I hope that this is not in violation of rule number 9, if it is then please delete this thread.

I know that a lot of people may be users of Kazaa Lite, and I find it interesting that if you search on Google for the phrase 'kazaa lite' at the bottom of the list of results you can see this:

In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 7 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results.



Since when has a search engine been responsible for the content of the pages it lists? I know a lot of content, especially compressed audio like mp3's, is illegally shared but the software can also be used to share original material. I didn't know, but apparently this sort of thing is Google policy.

The site was down at the time of this post, but the link to the complaint is here.

Old news.



Simple, if you are linking to a page that violates the law, you are also violating it.

This is old news ;-)

Sharman have threatened several websites and search engines with DMCA-Violations about a month ago - two of the targets were slyck.com and google.

They're trying to eradicate kazzaa-lite and variants, so that more people use their spyware-ridden KMD. Ironically, they started their first round of letters just before the current version was released - just a coincidence according to a sharman-press guy.

- Lyx

EDIT: google has always done censorship in the past - nothing new. If you want unfiltered and unmanipulted results, google has always been a bad choice.

yeah, this restriction has been around for some time now, though it realy isn't so bad for the user side, as there still are some good links shown.
when I first heard about that thing, you where just notified that some links have been cut, but you still could make them show up, that has changed.

edit: gee, I'm just too slow

I fail to believe that anyone wanting to download kazaa lite, and using google as a start point would fail to get what they wanted after this 'censorship'

When you click "read the DMCA complaint" it links you to a page where are the following links listed.

The fact that they link to a page with the list of banned sites seems to reflect the attitude of the Google folks to the DMCA. It's really laughable that they are not allowed to link to these sites, but are allowed to link to a list of all of them.


American law seems to be really vague on this point (some court decisions each way) and it hasn't been tested in court in most other countries. I think it is more a case of Google covering themselves, even being taken to court would really be a pain for them.

Even if it's so, i don't quite approve. A search engine is there to depict the reality of all indexed websites on the net. It's just an automated tool to help finding websites, it shouldn't have rated and selectively censored search results, illegal or not (remember the Scientology case?).

Anyway, since Google's search result quality for certain terms rapidly decreased over the last few months and you often find eBay auctions or other stuff that has been professionally "pushed to the top" on the first pages, i found these two replacements for me:

http://www.alltheweb.com/ (Very comprehensive index, Picture search also beats Google's)

http://vivisimo.com/ (Meta-Searchengine, nicely grouped results)

Google needs to improve their anti-spam efforts, or soon the masses will start searching somewhere else...

I bullshit you on this one. It shouldn't be like that in any country with a functioning law system. You can't be held responsible for what other people do. Just telling other people about some illigal activities done by a third party shouldn't be illegal. It's partly a matter of freedom of speach imo.

I haven't checked court rulings outside Sweden for this. But it has been tried in the swedish supreme court and found to not be illegal. Here's a link to a short report in swedish on the ruling - I'll try to dig up something in english if you want me to: http://www.juridicum.su.se/iri/dawe/Mp3-HD.html

Oh, and I would like to see some proof from you to back up that statement you made before. The infamous rule #8 again...

Why are you telling that to me? You should be saying that to the american legislators.



WTF are you talking about?

Search engines are not linking to websites with intent, and so they should be exempted from this. The idea of censoring search engines is undoubtably wrong. Generated results of a query of a database of the websites on the internet should be uncensored. It is not the linking that is wrong, but the intent of the linking, and while yes, intent is gray area and must be decided by a jury, so be it. That is how it should be anyway.

I don't really understand what google could have done that was any better than what they actually ended up doing. A company can't just blatantly break the law like that...well, they could, but the results would not be good for them or for any of their investors. So they are following the law, but still allowing people to find the information they were looking for....you just have to go to one extra step to get it. What they did is much better than had they simply removed the links without even stating that they'd done so.

Basically, I want to know where your source of information is. You have made a statement about a technicality of the law in USA (or worldwide?). Hopefully that means you have read the law and/or a court ruling about this issue, in which case I am interested in reading about it too. If you haven't, then it's just your unproven opinion, and you have no reason to state such things as a matter of fact. Understand me now?

LOL. So you think it's OK to link to illegal stuff?

Really, ErikS, your insistence in ignoring the risks of displeasing people with deep pockets these days (considering the DMCA, etc.) borders the ridiculous.

Here is a hint: Why don't you post links to several warez sites (if you don't know any, PM me, I'll send you a big list) at the home page of a popular site hosted in the USA?

Better yet, post these links here at HA and let's see how long it will take until you get banned. Since you seem to insist that posting about those things is perfectly legal, go ahead and do it. It'll be quite amusing.

Yes, "OK" as in "not illegal" anyway. I thought that should have been cleer by now. And why "LOL"?


Are you implying that I am ridiculous? Please take me a bit more seriously and answer the question I asked before.


I fail to see how this is relevant. It seems to me that the web sites you're talking about prefer to play very safe and not even get close to the borders of legality, which I very well can understand. You mix up the law with the administrator. I can very well get banned on a web forum without breaking any laws...

Now, I wonder: Why do you evade my question? Is it because you don't understand what I'm saying, because you don't want to spend time on it, or is it because you're afraid of facts? I ask you again: Can you show me evidence that it is illegal to link to illegal webpages? Until you can do that I'm afraid you might be spreading "FUD".

I think it may be illegal under current USA law (DMCA), but it is not a worldwide law, and i'm sure many countries will not accept washington d.c. policies despite the aparent powers that control the states. Also these laws are being tested slowly in USA's legal system. People like the Electronic Frontier Foundation are constantly battling the courts to get the issue higher and higher so it gets challenged against the Supreme Court for unconstitutional.

Here is a page with interesting information about the ill nature of the DMCA. So far i think the DMCA itself its just one of the first ill behaved instruments approved by the Congress of USA. Apparently there are even more nastier ones approved or in process of approving. I think these guys only represent the big pockets while the population in general either does not care or can't influence much the decisions that affect millions of lives. It looks like USA is very far from being a democracy, in practice it works more like a fascist oligarchy.

Thanks Artemis. So at least I could pick up a trail here and start reading. And indeed I found a section in "ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION" which explains google's behaviour. It doesn't state explicitly that linking is illegal, but they state a number of requirements to enjoy the liability limitation. I'm still interested in more info on this linking issue. It should be an older act, right? Even more interesting: has it been tested in court?

I think some folks may not realize that the term "cencorship" only refers to acts by the official government of that country. Google is a private enterprise. If the owners decide that they don't like Babs Striesand, they are free to remove all references to her. If the DMCA asks them to remove some links, regardless of whether its "nicely" or by threat, they're free to do that also.

It isn't a question of whether they should or shouldn't or if its legal.

Dex

from TITLE 17 , CHAPTER 5 , Sec. 512. (DMCA)

Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users. -

(1) In general. -

A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider -

(A)

(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B)

does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

©

upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.