homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.215.140
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: 80 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Google puts the brakes on scanning of copyrighted books
duckhunter

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 6:20 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Looks like Google is finally getting the copyright attention it deserves!

Google Halts Scanning of Copyrighted Books [news.yahoo.com]

 

oneguy

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 7:31 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google wants publishers to notify the company which copyrighted books they don't want scanned, effectively requiring the industry to opt out of the program instead of opting in.

Gee... those poor publishers must feel like webmasters. Errr... web publishers.

The attacks on Google's handling of copyrighted material extend beyond books.

They mentioned one thing, but didn't mention several others.

rogerd

WebmasterWorld Administrator rogerd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 7:37 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Association of American Publishers:
"Google's procedure shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear."

Where have I heard THAT before? Sounds like webmasters are getting an unexpected assist...

akmac

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 7:41 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

"We think most publishers and authors will choose to participate in the publisher program in order (to) introduce their work to countless readers around the world,"

Which is of course why most publishers give away books.

walkman



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 7:42 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

and so it starts. Looks like the honeymoon is over. Google must follow the same rules as everyone else.

softwareengineer99

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:00 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Which is of course why most publishers give away books.

Very good point.

akmac

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:01 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

From google:
[print.google.com...]

"When someone enters search terms that are relevant to the words and phrases in your book, the book appears highlighted on the search results. Clicking on one of your titles in the Google search results will lead users to the page from the book on which the search terms appear. For an example, see our screenshots."

I think we now know why they pushed autolink through such obvious opposition.

MatthewHSE

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:09 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

The company also is scanning books stored at the New York Public Library and Oxford University, but those two libraries so far are providing Google only with "public domain" works — material no longer protected by copyrights.

That would be one thing. Scanning copyrighted material is quite another.

Google executives have positioned the scanning project as a largely altruistic endeavor that will make it easier for people around the world to read the valuable — and often rare — material stockpiled in libraries.

This is a lame explanation. If it's rare, then 99% of the time it's in the public domain and copyright doesn't apply. If it's not rare (e.g., probably still copyrighted), why bother?

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:12 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wonder if Google believes in this so much that they'll unleash their 800lb Gorillas on the publishers in order to enforce their perceived right of fair use. That would be aggressive and totally contrary to the benign image they have cultivated.

As far as I am concerned, with the implementation of the autolink feature, Google has already reached the turning point from being a benign organizer of information and is wandering down the path of bullies who push to get their way, reagardless of how others feel about it.

Google's pursuit of their own interests over the objections of those with copyrights over their books and websites is disturbing. The way Google unilaterally pushes to manipulate the works of others, with complete disregard of opposition, reminds me- and I hate to say it - of the arrogance Microsoft has been accused of showing.

If Google wants to take this into the courts it will only help solidify the growing perception that Google is not so benign. I'm only saying this as constructive criticism. Google is singlehandedly pulling down the good image they've worked to create, from Schmidt's hissy fit with CNET to this. The image Google is projecting is growing consistently negative.

bostonseo



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:28 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google is getting VERY shady. This usually happens when a company goes public.

NOT a Google fan here; don't trust them.

Scarecrow

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:28 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

There is a reason why Google plays up "fair use" (Section 107). That's because they're scared that some rights-holder association, whether it's a publisher's association or the Authors Guild or the National Writers Union, will serve a cease and desist on the University of Michigan under Section 108 (library copying). This is probably a slam-dunk, based on the opinions of library law experts I've consulted. That would deprive Google of access to copyrighted material so that it couldn't be scanned in the first place. Can you imagine trying to acquire a copy of everything that's out of print if you cannot get it from a library for the asking?

This opt-out crumb that Google is offering is laughable, and no one will fall for it. Google's position is very weak. Information does not want to be free. Never has, and never will.

softwareengineer99

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:34 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

The image Google is projecting is growing consistently negative.

And in my opinion its only gonna get worse.

G's position is that of a spoiled brat who doesn't wants to play by the rules.

One cannot go against publishers, web masters, journalists, news agencies all at once. Let alone HR discrimination accusations.

<added>G now needs the world's best PR specialists, not the world's best engineers.

paladin

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:46 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google executives have positioned the scanning project as a largely altruistic endeavor

So why are comerical advertisments (AKA: Sponsored Links) showing up next to the results for relevant searches? If it is truley altruistic endeavor, let me search them without the advertisments.

NoLimits

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 8:53 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

martinibuster: I agree in full... to a T.

I am awe struck at the arrogance of Google at this point in the game. At least Microsoft was well diversified before they tried to take over the world.

I'm glad this came up because it sheds tons of light on the AutoLink bullspit.

I can see why they aren't doing much about scrapers...AutoLink could soon be the worlds largest scraper. Way to sport the black hat G - good to know that moral and ethic values are meaningless to you.

If I were G, I would be walking lightly right now - there are lots of BIG players coming into the Advertising game. If this garbage persists Google, people will jump ship, and G will just be another search engine that WAS on top at one time.

sidenote / G-Toolbar uninstalled, feedback sent

JuniorOptimizer

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 9:23 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google cannot win the hearts and minds of the public with this kind of attitude. These guys are acting like they're from space. Clue in before you lose your grip.

figment88

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 9:37 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google wants publishers to notify the company which copyrighted books they don't want scanned, effectively requiring the industry to opt out of the program instead of opting in.

Heck, I still haven't got over that you have to setup robots.txt with disallow statements not to crawled instead of allow statements to get crawled.

Itagnc

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 9:57 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

This sounds like the print equivalent of what MP3.com tried to accomplish several years ago in the music industry(digitizing every commercial music CD known to man).

akmac

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 10:00 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Google cannot win the hearts and minds of the public with this kind of attitude."

I would agree with your sentiment, but amend the statement to read:

Google cannot retain the hearts and minds of webmasters with this kind of attitude.

The public (as in users) wants features like this. They are the audience that Google caters to- for good reason.

When I'm wearing my "internet user" hat, I cheer features like this. When I'm wearing my webmaster hat-I sharpen my pitchfork.

walkman



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 10:24 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> The public (as in users) wants features like this. They are the audience that Google caters to- for good reason.

Sure they do. Just as they want free music, films & software from file sharing networks.

promis

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 10:24 pm on Aug 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good Heavens! At least we are web publishers and have a better chance to know about robots.txt and Google's announcements. How do they expect every print publisher and author to know about their ultimatum and respond by November?

Isn't something like this that creates all the email spam? Thousands of spam we get daily asking us to opt out instaed of opting in. Who can spend hours daily opting out form each and every one of the avalanche of spam messages?

janethuggard

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 12:17 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Be careful what you wish for, you may actually get it. I hear constant complaining in the forum by webmasters who don't want their content 'stolen' by Google, for the benefit of Google.

Stop to think if this copyright rule doesn't comes out ultimately in Google's favor. You have to opt in. Whenever you have to opt in with a major search engine, you are going to PAY for it. That is fact.

How many little dogs in this forum will be crushed when Google starts to charge for inclusion, because of the overhead involved with processing opt-ins?

Multiply that out people, because what is good for Google, will be good for ALL engines. Do you really want to wake up one day to a notice that says all search engines have to have an opt-in, and find out every engine has a hefty annual fee? This is where this is headed if it continues. Count on it. The cost of business will skyrocket, and while the big boys can dole it out, the little dogs will to curl up in a corner and lick their wounds, before dishing out several thousand dollars a year, to be listed in every search engine.

And, the only thing keeping prices relatively low on paid submisssion now, like the $299 Yahoo directory, is the fact that the BIG DOG is still free. When the Big Dog begins to charge a fee, watch prices sky rocket.

And... forget the 'allow' statement in your code. Copyright will require hand submission, and agreement to TOS in order to be legal. They need documentation on their server, otherwise, what is to keep you from pulling the code, claim that you never gave them permission and they experienced a 'glitch' that robbed you of your rights, and then sue them?

HTML language on a page won't cut it. You want protection? Dear heaven, you might just get a truckload of legal mubble jumble to protect your copyright, and pay through the nose for it. Is that really what you want? No, of course not. What you want is your cake and eat it too. Give me what I want, when I want, and I don't want to pay a thin dime for it. Watch the threads fill-up with squeelers when they have to pay for ALL their traffic.

It could be the end to the free traffic so many in this forum are so very proud of. You want to think about who you are cheering for in this fight. You might be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

After all... it was FREE search traffic that made each and everyone of you what you are today. Nobody came to the web with all their traffic in hat. Everyone of you relied, initially, on some amout of free traffic, to let people know where you were. While you may not need much of it now, you sure loved it when you were at square one. Now, you want to bite the hands that fed you?

Give me a break.

2by4

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 12:17 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

"<added>G now needs the world's best PR specialists, not the world's best engineers."

Google just needs to stop listening to their phd collection all the time, and listen to people with common sense when it comes to these types of questions. This reaction was totally predictable. Google's attitude towards copyrighted works has little if anything to do with the actual reality of copyright law. The publishers know this, their legal teams who sent google the first unhappy communications about this plan know this, only google seems left blissfully unaware of the the facts. But they are primarily programmers after all, so no surprise there.

I agree with martinibuster 100% on this matter. Of course it's no accident that Google has been hiring away key MS employees either, might as well, if you want to play that game, might as well grab some of the other teams best players. But then you're playing that game, gets harder to keep up those cute little company slogans any longer.

NoLimits

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 12:24 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have to disagree Jane.

I don't think that SE's will EVER be opt in...and if they were - putting an outrageous fee on "getting listed" would be suicide.

Why?

Because another SE would start doing it for free, and DOMINATE.

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 12:38 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Who in the general public really cares?

outland88

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 3:14 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>The attacks on Google's handling of copyrighted material extend beyond books.<

I’m willing to bet if they placed some of those Google employees in front of a Grand Jury they’d admit they knew Adsense was going to become a vehicle for copyright infringement. People are beginning to get wise about Google and are protecting their turf. Google feels they’ve got the money reserves to lawyer up against anybody so I believe they’ll keep testing the limits.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 4:26 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

As I said in another recent thread, "G is on the road to becoming the Walmart of Search Engines..."

WBF

larryhatch

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 4:42 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Look at all the paid-inclusion pretend Search Engines.
Do you or your Aunt Emma go there to look anything up? Of course not.
You , I and the family dog use G, Y and sometimes MSN.
The only time I use a paid-inclusion "SE" is to see if they included my site by mistake. -Larry

walkman



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 7:07 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I’m willing to bet if they placed some of those Google employees in front of a Grand Jury they’d admit they knew Adsense was going to become a vehicle for copyright infringement

what does a Grand Jury have to do with anything?
Plus, how it's Google's fault that people scrap or use content from other sites?
Let's not confuse issues.

dgdclynx

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 7:40 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I suppose I should say that beginning ten years ago I have had the copyrighted texts of my poetry books on the Web. Some of the texts can be printed off direct. Sergey used a book in one of his papers. Being poetry where sales are miniscule it doesnt bother me about becoming a 'traditional' author where there is no attribution as for my light Cat Poems pamphlet.

Unfortunately since Bourbon Google have penalised my site (although they claim they havent) rendering my files and books invisible for practical use. But regarding copyright, which I have, it dont bother me much.

Chris_D

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30779 posted 7:51 am on Aug 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

The analogies drawn with music are interesting.

I'm not a lawyer. Recently, here in Australia - there was a music copyright infringement case with what appears to be some similar aspects.... a site that linked to copyright content, and made money off the advertising...

The federal Court has found a website linking to illegal MP3s and the Sydney service provider that hosted liable under copyright infringement laws.

....and had financially benefited from free advertising on the website...

[australianit.news.com.au...]

I wonder if that was another spoke in the wheel that slowed this Google project down?

This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: 80 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved