Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Media United States Your Rights Online

How The DMCA Affects Search Engines 147

An anonymous reader writes "Here is an interesting article regarding the application of the DMCA safe harbor provisions to search engines. This is what causes Google to remove links from its search results and to put a disclaimer at the bottom of the page stating "In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed [x] result(s) from this page." The article is published in the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, and there is a direct link to a pdf version of the article."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How The DMCA Affects Search Engines

Comments Filter:
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:26PM (#8966604)
    The DMCA Takedown process is really just a way to scare users into backing down. Those familiar with the law would know that users can send a counter-notification swearing that they're not really infringing, and then the provider has to reinstate the work but still gets to enjoy the liability shield of having complied with the DMCA Takedown rules... and then the copyright holder has no choice but to go after the user directly if they want to keep going.

    Of course, in a majority of the times, the copyright holder is correct and this actually prevents a needless cause from going into the overworked court systems. The makers of Kazaa Lite could send Google a counter-notification to get back into the system, and then Shawman Networks would be in the uncomfortable situation of having to file a US-based lawsuit, despite trying to otherwise stay out of US jurisdiction.
  • Re:Backwards? (Score:5, Informative)

    by tiltowait ( 306189 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:35PM (#8966677) Homepage Journal
    >Since when is the search engine responsible for the content they generate by just following links on the web (forgive me if I'm unfamiliar with how Google crawls the web)?

    Since the DMCA. It's now illegal to link to illegal material. Read the article or see the past cases [dmoz.org] for more information.
  • by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:37PM (#8966700) Homepage Journal
    the fact that they link to www.chillingeffects.org [chillingeffects.org], which happens to be a joint project of the EFF and a number of top-notch schools:

    Chilling Effects Clearinghouse A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, and University of Maine law school clinics. Do you know your online rights? Have you received a letter asking you to remove information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity? Are you concerned about liability for information that someone else posted to your online forum? If so, this site is for you. Chilling Effects aims to help you understand the protections that the First Amendment and intellectual property laws give to your online activities. We are excited about the new opportunities the Internet offers individuals to express their views, parody politicians, celebrate their favorite movie stars, or criticize businesses. But we've noticed that not everyone feels the same way. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users. Chilling Effects encourages respect for intellectual property law, while frowning on its misuse to "chill" legitimate activity.

    Nothing like educating the public about the dangers of the DMCA/etal by linking them to EFF and the like :).

  • Re:Genuine question (Score:5, Informative)

    by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @04:30PM (#8967062) Homepage
    Well, basically the idea is one of shelter. If you do what you need to do to qualify for it, you're sheltered from legal actions you'd otherwise be exposed to. But it's just shorthand for an idea -- there are various safe harbor provisions in the law, and they differ in terms of what the prerequisites are to take advantage of them and what they protect one from.
  • Re:Backwards? (Score:2, Informative)

    by eissimuf ( 167535 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @04:41PM (#8967145)
    Ah. I'm not a dmoz.org editor. Thanks for the link, but most people will want to try this link. [dmoz.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @04:43PM (#8967160)

    idea: the government is now trying people under newer, harsher, more unreasonable "terrorist" laws. Example: trying drug dealers as "manufacturing chemical weapons" instead of the less frightening and less severe "drug trafficing". So if a criminal is caught and is going to be pounded by the "MAN" what he should do is to quickly hire someone to charge him of the same crime but under a less severe law and then he will quickly plead quilty before he is taken to trial for the more severe charges. Then because of U.S.A. 'double jepardy' laws the Gov. will not be allowed to procede with their case. Now IANAL, but I do recall a case where a murderer was found 'not guilty' and then evidence was later found prooving UNQUESTIONABLY that he did do the murder and he then admited that he did, but they could only then charge him for PURGERY (because he said he did not do it) and WOULD NOT/COULD NOT re-try him for the murder, so he spent (a maximum of) 7 years in jail because for purgery instead of 20+ for the murder. So the next time some company or organization cough*RIAA*cough sues one of us under the DMCA we just need one of our friends to sue us under existing copywright laws (when it applies), hand the pittance over to whoever is suing us and then tell them to shove the DMCA up their RJ45 plug.

  • Re:Genuine question (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @04:49PM (#8967201)
    IANAL

    Basically it means:

    If you do something illegal, "they" can't take any civil or legal action against you unless they tell you you're doing something illegal and you don't stop first.

    If you comply with their notice, they can't sue you.

    http://tinyurl.com/32sme is a pretty good link

  • Re:Yeah right, (Score:3, Informative)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:08PM (#8967799) Homepage Journal
    ``You may not beable to vote, speak your mind or any number of any other things but at least you can access information about hacking et al and that makes you free?''

    Nice troll. The USA is not the only country with freedom of the press and elected government. In fact, it's not even that democratic if you consider there are only two parties that can really compete for power, both of which depend heavily on corporate funding for their campaigns. With the press under control of large corporations, and the political parties dependant on them, it's not hard to see how the country could fall under corporate control. That would also explain why you have laws like the DMCA, and patents on software.

    In comparison, where I live the government is composed of multiple parties in proportion to how many votes they got. Assuming that the distributor has taken care of legalities, we can freely download anything on offer on the Internet. Google is not in any way being ``shut down'' here. We have the _right_ to reverse engineer software to achieve interoperability. Same-sex couples have the same legal status as heteros. Our country respects international law and human rights. Health care is for everyone, and unemployed get enough money to live on.

    I realize I provide an incomplete picture of reality here. There are many more things to mention about the US and about my country, both good and bad. I just hope I have illustrated that your apparent denial of there being freedom outside the USA is utterly unfounded.
  • Re:Yeah right, (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:19PM (#8967897)
    Indeed - Europe (circa 450 million) and India (1 billion), Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Israel, etc are now democratic. It probably totals to 2.5 billion people enjoying a reasonable level of democracy.
  • by Clockwurk ( 577966 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:15PM (#8968543) Homepage
    The basic idea set forth by the DMCA is that digital security and protection (for copyrighted material) will always be able to be broken (the nature of digital information), and that a never-ending race between the protections and the cracks is not beneficial to anyone. To keep that from happening, the DMCA says that breaking protections is illegal and that the security does not need to be perfect (impossible to acheive) to protect content. That is quite an admirable goal; freeing content producers to worry about producing content, and not having to focus just on creating stronger and stronger security.

    In the physical world, we don't have to secure our houses with bulletproof glass or 2 ton safe doors, we can put up a lock and rest safe knowing that even if the lock is defeatable, the act of breaking into the house is illegal.

    The real problem is not with the DMCA making the defeat of such security illegal, but in content producers placing locks where they have no business being, or producing locks that don't have "keys" for alternate OS's (like Linux). The DMCAs most controvertial point is that it also outlaws "gray" material that has both legitimate uses (such as DVD playback on Linux) and illegitimate uses (ripping or copying rented DVDs).
  • by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:10PM (#8968851) Journal
    a letter belongs to whom it was sent.
  • by grahamm ( 8844 ) <gmurray@webwayone.co.uk> on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:11AM (#8971188) Homepage
    The physical letter may belong to the recipient, but the copyright belongs to the writer.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...