Don't quote Hegel. Haggle. It scores more marks - Mike Magee
|
|
|
Google buckles under power of DMCA
AN INQUIRER reader alerted us to very sinister things happening to Google.
A Google search for "Lucy Pinder Tape", while providing several enlightening links, doesn’t provide users with as many results as it possibly could. An ominous little note at the bottom of the page reads: "in response to a complaint we received under the US digital millennium copyright act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page..."
Somehow Google, which is only a humble search engine after all, is being forced to filter information because of a local legal squabble. In this case, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed by the U.S. Congress in 1998, allegedly to bring copyright law up to date for electronic trade and content providers, is proving an impediment to free speech and access to information.
What is even more disturbing about it, is that the law does not simply apply in the US (say, limiting itself to google.com), but is made to apply to country-specific subsidiaries of the search engine, meaning that a US law is being rammed down the world’s collective throat. For a change.
So, how has it managed to pull this off? Well, all it takes is a little help from the DMCA’s friends, namely the World Trade Organisation and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). WIPO is complicit in that it drafted up an international treaty requiring signatory nations to impose particular rights in their own National laws. These treaties were then ratified at WTO meetings where the public had no input whatsoever, and only found out about the dirty deals after they had already been struck.
The DMCA gives publishers free reign to prevent people from printing text or
pictures, lending books to friends and, in some cases, even reading them aloud.
A classic example given by opponents of the DMCA is the following: A person who
legally bought and downloaded an e-book online managed to figure out how to get
around the reader software (information he shared). He printed the text out and
read it while on the bog and was subsequently charged by the dark forces of the
DMCA with a federal crime, looking at a penalty of up to
$500,000 and five years in prison.
But the DMCA, apparently not satisfied with simply catching copyright violators with their pants down in their own toilets, are going a step further and threatening service providers themselves. Under draconian DMCA legislation, service providers who give access to material, which purportedly infringes copyright, have to remove access to it immediately upon official notice from the copyright holder, or risk being held liable for contributory copyright infringement. So Google has a choice, but decides it would be wiser to cave and spinelessly remove the offending links from its search listings.
Google is no stranger to gutless cowardice. In early 2006 Google voluntarily offered the Chinese government to censor its results, in return for being allowed greater access to the Chinese market. Earlier, in 2002, Google succumbed to the joint malevolent powers of weirdo alien cult, Church of Scientology, and its friend and ally the DCMA (surprise, surprise). The pair pressured the Search Engine giant to delete certain URLs from its results which directed searchers to pages maintained by Xenu.net, a popular scientology critic. The pretext? Well, Xenu was apparently careless in that it used scientology texts to critique the “religion”. Texts which scientologists invoked copyright infringement on.
The DMCA was happy to help, and so was Google, who not only scrambled to remove the offending text analysis pages, but also managed to delete the whole of Xenu’s site from its listings in the process, until someone pointed out that this might be a tad too much.
Google claims that it is acting fairly by noting that in order for them to re-catalogue any disputed pages after their removal, a counter-notification can be filed, which is highly unlikely considering that the counter claimant will thereby makes themselves prime target of US court jurisdiction.
It is not even that there is anything inherently evil in copyright law itself. The point is, copyright laws should be used with a some logic and fairness. Just as students are allowed to quote passages from books in essays or exams in order to make their points, so should Googlers worldwide be able to critique aspects of Ms. Pinder’s educational video footage. Ahem.
The DMCA’s heavy handed methods are certainly akin to threatening to shoot the messenger, but even so, Google should find itself a backbone and stop willingly offering itself up as the DMCA’s gimp and Internet policeman.
There is really very little difference between blocking content in countries like China (where we call it censoring of free speech and information) and blocking content in the West. It is blatant hypocrisy and raises serious questions about where lines are drawn. When government laws can determine what content is and isn’t shown on the internet, to users around the world, that is what we call global dictatorship. µ
Tags: Google
Share this:
Share
Scientologists have been arrested for sequestration of an ex-scientologist in Italy and are sued in France. Like for anonymous, scientology deny the sequestration, attack the journalists, speaks of unjustice, and would like to be considered honest in such circumstances? 
They dream.
I knew something was up. My Google Alert "See all stories on this topic" suddenly stopped picking up anything on $cientology. Now today, this news item comes up, and I get 1 hit. There used to be at least a page of hits.
Terryeo has a point. It should be against the law to even touch copyrighted works even if we were just quoting it. Like it should be illegal to criticize a religion by quoting the scriptures themselves because they are copyrighted!! That way Scientology can enjoy its status as a real religion and nobody can speak out against them or try to reform the church because then we'd be arguing over copyrighted material. Just think, the Catholic Church wouldn't have to deal with their criticism if they would just copyright the bible. Problem solved.
Nice to see that we've got another OSA comment popping up immediately. How's the rest of the people at LEAF doing? Oh, I'm sorry, here's a rather convoluted link explaining what LEAF is and the effect it can have on free media: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/944ee8cf50e0ee56/a661ab2134a23a9a

See you on the 15th, Terryeo.
@Terryeo
I'm not sure who's paying for your little heartfelt post, but you're completely wrong. The problem with copyright laws in the U.S. is that they're slowly getting them to the point where they never end. I think we're up to something like 75yrs or so. I mean we have films that are still copyrighted, after everyone who starred in or help make the film is dead. Why? They're not making any money from it. The studio still makes a little money here and there from showings. So when are works allowed to go public domain? After a studio is sure they've squeezed every nickel out of a project?

How are we protecting the artists, creators, etc. to make sure they make a living, when they are all dead? Current U.S. copyright laws don't protect individuals who create works, but corporations. If they had it their way anytime anything they made, whether it was made 300years ago or 10 years ago, they'd get paid. Still sound like a good idea? Still see no problem?
Of course Copyright Law has a purpose. That does not mean it cannot be abused. The entire purpose of copyright laws is to prevent competitors from stealing your work and claiming it as there own. It is not to eliminate alternative opinions, hamper criticism, or attack people who are using the content in question in a perfectly legitimate manner. How anyone could think differently is simply beyond my ability to comprehe... Oh, wait. Terryeo. Didn't notice that was you at first. Figures it would be an ardent Scientologist who supports this law.
Google has been doing this for a long time (years), and so do other search engines. 

The difference between google and other search engines is, is that it shows this to the user, and puts up a link to the take down notice over at Chilling Effects (@W, that is the chilling effect link you see)

Reading the takedown request you can see WHO request the takedown, and WHAT they requested to be take down (so with a bit of effort you can still even find the page).

Would have been nice to mention that in the article, since from looking at the screenshots you did click that link.
Copyright Law has purpose. Our culture is richer because we protect artistic production. If no one wanted these things, there would be no need for law. Hollywood could not produce expensive films if they were endlessly cheap. Our great artists would (likely) not have produced many paintings, books, plays, and operas. Copyright Law makes sense. The internet difference is, any beanbrain can snipe at it.
First of all I see no such message on any google search, and second of all from the picture I gather it removed chillingeffects.org, which isn't some pirate site but an organisation seemingly involved with "monitoring the legal climate of the internet" 
And who's main page contains the line:
"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."
So the plot thickens.
Considering that all written material is implicitly copyrighted under US law, Google could be forced to block any and all websites when told to. I wonder if this means that someone could include some copyrighted work in their forum signature, tell Google that their work is being infringed and have the entire site blocked.
Good job on this story. It makes one wonder what is up with some of the Western countries in that they are all of a suddon filtering content from the public. 
I think someone is trying to get back to the (let me tell you what you can know) era as I know better.