homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.69.189
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

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 189 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 189 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 > >     
Google "Cache" Not Copyright Violation
Brett_Tabke




msg:714334
 3:47 pm on Jan 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I believe this is the most important legal ruling - maybe in the history of the internet:

[news.com.com...]

A Nevada federal court has ruled that the cached versions of Web pages that Google stores and offers as a part of many search results are not copyright infringement.

Clearly, the court did not understand what real caching is and what Google calls caching. I do not thing Googles meets the crieteria for caching:

The material described in paragraph (1) is transmitted to the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) without modification to its content from the manner in which the material was transmitted from the person described in paragraph (1)(A) {FN104: 17 U.S.C. 512(b)(2)(A)}

What this does I think, is effectively neuters all copyright laws on the internet today. It is the wild-wild west again.

With all that Google has done that is good - I don't know how we could be so far apart on this one issue.

Blake Field: (who brought the suit):
[blakeswritings.com...]

 

arubicus




msg:714454
 7:29 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

"It's also worth pointing out that the robots meta tag to disable this feature is noarchive."

Yeah, it is also worth pointing out that the feature should be disabled AUTOMATICALLY due to a bigger code called a COPYRIGHT. A copyright automatically implies that the creater/owner has the sole right to the disrtibution/presentation of their material REGARDLESS if distribution information is present.

Somewhere people/entities have created this BACKWARDS thinking. Something like this:

"IF it is in public view that means I can do what I want on MY terms unless the owner opts out using my special code/request."

Hey stupid! I the creator of my material MAKE THE RULES on how I want my stuff distributed. If no rules are presented then the rules of COPYRIGHT are implied. Why is this so hard to understand?

Maybe they get away with it because they have better laywers. Maybe they get away with it because the majority website owners just don't care or care to fight it.

Maybe these people/entities score points in the public eye (or judges) for having "good" intentions. Maybe the score points because they don't seek direct monitary gain. You know what?! IT does not matter what their intention are or if the seek monitary gain. It isn't their stuff unless deemed otherwise by fair use or permission.

Also one other note:

In cached version on Google,Yahoo,MSN...Certain advertisements do not show up or are mistargeted (adsense). People can read my material without my opportunity for financial gain through those ad placements.

[edited by: arubicus at 7:42 pm (utc) on Jan. 27, 2006]

g1smd




msg:714455
 7:34 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

That is your take on it, but a court has now ruled the opposite of that... and we'll have to go along with it until such time as the decision is over-turned.

jomaxx




msg:714456
 7:43 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Kaled, it's not really useful to make up your own definition of the word "cache" and insist that everyone who doesn't stick to it is somehow wrong or confused. Everyone here understands exactly what is happening because we can plainly see it with our own eyes. Insisting on the use of word A or word B won't change the underlying facts of the case.

arubicus




msg:714457
 7:44 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

"That is your take on it"

No that is the copyright laws take on it.

BigDave




msg:714458
 7:50 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Funny how many people want to defend the part of copyright law that grants rights to the copyright holder, but they neve seem to like to consider the fact that those are "limited rights". All other rights belong to the public.

It's a good thing that most district court judges know the law better than most webmasters and media company executives.

steveb




msg:714459
 8:07 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

"...and we'll have to go along with it until such time as the decision is over-turned."

No. That ruling affects hardly anyone.

StupidScript




msg:714460
 8:10 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

'Cache' from Dictionary.com [dictionary.reference.com]:
1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.
2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.
3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

I'd say G's definition fits those definitions. Sure they could be considered 'temporary' ... but that is an unqualified delimiter ... how long is 'temporary'?

Kaled, caching is 'storing for later retrieval' in almost every sense of the word. It is an appropriate definition of what G does.

(Geez, I hope I didn't violate any copyright laws by posting that snippet ... was that 'fair use'? ;) )

[edited by: StupidScript at 8:14 pm (utc) on Jan. 27, 2006]

arubicus




msg:714461
 8:12 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

"All other rights belong to the public."

What rights would those be that isn't covered by fair use?

"but they neve seem to like to consider the fact that those are "limited rights"."

Yep and those limited rights contain the right to reproduction, distribution, and derivitives until the copyright expires (Usually it is the life of the creator +70 years or when done for hire it is 95 years from plublicaton or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter)!

arubicus




msg:714462
 8:26 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Kaled, caching is 'storing for later retrieval' in almost every sense of the word. It is an appropriate definition of what G does."

A cache is a STORAGE. The later retrival is not a CACHE. The later retrival is the OBJECT that was formerly cached.

Run to the cache and bring back a doughnut. So you run to the storage and bring back a doughnut. Is the donut a cache? Nope. Is it still cached after you bring it back? Nope.

Now if you treat it like a window in to see what is in storage...now you have a different little story. The object is still cached but you are able to see it.

But the question still remains. Who owns the actual object? In the case of websites and google. The cached version they hold is a copy of the original work. Even though they made the copy the right to copy belongs to the copyright holder. But google is not supplying a window. They distributing it by sending the cached copy to a someone who is requesting it electronically. In other words they send a copy of the contents they copied from websites.

StupidScript




msg:714463
 8:29 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, arubicus, a 'cache' is the storage place, and 'caching' is the act of placing something in that place. And the donut is something that had been 'cached'.

So you are complaining about those copies of your intellectual property that are 'cached' in G's 'cache' when they were finished 'caching' it?

Yeesh.

arubicus




msg:714464
 9:28 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

"So you are complaining about those copies of your intellectual property that are 'cached' in G's 'cache' when they were finished 'caching' it?"

Pretty much. No matter if they call the term use is cached(which I agree is correct), archive(which I agree is also correct), or bobby joe it is the method they use to obtain is questionable in my view.

StupidScript




msg:714465
 9:41 pm on Jan 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Cool. ;)

Now let's move over to the lawsuit against the waybackmachine for it's archive ... which should be far more important to those outraged by G's 'cache'.

Archive [dictionary.reference.com]: A place or collection containing records, documents, or other materials of historical interest. Often used in the plural: old land deeds in the municipal archives.

(I post another potentially illegal snippet in the interest of demonstrating that different words mean different things ...)

kaled




msg:714466
 1:00 am on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

In the context of computers, a cache is precisely as I described it. I think it reasonable that this context is applied. But, as I said, it was a stroke of genius on Google's part to call it a cache - it's certainly confused a lot of people, none of whom even seem to know that they're confused.

It's only a matter of time until Google stumbles on this, which is rather sad, because I actually like the feature and find it useful. It was precisely for this reason that I offered a simple (ish) solution that would allow the cache/archive to continue to work whilst at the same time changing it from opt-out to opt-in. I find it strange that not one single person even commented on that suggested solution. Presumably this was because people prefer to argue rather than discuss solutions - once again, very sad.

Kaled.

annej




msg:714467
 1:19 am on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.
2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.
3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies
(Bold is mine)

Judging from these definitions I'd say a cache is something no one would see other than those who hid whatever is cached.

The problem is that Google is publishing the cache! The concern isn't whether search engines cache but that they put a copy out where the whole world can go to the copy instead of the original. Publishing isn't caching.

I want Google to cache, archive or whatever my pages. That helps my site get found and it helps people find what they are looking for on the net.

[edited by: annej at 1:23 am (utc) on Jan. 28, 2006]

Leosghost




msg:714468
 1:21 am on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Kaled ..here we have been around this subject many times ..your suggestion would indeed be a workable one and was not ignored ;).by all members ...but unless "G" via maybe one of it's PR people ( in the past they were frequent posters here? ) chooses to agree with you and make it ( or any other simili for "cache" ) which agreed is a totally inappropriate word for what they do "archive" ( with branding ) as Brett points out ..would be much closer to the actual implementation they use ..if they made an "archive" opt in .it would be a different matter ..however they choose .to continue to try to distort and misapply law ( inside and outside the US )...then the hostility to their arrogance can but continue ..

What they do to date is like as if Mc Donalds copied and then gave away copies of Steven King's books and put "Ronald" stickers on every page ..you'd never neeed to buy the book again ..( not to mention that they link straight into all the images from your actual site "live" so you pay the bandwidth ..) even if you serve the images to your pages via coded javascript routines ..without ever getting the visitor ..

europeforvisitors




msg:714469
 3:10 am on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

The problem is that Google is publishing the cache!

Why don't we start another debate on the meaning of "publish"? :-)

And no, I'm not entirely kidding. Whether an online work is considered "published" isn't clear-cut, according to the "Space 3" section of the U.S. Copyright Office instruction sheet Circular 66:

[copyright.gov...]

So you might argue that Google is "publishing" the cache, but Google might answer that it's merely "displaying" the cache. (This probably wouldn't have any bearing on your case or Google's in a courtroom; it just goes to show that terminology is often in the eye of the beholder, and arguing about labels is wasted breath.)

kaled




msg:714470
 12:28 pm on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just a thought....

Writing a cache-busting script would be easy. I'm sure many webmasters shy away from using noarchive just in case Google penalizes such pages, so this would be a viable alternative.

Kaled.

annej




msg:714471
 3:58 pm on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

EFV pointed to this copyright info.

A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

That's interesting. If I earn my $$$ with adsense and affiliates am I just displaying the articles?

It appears you have to be distributing or offering to distribute copies for sale, rent etc to be considered copyrighted material.

Does that mean anyone can legally copy any of my articles or pictures?

europeforvisitors




msg:714472
 4:22 pm on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

It appears you have to be distributing or offering to distribute copies for sale, rent etc to be considered copyrighted material.

No, the material is automatically protected by copyright at the time of its creation, and the copyright can be registered whether or not the material is "published."

BigDave




msg:714473
 7:56 pm on Jan 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

An example of something that is unpublished would be an email that you send to someone else, or a small closed list of people, or something that you send to someone under an NDA.

If you send it to a listserve with public archives, it would probably meet the "further distribution" and "public display" portions.

If you sell copies, then it is definitely published.

spaceylacie




msg:714474
 6:26 pm on Jan 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't agree that public display and publishing are the same thing. Think about a library or book store, books on display for anyone to walk in, open up, and view the pages in their entirety. Perhaps if someone was looking through the book while sipping on a cup of coffee with Barnes & Nobles printed on it, that means that Barnes & Nobles is advertising through that book?

Also, this judgement by no means implies that the Internet is suddenly the wild, wild west. The judgement only applies to the parties in question. Because one judge felt that Google's use of cache was benign doesn't mean that another judge will rule that a different web site was using something like a cache in a way that was not benign.

Leosghost




msg:714475
 10:32 pm on Jan 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

<snip>

thanks brett for an interesting and important subject ..now if only you could find a way to restrict posting ability to those who actually know something of what they are talking about it would be even better ..and less prone to sidetracking to "teach them"

<snip>

Brett ..remember mcgurus "weed routine" ..could ya try and find it ...and implement it ;)).huh ..puhleeeese

apologies for "quoting" myself ..but apparently the observation is still relevant in this thread ..ya don't need to know nor understand the first thing about what is being discussed..to post ..nor to run adsense on a site ...jsut want the money ..(some of the adsense people do understand )..most dont ..frightens me that those who dont ..also get to vote in wherever their elections are / aren't ..held..

:((

[edited by: lawman at 10:48 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2006]
[edit reason] Tact is paramount [/edit]

kaled




msg:714476
 10:47 pm on Jan 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Publishing and copyright are essentially unrelated - consider this...

James Cameron is persuaded to make Terminator 4 starring The Rock. A week before its premier (i.e. before publication) a copy is accidentally sent to a TV station by mistake. It is utterly absurd to imagine that the TV station could show the film without breaching copyright simply because it hasn't been published yet.

For an original work, copyright commences at the moment of creation (even before a work is finished) and has nothing whatsoever to do with publication.

Kaled.

hyperkik




msg:714477
 7:18 am on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

A week before its premier (i.e. before publication) a copy is accidentally sent to a TV station by mistake. It is utterly absurd to imagine that the TV station could show the film without breaching copyright simply because it hasn't been published yet.

The film is published when it is fixed in a copy for the first time, not when it is premiered. In order for the TV station to receive a copy, publication would have had to have already occurred.

otech




msg:714478
 9:30 am on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thats right, in the above example the TV station would not be in breach of copyright unless it had illegally copied it.

Ie, if it had broken into the film studio, ripped the DVD then that would be breach of copyright.

Getting their hands on a legal copy whether its before or after the premier would'nt be breach of copyright - just perhaps breach of someone elses contract with the publisher not to release it before the date...

kaled




msg:714479
 12:24 pm on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

The film is published when it is fixed in a copy for the first time, not when it is premiered.

Wow.... I chose the simplest possible case and people still don't get it.

Ok by your standard, publication occurs when a work is "fixed in a copy for the first time". (This is a crazy notion, but I'll run with it). According to this standard, a document is published at the moment it is first saved to disk, and therefore, by your standard copyright applies thereafter. In other words, your argument is self-defeating.

Getting their hands on a legal copy whether its before or after the premier would'nt be breach of copyright

Please read and write more carefully in the future. Posession of the T4 DVD would not be breach of copyright but broadcasting it certainly would be.

Incidentally, in recent years, in the world or books rather than film, there have been examples similar to this in the US and the UK.

Kaled.

colin_h




msg:714480
 1:27 pm on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Cor ..... People say that Reseller's threads get off topic and go on too long ;-)

Question from a dummy: "Why does Google need to show the everyday search population the stored cache / archive / pear (see earlier posts)?

Speaking as a total dummy (Just trying to stop Leosghost & Kaled from insulting me after I leave this post) I couldn't care less about whether Google archive my websites, I just wish it was easier to find the information I'm looking for and that it would be accurate information once I have tracked it down.

So google, take all the links to 'cached' pages off and everyone could get on with life again ... until there's something else to whinge about that makes us all feel like big important players ;-)

All the best

Col :-)

europeforvisitors




msg:714481
 4:00 pm on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Please memorize and repeat:

"Publication isn't necessary for copyright protection."

Whether a Web page is "published" or not may be of academic interest, but it has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the Google cache (or the Google "archive" or whatever people who don't agree with Google's nomenclature would like to call it). Nor does it have any role in determining whether someone else's use of the page's content is infringement.

annej




msg:714482
 4:20 pm on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

My mind is boggled. Let's see if I have it right now.

The minute I write an article it is copyrighted. I don't have to have published it either online or on paper.

So which below would be a breach of my copyright.

1) If someone took it off of my computer and stored it on their computer?

2) If someone took it off of my computer and published it on the Internet?

3) Only if someone took it off of my computer and published it in print?

kaled




msg:714483
 5:06 pm on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Opinions may differ but...

1) Theft
2) Copyright infringement
3) Copyright infringement

It would also a breach of copyright if you emailed a draft to a friend (for an opinion) and they then distributed any (substantial) part of the draft either in print, on the internet, or by audio recording, etc. However, in such a case, it is probably advisable to have both a copyright notice and a confidentiality notice attached but neither is normally required in law (but these may affect judgements as to costs and penalities, etc. in the event of a court case).

Clarity of intent is a good idea in almost all things. A copyright notice is essentially just that - a clear statement of intent that a work may not be duplicated, etc. without permission. The absence of a copyright notice does not make a work free from copyright.

Kaled.

BigDave




msg:714484
 5:12 pm on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Whether something is published or not has a LOT to do with copyright. Publishing is not required to receive copyright, but it does change the standing of the work. In some ways you gain protection when it is published, and in some ways you lose protection.

This 189 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 189 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved