Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Sort of like... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:26PM (#8966602) Homepage
    the police telling a newspaper they cannot publish the street corner where drugs are being sold in the city they serve.
  • by maximilln ( 654768 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:29PM (#8966625) Homepage Journal
    They'll be using routing tables on major backbones to eliminate traffic they don't like.

    I'm turning in my two-week notice tomorrow. How about you?

    I disbelieve this horse-patooey.
  • Crap Like This (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:30PM (#8966626)
    In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed [x] result(s) from this page

    It's crap like this that absolutely works to destroy the usefulness and wonder of the Internet.

  • by base3 ( 539820 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:31PM (#8966640)
    Yep--Google's complying with the law, and giving the "rights" holder the finger by providing a copy of the C&D letter that contains more than enough information to find the "content" on a P2P network.
  • Re:AS USUAL... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrLZRDMN ( 728996 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:31PM (#8966646)
    sorry for feeding the troll but,
    File sharing programs are by no means illegal, sharing files isn't illegal either, just some files whose "owners" don't want anyone to have without giving them money and eff will debate that
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:33PM (#8966654)
    The primary effect the DMCA has on Search Engines and other Internet sites that allow user posting is that it forces the site operator to make a decision for themselves over whether a work is infringing before the court case... and then puts its thumb on the scale. If they refuse to comply with a proper takedown notice they'll be liable to the copyright holder, while if the needlessly take take down the piece they will lose nothing or very little unless they're a major paying customer.

    No wonder most companies, when confronted with a DMCA Takedown letter choose the path of least resistance.
  • by CharonX ( 522492 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:35PM (#8966684) Journal
    Kazaa had Google remove [google.com] several links to Kazaa Lite pages [chillingeffects.org], and not long ago Scientology tried the same against a Scientology-critical site.

    While some here cheer that Google put a reference to the the Kazaa Lite pages removed (or rather to the DMCA notice which includes the URLs of those pages), effecly nullyfing the effect, it is worrying me instead.
    Fact is that Companies and Organisations can force the removal of Links from Search Engines, and if those Engines don't act as smartly as Google here (be it due to fear of lawsuits from those Organistions or due to simple lazyness) we might not even notice it....
  • Re:Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Decameron81 ( 628548 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:53PM (#8966807)
    This is ridiculous. I think the US (government) should stop pretending their laws apply to online material just because people can access the internet from their country. I mean, why on earth do I have to have censored search results?

    It would be just as silly if people in the US couldn't do searches on certain words because my country thinks it's not OK for the search engine to provide such results.

    If they want filterning then they should run such filters on google.com only. I can't see how the DMCA should apply to google.it or google.com.ar or any other such domain.

    Diego Rey
  • The short version (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stuwee ( 739059 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:57PM (#8966832)
    I speed read the 23 pages, and basically it seems to (IANAL) boil down to the fact that search engines want to remain within the laws that are protecting them -- the DMCA safe harbours. Classified as an "information retrieval tool", search engines must make sure that they do not knowingly link to material that violates the DMCA. So when Sharman Networks comes along and tells Google that it is linking to material that violates the DMCA, the people at Google put on their best poker faces and cry "oh no, surely not!". Under the safe harbours, Google then has to remove this content, or they can be held responsible. The most interesting part of the paper points out that adopting this behaviour will never justify the safe harbour use:
    ... service providers, being risk-averse, will widely embrace the safe harbors in an attempt to avoid the uncertainty of liability outside them. Due to the widespread use of the safe harbor procedures, courts will not be given the opportunity to decide cases clarifying the liability of service providers, as service providers will err on the side of caution and liberally remove content in response to notifications. The resulting lack of judicial clarification will reinforce the use of these procedures, thus creating a self-perpetuating cycle.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @04:31PM (#8967078)
    What legal grounds do you think you have to prosecute Kazaa? They don't advocate drug use or murder. File-sharing? OOOOOOH! Lord save society.

    The legal ground is contributory infringment. They know they are profiting from copyright infringment, that that is the basis of almost all their userbase and therefore their profits. When a manufacturer makes a product that is explicitly designed to be used to commit a crime, they are responsible for that crime.
  • Re:Crap Like This (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @04:52PM (#8967219) Homepage
    It's crap like this that absolutely works to destroy the usefulness and wonder of the Internet.

    Yeah, but it sure does make the control freaks in power cream their pants.

    But not to worry - it also absolutely works to accelerate the evolution of untouchable p2p search vs. centralized cluster search. A hard problem, sure, but more attractive by the day. (the control freaks could also attempt to kill this free communication by requiring "trusted routers" not to route "untrusted" packets; only way to counter that is wireless mesh networking.)

    --

  • by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @04:59PM (#8967259) Homepage
    Leeches? Like the parasites who make a living suing the city when they "accidentally" trip over potholes. Or the parasites who fake disability. Or the parasites managers who shave hours off workers timesheets. Or the parasites who increase productivy with robots but keep the gains to themselves while the unemployed starve because welfare is still a dirty word. Or the parasites who... bla bla.

    The sad fact is that the parasite-to-"honest"-host ratio is almost the same in society as it is nature: pretty damn high.

    --

  • Re:Yeah right, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fuzzle ( 590327 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:05PM (#8967315) Homepage Journal
    There are several other countries that have a democratically elected government, with personal liberties and freedoms protected under their constitutions/charters. The US doesn't have the market cornered on that.
  • The irony... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by crazyhorse44 ( 242315 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:07PM (#8967325)
    of Kazaa having their lawyers go after people who are violating copyrights.
  • by Jane_Dozey ( 759010 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:45PM (#8967621)
    "We don't prosecute the makers of rolling paper just because people roll joints. Plenty of pre-rolled cigarettes are available at low cost."
    Pre-rolled ciggarettes make me feel sick and the rolling tobacco I buy is a fraction of the cost of even the cheapest pre-rolled ciggarettes that I can buy here.
    I think your analogy would be more accurate if rolling paper had drug dealers phone numbers printed on them.
    Just thought I'd point that out.
  • Re:Yeah right, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:17PM (#8967882) Homepage Journal
    ``And unlike much of this other "Free World" you speak of, we can still vote.

    And since we can vote, we can work to get rid of it.''

    Attacking this point specifically:

    Yes you can vote, but you may not be able to get rid of the DMCA. To do that would require there being a party that would abolish the DMCA, and that party getting elected (or at least powerful enough to abolish the DMCA). Since politics is about much more than the DMCA alone, such a party would likely have other things in its programme that you don't like. And that others don't like. And then either not get enough votes to kill the DMCA, or introduce other laws that you would not want to have.

    Since the US' political system is ill-suited to more than 2 parties, the chance that you (plural) can vote for a party that 1) will abolish the DMCA, and 2) otherwise suits your tastes is quite slim.

    The issue is that you can't vote for or against one issue, you vote for a party and it's entire programme.

    Did I mention that the corporations will probably try to influence public opinion in such a way that they become more powerful?
  • by Jim Starx ( 752545 ) <{JStarx} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:32PM (#8967955)
    The problem is it's not explicitly designed to be used to commit a crime. It's explicitly designed to allow people to share files. What files those people choose to share is what determines if there is a crime. And can you proove in court that they know they are profiting from copyright infringement? I doubt they monitor the network and cross check all the files for legitimacy.
  • Re:Backwards? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:43PM (#8968032)
    Kinda like when France forced Yahoo Auctions to remove Nazi memorabilia from their American auction site on the off-chance that Frenchmen might buy from them?

    At least in this case Google is domiciled in the US. It is an American company, and thus the US is within its rights to enforce US laws, stupid as they might be, against it.

  • Re:AS USUAL... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lifewish ( 724999 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:25PM (#8968924) Homepage Journal
    My argument would be that if those users downloaded just one legal track, that would be enough to confirm any belief that they were going to be used for legal purposes. I know I use my uni's filesharing hub to download linux distros, as the Computer Dept gets shirty about downloading from outside the uni. And there are plans, if the hub ever gets shut down, to start meeting up and swapping CDs as an alternative. If filesharing software is banned, CD burners will take up a lot of the slack. Should we ban those too?
  • by DebianRcksLindowsLie ( 752247 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:18PM (#8969132) Homepage
    That's REALLY cool. Go Google! The DMCA is a farce, and people ought to vote out the idiots who voted it in!
  • by Skinny Rav ( 181822 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @10:34AM (#8972287)
    Well, I haven't read /. yesterday, so this is probably going to be the last post in this thread ;-)

    This nice line: "In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed [x] result(s) from this page." reminds me of old communist times here in Poland, when you could read in a newspaper something like that (translated): "removed under the Control of Publications and Performations Act". So, the Soviet Union is no more, Eastern Block collapsed and now we see something like this in the Land of the Free...

    Sad...

    Raf

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Working...