[linux-elitists] Re: Google censorship of xenu.com domain [#201159]

Jon O. linux@networkcommand.com
Thu Mar 21 19:04:27 PST 2002


Don musta kicked some ass!

http://slashdot.org/yro/02/03/22/0141250.shtml?tid=153

Google Relists Operation Clambake 
Posted by timothy on Thursday March 21, @09:41PM
from the squeaky-wheels dept.
DarkZero writes: "After almost every tech site and individual geek banded together to either carry the story about Google's delisting of Operation Clambake or flat-out protest it, Google has apparently relisted Xenu.net. Searches for 'xenu' and 'scientology' list Operation Clambake as the first and fourth results, respectively. The search for "scientology" also lists a story from C|Net about Google delisting Operation Clambake, as well as a protest ad from a Kuro5hin reader (oc3)." 




On 21-Mar-2002, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Jon O. writes:
> 
> > ----- Forwarded message from The Google Team <comments@google.com> -----
> > 
> > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:21:09 -0000
> > From: "The Google Team" <comments@google.com>
> > Subject: Re: Google censorship of xenu.com domain [#201159]
> > 
> > Thank you for your note about the Xenu.net website.
> > 
> > We removed some pages of the xenu.net website from our search engine
> > earlier this week in response to a copyright infringement notification
> > under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).  We are legally
> > obligated to do this by the provisions of the DMCA. It is not within our
> > discretion as a company to decide when to conform to this law and when
> > to ignore it. As the DMCA mandates, Google provides webmasters with the
> > ability to have their content reinstated if they submit a counter
> > notification to Google.  Until that action is taken, we are legally bound
> > to keep the contested pages out of our index.
> 
> That's not _quite_ correct.
> 
> 17 USC 512(l):
> 
>    (l) Other Defenses Not Affected. -
> 
>    The failure of a service provider's conduct to qualify for limitation
>    of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the
>    consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service
>    provider's conduct is not infringing under this title or any other
>    defense.
> 
> 17 USC 512 doesn't provide a mandate, it provides an optional safe
> harbor.  If someone sends you a 512 notification, you can ignore it
> outright and bear possible _BUT NOT CERTAIN_ liability.
> 
> See also
> 
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi
> 
> -- 
> Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | Reading is a right, not a feature!
>      http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/   |                 -- Kathryn Myronuk
>      http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/     |
> _______________________________________________
> linux-elitists 
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list