Answer» DMCA. Site Blocking. Copyright Law.
Today, a search of Google came up with this message:
QuoteIn response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
The ChillingEffects.org web site seems to be busy.When it does load, this is what you will see:
QuoteNotice Unavailable
Microsoft DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google
Sent by: Microsoft Corporation
To: Google
The cease-and-desist or legal threat you requested is not yet available.
Chilling Effects will post the notice after we process it.
They can be quick to post a complaint. Does it TAKE longer to explain why? True, they wish to protect their intellectual property, but we don't even kn ow if that was the issue.
Here is part of a Q and A from the Chilling Effects site.
QuoteQuestion: Why does a web host, blogging service provider, or search engine get DMCA takedown notices?
Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(c)'s safe-harbor for hosts of "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users" or Section 512(d)'s safe-harbor for providers of "Information Location Tools." These safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by users' materials it hosts or links to, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous.
Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies, a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.
In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]
Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material.
Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)?
Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably SUFFICIENT to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512.
Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the ALLEGEDLY infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing.
Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?
Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.
Question: How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?
Answer: If you believe your material was removed because of mistake or misidentification, you can file a "counter notification" asking the service provider to put it back up. Chilling Effects offers a form to build your own counter-notice.
For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions. For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright.
There is more.. I have copied this here for the benefit of those who can not gets to the site:
htto://ChillingEffects.org
Which, it would seem, has an under-powered server or is getting a ton of hits.
But still, how can just one complainant take a site off of a search engine? Is this a good idea? Are we going to see more of this? And why can't the search engine tell more about who filed the complaint and why?
Can anybody explain any or all of this is simple English?
Quote from: Geek-9pm on August 10, 2011, 10:22:57 PMThey can be quick to post a complaint. Does it take longer to explain why?
No. They (MS... or more precisely, MS's lawyers) already have. It's not posted because the guys at chillingeffects.org have to look over it, or something.
The site works fine, by the way.
QuoteWhich, it would seem, has an under-powered server or is getting a ton of hits.
Load fine here.
QuoteBut still, how can just one complainant take a site off of a search engine? Is this a good idea? Are we going to see more of this? And why can't the search engine tell more about who filed the complaint and why?
Is this really the first time you've seen this?
Basically, whatever was removed was probably a link to a torrent site or something.
QuoteIs this really the first time you've seen this?
Basically, whatever was removed was probably a link to a torrent site or something
Yes it is. Never saw it before.
I was not even looking for torrents. I have no idea what was on the site that was blackballed. But if I was looking for a torrent that has windows products, I might find one if I really wanted to.
Here is one, I put XXX in the name to discourage others.
QuoteDOWNLOAD mac os 7 for windows Torrent - XXXXXXsTorrents
www.xxxxxxx - Cached
May 18, 2011 – Download mac os 7 for windows torrent or any other torrent from Windows category. Direct download via HTTP available as well.
That is rather blatant, yet it was not blocked. So the site that was blocked must have been really bad. Maybe it was copyright infringement.
Quote from: Geek-9pm on August 10, 2011, 10:54:35 PMI was not even looking for torrents.
What were you searching for?
Quote from: mroilfield on August 11, 2011, 06:13:15 AMWhat were you searching for?
I did Google 'windows 7 problems'
An on the first page one item was deleted. Have not idea what it said.
No if I said 'steal windows n7' nothing is deleted.
Google 'windows 7 hacks'
And get one blocking item. I would expect that.
Google 'windows 7 issues'
Again, one page blocked.
Google 'windows 7 freaks' and it is ok.
It is not as if I was looking for a way to infringe the copyright.
Google 'windows 7 free' an no block. In fact, got a you tube video
QuoteHow to get Windows 7 for free - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaJwO8Spo-8
If Microsoft screws this up, they'll have to PAY us to try their next operating system. Here's a free download link to get Windows 7 ...
The post is legit, no infringement of copyright. In fact, he offers to MS permission to use a slogan he invented. A slogan to turn Vista users to Windows 7. MS did not, I believe, use the slogan. 'Twas a great slogan.
Amway, MS must have had a very specific problem with some web site that comes up high in the search for 'windows 7 problem'.
But no trouble with 'Get Windows 7 free'.I have seen this reference on a number of occasions. However NEVER in relation to the total search responses. It has always been at the bottom of the 1st page and it usually says something along the lines of some sites are not displayed due to blockage under the "DCMA" (or perhaps even other entities-- i can't remember).I personally have never pursued it as usually the available responses appear to be more than adequate for my initial search.truenorth
QuoteGoogle 'windows 7 free' an no block. In fact, got a you tube video
Quote
How to get Windows 7 for free - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaJwO8Spo-8
If Microsoft screws this up, they'll have to PAY us to try their next operating system. Here's a free download link to get Windows 7 ...
The post is legit, no infringement of copyright. In fact, he offers to MS permission to use a slogan he invented. A slogan to turn Vista users to Windows 7. MS did not, I believe, use the slogan. 'Twas a great slogan.
You need to get a grip on things...
The MS Win7 BETA was available to millions of potential users leading up to it's release and was a brilliant marketing move...
The sites that DMCA restrictions were posting to links for illegal software.....
2 Very DIFFERENT things here.If you type Geek's search query into a different search engine, e.g. Dogpile, you'll see what Microsoft objected to, I think.
|
