| This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 54 ( 1  ) || |
|google cached pages, why is this not illegal?|
| 10:39 am on Nov 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why is google somehow allowed to cache pages of all the sites (or a subset of at least) that it indexes?
What if I was to scan the net and grab all the web pages and simply have that header that google puts on all cached pages, is that allowed?
| 6:01 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|just because it's on the internet doesn't mean me or anyone else is giving Google permission to download my work and than to posting it online. |
And everything that I have written is to point out that there is a very distinct possibility that Google does not need your permission.
Copyright is a limited set of rights for a limited amount of time. Public domain is either someone has given up their rights early or the rights have expired.
We are talking about works where the copyright is in effect, but the copyright might not, by law, cover the copying that is happening.
If you have not been granted the right to keep Google from caching your work, then why would google need your permission?
The public grans you copyright, but they retain rights to themselves. This is what is known as Fair Use. It is not taking anything from the rights holder. It is not an exception. It is not permission to infringe. It is a retained right.
If (and I repeat, I am not claiming that it *is* Fair Use) it is ruled to be Fair Use, then what they are doing is completely right and proper. And there is even the possibility that they do not have to even honor the NOARCHIVE meta tag.
If this goes to court, the result will have absolutely noting to do with whether the plaintiff thinks google has a right to do what they do. The result will be based on what the law says, and the facts of the case. (Though the facts might not even come into play depending on a summary judgement one way or the other)
|bloke in a box|
| 10:24 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There's an article up at slashdot [yro.slashdot.org]
| 12:50 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Everyone knows that the Google cache (and that of other search engines) is temporary, right? Change your page, and the caches will eventually reflect the change. Delete your page, and the cache copies will eventually go away. How quickly the caches update depends on many factors, including search engine, site popularity, and, probably, phase of the moon.
|bloke in a box|
| 12:51 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
and whether your site is situated on a south facing slope and the wind direction is northerly. ;)
| 6:25 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Wow, if that AP story is correct, it looks like google could probably qualify for a dismissal, and certainly get a partial summary judgements on almost all the mentioned aspects of the case.
The images aspect was covered by arriba.
While the maliciousness of the linking could be considered a "fact" (ala 2600), Google does not even come close to meeting that requirement. The certainly do not verify that a site includes working passwords to the site in question before linking to them for certain keywords.
It is unclear if they ever issued proper DMCA takedowns on the images, and if they did how they would apply to images that are not considered infringement, links to pages at foreign sites that are not themsleves infringing, images at sites in non-Berne countries.
Their lawsuit is concentrating on a bunch of other garbage that they cannot win, so I am wondering about any validity of their complaints about the letters they sent. Is this a legit lawsuit, or is it just a publicity stunt?
If they are hoping Google folds and settles, I think they picked the wrong company if Google thinks they are in the right. The only way that Google might settle is if they take a look at the DMCA issues and realize they made a mistake.
| 9:35 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The funny part is it seems Google is being sued for caching the images from sites that had stolen those images from the plaintiff.
So, I put up something original -- someone steals it -- Google caches it from the thief and Google is to blame? That's like suing the police because your house got robbed.
| 9:59 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, they are probably even using google to find the primary infringers in the first place.
| 10:20 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I'm glad Google caches my pages. I'd be disappointed otherwise.If Google losed some lawsuit over this, they could witch from opt-out (robots: noindex - nocache) to some opt-in mechanism.
I prefer it as it is, but would opt in at the very first opportunity if I needed to.Anyone who feels put-upon by Google (etc.) caching can opt out at any time.
You can even have formerly cached pages removed from he G cache. I don't really understand the complaint here. Its the crapers and plagiarists that really get my blood boiling.
| 11:44 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
UCC 17 § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
1. Google is a commercial entiry caching and publishing pages for commercial interest.
2. Not sure about this one.
3. They routinely re-publish entire sites from their own servers under the google logo. That seems pretty substantial.
4. Not sure about this part. For most of us it would probably be hard to prove a negative effect, damages. If a site can prove they are damaged from it then they may have a case.
Also relevant could be: § 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives, which gives some additional rights to archives.
| 12:50 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|1. Google is a commercial entiry caching and publishing pages for commercial interest. |
Google is a commercial enterprise, but the question does not ask anything about who is doing the copying but about the copying itself.
|(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; |
What is the purpose of the copying? Make websites available when the server is down or overburdened (slashdotted). Often used by those persuing others for copyright infringement.
Is the copy used in a commercial manner? While it is a feature on a commercial site, what are the commercial or competitive aspects of the cached page? None. Google does not sell advertising on those pages. In fact, all advertising such as affiliate links and images are still there.
Is it for nonprofit educational purposes? No.
|2. Not sure about this one. |
That will depend on who files the lawsuit. Which by the way, just because someone else wins a suit, does not mean that you will automatically be getting a check from Google.
|3. They routinely re-publish entire sites from their own servers under the google logo. That seems pretty substantial. |
This statement is patently false.
Google does not republish entire websites, they present individual pages. It is not published under a google logo, there is a box that contains the google logo in small font sized text explaining that it is in fact someone else's page.
If google was republishing the entire website, the links would go to their other cached pages. They do not, they remain unchanged in the cached page.
The answer to #3 is they republish a page as a cached copy, and google will contend that this is allowed by the other fair use criteria and/or the DMCA safe harbor caching component.
|4. Not sure about this part. For most of us it would probably be hard to prove a negative effect, damages. If a site can prove they are damaged from it then they may have a case. |
In fact, in many cases, Google can show actual monetary value to the site owner due to the cached copy existing.
Like you said, it would depend on the specifics of the case on #4.
I doubt that google would get any slack on the archive issue since those cached pages are short term. The wayback machine would use those arguments.
Look up the DMCA caching bits instead. It does not obviously apply to this case, but it is also not particularly clear that it does not.
| 7:06 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You know you can add a tag in your code that won't show a google cache for your site...
| 7:44 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|An example of where it is ALL, is personal use copying for the purpose of time shifting or backup copies. How about libraries putting newspapers on microfilm? |
Recording is legal for time shifting. Copying and "making backup copies" are illegal (for video). My point is that I don't think you understand what fair use is.
| 7:47 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If they are hoping Google folds and settles, I think they picked the wrong company if Google thinks they are in the right. |
Yeah, but Google has that whole "do no evil" thingie to live up to...
| 8:40 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Recording is legal for time shifting. Copying and "making backup copies" are illegal (for video). |
While I am not so sure about "making backup copies" of video being illegal, I have never heard that term applied to video, only to software. And where did I suggest that it was making backup copies of video.
Making backup copies of your software is absolutely legal and covered under fair use.
I was just giving examples of cases where making a copy of an entire work can be considered fair use in certain circumstances. I was not stating that it is always considered fair use.
|My point is that I don't think you understand what fair use is. |
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong. At least I understand that Fair Use is intentionally a large gray area to be analysed on a case by case basis. I have read the laws, I have read the court cases and even some of the transcripts, I have read the university library guidelines, and I have confirmed my interpretation of fair use with a couple of the leading scholars on the subject.
I may not always make myself clear on this board, but I damn well understand Fair Use better than the vast majority on this here. I'm not telling you what I want Fair Use to mean, I am telling you what I understand it to mean.
And I am telling you some of the arguments that Google will make in court. I am not saying that they will be successful, but they are valid arguments. If you don't believe me, go ask an IP attorney how they would defend the case if they were working on it.
I'm telling you that it is not the slam dunk case that many here seem to think. There is a very good chance that Google would lose, but there is certainly a decent chance that google would win.
| 1:06 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BigDave, you may want to read up more on some real examples of fair use because none that I have seen are remotely like Google republishing pages from people's websites on their server without permission. It would be interesting to read cases/judgements which support your view that this is fair use.
Some examples of fair use given by the US copyright office:
"quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported"
| 4:39 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google (Yahoo, Microsoft, Gigablast, et al) is not republishing content. They are making their caches available as a public service and to allow webmasters to have insight regarding the basis for search decisions currently being made regarding their pages.
Very few users actually look at cache pages. The links are invariably in a smaller font than the actual page, and after one visit to a cached page almost any searcher will understand that the cache page is "old" and the real page is "new". People want the new.
There are two cases I have ever heard where persons (besides the webmasters themselves) actually look at the cached pages.
1) normal page is currently inaccessible for whatever reason
2) a few advanced users like to view pages with search words highlighted
Since the search engines add no advertising to the cached pages, and any commercial links from the webmaster's site are still available, it is almost ridiculous to argue that the search engine derives commercial benefit from the cached pages. As I said in an earlier post, if the search engines shut off access to the cache'd pages, many webmasters would complain (and pussibly sue) about unnecessary secrecy on the part of the search engines. I know I'd be among the complainers.
| 10:55 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|BigDave, you may want to read up more on some real examples of fair use because none that I have seen are remotely like Google republishing pages from people's websites on their server without permission. It would be interesting to read cases/judgements which support your view that this is fair use. |
You seem to have missed the part where I specifically said that I was not asserting that it *is* Fair Use. What I said was that you might be surprised at how good their case for Fair Use is. In fact, I said that in my opinion, Google would probably lose such a case.
The problem is that around here, a great number of webmasters, in their ignorance, seem to think that it is a slam dunk. Whereas if you get a bunch of lawyers or those knowledgeable about copyright together, you will find some significantly different opinions.
As for similar cases, there are none. There are none that are a perfect match that support that it is fair use.
But guess what? There are none that are a perfect match that show that it is infringement!
Get a clue. Read some actual judgements on past fair use cases to get some idea about how the judicial branch of government views copyright and fair use.
But aside from Fair Use, I also pointed out other arguments that they might make *and win with*, but I have only seen supporting statements from people. All Google would have to do would be to win on one argument, while those prosecuting the case would have to win on all arguments.
Remember, I am not arguing the case. I am telling you how Google will probably argue the case, and that they will have very good lawyers. The plaintiff will not have the option of just ignoring the safe harbor caching arguments.
Again, I am *not* saying that it *is* fair use, or that it *is* covered by the DMCA caching provision. What I am saying is that there are better arguments in their favor than many of you seem to realize. If it was such an easy case, someone would have already filed suit in tha hopes of pocketing some rather hefty damages.
| 11:21 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> You know you can add a tag in your code
> that won't show a google cache for your site...
If your front door does not have a lock on it - does that mean everyone can come in uninvited and take all your stuff?
| 1:08 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If your front door does not have a lock on it, does that mean everyone can come in uninvited and take all your stuff? |
What does tresspassing and theft have to do with copyright infringement?
I've read that analogy before and it makes absolutely no sense.
The web is a lot more like the public easement in your front yard. The public has every right to go there. Any illegal activity is just that. You do not have a right to create a public nusance on that easement (such as a DoS attack) nor set up a booth selling fireworks, but you are allowed to go there.
It also really does matter where and how you publish your works as to what sort of protection you are entitled. You will not receive the same package of protections by publishing on the web as you would when you publish a book, a movie or produce a sculpture.
And copyright infringement it totally unrelated to theft, and I get really tired of that analogy.
Theft is the taking of personal property. If I take something from you, you can no longer use it.
Copyright infringement is the unlawful violation of your exclusive rights. Having an illegal copy in existance does not deprive you of continuing to legally distribute and license your works. Even if someone violates your civil rights, they have not stolen those rights from you, you still have those rights. The same thing goes for copyright.
You do not own the work, you own limited exclusive rights for a limited time. The only way to own the work is trade secret.
| 1:12 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"If your front door does not have a lock on it, does that mean everyone can come in uninvited and take all your stuff?"
this should settle it! As I said before, google and other SEs should ask us whether to cache or not. If they see a cache tag, then permision is given, not the other way around.
Personally I could care less, a cache helps me but some publishers who pay dozens of journalists might care.
| 1:58 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Cache - love it as a user - don't care for it as a Webmaster.
Find me a experienced and credible copyright and/or criminal lawyer that says caching is legal, and we'll publish his report here.
| 2:16 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Find me a experienced and credible copyright and/or criminal lawyer that says caching is legal, and we'll publish his report here. |
I would also love to hear from one that says that Google could not possibly have a case (forget criminal, I want copyright experts only). I have never come across any mentions by a reputable lawyer stating such a thing.
It is simply not as straight-forward as many suggest.
| 2:18 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Find me a experienced and credible copyright and/or criminal lawyer that says caching is legal, and we'll publish his report here.
Find me an experienced and credible copyright lawyer (I seriously doubt criminal law would come into play) that says caching is absolutely, positively, 100% legal (who isn't already involved in a lawsuit with Google, as that would mean they aren't credible), and please publish his report here. The law is so unclear about this matter (because of the fact the existing laws didn't anticipate this issue), I can't imagine any such experienced lawyer wanting to put his credibility on the line, given who knows what some judge may rule? Personally, I'd expect if their is a test case it would involve archive.org, as they are caching web pages until theoretically the end of time. IMO (and, IANAL), archive.org is on thin ice on this issue. The Google cache is very much a temporary thing. Take down the web page, and it'll vanish from the Google cache in a month or so. With archive.org, that page is on the web permanently. Archive.org's best argument is that because what the are doing is of substantial historical importance (a point I agree with them on), this supercedes copyright laws. However, I'm not so sure a judge would agree. If a judge didn't, then Congress would have to tackle this issue, as surely many would be upset if archive.org ceased to exist.
| 4:18 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Wow I almost got a front page post, too bad it was just a referral though!
| This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 54 ( 1  ) |