homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.219.178
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google Found Guilty of Violating Copyright
Who knew they'd be French?
Brett_Tabke




msg:4045523
 3:20 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

Reuters [izurl.com]
A Paris court on Friday found U.S. Internet giant Google guilty of violating copyright by digitising books and putting extracts online... the French Publishers' Association and authors' groups SGDL argued that scanning books was an act of reproduction that should be paid for, and demanded the U.S. company be fined 15 million euros ($21.59 million).

 

willybfriendly




msg:4045573
 4:20 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

A sea change is taking place. Always entertaining to watch, but a bit unsettling not knowing where we will end up at.

Syzygy




msg:4045615
 5:18 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

A longer version of that Reuters story courtesy of the New York Times [nytimes.com]...

The publishing houses accused Google of scanning the books free of charge, letting users browse the content for free, reaping revenues from advertisers but not adequately compensating the creators and original publishers of the works.

Sound familiar?

Syzygy

J_RaD




msg:4045634
 5:51 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

More things like this will have to happen to them before the sea of change takes place.

This is the 1st blow they've ever had.

smartwork




msg:4045654
 6:05 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

Sound familiar?

recording industry scenario?

cwnet




msg:4045663
 6:14 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

...accused Google of "scanning websites" free of charge, letting users browse the content for free, reaping revenues from advertisers but not adequately compensating the creators and original publishers of the works.

Fixed that!

J_RaD




msg:4045684
 6:35 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)


Google was ordered to pay 300,000 euros ($431,700)

thats not 20 mil

walkman




msg:4045688
 6:43 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

J_Rad the precedent matters, now other might be able to sue and win, at least in Fr

alexmart




msg:4045724
 7:46 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

Precedents are not as important in french courts. They have no weight in future law suits as they do in anglo-saxon courts.

It can be considered a victory for morale.

outland88




msg:4045727
 7:52 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

...accused Google of "scanning websites" free of charge, letting users browse the content for free, reaping revenues from advertisers but not adequately compensating the creators and original publishers of the works.

My understanding is Google now plans to sell all this free content it scanned with "Google Editions". Thatís why it has a much larger database as compared to Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc. The only thing stopping them is a courtroom decision in February. Iím predicting they may get turned back on that in the US dealing them another blow. Silly me and I thought Google was engaging in altruistic behavior when initially there was no mention of money.

JS_Harris




msg:4045772
 8:56 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

Search Engines REALLY should stay away from providing content at all.

Of course greed and wanting to make more money dictates that they never will but when a search company offers content they just never know when they've offered more than enough.

Nobody wants ONE site to rule them all, can't wait to use the search company that realizes that.

wheel




msg:4045807
 9:37 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

Search Engines REALLY should stay away from providing content at all.

That's a good point.

With the way the SE's have bent copyright so hard (i.e. showing cached pages, copying books of dubious copyright), if they get into serving their own content they may find folks willing to 'share' their content without providing any compensation. What if I scraped Google's book database and gave it away as a searchable unit with snippets, and a cache of each page of content? How would one argue against that?

signor_john




msg:4045850
 11:13 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

Search Engines REALLY should stay away from providing content at all.

Google is more than a search engine, and it defined its mission as "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible" in the days when it was merely a search engine. Scanning out-of-print books, distributing e-books for authors and publishers, etc. fit that mission. For better or worse, expecting Google to redefine its mission more narrowly is probably unrealistic at this late date.

ChanandlerBong




msg:4045877
 12:17 am on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

why does it only seem to be european courts that have the spine to stand up to both google and msft?

zett




msg:4045485
 2:36 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

< moved from another location >

Ah, the French do it French again! Good one!

[businessinsider.com...]

[edited by: tedster at 12:22 am (utc) on Dec. 19, 2009]

Leosghost




msg:4045495
 2:47 pm on Dec 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

A little more detail in english here at Reuters [reuters.com]

BTW there were another 400 associated plaintiffs ( mainly smaller french publishing houses and writers ) in that suit ..so the financials and the effect are larger than as seen at first glance ..

Bien fait pour eux ( GORG )..( serves them right ) ..:)

subhankar ray




msg:4045898
 12:48 am on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Does France copyright law have a 'fair use' provision like the U.S.?

I hate to see out-of-print good books getting lost also.

signor_john




msg:4045906
 12:58 am on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

why does it only seem to be european courts that have the spine to stand up to both google and msft?

Protectionism, maybe?

As for the Paris court's decision, it illustrates the challenges--and risks--of operating a Web business in a global economy. Copyright claims (such as the Eiffel Tower's claim that it has a copyright on its nighttime lighting), privacy laws, laws about defamation of public officials or the state, etc. could lead to a judgment by a Paris court (or a Beijing court, for that matter) against a blogger or Website owner in Poughkeepsie. So be careful what you wish for.

hutcheson




msg:4045944
 2:25 am on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

>Does France copyright law have a 'fair use' provision like the U.S.?

No. U.S. law is driven by the public interest. Copyright -- no, give it the right name, "copyrestriction" laws are allowed only to coax more material into the public domain. Hence the monopoly is constitutionally "for a limited time", and (historically, at least), one couldn't obtain a copyright monopoly without (1) actually using your own right and publishing the material (2) providing adequate notice ON EACH copy fully describing when the public's copy rights would come into effect (when the copyrestriction would expire.)

The European law seems more based on some kind of feudal concept of "authorial right" -- once published, the author (or, presumably, his heirs" would own the rights perpetually, like the local manor. (Everyone else can just be serfs on the estate, also forever, and that's OK.)

The Berne copyright was a complete victory, in every way, over the "public interest" concept. It is now (generally speaking, and usually) impossible for an independent member of the public to determine (1) what rights he has, (2) when he has them, (3) who he can beg/borrow/buy rights from. (I spent hours this week trying to track down the date of death of a prominent 19th-century Canadian churchman, to identify when a 19th-century book came into the public domain. Now the chances of his living to be to be 95 years old are less than 1/10 of 1 percent -- so I'm 99.9% certain the book is public domain in Life+50 countries (which is the MINIMUM Berne requirement). But ... that's not good enough for any website that's liable to be sued.

"I could contact the publisher..." Right, he sneers. The only publisher listed in the book is the author himself. (He probably hired a newspaper or one-man press to print it.)

"I could contact his heirs..." Double sneer. His children would be 140 years old now; his great-great-grandchildren would be at least 80-100 years old now.

I have, I am nearly certain, the legal right to reprint that book in Canada -- and yet, proving it in the current legal environment is completely impractical.

That's what the Euro-system of copyrestriction gives us: locking up earth's heritage until it's lost, while the lawyers fight among themselves to make sure nobody has a non-original thought without hiring a lawyer first. The Devil himself couldn't do any better than that. There is nothing, nothing at all, good ANYWHERE in the Berne convention. The world would be immeasurably better off, in every way, everywhere, without it.

callivert




msg:4045992
 6:08 am on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

give it the right name, "copyrestriction"

Yes, it's flawed. Open slather - which is what your renaming seems to imply - is not the answer. That would have a whole set of completely different flaws.
As H.L. Mencken once said, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong"

walkman




msg:4046009
 6:47 am on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Search Engines REALLY should stay away from providing content at all.

Google already has local search and is in talks to apparently buy Yelp.
Vids by Youtube /Google
Local by Google
Books by Google
Wikipedia soon by google maybe (ala Answers.com)
Travel tickets, flight info, weather etc already by Google

graeme_p




msg:4046106
 1:28 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Search Engines REALLY should stay away from providing content at all.

I agree, but all of the big three (soon to be two) have lots of content.
With the way the SE's have bent copyright so hard (i.e. showing cached pages, copying books of dubious copyright)

You can control whether they show cached copies, and snippets are necessary.

As for the books, who loses because Google scans out of print books, even if they are in copyright? If the copyright has any value, why are the books not in print?

futuresky




msg:4046195
 8:03 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

A good decision but the damages awarded are sadly paltry considering "Google has so far scanned 10 million books". Google really should close down this highly unethical part of its business. "Don't do evil"...yeah, right...who believes that any more?

fargo1999




msg:4046209
 8:58 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

You can control whether they show cached copies, and snippets are necessary.

It's been discussed already, I think. The fact I don't lock my door when I go out (ie. don't disallow robots to cache my content) doesn't give a thief a good explanation in court when he walks in and steals from my house.

As for the books, who loses because Google scans out of print books, even if they are in copyright? If the copyright has any value, why are the books not in print?

Again, not everything can or should be monetized. Only IF copyright holders want it, they could use it according to their will.

Otherwise, we would be in a situation that whatever is not used by the owner could be taken away from him. Do you have an old car in your garage but don't use it? Then give it away to your neighbor because he could use it.

It would actually make the world better if we would be required to give away things we don't use, but in this case I don't think Google is altruistic.

signor_john




msg:4046213
 9:21 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

The fact I don't lock my door when I go out (ie. don't disallow robots to cache my content) doesn't give a thief a good explanation in court when he walks in and steals from my house.

That's a questionable analogy, because search engines merely index content. The analogy would work only if a search engine ignored robots.txt or an intranet firewall (like a burglar ignoring your door lock), took everything off your servers, and left no files behind.

fargo1999




msg:4046219
 9:46 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

A website is not required to have robots.txt or use any robots meta-tags to run properly - and that is my point.

I don't have to put a sign (ie. robots or meta tags) on my house 'Note to burglars: DO NOT ENTER' or else burglars have the right to enter my house.

hutcheson




msg:4046238
 10:44 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

>A website is not required to have robots.txt or use any robots meta-tags to run properly - and that is my point.

>I don't have to put a sign (ie. robots or meta tags) on my house 'Note to burglars: DO NOT ENTER' or else burglars have the right to enter my house.

This is an incredibly stupid analogy. Your personal computer, your closed servers, are like your private residence. You don't have to put up a sign, anyone who steals them (or who steals content on them) is already subject to criminal charges, and that is as it ought to be.

But your website is public. It's a place of display, of retail, and the whole point of putting a server on the web is to allow public access. If you want the public to avoid doing something particular while on your business premises, yes, you'd BETTER put up a sign. Or you'd better not whine about them doing that.

That's why you see signs like "no smoking" "no soliciting" "no concealed firearms" "no skateboards" "no through traffic" "no parking" "parking only for restricted purposes" on property that's obviously set up for public access. Unless you tell people not to do something on public property, they have their usual rights: free speech, free commerce, self-defensive or self-destructive activity, free transit, whatever.

And that is all as it ought to be. Why should the web be any different?

aleksl




msg:4046241
 10:57 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

hutcheson, this applies only to LEGAL activites (scateboarding, soliciting, etc). Nobody is required to post signs to prevent illegal activities, like stealing your merchandise and reselling it. It is written in the law that is is illegal.

fargo1999




msg:4046242
 11:01 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Just like Google CEO who says that 'anything you put online is public', I guess you've got a point.

Next time when someone gets an unauthorized access to your email account I assume you will not even try to report them to the authorities because you should know your emails (stored on world wide web) are a public property too.

hutcheson




msg:4046247
 11:17 pm on Dec 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

>Open slather - which is what your renaming seems to imply - is not the answer.

The renaming isn't meant to make any legal proposal. It's meant to focus on the reality.

Any reasonable copyrestriction law would contain these elements
(1) "for a limited time" (as the U.S. constitutional convention stated)
(2) that time should be SPECIFIED--so that anyone may know when the law runs out (i.e. copyright registration, and time limit based on something KNOWABLE, like publication date or author birth (NOT DEATH!).
(3) that time should be commensurate with time for reasonable commercial utilization, these facts:
-- the vast majority of profits for most media is made in the first year! consider books or magazines or music or TV or movies....
-- based on historical library of Congress data, 80% of ALL media is KNOWN to be 100%, FULLY exploited within 28 years (we don't know how much of the other 20% is fully exploited, all we know is that the original author imagined that it might not be.
(4) Limited to a timeframe over which original media are recoverable (the TV show Dr. Who is still on the air, and some early episodes have already been lost, EVEN THOUGH THEY RETAIN COMMERCIAL VALUE!
(5) Not assertable against a reasonable range of "fair use" including (but not limited to) media-shifting, education, resale, private sharing.

Such a law would give all possible opportunity for all but the most wealthy content creators to fully exploit their work (and the law's job isn't to make the rich richer ... but in this proposal, the most wealthy content creators might have to content themselves with wealth beyond my wildest dreams, without laying all of society under an unconscionable burden to the fourth and fifth generation...)

And such a law would allow each generation to build, creatively, on the work of its parents while that work was still remembered and still retained some relevance -- in other words, I believe that shorter copyright laws would result in more and better creative work.

On the other hand, slightly LONGER copyright laws could give ME veto power on anyone who wanted to take a photograph of Westminster Tower (my mother's maiden name was "Dennison--look it up") or anyone who wanted to teach Hutchesonian theories of ethics or aesthetics (Francis, Adam Smith's economics teacher--look it up).

Well, actually, that's not quite true. Longer copyright laws would fund a large organization of lawyers dedicated to working "on my behalf" to prevent anyone from doing those things without paying THEM money to be "paid to me", of course after deducting legal and collection costs approximating a thousand percent of actual money collected, always assuming they could find me (which they probably couldn't) if they looked (which they certainly wouldn't). And in exchange I'd be locked out of two centuries of human experience, innovation, knowledge, and craftsmanship.

I'll tell you what. Go, take a picture of Big Ben, with my blessing. Make little pewter models of it, or big foam puzzles, or posters of the tower in all kinds of interesting weather. Make movies of giant arachnids or simians or crocodilians climbing up it to imperil hapless actresses. Engage in all the range of ethical human behaviors described by the possibly-heretical Scottish professor (and his famous student Adam Smith). Study all the above in the light of Hutchesonian aesthetic or ethical or economic theory. And enjoy the fruit of your labor in your generation. But don't try to lock it up forever, for the sole benefit of some new privileged Eurofascist lawyerly class and wannabe-evil-overlord of all the world's minds.

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
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