Forum Moderators: open
Google is making money from other people content without permission or any type of compensation.
I know most poeople are happy to have Google display their content - but theoretically couldn't somebody sue Google for copyright violations?
Google quotes your site in the SERP and provides a reference to the source in the form of a link.
Nothing even remotely illegal about it.
Copyright is only infringed upon if they copy large portions of the site and/or claim the content was created by themselves without giving you the credit.
Welcome to the board.
I doubt search engines will ever be illegal, because they serve mutual (SE and site owners) interests as they also serve public interests.
If any want to stop them to 'steal' content. A simple robots.txt file at root level will do. A 2 minute step that will save us all a lot of time and legal fees debating about it.
>>Google is making money from other people content without permission
Not. Google is making most of it's money with the adword program. When Webmasters are willingly and expressingly paying for better listings.
>>or any type of compensation.
May I laught out loud? ;-)
You are providing content that anybody can view, they aren't stealing content, it is no different than me quoting a book and providing a reference to the source.
Google quotes your site in the SERP and provides a reference to the source in the form of a link.Nothing even remotely illegal about it.
Copyright is only infringed upon if they copy large portions of the site and/or claim the content was created by themselves without giving you the credit.
Actually Google does copy "large portions of your site". They copy and store a copy of your entire site (and they even display it using their "view cached version of this page"). Is it OK to quote the entire contents of a book as long it's split up into different pages?
Not. Google is making most of it's money with the adword program. When Webmasters are willingly and expressingly paying for better listings.
Google makes a large portion of their revenues by selling their search results to other search engines and portals (e.g. Yahoo!). They are selling your content without your permission or reimbursement.
Yes, a robot.txt file will stop search engines from crawling your site...but why should the responsibility lie on the webmaster?
Could someone sue them over it? Yes they could.
Has someone sued them over it? Not that I know of.
And as Paynt pointed out, we have had several long debates over the Google cache in the past. So rather than rehashing it here, you would be better off using the site search to locate some past threads.
Because it's the responsability of any publisher to do so.
if you think that the cahce is too much of burden to bear then you should block gooogle using robots.txt.
You can't have the best of both worlds.
The full-page cache is a bit dubious, IMO, but a court would certainly take into account that it's a trivial matter to protect one's content: use the NOCACHE meta tag, or create a 1-line robots.txt file, or you can even call Google up and ask them not to cache your site.
The responsibility is the same in the 'real world too.
Your site is your section of land. I can't sue or charge the city council for allowing its road users to enjoy the sight of my garden (hence adding to the value of the area and allowing them to increase their rates charges).... but I can build a six foot fence around my garden if I want to keep it private.
Same with the search engines.
From a theoretical point of view you are absolutely right - the Google cache is a breach or copyright.
If you wish to pursue a case I and probably many others will follow it with interest. And following your defeat/victory take apppropriate action.
At the moment I consider that anything Google does to help me promote my site will be gratefully accepted. (I can only think of 2 or 3 organisations who wouldn't consider this to be the case)
It may or may not be considered legal under the ISP Safe Harbor [chillingeffects.org] provision of the DMCA. It does meet the criteria for a ISP, but the question is if what they call "caching" would meet the definition of caching. I don't believe it does, but a court may think so. We all know that the finer technical points of cases are generally won by those with the most bank for atorneys and not on the legal merits of the case.
[www4.law.cornell.edu...]
One point of about 8:
#5 the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
Your browser cache meets the definition of "caching" - the one in question does not.
In which case the DMCA code and US Law would not apply.
Provided that what is contained in/on your site is properly attributed to you and is not substantively altered, I don't think any claim would fly in a court of law. The fact that they have allowed for robots text to prevent their crawlers from "invading" your site is very significant.
If you do not approve of the onus being placed on you as the site owner ... then remove the locks from the doors to your home, car, cottage, boat, etc. Its the same principal. :)
If you own it, take the steps necessary to protect it from unwanted entities.
[edited by: Liane at 11:38 am (utc) on April 12, 2003]
On my site, the cached version that google holds has that white box, which completely covers my web's name and logo, thus changing the appearance of my site to such an extent that anyone viewing the cached version would miss, in an advertising point of view, the most impotant part........
mmmmmmmm.........
They paid for the book. Google didn't pay us to get listed.
If Google is violating copyrights, then we are every single time we view a site, since the page get's stored on our computer with out the webmasters permission!
:::by placing your site on the www, you have enter into the "public domain"
Then why does almost every site on the internet say '©2003 Nothing may be....blah blah blah...'.
I think you could bring a case under a local jurisdiction, as per that recent Australian case. (I can't remember the parties so can't find a link)
The case was Joseph Gutnick against in "..an article published by Dow Jones ("DJ") in the print and online versions of Barrons magazine in October 2000." (Quoting [olswang.com...]
Do a google search for Gutnick sues, and the results are pretty relevant. [google.com...]
BTW: I liked this result. Many ppl claimed, erroneously, that it was horrible for all etc etc, but the result essentially said, defame someone from anywhere, with the intent of hurting there interests somewhere in particular, you can sue. This makes sense to me, as it stops people being able to defame you from the relative safety of a foreign country, when the intent is clear. Not sure ENTIRELY how this relates to the Google Cache (unless the fact that borders don't matter is the precedent that is sort). And that correlation would be hard to make, as it would be hard to prove that a USA based website, dealing with USA based clients, was wronged in Australia by Google, USA based web service, and therefore the case could be demonstrated to be under Australian (or any other) jusrisdiction.
Seems a bit flimsy a premise for a case to me.
-----not a lawyer obviously )
I don't see it as anything other than clear cut, though copyright law is extremely complex and I'm not looking at bringing a case.
The responsibility is the same in the 'real world too.Your site is your section of land. I can't sue or charge the city council for allowing its road users to enjoy the sight of my garden (hence adding to the value of the area and allowing them to increase their rates charges).... but I can build a six foot fence around my garden if I want to keep it private.
Same with the search engines.
Your analogy is wrong. Of course you can't sue the city council for allowing road users to enjoy the site of your garden.
But, if the city council were to make exact duplicates of your garden and place them around the city (assuming a garden is copyrightable) then you could sue them.
That is what Google is doing. Taking content from other sites and displaying it on their site.
As others have noted, the cache is on a bit shakier legal ground.
couldn't somebody sue Google for copyright violations?
Not a lawyer, but my answer is no. If you refuse to use the robots "disallow" text which they obey and you choose to put your site on the www anyway, you are (by ommission) leaving the door open to your site and letting them do what they do ... with the full knowledge that the robots will crawl your site and likely display it in their search engine results.
By not using the robots text, (the tool put in place for webmasters to use at will) you are, in effect saying, "Come on in!"
I doubt that a court of law would be the least bit concerned about the onus being put upon the webmaster to use or not use the robots text. Seems logical to me that the webmaster should be in control and use the tools available to indicate their wishes.
[edited by: Liane at 3:47 pm (utc) on April 14, 2003]
projectphp - My thoughts are that if I publish a site in country x, then if Search Engine y is breaking copyright in country x and Search Engine y is publishing into country x then Search Engine y could be brought to task under the laws of country x.I don't see it as anything other than clear cut, though copyright law is extremely complex and I'm not looking at bringing a case.
Ok, I am with you on this until the bolded part. What exactly IS ...publishing into country x? The beauty of the internet is that publishing can be said to have beeb done from a variety of locations. Is the publishing "done" where the server is located (i.e. in Boston, Londom or Mumbai)? Where the text is uploaded from (i.e. a laptop on a beach in the Balkans)? Where the person does the work(i.e. I do the work, email it to my publish who uploads it)? Where the Person downloads the article (i.e. Victoria)? Or where? Surely it MUST be one of these, but which one?
One concern of the Gutnick ruling was that it would open a flood gate. Which it might well do. But that isn't inherently a massive problem IMHO. Until these things are tested in a court of law, there is no law, and just confusion!
Until these things are tested in a court of law, there is no law, and just confusion!
I couldn't agree more. There doesn't seem to be a flood of cases being brought, probably because no one thinks they can win or the odds of winning don't look favourable to the lawyers (or may be there are just easier pickings elsewhere).
From what I see the US seems to have a remarkably parochial attitude to internet law, a lot of internal US cases but very few transcend international boundaries. These are where the really interesting decisions are going to be made.
