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.<p>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.
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:<p><i>> 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.</i><p>It leads to [1], which has been filed by Bertrand Meyer, and corresponds to the "kms" file he referenced in his post.<p>That being said, there are five other links to his book in pdf form in the results.<p>[0] <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11525268084016840825&hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0,5" rel="nofollow">http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=115252680840168408...</a><p>[1] <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089" rel="nofollow">http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089</a>
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:<p>> You can buy it at Amazon [5] for $97.40, a bit less for a used copy.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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?<p>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.
Here is an almost too obvious idea... which I'm confident my fellow HNers will debunk in minutes!<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Thoughts?<p>[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.
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Object-Oriented+Software+Construction" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=Object-Oriented+Software+Con...</a> gives:<p>"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."<p>Here's DMCA complaint:<p><a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089" rel="nofollow">http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089</a>
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.<p>Instead of spoiling the reflection for everyone, he should change what is being reflected.<p>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?
Let me simplify this title ...<p>"Does Google Care?" And the answer is a resounding no.<p>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.