Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results.
Anyone know why a page was removed and if I can find out which page was excluded (in case it was mine)...
I never actually clicked to go see what they took out ..
<edit>Sorry, Chris_R, just noticed the link before you posted...</edit>
[edited by: giggle at 12:42 pm (utc) on Aug. 29, 2005]
www.chillingeffects.org/
You can get an idea why the specific document was taken down there.
The link should have pointed you there anyway.
"if you would like to see the results with the omitted page put back" ( yeah I know ..totally against the spirit of the DMCA etc ) ....
No, totally with the rule of law, and is written into the DMCA, so how can it be against the spirit of the DMCA?
If there was no way to contest the takedown, then that portion of the DMCA would be unconstitutional. It would be the same as having your neighbor thrown in jail for murder just on your sayso, without a trial, or even proof that anyone was murdered.
I think there are pros and cons and maybe legalities to Google publishing DMCA notifications on the Internet without consent. I wonder if larger companies are finding their communications published by Google.
Food for thought perhaps.
Since a DMCA complaint is a legal document, presumably it can be freely published on the Internet. Where in the DMCA is what Google is doing forbidden?
In fact, it really is the start of a court action, but before the courts are involved. You certainly would not expect that your Complaint and Summons in a lawsuit would have any sort of privacy, would you? Have you ever heard of Pacer?
If there was a counter-notification, per the DMCA Google wouldn't remove the page. Thus Google might not publish either the notification of counter-notification.
That's an American car from the 1970's, yes? Doubt that's what you mean, so please enlighten those of us that haven't heard of "Pacer"...
Not to mention, while they have a right to publish a legal notice, they are not under any obligation to publish it.
Doubt that's what you mean, so please enlighten those of us that haven't heard of "Pacer"
A great way to learn about something is to try this new technology called a search engine. Go to Google and type in [pacer]. The first result should be enlightening.
It is a service providing electronic access to court documents. PACER is an acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records.
Basically, it provides you with access to everything filed in federal court that has not been filed under seal. If you have an issue where you are taking advantage of the legal system, it becomes part of the public record.
Ooo, excellent idea - so I tried it!
Turns out (a) "Pacer" is indeed an American two-passenger(?) vehicle. First introduced in 1975, it had a short life, produced for only 6 model years by AMC (who were swallowed by the Chrysler Corporation in 1987). Just over 280,000 were made; very few remain a generation later. A "wagon" version was added to the product line in 1977 - it too died in 1980.
Now that I've proven I can meet smart alec with smart alec, I'd like to thank you for...
It is a service providing electronic access to court documents. PACER is an acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records.
...and rhetorically ask, "Gee, was that so hard to type, that you couldn't do it without sarcasm?"
Anyone who can give that much detail without also giving the impression he thinks the original questioner was too stupid to be allowed an internet account, won't be posting in forums, he'll be running for Congress and dealing (successfully) with reporters.
A great way to learn about something is to try this new technology called a search engine.
Sure balam could have, maybe should have done a search but please spare us from sarcasm like that.
This is a forum about Google, which is a search engine. Many people use it to find answers to their questions.
I would really expect that anyone on this forum would know how to use it. Why should I be expected to explain it to you when you could have looked it up faster than you could have typed your question in the first place.
If my sarcasm will make you look something up for yourself in the future, then it will have served a good purpose. If you stubbornly refuse to consider such an option, then you do not deserve anything better than sarcasm.
I fear anything I may say may further aggravate the situtation. I have "stickied" an apology to concerned parties for my "really dumb question," and now bow out of this thread.
Thare are no dumb questions balam! Only dumb *not* to ask :o) When someone responds with an emotional outburts or put-down, no matter how fact based the reply seems to be, understand that this comes from insecurity. At the same time, do your best to control your emotions as well. Step above the situation and do what needs to be done to find answers you seek. :o)
Since many content thieves operate behind clouded WhoIs information is Google exposing the filer to unnecessary retaliation with publishing? You could argue both ways but its not equal turf to me if only one set of addresses is exposed.
> Thare are no dumb questions balam!
Import Export, I know that; you know that; a great many people here know that. But it is far too easy for an intellectual giant to forget - or consciously refuse to remember - that they too were once a know-nothing idiot.
outland88, it's a good day when I make someone smile. (You did smile, yes?) It lets me know that the day wasn't a total waste.
