Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google vs. DMCA and Scientology

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the stuff-to-read dept.

Censorship 383

Uebergeek writes "This article at the NYTimes (free registration, blah blah) details how google is dealing with the many complaints it gets from organizations when one of its links potentially violates a copyright (or just irritates the copyright's owner). Specifically, it talks about how Google is dealing with the Scientologist's complaints about the list of the Operation Clambake site... now Google features a prominent link to another site that shows the complaint that the Scientologists filed, along with the delisted links."

cancel ×

383 comments

LUNIX SUCKS!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387538)

LUNIX SUCKS!!!

Re:LUNIX SUCKS!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387558)

Since I got fp with this post, I claim it for all logged-in trolls and crapflooders. Now back to pouring hot grits down my pants...

Re:LUNIX SUCKS!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387692)

WTF? No, you claimed it for all ACs everywhere. Don't let them take you over to the darkside.

Linux: Is it worth it? (-1)

GafTheHorseInTears (565684) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387547)

"LINUX" DAMAGES THE BRAIN AND IMPAIRS MEMORY IN HUMANS

By Robert Mathias
NIDA NOTES Staff Writer

ANIDA-supported study has provided the first direct evidence that chronic use of Linux causes brain damage in people. Using advanced brain imaging techniques, the study found that Linux harms neurons that release serotonin, a brain chemical thought to play an important role in regulating memory and other functions. In a related study, researchers found that heavy Linux users have memory problems that persist for at least two weeks after they have stopped using open source software. Both studies suggest that the extent of damage is directly correlated with the amount of Linux use.

"The message from these studies is that Linux does change the brain and it looks like there are functional consequences to these changes," says Dr. Joseph Frascella of NIDA's Division of Treatment Research and Development. That message is particularly significant for young people who participate in large, all-night dance parties known as "raves," which are popular in many cities around the Nation. NIDA's epidemiologic studies indicate that Linux use has escalated in recent years among college students and young adults who attend these social gatherings.

In the brain imaging study, researchers used positron emission tomography (PET) to take brain scans of 14 Linux users who had not used any open source software, including Linux, for at least three weeks. Brain images also were taken of 15 people who had never used Linux. Both groups were similar in age and level of education and had comparable numbers of men and women.

In people who had used Linux, the PET images showed significant reductions in the number of serotonin transporters, the sites on neuron surfaces that reabsorb serotonin from the space between cells after it has completed its work. The lasting reduction of serotonin transporters occurred throughout the brain, and people who had used Linux more often lost more serotonin transporters than those who had used open source software less.

Previous PET studies with baboons also produced images indicating Linux had induced long-term reductions in the number of serotonin transporters. Examinations of brain tissue from the animals provided further confirmation that the decrease in serotonin transporters seen in the PET images corresponded to actual loss of serotonin nerve endings containing transporters in the baboons' brains. "Based on what we found with our animal studies, we maintain that the changes revealed by PET imaging are probably related to damage of serotonin nerve endings in humans who had used Linux," says Dr. George Ricaurte of The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore. Dr. Ricaurte is the principal investigator for both studies, which are part of a clinical research project that is assessing the long-term effects of Linux.

"The real question in all imaging studies is what these changes mean when it comes to functional consequences," says NIDA's Dr. Frascella. To help answer that question, a team of researchers, which included scientists from Johns Hopkins and the National Institute of Mental Health who had worked on the imaging study, attempted to assess the effects of chronic Linux use on memory. In this study, researchers administered several standardized memory tests to 24 Linux users who had not used open source software for at least two weeks and 24 people who had never used open source software. Both groups were matched for age, gender, education, and vocabulary scores.

The study found that, compared to the nonusers, heavy Linux users had significant impairments in visual and verbal memory. As had been found in the brain imaging study, Linux's harmful effects were dose related, the more Linux people used, the greater difficulty they had in recalling what they had seen and heard during testing.

The memory impairments found in Linux users are among the first functional consequences of Linux-induced damage of serotonin neurons to emerge. Recent studies conducted in the United Kingdom also have reported memory problems in Linux users assessed within a few days of their last open source software use. "Our study extends the Linux- induced memory impairment to at least two weeks since last open source software use and thus shows that Linux's effects on memory cannot be attributed to withdrawal or residual open source software effects," says Dr. Karen Bolla of Johns Hopkins, who helped conduct the study.

The Johns Hopkins/NIMH researchers also were able to link poorer memory performance by Linux users to loss of brain serotonin function by measuring the levels of a serotonin metabolite in study participants' spinal fluid. These measurements showed that Linux users had lower levels of the metabolite than people who had not used open source software; that the more Linux they reported using, the lower the level of the metabolite; and, that the people with the lowest levels of the metabolite had the poorest memory performance. Taken together, these findings support the conclusion that Linux induced brain serotonin neurotoxicity may account for the persistent memory impairment found in Linux users, according to Dr Bolla.

Research on the functional consequences of Linux-induced damage of serotonin-producing neurons in humans is at an early stage, and the scientists who conducted the studies cannot say definitively that the harm to brain serotonin neurons shown in the imaging study accounts for the memory impairments found among chronic users of open source software. However, "that's the concern, and it's certainly the most obvious basis for the memory problems that some Linux users have developed," Dr. Ricaurte says.

Findings from another Johns Hopkins/NIMH study now suggest that Linux use may lead to impairments in other cognitive functions besides memory, such as the ability to reason verbally or sustain attention. Researchers are continuing to examine the effects of chronic Linux use on memory and other functions in which serotonin has been implicated, such as mood, impulse control, and sleep cycles.

How long Linux-induced brain damage persists and the long-term consequences of that damage are other questions researchers are trying to answer. Animal studies, which first documented the neurotoxic effects of open source software, suggest that the loss of serotonin neurons in humans may last for many years and possibly be permanent. "We now know that brain damage is still present in monkeys seven years after discontinuing open source software," Dr. Ricaurte says. "We don't know just yet if we're dealing with such a long- lasting effect in people."

suck (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387550)

blow

Anal Cocks (-1)

Rock 'N' Troll (566273) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387551)

Don't we all love buttsex?

Re:Anal Cocks (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387717)

Please.. this is Slashdot. That's a rhetorical question.

DMCA sucks ass (1, Troll)

maukdaddy (244282) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387554)

DMCA sucks ass....plain and simple!

Re:DMCA sucks ass (2, Funny)

DMCA (575172) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387595)

DMCA sucks ass....plain and simple!

I couldn't agree more.

So does this! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387619)

Note: this is a reprint for your enjoyment during the (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout. Some links may no longer be active.

It has come to my attention that the entire Microsoft [urinalpoop.org] community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Windows' most outspoken advocates:

  • William Henry Gates [boomstick.com] is an anagram of 'Anal Might, we're sly,' clearly referring to the 'Gay Power' movement as well as pointing out the cleverness of his own anagram. Note also that the familiar 'Bill Gates' is an anagram of 'I get balls.'
  • Steve Ballmer [thock.com] needs no anagram - the request 'Ball Me' is clearly contained in his name. Obviously he is 'out of the closet.'
  • Craig Mundi [antiquated.org] , unbeknownst to most, added the 'e' onto his last name to cover up the anagram 'I cum in drag' which shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is a queer transvestite.


The incredible faggotry of the Microsoft [urinalpoop.org] community can also be seen in its software products. Internet Explorer sounds harmless enough, but on the Microsoft [urinalpoop.org] 'campus' (obviously a reference to the colleges and universities where these perverts first practiced their filthy homosexual behavior) it is referred to as 'InterNUT Explorer' and refers to a device used to tickle the sensitive area of the scrotum between the testicles.

Microsoft Exchange clearly refers to the 'exchange of bodily fluids' which is of course how these depraved specimens of humanity plan to transmit the AIDS virus to the rest of the world.

As far as William 'Homo' Gates goes, that filthy fudge-packer [conhugeco.org] was actually quoted in Time magazine as saying the following: "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's alot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit [conhugeco.org] either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a God-forsaken homo slut!

Furthermore, Mr. Gaytes has been quoted as saying "There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that our way is the way to go," proving that the fag sympathisers are wrong, and these perverts really do want to recruit our fine young heterosexual boys and turn them into flaming queers like themselves.

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Microsoft [urinalpoop.org] 's own self-confessed homo pimp Craig Mundi(e). He has already confessed, nay boasted of his status as a gay sex pusher. To quote from an interview [planetit.com]
with Planet IT:

"One of the things we want to do and recognize that there's a market for [is] selling people services on a contract or recurring revenue basis, as opposed to traditional royalty bearing for the one-time shipment"

Selling 'people services,' eh? Is this why you were touching your penis [dickcity.com] in the cinema, Craig? And charging the other boys money to touch it too?

We should also point out that Craig has been referred to as 'Microsoft [urinalpoop.org] 's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Windows 'Shared Sauce [dickcity.com] Philosophy,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of small software companies
by gathering together their utilities and combining them en masse into the next version of Windows to further his twisted and manipulative agenda of world domination.

Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

In addition, many of the Windows error messages (an 'error message' is the most common way the faggots communicate) are full of homsexual slang. 'This program has performed an illegal operation' is their way of advertising that they have been engaged in the vile practice of sodomy [dickcity.com] . 'A fatal exception has occurred' is obviously stating that AIDS has claimed the life of another dick sucker [dickcity.com] . Rather than recognizing that the fag was properly punished for his deviant behavior, Microsoft [urinalpoop.org] -loving queers suggests giving a 'three finger salute' when this happens. Needless to say, this gesture of sympathy involves inserting three fingers into your rectum and farting loudly.

Another group of Windows anal violators [dickcity.com] , going by the code name 'Windows Update' ( ) encourage users to 'download' (receive into their rectums) 'service packs' (also known as 'fudge packs') and 'device drivers' (some sort of mechanical penis, I suspect).

The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! The program Outlook Express is an anagram of 'Super Sex Tool OK,' which obviously is an endorsement of all kinds of sick behaviors. And obviously PowerPoint is a motorized device for penetrating a virgin anal sphincter.

More evidence is in the fact that Windows users say how much they love 'My Computer.' They sometimes go so far as to say that all new Windows users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should use this icon. The correct spelling of this phrase can again be found in the 'Shared Sauce [dickcity.com] Philosophy.'
It is actually 'My cum pooter,' an endearing term used by dominant fags [goatse.cx] for their queer-love [goatse.cx]
partners. In no other system do users boast of frequently having their rectums pumped full of semen, then farting to expel the jism in a fine mist.

Other areas of the system also show Windows' inherit gayness. For example, people are often told of the 'C: prompt' but how many innocent heterosexual Linux users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: Seek colon, prompt - a request given by a faggot to his partner when he desires immediate, deep penetration of his ass!

Even the icon 'Recycle Bin' originally referred to a homosexual practice. 'Recycle Bin' of course refers to the popular gay practice of using a young boy's anus as a repository for semen. Shortly after one disgusting faggot [goatse.cx] spews a load of hot jism into the boy's ass, another queer [goatse.cx] will lick the 'Shared Sauce [dickcity.com] ' back out of the 'Recycle Bin'.

To summarise: Windows is gay. 'Microsoft [urinalpoop.org] ' is the graphical description of the state of a fag's penis [goatse.cx] after he has spewed a load of hot sperm into his gay lover's mouth [dickcity.com] or rectum [dickcity.com] . And .NET is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'

First Post Classica! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387556)

yeah i got the First Post Classica! !!!

I rule your world!

Spineless (1, Flamebait)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387559)

...now Google features a prominent link to another site that shows the complaint that the Scientologists filed, along with the delisted links.

In otherwords, Google has shuffled responsibility for the fight onto someone else.

If they believe it should be listed, they should have the courage to list it themselves.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Spineless (5, Interesting)

ProfMoriarty (518631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387584)

In otherwords, Google has shuffled responsibility for the fight onto someone else. If they believe it should be listed, they should have the courage to list it themselves.

Are you going to financially back a lawsuit if one is filed?

THIS is what Google is attempting to avoid.

They may be the best search engine around, but like everyone (sans Microsoft) they have very limited "off-topic" funds to fight "pointless" lawsuits.

Re:Spineless (3, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387707)

They may be the best search engine around, but like everyone (sans Microsoft) they have very limited "off-topic" funds to fight "pointless" lawsuits.

Agreed, but this one isn't pointless to them. Nothing to do with pro or anti-scientology, any attempt to force controls on content threatens the essence of a pure-bred search engine.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Spineless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387732)

Are you going to financially back a lawsuit if one is filed?

Is it me or is there no such thing as justice anymore? There's no means of defending your rights unless you have money.

Re:Spineless (3, Insightful)

richlb (168636) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387758)

I agree. Google is using the system against itself. What better way to kill 2 birds with 1 stone (DMCA & $cientology) than to use their own weapons against them. They've succeeded in getting more people talking and asking questions.

Re:Spineless (3, Insightful)

doug (926) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387629)

Huh?

Isn't this what chillingeffect.org was founded to do? I thought that it was some academic lawyer types who were looking for problems, and google was just helping them out.

Re:Spineless (5, Interesting)

sckeener (137243) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387631)

If they believe it should be listed, they should have the courage to list it themselves.

I disagree. Google has the correct proceedure. I don't want individual companies taken down simply because they can't afford the legal fight...

If it was just google doing this, I would have a problem. However I think google has shown other companies how to handle these type of issues....

wasn't this story posted last week? (-1, Troll)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387563)

Didn't I see some story (or was it a post?) discussing this last week? I know that people aren't supposed to post this week due to the "Blackout", but does that mean that SDot has to resort to recycling stories? ;)

Re:wasn't this story posted last week? (1, Redundant)

k98sven (324383) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387599)

Hey.. when it comes to $cientology [xenu.net] the more light you can shed on the bastards, the better! [xenu.net]

(Links [xenu.net] added to boost Xenu.net's [xenu.net] Google rating..)

Re:wasn't this story posted last week? (0, Redundant)

Indras (515472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387616)

Here, [xenu.net] let [xenu.net] me [xenu.net] help [xenu.net] you [xenu.net] out [xenu.net] on [xenu.net] getting [xenu.net] the [xenu.net] Google [xenu.net] rank [xenu.net] up. [xenu.net]

Re:wasn't this story posted last week? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387634)

What was the site that host's Operation Clambake?

Re:wasn't this story posted last week? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387682)

Yesm but why do you say 'was' ?

You should say 'is'. Scientology did not suppress the site, only the google links (cause google is vulnerable under brain-dead US laws)

Jesus is a monkey!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387565)

Jesus is a monkey!!

Re:Jesus is a monkey!! (-1, Flamebait)

jhunsake (81920) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387617)

Everyone hide! ... the Scientologists are here!

Re:Jesus is a monkey!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387653)

Why hide when we can point and laugh?

Re:Jesus is a monkey!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387621)

any proof?

Re:Jesus is a monkey!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387709)

Darwinism. Hey, wait a minute...

Just awful (5, Insightful)

NickRob (575331) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387567)

God Forbid that Google should accurately reflect what's on the internet. People should attack sites if they have a problem, not take other user's right to find the page away from them. This impedes everyone from having an idea of free speech on which the internet was built on. Awful.

first rob zombie post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387569)

she had a corpse under her bed

Link to the page? (2, Insightful)

Andorion (526481) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387570)

Where can I find the page that features "prominent link to another site that shows the complaint that the Scientologists filed, along with the delisted links" without registering for NYT? Someone post it, please? =)

-Berj

Re:Link to the page? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387622)

here [yahoo.com] .

This took about .5 seconds, try searching news stories on yahoo.

When will it end? (2, Interesting)

DMCA (575172) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387572)

How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it?

Maybe the overwhelmingly negative response to CBPTBA (or whatever) will act as a wakeup call.

Re:When will it end? (5, Informative)

mikethegeek (257172) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387620)

" How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it?

Maybe the overwhelmingly negative response to CBPTBA (or whatever) will act as a wakeup call."

All I can say is that if these sorts of laws continue to be passed and abused, methinks the IP hoarders will be "the first against the wall when the revolution comes" (to "fair use" some Douglas Adams).

The fact that the DMCA *IS* most definately being used to stifle free speech, in the terms of POLITICAL speech (as $cientology IS a religious lobby), should ALONE merit review....

But, alas, so long as the RIAA/MPAA/$cientologists, et all, get to INITIATE the cases, they will continue to get to handpick the judges and courts.

Which will get us more sham trials like the DeCSS case.

What is needed is for us to somehow file a CLASS ACTION against those enforcing the DMCA, on a first amendment basis, and based on the copyright/fair use provision of the Constitution.

I had such high hopes for the Felten case, because for once our side would be the initiator, instead of the defendant... I beleive it was a mistake for him to go ahead and GIVE his speech, because to not do so would have made it easier to show that he was INTIMIDATED into silence by DMCA saber rattling.

Re:When will it end? (3, Interesting)

ProfMoriarty (518631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387680)

The fact that the DMCA *IS* most definately being used to stifle free speech, in the terms of POLITICAL speech (as $cientology IS a religious lobby), should ALONE merit review....

While I agree that the DMCA should be shot down ...

How will cases that the plaintiff claiming violate the DMCA actually get to court with the apparent collusion of keeping cases using the DMCA out of the court?

I believe that the case that Blizzard had initially claimed DMCA violations, but when the actual case was filed, there wasn't a mention of the DMCA.

If Scientology actually does go through with suing Google (which Google is attempting to avoid), will there be actual reference to the DMCA? Or will they pull those arguements and replace them with trademark/copyright infingements?

Scientology (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387573)

What kind of person would worship a religion whose highest leaders rely on poor copyright law to enforce their ideals? For that matter, what kind of piss-poor deity is less powerful than a handful of clerks?

Re:Scientology (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387677)

You underestimate the stupidity of the Great Unwashed.

Re:Scientology (4, Informative)

-brazil- (111867) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387694)

Scientology isn't really much of a religion at all, really. It's an MLM scheme that has found posing as a religion to be highly conductive to its fraudulent business practices.

Re:Scientology (AMEN!!) (2, Insightful)

JThaddeus (531998) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387711)

Amen Brother/Sister!! Do I hear a "Alleluia"?

But of course the Scientologists aren't the only ones in this game. Just look at the Christian Right. It amazes me (especially as a practicing Christian) that these bozos think that a religion that has managed to resist the efforts of the Romans, the Communists, etc. to stomp it out now requires the protection of the US Government in order to flourish.

Re:Scientology (AMEN!!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387726)

http://www.catalaw.com/detox

Detox - because Religion is Ridiculous

register (0, Offtopic)

tingalingusob (165964) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387583)

Can we get a link that doesn't make my skin crawl?

We'll keep your information private. The following fields are required. NYTimes.com respects your privacy, so we will never share any personal information without your consent.

amar

Re:register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387659)

On a useful note, type "scientology" into google and look at the second link. Apparently google changed it back to a direct link... Any one have a working example?

As for NYTimes registration,just do what I do. Lie.

Mickey Mouse
2000 Pennsylvania Ave.
Boulder, AZ 69696
joe69@hotmail.com

username: gggggggg
password: gggggggg

Of course the above is not real. Make up your own, quit whining.

Re:register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387713)

Let alone a cult that is founded by a science-fiction writer... a poor one at that (Hubbards works sucked..all of them) search deeply about this cult on the net... it is suprising that anyone with an IQ over 80 is taken in by it. Some religions leave things to be "it's a mystery of God" these freaks use items from the medical dark-ages to try and show "purity" and "worthyness" and "if you are lying and dont even know it" everything screams of witch hunts and scams. (I know walk into a Catholic church and view the riches and gold and wonder the same thing...)

The whole thing speaks of quackery and getting the "priests" rich... that's it... they dont want to save the world, they dont want to feed the poor, they dont want to do anything but milk their "followers" of every dime and self thought.

*8Posting as an AC to avoid the Scientology-police from suing me*

All your Base are Belong To us! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387588)

First
"All your Base are Belong To us!" Posting!

Crapflooding frees your mind!

woops can't mention a site that mentions it (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387592)

isn't talking about talking about Scientology gonna get the Travoltronbots after your ass?

Re:woops can't mention a site that mentions it (-1)

GafTheHorseInTears (565684) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387663)

Yes, so be safe and don't link to any anti-Scientology [xenu.net] sites.

Re:woops can't mention a site that mentions it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387750)

Scientology? How did you find out about that? Good thing we are also allowed to 'remove' people violating the DMCA.

Deja Vu! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387596)

This reminds me of another story on slashdot....you guys clearing out the 'ol email inbox?

Hmmmm (1)

NickRob (575331) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387597)

Unless Google misspelled "Scientologists" as "Earth Day" that link ins't that prominent

Re:Hmmmm (2)

Jburkholder (28127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387714)

Do a search for 'scientology' first, then this link comes up:

Society > Religion and Spirituality > Opposing Views > Scientology [google.com]

Links to clambake, steve fishman and the rest come up.

What, you were expecting it to be on the front page?

Re:Hmmmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387724)

Ugh, forgot about the blackout - not supposed to be reading or posting. My bad.

Scientologits........is a cult. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387598)

Any religion with hidden/secret documents/ceromonies, along w/ mormon/lds and few others are cults.

Now, while many here are agnostic (God doesn't believe in athiesm) and probably don't care, just when you see a bike rider let them know :O

Re:Scientologits........is a cult. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387675)

All religions began as cults. Wether it be a dozen blokes in Palestine raising Lazarus or Buddha sat under a tree. Most religions employ symbolism, the deeper meaning of which is rarely revealed to the lay person. Pearls to swine? Scientology doesn't seem to me to be a religious cult, it has no god. It is more of a personality cult. Like the Manson family.

How bout a kibosh on the "free reg" links... (1, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387603)

This story was "on the wire" - published all over the place. How about a better link than the crappy "free reg" NY Times one?

DMCA vs. Computer Users (1)

Jacer (574383) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387604)

Are we not all against the DMCA? or is taking a stand against it an act of terrorism? If one to sacrafice their liberties for security he shall recieve neither, I don't quite remember the author, nor do I remember the exact wording, if anyone does, would you post under please?

Re:DMCA vs. Computer Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387636)

If one to sacrafice their liberties for security he shall recieve neither, I don't quite remember the author, nor do I remember the exact wording, if anyone does, would you post under please?

How the fuck can you not remember the exact wording? It's been in countless sigs and repeated countless times since 9/11, you dolt.

Re:DMCA vs. Computer Users (1)

user32.ExitWindowsEx (250475) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387641)

"Those who seek security over freedom deserve neither" is the quote I think you're trying to reference and I think it was by Ben Franklin.

Re:DMCA vs. Computer Users (1)

haedesch (247543) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387658)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." == that's by Franklin. Makes a good IRC quitmessage :-)

Hey! I learned something from this! (3, Insightful)

Indras (515472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387605)

It really makes you ponder after you read this article about why Google did what they did. I'm sure it was just to pass the buck, or lower publicity about it.

The fact is, Xenu.net (the site in question here) is based in Norway. I highly doubt they could use the DMCA to have the links removed legally. Luckily for Google, however, this incident has put the DMCA on the spotlight. Now, more than just geeks care about it, especially when it ends up in the New York Times.

I'm not so sure (1)

shaldannon (752) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387623)

They used the DMCA to get Norweigan authorities to arrest whats-his-name that released DeCSS, no?

Re:I'm not so sure (2)

GauteL (29207) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387660)

Well.. personally I think they did, but the Norwegian authorities claim that whats-his-name was prosecuted solely based on Norwegian law.
I don't think they could actually defend prosecuting him using the DMCA since it isn't Norwegian law.

Not hosted in Norway, but in the Netherlands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387674)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/21/045320 0&mode=thread

Jon Katz, dead at 30 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387610)

Jon Katz 1972 - 2002 Phillip "Jon" Katz was found dead on April 14th of the year 2000. I have a copy of the ABC News obituary here [esva.net] . It's fairly gruesome.

Some folks have asked me what I know about Jon Katz. It occurs to me that most folks have probably never heard the story, and of the ones who have heard of it, few would know or remember the details. So here's what I know about Jon Katz, plus a little history to put it in context. The dates could be off a bit. I also have a copy of Ben Baker's take on the whole deal, which goes into a lot more detail.

In 1985 I wrote a program called ARC. It became very popular with the operators of electronic bulletin boards, which was what the online world consisted of in those pre-Internet days. A big part of ARC's popularity was because we made the source code available. I know that seems strange these days, but back then a lot of software was distributed in source. Every company that made computers made a completely different computer. Different architectures, operating systems, languages, everything. Getting a program written for one computer to work on another was often a major undertaking.

Then sometime around 1987 or so Jon Katz came out with PKARC, which was basically my ARC program with the compression/decompression routines rewritten in assembler, which made it run a lot faster. I have to hand it to him, he had a real talent for assembly coding.

We approached him about licensing, but he rejected the idea. One thing led to another, and eventually we sued him. Fortunately his program was such a blatant copy of mine that we were able to win the lawsuit before we ran out of money. In a negotiated settlement he again rejected any suggestion of licensing and went for a cash-out settlement. He repaid us for most of our legal bills and promised to stop selling his program sometime in 1988.

Then he fiddled with the file format a bit, renamed it from PKARC to PKZIP, and kept right on selling it.

We sort of lost touch after that. We would have liked to have kept in touch, but we couldn't afford the legal bills. There wasn't a lot to sue for anyway. None of us was getting rich.

So now Jon Katz is dead. He drank himself to death, alone in a motel room, a bottle of booze in his hand and five empties in the room. One can only guess what drove him to such a tragic end, but it is a fitting demise for a man whose professional reputation is based entirely on a lie.

I can think of no more fitting epitath than the final clause of the original ARC copyright statement:

"If you fail to abide by the terms of this license, then your conscience will haunt you for the rest of your life."

If you don't want to register, here it is: (-1, Redundant)

Rock 'N' Troll (566273) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387611)

Google Runs Into Copyright Dispute

By DAVID F. GALLAGHER

oogle, the company behind the popular Web search engine, has been playing a complicated game recently that involves the Church of Scientology and a controversial copyright law.

Legal experts say the episode highlights problems with the law that can make companies or individuals liable for linking to sites they do not control. And it has turned Google, whose business is built around a database of two billion Web pages, into a quiet campaigner for the freedom to link.

The church sent a complaint to Google last month, saying that its search results for "Scientology" included links to copyrighted church material that appears on a Web site critical of the church. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which was intended to make it easier for copyright holders to fight piracy, the complaint meant that Google was required to remove those links quickly or risk being sued for contributing to copyright infringement.

The site in question, Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net), is based in Norway, beyond the reach of the United States copyright act. The site portrays the church as a greedy cult that exploits its members and harasses critics. Andreas Heldal-Lund, the site's owner, says the posting of church materials, including some internal documents and pictures of church leaders, is allowable under the "fair use" provisions of internationally recognized copyright law.

When Google responded to the church's complaint by removing the links to the Scientology material, techies and free-speech advocates accused Google of censoring its search results. Google also briefly removed the link to Operation Clambake's home page but soon restored it, saying the removal had been a mistake.

At that point, according to Matthew Cutts, a software engineer at Google, it started developing a better way to handle such complaints. "We respond very quickly to challenges, and not just technical challenges but also these sort of interesting, delicate situations, as well," Mr. Cutts said.

Under Google's new policy, when it receives a complaint that causes it to remove links from its index, it will give a copy of the complaint to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse (chillingeffects.org). Chilling Effects is a project of a civil liberties advocacy group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several law schools. It it offers information about Internet rights issues.

In the new procedure, Google informs its users when a link has been removed from a set of search results and directs them to the Chilling Effects site. For example, a search for the word "helatrobus," which appears in some Scientology texts, brings up a page of results with this notice at the bottom: "In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed one result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the D.M.C.A. complaint for these removed results."

The notice includes a link to Scientology's complaint on chillingeffects.org, which lists the Web addresses of the material to which Google no longer links. The result is that a complaint could end up drawing more attention to the very pages it is trying to block.

Mr. Cutts said Google started linking to chillingeffects.org early this month but made no announcement, so it took a while for word to go around online. Meanwhile, Scientology sent Google two more complaints, citing pages within copies of the Operation Clambake site on other servers. All three complaints are now on the Chilling Effects site.

Don Marti, the technical editor of Linux Journal, first wrote about Google's move on the magazine's site. He said he had been so upset about the company's initial response to the Scientologists that he organized a small group of protesters who visited Google's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., where he also lives. Mr. Marti says he now applauds Google's efforts to make the process more transparent. If a letter of complaint simply makes a site more popular, "only a fool would send one," he said.

Helena Kobrin, a lawyer representing Scientology at the law firm of Moxon & Kobrin in Los Angeles, said that Google's use of the letters of complaint would not discourage the church from pursuing further complaints if necessary and that there was nothing in the letters that needed to be hidden. "I think they show very graphically to people that the only thing we're trying to do is protect copyrights," she said.

As part of its new process for handling complaints, Mr. Cutts said, Google added more information on its site explaining how site owners could have their links restored by filing a countercomplaint with Google. (The required forms can be downloaded from chillingeffects.org.) If site owners take this step, he said, they accept responsibility for the contents of their pages.

Mr. Heldal-Lund, a Norwegian citizen, said he would not file a countercomplaint because it would put him under the jurisdiction of United States law. He said that he regretted making so much trouble for Google but was glad that the incident had highlighted the church's pursuit of its critics.

The church, which has beliefs based on the idea that people need to release themselves from trauma suffered in past lives, has taken a keen interest in the Internet since 1994, when someone posted secret church teachings on an online discussion group. Critics say the church guards its teachings closely because it wants its followers to pay for access to higher levels of instruction. The church says that these payments are donations and that it is simply seeking to protect its rights online.

With its Chilling Effects partnership, Google is subtly making the point that the right to link is important to its business and to the health of the Web, said David G. Post, a law professor at Temple University who specializes in Internet issues.

"This is an example where copyright law is being used in conflict with free connectivity and free expression on the Net," he said. Dr. Post said Google's situation highlighted the need for more awareness of copyright issues, including pending legislation that is more restrictive than the 1998 law. The measure is backed by entertainment giants like Walt Disney, but technology companies like Intel have come out against it, saying it would hurt consumers and slow innovation.

Mr. Cutts said that the links to the complaints were not a political statement, just a way to "make sure our users get all of the information that they need." He said that Google had no official position on the copyright act and that so far it had not been involved in political activity or lobbying. But he said it "might take an interest in more of those issues."

The copyright controversy has had an interesting side effect for Operation Clambake. The Google software judges the importance of a page in part by looking at how many other pages link to it. Scientology's complaint set off a flurry of linking to the critics' site, pushing it up two spots to No. 2 in the search results for "Scientology" -- just below the church's official site.

Help me on this... (1)

musicscene (453302) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387618)

How is it that if some entity puts their information onto the net, where they would like everyone on the globe to see it, that they are bitching that Google is caching their info to ultimately send them to their site.

Beware the evil Scientologist's [scientology-lies.com] and their tax shelter for millionaires. If they can't get you with (their interpretation) of The Word(tm), they'll sue you.

no need to register, just generate a random login (5, Informative)

haedesch (247543) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387630)

Re:no need to register, just generate a random log (-1, Offtopic)

squashie (262176) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387666)

That is awesome! thanks!

Not much new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387633)

this article [slashdot.org] looks pretty much the same to me.

Link to Google Leters (1)

Gildenstern (62439) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387638)

The website that has the Google leters is
http://www.chillingeffects.org

hyperlinking (3, Interesting)

sadtrev (61519) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387643)

It's rather Ironic that the NYT article discussing the right to link in such a balanced and enlightened manner, itself contains no hyperlinks to any of the sites that it is discussing.

Karma Whoring (5, Informative)

Kredal (566494) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387644)

From news.yahoo.com [yahoo.com] is the same story, no registration required.

As seen on /. (1)

jamirocake (456380) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387648)

This story was previosly reported here [slashdot.org] . It seems thet the COS has been messing around with Google for a while now. Read the letter here [chillingeffects.org] and some more here [forbes.com] . And i tough old stuff was rejected by the /. editors, just beacuse it makes the NYT, does not make it slashdoteable.

Google is practicing Tai Chi (2, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387654)

In karate, you forcibly block attacks. In tai chi, you push at right angles and make the attack fly off into outer space without exhausting yourself.

Google is IMHO doing more to keep ideas flowing than they would in a head-on confrontation.

boom! (2, Informative)

slug359 (533109) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387655)

Remember when linking to Xenu.net to use Scientology [xenu.net] and not $cientology [xenu.net] . How many people use the $ in Google?

No freedom to link? (1)

19Buck (517176) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387657)

How about "freedom to obtain all information desired"?

From the article:
The church sent a complaint to Google last month, saying that its search results for "Scientology" included links to copyrighted church material that appears on a Web site critical of the church."

So what? are your church's morals and standards so shakey that you cannot take some criticism? Get used to it. you are a public orginization, not everyone is going to like you.

to me this sounds like they (The Church of Scientology) wants uninformed zombies who will never question them instead of informed intelligent people.

I admit that I do not know much about either The CoS OR Operation Clambake. Frankly, neither of them interests me all that much.

I do, however, believe in freedom of information. the owners and operators of "Operation Clambake" have just as much right to present their beliefs and information to the public as does the Church of Scientology. Just the same, the people that want information about The Church will probably want to see both pro and opposing veiwpoints.

I think if they want to get people's cooperation, then they should refute Operation Clambake's information in an orderly and intelligent manner. attempting to completely strike out an opposing veiwpoint in this manner to me just smacks of censorship and fascism. Two things i'm sure most people are against.

Hardly original. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387705)

> to me this sounds like they (The Church of
> Scientology) wants uninformed zombies who will
> never question them instead of informed intelligent
> people.

The Catholic Church has been doing this sort of thing for the last 2000 years. As do the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, most of Islam, etc.

No organized religion likes criticism, 'cos faith always withers under the light of reason.

Re:No freedom to link? (5, Funny)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387706)

"I think if they want to get people's cooperation, then they should refute Operation Clambake's information in an orderly and intelligent manner. "

What you fail to realize is that there's no information in the entire church which can be presented in an orderly, intelligent manner. They're claiming that we humans are Gods and that a cosmic warlord has fooled us all into thinking we're not. But we have a science fiction writer (Hubbard) to the rescue, as he's recently discovered the truth and is battling the evil warlord from his plush multi-million dollar mansion, while his followers learn to use their mystical powers.

If you could, please show me how that can be presented in an orderly, intelligent manner. I would suggest a comic book for guidance, but I don't think you'll be able to make it work.

Re:No freedom to link? (2)

SomeoneYouDontKnow (267893) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387730)

Scientology has been infamous for intimidating its critics for years. Nothing new here, except that they now have the DMCA as a weapon.

Re:No freedom to link? (2, Interesting)

slug359 (533109) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387747)

Remember the Co$ follow Hubbard's teachings:
"Don't ever defend. Always attack"
Here's [216.239.51.100] a cache of a page that goes into great detail about this quote.

This has been nicknamed by the Churches critics as Operation Footbullet [xenu.net] for obvious reasons.

BLACKOUT IS ON! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387662)

Read about it at kiro5hin.org

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/21/22416/53 09

Where's the government action? (3, Interesting)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387668)

Seeing as Scientology fits all the classic signs of a cult, why has it not been properly labled and dealt with? Simply reclassifying it properly would give law enforcement agencies much greater access to investigate and prosecute abuses within the "church" of Scientology and would serve to protect the members from themselves.

The only people who lose when you call Scientology what it is - a cult - are the profiteering people who run it.

Re:Where's the government action? (2)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387691)

What are the "classic signs" of a cult?

Signs of cult? Try the tenets of Christianity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387703)

Hence the reason for having dificulty in defining a cult. Few wish to get uppity Christians on their back

Re:Where's the government action? (5, Funny)

KelsoLundeen (454249) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387746)

Creepy people.

Leaders who wear sunglasses.

Guys who sit in big chairs.

Vats.

Re:Where's the government action? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387736)

I searched google for "signs of cult" and this
was result #5.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/cultdef.html [workingpsychology.com]

There's a good list about 2 or 3 pages down.

Re:Where's the government action? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387738)

> why has it not been properly labled and dealt with?

> The only people who lose when you call Scientology what it is - a cult - are the profiteering people who run it.

These people just happen to be prominent actors, lawyers, reporters, etc. Ever wonder why you very rarely see Scientology mentioned on CNN? Greta Van Susteran, one of the main legal anchors for CNN is a scientologist (along with her husband, another prominent lawyer). Examples like this are not uncommon.

It is a sad fact that scientology will probably never be reclassified as a cult or seriously attacked in the mainstream media, simply because too many people with money and position have a vested interest in it.

Free speech? (0, Offtopic)

Everach (559166) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387678)

Free Speech? You want fries with that?

Far too much info about the lawyers involved. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387686)

A google search on the names Moxon and Kobrin yielded this [demon.co.uk] remarkably thorough document about the lawfirm partners...

Most important point missed (2)

blamanj (253811) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387693)

Unfortunately, the article reads like an account of two warring clans in the Appalachians. How quaint. The important point, which is that Google, which does NOT publish the "contested" information, is being forced to delist it.

The current use of the DMCA is like forcing the phone company to delist businesses anytime someone files a complaint against that business. Until the writer's make clear what a travesty this is, Joe Public isn't going to be concerned.

first penis bird post (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387697)

go bite one today, fags!

Here's the link... (-1, Troll)

david z, horse guy (574893) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387704)

For all of you that haven't been able to find it, the link for Google is: http://www.google.com [google.com]

I found that link by doing a search on Yahoo [yahoo.com]

(Man, I hate it when people don't post links to what they're talking about! How else are we supposed to know what "Google" is??)

Why not opt out? (1)

Kizzle (555439) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387710)

Why don't these sites just opt out of indexing? Its not hard, just throw couple lines of code in your html and bye bye people finding your site on google.

Not the only site they've de-listed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387718)

This isn't the only time Google has dropped web sites from it's database because of legal pressure. Recently Google also dropped links to another site which detailed how to damage German railroad system. It is detailed here [bizreport.com] .

Now, while these railroad links being dropped is understandable, it highlights a bigger problem regarding free speech on the Internet with Google. It seems that everytime legal pressure is being put on Google, they are dropping web sites. Guess that's one of the problem's with company's when they start turning into monopolies- they can do pretty much what they want to a la Microsoft-style.

Whose fault is this? (2, Insightful)

The.Nihilist (543140) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387722)

1. CoS made the information available in some format, either data, print or indoctrination, charging a fee for access to the information.

2. Someone (Clambake, et al.) takes that information, and makes it public.

3. A search engine picks up on the webpage, and posts links, without censoring or otherwise screening the information.

Suddenly, DMCA is invoked, and it's the... search engine's fault? Why is the DMCA used to attack the avenue in which the information is distributed (Google, Napster, Slash^H^H^H^H^H informative news/opinion sources), when the actual "culprits" (Clambake, evil stereotypical teenage anarchist MP3 downloader) are left alone? Clambake's outside US jurisdiction (and technically, it's also just another avenue for criticism), so we go after search engines that are just doing their job? It's like the RIAA suing the Post Office for allowing someone from Canada snail mail Celine Dion's latest bootlegs to someone in Idaho.

There's GOT to be a point when the US legal system is going to get tired of the abuse, not the use, of the DMCA in the spirit in which it was written.

(My apologies for the pontificating. It's a Monday.)

Google's ad policy is worse. (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387725)


We are not able to run the following ad you have created using the Google AdWords Advertising Program:

Headline: The c99 standard must go!
Line one: The committee has failed to provide
Line two: a usable standard. Boycott it now!
Home Page URL: biodome.org/~qg/fairuse.html
Link to URL: http://biodome.org/~qg/fairuse.html

Thank you for advertising on Google. We review ads on a case-by-case basis and reserve the right to not run certain ads, or certain categories of ads. Due to our current ads policy, we are unable to run your ad on Google.

Google believes strongly in freedom of expression and therefore offers broad access to content across the web without censoring search results. At the same time, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site, as noted in our advertising terms and conditions. We do not accept advertising that advocates against any individual, group, or organization. Please note that the decisions we make concerning advertising in no way affect the search results we deliver.

Please feel free to email us at adwords@google.com with further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

The Google AdWords Team

Neither the guidelines [google.com] nor the terms and conditions [google.com] say anything against "advocating against" any individual, group, or organization. So basically google reserves the right to censor any ad they feel like. Adult content is A-OK, but anything remotely opinionated goes.

very amusing (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387735)

everyday theres a post on slashdot concerning DMCA. Its really amusing that a bunch of jokers are sitting in your senate. even my parliament has jokers, and unless we stop electing jokers, we will keep ongetting bored by similar stories on slashdot

boy i tell you whut (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387740)

i wonder if the goatse guy could pass a child

Two Things (1)

PurpleHigh (519921) | more than 12 years ago | (#3387741)

1. Perhaps those who are critical of Christian Science would be better served by using P2P networks. For example, instead of publishing these documents on the web, they could set up a webpage describing what can be found on those networks, and then get people to host the documents on their hard drives. Everyone from /. could pitch in and help! Google could then list the website since it contains absolutely no copyrighted material, and Christian Science gets put in the same boat as the RIAA.

2. I couldn't help noticing that Christian Science Monitor is a "US News Source" on Google's "News and Resources" page. Something bothers me about that.

In case this story gets slashdotted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3387751)

You can find it Here. [slashdot.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...