I find this change rather disappointing. "Chilling Effects" had a memorable name and purpose. As the article says, "These connotations are far too limiting for a project that operates as a neutral third party"; it's disappointing to see them becoming a "neutral third party" that wants to avoid such "connotations".
Agreed completely. Calling the DMCA a "vital component of the content ecosystem", rather than the terminally flawed, abuse-laden deadweight on the content ecosystem that it really is.
"Chilling Effects" is a perfect name for something that tracks how the DMCA is used, because that's exactly what the law does.
I hear "lumen" and think "that site with the brain training games?"
I think it's appropriate for them to strive to be a neutral third party. Having the keeper of "public" information like this also striving for specific political goals could call into question their handling (or filtering) of the data in order to achieve those goals.
We're much better off with a neutral keeper of the data that activist groups can point to when arguing a point.
I'm not suggesting that they need to take a specific political position, but as bdamm suggested elsewhere in the thread, "This release reads like the board has been taken over by RIAA.". Phrases like "the DMCA and its mechanisms have become a vital (if controversial) component of the content ecosystem" are deeply disappointing to see from Chilling Effects.
why? shouldn't the steward of the data be neutral and leave it to third party groups the ones to analyze the data and give opinions?
I don't think the following two comparisons are too much of a stretch: I wouldn't want wikipedia editors to give their opinions on encyclopedic pages and I wouldn't want a financial exchange to give trading tips.
The existence of the Chilling Effects database itself was originally a form of protest. Unfortunately an ineffective form of protest, but nevertheless the connotations were exactly the point.
This release reads like the board has been taken over by RIAA. As if the issuance of DMCA notices is a normal and expected course of business. Well today it is, but back in 2001 it was viewed as having a chilling effect on the vitality of the Internet, which it did and we are rapidly forgetting what freedom of thought and freedom of expression means. It's a shame.
> Occasionally, we’ve found our name can be even more confusing,
> leading to people to think that we only have notices that have in
> fact had a “chilling effect” on conduct or speech.
It'd be interesting if they continued to keep the Chilling Effects name around where its purpose is to condense and highlight particularly egregious notices from the Lumen database which have a chilling effect on conduct or speech. A "worst of" list if you will.
Out of unrelated curiosity, what is stopping someone from using this database for nefarious reasons?
I checked a few links for a Game of Thrones search. All were in working order. Seems like this database could be a prime vetted source for getting hard to find torrents/streams/music.
The RSS feed would make it easy to stay updated on new content.
If the notice went to the site hosting the content, then if the site actually acts on the DMCA-or-equivalent notice, they will have removed the content.
If the notice went to a search engine linking to the content, then yes, the notice provides a convenient index of those links. One more reason making it ridiculous to send notices to search engines rather than the actual content hosts.
> Sometimes, it’s simply an unfamiliar phrase, or doesn’t translate well, which means it can be hard for people encountering us for the first time to know what the project is about.
Instead, we'll use a name that guarantees people won't know what the project is about, no matter where they're from!
