Sharman Networks sue K++ developers, force Google to remove K++ links from results

[Skanky Burns]

I like the irony that you can download K++ using the Kazaa network, and there isn't a great deal the people who built the network can do about it.

[laurentius]

Try/use Emule instead. I tried kazaa myself but throw it away after about 2 hours because its lameness

[Skanky Burns]

eMule is only really good for large files. For mp3's and even small movies, K is much better. By the time you actually get to the beginning of someone's queue in eMule, your download would be complete with K.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
DMCA actions like this are akin to the government preventing an encyclopedia from saying what Communism is.

Then again, Google's response is like the encyclopedia inserting a special page with an image of the bird.

EDIT: IMO, Google should take one of these to court--it's HIGHLY unlikely that a court would not overturn at least part of the DMCA because of its "chilling effects" such as this.

Why should Google spend the money if the party directly affected doesn't want to bother? Google ain't losing anything here.

[Dis]

does Kazaa lite still work though?

That's all I care about

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What does DMCA has anything to do with this?

Everything. The fact that Google is a search engine rather than a host is irrelevant. Knowlingly aiding in the distribution of infringing material is illegal, and once Google is put on notice, they obviously know.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
eMule is only really good for large files. For mp3's and even small movies, K is much better. By the time you actually get to the beginning of someone's queue in eMule, your download would be complete with K.

Depends whether you have high or low ID....
I get my mp3 fast..

[Skanky Burns]

High id only. Still slower.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Everything. The fact that Google is a search engine rather than a host is irrelevant. Knowlingly aiding in the distribution of infringing material is illegal, and once Google is put on notice, they obviously know.

It's not that Google is aiding in distribution -- the programs in question aren't even on Google's own servers -- it's that they can be held vicariously liable for infringement after the time that they are notified of the search results, under the DMCA's "safe harbour" provision. Google's been hit with a lot of requests to take down offending material to various copyright holders -- same cases downright ridiculous ones (i.e. the Church of Scientology had Google remove access to sites critical of them, claiming the use of their name without their permission on the part of the criticizers was copyright infringement) -- but under the DMCA they either have to respond & take down the links immediately or they can be sued and potentially lose their status as a "safe harbour" .

See http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi for many examples of what Google has to put up with.

[JohnT]

"In general this shows how the Digital Millenium Act is capable of limiting access to information, which was previously thought to be free."

Well, only by the young and broke. As somebody who has purchased newspapers, gone into bookstores, etc. I can most emphatically assure you that Information is not free and has never been.

[yaroslav]

Thank you SIro, for that history. It is amusing... and troubling, at the same time!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Knowlingly aiding in the distribution of infringing material is illegal, and once Google is put on notice, they obviously know.

Sure, but unless Sharman Networks can prove that K++ infringes upon their copyright, Google should not be effected.

[Asher]

Proving K++ infringes upon their copyright is easier then trivial...

[mrmitchell]

Why should Google spend the money if the party directly affected doesn't want to bother? Google ain't losing anything here.

They're losing respect, but they gain it all back with the "We have removed results" notice

Sure, but unless Sharman Networks can prove that K++ infringes upon their copyright, Google should not be effected.

Reverse engineering software and distributing the new copy...it creates a loss for the original creator, because no advertising revenue is derived from it. (Unfortunately), that's what the law says.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Reverse engineering software and distributing the new copy...it creates a loss for the original creator, because no advertising revenue is derived from it. (Unfortunately), that's what the law says.

A "clean room" approach to reverse engineering is allowed by copyright laws AFAIK.