Forum Moderators: open
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
This is the first time I saw something like this. It's really good to know that Google takes copyright infringement very seriously.
All hail the mighty Google!
Great post, i did not know that Google voluntarily opted for this approach in absence of a court decision and that it is their own decision and not a legal requirement - that's not really nice to know either i think.
>> considering the essential freedom to link as the entirety of the basis for search engines at all
>> Complaints are cheap and recourse against blatantly false ones is weak.
>> By accepting the theory that mere linking is a justifiable grounds for complaint, Google has set itself up to receive at least thousands such fraudulent complaints, about any site, and on any whim
That is exactly what i was trying to infer, you only did it in a better and more informed way. With this policy, Google is in fact taking a positive stance towards any person or entity complaining. Google actively supports and promotes the use of complaints by recognizing them and allowing them to take effect before the views of the supposedly offending part have ever been heard.
And then you specified that this is really about linking. I agree.
The essence in my opinion is that linking should not be regulated. I'm glad to hear that it's not, as i do not know the details of the DMCA myself. OTOH, i'm sad to find that a SE (living off links) has voluntarily opted for self-regulation of same links as an interpretation of possible (=unknown) legal implications, that is: not such a self-regulation that serves their business purpose.
Links are, after all, the very essence of the WWW itself. It is similar to mentioning a place, or even to giving driving directions to a place in the physical world. Even if this place is a (suspected) criminal one, it is and should still be legal to provide the instructions for reaching it.
Links are is not caching and linking is not a copyright violation even though the site linked to may or may not be guily of such a violation. Was this not the napster verdict, in essence?
That it is also the bread and butter of Search Engines is really secondary in this respect, as they are nothing but a small fraction of the same internet (measured in number of publishers). Any limitations upon use of such links has therefore negative influences on the whole internet and all internet publishers.
Perhaps Google has (by voluntary - pre-emptive - action) avoided the issue of "linking rights" to even surface in the legal system. For a while. Next publisher that will be hit will now have to decide if she should follow the G example or hold on to her "linking rights" and await legal decision. Then next. And so on.
When the s*** eventually hits the fan, a process for dealing with this just might have been established voluntarily (favoring the complaining party) and it will be quite easy for lawmakers to seek inspiration from this.
Now what's the effect for webmasters? Will we have to do the same then? One thing i know about outbound links is that they point somewhere that you are basically not controlling the contents of. One day a perfectly unique destination, the next day a pr0n page or whatever. These changes can and do happen without the (out-) linking party's consent or even knowledge.
I will not continue, the post is long enough by now. Plainly i felt bad about it when i heard it, and i still do. Even though it is apparently Googles own decision and not the law, it's still not right.
/claus
My guess is that in this case the lawyers first complained to the web hosting company, which looked at the site and laughed and dismissed the complaint. Then the lawyers found Google.
I'm sure Brett gets a lot of complaints about postings in this forum. (At least I _do_ get them about my forum!) And I'm also sure that his standard action is not to remove this postings. So why does Google act this way? We're not in the Dark Ages anymore where the bearer of bad news got killed ...
Google's cache is opt-out with a meta-tag (you could argue if it should be opt-in but that is OT). OTOH, this 'poor webmaster' refused to remove the content:
Actually, I think the law is that thumbnails are OK as long as the size and quality of the thumbnail doesn't detract from the value of the thumnailed image.
I don't think Google can be blamed too much here.....it is primarily the fault of the short sighted legislators!
Not so sure Google has to highlight these situations in the way it does though?
Not so sure Google has to highlight these situations in the way it does though?
<edited very slightly>
