Today I went to Google Books and searched for "By the shortcut through the Rosses". (That's the first line of a song that was posted here at Mudcat.)

Google gave me a link to one book, but it also displayed this notice at the bottom of the page:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

I've read that complaint, and I'm trying to understand it, but it doesn't quite make sense. Here's what I think I know:

http://www.planetware.com is a web site that provides lots of free information about travel destinations. I suppose they make money by selling advertising. I'm guessing they also make a commission when people book hotels, etc., through them.

Planetware.com seems to be complaining that someone copied (stole, plagiarized) content from them and posted it in Wikipedia.

I can see how that could easily happen (despite the fact that Wikipedia has policies against it). I can also see why this would piss off the owners of Planetware. If someone should use Google to search for a phrase that originally came from Planetware.com, but Google points them to Wikipedia instead, then Planetware.com will get fewer hits and lose revenue.

What's not so clear is:

1. Why is this Google's problem?

Tentative answer: It's Google's problem because the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (anyone ever heard of it?) says that it's Google's problem. It says that Google (well, anyone like Google) is required to delete anything (such as a Wikipedia article) from its search results if someone else (such as Planetware) complains that the text in question was stolen from them.

Please note that it is *not* required that a court agree that the text was stolen. The mere complaint, or allegation, that it is stolen is sufficient to trigger Google's responsibility to block the results.

The restriction would be lifted if the subject of the complaint (that would be Wikipedia) answers the original complaint (if that's any comfort).

2. What's this got to do with MY search?

Tentative explanation: Apparently Google was only citing the Planetware/Wikipedia case as an example of what can happen. Apparently somebody (not Planetware) complained that some book (not a Wikipedia article) contained plagiarized text, and that book would have appeared in my search results, but Google is now required by law to suppress it.

Apparently Google can't even tell me the title of the book whose content was suppressed—in case I want to buy it or find it at a library.

3. Is this fair? Is it due process?

Tentative answer: No, and no.

4. Why did Google refer me to ChillingEffects.org instead of providing its own explanation of what happened?

Tentative answer: Google wants us to know that this is a bigger problem than just the suppression of one particular book. It's part of a bigger problem that's so big and important that "the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics" have collaborated to create a web site about it.

5. What is this website called ChillingEffects.org all about?

Tentative answer: It's about the suppression of information on the Internet. I think it bears looking into.