|
28 Mar 11 - 12:24 AM (#3123069) Subject: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: Jim Dixon 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. |
|
28 Mar 11 - 06:20 AM (#3123186) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: GUEST,999 I agree. It's near 6:00 am where I am and I haven't slept yet. IMO, this thread is important, and when I wake up I will go dig. Thank, Jim. BM |
|
28 Mar 11 - 10:20 AM (#3123338) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: pdq "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law by 1 President Clinton on October 28, 1998. The legislation implements two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The DMCA also addresses a number of other significant copyright-related issues..." |
|
28 Mar 11 - 12:26 PM (#3123404) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: GUEST,lively a) I see a reference to 'World Intellectual Property Organsation' - Does this legislation effect non-US based searched engines, or is it US legislation? b) Are there any ways around it for people searching the internet? |
|
28 Mar 11 - 01:30 PM (#3123447) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: pdq World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is part of the United Nations. Sounds like some US politicians are happy to let the UN tell us what to do. Saves time and work on the part of our "leaders". |
|
28 Mar 11 - 01:49 PM (#3123463) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: GUEST,lively so the legislation is applicable to those states within the un, who have signed up to it? Are there any search engines from states not beholden to this legislation? Not holding my breath here, but i thought it a question worth asking. I know people sometimes set up foriegn 'mirror sites' for some sites which get shut down if they are deemed too challenging for western authorities. |
|
28 Mar 11 - 01:52 PM (#3123467) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: GUEST,lively oops, anything echoing that for a site like google. A kind of piggy back search engine like freegle for example? |
|
28 Mar 11 - 02:08 PM (#3123487) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: Will Fly It's quite clear that the Chilling Effects website is an organisation which is monitoring the suppression of information posted on the net where the poster has been issued with a "cease and desist' order by the copyright holder. The person issued with the order is invited to post details of the order on the Chilling effects website in order that it can be seen by everyone. The greatest misconception about the net on the part of most people is that the information on it is not subject to copyright laws - which it is. However, it appears that the "cease and desist" business may itself be being abused or used in non-legal ways. |
|
28 Mar 11 - 05:05 PM (#3123626) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: Greg F. Is anyone under the impression that Google is a philanthropic not-for-profit organization? Is anyone under the impression that "The Internet" or its constituent providers and commercial websites are as well? Get real. |
|
29 Mar 11 - 11:03 AM (#3124120) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: Jim Dixon No, I did not have the impression that "Google is a philanthropic not-for-profit organization." I don't see what difference it makes. Google provides a service that I want to use. If Google's ability to provide that service is impaired, that concerns me. |
|
29 Mar 11 - 11:11 AM (#3124124) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: Jim Dixon It also concerns me because the same rules that apply to Google also apply (I think) to not-for-profit organizations. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Google just happened to be the website where I first became aware of it. |
|
29 Mar 11 - 11:45 AM (#3124148) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: Donuel A judge has ruled against google so that many books will no longer be able to be viewed via google. One can view this as a million books being digitally burned or that copyright infringement battles are as confusing to the court as it is to me. |
|
29 Mar 11 - 11:50 AM (#3124155) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: Greg F. One can view this as a million books being digitally burned No, one can't. Jesus. Go to the friggin library. f Google's ability to provide that service is impaired, that concerns me It doesn't seem to concern Google all that much. |
|
29 Mar 11 - 12:16 PM (#3124175) Subject: RE: BS: Suppression of information on the 'Net From: Will Fly The status of copyright of books - whether on the net or not - is quite clear. If a work is in the public domain, i.e. the copyright has lapsed or has been assigned to the public domain (i.e. the Gutenberg Project and similar schemes), then it can be made available on the net. If the work is still in copyright however, then publication of the book can only be made with the permission of the copyright holder. The world-wide web is not a copyright-free, free-for-all market, contrary to what many people think. It may give that impression, but the impression is false. In the UK, many universities - particularly those who allow electronic submission of assignments - subscribe to internet plagiarism software. Assignments can be run through the software, which detects where information might have been lifted from. It's not that the information can't be used, but the students try to bypass the tiresome but necessary task of providing proper citations for the material, and try and pass it off as their own. The software isn't run against every assignment submitted, but random testing - with due publicity about the results - is a good deterrent. This may sound a little off-topic, but the circumstances do arise because of similar beliefs that internet information is subject to different rules from printed information. To ask that material be withdrawn from a web site is not necessarily suppressing information - it may rightly be about a business protecting its commercial and financial interests. |