Take the Content Offline - I don't like it!

The site, mirrors, search engines, and archives

[EliteWeb]

Its amazing to see so much going on now a days with these companies going to the content provider (website) and if they can't get them to remove it they are going to the search engines telling them to remove it.

Are you really going to remove your content because it isn't to the liking of the other site? Sure, I understand if the webpage contains (c) materials it should be removed, but what gives these people the rights to goto the search engines telling them to remove it.

I've run into groups/organizations myself who do not come directly to me to have content removed, they e-mail my hosting provider. (Thats fine for me couz I host all that hacking content) But for everyone else on the 'Net.

Are we going to run into people who goto places like Archive.org to have someones old content removed also?

Everything I do now, on my webpages are made available in txt format and compressed so people can download it and archive it. Place mirrors of my content on your sites, give me credit (link backs ;) ) make sure the search engines don't forget about you.

The Railroad company sueing google for having a link to sites that contain information which was banned. Come on! They are doing it couz they cant actually make those sites take down the content, so kill the provider. Google isnt the only guy out there offering search results. Maybe the German Gov't should filter all requests and make their internet like some of the other countries.

How far will this go with people trying to totally sabotage sites because they don't like the content!

[mack]

Well if a site is displaying someone elses interlectual property for the purpose of making profit then they realy are getting no less than they deserve if the (c) owner manages to get the site removed from a search engine. Copyright laws are there to protect the author and rightfuly so. I know some sites offer their contect for use but if an author is spending time and effort into producing his/her own work then it is nothing less that theft to have this content seen on other websites. :)

[Mardi_Gras]

Sure, I understand if the webpage contains (c) materials it should be removed, but what gives these people the rights to goto the search engines telling them to remove it.

EliteWeb - are you talking about copyrighted content (displayed by someone other than the copyright holder), or just content that some people don't like? It looks like you're saying that hosts should remove copyrighted materials, but if they don't, the copyright holder should not be able to ask the search engine to remove it. I apologize if I'm not reading correctly - it is late.

[Filipe]

EliteWeb, I agree with you to an extent. The whole Scientology is ridiculous. If I'm not mistaken, Xenu.net was using their copyrighted material under the fair use clauses of the DMCA - being critical of Scientology and referring to their material isn't reason to unlink them - it's more of a "get my content off your site".

I agree that many of these are just cases of spite and petty self-defense. I totally defend the right to link, not because I'm some sort of online libertarian (far from it), but because I don't feel that a referral should be forced to change their site - just the site itself. The referrer might believe in the cause (elimination of Scientology on the 'Net) but that doesn't mean they endorse copyright infringement.