6 ms·

Your IP: does Google care?

34 points by hachiya 14y ago

peterkelly 14y ago
Wait, so search engines are now supposed to be responsible not just for indexing the web and providing relevant results, but also ensuring that all links they display are compliant with copyright laws? Seems to me that the (legitimate) claim of copyright infringement should be targeted at the website hosting the infringing material, not a search engine that happened to index it.
DanBC 14y ago
I'm not quite sure why this is a Google problem. What are they supposed to do? What are they not doing in this specific instance?
- doe88 14y ago
  > What are they not doing in this specific instance? Remove the link to the content of his book he choose not to publically share. I fail to see what's difficult to understand.
  - jre 14y ago
    The root of the problem is the Indonesian institution hosting the book, not Google. A search engine should show you what's publicly available on the internet with as little filters as possible, otherwise it opens the doors to a lot of abuse.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - DanBC 14y ago
    > Remove the link to the content of his book They have removed the link. Google removes very many links every day. There's clear law about this, and Google obeys that law. Are you suggesting that the need to do more than the law says? Whatever Google does, the content is still available. It's been posted to Usenet news at least once. (http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Construction&max=100&adv_age=1100&server= http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Constructi...)
    - doe88 14y ago
      > Are you suggesting that the need to do more than the law says? No, all I'm suggesting is that Google removes this link [1] as asked by the author of the book. Again, I fail to see what's hard to understand. > Whatever Google does, the content is still available. It's been posted to Usenet news at least once. (http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Constructi... http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Constructi...) Google is not responsible for others indexing systems, I've never said otherwise. [1] http://www.imagebam.com/image/e2e9df239055991 http://www.imagebam.com/image/e2e9df239055991
      - packetslave 14y ago
        If you look carefully, you'll note that the link in your screenshot is not the same as the one in Dr. Meyer's DMCA complaint.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - DanBC 14y ago
        They did remove the link that the author asked them to remove. That just promoted another link to a pirate version of the book up the list. A useful service might be something that helps tell Indonesian colleges that they've allowed directory traversal open, and that they have copyright violating materials available to the world. Or a tool that helps gather a list of all the IP owners of a collection of material at a site (the site in the image also has other books, as well as a 4.3 GB iso called "IBM_RSA_V803" (I'm guessing it's IBM's Rational Software Architect?) and then helps with coordinate a collaborative request for IP takedown effort.
  - omaranto 14y ago
    They did remove the link, what are you talking about?
pedrocr 14y ago
No, and it shouldn't. Google Search's mission is to show relevant results to queries. Clearly it's doing that here as it found the full content of a highly relevant book by the author. The fact that the site pointed to is a copyright violation is a problem with the website not with Google. The avenues for enforcement may suck but that's not Google's fault. The author doesn't even mention Bing, DuckDuckGo, or any other search engine. Those could also probably be used to find this website. Google Search just happens to be very good and very popular. Forcing it to be the IP police because of that would be a tax on innovation and success.
dlisboa 14y ago
Google has little to do with it, but as much respect I have for Meyer I can't feel bad for him in the slightest: > You can buy it at Amazon [5] for $97.40, a bit less for a used copy. People would still pirate it if it cost $0.97, but why are you even pursuing that kind of exorbitant pricing? If it was your publisher that made that price, why personally complain if you don't agree? If I'm an educator, my calling is to teach. It isn't to make exorbitant amounts of money from my words, it is for my words to reach as many people as they can and maybe help someone. He has a (I imagine) highly well-paid job and could get an even more financially rewarding one anytime he wants in an industry that'd be pining to hire him. If this was his publisher making the post I'd understand. But personally complaining about how someone in Indonesia is stealing your overpriced textbook to try to pass on that intellectual knowledge to others who are (most likely) less privileged is just impossible to sympathize with. Were they misrepresenting his work or something similar? If it's that I can understand protecting your IP. If it's merely redistributing it then no, I can't. I'm biased because I don't agree with nearly any part of Intellectual Property, but my problem here isn't ideological, just material: pricing it out of reach for 80% of the world's population and then complaining when people want access to it.
- smoyer 14y ago
  Not to mention it's the second edition from 1997. Hasn't anything happened in OOD/OOP during the last 15+ years that would make it worth updating? Edit: I just skimmed the table of contents (11 pages) and while I suspect there are some nuggets of gold in the book, I'm not sure they're worth reading 1500 pages. I've found that the problems new developers have with OOD/OOP are architectural and generally related to a specific language and/or framework.
  - sixbrx 14y ago
    I think it would be worth perusing (not buying), just to see if he still recommends that procedures (routines with side effects) should never return any value, but should instead set one or more member variables - one or more per procedure - which callers should access after the call by separate getter methods. Really.
- 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pygy_ 14y ago
Yes, it does, and the link has been removed. At the bottom of the Google Scholar page linked in the article[0], you find the following notice: > In 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. It leads to [1], which has been filed by Bertrand Meyer, and corresponds to the "kms" file he referenced in his post. That being said, there are five other links to his book in pdf form in the results. [0] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11525268084016840825&hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0,5 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=115252680840168408... [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089 http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089
- ben0x539 14y ago
  Helpfully enough, the entry on chillingeffects.org now directly links to the pdf as well.
  - pygy_ 14y ago
    ... as do most DMCA notifications archived there. It makes Google a good search engine for copyright infringing material. Just check the DMCA section at the bottom of the page.
    - ben0x539 14y ago
      Why isn't chillingeffects.org hit with DCMA takedown notices?
      - pygy_ 14y ago
        They don't link to anything, they just list URLs. Their FAQ regarding the legality of hyperlinks (US jurisprudence) can be found here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID152 http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID152
- drostie 14y ago
dchest 14y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=Object-Oriented+Software+Construction https://www.google.com/search?q=Object-Oriented+Software+Con... gives: "In 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." Here's DMCA complaint: http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089 http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089
ezequiel-garzon 14y ago
Here is an almost too obvious idea... which I'm confident my fellow HNers will debunk in minutes! Why doesn't Google allow, indeed encourage, a pre-publication process? As I see it, this registration would allow me to "predict" that my 5000-word essay, which can't be found anywhere on the Internet right now, will appear on example.com/article within a day. Almost beyond any reasonable doubt that should bring lots of credibility to my allowed site(s) and accurately destroy the credibility of unscrupulous sites that simply copy and paste. By the way, this could also apply to works placed in the public domain [1], and copyrighted material that will not (or should not) appear freely on the web, as is the case with the OP's book. A refined API would speed up the process and allow authors to attach copyright restrictions to the resource in question. Needless to say, this process could be extended to other search engines, but it's safe to say right now that if Google alone allowed something like this it could rectify many problems in SEO. I guess pre-registering heavy data such as images or video may not be reasonable yet, but plain text (even excluding HTML and CSS) could be a great beginning. Thoughts? [1] Even if a work is placed in the public domain, it would be reasonable to give the author's original version due prominence in the search results.
- largesse 14y ago
  Short answer: It would bring Google an incredible amount of grief. 99.9% of everything you read on the web is copyrighted text.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- lukesandberg 14y ago
  The bigger problem would be abuse. Google couldn't verify that you actually own what you say you do. So people could easily spam the system to get content they don't like removed. This is currently a problem with the DMCA, but at least with the DMCA there is legal recourse for bad faith requests. The worst punishment that could be done with your proposed system would be account cancellation, which would not be a deterrent.
autarch 14y ago
Let me simplify this title ... "Does Google Care?" And the answer is a resounding no. I like using many Google products, but as a company I find Google to be somewhat despicable. They have enormous power and the sheer impossibility of making human contact with anyone at Google seems like an abuse of that power.
packetslave 14y ago
Note that this blog post is from Jan 28, so it's entirely possible the DMCA content removal hadn't happened yet when Dr. Meyer wrote it.
doctorstupid 14y ago
Google is a reflection of the web. What the author has is a problem with the content of the web, not with Google. He's asking Google to censor the web, which is very dangerous. Instead of spoiling the reflection for everyone, he should change what is being reflected. I know that he can't really do that in this case, but who expects anything worth reading to not end up online for free?

34 points by hachiya 14y ago

Wait, so search engines are now supposed to be responsible not just for indexing the web and providing relevant results, but also ensuring that all links they display are compliant with copyright laws? Seems to me that the (legitimate) claim of copyright infringement should be targeted at the website hosting the infringing material, not a search engine that happened to index it.

DanBC 14y ago

I'm not quite sure why this is a Google problem. What are they supposed to do? What are they not doing in this specific instance?

doe88 14y ago
> What are they not doing in this specific instance? Remove the link to the content of his book he choose not to publically share. I fail to see what's difficult to understand.
- jre 14y ago
  The root of the problem is the Indonesian institution hosting the book, not Google. A search engine should show you what's publicly available on the internet with as little filters as possible, otherwise it opens the doors to a lot of abuse.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 14y ago
  > Remove the link to the content of his book They have removed the link. Google removes very many links every day. There's clear law about this, and Google obeys that law. Are you suggesting that the need to do more than the law says? Whatever Google does, the content is still available. It's been posted to Usenet news at least once. (http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Construction&max=100&adv_age=1100&server= http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Constructi...)
  - doe88 14y ago
    > Are you suggesting that the need to do more than the law says? No, all I'm suggesting is that Google removes this link [1] as asked by the author of the book. Again, I fail to see what's hard to understand. > Whatever Google does, the content is still available. It's been posted to Usenet news at least once. (http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Constructi... http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Constructi...) Google is not responsible for others indexing systems, I've never said otherwise. [1] http://www.imagebam.com/image/e2e9df239055991 http://www.imagebam.com/image/e2e9df239055991
    - packetslave 14y ago
      If you look carefully, you'll note that the link in your screenshot is not the same as the one in Dr. Meyer's DMCA complaint.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - DanBC 14y ago
      They did remove the link that the author asked them to remove. That just promoted another link to a pirate version of the book up the list. A useful service might be something that helps tell Indonesian colleges that they've allowed directory traversal open, and that they have copyright violating materials available to the world. Or a tool that helps gather a list of all the IP owners of a collection of material at a site (the site in the image also has other books, as well as a 4.3 GB iso called "IBM_RSA_V803" (I'm guessing it's IBM's Rational Software Architect?) and then helps with coordinate a collaborative request for IP takedown effort.
- omaranto 14y ago
  They did remove the link, what are you talking about?

pedrocr 14y ago

No, and it shouldn't. Google Search's mission is to show relevant results to queries. Clearly it's doing that here as it found the full content of a highly relevant book by the author. The fact that the site pointed to is a copyright violation is a problem with the website not with Google. The avenues for enforcement may suck but that's not Google's fault. The author doesn't even mention Bing, DuckDuckGo, or any other search engine. Those could also probably be used to find this website. Google Search just happens to be very good and very popular. Forcing it to be the IP police because of that would be a tax on innovation and success.

dlisboa 14y ago

Google has little to do with it, but as much respect I have for Meyer I can't feel bad for him in the slightest: > You can buy it at Amazon [5] for $97.40, a bit less for a used copy. People would still pirate it if it cost $0.97, but why are you even pursuing that kind of exorbitant pricing? If it was your publisher that made that price, why personally complain if you don't agree? If I'm an educator, my calling is to teach. It isn't to make exorbitant amounts of money from my words, it is for my words to reach as many people as they can and maybe help someone. He has a (I imagine) highly well-paid job and could get an even more financially rewarding one anytime he wants in an industry that'd be pining to hire him. If this was his publisher making the post I'd understand. But personally complaining about how someone in Indonesia is stealing your overpriced textbook to try to pass on that intellectual knowledge to others who are (most likely) less privileged is just impossible to sympathize with. Were they misrepresenting his work or something similar? If it's that I can understand protecting your IP. If it's merely redistributing it then no, I can't. I'm biased because I don't agree with nearly any part of Intellectual Property, but my problem here isn't ideological, just material: pricing it out of reach for 80% of the world's population and then complaining when people want access to it.

smoyer 14y ago
Not to mention it's the second edition from 1997. Hasn't anything happened in OOD/OOP during the last 15+ years that would make it worth updating? Edit: I just skimmed the table of contents (11 pages) and while I suspect there are some nuggets of gold in the book, I'm not sure they're worth reading 1500 pages. I've found that the problems new developers have with OOD/OOP are architectural and generally related to a specific language and/or framework.
- sixbrx 14y ago
  I think it would be worth perusing (not buying), just to see if he still recommends that procedures (routines with side effects) should never return any value, but should instead set one or more member variables - one or more per procedure - which callers should access after the call by separate getter methods. Really.
14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

pygy_ 14y ago

Yes, it does, and the link has been removed. At the bottom of the Google Scholar page linked in the article[0], you find the following notice: > In 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. It leads to [1], which has been filed by Bertrand Meyer, and corresponds to the "kms" file he referenced in his post. That being said, there are five other links to his book in pdf form in the results. [0] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11525268084016840825&hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0,5 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=115252680840168408... [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089 http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089

ben0x539 14y ago
Helpfully enough, the entry on chillingeffects.org now directly links to the pdf as well.
- pygy_ 14y ago
  ... as do most DMCA notifications archived there. It makes Google a good search engine for copyright infringing material. Just check the DMCA section at the bottom of the page.
  - ben0x539 14y ago
    Why isn't chillingeffects.org hit with DCMA takedown notices?
    - pygy_ 14y ago
      They don't link to anything, they just list URLs. Their FAQ regarding the legality of hyperlinks (US jurisprudence) can be found here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID152 http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID152
drostie 14y ago

dchest 14y ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=Object-Oriented+Software+Construction https://www.google.com/search?q=Object-Oriented+Software+Con... gives: "In 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." Here's DMCA complaint: http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089 http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089

ezequiel-garzon 14y ago

Here is an almost too obvious idea... which I'm confident my fellow HNers will debunk in minutes! Why doesn't Google allow, indeed encourage, a pre-publication process? As I see it, this registration would allow me to "predict" that my 5000-word essay, which can't be found anywhere on the Internet right now, will appear on example.com/article within a day. Almost beyond any reasonable doubt that should bring lots of credibility to my allowed site(s) and accurately destroy the credibility of unscrupulous sites that simply copy and paste. By the way, this could also apply to works placed in the public domain [1], and copyrighted material that will not (or should not) appear freely on the web, as is the case with the OP's book. A refined API would speed up the process and allow authors to attach copyright restrictions to the resource in question. Needless to say, this process could be extended to other search engines, but it's safe to say right now that if Google alone allowed something like this it could rectify many problems in SEO. I guess pre-registering heavy data such as images or video may not be reasonable yet, but plain text (even excluding HTML and CSS) could be a great beginning. Thoughts? [1] Even if a work is placed in the public domain, it would be reasonable to give the author's original version due prominence in the search results.

largesse 14y ago
Short answer: It would bring Google an incredible amount of grief. 99.9% of everything you read on the web is copyrighted text.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
lukesandberg 14y ago
The bigger problem would be abuse. Google couldn't verify that you actually own what you say you do. So people could easily spam the system to get content they don't like removed. This is currently a problem with the DMCA, but at least with the DMCA there is legal recourse for bad faith requests. The worst punishment that could be done with your proposed system would be account cancellation, which would not be a deterrent.

autarch 14y ago

Let me simplify this title ... "Does Google Care?" And the answer is a resounding no. I like using many Google products, but as a company I find Google to be somewhat despicable. They have enormous power and the sheer impossibility of making human contact with anyone at Google seems like an abuse of that power.

packetslave 14y ago

Note that this blog post is from Jan 28, so it's entirely possible the DMCA content removal hadn't happened yet when Dr. Meyer wrote it.

doctorstupid 14y ago

Google is a reflection of the web. What the author has is a problem with the content of the web, not with Google. He's asking Google to censor the web, which is very dangerous. Instead of spoiling the reflection for everyone, he should change what is being reflected. I know that he can't really do that in this case, but who expects anything worth reading to not end up online for free?