Church of Scientology wields the DMCA, Google removes xenu.net || kuro5hin.org


	create account \| help/FAQ \| contact \| links \| search \| IRC \| site news

Everything

We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Church of Scientology wields the DMCA, Google removes xenu.net

By arcade in News
Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 12:46:36 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)

Yesterday, I posted this story about how xenu.net no longer shows up in results returned from Google. Now, more information has turned up. The Church of Scientology is wielding the DMCA!

Update [2002-3-21 23:18:44 by rusty]: Google relists xenu.net! Slashdot has some more info, much of which came from the threads below in the first place. Hurray for Google! And hurray for all of you for making a fuss about it.

Update [2002-3-22 11:33:38 by rusty]: Celebrating too early? Erik Moeller points out that it appears Google has only relisted the index page of xenu.net.

Yesterday, I speculated about googlebombing being the reason for xenu.net no longer being returned from Google. Things have changed a bit, and more information is available now. First of all, Google now returns a lot of pages from xenu.net, just not the ones mentioned in the link above. In addition, ranking of various xenu.net pages is now totally skewed compared with how many links to the site.

The Church of Scientology has abused the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to get Google to remove a bunch of links. Google caved at once, even though they claim that they do not remove pages. To quote Google: Since Google is committed to providing thorough and unbiased search results for our users, we cannot participate in the practice of censoring information on the world wide web. This, apparently, is no longer Google's policy.

In addition, Google can be reached at help@google.com, and press@google.com - if you've got opinions about this.

Sponsors

Managed Hosting
VoxCAST Content Delivery
Raw Infrastructure

Poll

Should Google yield to threats about the DMCA?

Yes 6%

No 93%

Votes: 143
Results | Other Polls

Church of Scientology wields the DMCA, Google removes xenu.net | 250 comments (225 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)

Any search engines really in the free world? (4.00 / 4) (#3)
by AndrewH on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 08:59:07 AM EST

At the moment the first matches for “operation clambake” on www.google.co.uk, www.google.de and www.google.fr point to www.xenu.net/archive/WIR/, not blackholed pagers.
John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?

XENU HAS LEFT THE BUILDING (1.85 / 7) (#12)
by dukethug on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 09:24:20 AM EST

Great news! Xenu.net is back on Google! Results of Google search for "Operation Clambake"

This is way cool- I was playing on Google this morning, and thinking of the article from yesterday, typed in "Operation Clambake"- much to my surprise, I got two results from xenu.net, followed by a whole bunch of scientology crap. Then, when I saw this article in the queue, and ran the query again, I got a whole bunch of links to xenu.net!!! Joy! Happiness! Faith in Google restored!

Really interesting though- the first results returned link to the archives, NOT the xenu.net main page...you can't stop the DMCA, you can only hope to contain it...

Nope by Eloquence, 03/21/2002 09:36:27 AM EST (5.00 / 1)

guilty as charged by dukethug, 03/21/2002 09:57:19 AM EST (none / 0)

Need to show what RTC is doing (4.33 / 6) (#13)
by BadDoggie on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 09:27:04 AM EST

(This is editorial as well as topical)

At first, I only thought this was about the Google Cache (unwittingly) having a bunch of NOTs and OT levels, which could be removed and excluded and I wouldn't bitch too much about that, since it's been upheld in US Courts (although a Dutch Google would be able to cache the stuff). Then I saw what it was about.

Proof that this has happened exists. Simply try Google yourself. Xenu.net and clambake.org are also not known for propaganda and lies, unlike a certain cult involved in this. This story addresses two VERY important threats to freedom on-line and off: Scientology and the DMCA

The DMCA is stacked in the Plaintiff's favour. If a complaint is received, the affected person(s) must act & respond first, then ask questions later. *IF* Google wants to respond. Google could request proof for each citation and Scientology would then drag this out for a while.

You do NOT want to fuck with RTC and their barratrous, more-evil-than-anything-you-can-name lawyers, and Google knows this.

Google could try suing Scientology for fraud if this claim can't hold up, but I don't think they'll ever sell enough of their search appliances to be able to afford a legal battle with the CoS. Xenu.net & Clambake could also sue for the fraud or misrepresentation, but it would help if they're somehow losing money (fewer banner ad impressions) so they can hit CoS with Restraint of Trade complaints.

It'll be expensive. This is going to cost money and freedom. I'm willing to part with some more money to protect a few remnants of freedom, so if Google starts a Defense-from-CoS fund, I'll donate, so long as it doesn't use PayPal.

Front Page!

woof.

Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.

Come back when you've actually read the DMCA by sigwinch, 03/21/2002 02:35:43 PM EST (4.75 / 4)

not quite correct by martingale, 03/21/2002 08:02:08 PM EST (3.00 / 1)

DMCA by sigwinch, 03/21/2002 10:06:34 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

hmm... by martingale, 03/22/2002 12:43:15 AM EST (none / 0)

Poll option: Cull cached content (1.75 / 4) (#15)
by Vs on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 09:31:23 AM EST

I don't think that Google can/should be forced to remove results, although they clearly shouldn't cache copyright controled content.
--
Where are the immoderate submissions?

Re: Cull cached content by alisdair, 03/21/2002 11:22:28 AM EST (4.00 / 2)
Better get rid of libraries too, then... by rebelcool, 03/21/2002 01:40:08 PM EST (4.66 / 3)

Libraries by Vs, 03/21/2002 02:22:18 PM EST (none / 0)

granted.. by rebelcool, 03/21/2002 02:24:35 PM EST (none / 0)

Copyrighted content? by tekue, 03/22/2002 05:21:06 AM EST (none / 0)

Twisted by Vs, 03/22/2002 10:31:30 AM EST (none / 0)

Oh, come on.. by tekue, 03/27/2002 05:08:36 AM EST (none / 0)

Simply appalling.... (3.75 / 8) (#19)
by Kayser Soze on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 09:40:13 AM EST

If this story is true, and I am fairly convinced it is, it should be the last straw for all people who believe in freedom of speech.

The DMCA has gone *way* too far already. I cannot believe that legislators, in good conscience, would allow a law to pass that not only can knowingly be used as a legislative weapon to prevent free speech, but also assumes guilt, rather than innocence on the part of the accused.

I sincerely believe that xenu.net, as well as similar organizations, have the right to use materials from the Church of Scientology to warn people about what they believe is a sham, at best. I would consider this fair use.

How soon before the DMCA, similar laws, and draconian institutions, such as the Church of Scientology, begin to make the world we live in into a digital version of Fahrenheit 451?

I apologize for sounding rant-y, but I cannot just sit and ignore gross violations of personal rights and the undermining of freedoms. Furthermore, I challenge the Church of Scientology to try and silence me.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Rene Descartes

Give over by streetlawyer, 03/21/2002 10:10:46 AM EST (3.63 / 11)

It's gone beyond by jayhawk88, 03/21/2002 10:20:48 AM EST (5.00 / 1)
Doubtful. by Kayser Soze, 03/21/2002 10:22:13 AM EST (4.75 / 4)

not you, but k5 by Sanityman, 03/21/2002 01:17:59 PM EST (5.00 / 3)

Agreed. by Kayser Soze, 03/21/2002 01:44:59 PM EST (none / 0)

Prove it. by Thaeus, 03/21/2002 02:06:00 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Help me prove it.... by Kayser Soze, 03/21/2002 03:21:31 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

It'll happen by rusty, 03/21/2002 02:24:06 PM EST (4.50 / 2)

If it does happen.... by Kayser Soze, 03/21/2002 02:48:13 PM EST (none / 0)
Why are you convinced by aphrael, 03/21/2002 05:32:12 PM EST (none / 0)

Openness + Litigiousness by rusty, 03/21/2002 05:34:53 PM EST (none / 0)

Eep? by unDees, 03/21/2002 02:13:10 PM EST (none / 0)

anon.penet.fi.... by Elkor, 03/21/2002 03:37:37 PM EST (5.00 / 2)

It's worth mentioning... by Count Zero, 03/21/2002 04:12:39 PM EST (5.00 / 3)

Thanks by unDees, 03/22/2002 01:24:14 PM EST (none / 0)

Why does this surprise you ? by pr0spero, 03/21/2002 04:55:26 PM EST (none / 0)

Blatantly copied from slashdot but... (4.33 / 6) (#29)
by p0ppe on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 10:18:54 AM EST

Oink.NET: "Check out Google's removal policy for a little more perspective (bold text is their doing, not mine):

"Google views the quality of its search results as an extremely important priority. Therefore, Google stops indexing the pages on your site only at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for those pages. This policy is necessary to ensure that pages are not inappropriately removed from our index.

"Since Google is committed to providing thorough and unbiased search results for our users, we cannot participate in the practice of censoring information on the world wide web.""

"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

typo by p0ppe, 03/21/2002 10:20:14 AM EST (2.00 / 2)
about the sheep... by johwsun, 03/22/2002 01:54:58 AM EST (none / 0)

I wonder... (2.66 / 3) (#33)
by cannis on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 10:28:32 AM EST

If this makes google responsible for every site
that they link to and/or cache? I wonder if Pennsylvania
will sue google into a pile of rubble for accidently linking
to something illegal. Hmm...

That said, I can find sites on Google that link
to Xenu.net and have xenu.net in the description,
but if I search for xenu.net, it returns 0 sites
found...
I wonder if that is a pre-programmed response?

Oh well, I'll do my part by linking to Xenu.net,
all other webmasters should do the same if they
can.
"you'd probably be the first to blame women for getting raped too.." - infinitera displaying his best debate tactics.

searching for .whatever by Elkor, 03/21/2002 03:43:32 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

re: google searching by Endorphin, 03/21/2002 07:50:37 PM EST (none / 0)

Yep, that helps. by Elkor, 03/22/2002 08:19:43 AM EST (none / 0)

If this does go to the front page (4.33 / 3) (#34)
by nutate on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 10:50:03 AM EST

I'd like to hope that my old comment is still apropos. I go into the text of the DMCA that google cites, and the simple solution to all of the problems:

peace

Petition (4.44 / 9) (#37)
by bollochs on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 11:42:44 AM EST

How about setting up a petition along the lines of - 'I love Google, but will refrain from using it whilst it allows itself to be censored by dubious cults who eat children.'

Between here, Slashdot, MetaFilter, Fark etc. I'm sure lots of signitures could be gathered.

This is bizarre stuff, I mean, what's with the 'regardless of merit' quote? Does that mean that however ridiculous a claim, Google with cave immediately to any legal pressure?

Disclaimer - Although never funny, everything I write is satire, and thus free from dubious slander laws.

Most excellent idea by Hong Kong Phooey, 03/21/2002 01:33:53 PM EST (none / 0)
I'm not really an activist by bollochs, 03/21/2002 04:43:37 PM EST (none / 0)

The Church of Scientology is misunderstood (1.86 / 67) (#39)
by Stick on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 12:06:54 PM EST

I'm sick of seeing these articles that constantly attack the Church of Scientology when its obvious none of you have any knowledge of the Churches long history, and guiding principles. Some have felt it necessary to spread unfounded rumors about the Church. I do not understand what drives people to take such actions. The Church of Scientology exists to aid in the spiritual development of individuals. It is not an evil organisation that is bent on world dommination. It has been driven to take some legal action in order to defend its good name, however, they have been very restrained in regard to what they could do. I urge you all to look at the situation objectively, and actually do some research on the church before you condem a such fine institution.

scientology.org
exactscientology.net
whatisscientology.org
smi.org
scientology.org.uk

---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n

This is probably a troll ... by Anonymous American, 03/21/2002 12:12:55 PM EST (4.55 / 18)

Slander is against the law [nt] by Stick, 03/21/2002 12:16:23 PM EST (1.46 / 15)

Slander is also a legal definition by notafurry, 03/21/2002 12:32:15 PM EST (4.27 / 11)
It's not slander if it's true by revscat, 03/21/2002 02:38:56 PM EST (5.00 / 4)
Then... by PhillipW, 03/21/2002 02:39:30 PM EST (4.50 / 4)

More censorship by bollochs, 03/21/2002 12:25:04 PM EST (4.33 / 12)

I could say the same about people here by Stick, 03/21/2002 12:28:45 PM EST (2.35 / 17)

CoS sues everyone by bollochs, 03/21/2002 12:37:13 PM EST (4.58 / 12)
The big difference between CoS and other "cul by lb008d, 03/21/2002 01:30:15 PM EST (3.80 / 5)
I hate to agree, but by Sanityman, 03/21/2002 01:37:24 PM EST (4.42 / 7)
then address the counterpoints made. by Bunny Vomit, 03/21/2002 01:40:14 PM EST (4.00 / 7)

I'm a busy man by Stick, 03/21/2002 03:00:17 PM EST (1.75 / 8)

If you haven't got the energy... by Robert S Gormley, 03/21/2002 04:29:03 PM EST (4.00 / 4)

You've had low ratings... by synaesthesia, 03/21/2002 01:59:13 PM EST (2.83 / 6)
Its not censorship, its rating by baronben, 03/21/2002 02:27:49 PM EST (2.25 / 4)

err, you've mistaken this with another site by hardburn, 03/21/2002 04:21:39 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Faq by baronben, 03/21/2002 05:04:18 PM EST (3.00 / 1)

Perhaps by hardburn, 03/21/2002 05:07:43 PM EST (none / 0)
Zero is the new Minus one. by priestess, 03/21/2002 05:48:54 PM EST (4.00 / 1)

Reciprocity by Lord of the Wasteland, 03/21/2002 02:42:10 PM EST (3.66 / 3)

Zero Ratings: 4 [nt] by Stick, 03/21/2002 02:58:19 PM EST (1.00 / 2)

I gave you a zero by binaryalchemy, 03/21/2002 03:09:27 PM EST (4.22 / 9)

Defending against slanderous material ... by aphrael, 03/21/2002 05:29:16 PM EST (5.00 / 3)

Fine institution? by radiantx, 03/21/2002 12:46:33 PM EST (4.55 / 9)

In their defense by hardburn, 03/21/2002 01:48:56 PM EST (3.75 / 4)

Different level of beliefs by radiantx, 03/21/2002 01:58:51 PM EST (4.20 / 5)
well, there's agressiveness ... and then ... by BlueOregon, 03/21/2002 02:28:46 PM EST (3.66 / 3)
WTF? by yooden, 03/23/2002 01:26:09 PM EST (2.00 / 1)

Its actually _worse_ than most people think. by arcade, 03/21/2002 12:53:19 PM EST (4.95 / 20)

Christianity has the crusades... by Stick, 03/21/2002 12:58:40 PM EST (2.21 / 14)

Scientology has the (legal) crusades... by Bunny Vomit, 03/21/2002 01:03:05 PM EST (4.71 / 7)

That was not always true by Stick, 03/21/2002 01:07:00 PM EST (2.42 / 7)

If scientology was alive in the middle ages, by Bunny Vomit, 03/21/2002 01:10:57 PM EST (4.12 / 8)
Difference in opinions a case for the court? by radiantx, 03/21/2002 01:14:29 PM EST (4.50 / 6)

"maybe Islam in some countries, sues ..." by Bunny Vomit, 03/21/2002 01:35:21 PM EST (1.44 / 9)

soooo by /dev/trash, 03/21/2002 02:05:15 PM EST (3.83 / 6)
You must have a different definition of 'fairly'. by Robert S Gormley, 03/21/2002 04:32:45 PM EST (5.00 / 1)
Is CoS like the medevial church? by yooden, 03/23/2002 01:32:21 PM EST (2.00 / 1)

No, its not a noble religion. by arcade, 03/21/2002 01:23:43 PM EST (4.66 / 6)
Congratulations, you have been sued! by bodrius, 03/21/2002 02:06:11 PM EST (4.37 / 8)
Wrong tense by yooden, 03/23/2002 01:29:52 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Hollywood, Satanism, Scientology and Suicide by bollochs, 03/21/2002 01:21:26 PM EST (4.00 / 8)

Right on, brother! by broken77, 03/21/2002 03:42:19 PM EST (4.00 / 2)

Oh, Good! by hardburn, 03/21/2002 01:40:26 PM EST (4.33 / 6)
No, the church is understood all too well. by Apuleius, 03/21/2002 01:42:31 PM EST (4.33 / 6)
Everyone is misunderstood... by bodrius, 03/21/2002 01:44:58 PM EST (4.80 / 10)

bah, history by deadplant, 03/21/2002 02:52:09 PM EST (3.75 / 4)

bah, history by bodrius, 03/21/2002 05:31:47 PM EST (4.83 / 6)

generalizations by deadplant, 03/22/2002 10:03:43 AM EST (none / 0)

Yeah, there is a bit of good by ocelotbob, 03/21/2002 01:52:54 PM EST (4.25 / 4)
As one who has researched by Kwil, 03/21/2002 02:09:24 PM EST (4.87 / 16)

Ice pick? by sigwinch, 03/21/2002 02:57:11 PM EST (4.00 / 1)

Almost certainly he was full of it by /dev/niall, 03/21/2002 04:48:09 PM EST (4.00 / 3)

Well then... by Scandal, 03/21/2002 11:28:36 PM EST (1.33 / 3)

re: Well then... by /dev/niall, 03/22/2002 12:13:54 AM EST (5.00 / 1)

Actually, no... by Scandal, 03/22/2002 12:42:48 AM EST (2.00 / 2)

Umm... No. by JetJaguar, 03/22/2002 12:57:34 AM EST (4.50 / 2)

Try reading Dianetics, then. by Scandal, 03/22/2002 01:29:46 AM EST (1.33 / 3)

Hold on... by JetJaguar, 03/22/2002 04:06:15 AM EST (4.00 / 1)

Actually... by Scandal, 03/27/2002 11:25:20 PM EST (none / 0)

Yup! by michajoe, 03/22/2002 04:48:29 PM EST (3.00 / 2)

My last comment on this by /dev/niall, 03/22/2002 01:40:59 AM EST (5.00 / 1)

Research?!? by Scandal, 03/21/2002 11:07:08 PM EST (2.00 / 2)

Handling Criticism by Sanityman, 03/22/2002 09:13:16 AM EST (none / 0)

The best defense... by Scandal, 03/28/2002 11:01:33 PM EST (none / 0)

Glad to respond to the CoS viewpoint... by afeldspar, 03/30/2002 04:24:34 AM EST (none / 0)

Integrity (4.20 / 5) (#48)
by Anonymous American on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 12:55:30 PM EST

What is the future of google when any large organization with a legal staff can delist web pages at will? What happens when Microsoft claims that the Mono project is violating the DMCA? Will google pull all the pages without due process, regardless of the merits of the lawsuit?

This sets a terrible precedent. Can google hold on to it's integrity?

Rebel Rebel Rebel (3.75 / 4) (#50)
by Tau on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 12:59:18 PM EST

Come on, leave poor Google alone here. Google may be in the black but it's a fledgeling business nonetheless, and do you REALLY expect Google to take a magnitude X anal shafting from a horde of CoS lawyers? this organisation has a scarily large number of legal personell and its history has shown that it'll stop at nothing to silence anyone they don't like (at least, from what I've seen).

Google hasn't the resources to battle something like this. And this isn't a landmark case either; blame the 2600 judge who made LINKING a felony (probably cause 2600 is a load of 'damn punks' or something to that effect)

---
WHEN THE REVOLUTION COMES WE WILL MAKE SAUSAGES OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ENTRAILS - TRASG0

Not 2600... by Parity, 03/21/2002 01:17:38 PM EST (none / 0)

DMCA stories - sigh (1.63 / 22) (#63)
by Silent Chris on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 01:36:48 PM EST

I thought I left this when I left Slashdot...

Is there anyone else who gets tired of the constant bombardment against DMCA that tech talk sites seem to be infatuated with?

This is not a tech-article though. by arcade, 03/21/2002 01:48:06 PM EST (4.25 / 8)
Not really by rusty, 03/21/2002 02:17:54 PM EST (4.75 / 12)
Sick of it? by seebs, 03/21/2002 03:27:05 PM EST (5.00 / 1)
Fuck off about Slashdot by Spendocrat, 03/21/2002 04:43:18 PM EST (2.33 / 6)
DMCA articles... by DarkZero, 03/21/2002 06:28:25 PM EST (4.00 / 1)

This has a positive side (2.00 / 10) (#68)
by President Steve Elvis America on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 01:41:40 PM EST

If naked pictures of me were to somehow get out on the internet, I wouldn't want people to be able to find them. I would send google an email asking them to help me hide it and if they don't I will sue them. I really would not want naked pictures of me on the internet. The church of scientology is just trying to hide their version of naked pictures.

Sincerely,

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Unfortunately for you... by synaesthesia, 03/21/2002 02:05:34 PM EST (5.00 / 4)
Naked Pictures by kuran42, 03/21/2002 02:08:03 PM EST (5.00 / 1)
But if you don't own your naked pics by baronben, 03/21/2002 02:12:50 PM EST (4.66 / 3)
Brilliant analogy by bollochs, 03/21/2002 03:26:23 PM EST (none / 0)
I object by daani, 03/21/2002 08:39:08 PM EST (4.00 / 1)

Poor google... (4.00 / 3) (#70)
by rebelcool on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 01:44:10 PM EST

They're really stuck in the middle here. Don't blame them though.

The way I see it, this is like threatening libraries with action because one book the library contains has copyright infringing material from another book. The common sense thing to do is for the 2 books to duke it out. It's not the library's fault.

It's entirely ridiculous.

Google, like most .coms these days, doesnt have piles of cash sitting around to feed to lawyers to combat this kind of nonsense. A damn dirty shame.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

Search for Xenu.net in person (4.50 / 6) (#86)
by rusty on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 02:13:50 PM EST

Posted to the linux-elitists mailing list, by Linux Journal's inimitable Don Marti:

IMMEDIATE CALL TO ACTION -- March 21, 2002 -- IMMEDIATE CALL TO ACTION
On March 20th, Google caved in to a baseless legal threat from Scientology's "Religious Technology Center", and removed the web site xenu.net from all search results. (Not just the cached pages. The links, too. Try it.)
The number one site for independent information about the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and most important of all, the tyrant warlord XENU, has vanished from the number one search engine!
Since Google's web site is no longer an accurate reflection of the state of Xenu (and Scientology) knowledge on the Internet, the
MOUNTAIN VIEW CALIFORNIA XENU INDEPENDENT STUDY GROUP
will be visiting Google's headquarters IN PERSON to search for Xenu information -- with cameras rolling.
Who: The Mountain View, California Xenu Study Group (This means you)
What: First meeting: "Finding Facts about Xenu on the Net with Google"
Where: Meet at Dana St. Roasting Company, 744 Dana Street, Mountain View. Then, travel to Google HQ.
When: 3:45 PM, Thursday, March 21, 2002
Why: To make sure that accurate information about Xenu is available through Internet search engines.
What to bring:

another video camera (we already have one, but could use some more shots)
Your pen and paper for taking notes about how to find good Xenu (and Scientology) sites.
Contact: Don Marti <dmarti@zgp.org> (cell 650-743-8035 for EMERGENCIES and REPORTERS on DEADLINE only!)
IMMEDIATE CALL TO ACTION -- March 21, 2002 -- IMMEDIATE CALL TO ACTION

Ah, I almost wish I still lived in the Bay Area. Can't wait to see the footage. Anyone around Mountain View, this is a "don't miss" event for sure.

____
_{Not the real rusty}

What the hell? by rebelcool, 03/21/2002 02:30:11 PM EST (3.00 / 5)

Fight the DMCA by rusty, 03/21/2002 02:44:13 PM EST (4.83 / 6)

Pyrrhic victories by rebelcool, 03/21/2002 03:02:31 PM EST (3.00 / 3)

or roll over and die? by arcade, 03/21/2002 03:37:29 PM EST (4.50 / 2)

Hardly. by rebelcool, 03/21/2002 04:16:01 PM EST (3.00 / 2)

Leaving Google by Sunir, 03/21/2002 04:50:31 PM EST (none / 0)

I kind of doubt it. by rebelcool, 03/21/2002 06:22:06 PM EST (none / 0)

It's not for idealistic reasons by Sunir, 03/21/2002 07:42:28 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Fight with public opinion and technology by martingale, 03/21/2002 08:25:55 PM EST (none / 0)

Tell those people to also ask Google... by afree87, 03/21/2002 02:39:11 PM EST (5.00 / 2)
Dammit! by ocelotbob, 03/21/2002 02:43:01 PM EST (none / 0)

Well, Google doesn't work on Saturdays either [nt] by Sunir, 03/21/2002 04:44:27 PM EST (none / 0)

Get em Don by subgenius, 03/21/2002 03:36:55 PM EST (none / 0)

Origins of Scientology? (A litte Off Topic) (2.66 / 3) (#104)
by dbc001 on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 02:51:21 PM EST

I once heard a rumor that Scientology came about because Isaac Asimov and L. Ron Hubbard had a bet over who could start their own religion. Has anyone else heard this rumor? Anybody know if it's true or how such a rumor came about?

-dbc

Close by vectro, 03/21/2002 03:05:13 PM EST (none / 0)
Not quite, but... by broken77, 03/21/2002 03:15:36 PM EST (none / 0)
Ok, I found it. by broken77, 03/21/2002 03:50:21 PM EST (none / 0)
The version I heard by a humble lich, 03/21/2002 04:13:02 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

also worth noting... by afeldspar, 03/21/2002 11:59:41 PM EST (none / 0)

Some petitions... (3.25 / 4) (#111)
by Kayser Soze on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 03:07:10 PM EST

If we really want to do something about this, let's sign some petitions and let our voice be heard in as many ways as we can.

I, for one, am sick of letting my rights be trampled on. If you feel the same, *do something about it*.

http://www.petitiononline.com/cofs1/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.html

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Rene Descartes

Oops... by Kayser Soze, 03/21/2002 03:20:11 PM EST (5.00 / 2)

If I were Google right now... (2.66 / 3) (#118)
by kcbrown on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 03:36:23 PM EST

I'd be removing every single reference to hits against "scientology", "xenu", "dianetics", and other keywords that are unique to Scientology ... anything connected with Scientology ... except the xenu.net, Operation Clambake, and other pages which are anti-Scientology. I'd remove cached pages which involve CoS copyrighted material, and I'd change links which previously pointed to CoS copyrighted material so that they pointed to the main page of the site that contains that material (this last bit would depend on what my counsel said).

If the CoS wants to play hardball by forcing a search engine to toss its objectivity, let them deal with the consequences of that.

I've got an idea! by bowdie, 03/22/2002 03:34:52 AM EST (none / 0)

Scientology attack dogs on the prowl.... (4.00 / 4) (#124)
by SlapHappy on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 03:46:59 PM EST

and as usual they bite their own asses first! Every time Scientologists go after some online critic, they end up pissing off a lot of people and get even more eyes on the sites they were trying to suppress in the first place! This is not the first time this has occured. Witness their ham-handed attempts to cancel alt.religion.scientology or sending a nastygram to Slashdot because someone posted their "scriptures" in a discussion unrelated to Scientology (of course Slashdot was kind enough to post a story on their cease and desist, bringing even more people to the critic sites!). I even know a musician who goes by "El Queso" who was thrown off of MP3.com because he wrote songs critical of Scientology. He got more downloads of his songs then ever after the publicity of getting pulled got around! (Take a listen here. It's funny stuff, but some songs use naughty words. I think it makes them funnier!). Using Google to do Scientology's dirty work is best thing that could have happened to xenu.net. They are swamped because of the publicity! Its amusing to think that Scientology's basic tenets demand an enemy to crusade against. It turns out they have become their own worst enemy!

It's ironic (4.00 / 4) (#126)
by damiam on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 04:03:48 PM EST

So Google can index and cache kiddie porn, but not pages that link to copyrighted texts?

Fix for groups being classified as Religions? (4.66 / 3) (#130)
by radghast on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 04:19:52 PM EST

To be classified as a religion, all beliefs of said religion must be freely available at no cost to the prospective "convertee" for review and critical analysis.

What's the odds that this could be legislated? Would it actually be a fix? I don't know of any other religion that copyrights its religious books, though all religions certainly have other books written by individual authors about putting those beliefs into practice. You would think it would be a slam-dunk...

"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." -- Dr. Richard Wallace

Well . . . by hardburn, 03/21/2002 04:31:31 PM EST (4.00 / 1)
not the problem in this case by Delirium, 03/21/2002 08:13:52 PM EST (4.66 / 3)

Interesting! by Scandal, 03/21/2002 09:31:59 PM EST (2.50 / 2)
Actually, it *is* classified as a religion by radghast, 03/21/2002 09:38:29 PM EST (5.00 / 4)

interesting by Delirium, 03/21/2002 09:51:36 PM EST (none / 0)

Your technique could stand some work by Scandal, 03/21/2002 10:50:03 PM EST (2.20 / 5)

well by Delirium, 03/21/2002 10:52:51 PM EST (5.00 / 3)

Count them. It's not that big. by Scandal, 03/21/2002 11:22:26 PM EST (3.00 / 3)

Distribution costs? by GhostfacedFiddlah, 03/22/2002 12:35:45 AM EST (none / 0)

GPL Religion! by itsbruce, 03/25/2002 12:03:55 AM EST (5.00 / 1)

Exactly what part of the DMCA... (4.25 / 4) (#132)
by Anonymous 23477 on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 04:22:54 PM EST

Exactly what part of the DMCA are they rattling their sabers with?

Revealing analysis (3.50 / 2) (#136)
by bollochs on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 04:33:36 PM EST

This article is definitely worth a read. An extensive follow up piece highlight many of the key issues. From one particularly cunning piece of researching, this gem was unearthed:

'Earlier, Mr. Hubbard personally supervised the practice of the religion, and he also registered as marks many of the religion's identifying words and symbols, such as "Dianetics" and "Scientology." These registered marks provided a legal mechanism for ensuring that the Scientology religious technologies were orthodox and ministered according to the scriptures. They also provide a legal mechanism to prevent anyone from practicing in a non-orthodox manner or engaging in some distorted use of Mr. Hubbard's writings, while then claiming it is standard Dianetics or Scientology.' I've no idea what it means, but it definitely sounds sinister. The more I find out about this organisation, the more I like it.

Disclaimer - Although never funny, everything I write is satire, and thus free from dubious slander laws.

Not really by hardburn, 03/21/2002 05:02:30 PM EST (none / 0)

You're living in a dream world by bollochs, 03/21/2002 08:37:01 PM EST (none / 0)

I'm well aware of that by hardburn, 03/21/2002 10:54:01 PM EST (none / 0)

Trademark law, not copyright law by afeldspar, 03/21/2002 11:03:06 PM EST (4.00 / 1)

Touche by hardburn, 03/22/2002 09:05:19 AM EST (none / 0)

I wonder... (3.00 / 6) (#137)
by Danse on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 04:39:00 PM EST

Anybody know of any way to get CoS onto the US government's list of terrorist organizations? Does Dubya keep the list taped to the bottom of his desk drawer or something? Maybe we could do something worthwhile with all the military funding in the upcoming budget and rid the world of the CoS plague.

An honest debate between Bush and Kerry

Better than a petition... (4.55 / 9) (#143)
by darthaggie on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 04:55:12 PM EST

Instead of petitioning or boycotting Google, why don't you whiners do something a tad more constructive and set up a legal defense fund for Google.

Oh. I see. You don't think the CoS isn't going to backup their legal threats? Y'all are funny. Misinformed, but funny.

Or perhaps a K5 legal-beagle can write up a response that satisfies this?

Pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of the DMCA, you have the ability to submit a counter notification, in which event we can reinstate the material.

Surely that's something that can be easily done, right?

I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

Thanks by hardburn, 03/21/2002 05:03:51 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Funny though... (3.50 / 2) (#145)
by nlaporte on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 04:59:02 PM EST

The top top link, above all the search results, when you search for "scientology" on Google is a link to the C|Net article about google removing links to Xenu.net. Looks like they're adhering to the letter of the request, just like the Scientologists. Hehehe...

--
John Shydoubie. Shydoubie. John Shydoubie. John Shydoubie.

First result by Vs, 03/21/2002 06:02:45 PM EST (none / 0)

Use Google against Google (4.95 / 126) (#158)
by oc3 on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 06:45:18 PM EST

I read this story and I got really pissed off, so I figured what the hell, and I spent 20 bucks on an AdWord linking to the site they have removed. Search for google for scientology, scientologist or xenu and you will see it. Now the Scientologists are gonna come after me. I think they usually make it look like a suicide. Shit, I think they're at the door...

Kick ass! by DarkZero, 03/21/2002 07:04:12 PM EST (5.00 / 3)

Here's what you can do by oscitant, 03/21/2002 07:15:12 PM EST (4.66 / 3)

Is it based on page views like k5? by KilljoyAZ, 03/21/2002 08:48:31 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

theyre at google... by jeffy124, 03/21/2002 11:36:23 PM EST (5.00 / 2)

That's what I did by KilljoyAZ, 03/22/2002 10:31:27 AM EST (none / 0)

They're not allowing them by Biff Cool, 03/22/2002 05:27:31 PM EST (5.00 / 2)

"Disapproved" by blair, 03/26/2002 08:52:05 PM EST (none / 0)

English by Mister Proper, 03/22/2002 07:51:02 AM EST (none / 0)

More by Mister Proper, 03/22/2002 07:56:41 AM EST (none / 0)
google ad posting tips by lonemarauder, 03/22/2002 03:16:08 PM EST (none / 0)

my google ad by lonemarauder, 03/22/2002 10:50:41 AM EST (none / 0)

Thank you so very, very much by skov, 03/21/2002 11:38:39 PM EST (5.00 / 2)
they can't kill us all... by lonemarauder, 03/22/2002 12:48:16 AM EST (5.00 / 4)
Okay by silsor, 03/22/2002 01:58:27 AM EST (5.00 / 4)

WE'VE WON (4.50 / 4) (#160)
by DarkZero on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 07:09:38 PM EST

As of this moment, the first search result for "Operation Clambake" is Xenu.net. The fourth search result for "scientology" is Xenu.net. All searches for "scientology" also reveal a C|Net story about Google's initial ban of Operation Clambake, as well as an ad posted on Google by oc3, a K5 reader whose post should be below this one.

We win this round, Scientology. Good game.

Excellent :) by jesterzog, 03/21/2002 08:53:48 PM EST (5.00 / 1)
They also placed an ad by afree87, 03/21/2002 09:29:25 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Mea culpa by afree87, 03/21/2002 09:32:56 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Added a link by seeS, 03/21/2002 10:12:46 PM EST (3.50 / 2)

Type in "anti scientology" in Google ... (2.66 / 3) (#161)
by pyramid termite on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 07:11:17 PM EST

... and www.xenu.net is your first result. Just "scientology" will bring up as the 16th result a site that has a links page that lists www.xenu.net.

Conclusion - someone who wants anti-scientology information on the net should have no problem finding it with a minimal web search.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.

yes, and by jesterzog, 03/21/2002 08:45:03 PM EST (5.00 / 2)

But ... by pyramid termite, 03/21/2002 09:41:12 PM EST (2.00 / 1)

I don't agree by jesterzog, 03/21/2002 11:17:24 PM EST (none / 0)

Google pulls a fast one? (2.66 / 3) (#163)
by Frigorific on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 07:18:15 PM EST

First of all, at the time of this writing (6:10 US/CST), it looks to me like Google is still returning results that point to clambake.org and xenu.net. Not only that, but have a look at the results page for a search on Scientology. "Scientology is Evil?" is the "Sponsored Link" consistently shown in association with that search.

I think that Google is doing everything they can to fight this, but they don't have money to burn on mounting a legal defense against the CoS.

Who is John Galt? Rather, who is Vasilios Hoffman?

Heh. by Frigorific, 03/21/2002 07:20:45 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Doesn't look removed to me (1.00 / 1) (#169)
by Delirium on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 08:15:58 PM EST

Search for "xenu" on google. The first result is http://wwww.xenu.net/.

Scientology, not Xenu.net by Vs, 03/22/2002 04:20:44 AM EST (5.00 / 1)

Scientologists and mad squirrels (4.00 / 3) (#176)
by itsbruce on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 09:04:03 PM EST

One day, a few months ago, Google-randomness gave me this link. Chapter 19 of an ex-scientologist's rambling account of his time in the cult. It's not great literature (though I think Mr Fishman has the makings of a good pulp writer) but the contents are so bizarre and disturbing that I had to read to the bottom of the web page.

Now, the guy's a nut. He had schizophrenic tendencies when they took him in and they sure brought them out: "I still had to save the world and Clear the planet before Christ blew it up in 1997, and I needed to keep my wits about me in order to do it properly.". So make up your own mind about how reliable you think he is.

The most bizarre thing on his entire site, IMO, is where he attempts to repudiate smears that (he alleges) the Scientologists have put out about him. A taster:

I never "co-produced a film entitled "Alchemuenster: Turning Cheese Into Gold." Although that would have been a more interesting project than L. Ron Hubbard talking to plants, I unfortunately do not know how to turn cheese into gold, because if I did, I would have had enough money to hire a lawyer to fight Scientology in the Fishman / Geertz case.

I also do not know how to turn cheese into gold. I share his pain.

--It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.

Google responds (4.75 / 4) (#182)
by afree87 on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 09:43:49 PM EST

Found this cut-and-pasted on a.r.s. Apparently, it's being mass-mailed from Google.

Thank you for your note about the Xenu.net website.
Google takes the first amendment very seriously. We are also obligated to follow the laws of the land. We removed some pages of the Xenu.net website from our search engine earlier this week in response to a copyright infringement notification under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It is not within our discretion as a company to decide when to conform to the DMCA and when to ignore it. As the DMCA mandates, Google also provides webmasters with the ability to have their content reinstated if they submit a counter notification to Google. Until that action is taken, we will comply with the DMCA and keep the contested pages out of our index. If you'd like more information on this topic, you can find it here:
www.google.com/dmca.html or by searching Google for "DMCA"
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=dmca).
We appreciate your interest in this issue and your taking the time to express your opinion.
Sincerely, The Google Team

--
Ha... yeah.

Ahh, good by hardburn, 03/21/2002 10:59:45 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

Google NOT a webhost! (3.50 / 2) (#186)
by Blarney on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 10:17:44 PM EST

Google isn't actually hosting the pages - so why would they be responsible for the content of them? This sets a very bad precedent. I suggest that we undertake the following steps:

Attempt to arrange an interview on K5 with a Google representative. I understand this isn't Slashdot and stories don't just come into existence by fiat, but perhaps we could start a petition and send it to Google's PR department.
Attempt to arrange a legal defense fund should Google be willing to fight this one in court. I am extremely broke right now, mainly due to living off of a scholarship without any withholding and being ordered to send about 1.5 months pay to the Federal government by the 15th, but I could certainly contribute $20. I'm sure that many people here could also do this.

Google caches & the DMCA does cover search eng by Trepalium, 03/22/2002 09:18:21 PM EST (none / 0)

Google is still censoring (4.33 / 3) (#204)
by Eloquence on Fri Mar 22, 2002 at 12:52:00 AM EST

Just not the main page. More on infoAnarchy.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy � Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!

/. is down by graspee, 03/22/2002 12:56:05 AM EST (none / 0)

This is a much larger victory than you think (4.88 / 9) (#214)
by valency on Fri Mar 22, 2002 at 04:42:06 AM EST

This is wonderful. Until now, when a non-technically-oriented person asked me "why do you oppose the DMCA", I had to explain things like how reverse engineering actually furthers technology, and why it cripples open source efforts.

Now I can just say "because some wacko cult is using it to supress information that can be used to save its victims".

We just won in a big way.

---
If you disagree, and somebody has already posted the exact rebuttal that you would use: moderate, don't post.

A Co$ personality test (4.40 / 5) (#216)
by tekue on Fri Mar 22, 2002 at 06:12:50 AM EST

I strongly encourage everyone who want to find out what Co$ is really about to read the personality test they have on their official pages.

It's pretty entertaining really, when you think for a second about questions like "5. Do you intend two or less children in your family even though your health and income will permit more?" (if you say yes, that means you're wealthy and not inclined to spend your money on children) or "7. Would you prefer to be in a position where you did not have the responsibilities of making decisions?" (or to rephrase, "Are you a sheep we can hurd?") checked by "29. Would you rather give orders than take them?", or even "14. Would the idea of inflicting pain on game, small animals or fish prevent you from hunting or fishing?" (or "Are you soft-hearted enough to belive we are too?"). Incredible stuff, I really enjoyed it and I recommend it. Also, I'm really happy to say, that there's no Co$ in my country (Poland), although I probably can guess the reason for that (raging Catolicism and low income levels).
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins

Personality tests by am3nhot3p, 03/22/2002 07:13:45 AM EST (4.25 / 4)

My Co$ literature experience was brief indeed. by losthalo, 03/23/2002 12:57:58 AM EST (5.00 / 1)

Personality Tests by Obvious Pseudonym, 03/22/2002 08:38:32 AM EST (4.40 / 5)
Don't do that test at the Co$ website... by coolvibe, 03/27/2002 01:01:54 PM EST (none / 0)

I didn't really mean "do it" by tekue, 04/03/2002 08:45:38 AM EST (none / 0)

It's a US law, right? (3.00 / 2) (#224)
by psicE on Fri Mar 22, 2002 at 09:28:01 AM EST

A short while ago, KaZaA was faced with the decision of a court in the Netherlands to block all copyright violations happening off their servers. Instead, KaZaA sold their software to Sharman Networks in Australia.

Why can't Google do that? Just set up a company in Norway, sell everything to that company for $1, and move all the employees over there. The Church of Scientology wouldn't even know how to contact them, let alone be able to sue them (no DMCA in Norway).

Google's story doesn't wash. (5.00 / 1) (#230)
by bollochs on Fri Mar 22, 2002 at 02:01:51 PM EST

OK, there is something bizarre going on here. A Google spokesperson has said that the main site was 'inadvertently removed' however if you look at the original claim made by CoS lawyers it is clear that they wanted the main page removed. To quote:

'This particular web site owner has placed our clients' copyrighted works and federally registered trademarks on his web page without the authorization of our clients. According, his actions are in violation of United States copyright law and I request Google either remove or disable access to the web site, "www.xenu.net".

The Search Query used is: Scientology
Infringing Web Page: www.xenu.net

- Is there really any doubt that Google removed that page at the request of CoS? It was after all included on the original list. If Google chooses to follow the law, they have to remove all the pages without consideration. Why now claim that one page was 'inadvertently removed' when it obviously wasn't. Theoretically they are now in breach of the law, unless Xenu.net has put in a counter claim, which they've accepted, but if that was the case surely they would have said? The only way I see for Google not to be in breach of the law, is if they have struck a deal with the CoS allowing them to reinstate the main page. Could this have been done, perhaps in an attempt to counter the negative publicity. After all, it did work. Many of us bought the spin, even Rusty ;-)

Disclaimer - Although never funny, everything I write is satire, and thus free from dubious slander laws.

trademarks and copyrights by danny, 03/22/2002 07:08:41 PM EST (5.00 / 1)

pretty clever (5.00 / 1) (#240)
by fourseven on Sat Mar 23, 2002 at 04:48:39 PM EST

Having google forced to remove a few links resulted in lots of discussions and a few articles on news sites. All these being eventually linked to by google, of course. So in a way, the guys who asked google to remove links to certains sites caused the amount of links to these sites to increase. And gained some bad press in the process. Interesting how these things work out..

Hey, These scientology guys can be useful! (none / 0) (#243)
by imayes on Tue Mar 26, 2002 at 01:46:45 PM EST

Stay with me here...

Since these guys are zealots (according to the website), we can use them as our "anti-terrorist-terrorist suicide bombers"! That way we can have them bomb states and governments that support terrorists, and we can deny supporting them just like the terrorist states deny supporting terrorism! We can kill (literally) two birds with one stone!

Just a thought...

Church of Scientology wields the DMCA, Google removes xenu.net | 250 comments (225 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest � 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.