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.
> 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 , 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.
I skipped the first one (which was an FTP url) but ran an HTTP HEAD request against the second PDF listed there (from stttelkom.ac.id) to determine that it was 16.6 MB long, presumably that is also the whole work. The same file was also available a few links below that from uettaxila.edu.pk and then on the next page from fs1.bib.tiera.ru . (There are other things labeled as PDFs with wildly-too-small file sizes to be a 1000-page book; I'm not sure what they are.)
So saying that 'Yes' Google really cares seems too simple. They've never cared enough to, for example, store a database of hashes of forbidden files. Their efforts on YouTube are significantly more extensive, where any audio or video which remotely resembles some registered property can be taken down automatically.
You can signal several infringing links per request, I don't know why the OP didn't do so.
I checked all the PDFs present in the "all 95 versions", five of them lead to a copy of the book, the others are either 404 or slides for courses that use the book as reference material.
Their FAQ regarding the legality of hyperlinks (US jurisprudence) can be found here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID152
> You can buy it at Amazon  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.
I guess my point is: books are like drugs and are priced according to local market conditions. So the rich Americans pay more (they get nicer binding, but still...) and subsidize the rest of the world.
I doubt Bertrand makes that much money on being an author (who does?), and if he wrote the book in today rather than 20 years ago, things could be very different: self published, e-copies, whatever. But he made that deal back before any of this was an option.
But thar be pirates in those waters: in countries where IP is not respected this will happen. Piracy is quite wrong and its not weird that people have a problem with it. We should respect property rights, we don't have to buy it unless we are Dr. Meyers students.
Pity: its not a bad book, but is definitely dated and is probably no longer a must read, definitely not worth $90. Cutting the cost to make it more consummate with its value would be better.
Absolutely not, and I think your idea of global and local market conditions are completely unfounded. "Rich Americans" don't subsidize the rest of the world.
An example for this particular setting: I'm from Brazil where a copy of this book simply does not exist. It needs to be imported, which will be the precise price of the book in dollars, converted to reais, plus shipping and the local library's fee (if you don't buy from Amazon).
If I could buy a copy of it for R$50 I would right now. But as it stands it'd cost me ~R$200 for a new copy. People who don't have that kind of money to spend on a technical book are simply priced out of knowledge.
> I doubt Bertrand makes that much money on being an author (who does?)
I agree, he probably gets a very small percentage.
But he's not just an author, he's a PhD professor and a software consultant. Writing books isn't his only job and he probably makes more money in a single year of his other activities than he did in the sale of all of his books combined. If we were talking about someone who is a pure writer I'd agree somewhat. But if he wasn't a professor and a software consultant he would never have written that book, so it's just an offshoot of his other professional activities.
> We should respect property rights, we don't have to buy it unless we are Dr. Meyers students.
We don't have to buy anything. Not even his students do. But if we want to acquire knowledge we must. The point is, to those who are producing this knowledge, do you want to enhance people's intellect or do you want to make money? If it's the latter, and you are already handsomely paid, I won't shed a tear when your intellectual property rights are ignored.
I wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't him, personally, complaining.
Abe Books sells used books, as well as international editions. YMMV on the legality of the international editions.
I checked the book out on Amazon and, bizarrely, you can buy it new for $96.89, used for $45.87, and you can "rent" it for $62.79. If I were still in college I would get the $50 copy and try to resell it to a student the following semester for $40 (campus bookstore would probably buy it back for $5). Or if I were a broke student I'd just use the library's reserved copy (you can't check it out but nobody ever took advantage of this when I was at school so it was always available to use at the library).
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.
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.
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 , 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.
 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.
OK, but then Google already has that problem now. If they receive a DMCA notice against your pre-registered content they must act. But I'm sure their algorithms would prove that pre-registered content that is not available elsewhere to be extremely reliable. Keep in mind that Google's index probably has basically everything that is out there.
I believe a downside to my proposal is that, if it went into effect, honest publishers would in essence be forced to pre-register, just to be safe. I can imagine some would complain about that.
The DMCA has issues but at least disputes end up in court, how do you think an ownership dispute would play out if private companies were in charge of making decisions.
With regard to the notion of a private company controlling copyright issues, I'm a first believer that Google, big as it is, is not the Internet. An honest effort to clean up their index should not be confused with an attempt to censor anything. Taking the flip side: prove (via a simple API) that your content is indeed original, and then you'll be welcome in our index. Needless to say, only a dominant industry leader could take such a bold attitude.
"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:
What are they supposed to do? 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.
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+Constructi...)
No, all I'm suggesting is that Google removes this link  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...)
Google is not responsible for others indexing systems, I've never said otherwise.
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.
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?
"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.