.

        Kazaa Lite is a modified version, and thus not allowed to be distributed. They don't have to claim it's their own original work for it to be piracy.

      • by glrotate (300695)
        They are distributing modified Kazaa material without permission.

        It would be like me distributing Linux with the GPL notices removed.

        When you want somethin', and you don't want to pay for it...
    • by ogre2112 (134836) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:09PM (#6838757)
      They list all the blocked links in the complaint, which google points to as a mention of why they blocked the sites:

      a. http://www.kazaagold.com
      b. http://mp3download.com
      c. http://www.kazaalite.tk
      d. http://www.kaaza.com
      e. http://doa2.host.sk
      f. http://www.k-lite.tk
      g. http://www.kazaa-file-sharing-downloads.com
      h. http://www.kazaalite.nl
      i. http://home/hccnet.nl/h.edskes/mirror.htm
      j. http://www.kazaa-download.de
      k. http://www.zeropaid.com
      l. http//www.kazaalite.nl/downloads.htm
      m. http://kazaa.infos-du-net.com
      n. http://www.kazaa-lite.tk
      o. http://www.kazaa-lite.info

    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:14PM (#6838786)
      I believe that Sharman Networks is attempting to sell a version of Kazaa called Kazaa plus, which is kazaa with new search and download features minus the banner ads and popups. Does this mean that it is spyware free? If so, then Kazaa lite is a threat to the sales of their "new and improved" software. Of course they are going to do what they can to cut off access to the hacked versions of their software.
    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DickBreath (207180) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @01:44PM (#6839372) Homepage
      KazaaLite is a hack of Kazaa, and thus blatant piracy.

      One obvious solution is to distribute a Kazaa Lite patcher that transforms a Kazaa into Kazaa Lite prior to installation. Now there is no copyright violation. Nobody is distributing even a patched version of Kazaa.

      Name this patcher program something completely different, without the word Kazaa in the name to eliminate trademark claims. Word of the patch would still spread just as it did for Kazaa Lite, and spread by the same mechanisms.
  • Seems Overboard (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bobulusman (467474)
    People are going to find the URLs whether or not they are on google. It just seems pointless to remove them in an effort to curb downloading.

    About the worst this can do is drive more people back to spy/adware-laden Kazaa.
  • Priceless. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by acceleriter (231439) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:12AM (#6838393)
    A company whose entire business model is based on facilitating copyright infringement calls "Smithers, unleash the hounds" on Google over another company it believes is infringing its copyright.
    • Re:Priceless. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aagren (25051) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:28AM (#6838496)
      I don't get it. How would companies like Sherman Networks find sites to throw the DMCA at if it weren't for a site like google?

      If google decided not to cache any sites with the word 'kazaa' in it, I'm pretty sure that the users of it would find it anyhow, but the pointy haired suits at Sherman Networks would probably not find it as easely.

      Sounds to me like they are shooting themselves in the foot.
      • Re:Priceless. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by danila (69889) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:13PM (#6838780) Homepage
        It's sad that Google decided not to do just that. Since they are under no obligation to index ANY sites, they could have just removed all pages that have high relevance on "kazaa" query. That would really send a message to the lawyers that you don't force search engines to filter results. Unfortunately, Google didn't do that and established an ugly precedent. It's good that they at least included the DMCA mention, but it's bad nevertheless. And it would be much better if the notice was at the top, on a bright red background, like a MEGA-SPONSORED link, so that noone could miss it. :) It would also be great if they listed in plain text the sites that they are prohibited from linking to. :) But alas, they were too frightened. :( I don't know why, because obviously, no sane judge would order Google to close, no matter what...
        • Re:Priceless. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by s20451 (410424) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:48PM (#6838987) Journal
          Maybe because, for Google to work properly, their behavior has to be perceived to be absolutely neutral. Sure, they could have attempted to score political points through some childish strike at all "kazaa" queries, but they would have lost a lot of respect and made their site less useful, especially to researchers.

          There are a lot of interesting links between Google and the news media. Both present a great deal of information to the public, and both have a moral obligation to present the facts without bias or favor, even when they may have personal issues with it. Once the perception of impartiality is lost, the user can no longer count on reliable searches. If Google had taken some drastic action to score political points, I would have been inclined to find an alternative search engine.
          • Re:Priceless. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by danila (69889) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @02:21PM (#6839591) Homepage
            It's impossible to perceive it as neutral if they remove links at the request of others. Currently Google presents biased information regarding Kazaa Lite. I don't think blocking all Kazaa links for certain period (or may be just providing an empty results page with information for users about DMCA and Sharman's threats and a link for those who still want to search for "kazaa", which would lead to all searches, except lite). I am not suggesting they score any points, political or otherwise. I am just saying that bowing to unreasonable requests (legal, but that's an abuse of a bad law) doesn't present a search engine in the best light. I don't usually give a shit about boycotts and I will use Google if I decide that I need it, but for now my default engine is Altavista (and I e-mailed Google about it).

            Altavista [altavista.com] is now a pretty good search engine. Sponsored links may be annoying, but they are clearly marked and can be removed by a simple Proxomitron filter (remove all pairs that include "*Sponsored*"). I just may be as happy with it, as I was with Google.
            • Re:Priceless. (Score:4, Informative)

              by plugger (450839) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @05:31PM (#6840632) Homepage
              At the bottom of the Google results page is the statement saying that some results were filtered out and a link to the DMCA complaint. The complaint has all the links there in plain text. It is also hosted on chillingeffects.org, with links to explanations of the complaint's details.

              Google have done ok. They make sure that you know the search has been censored. The links that are missing are available via cut and paste. If you didn't know what the DMCA was before, Google link to a site which will tell you more than you wanted to know, and from a sceptical point of view.
            • Re:Priceless. (Score:3, Informative)

              by _Sharp'r_ (649297)
              Google's policy is that after getting a DMCA complaint like this, they contact the owner of the site in question with a copy of the complaint and a time limit.

              The site in question can ignore it, in which case Google does like in this case, removing the entry and providing a link to the details of the complaint.

              However, if they site responds that they aren't infringing, Google will ignore the complaint and leave the site in search results, leaving it up to the two parties to duke it out with lawyers.

              In ot
  • strange... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by di0s (582680) <cabbot917@@@gmail...com> on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:12AM (#6838396) Homepage Journal
    I thought Sharman Networks was incorporated in Australia. How can they use a foreign law like that?
    • Re:strange... (Score:5, Informative)

      by C10H14N2 (640033) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:47PM (#6838979)
      The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 allows it.

      The act gives Federal jusidiction over "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The ATCA can be used via proxy by non-US entities as long as they can establish some reasonable connection to a US entity, such as relatives (in the case of people) or parents/subsidiaries (in the case of companies). Since copyright is covered in numerous treaties, particularly the Berne Convention, it is open season.
  • by inburito (89603) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:12AM (#6838399)
    If you click on the bottom of the google screen to view the dmca-notice you can check out exactly which sites were blocked out. So instead of clicking you're going to have to cut-n-paste.
    • The first site listed in the DMCA complaint is:
      http://www.kazaagold.com
      The second "Sponsored link" is
      Free Kazaa Gold

      Faster Downloads, No Advertising
      No Subscription Fees, 100% Private
      www.kazaagold.com
      A bit of an oversight there I guess....
      • I didn't get that one, but following the link in the /. blurb, I got "Searched the web for kazaa lite. Results 1 - 10 of about 373,000."

        Methinks they're gonna have to work a bit harder at blocking it. ;)

  • by Melex (534124) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:13AM (#6838401)
    How is 372 000 results a bit lacking
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:13AM (#6838402)
    If you search Google for Kazaa Lite, you'll find the results a bit lacking.

    Incidentally, if you search Kazaa Lite for pretty much anything other than Top 40's Radio or pr0n you get similar results.
  • by st0rmshadow (643869) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:13AM (#6838403)
    I didn't try any of the links, but it looks like there's still a few download links. Of course, you could always go to www.kazaalitekpp.com to get it, anywa...oops, sorry DMCA.
  • Uhm? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richard_at_work (517087) * <richardpriceNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:14AM (#6838406)

    How long before libraries can't index books? Or own them?

    Uhm, hasnt this already happened [upenn.edu] many [banned-books.com] many [georgesuttle.com] times in the past?

  • by MoeMoe (659154) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:14AM (#6838410)
    I'm sure that this is going to stop P2P activity.... I don't think it is too hard nowadays to find Kazaa K++ just by-

    Oh wait, check those searches [google.com] again, I just did a search and it seems the spiders haven't gotten word yet, this just goes to show that no matter how much you wanna censor, you can't censor it all!
    • by LostCluster (625375) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:37AM (#6838554)
      Google's simply complying with the request and blocking the URLs that were validly mentioned in the takedown notice. However, Google's not going to do anything more than the law requires, so any new URLs that pop up will certainly get GoogleBot's attention and the cat and mouse game goes on...
      • by MunchMunch (670504) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:39PM (#6838943) Homepage
        "Google's simply complying with the request and blocking the URLs that were validly mentioned in the takedown notice."

        The funny thing is, I noticed they demanded one additional site to be taken down, in addition to all the Kazaa Lite hosts: www.zeropaid.com [zeropaid.com].

        I'm not sure what your definition of "valid" is, but I did a quick check over at the site, which is a file sharing news site, and there was no actual Kazaa Lite software onsite. Instead, the software download link pointed to one of the sites mentioned in the DMCA takedown demand. In other words, looks like they weren't just going after the biggest sites that had the software, but a site that even only linked to the software site. In otherwords Google had to remove a link to a link. I'd say that's going a bit far beyond what even the DMCA thinks is valid.

  • by MsGeek (162936) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:16AM (#6838422) Homepage Journal
    http://www.chillingeffects.org/ [chillingeffects.org]

    It's a good source for information on exactly this subject. No, I don't run it. ;-)

  • Same old same old (Score:5, Informative)

    by achurch (201270) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:16AM (#6838424) Homepage
    This has happened before [slashdot.org]. I don't think the DMCA complaint was very effective that time, either.
  • Is providing a link to the DMCA complain that lists the infringing sites in violation? If not, then there is really no point to taking down any results in the first place...
    • Which is really what's funny about this. By so helpfully providing the links in the complaint, one needs to only do a little more searching.

      It would've been a LOT more fun had they actually linked them all... :)

  • Ironic (Score:5, Informative)

    by silverhalide (584408) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:19AM (#6838434)
    I thought the RIAA had a part in this, noticing references to Kazaa and DMCA. I find it a little unusual that Sharman had a part in it. Oddly enough the links are still quite available, and search results now point to K++ (a better Kazaa derivative), and the original links are still available. Seems almost like a "Screw you" gesture by google to Sharman if you ask me. Just goes to show that once the cat is out of the bag on the net, its almost impossible to recover it.
  • What I'd like to know is why the UK google [google.com] has removed the sites also. The Canadian [google.ca] google is the same.

    Are these international based Google's served from the USA?
  • by Natchswing (588534) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:20AM (#6838446)
    I think it's time that the online community to the responsible thing and take care of the DMCA. It's time for everyone to start drafting letters.

    Create a nice recording of some chimes, name it chimes.wav. Now, write letters to ISPs around the saying that someone with chimes.wav (a standard windows installed WAV file) is violating your copyright.

    If everyone on slashdot sends a dozen bogus requests, all around the same time, and completely flood the ISPs and halt their ability to respond to these requests then I think we'd see finally see an uproar of the problems this bill causes.

    The RIAA can send out bogus claims, why can't we help them make the DMCA so obnoxious that it must be stopped?

  • by Col. Panic (90528) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:22AM (#6838454) Homepage Journal
    search "k++"

    workd for me this morning
  • by Anonymous Coward
    How long before libraries can't index books? Or own them?

    That is quite interesting question. Let's start to think about it.. Why should libraries have the right to loan copyrighted material such as books and audio CDs to people? People are not paying royalties to anyone when they read a book or listen to CD that is loaned from library. Isn't this wrong?
  • by ndnet (3243) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:24AM (#6838465)
    While K++ does put a dent in their business model, why do this? It seems like a good idea, but has one fatal flaw:

    It legitimizes the suit against them.

    Think about it: in both Kazaa and Google, the method of infringement, if it exists, is the same: Allow search results that may or may not be pirated.

    By basically validating the complaint against them, they allow RIAA to argue the same point very easily, except in this case it is a blood-thirsty industry group instead of a small computer company.

    Oh, well... It doesn't matter, because the next filesharing tool will rise up fast.
  • by militantbob (666209) <militant AT nycap DOT rr DOT com> on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:24AM (#6838466) Homepage
    Google is being pushed into all of this 'URLs are copyright violations' stuff based on the same ideas used to attack Napster and Kazaa. Essentially, Google is an 'enabler', a willing gateway to property crime. Napster and Kazaa let you search for the property itself. Google lets you search for the tools to search for the property you intend to steal.

    Attacking Google is simply the next logical step, if one has already asserted the culpability of Napster.

    However, I disagree with the idea that Sony is guilty of 'enabling' child pornography by making laptops and CD burners and camcorders. All are legitimate products turned to illegitimate uses. Just like Napster and Google.

    And just like guns, for that matter. Suing gun manufacturers whenever someone chooses to turn a tool into the apparatus of crime is the same thing. And it's equally as wrong.

    A side note about public libraries and such: I've never been able to reconcile my views on individual sovereignty and property rights in relation to public libraries and schools. Thomas Jefferson and I had the same problem.

    An individual should not be forced to pay taxes to fund a program for the benefit of others. Yet an uneducated populace is an easy target for propaganda and dictatorship.

    Of course, I won't take the time to cover the property rights of authors and publishers in regards to the free lending (which amounts legally to 'public display') of copyrighted material.
    • by Mac Degger (576336) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:54PM (#6839026) Journal
      "An individual should not be forced to pay taxes to fund a program for the benefit of others"

      Yup, he should...that's part of the social contract you sign up to when you decide to live in a society. You can always move off and become a hermit if you don't agree. It's harsh, but it is one or the other.

      Not only that, but by paying for things like education, infrastructure and environmental programs you ensure that there is less crime, a road to travel to your work on and that you live in a place where the air is breathable...all things which directly affect you. And that is why the government is allowed to force you to pay...because otherwise you're enjoying the benfits which others are paying for.
  • This already happened to Google once before [slashdot.org].

    IIRC Google took out the offending links, but inserted a link to the C&D order.

  • Google's downfall (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SnowWolf2003 (692561) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:25AM (#6838476)
    Is this the beginning of the end? When google stops returning the results I am looking for, it is time to start looking for a new search engine that will.
  • by donnacha (161610) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:26AM (#6838479) Homepage

    This is hilarious:

    Before I even had a chance to scroll down the page to look at the DMCA message, I noticed that the Adwords are full of links to Kazaa Lite!

    I guess Google's financial team is a little tougher than their search team.

  • It is interesting to note that the version of Google for India also carries a DMCA notice for Kazaa Lite [google.co.in]. Does the U.S. government make worldwide law now? The DMCA is just a local law affecting less than 5% of the people in the world.
  • The warning is hidden at the bottom of the page (how often do we scroll down that far for results when searching through Google?). I think the warning should be the first thing on the page, with highlighted text.
  • Works for me! (Score:4, Informative)

    by LauraW (662560) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:35AM (#6838542)
    Searching for "Kazaa" gives a Kazaa Lite link in the 4th position, and "Kazaa Lite" gives lots of KL links. I don't know if this means they've changed their minds or if the original change just hasn't propagated everywhere yet.

  • I'm sure there are many people who think that it was nice of the law firm to identify the best sites [chillingeffects.org] to download Kazaa Lite.
  • ..and it came up with an article on it and more than one site listing it for download - the second link [softnews.ro], in fact, was one such site.

    How are the results lacking, precisely?
  • DCMA Gone too Far (Score:3, Informative)

    by Unixinvid (643778) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:39AM (#6838569) Homepage Journal
    You know this looks like big brother authoritive business. I mean when I look at this I see the DCMA group attack sites that have little or no involment with p2p sites. I mean its like attacking puppies with a lawn mower. Our right as a citizen are being violated by big business, who are attemping to control our lives. Its like the Futurama episode where they put advertisements in your dreams. Any ways Congress real research, and better information then to listen to people like the MPAA and the RIAA.
  • Their complaint wasn't very effective. When searching for Kazaa Lite [google.com] I get a link to download as the second result [softnews.ro]. Ooops, did I just break the DMCA?

    Anti SCO T-Shirts [anti-tshirts.com] donates to the Open Source Now Fund.

  • by Linker3000 (626634) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:44AM (#6838593) Journal

    I have just tried Kazaa Lite on various other search engines and meta search engines, and without fail they return at least one of the forbidden 8 sites that Google removes:

    Altavista [altavista.com]

    Webcrawler [webcrawler.com]

    Teoma [teoma.com]

    Dogpile [dogpile.com]

    Obviously not a comprehensive effort (I have a 3yr old son to entertain right now and that's much more important!), but it leads to the conclusion that either the complainant thinks the world revolves around Google OR the other sites haven't checked their mail yet!

    As others have pointed out, the genie is out of the bottle and so semi-hiding the links is going to be pointless. I loved the written up DMCA complaint--putting the list of banned sites on it is kind of like having an English test question that says: Write down the correct spelling of following word: 'incomprehensible'? .

  • The scenario that we have is the following.
    1. Material violating the copyright laws exists on the web.
    2. A search engine provides a hypertext link to the infringing material.

    Is the search engine technically violating copyright law? No. Is the search engine facilitating people who wish to violate copyright law? Yes.

    Does "facilitation" constitute violation of the law? To look at that question. Let us look at another analogy.

    1. Consider a hypothetical company, "Martia
  • by Baron_Yam (643147) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @11:56AM (#6838676)

    Summary:Kazaa C&Ds Google, because it's easier than tracking down all the offending sites and C&Ding them individually. The justification for the C&D - Kazaa Lite is illegal, Google is providing easy access to Kazaa Lite.

    What if Google turned around and said, "Kazaa is using Google to facillitate tracking down sites infringing on its intellectual property. Please pay Google the following outrageous fee for legal research assistance."

    In my opinion, C&Ding a search engine is like trying to have a municipality remove street addresses from buildings containing businesses you don't like. It's just stupid.

  • by 4/3PI*R^3 (102276) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:15PM (#6838789)
    Google [google.com] removed the links [google.com] to Kazaa [kazaa.com] related sites from their search engine but then list the DMCA request which of course has all the URLS listed.

    Score: Google 1
    Kazaa 0
    DMCA 0

  • Blue Ribbon (Score:5, Informative)

    by danila (69889) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:23PM (#6838843) Homepage
    It seems that once again it's time to place Blue ribbons [eff.org] on our websites and webpages...
  • thought police (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dbc001 (541033) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:42PM (#6838950)
    Apparently there are pieces of information that Americans are not allowed to write down. We are definitely edging towards thought crime here. Between this and the illegality of writing virii (i know its spelled wrong but it looks better), we are on our way! I just wonder when someone will get punished for writing these things with pen & paper instead of electronically...
  • In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jmors (682994) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @02:40PM (#6839704)
    From: RIAA

    To: Sharman Networks

    To whom it may concern,

    We are pleased to see others taking a stand against the providing of links to illegal versions of copyrighted works. We agree wholeheartedly with your stand that providing search results to copyrighted material is a criminal act. As someone who obviously upholds our philosophy we KNOW that you will be all too happy to remove from any search results that your software provides any links to dowloads of copyrighted works such as music, movies, other software and the like.

    Thank you so much for proving our point!

    IDIOTS!

  • Wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by autopr0n (534291) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @03:39PM (#6840002) Homepage Journal
    Talk about ironic.
  • by thebigmacd (545973) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @04:01PM (#6840119)
    I clicked on the sample search for "Kazaa Lite" and the second link said "download Kazaa Lite K++" and the third link said "Official Kazaa Lite K++ Website"

    Google: 1-0
    Sharman: 0-1
  • Other languages. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Oscar_Wilde (170568) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @07:01PM (#6841083) Homepage
    What gets me is that Google isn't listing the URLs for other languages [google.de] or countries [google.com.au].

    I know that there is nothing to stop people in the US from using foreign google searches but must the rest of the world be subjected to bad US laws?...

As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error. -- Weisert

Working...